Remember the Dirty Air Act? Senator Lisa Murkowski’s attempt to stop the EPA from following the Supreme Court’s ruling that it regulate carbon pollution per the Clean Air Act? It was defeated last month, but that doesn’t mean it’s gone for good. The Murkowski resolution is child’s play compared to what alleged Democrat Jay Rockefeller has in store with S. 3702, highlighted yesterday by the NRDC’s weekly Legislative Watch. The bill is less than 400 words long.

Although “Dirty Air Act” was just a political nickname given to Murkowski’s resolution, Rockefeller’s bill actually mentions the Clean Air Act by name, and would restrict the EPA’s authority to enforce the Act for the next two years. The bill, given the technical-sounding name “Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act,” would forbid the EPA from classifying “carbon dioxide or methane a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act… for any source other than a new motor vehicle.” In a previous section, the language is even starker: “the Environmental Protection Agency may not take any action under the Clean Air Act… relating to carbon dioxide or methane.” This bill is clearly a parochial attempt to protect West Virginia's carbon-heavy coal industry.

The coal industry tries to convince Appalachian voters and lawmakers that their economy will need coal forever and always – and Rockefeller has bought it, hook line and sinker. The fact is, however, that over 50% of West Virginia coal mining jobs have disappeared in the last 30 years and nearly 90% in the last 60 – partly due to the discovery of cheaper coal in Wyoming, and partly due to technological advancements ala John Henry. This is a dying industry. Plus, the American Lung Association says that coal causes 550,000 asthma attacks and kills 24,000 Americans each year. What’s more, even when the industry does create Appalachian jobs, it prevents even more jobs from coming into the state by devastating mountains, creeks, hollows, and health rates in nearby towns. Land value plummets and education rates are low since mining is not a job demanding much in the way of higher education. Why should new industries come to a place with low land value and few educated workers? Coal is killing West Virginia, and Jay Rockefeller is its accomplice. 

This is not the only anti-climate bill Rockefeller introduced this month. From the NRDC link above,

Sen. Rockefeller and Sen. Voinovich (R-OH) introduced a bill to promote carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies. The Rockefeller-Voinovich bill would promote full-scale development and deployment of CCS technology by offering tax credits and other incentives to early adopters. It would also promote CCS research, establish a long-term legal and regulatory framework for CCS, and provide $20 billion in incentives over the next decade for early deployment. However, it includes a problematic provision that would provide post-closure liability relief for geologic sequestration projects.

Another problem is, clean coal probably doesn’t exist. Researching is it throwing good money after bad. That said, I wouldn’t mind funding clean coal research if that’s what it takes to get more Senate votes for renewables and carbon pricing – on one condition. The bill should also state that no new coal plants can be constructed until the CCS technology is perfected. That would mean either a) such plants would never be built again, which is more likely, or b) I’m wrong and they can be built clean, in which case mining issues remain but at least the climate part is solved. As far as I know, though, the Rockefeller-Voinovich bill does not contain such a provision.

Similarly, I’d be willing to support a DAA-esque law blocking the EPA and maybe even the states from fighting carbon pollution if and only if Congress simultaneously passed a tough climate law of its own. Even if it was slightly weaker than anything the EPA would do, it would at least be less susceptible to Court challenges. But as with CCS, that’s not what Rockefeller has proposed.

For the record, Rockefeller has recieved $278,300 in campaign donations from the mining industry over the course of his career. I’m not sure which ticks me off more: what he is doing to West Virginia as a proponent of Big Coal, or what he could do to the whole planet by bringing back the Dirty Air Act. It’s a shame the man never learned anything from his late West Virginia colleague Robert Byrd.

The BP spill has stolen most of the environmental limelight this month, but the green movement went into hyperdrive this week to defend the Clean Air Act – and succeeded. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s disapproval resolution, written by big oil lobbyists and nicknamed “the Dirty Air Act,” would have prevented the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act. It failed today on a vote of 47-53.

Additional good news: The fact that coal state senators like Bob Casey, Robert Byrd, and Debbie Stabenow and oil state Senators like Mark Begich and Bill Nelson voted against this resolution bodes well for the prospects of future climate and energy legislation.

