Climate hawks Boxer, Kerry, Cardin & Merkley confirm opposition to all climate zombie amendments

Climate hawks are starting to take a strong stand against the Senate frenzy to cripple Clean Air Act rules on behalf of global warming polluters.  Brad Johnson has the story.

Note:  I am using Brad’s headline, but I do question whether hawks would defeat zombies in a straight fight.  I suppose it’s like asking whether Batman would defeat Godzilla….

Four anti-climate amendments have been attached to unrelated small business legislation now under consideration. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), with the support of nearly the entire Republican caucus, submitted the Upton-Inhofe climate denial bill, while Democratic senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Max Baucus (D-MT), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) introduced their own bills to hogtie the Environmental Protection Agency.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) have been leading the fight against limits of Clean Air Act enforcement of greenhouse pollution rules. Today, spokespeople for these climate hawks confirmed to ThinkProgress that they are committed to opposing any and all of these pollution riders, no matter which party has introduced the legislation.

A vote on at least the McConnell amendment is expected next week.

To call your senator and find out the stance on the four anti-science, pro-polluter amendments, check out the Credo whip count page.

A spokesperson for Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) confirms that he is joining the other climate hawks to vote against any anti-EPA carbon amendment.

Brad Johnson in a WonkRoom cross-post.

11 Responses to Climate hawks Boxer, Kerry, Cardin & Merkley confirm opposition to all climate zombie amendments

  1. Prokaryotes says:

    Zombies are made of ICE and as hotter it gets as more of them melt away. We are bout to approach a critical mass in the next month. The strategy to oppose environmental laws is destined to fail miserably. People will remember exactly who they will hold responsible for the disaster we are about to unleash.

  2. MarkF says:


    ” The Senate Majority Leader is responsible for controlling the agenda of the chamber by scheduling debates and votes.”

    why is Senate majority leader Harry Reid allowing a vote on this?

    All he has to do, as far as I know, is not bring this to the floor for a vote.

    what possible motive does harry reid have for bringing this to a vote?

    Any ideas anyone?

  3. Joe,

    It all depends on how heavily armed (with facts) the hawks are!


  4. Mike Roddy says:

    Thanks to Kerry, Boxer, Cardin, and Merkley. It’s nice to know that there are still courageous and thinking Americans roaming the halls of Congress.

  5. Zetetic says:

    @ Jonathan Koomey #1:
    I wish that you were correct about that.
    Sadly if politics was really about the facts then the USA would be a very different country today (cleaner and more prosperous). What really matters in determining a political victory is how many people can you get on your side, not who has the facts.

    IMO most of the republicans already know the truth about global warming, and the effects of pollution on both health and the economy. The problem is that not enough of them are willing to put the interests of the country ahead of their own political careers. They probably also figure that “someone else will fix it later”.

    Can the Climate Hawks get enough support to at least stall out any such efforts from the republicans to continue impoverishing and polluting the USA? It all comes down to how much support they have, and that means that more politicians need to fear for their careers if they don’t support the good of the country, and the world, instead of a handful of the very rich.

    IMO the only way to reverse this self-destructive trend is for more Democrats and centrists to get off of their collective butts once every few years and vote in enough numbers to outnumber the astro-turfed “tea-party”.

  6. bob says:

    well zombies can’t fly. All they can do is shamble around and moan

  7. Bill W says:

    There are a whole lot of “unknowns” on that Credo whip page, including the other Democratic senator from California, Dianne Feinstein. Kudos to Boxer and the others!

  8. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Zetetic #3, if I might be so presumptuous as to dissent from your observation, what the US and the world needs is certainly to be ‘cleaner’, but not I believe ‘more prosperous’. That is, of course, if you are conceiving of ‘prosperity’ in materialistic terms. That type of prosperity absolutely entails destruction, no matter how advanced our technology becomes, or how great our ‘productivity’. Naturally, the poor deserve greater prosperity, but that, I believe, must come from redistributing wealth away from those who possess far, far, more of it than is fair or sustainable. What we must aim for is material sufficiency, and boundless emotional, intellectual and moral prosperity, all of which does not destroy life but enhances it. Only then will we achieve our potential as individuals and as a species.

  9. Zetetic says:

    @ Mulga:
    I apologize for not being more clear earlier.
    Actually I was referring to “prosperous” in more of sense of the term “standard of living” which obviously has little to do with things like how many cars you own, how big your TV is, etc.

    What I meant was that actions that reduce both pollution and the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class (and to the wealthy, as the current Republicans are attempting to do) will ultimately improve both health and security of the majority of society. I hope that clarifies my position.

  10. kermit says:

    Zetetic, Mulga: Yes. A wealthy life would include healthy children (if you have kids); clean air and water and tasty, healthy food; a strong and vigorous body; an fulfilling intellectual life; a roof to call your own which keeps you warm at night and dry when it rains; a job or leisure activity which allows growth and pride.

    If you lack any of these, what good will come from a bigger TV screen? If you have all of these, how much better would your life be from a bigger TV screen?

    When I was young I hoped that longer life might be on the horizon, but until we learn to live sustainably, we don’t need, nor can we support, folks living another hundred years. On the other hand, people could then see significant change over time and still worry about what they will have to put up with themselves. On the gripping hand, we’re at the point where that kind of self-serving pseudo-wisdom would still come too late.

  11. Zetetic #3: Yes, we need more than facts, of course. But ultimately the facts win out. Whether they will win out in time in this case, I can’t say, but I hope so, and I draw solace from Robert Ringer’s theory of reality:

    “Reality isn’t the way you wish things to be, or the way they appear to be, but the way they actually are. Either you acknowledge reality and use it to your advantage or it automatically works against you.”

    Right now the people denying climate science are denying reality and it will, ultimately, work against them. Unfortunately it will also work against all of us, which is why we need to work even harder.