Scott Brown defends vote to block EPA from regulating carbon by calling it ˜a non-governmental agency

Posted on  

"Scott Brown defends vote to block EPA from regulating carbon by calling it ˜a non-governmental agency"

They don’t make ‘moderate’ Republicans  the way they used to, as this TP repost makes clear.

Thursday, 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, 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.

Related Posts:

« »

13 Responses to Scott Brown defends vote to block EPA from regulating carbon by calling it ˜a non-governmental agency

  1. Mark says:

    Senator Scott Brown announced his reasons for supporting Murkowski’s “Dirty Air Act” in the Cape Cod Times Op-Ed.

    http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100610/OPINION/6100342/-1/NEWSMAP

    In that op-ed he claims that he is protecting restaurant owners and small farmers.

    He also speaks out against Cape Wind in this piece as well, suggesting that electricity from Cape Wind comes at too high a cost.

    He suggests that the extra cost of wind power will be passed on to ratepayers, but then advocates a move to nuclear power without mentioning that the cost of the government’s nuclear subsidies will also be borne by taxpayers.

    He closes by advocating tax cuts for Massachusetts companies as one of the best solutions to our energy problems.

    If Climate Progress had a Wall of Shame, Scott Brown would certainly qualify.

  2. lizardo says:

    Well I hate to suggest that Sen. Scott Brown must be either an idiot or a liar, so I won’t. But meanwhile he is also dead wrong about nuclear power, licensing etc for which has already been “streamlined” — opponents of wind farms have far greater intervention rights and open avenues to block deployment than do neighbors of new nuclear plants. The hold-up is that the most popular design, Westinghouse’s AP1000 is on it’s one zillionth design revision, not at the request of the NRC but of the utilities who want to get the cost down.

    Nuclear power is like (if i remember this right) “jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today” — the utes and a Westinghouse consortium came up with a simplified, modular, cheaper to build reactor design, but the utes wanted more MGW and by the time that was done it was less safe, more expensive and prices had risen.

    The more complex (and dangerous) the technology the more variables and delays you introduce.

  3. mike roddy says:

    God, what a shameless and idiotic piece of work this Scott Brown has turned out to be. He’s rather please Mitch McConnell than the people of his state.

  4. Duncan says:

    Does the right of an individual to profit supersede the values and health of a community?

  5. Jim Groom says:

    Mr. Brown represents the folks who voted for him. An ill informed public can be a dangerous thing and the result ends up being representatives like Brown. This country is getting the kind of government is deserves. Those who puts these type of idiots into office will perhaps wake up in a century or so and realize just what they did. We can always hope.

  6. Leif says:

    Well Asked Duncan, @4: To which I would add, the Nation, or the World?

  7. Duncan says:

    Leif,@6: Nation or World?

    Updated:

    Does the right of a ‘nation’ to profit supersede the values and health of ‘the world’?

    Do people still attach themselves to their nation? The “I didn’t vote for the people making the decisions so I’m not responsible for their policies.” state of mind?

    I’m concerned that people are so overwhelmed by the events being directed by their leaders that they aren’t taking ownership of their own governments.

  8. Laurie Dougherty says:

    OMG, Sunday afternoon and I come to Climate Progress for enlightenment and what do I get? Howie Carr. And Scott Brown. Well around here we all know Howie doesn’t mince words (has been known to encourage drivers to harass bicyclists of which I am one). But Scott Brown really does speak out of both sides of his mouth.

    As one of those liberal moonbats from Massachusetts who has been sending messages to Scott Brown on climate and energy (and other issues) I get email responses from him all about how he is so concerned about climate change and greenhouse gas emission and the oil spill, etc. But (you can almost hear the sigh) he doesn’t want to do anything to harm the Massachusetts or US economy. He raises the spectre of jobs going to China. In one email I sent recently I reminded him that Massachusetts has historically been in the forefront of industrial and technological innovation and anything encourages the fossil fuel energy infrastructure keeps us tied to 20th century, even 19th century technology.

  9. Edward says:

    I wonder if he thinks the Department of Defense should quit writing regulations?

  10. Mike says:

    Brown’s referring to the EPA as a “non-governmental agency” is a trivial slip of the tongue like Al Gore’s saying the temperature of the Earth core is millions of degrees.

  11. prokaryote says:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged with protecting human health and the environment, by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress. The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, after legislation establishing it was passed by Congress and signed into law by Nixon.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPA

  12. Ben Lieberman says:

    It is difficult to imagine a more inaccurate series of claims for a vote. In his Cape Cod Times Op-Ed seeking to justify his vote Brown practically borrowed the EPA’s language on restaurants and small farms leaving out only the key fact that the EPA is not going to regulate emissions from precisely restaurants and small farms.

    Scott Brown reality: “we cannot have every restaurant owner or small farmer worried about the costs of complying with new carbon dioxide emissions restrictions” (http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100610/OPINION/6100342)

    Reality: “Small farms, restaurants and many other types of small facilities would not be subject to these permitting programs.” (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html)

    As I’ve mentioned his staffer was unable to tell me whether Senator Brown believes that global warming is real. I would encourage any Massachusetts readers of Climate Progress to call up his office and ask the same basic question.

  13. Mossy says:

    Anyone who is in the Boston area, please come to Scott Brown’s 1Sky “Oily Bird Award” on Thursday, June 17, 11 AM outside his Boston office, 2400 JFK Federal Building, 55 New Sudbury St.

    I called his DC office Friday and asked for an accounting of how many people had called requesting that he vote No vs. Yes; the aide could not reply. I stated that probably he received many more nays than yeas, but that the yeas came from fossil fuel lobbyists and the Grand Oil Party. I then commented that Brown stated he would be the voice of the people while in DC, and he is not representing us.

    Interestingly, his wording highly resembles that of the Heartland Institute’s PR on the issue.

    For those in other states, let me assure you that we had a very active program going on here from many different groups to try to influence him, but he seems quite inflexible, probably scientifically challenged. Like many politicians, he doesn’t understand that if the planet is uninhabitable, the economy isn’t going to matter.