Senate vote on restricting EPA GHG regs likely punted till after next week

Senate sources tell me…

It appears that nobody wants to “git ‘er done”.

There’s been a lot of backroom maneuvering again today, sources say Democratic and Republican leaders conceded they’ll  hold the actual floor debate on an amendment to kill the EPA’s pending greenhouse gas rules until after next week’s coming Senate recess.

It seems the vote counts were shifting by the hour, and even though there’s been some posturing to be ready to vote, nobody wants to go first and set the vote into motion.

Since this is such a crucial vote, there’s a lot of testing of the waters. So far, the global warming driven issue is getting a chilly reception to dive in from both sides of the river.

There does not yet appear to be the sixty votes needed to enact the bill, but even so there is talk of putting the vote out there, just so Democrats who vote for it will be on record as having done so. Some say it will be a career ender.

Recall the backlash that followed when the Waxman-Markey climate bill passed:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Senate vote on restricting EPA GHG regs likely punted till after next week

  1. Brian H says:

    If the House has the cojones to tie the measure into bills the Senate and WH can’t afford to kill, it will get done. Remains to be seen.

  2. Tucci78 says:

    The U.S. House of Representatives has the budget authority, has it not?

    Why not simply begin completely zeroing out whole branches of the federal government?

    Beginning with the EPA.

    Don’t simply “kill the EPA’s pending greenhouse gas rules.”

    Kill the EPA. No further expenditures. Pink-slip the whole agency, including Lisa P. Jackson, the Administrator.

    Next on the list should be NASA, no?

  3. pat says:

    I have no idea how many of those sheepdogs lost. I was happy when Castle went down. Better a known enemy than a backstabber. But I do know that more than 50 Democrats who voted for cap and trade lost.

  4. Greg Cavanagh says:

    Tucci78, that’s what I would do if I were king for a day.

    Kill off EPA; reinstate the EPA laws which worked and ignore the rest.
    Kill off NASA; create a new administration which looked just like the old NASA, but with a new name.

  5. martin brumby says:

    As a Brit I don’t presume to comment much on US politics.

    But in the UK and EU it is wall to wall “hyperthermalist” lunacy. Hardly enough dissenters in government across the continent to make a soccer team.

    So I’m really hoping you guys can show the way back to common sense.

  6. old construction worker says:

    Petition Congress to declare CO2 a non pollutant and put an end to this scam.

  7. Layne Blanchard says:

    Reichert was challenged by another socialist. He defeated her, so we’re still stuck with him. But I believe someone slapped some sense into him since November.

  8. UK Sceptic says:

    I hope this thrust towards common sense doesn’t go pear-shaped at the last minute because politicians suddenly forget where they left their backbones.

  9. UK Sceptic,

    With you on that, bro. As a Canuck, all I can do is wring my shvitzing hands, knowing everytime our Big Neighbour sneezes, we somehow wind up with buboes under our armpits.

    Refreshing turn of phrase there, btw, and having just checked out (and bookmarked) your blog, my hat off to your linguistic self-restraint on this forum! “Pear-shaped” and “backbones” ? Yeah, my ……

  10. David Holland says:

    Someone needs to get smart and push for bills or amendments that no sensible person can oppose..

    At the very first meeting of the IPCC, in 1988, the US delegation stressed

    “the need for strong, interactive peer review, as part of the working group process.”

    You did not get that. What you got was self chosen group of like minded scientists assessing their own work and ignoring critical review comments. When the Reviewer for the US commented that Wahl and Ammann 2007 failed to meet the criteria at the start of the review process to be cited, these scientists just retrospectively changed them. Gavin at RealClimate said recently:

    “IPCC can adjust its guidelines whenever it likes, for whatever reason it likes. This idea that an initial cut-off date is something sacrosanct is nonsense.”

    Citing papers that are not published or genuinely “in press” until long after the end of an expert review process is nonsense on stilts. Where Gavin and other climate scientists go wrong is that they think they run the IPCC, whereas the it is only world governments that decide.

    In 1993 those governments – who pay for it and are the only IPCC voting members prescribed:

    “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

    You did not get that. All you got out of the TAR was 8 unindexed boxes of paper dumped in Littauer library months after the IPCC report was published. We now know that Susan Solomon tried hard to argue some legal basis for refusing to release the review comments on AR4.

