Senator Claire McCaskill, in a statement posted today on The Hill’s Congress Blog, said that she was voting no on Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) resolution to weaken the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions, because:

… it would eliminate EPA’s ability to regulate emissions from vehicles. The government and the auto industry have agreed to set these new standards for vehicle emissions and it would be a mistake to jeopardize this historic agreement, which will reduce our dependence on oil by 1.8 billion barrels.

But wait just a minute before you start celebrating. The glass is only half-full. McCaskill quickly added that she was, instead, collaborating with Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) to hamstring the EPA in a slightly less onerous fasion (automobile emissions could be regulated by the EPA in the proposed Rockefeller legislation) for two years in order:  

… to give Congress time to figure out how we can reduce emissions without burdening consumers and small businesses in Missouri, while still allowing the EPA to move forward on regulating auto emissions.

Give Congress time …. hmmm, where have I heard that before. Isn’t this the mantra of all the obstructionists for whom it’s becoming fashionable to bellyache about usurping congressional privilege while refusing to let the Congress ever do anything? Seems to me that Congress has had lots of time, but I don’t see that they’ve made much progress.  It is hard not to agree with Davis Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center:

….Blocking the Clean Air Act will do nothing to bring Congress closer to passing comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Rather than fighting global warming solutions, we need to focus on cutting carbon pollution in a way that will spur clean energy investment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Oh well, I guess I should be happy that the glass is half-full and not empty, and that McCaskill won’t back Murkowski’s particular obstructionist efforts. I’ll call her and let her know that I appreciate her vote – and that I really wish she’d reconsider endorsing Rockefeller’s efforts.  There are issues where there’s room to hew to the center; but the climate crisis is not one of them.

UPDATE. The Murkowski resolution was defeated 47-53. So give McCaskill her props on this one.

Climate Progress reports  that the Murkowski amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill that I wrote about last Tuesday was debated yesterday and ultimately denied a vote, effectively killing it. The amendment was designed to do an end run around the EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions comprise a dangerous pollutant. It would have prohibited the EPA from regulating emissions from stationary (industrial) rather than mobile (automotive) sources.

In one sense, it is unfortunate that this piece of drek was not brought to a vote, since it would have given us a chance to see whether or not Claire McCaskill’s inclination toward coal industry interests is steep enough for them to push her completely over when it comes to the  American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) act.  The fact that legislators like  Murkowski can try to undercut the ability of the EPA to do its job underlines the importance of persuading weak Democrats like McCaskill to put their votes where their progressive claims in fund-raising letters suggest they should be.

The furror over the Murkowski amendment reinforces the importance of ACES since, as Climate Progress points out, EPA regulation alone cannot substitute for strong congressional action to slow climate change:

1. It would be difficult for the EPA to enact a CO2 cap and trade without congressional cooperation,” as John Podesta, former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff and now CEO of CAP, recently said.  The endangerment finding is far better suited to addressing new sources that it is existing sources.

2. A subsequent president could trivially stop or endlessly delay whatever actions Obama was able to start with the EPA.

3. If Congress rejects the binding targets of W-M, then we have no basis for negotiating with other countries as part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.  Indeed, we would have no basis for a deal with China.  A promise by Obama that he would try to use the limited authority EPA has to commit to a modest cut in CO2 by 2020 – and deep cuts in 2030 and 2050 – would be seen as meaningless.

Nor do McCaskill’s stated reasons for trying to weaken the ACES cap-and-trade provisions hold up. Her claims that the legislation would “unfairly punish” coal-dependent Missourians shows (willful?) ignorance of what the legislation contains.  ACES ensures that coal-dependent states are provided with billions in subsidies to ameliorate the impact of cap-and-trade and develop alternatives.   Neither does it help her cause when she channels her inner Republican and claims that the United States can’t be expected to do more than developing nations like China and India – particlarlly since both of those countries have announced plans to take relatively major steps to curb emissions (see here and here).

It is great that the Murkowski amendment failed, and those of you who phoned McCaskill and did all the good things you do deserve huge credit, but we cannot keep fighting this battle over and over. We need Claire McCaskill to do her job and provide real leadership on the vital issue of climate change.  We need her to unequivocally support ACES so that retrograde lawmakers like Murkowski cannot continue to use the legislative process to serve the interests of their wealthy, corporate clients to our detriment.  

ADDENDUM:  Note that per Fired Up Missouri! Kit Bond tried to horn in on Murkowski’s act.  Nor were Bond and Murkowski alone in offering amendments designed to weaken environmental protections according to the New York Times.  You see what I mean about Republican intransigence and why we need ACES?

So far Claire McCaskill has shown herself to be a big talker who rarely delivers when it comes to the progressive base that worked hard to elect her.  With action expected imminently on the Murkowski amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill, she will get one more chance to show us why we should support her in the future.

Make no mistake, the Murkowski amendment is very important.  It would exempt carbon dioxide from sources other than cars from the rules that govern pollutants, blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide from  non-automotive sources. This is kind of like saying that when a thug shoots you with a bullet fired from battle rifle it’s a criminal act, but if the same thug shoots you with a bullet fired from a sniper rifle it’s nothing to worry about.

The amendment would also hamstring the transition to clean energy that the  American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) act aims to jump start.  Its provisions would effectively prohibit the EPA from doing its job and employing appropriate expertise to collect data about dangerous pollutants. If, as President Obama stated in his U.N. speech, “the United States is determined to act” to ameliorate global warming, the Murkowski amendment is absolutely the wrong way to go.

Since this amendment extends a generous helping hand to big oil along with other big corporate polluters, it is easy to see why Alaska’s Murkowski is putting it out there.  Unfortunately, it also shows lots of love to the coal industry —  which McCaskill seems to want to appease in the worst way (note her past statements on ACES).  And indeed, when I called her office yesterday to ask that she help vote down this dangerous corporate giveaway, the staff member I spoke with was noncommittal and very cautious when speaking about her position.

If you agree that McCaskill needs to put the health and long-term well-being of Missourians as a whole above the short-term well-being of the coal industry, give her a call and let her know  how important you think a no vote on the Murkowski amendment really is.  Don’t forget to let her know that you really want to continue to support her and help keep her in Washington, but she has to  do her part first.  

You can reach her Washington Office  at (202) 224-6154.  Check her Web page for numbers at her other offices.