Clean air Lisa vs. dirty air Lisa

EPA’s Jackson says Sen. Murkowski’s Amendment would “allow big oil companies, big refineries and others to continue to pollute without any oversight or consequence” and “increase our dependence on oil … by billions of barrels.”

It looks like the Senate is going to vote this week on the pro-pollution amendment of the ‘dirty air’ Lisa — see Polluters work with Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) on amendment to thwart EPA GHG regulations that might help save her state.

The dirty air Lisa most certainly knows that unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions could devastate Alaska (see “Lisa Murkowski proposes to fiddle while Nome burns“).  As she said in a 2006 speech:

Warmer, drier air, has allowed the voracious spruce bark beetle to migrate north, moving through our forests in the south-central part of the state. At last count, over three million acres of forest land has been devastated by the beetle, providing dry fuel for outbreaks of enormous wild fires. To give you some perspective, that is almost the size of Connecticut.

But the fact she has been working closely with lobbyists for polluters suggest that her Arctic policy is is to do nothing and let the whole damn thing melt and burn (see “M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10°F “” with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20°F“).

EPA Administrator Jackson, aka ‘clean air’ Lisa, has a response in HuffPost:

In the last 18 months, the United States has taken major steps forward in the transition to a clean energy economy. With historic investments in solar, wind and other innovative renewable energy sources, we are positioned to compete for the clean energy jobs of today and tomorrow, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and to cut the pollution that harms our families and the future for our children and grandchildren.

With all those steps forward, now is not the time to take a big step backward, by doubling down on the kinds of energy and environmental policies that keep America addicted to oil — especially foreign oil. As the President has said, traditional sources of energy have to be part of the mix as we transition to a clean energy economy, but they can’t be our only sources.

Our nation’s addiction to oil pollutes the air we breathe. It sends billions of our dollars to foreign countries. And it leaves American small businesses and American drivers at the mercy of fuel price spikes, like the $4 a gallon prices we were paying not so long ago. For those reasons and more, we’ve taken significant steps forward, including a historic effort to make American cars more fuel efficient than ever and cut oil consumption by billions of barrels.

The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico presents yet another tragic reminder of the hazards of our oil addiction. Our thoughts, prayers and condolences are with the friends and families of the 11 workers lost in the initial explosion. In the local meetings I’ve attended since this crisis began, it’s clear to see that the entire community feels these losses deeply. It is all the more upsetting, then, that the community’s tragedy is compounded by the economic and environmental uncertainty that lies ahead.

The fact that a single accident at a single offshore oil well can cause billions of dollars in damage, result in thousands of people losing their jobs and livelihoods and threaten an entire region highlights how important it is that we keep moving America forward, towards energy independence. We can’t afford to go back.

That is why it is surprising to learn that on June 10, the Senate will vote on legislation that would take us back to the same old failed policies and increase America’s oil dependence by billions of barrels. Senator Lisa Murkowski, with strong support from big oil companies and their lobbyists, has proposed a resolution that would drastically weaken our nation’s historic effort to increase fuel savings, save consumers money and cut oil consumption from American cars and trucks.

Senator Murkowski’s resolution would take away EPA’s ability to protect the health and welfare of Americans from greenhouse gas pollution. The resolution would ignore and override scientific findings and allow big oil companies, big refineries and others to continue to pollute without any oversight or consequence. It would also gut EPA’s authority in the clean cars program, a program that would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut down on air pollution.

This resolution would take us back to the old energy policies by allowing the polluters to simply pay modest penalties to avoid full compliance with the standards. As a result, the resolution would increase our dependence on oil by 455 million barrels. That dependence rises to billions of barrels when you factor in the Murkowski resolution’s effect on a follow-on program that expands fuel efficiency to heavy-duty vehicles and extends beyond the 2016 model year.

