Isakson Votes to Prevent Backdoor Attempt to Regulate Greenhouse Gases

The following press release was received via email from Senator Johnny Isakson:

Says Regulation Will Cost Jobs, Increase Energy Costs

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today criticized the Senate’s rejection of a bipartisan disapproval resolution to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The motion to proceed to the disapproval resolution failed by a vote of 47 to 53.

“I’m extremely disappointed that many members of the Senate do not seem to understand the implications of this ruling on our economy. This backdoor attempt to regulate greenhouse gases will have dramatic negative effects on our manufacturing sector while also causing significant increases in the cost of power generation,”Isakson said. “While we should take proactive steps to reduce our emissions footprint, it is absolutely essential to address the economic impact of these measures on our economy.”

On Dec. 7, 2009, the EPA announced its finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health. The endangerment finding took effect on Jan. 14, 2010, and clears the way for the EPA to present its first greenhouse gas rules.

Isakson believes it is the responsibility of Congress to address the issue of climate change.

25 comments

  1. Henry Waxman says:

    Given the recent discussions on PP, I would avoid using the term “Backdoor” in the headlines for a few weeks.

    • B Balz says:

      Often the purpose of a non-binding resolution is not efficacy, but rather its’ ability to shine light on a problem. Or get/keep votes.

      Depends…

    • Holly says:

      No. It was a disapproval motion, which is rare. Essentially, this would have prohibited the EPA from writing greenhouse gas emissions regulations – making it squarely the job of Congress to write them. However, it was unlikely to pass the House, and even if it did, Obama was going to veto it.

  2. B Balz says:

    Call to Arms: What “Yes, we can” means to YOU!

    Kudus to Senator Isakson, and all others, that oppose using regulation to achieve the same ends of failed legislation. This is ANOTHER egregious example of the Executive Branch misusing its’ power to usurp the People’s will.

    Large commercial building managers, constructors, and owners witnessed the Administration’s unabashed attempt to curb energy consumption, limit ‘greenhouse gases’,etc. by the ill-fated “Carbon Credit” scheme. Now EPA is using regulations to force stakeholders into costly retro fits or higher initial construction costs.

    I say neuter the EPA to prevent that agency from imposing costly regulations that have limited benefits. The US ought to seek a national energy policy that expeditiously, yet intelligently resolves the legitimate concerns of our continued use of fossil fuels.

    Liberals say America should pay what the rest of the World pays for energy. Fooey! I say we should develop a comprehensive energy plan that weans our dependence on fossils fuels, use our skills as innovators to change the paradigm.

    Export our existing, world class pollution control technology to emerging Nations, the most prolific polluters. This action ought to be mandated through the UN, and other international regulatory and policy setting organizations.

    We can do this in less than 100 years, if we provide the current stakeholders enough incentive to profit from such a shift. International tariffs ought to be used to give incentives for compliance ahead of schedule.

    It would be both naive and disingenuous to believe that corporate America and big Government are both complicit in NOT making sweeping changes to our current schema. In my opinion, this should have become a National mandate right after 911.

    While trillions talk, the environment walks.

  3. If you could go back and read the real reason we had the prohibition of the 20’s. John D. Rockefeller was not concerned with family dynamics in the working classes. But he was influential in changing the goals of the movement from temperance to prohibition. As we know, his contribution to the outlawing of the production and sale of alcohol was successful. Of course, Rockefeller and the oil companies reaped tremendous profits as a result. Remember that the period covered by the 18th Amendment (1919-1933) coincided with the huge rise in the sale and operation of automobiles. America was on the move, and all of these cars were now operated solely on gasoline. By the time that the 21st Amendment was passed, ending the prohibition of alcohol, the standard was already set and worked completely in the favor of the Rockefeller family.

    It wasn’t just the Model-T — before that the majority of cars ran on alcohol. Remember, the US used to be 90% farm based. Every farm had a “still” and early cars all ran on alcohol. Today’s cars could easily run on that same alcohol with little or no modfications.

    • “Today’s cars could easily run on that same alcohol with little or no modfications.”

      Sure, for a short while… until the corrosive properties of the alcohol broke down the rubber gaskets, hoses and plastic parts that it flows through. Until manufacturers start using parts that will resist the alchol’s inherent ability to dissolve fuel pumps, injectors, etc. cars won’t run for too long on alcohol. 🙂

      • B Balz says:

        As I said, status quo stakeholders will change if incentives are given. Carrots work better than sticks, greed can be a lever.