The vote was pretty poorly timed for Murkowski, coming at a time when most Americans want BP to pay more for its criminal negligence, not less. I’ve received at least 8 e-mails in the last 2 days from environmental groups like the Sierra Club, VoteVets, and Repower America with subjects like “Stop the Big Oil Bailout,” “One Day Left to Stop Big Oil,” “Protect the Clean Air Act,” and “Murkowski’s Last Stand.”

The eventual climate bill considered by the Senate will likely contain language similar to the Murkowski resolution, but at least it will be tied to new regulations. To ban the EPA from addressing climate change without tying it to such legislation first would cause irreparable harm to the planet. This is so painfully obvious that Murkowski couldn’t even recruit her fellow Alaska Senator to join her. "It is time for Congress to face up to this serious issue, not stick our heads in the sand and deny the irrefutable science," said Mark Begich (D-AK). EPA administrator Lisa Jackson agreed, writing for the Huffington Post earlier this week:

The fact that a single accident at a single offshore oil well can cause billions of dollars in damage, result in thousands of people losing their jobs and livelihoods and threaten an entire region highlights how important it is that we keep moving America forward, towards energy independence. We can't afford to go back.

That is why it is surprising to learn that on June 10, the Senate will vote on legislation that would take us back to the same old failed policies and increase America's oil dependence by billions of barrels. Senator Lisa Murkowski, with strong support from big oil companies and their lobbyists, has proposed a resolution that would drastically weaken our nation's historic effort to increase fuel savings, save consumers money and cut oil consumption from American cars and trucks.

Senator Murkowski's resolution would take away EPA's ability to protect the health and welfare of Americans from greenhouse gas pollution. The resolution would ignore and override scientific findings and allow big oil companies, big refineries and others to continue to pollute without any oversight or consequence. It would also gut EPA's authority in the clean cars program, a program that would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut down on air pollution.

No Republican opposed the resolution – even so-called “moderates” like Collins, Snowe, and Brown sided against the Clean Air Act. Six Democrats joined them, including Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Jay Rockefeller.

It’s been a busy few days for clean energy support here in Nebraska, the state that claims not only swing Senate vote Ben Nelson but also the fourth largest potential for wind energy in the country. Today, the Omaha World Herald, one of the country’s most successful newspapers, printed an editorial in strong support of a wind energy bill currently before the state legislature. This followed a Saturday OWH op-ed from seven prominent state clergy opposing Lisa Murkowski’s Dirty Air Act, which Senators Nelson and Johanns both currently co-sponsor. Also on Saturday, 45 faith activists gathered at a local Catholic university for a four-hour forum on how to green congregations and support climate change legislation.

The subject line of a recent 1Sky e-mail blast was “Murkowski's not finished -- and neither are we.” They’re right – as long as Senator Murkowski keeps trying to prevent the EPA from preserving the Clean Air Act, we need to keep standing in her way. Nebraskans have taken note. On Saturday, seven Jewish, Christian, and Unitarian ministers co-authored an Omaha World Herald op-ed calling on Nelson and Johanns to do just that:

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled that the EPA has the responsibility to regulate such pollution and that a failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Clean Air Act. To comply with this ruling, the EPA proposed new rules last year to enforce the Clean Air Act and limit air pollution from greenhouse gases. The Dirty Air Act — as written by energy lobbyists, introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and co-sponsored by Sens. Nelson and Johanns — would block those rules from taking effect.

Sen. Nelson says he supports the Dirty Air Act because of the “enormous costs and the detrimental impact on jobs and businesses” that new EPA rules would impose. We disagree and do not believe that job creation and public health are values in opposition to one another…

Some may question why we as faith leaders have chosen to speak out on what is often seen as a political issue. We support laws that benefit public health because all of God's children are created in God's image and should not be neglected. We support job creation because of what the Bible says in Proverbs: “Those who oppress the poor insult their Maker, but those who are kind to the needy honor him.”

