Dear Auntie Nanuuq,
Big Oil Bailout? |
Can you believe it? The Senate may soon vote to exempt Big Oil from regulation when just the opposite is needed!
Big Oil’s friends in Congress are getting ready for a key vote that amounts to nothing less than a bailout for this dirty industry. We need your help telling the Senate to VOTE NO on Senator Murkowski’s Big Oil Bailout.
As oil continues to pour into the Gulf of Mexico and new images of oil-soaked animals hit our screens almost every hour, Senator Murkowski (R-AK) is poised to bring her Big Oil Bailout to a vote within days. Her resolution would weaken the Clean Air Act and help keep America reliant on oil at a time when we should double-down on our pursuit of clean, renewable sources of energy.
Under a Supreme Court ruling, the Environmental Protection Agency was charged with regulating global warming pollutants under the Clean Air Act, but Sen. Murkowski’s legislation, (S.J. Res. 26) would stop the EPA in its tracks. As glaciers disappear from Glacier National Park and polar bears face an uncertain future in a warming Arctic, as more violent storms march across our country leaving devastation in their paths, we are reminded again and again why America must act to address global warming. The Clean Air is one very potent tool to reduce greenhouse gases.
Don’t let the Senate gut the Clean Air Act – contact your Senators today!
Sincerely,
Kathy Kilmer
The Wilderness Society
The Wilderness Society
Posts
From Senator Diane Feinstein (CA-D)
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing to express your opposition to efforts by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to reverse the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, and block the EPA from regulating those emissions. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
As you may know, last year, Senator Murkowski proposed an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-88) that would have prohibited the EPA from using any funds to enforce the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. Although Senator Murkowski's amendment did not receive a vote, you may be interested to know that I spoke out against the amendment on the Senate floor and have included my remarks for your review.
Additionally, Senator Murkowski has introduced a resolution of disapproval (S.J. Res. 26) to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, even though such regulation is necessary in order to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision in 2007. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has the authority to disapprove of a regulatory rule issued by an agency by enacting a joint disapproval resolution within 60 legislative days of receiving the rule. The resolution must be signed by the President in order to overturn a rule.
Please know that I share your support for taking strong action to address climate change, and I appreciate hearing your concern about efforts to weaken the EPA's regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. In my view, the United States needs multiple tools to protect public health and the environment from the impacts of climate change. While I believe that regulating the largest greenhouse gas emitters under a new cap and trade system would be more effective and less expensive than regulating these sources under the existing Clean Air Act, I believe Congress must ensure that the EPA has tools to reduce emissions from large-scale emitters in the United States in a way that minimizes costs to consumers.
Again, thank you for writing. If you have additional questions or comments, please contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.