The Senate plans to vote June 10 on a measure that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Resolution of Disapproval, a rarely used procedure that only requires 51 votes to pass, is sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and has 41 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. It would nullify EPA's finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, thereby striking EPA's authority to regulate GHG emissions. Although the resolution is unlikely to become law, the vote is seen as a bellwether on climate change legislation.


This is one of the main reasons I've found supporting Murkowski's resolution: "For starters, the endangerment finding compels the EPA to establish greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for new motor vehicles. About 95% of vehicular GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from gasoline combustion. Because no commercial technologies exist to filter CO2 emissions from automobile tailpipes, automakers can significantly reduce the quantity of CO2 emitted per mile only by reducing the quantity of gasoline combusted per mile."

--How is the movement to have vehicles use less gas per mile a bad thing that must be stopped???



____________
On June 10, the U.S. Senate will consider a "resolution of disapproval" regarding a 2009 ruling made by the EPA in late 2009 claiming six Greenhouse Gases are a threat to Public Health. This makes these Gases -- Carbon Dioxide, Methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride -- subject to Regulation under the Clean Air Act. "The EPA's endangerment finding endangers our economy and our liberty," said Deneen Borelli.
via
___________

Imagine if lawmakers had blocked the Clean Air Act rule to phase lead out of Gasoline. Industry leaders certainly tried, and the fight over the lead looked a lot like the current battle over Global Warming Pollution. It too started with an EPA endangerment finding, one that said lead in Gasoline was a threat to Public Health. Oil companies claimed that the science wasn’t strong enough to justify the costs.
via
___________

S.J.RES.26
Title: A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
Sponsor: Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] (introduced 1/21/2010) Cosponsors (40)
Related Bills: H.RES.974, H.J.RES.66, H.J.RES.76, H.J.RES.77
Latest Major Action: 6/7/2010 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 418. COSPONSORS(40), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)


Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - 1/21/2010
Sen Barrasso, John [WY] - 1/21/2010
Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] - 1/21/2010
Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] - 1/21/2010
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - 1/21/2010
Sen Bunning, Jim [KY] - 1/21/2010
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] - 1/21/2010
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] - 1/21/2010
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 1/21/2010
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] - 1/21/2010
Sen Corker, Bob [TN] - 1/21/2010
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 1/21/2010
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] - 1/21/2010
Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] - 1/21/2010
Sen Ensign, John [NV] - 1/26/2010
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 1/21/2010
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] - 1/21/2010
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 1/21/2010
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] - 1/21/2010
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 1/21/2010
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] - 1/21/2010
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 1/21/2010
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 1/21/2010
Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] - 1/21/2010
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] - 1/21/2010
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - 1/21/2010
Sen LeMieux, George S. [FL] - 1/21/2010
Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] - 1/21/2010
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] - 1/21/2010
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 1/21/2010
Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] - 1/21/2010
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE] - 1/21/2010
Sen Risch, James E. [ID] - 1/21/2010
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] - 1/21/2010
Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] - 1/21/2010
Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] - 1/21/2010
Sen Thune, John [SD] - 1/21/2010
Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 1/21/2010
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH] - 1/21/2010
Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] - 1/21/2010

__________
Senator Murkowski is correct to raise concerns that EPA’s approach will be challenged in the courts and could be overturned. But any resolution in the courts will take time. Disapproving the endangerment finding would not only be wrong as a matter of fact, it is also unnecessary, if the goal is to buy time for Congress to act.

Recognizing that Congress is best positioned to craft a cost-effective comprehensive clean energy bill doesn’t guarantee that it will happen any time soon. At the same time, recognizing that the Clean Air Act isn’t ideally designed to control greenhouse gas emissions doesn’t mean that it can’t be used to positive effect. We need to begin shifting to clean energy now. It would be wrong to disarm EPA with no certainty of a legislative solution.
via
_________
Watch Senator Murkowski's presentation:

_________