Politico leads its article about Sen. Murkowski’s amendment to halt EPA regulation of stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions with a reaction from Carol Browner, the White House climate adviser:
“We don’t think the amendment is a good idea,” White House climate advisor Carol Browner said on Tuesday. “It could get you a situation where activities that should go forward — like investments in carbon capture and storage — wouldn’t be able to go forward.”
That reasoning appears to be that these investments will never take place without EPA regulation. Strange, and the view evinces a lack of confidence in the policymaking branch of government, Congress, as least when it comes to enacting the Administration’s goals.
But then, reacting to the (outrageous and overreaching) decision by a panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to allow Clean Air Act lawsuits against stationary source emitters, Browner commented:
“The courts are starting to take control of this issue. if they were to follow this out, they would be setting the standards,” Browner told reporters at a separate briefing in New York Tuesday. “Obviously, that’s not something that anybody wants…Everything is moving towards getting legislation done because it is the best way to do it.”
That reasoning should lead to strong support for the Murkowski amendment. Legislation is the best way. Indeed.
Or maybe the argument is that the end justifies the means.
Latest posts by Carter Wood (see all)
- Farewell from a Blogger - May 25, 2011
- Activist Ignore Evidence to Back Shakedown Suit Against Chevron - May 25, 2011
- More than a Lawsuit: A Circle of Political Pressure Against Chevron - May 25, 2011