Dirty Air Act Roundup

Posted on  

"Dirty Air Act Roundup"

Public health organizations oppose Murkowski resolution; DOT finds Murkowski will block cleaner, more efficient cars; Murkowski struts past protesters to attend lobbyist fundraiser for her; American public power association misleads its members

Opposition continues to grow to the Dirty Air Act — Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) Resolution of Disapproval of the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding, S.J. Res 26.  CAPAF’s Director of Climate Strategy, Daniel J. Weiss, has the story.

murkymasks

Students from the Clean Energy Works Campaign don surgical masks before visiting the office of Sen. Lisa Murkowski on Tuesday to ask her to lobby for regulating greenhouse gas emissions.  Photo by Tom Williams/Roll Call.

Murkowski’s Congressional Review Act resolution would overturn EPA’s scientific finding that global warming pollution threatens public health.  On February 25, twelve public health organizations announced their opposition to the Dirty Air Act.  The U.S. Department of Transportation determined that – contrary to her statements – Sen. Murkowski’s resolution would undo the clean car rules proposed last year by President Obama.  Meanwhile, the American Public Power Association declared support for the Dirty Air Act based on claims that just aren’t so.

The dozen national public health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Environmental Health Network urged the Senate to oppose the Dirty Air Act.  Their letter to the senate notes that the EPA’s endangerment finding determined that climate change can cause, “more wildfires, degraded air quality”¦harm to water resources and harm to agriculture.”  All of these effects would harm public health.  An older version of their letter is available here, and the most recent one will be online shortly.

These health organizations joined the American Lung Association (ALA) in opposition to Sen. Murkowski’s Dirty Air Act.  Charles Connor, the President and CEO of the ALA, reminded senators that “the Clean Air Act mandates that the Environmental Protection Agency follow the science and then implement the law accordingly,” and that Murkowski’s amendment is “a cynical attempt to disregard the science and block the enforcement of the Clean Air Act.”

Despite her protestations to the contrary, Sen. Murkowski’s measure would also harm public health because it would prevent EPA from issuing new limits on tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gas pollution from motor vehicles, due by April 1, 2010.  These rules are part of a joint rule making with the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is supposed to issue more efficient fuel economy standards by the same date.  Senator Dianne Feinstein raised this issue with DOT.

“Q: Can NHTSA [National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration] issue a vehicles rule on time if Murkowski passes?

“NHTSA A: NHTSA is obligated by statute to promulgate standards for model year 2012 vehicles by no later than April 1, 2010 (i.e., 18 months prior to the start of a new model year).  At this late date, it is unlikely that NHTSA would have sufficient time to decouple its rulemaking from the joint rulemaking effort in time to meet the April 1 deadline.”

In other words, if the Murkowski resolution passes, it would delay more efficient fuel economy standards for at least one year.   This would increase U.S. consumption of foreign and domestic oil, which threatens our national security.

Meanwhile, Senator Murkowski continues to receive money from lobbyists with big oil and other special interest clients that hope to block action on global warming.  The Sunlight Foundation reports that she held a fundraiser with donations from lobbyists representing Peabody Coal, Duke Energy, and the Nuclear Energy Institute.  To attend her fundraiser, Senator Murkowski had to walk pass protesters wearing surgical masks with stickers that read “NO Dirty Air Act.”  She has received nearly $800,000 and counting in campaign cash from the oil and gas, and utility industries.

Finally, the American Public Power Association – which “represents the interests of more than 2,000 publicly-owned not-for-profit electric utility systems across the country” public endorsed the Dirty Air Act.  The APPA falsely claims that:

“EPA has nonetheless decided to move aggressively to regulate GHGs, as evidenced by its most recent decisions and proposed rulemakings.”

APPA made this claim the day after EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson wrote eight senators that

No facility will be required to address greenhouse gas emissions in Clean Air Act permitting of new construction or modifications before 2011.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Energy Subcommittee Chair Ed Markey (D-MA) responded to APPA by revealing that

APP A appears to be actively misinforming its members about this issue. If the EPA’s scientific finding was reversed, as APPA proposes, then EPA would be unable to finalize proposed tailpipe standards for automobiles that cut carbon pollution and reduce our dependence on oil. However, when APP A informed its members that the association had taken a position on SJ. Res. 26, the Murkowski resolution, APPA stated that whether the resolution would prevent EPA from issuing tailpipe standards for automobiles ‘remains a point of debate between the lawyers.’ APPA’s staff knows this is not the case, because they have informed our staff that APPA has reviewed Administrator Jackson’s February 22, 2010, letter to Sen. Rockefeller.

