, , , , ,

As far as our climate crisis goes, you either get it or you’re part of the problem. Unfortunately, Claire McCaskill just can’t seem to get it; she has, along with a gaggle of other “coal-state” Democrats, just signed onto Senator Rockefeller’s letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), challenging the agency’s efforts to regulate green-house gases from stationary (i.e. industrial) sources:

In their letter, the Democratic senators do not object to the EPA regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-trucks, but they do question the agency’s power to do anything else under the Clean Air Act. The letter asks Jackson clarify the EPA’s timetable and suspend any regulations for coal-fired utilities and other industrial facilities until Congress acts on climate and energy legislation.

Let’s see … “until Congess acts” … guess their big-coal contributors and lobbyist pals won’t have to get their knickers in a twist for a long, long time if we have to wait for these clowns to get serious.

But this isn’t the worst of it. Alaska big-oil proxy, Lisa Murakowski, has already introduced legislation to block EPA action; the signatories to the Rockefeller letter indicated possible support for this or a related measure:

… Among their concerns were whether Congress would be able to review the EPA’s carbon regulations and how the agency would assess the “direct and indirect cost implications” of its new rules.

Do you ever wonder why these folks are so unconcerned about the “direct and indirect cost implications” of the climate crisis for the welfare of their states? Or why almost none of them have ever admitted that the proposed House legislation includes safeguards for the welfare of coal dependent states?  In McCaskill’s case, do you think it could have anything to do with the

$10 million that Peabody Coal has spent since 2008 to stop climate-crisis legislation?