Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Brown Defends Vote To Block The EPA From Regulating Carbon By Calling It ‘A Non-Governmental Agency’

By Matt Corley  

"Brown Defends Vote To Block The EPA From Regulating Carbon By Calling It ‘A Non-Governmental Agency’"

Share:

google plus icon

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) drives around in his pickup truck.Yesterday, the Senate voted 53-47 to block Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution that would have stripped the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its power to regulate carbon emissions. Murkowski’s resolution was aimed at overturning the EPA’s scientific finding, mandated by the Supreme Court, that manmade greenhouse gases endanger the American public.

Though he’s considered a potential swing vote on future clean energy legislation and was facing pressure to help block the action, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) voted in favor of Murkowski’s resolution. In a Cape Cod Times op-ed yesterday, Brown defended his position by claiming that “this action would give an unelected and unaccountable government agency the power to impose restrictive and damaging carbon dioxide regulations that will drive up energy prices and hurt job-creating small businesses in our country.”

Brown took a different position, however, on a local right-wing radio show, claiming that “a non-governmental agency” would be empowered:

CARR: They’ve been, they’ve been advertising, as you probably know, all over the radio and TV, you know, demanding, the liberals, the moonbats, that you vote for this thing. How do you explain your vote against it?

BROWN: Well, I’m looking out for jobs and jobs in Massachusetts and throughout the country. And to give a non-governmental agency the ability to regulate the way that they have the potential to, they can regulate churches and restaurants and drop it all the way down from the big emitters to the very smallest emitters and it’s not appropriate. And, you know, we in Congress should continue to work on this issue and have the authority to do just that. And I would encourage, certainly, the majority party to start to work on a lot of these energy issues right away.

Listen here:

Clearly, as Brown acknowledged in his op-ed, the EPA is a governmental agency in the executive branch. But that’s not the only thing he got wrong in his discussion with Howie Carr. Brown asserted that the EPA could use the Clean Air Act to “regulate churches and restaurants,” ignoring the fact that the EPA has issued “tailoring” rules that would limit regulations to 75,000 tons a year for large emitters. Churches emit around 100 tons a year.

Transcript:

CARR: Hey, no problem. No problem. What’s going on with this, the, this cap and trade and all these EPA regulations, greenhouse gases, what are you going to do on this stuff?

BROWN: Well, we just voted on it. I voted basically for Murkowski’s dissolution authority. It did not pass and, you know, we’re going to continue to work to try to address a lot of these issues. And, you know, you move on to the next thing, which is the extenders package.

CARR: They’ve been, they’ve been advertising, as you probably know, all over the radio and TV, you know, demanding, the liberals, the moonbats, that you vote for this thing. How do you explain your vote against it?

BROWN: Well, I’m looking out for jobs and jobs in Massachusetts and throughout the country. And to give a non-governmental agency the ability to regulate the way that they have the potential to, they can regulate churches and restaurants and drop it all the way down from the big emitters to the very smallest emitters and it’s not appropriate. And, you know, we in Congress should continue to work on this issue and have the authority to do just that. And I would encourage, certainly, the majority party to start to work on a lot of these energy issues right away.

CARR: Cap and trade is a non-starter this year, isn’t Scott?

BROWN: Yeah, I think so. But I think we surely can get a handle on some of the energy issues by allowing for permitting and streamlining of a lot of the processes to, for nuclear power, certainly for wind, solar, hydro and RnD, you know, grants, credits, etc to try to stimulate that area when you are trying to compete with China and these other countries on basically energy issues. You know, we’re a little behind the eight ball. We have great technology, we have great ideas, but we don’t have the funds nor the…we’re not providing a level playing field for these Massachusetts green companies to really get cracking. And it’s unfortunate.

‹ South Carolina State Senator Censured For ‘Raghead’ Comments, Says He ‘Could Care Less’

More than half the members of the GOP’s ‘Young Guns’ program are eligible for AARP membership. ›

By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policies as applicable, which can be found here.