Congress, Climate, and Carbon

[AndyH]

HR910
The bill is entitled “The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011” and, according to its
sponsors, has a primary purpose of stopping the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from
“imposing a backdoor cap-and-trade tax.”

The Upton-Inhofe bill would broadly eliminate EPA’s authority to address emissions of
greenhouse gases and the danger of climate change. It would:

• Overturn the Supreme Court’s opinion finding that EPA has the authority to regulate
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
• Overturn EPA’s scientific determination that greenhouse gases endanger human health
and the environment.
• Prohibit EPA from requiring stationary sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Prohibit EPA from requiring additional reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from
motor vehicles and repeal California’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions
from motor vehicles.
• Prohibit EPA from requiring reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from other mobile
sources, such as planes, trains, boats, and large construction equipment.
• Prohibit EPA from enforcing existing greenhouse gas reporting requirements.
• Interfere with EPA’s implementation of Title VI of the Clean Air Act, which addresses
ozone-depleting chemicals and substitutes for such chemicals, as well as undermine
Administration negotiating positions under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer.
• Create legal uncertainty about the status of the recent motor vehicle standards adopted by
EPA.
• Call into question EPA’s authority to implement voluntary programs to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
• Create new litigation opportunities for opponents of regulation of conventional
pollutants.

Position Paper:
http://democrats.energycommerce.hou...EPAGHGBilandOpenInternetStatement 3.14.11.pdf

Amendments and voting record here:
http://democrats.energycommerce.hou...kup/full-committee-markup-on-hr-910-continued

The Committee on Energy and Commerce conducted markup on Monday, March 14, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building and re-convened on Tuesday, March 15, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building to consider "H.R. 910"

An example amendment:

Amendment - Rep. Inslee (1) - Not agreed to by a recorded vote.
Roll Call Vote, Defeated 21 - 31
- States that Congress accepts the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that ‘‘the public health of current generations is endangered and that the threat to public health for both current and future generations will likely mount over time as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and result in ever greater rates of climate change’’.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nT8C5gPubw[/youtube]

 

[thankyouOB]

your gooper congress at work. making the world less safe, one amendment at a time.
it would seem to me that the patriotic thing to do is make the US less dependent on oil and put fewer of our young people at risk in war.

of course, whatever the House does is pretty much irrelevant unless the Senate folds. the next election will be big.

 

[AndyH]

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2011/03/house-energy-and-commerce-committee-votes-for-science-denial/

House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee demonstrated their commitment to science denial yesterday by unanimously voting down three separate amendments offered by Democrats to reaffirm basic facts about climate science. They then unanimously voted to pass the Upton-Inhofe bill to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific endangerment finding on greenhouse pollution.

Let’s be clear. Congress should not attempt to make scientific decisions. The role of Congress is to take the best science and use it to make the best possible policy. The three amendments rejected unanimously by committee Republicans each lays out a fairly basic statement about generally accepted climate science.

 

[garygid]

Legislative Motivation?

Assuming that not all of these "unanimous" Republicans are idiots, there must be some substantial coercion involved to get this kind of no-contest vote on such an insane bill.

This is perhaps similar to Legislating that hurricanes and tornadoes combined will cause only a maximum of $500 million damage in any one year ... but that will not make it so.

I guess my only course of action is to try to vote all the Republicans out of office.

Their motivation appears to me to be immediate monitary gain, totally ignoring the future of the planet and mankind.