The two chairmen ask the APPA to clarify its position on the EPA’s scientific findings, explain the “scientific basis” for over turning the endangerment finding, and explain their position on the regulation of carbon pollution from automobiles. The Congressmen want answers by March 3rd.

Representatives Waxman and Markey report that “numerous APPA members have informed us over the last 24 hours that they do not support APPA’s position.”

« »

7 Responses to Dirty Air Act Roundup

  1. Kota says:

    If you want to see co-ops actively slanting information on climate science and using scare tactics you need look no further than the ‘charming’ little magazine sent out free to its co-op members. They would do FOX NEWS proud.

    http://www.countrylines.com/column/comment/

    I may be a member because their lines feed into the house I own but their ‘opinions’ do NOT represent me.

  2. James Newberry says:

    I would like to congratulate the multi-billion dollar, global fossil/fissile-power propaganda industry for their infiltration of almost every public institution in America, and much of the world. It is indeed ironic that we have the “American Public Power Association” regurgitating the fraud and corruption of propaganda (as described in Climate Cover-Up). Same thing with the US Chamber of Commerce (or is that chamber of horrors, chamber of communists, chamber of corporatism). Good bye to “free markets,” we’re all in corporatist financial lock-down now.

    Where is my nuclear bailout bucket? Must be downstairs floating in the flood waters. “Underwater” seems to be a recurring theme these days.

    Maybe we should regulate tailpipes and skypipes and radioactive pipes right out of existence. That would mean converting from the religion of capitalism, a revolutionary thought perhaps, unless we consider such trivial things as rising public disease, national security and the biosphere which provides life on Earth.

  3. Wit's End says:

    People must seize the power back from corporations and today, a rather brilliant new website has just launched and it is leading the charge! I put a post on the forum about climate change:

    http://coffeepartyusa.com/content/climate-change

  4. climate undergrad says:

    Less discussed are the local health implications:

    “Emissions of carbon dioxide do not mix immediately to the global atmosphere. Instead,
    carbon dioxide mixing ratios in polluted cites are higher than are those in surrounding areas.
    Although carbon dioxide in cities disperses to the global atmosphere, their continuous emissions
    from vehicles and power plants keep their levels high over cities. It is shown here that such
    elevated levels of carbon dioxide increase air pollution, particularly ozone. As such, locally emitted
    carbon dioxide is a causal factor in increasing local air pollution.”

    http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/ (Testimony to U.S. House Committee on Air Pollution Health Impacts of Carbon Dioxide)

    It is abundantly clear that trying to reverse the EPA finding is completely based on industry profit lines, regardless of the local and global societal and environmental costs.

  5. prokaryote says:

    Murkowski pushback
    Administration officials are pointing out some of the consequences if Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is successful in blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
    http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/02/murksowski_pushback.html

  6. Fire Mountain says:

    A Song For Lisa

    Drive your drilling rig
    down my well-greased hole
    Can’t drive it down
    hard or deep enough
    cause I’m an oil co ho

    Hole won’t come up dry
    When with cash you ply
    Make your donations
    We’ll have relations

    I’ll bend as you like
    When you make your strike
    Seize my affections
    Give me directions

    My state melts away
    But there’s bills to pay
    My constituent
    Is who pays my rent

    Though Alaska’s warming
    Lobbyists are swarming
    And I know the score
    Cause I’m an oil whore

    So drive your drilling rig
    Down my well-greased hole
    Can’t drive it down
    hard or deep enough
    Cause I’m an oil co ho

  7. Wit's End says:

    “In our view, particularly with temperatures now falling, the argument for CO2 regulation rests solely on the “validity” of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC and the EPA.”

    Seriously?

    from a letter by “leading scientists” to Lisa Jackson, Head of EPA, being circulated by TVMOB!

    http://sppiblog.org/news/many-leading-scientists-tell-the-epa-to-think-again

    [JR: Sad.]