Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): “We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions…. Congress … must take the lead.”

Senator Lisa MurkowskiThose quotes are from a recent op-ed, “The Congress, Not the EPA, Must Take the Lead to Address Climate Challenges,” by the Senator from the state that is the most ravaged by climate change today.  The piece is mainly a defense of her myopic amendment to stall EPA action:

Congress is currently engaged in one of the most complex policy debates of our time – how best to mitigate climate change without harming the economy….

Congressional action is almost unanimously preferred, but right now Congress is a long ways from completing legislation that can deliver meaningful greenhouse gas reductions without damaging the economy.

Understanding this, I recently sought to give Congress additional time to develop sensible legislation. I did this by offering an amendment to call a temporary, one-year “timeout” on the EPA’s imminent regulations….

We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions….

You can be assured that I will continue to work in good faith with all who want to address climate change….

We need an effective policy that will endure, and that’s why Congress, not the EPA, must take the lead.

Huh.  The breakthrough Graham-Kerry op-ed says we aren’t a “long ways” away from a bill:

It begins now, not months from now “” with a road to 60 votes in the Senate…..

The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success.  Indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action….

We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation.

For Murkowski, the response to potential EPA action is to try to block it for a year.

For Graham, the response is to work hard now to pass a bill that “can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December.”

In her defense, she wrote that piece before Graham and Kerry published theirs — and she would appear to be outside of the loop.  Still, now that a bipartisan climate deal seems likely in the Senate, particularly one that has a title to promote oil drilling, these various statements mostly serve to box herself into a corner whereby opposition to a bipartisan bill would get harder and harder to explain.

Nate Silver’s “Probability of Yes” vote for Murkowski is 2.37%, putting her in the “Republican Hail Mary’s & No-Shots.”  But based on this op-ed, and her earlier statements, I’m going to put her at 50%.  Assuming Graham and Kerry come up with a compromise that, say, McCain can support, how exactly will Murkowski oppose it?  On grounds that it was not a “good faith” effort to address climate change?

Related Posts:

7 Responses to Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): “We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions…. Congress … must take the lead.”

  1. Lloyd Apter says:

    I believe in change from the grass roots. Getting the right politicians in power to help helps, for sure and in the USA that has been done. So, we can tick that one off and leave them to work hard at getting in place what needs to be in place to facilitate positive change.

    So what is our job then? Our job is making the change.

    Take renewable energy for example – there are now so many incentives in the USA that it is now profitable to install our own home energy plants and actually, after just five years, start generating a profit. We need to focus on working these opportunities. If a home can be self reliant on energy production and in time, I believe, food production – we can not only help ourselves to live the lives we dream of but we can bring our planet back into balance and have the knowledge and focus to help move the poor and starving people of our planet to self sustainability, as well.

  2. hapa says:

    the conservative bible tells us that all things green are in bad faith, unlike usury.

  3. Leif says:

    “Congress is currently engaged in one of the most complex policy debates of our time – how best to mitigate climate change without harming the economy….”
    Come on! The economy has been seriously hurt! (With ample help of the GOP, I might add. Room for the Democrats as well.) Where are these folks coming from? It appears to me that what they mean is not to upset the status quo and the profits of their favorite donors. They certainly are not looking after the well being of JQ Public. If they were, a serious program for sustainability would be the obvious solution to the economic as well as environmental quandary that we now face.

  4. Lloyd Apter says:

    Long term focus and impatience are fighting it out.

    Impatience is seeing what long term focus has lost it’s focus and that a tipping point has been reached.

    Good and evil? Not possible, if you believe that everyone is part of the same one.

    So, give Mr Obama time, we could not have dreamed to be in better hands. On pager of course, because I don’t have the priveledge of knowing the man personally. So, let’s keep the pressure up and not take any risks.

  5. Lloyd Apter says:

    maybe that should be fear and long term focus which has become impatient

  6. Edward says:

    Could I have a translation of the above 5 comments, please?

  7. Lloyd Apter says:

    We are all part of the same one – the same energy that is everything. So, look at this not as two separate sides but rather the left and right brain trying to manage with each other in a very unique and important situation.