It’s no secret that anything resembling an environmental protection law that even nods to the possibility of human-induced climate change is under sustained and rabid attack by industry groups and the politicians who represent them. (Okay. Breathing.) The tactic over the last two years has been to go after the EPA, which is charged with creating regulations that abide by these laws. Myriad word bombs and legal challenges over the organization’s ethics and tactics have been lobbed at it by climate change deniers for years now.

Well, the Justice Department just made it clear in legal briefing that if you got a problem with the EPA, you should take it up with Congress. (Note: Today’s the day we take stuff up with Congress.) The government’s environmental watchdog is simply executing on existing law. If you’re a member of Congress, then take it up with yourself. Bottom line? If you don’t like what’s going down, change the law, and leave the EPA out of it.

Here’s the verbiage: As reported in Politico, the filing states that states, industry groups and other groups’ objections to EPA rules (here related primarily to the Clean Air Act) “is not really to EPA’s actions; rather it is to the decisions Congress made and to the strict requirements Congress itself imposed on sources of air pollution.”

So it’s the law, stupid. Well, it’s the law for now, anyway. The target on the back of these laws (and efforts to strengthen and update them) may be more attainable for climate change deniers when you get up tomorrow morning. To be fair, both parties have a problem with the existing antiquated Clean Air Act, though efforts to create new law didn’t make it though Congress as it was the last two years. (So keep in that going forward now, we’re not even talking progress. We’re talking about maintaining whatever footholds have been established in recent decades.)

Consider this: Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the favorite to chair the Energy and Commerce Committee if control of the House changes, says he’s geared up to investigate administration’s “poisonous regulations.” In fact, he told Politico that “If we have the gavel, I can assure you that the oversight subcommittee will be very busy. We’ll have a seat reserved for [the administration's top climate and energy advisor Carol Browner].” EPA administrator Lisa Jackon would doubtless be spending a lot of time on the Hill, as well.

Attempting to go with a non-partisan note here, we all have varied opinions on what needs to happen in the arena of federal environmental law. Just ask yourself what it is you want and keep that in mind when you, if you haven’t already, go act on your wishes, that is to say, Vote. Now, please.

Image: samantha celera

I don’t know about you, but when elderly lesbian doppelganger slash Republican Lindsey Graham is one of the few Senators espousing a common-sense, ecologically-minded legislative opinion, I pay attention. Complete with a double spit-take and a heaping helping of “WHAAA?”

Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski, firing the next salvo in the knock-out grudge match between Alaskans and the Earth, has sponsored a bill that would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s right to regulate air pollutants. Even though that’s, you know, what the EPA does. The core argument is that Congress should be regulating environmental policy, not an actual environmental regulatory group. Here’s where the startling sanity of Lindsey Graham comes into play: “If we stop them [the EPA], are we going to do anything?” Three guesses and a prize of their choice to the lucky winner.

The Murkowski bill counts at least 40 co-sponsors (including Democrats from Arkansas, Nebraska, and Louisiana). Several other Democrats from coal states have not yet stated which way they will vote, leaving open the possibility that the bill will find the 51 votes it needs to pass.

Since Obama’s climate bill hasn’t yet passed, the EPA’s Clean Air Act is the only governmental means of cutting carbon emissions currently available. There’s also nothing stopping Congress from crafting its own energy legislation in addition to whatever actions the EPA takes. But a consensus on energy policy in Congress is a long way off. Depending on which way the vote goes this afternoon, the reality of effective greenhouse emissions regulations may become just as distant. With Democrats scrambling to protect corporate profits and Republicans speaking up for sensible environmental protection (and no legislative consensus or leadership in sight), the score could very well be Alaska 1, Earth 0.

Image: dbaron

A bill sponsored by Senators on both sides of the aisle is up for review, but whether it pays more than lip service to pursuing clean energy remains to be seen:

On Monday, Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will launch their bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill. I’m quite certain there will be something in it to dissatisfy everyone.

No bill that could pass Congress right now or in the immediate future would be sufficient to put us on the path to stabilizing the world at 2°C. We simply aren’t sufficiently desperate to do what is needed, which is nonstop deployment of a staggering amount of low-carbon energy, including efficiency, for the rest of the century.

Continue reading the full story over on Grist.

Editor’s note: Article by Joseph Romm. Originally published by our friends at Grist.org. Grist is a media organization that has been dishing out environmental news and commentary with a humorous twist since 1999. Be sure to visit them and say hi, and follow Grist on Twitter, too!

Image: exothermic

On April 17th, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.

This opens the door to regulating the six main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)) under the Clean Air Act. A 60-day comment period in effect until June 23rd.

This ruling could be the beginning of our government finally taking action on global warming. Currently, greenhouse gases are not considered “pollutants”. If this rule holds it will have sweeping implications for the largest greenhouse gas emitters, and could set us on the path toward a green economy.

Expect a fight. Three major industries would be heavily affected by this proposed regulation.

Coal, Cars, and Cows

Coal-fired power plants are some of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses. According to Reuters, the coal industry would rather see greenhouse gases regulated by legislation, presumably because the coal states hold a lot of sway in Congress.

According to Grist, automakers will be one of the first on the list to be regulated because “they’re perceived as the lower-hanging fruit.”

California has long been trying to regulate tailpipe emissions, but in 2005 the Bush administration denied the state a waiver that would have allowed it to implement tougher standards than the federal standards. President Obama has said he supports granting the waiver to California, a move automakers oppose.

Cows and other ruminant animals emit methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than Co2, so this regulation could have a huge impact on large-scale farm operations and force agribusiness to pay pollution fines.

According to Farm Policy, former U.S. Agriculture Secretary, Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), is already co-sponsoring legislation to protect livestock producers from what is being called a “cow tax.”

Supporters of the regulation claim this will be the dawn of a new clean economy, creating thousands of high-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. Opponents say it’s just too expensive and it will kill our economy and take the jobs that are left along with it.

Further Reading:

CBS 5
LA Times

Image: SF Brit