Interesting fact about the World Herald: according to Wikipedia, the paper “has for many years been the newspaper with the highest penetration rate -- the percentage of people who subscribe to the publication within the paper's home circulation area -- in the United States.” Its readership is further helped by the fact that it is the only major paper still printing two editions a day and that it owns the valuable URL omaha.com.

With numbers like those, when the World Herald speaks, Nebraska politicians should take note. They should especially take heed of today’s editorial, “Wind energy bill proposes sound course.”

Some of the questions asked by committee members during the public hearing centered on what protection landowners had if a wind farm went belly-up in the 10-year period before it was required to set up a decommissioning fund. Given the 90 percent contractual requirement, that doesn't seem likely. However, there is a small amount of risk involved. Several landowners said it is a chance they'd gladly take. As Jim Young of rural Kimball County noted, “It's less risky than farming.”

In the amendment to LB 1048 that will become the final bill, Sen. Langemeier outlined an unusual method of taxing wind energy facilities that would stretch out the tax benefits over 20 years. The provision exempts wind-related equipment from the state's personal property tax. Instead, it substitutes a “nameplate capacity tax,” applied to each megawatt of wind farm capacity, not each megawatt actually produced. The taxation method seems reasonable…

LB 1048 would reinforce a sense of cooperation, a willingness to work out problems and a welcoming atmosphere for investors and developers. That's Nebraska, and that's a fine outcome.

Finally, a crowd of 45 people gathered at the College of St. Mary on Saturday, the region’s only Catholic girls school, for “Sustainable Faith: An Interfaith Forum on Climate Change and Clean Energy.” I organized the forum on behalf of Repower America so I’m a bit biased here, but I was thrilled by the attendance and by the crowd’s passion. A lot of great networking happened, and we heard from some great speakers, including the Rev. Dr. Chuck Bentjen of Beatrice, director of the ELCA-NE’s Justice and Advocacy Ministries; Fr. Bert Thelen, S.J. from Omaha’s Creighton University; the Rev. Dr. Ken Moore of Lincoln, the regional minister for the Disciples of Christ and board president of Nebraska Interfaith Power and Light; and Deacon Betsy Blake Bennett of Grand Island and Hastings, an Episcopal minister and philosophy professor. We watched the documentaries “Coal Country” and “Preaching for the Planet,” and talked about what we can do to use our voices of faith to pass this legislation and save lives. It was a great event and hopefully just the start of a lot more to come in Omaha, Lincoln, and beyond. If you're interested in PDFs of the conference handouts, please e-mail sustainablefaith@yahoo.com.

Ben Nelson – are you listening?

There's more...

Although the big energy and climate news earlier this week was the Pentagon’s decision to classify global warming as a “destabilizing force,” the big story of the past month has been Lisa Murkowski’s Dirty Air Act. You’ve probably heard about this toxic resolution already, but it hasn’t gone away and the need for action is as acute now as at any time over the past month.

The EPA, in response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, has proposed new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Failure to do so, the Court said in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, would constitute a violation of the Clean Air Act, the nation’s flagship pollution control law. Unfortunately, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is trying to block the EPA from following that order.

S.J. Res 26, known as the “Dirty Air Act,” is short and to the point: “Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act… and such rule shall have no force or effect”.

Though the Dirty Air Act has little chance of passing the Senate and no chance of passing the House, it is the opening salvo in this year’s looming energy battle. The rhetoric and grassroots response to this resolution will set the tone for the rest of the year, so it’s important that you contact your Senators today and ask them to oppose this resolution and instead support a new, comprehensive clean energy policy. Coal-fired power plants kill 24,000 American and cause 550,000 asthma attacks each year. Simultaneously opposing clean energy legislation and refusing to let the EPA do its job would not only gut the Clean Air Act, it would also prevent the creation of 2 million new jobs. I’d much rather have 2 million jobs than half a million wheezing kids.

Please, contact your senators today. A partial list of environmental groups, faith groups, and other organizations opposing this bill is below the jump, as well as information on which Democrats are co-sponsors and which Republicans aren't.

There's more...