Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (188127)	3/13/2010 1:35:47 AM
From: SiouxPal	1 Recommendation Respond to of 361064

Getting down to showtime huffingtonpost.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (188127)	3/13/2010 1:41:38 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361064

Something Worse Than Inaction _____________________________________________________________ Editorial The New York Times March 13, 2010 The Obama administration has always had a backup plan in case Congress failed to pass a broad climate change bill. The Environmental Protection Agency would use its Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Regulation, or the threat of it, would goad Congress to act or provide a backstop if it did not. The House passed a bill last year seeking an economywide cap on emissions, but there has been no progress in the Senate. Now some senators seem determined to undercut the E.P.A.’s regulatory authority. These include not only Republicans who panic at any regulation, but also Democrats who say they worry about climate change but insist that the executive branch stand aside until Congress gets around to dealing with it. The most destructive idea is a “resolution of disapproval” concocted by Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska. It would reject the E.P.A.’s recent scientific finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare, effectively repudiating the agency’s authority — granted to it by the Supreme Court — to regulate these gases. As a practical matter, it would also stop last year’s widely applauded agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Ms. Murkowski has temporarily set aside her amendment while the Senate mulls a seemingly more benign bill from Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat. His bill does not tamper with the new rules on vehicle emissions or deny the E.P.A.’s legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. But it would severely narrow the agency’s reach by blocking it from proposing, or even doing much work on, regulations on emissions from stationary sources like power plants, for two years while Congress worked on broader legislation. Industrial emissions account for a third of this country’s greenhouses gases, and freezing the government’s ability to regulate them makes no sense. There is no guarantee that Congress will produce a broad bill. And even if it does, what is the harm in requiring power plants and other industrial facilities to make near-term improvements in efficiency, or switch to less-polluting fuels? These senators seem to have bought the hype, spun by industry, that the E.P.A. will run amok. This is not the way we read the intentions of the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa Jackson, who has promised that whatever regulations she proposes will be gradual, cost-effective and affect only the largest facilities. Nor is it the way we read Congress’s responsibility to the country. That is to address the very real danger of climate change, not deny the government the tools it needs — and legally has — to fight it. Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company