Senate Republicans Wary Of Possible Climate Change Pledge In Copenhagen

Meagan Wiseley - University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

While President Barack Obama is taking the Environmental Protection Agency's ruling of the dangers and the toxicity of CO2 emissions and greenhouse gasses (GHGs) to Copenhagen climate change conference, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) told reporters Thursday that the Senate must ratify any proposed climate change pledge that President Barack Obama will make during his visit.

“Any action that would be binding on the U.S., in the form of an international agreement, will of course have to be ratified by the U.S. Senate,” Kyl said at a press conference Thursday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) spoke out against the possibility of the EPA and President Obama making any law on CO2 emissions or climate change.

“We’re not going to allow the Executive Branch or the Environmental Protection Agency, through the Clean Air Act or any other act, appropriate themselves the power to make laws to govern the people of the U.S.,” Graham said.

Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she will file a resolution of disapproval in hopes of stopping the EPA from regulating GHGs.

A "Game Changer" For Global Warming

By Hadas deGroot

The Environmental Protection Agency is soon expected to declare global warming pollutants a threat to public health and to hold polluters accountable under the Clean Air Act.

In 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the EPA's authority to determine whether scientific evidence is strong enough to prove that global warming pollution is a threat to public health. The release of the EPA's decision is expected soon though the exact date is unknown.

Environmental experts are certain that the findings will show global warming to be a threat.

"There is no question that the EPA should make a positive endangerment finding," said Dr. Amanda Staudt, Climate Scientist for the National Wildlife Federation. "As far as I'm concerned, the science compels no other outcome."

The implications of such a decision will be significant. "This will be the largest step that the Federal Government will have taken to date," said Joe Mendelson, Global Warming Policy Director for the National Wildlife Federation. Mendelson expects the outcome to be mandatory reductions in US global warming pollution.

"We're anticipating this first action from EPA to be in the realm of motor vehicles," explained David Bookbinder, Chief Climate Counsel for Sierra Club. Federal guidelines for multiple sources of global warming pollutants are expected to follow.

If EPA declares global warming pollution to be in violation of the Clean Air Act, Emily Figdor, Federal Global Warming Program Director for Environment America, said that the next step lies in Congress. "The United States needs an overall plan to create a clean energy economy and that's the role for Congress," Figdor stated.

Ozone standards may not be strict enough for public safety

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s role in implementing new ozone level standards. Some members of the Committee expressed concern that witness and EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, appointed by President George W. Bush, allowed the current White House Administration to interfere with the decision making process, thus injecting politics into a scientific sphere. Rogene Henderson, chair of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, said that the recommended new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) given to Johnson called for a new standard of .06 to .07 parts of carbon dioxide per million in the atmosphere. While Johnson initially called this range “compelling” and “necessary,” after a visit to the White House he changed his stance on the issue and set a standard of .075, higher than what Henderson said was recommended and a decision she called “willful ignorance.”


Johnson said he had enough scientific evidence to ensure he chose a safe level, and that he was not allowed to consider cost or whether the standard was realistic in his decision. Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH), along with several other members of the Committee, repeatedly pressed Johnson to disclose whether he received pressure from the White House in regards to his decision and explicitly said he need not reveal the content of any discussions. Johnson consistently avoided a “yes or no” answer, and replied each time that he has “routine conversations with members of the executive branch, including the President.” Johnson said he needed the ability to have candid, confidential conversations in order to make an independent decision, yet he maintained that the entire process had been executed with “transparency.”

Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) maintained at the closure of the panel that Johnson’s altering of his decision after meeting with the President indicated that he was influenced by him, and moreover that “the President made this decision.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY) discussed the health repercussions of the depleting ozone, saying that it is especially hard on asthmatic children. They said it results in more people staying home from school and work, and a higher mortality rate.

Senate seeks legislation to reduce unsafe mercury pollution

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing to discuss various pieces of legislation pertaining to the proliferation of mercury in the environment and in exports. Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) could not be present, so Sen. Tom Carper conducted the hearing in her place. Carper said that “one in 17 women of childbearing age have mercury in their blood at levels that could pose a risk to their unborn children,” emphasizing that these groups are most at risk for health threats.

The senators discussed the merits of various mercury legislation including the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which Carper said was “flawed” and “did not go far enough to protect the health of America’s vulnerable populations.” He advocated instead the Mercury Emissions Control Act, which “would require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue a new, stronger rule to control mercury emissions from power plants, as required by the Clean Air Act.”

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) said that no matter what the costs of implementing measures to decrease mercury pollution, the government should have laws “as strong as we can take” to do so because of the potential threat to human health in both adults and infants.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that “as long as there have been Americans, there have been dads who took their sons fishing” and that “we are in a situation now where that’s not really feasible any longer” because of mercury pollution in fish that makes it unsafe to eat. He called this a “thievery” of the American experience, and said that he was frustrated to see an EPA that “doesn’t take its duties seriously.”