        • Possibly. As for who gives those incentives and what they are… that could be quite a lengthy discussion. However, there’s also the point of what to use for creating the alcohol to run the cars on. There’s currently sources such as algae, pine and other wastes being turned into alcohol. And I don’t mind corn stalks and other waste that would normally go to a landfill being used to create alcohol. But I really don’t want to see corn or palm trees being grown to create alcohol if there’s more productive sources out there. I’ve heard hemp is a great source for this type of use. Unfortunately, it’s not legal to grow in the US. We’d have to get Canada, England, France or some other industrialized nation to grow it for us and process it into alcohol and ship it to us. 🙁

  4. Game Fan says:

    So greenhouse gasses are bad for health now? Does this mean that greenhouse gasses may not contribute to global warming after all? But now it’s health? Why don’t they call them “brown death gasses” or something, because “greenhouse gasses” always reminds me of a trip to a greenhouse, surrounded by greenery. You know, orchids, ect… and they say that it’s actually healthy to be around plants (and their gasses)

  5. saltycracker says:

    Meanwhile Isakson teams up with Dodd & Reid to keep redistributing $8,000 per in taxpayer money for home buyers. Considering unprecedented low mortgage rates, plunging prices, super profitable (via the taxpayer) bank/FDIC/bundled foreclosure packages and ignoring any thought of any connection to real estate he might have, this is no fiscally conservative Republican……

  6. hannah says:

    Conservatives have got it wrong on the object of government, as well as trade and exchange (economic enterprise). They think the object of government is to control the behavior of humans; a secular show of force when religious suasion and propaganda don’t have the desired result. That the agents of government are to deal with the vagaries of man and nature — i.e. respond to disutilities in an effective manner — is beyond their ken.
    Similarly, conservatives fail to understand that a surplus of goods and services that’s available for exchange and trade is basically the result of waste avoidance. For example, instead of letting nature’s bountiful harvest of grapes go to waste, we save it by producing wine for use by more people at a later time.
    That conservatives misperceive is evidenced by their inability to recognize land filled with trash, abandoned industrial sites and streams filled with rubble as indicators of economic failure. It’s also a failure of the imagination to discount what humans don’t want.

      • Game Fan says:

        But seriously, there’s a growing number of Americans who don’t trust any type of “reform” or regulations coming out of DC these days, and this is starting to include a growing number of environmentalists who just don’t trust what might come out the other end. Heck, even Obama urged folks to in effect, “pass it now read it later” although I can’t find the exact quote.

        • B Balz says:

          Gamefan, GOP did us all a costly turn by deregulating natural gas (cost shifting from large commercial users to residential users) . Calling his action ‘deregulation made it palatable, yet is Orwellian in nature.

          So yeah, reforms or regulations are not to be trusted in WDC or locally, without carefully vetting the outcome.

    • hannah… people on this blog have issues distinguishing when to use their vs. they’re vs. there. Do you really think they understand the meanings of such words as disutilities and vagaries? You’ll probably get your point across a bit better to some of these folks if you’ll dumb down your word choice to a fifth grade level. 🙂

  7. Jace Walden says:

    Isakson believes it is the responsibility of Congress to address the issue of climate change.

    Yet another reason NOT to vote for him.

  8. B Balz says:

    Buckhead, GA Saturday June 12 Maggiano’s

    Sen. Isakson received the Georgia Chapter, National Multiple Sclerosis Society’s prestigious 2010 Federal Legislator of the Year.

    In 2009, Senator Isakson became the first of Georgia’s two Senators, and the first GOP member of Georgia’s delegation to join the MS Caucus. The MS Caucus is a group of legislators that work together to discuss the needs of the MS community related to healthcare reform, research and disability rights.

    Later in 2009, Senator Isakson signed on as the Republican sponsor for S 1273, the National MS and Parkinson’s Disease Registries Act. This bill will help researchers, as well as the National MS Society ascertain the true incidence and prevalence rate for MS throughout the United States.

    This information is considered invaluable by many throughout the research community in tracking diagnostic trends in MS.

Comments are closed.