Senators vow to strip Obama climate power

By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, February 1, 2011 8:17 EDT
google plus icon
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

WASHINGTON – Conservative senators vowed Monday to strip President Barack Obama of his power to regulate greenhouse gases, in a move that would cripple US efforts on climate change if successful.

Eleven Republican senators introduced a bill that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases, which scientists blame for global warming, without explicit approval by Congress.

Under Obama, the federal agency has steadily increased standards on gas emissions. The Republicans accused Obama of circumventing Congress, where a so-called “cap-and-trade” bill to mandate emission curbs died last year.

“My bill will shrink Washington’s job-crushing agenda and grow America’s economy,” said Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming and skeptic of climate change who is leading the effort.

“I will do whatever it takes to ensure that Washington doesn’t impose cap-and-trade policies in any form.”

The Obama administration counters that a shift to green energy would help both the planet and the economy by creating a new source of high-paying jobs.

Senator John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts who led last year’s climate bill, hit back that Barrasso’s proposal “puts the public health at risk and encourages the outsourcing of American jobs.”

Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey accused the Republicans of doing the bidding of industrial emitters, saying: “The health of our children must come before the interests of polluters.”

The Republicans swept November elections but the Democratic Party still controls the Senate and the White House, meaning that Obama can veto any effort to roll back powers on emissions.

But the proposal is another sign that it will be virtually impossible for the Democrats to pass legislation on climate change, which failed to pass even when the party controlled the House of Representatives and held a wider majority in the Senate.

The battle in Congress leaves the Obama administration with a delicate task as it tries to persuade China and other growing polluters to agree to a global plan on greenhouse gases.

Obama has pledged that the United States, the second largest emitter, will take action alongside other nations to fight climate change.

Last year was the hottest on record and one of the worst in decades for natural disasters, according to scientists.

Agence France-Presse
Agence France-Presse
AFP journalists cover wars, conflicts, politics, science, health, the environment, technology, fashion, entertainment, the offbeat, sports and a whole lot more in text, photographs, video, graphics and online.
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
  • Anonymous

    So much to comment about. In the article they call us “climate change” skeptics. No we are well aware the climate changes. Now for the idiotic comments by some readers. Sorry but CO2 is not a pollutant and won’t hurt your lungs as one drooler put it.

    Let me ask those of you who think you have all the answers. Have you heard of Piers Corbyn. He runs circles around any other long range weather predictors, including NASA and the British Met office. He nailed our big snowstorms months ago. How does he do it? Mainly by watching what the sun is doing and lunar cycles. Greenhouse gases are not even considered, in fact, he believes have nothing to do with climate change. So, my question, if greenhouse gases are what drive climate change, why is he so accurate and the rest have trouble predicting tomorrows weather? Think about it. Oh I’m sure at least one of you will come up with some brilliant statement like, “you Republicans just want dirty air and water”. Please try not to drool on yourself.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MUZRCXWDTEEA2C26CELP227CQA Mark

    . 31,000 + scientists dispute UN’s
    global warming claims

    19 May 08 – (National Post) The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.” Following the Press Club event, 10:00am, Monday May 19 at the Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC – Dr. Robinson will host a lunch briefing on the Hill. Interested parties may join him in the Environment and Public Works hearing room, 406 Dirksen at noon for lunch on Monday May 19.]

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MUZRCXWDTEEA2C26CELP227CQA Mark

    The EPA is going to regulate CO2 emission, Hold your breath! For you democrat’s,
    when you take you are polluting the planet.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MUZRCXWDTEEA2C26CELP227CQA Mark

    Like GE?

  • spike91nz

    Several of the six members of OISM appear to have died prior to the 08 paper. Almost all of the scientists who signed the petition are from fields other than climate science, Counting me as a scientist because I have a BS would seem a bit of stretch.

    I don’t understand the resistance to climate change. Even if it were to urn out to be “natural causes”, doing what we can to reduce the effects would seem prudent rather then simply saying,” it isn’t our fault so we’ll just sit here”. No one denies he warming, as far as I can tell, just the cause and in either case effort to minimise the effects are advisable.

    The overwhelming consensus of climate research scientists is that we are the cause. Denying causal linkage in favour of dogma seems obstinate at best. The planet is obviously altered by our moving stored carbon into the atmosphere. The consequences of such are manifestly evident. If you are waiting for a longer trend of the data before admitting the truth, I’ll see you in 2100 for the great “we told you so”. By then, listening to reason may well be pointless and so you will have avoided reason until it was made irrelevant to the debate.