    We also know that when Eugene Wahl received an email with the subject line, IPCC/FOI forwarded by Mike Mann he deleted all his AR4 correspondence with Keith Briffa. The Climategate email 1206628118.txt show that Phil Jones alerted the “team” to fact that FOI requests were being made for AR4 information in March 2008, long before he sent the infamous “delete any emails” message to Mann.

    Taxpayers in the US and the rest of the world are not getting what we are paying for. That is what we should be pressing our representatives to legislate for. It should not be about climate change or what anyone thinks is causing it.

    What the US should do is to legislate to require the IPCC to police and enforce all its rules during AR5. It could sweeten the pill by funding webcasting of all IPCC and Working Group meetings

  11. wsbriggs says:

    Guys, while we’re on a roll here, kill DoE, DoE, DoHS, DoA, and think about some others. Sunset the entire bunch. If people are unwilling to volitionally pay for the “services,” then they’re not really services are they. They’re just another gun stuck in our ribs.

  12. mojo says:

    What? Actually debating the issue, in PUBLIC?

    Why, that’s just CRAZY talk!

  13. Theo Goodwin says:

    martin brumby says:
    March 17, 2011 at 12:40 am
    “As a Brit I don’t presume to comment much on US politics.
    But in the UK and EU it is wall to wall “hyperthermalist” lunacy. Hardly enough dissenters in government across the continent to make a soccer team.
    So I’m really hoping you guys can show the way back to common sense.”

    America remains awash in common sense. However, we have this problem called the MSM. No longer mere Yellow Journalists or propagandists, they have become the White Hot Fury MSM by doing everything possible to fan the flames of hysteria and panic. MSNBC has the headline “Low Dose Radioactivity Heads for North America.” What utter trash.

    If Americans can be heard over the noise created by the MSM then government overreach will be defunded, including the EPA.

  14. TonyG says:

    Brian H says:
    If the House has the cojones…

    I doubt they do. Too afraid of being called bad names by the media.

  15. Mac the Knife says:

    Dave Reichert is an ex-police chief. He is not a scientist, physicist, engineer or from any similar rigorous educational background. He is a political animal that will not change until his job is seriously threatened.

    Those of us that have him as a Washington State Representative in Washington DC are doing our best to educate him about the non-hazard of CO2 emissions. Even as we struggled to convince him that we don’t need to regulate CO2 emissions, he voted in support of EPA regulation because a pile of federal taxpayer ‘stimulus’ dollars were offered to secure his vote. He chose short term, misguided pragmatism over facts, science, and long term fiscal responsibility.

    We’re not done with him yet, though. We must convince him and more of our fellow citizens that they have foolishly kissed a pig – the Obama/EPA CO2 pig. No matter how much stimulus lipstick the Obama admin and Harry Reid congress put on , it is still an ugly pig…. with no redeeming merit.

    Reichert will not reverse course until he is perceived as genuinely foolish for voting in support of the AGW CO2 regulation agenda.

  16. P Walker says:

    One of my Senators is a co-sponser of the bill , so I know how he’ll vote . ( I don’t always trust him – in light of what he’s said recently , I might start referring to him as “Taxby” Chambliss ! )

  17. Judd says:

    I’m pretty I know how my Senator Durbin will vote but I don’t know how my new Senator Mark Kirk will. I know as congressman he got an earful at the townhall meetings for voting for ‘cap and tax’. Afterwards, on talk radio he sounded quite chastened & made the extraordinary statement (for a politician) that “unfortunately” he could not go back & change his vote. Maybe there’s hope for this bill after all but this administration is going to need a lot more reigning in. An example is the G(overnment)M(otors) Volt which sold less than 1,000 units in it’s first 3 months (260 in Feb.) but GE has promised to buy 50,000. With a $7,500 tax credit for each, think of the money taxpayers are going to dish over to GE. And who’s Obama’s chief economic adviser? Why, GE’s very own CEO. Like I said, ‘a lot more reigning in’.

  18. Brian H says:

    Judd;
    That would be “reining in”, not “reigning”. Think donkeys, not kings.

    >:-)

Comments are closed.