Undermining a program supported by our automakers and autoworkers, environmentalists and governors from across the country seems questionable at any time. But going back to a failed approach and deepening our oil addiction at the very moment a massive spill — the largest environmental disaster in American history — is devastating families and businesses and destroying precious wetlands runs contrary to our national interests. It abdicates the responsibility we have to move the country forward in a way that creates jobs, increases our security by breaking our dependence on foreign oil, and protects the air and water we rely on.

The Murkowski resolution also undermines EPA’s common sense strategy for cutting greenhouse gases. Our carefully constructed approach exempts small businesses, homes, farms, and other small sources from regulation. We know that the local coffee shop or the backyard grill is no place to look for meaningful CO2 reductions. We’re tackling our largest polluters and calling on Congress to pass a comprehensive energy and climate law — one that would extend the protection of small businesses.

At no point in our history has any problem been solved by waiting another year to act or burying our heads in the sand. Our oil addiction is not going to go away unless we act. A broad coalition of industry, government and environmental advocates believe that it can be done — and we have a plan in motion. There is no need for a resolution that would weaken this important program. Now is not the time to go back. Rather than increasing our addiction, we need to keep moving America forward into a clean energy future.

Hear!  Hear!

7 Responses to Clean air Lisa vs. dirty air Lisa

  1. Raul says:

    Hear! Hear! Keep Moving America forward into a clean energy future.

  2. mike roddy says:

    In 1856, Senator Brooks from South Carolina attacked Senator Sumner from Massachusetts on the floor of the Senate with the metal tip of his cane. Sumner suffered permanent brain damage. Sumner had just delivered a speech, and Brooks didn’t like anyone criticizing slavery.

    That reminded me of Murkowski. When politicians (or climate “skeptics”) are wrong, they are really wrong, and defend their ridiculous views with total ferocity. People like her and Inhofe won’t change, and it’s on us to see that they are defeated.

  3. Dan B says:

    I don’t know about anyone else but every time I hear that a prominent politician or media pundit has succeeded in supporting the status quo or delayed clean renewable energy my heart sinks.

    The renewable energy sector grows by leaps and bounds -and- at the same moment it appears we’re on the verge of triggering the rapid meltdown of the arctic and releasing a methane time-bomb.

    I’d love to have these same pundits and politicians see the enormous economic opportunities in renewable energy. In the meanwhile it appears I’ll be devoting time and money to psychological counseling.

  4. Lee says:

    In Massachusetts, the Republicans for Environmental Protection are running a radio ad asking people to contact Sen. Brown, asking him oppose the Murkowski amendment. It put the issue as a bailout of the oil company’s by releasing them from regulation.

    I was going to put a link to a web version, but I can’t find anything on the web about REP’s radio ad (not even on REP’s own web site). I’ll have to listen more carefully if I hear it again.

  5. Raleigh Latham says:

    Any Democrat that votes for this is going to be thrown into the fire, plus Obama will definitely Veto this shit if it gets that far, we are at a point right now with the BP spill that the American public might actually see through Murkowski’s disgusting bill.

  6. mark says:

    ” But going back to a failed approach and deepening our oil addiction at the very moment a massive spill — the largest environmental disaster in American history — is devastating families and businesses and destroying precious wetlands runs contrary to our national interests. ”

    Evolution in action.

    Maybe we’re watching a very high speed evolutionary selection process here, where “intelligence” at least the homo sapiens version of it, is determined to be a trait that hastens the demise of the species.

    Blithely disregarding all of the facts, all of the evidence, all of our well established science, all of the events going on right in front of our very own eyes, the species homo sapiens is quick marching straight off a mountain top.

    We need a Winston Churchill to emerge, now, to rally us to this cause.

    I understand that during the last ice age, there may have been as few as a thousand homo sapiens on the entire planet, that is that the species was extremely close to extinction.

    Maybe this time, we will do what nature didn’t do last time.

  7. Lou Grinzo says:

    mike(#2): Bingo! The shortest path to a smaller societal carbon footprint is via larger individual political footprints.