Cross-posted from Legal Planet.
On Thursday, the Senate voted down a resolution from Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) to halt EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. The vote was 53 to 47. What are we to make of the vote?
The resolution was offered under the Congressional Review Act, which provides a fast-track mechanism for Congress to override agency regulations. (The CRA, which was part of the Contract with America in the 1990s, is a substitute for the kinds of “legislative vetoes” that the Supreme Court has found to be unconstitutional. There’s a detailed discussion in this law review note.) You may recall that EPA’s endangerment finding was made after the Supreme Court held that, if climate change endangers human health or welfare, EPA has a duty to make a finding to that effect and to regulate greenhouse gases. In effect, the Murkowski resolution would amend the Clean Air Act to reverse the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the statute and exempt greenhouse gases from regulation.
David Doniger has posted a thorough analysis of Murkowski’s arguments. The attorney generals of 11 states also posted a letter opposing the resolution.
It seems plain that, despite her claims to the contrary, the resolution was aimed at preventing any action on climate change, whether by EPA or Congress, not just at shifting the decision-making to Congress. Regulation by EPA may not be ideal, but without the threat of EPA regulation, it’s even less likely that the Senate will shoulder its responsibilities to make climate policy. Still, Senators could vote for the resolution while still claiming to believe in the need for climate legislation. Indeed, given President Obama’s pledge to veto the resolution if passed, a “no” vote didn’t necessarily have much practical significance, making it a cheap way to placate conservative voters or home-state corporations.
Thus, the “yes” votes are a little hard to read: some of them were undoubtedly votes against any form of climate regulations; others may not have been. On the other hand, the 53 Senators who voted against the resolution do seem committed to action on climate change. We just need seven more votes to pass new legislation. In the meantime, at least the Clean Air Act is there as a fallback option. Murkowski is right that it would be much better for Congress to legislative in this area than for EPA to regulate under the Clean Air Act — but the best way to get Congress to get its act together is for EPA to press ahead with its own regulations.
Showing 2,822 results
Daniel Farber | June 11, 2010
Cross-posted from Legal Planet. On Thursday, the Senate voted down a resolution from Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) to halt EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. The vote was 53 to 47. What are we to make of the vote? The resolution was offered under the Congressional Review Act, which provides a fast-track mechanism for Congress […]
Daniel Farber | June 11, 2010
Rob Verchick’s new book, “Facing Catastrophe: Environmental Action for a Post-Katrina World,” might help avoid future disasters like the Deepsea Horizon blowout. Verchick views wetlands, lakes, forests, and rivers as a kind of infrastructure, providing ecosystem services that are just as important as the services provided by other infrastructure, such as roads and dams. For instance, […]
Shana Campbell Jones | June 10, 2010
If I remember my Sunday School lessons correctly, “clean living” should result in a lot of good things in addition to a heavenly reward: a strong character, an orderly home, and a healthy body and environment. Ironically for the Amish, a clean living group if there ever was one, clean living also produces dirty waters. As […]
Shana Campbell Jones | June 9, 2010
We’ve all seen the dramatic headlines recently concerning large-scale environmental disruptions, including a catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf and mining disasters killing workers from West Virginia to China. Meanwhile, in Congress, climate change bills are proposed, altered, weakened, and eventually shelved, and the United States still fails to take action on climate change. CPR’s Member Scholars […]
Yee Huang | June 8, 2010
Hundreds of offshore extraction platforms dot the world’s oceans, funneling millions of gallons each day of oil, natural gas, and other extracted resources to the surface. While these operations are regulated by the country where they’re located, they have the potential to cause international environmental disasters when located near boundary waters or near large currents. The New […]
Rebecca Bratspies | June 7, 2010
Cross-posted from IntLawGrrls Ever since the Deepwater Horizon began gushing oil into the Gulf of Mexico, BP has been dazzling the American people with a series of colorfully named “solutions:” the dome; top hat, junk shot, top kill. However, as the days turned into week, and the weeks turned into months, one thing has become […]
Victor Flatt | June 4, 2010
In the little-followed but hugely important “joint federalism” system through which our environmental laws are implemented, a seismic change may be afoot that could vastly improve environmental compliance and environmental quality in the future. Last week, Al Armendariz, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region VI, indicated that unless significant changes are made by […]
Ben Somberg | June 3, 2010
ProPublica teamed with the Sarasota Herald-Tribune to put out an important investigative piece on drywall a few days ago — “Tainted Chinese Drywall Concerns Went Unreported for Two Years.” The article, by Joaquin Sapien and Aaron Kessler, reports that: A leading East Coast homebuilder learned four years ago that the Chinese-manufactured drywall it had installed […]
Yee Huang | June 3, 2010
EPA and a coalition of environmental groups recently settled ongoing litigation related to the regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The litigation dates back to 2003, when EPA finally proposed comprehensive regulation of CAFOs, and it centers on what actually constitutes a CAFO. The original Clean Water Act labeled CAFOs as point sources that require a […]