"Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): “We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions…. Congress … must take the lead.”"
Those 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?
- Lisa Murkowski proposes to fiddle while Alaska burns
- Murkowski calls for tougher energy bill: “Climate legislation must have more immediate environmental benefits” than Waxman-Markey!
- Lauded by industry groups, opposed by Murkowski, EPA announces new carbon pollution reporting rule
- Breaking: Murkowski amendment to undermine the Clean Air Act is dead “” for now. Feinstein says “we can’t afford to bury our heads in the sand on climate change.”