Obama faces emissions U-turn with new Congress challenge

Senator Lisa Murkowski is expected to put forward a proposal that would seek to prevent federal regulation of carbon emissions

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 January 2010 14.30 GMT
The Obama administration faces a challenge in Congress that could strip it of its powers to cut greenhouse gas emissions, barely a month after committing to action at the Copenhagen climate change summit.
An Alaska Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski, is expected to put forward a proposal for a vote as early as tomorrow that would seek to prevent the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
A show of support for Murkowski's proposal would be a personal humiliation for Obama who told the Copenhagen summit that America was committed to action on climate change. It also threatens to remove a fall-back position if Congress fails to pass a climate change law.
Climate law has stalled in the Senate and Democratic leaders had sought to use the possibility of EPA regulation as a prod to get Senate to start moving again. Democrats admit the underlying message of Murkowski's proposed vote – that action on climate is bad – could completely kill off its chances.
"It's a highly political move, and a highly hazardous one to our health and the environment," said Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader at a conference in New York. "If this senator succeeds, it could keep Congress from working constructively in a bipartisan manner to pass clean energy legislation this year."
Thirty-seven environmental and health organisations have condemned Murkowski's effort to block the EPA. The senator has also been widely criticised for calling on energy industry lobbyists to help draft her proposals.
But Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski, argued she was trying to stop Democrats from using the stick of EPA regulation to force through flawed measures. "What this vote means is that you can't use this to blackmail Congress to pass bad legislation. The whole approach has been the administration threatening Congress that if you don't pass bad legislation, we are going to pass worse regulation," he said.
The EPA ruled in December that greenhouse gas emissions are a danger the public. The finding compels the EPA to begin curbing emissions from power plants and – though widely acknowledged as an option of last resort – was seen as an important "Plan B" should climate legislation fail in Congress.
Unlike many of her fellow Republicans – and some Democrats from midwestern states – Murkowski has tried to position herself as a potential supporter of action on climate change. Although she comes from a state whose fortunes depend on oil, she has acknowledged the effects of global warming. But she has voted against climate change bills in the past, and is opposed to the proposals that are currently in circulation.
"She supports doing something to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions but the prerequisite is that it must not harm the economy and it must lead to substantial reductions," Dillon said. "The bill we have seen so far does none of that."
Dillon said Murkowski was still weighing her options on which measures to use to try to block the EPA. She could seek an amendment to an unrelated bill on debt due to go to a vote on 20 January, or she could introduce a resolution of disapproval, which would not be subject to a filibuster and would need only 51 votes to pass. He said Murkowski already had the support of 34 Republicans, and was reaching out to Democrats.
Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, said other senators who support climate change law but are opposed to EPA regulation could be tempted to vote for the Murkowski proposal. "The vote on the Murkowski bill is not going to be a surrogate for a vote on climate," he said. "But it is a very serious challenge to the nation's ability to go forward if there isn't legislation."
He did not expect Murkowski's proposal to pass. Even if did pass it would still need to go through the house and leap the unlikely hurdle of being signed into law by Obama. But environmentalists fear the symbolism of a vote against action on greenhouse gas emissions would turn already wary Democrats from oil and gas states away from climate change law.
It would also send a damaging signal to the international community just as countries are trying to move ahead on fleshing out the 12-paragraph accord on global warming produced at the Copenhagen summit, said campaigners. "How can Congress contemplate sending a signal to the world that we are not serious about holding big polluters accountable under the Clean Air Act for climate pollution when other nations have finally stepped forward together to try to tackle this problem?" said Jeremy Symons of the National Wildlife Federation.
A troika of Senators – the Democrat John Kerry, Republican Lindsey Graham and Independent Joe Lieberman – are working on climate change proposals aimed at gathering broad support from Republicans as well as Democrats – in part by expanding the role of nuclear power and compromising on offshore oil and gas drilling. But the senators have yet to make public their proposal – let alone draft a bill.
The delay is causing increasing concern among supporters of climate change action, especially with the approach of congressional elections next November when the Democrats anticipate losses that could weaken their hold on Congress.