On June 10th, we all celebrated the defeat of the Murkowski resolution, which would have gutted the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide pollution. Why we needed to defeat Murkowski was explained well by NRDC Action Fund Executive Director, Peter Lehner, who wrote the following prior to the vote:

EPA’s proactive lead in greenhouse gas regulation is a critical aspect of the effort to reduce our rampant, destabilizing, and destructive dependence on foreign and offshore oil. While the endangerment finding does not, in itself, prescribe regulations, it provides the legal basis for critical standards: EPA’s proposed CAFE efficiency standard for light-duty vehicles is projected to save over 455 million barrels per year, and an anticipated standard for heavy-duty vehicles will save billions more. Stripping EPA of its authority to implement these protections would increase our nation’s dependence on oil and send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas. We cannot afford this big step backward, especially as we watch more oil gush into the Gulf each day.

In the end, the Senate didn’t take that "big step backward" on June 10th, as the Murkowski resolution failed by a 47-53 vote.   Many of us probably figured that was the end of this issue, and that the Senate would now move on to passing comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation.  Unfortunately, as is often the case in Washington, DC, it isn’t that simple (let alone logical).

Today, clean air and public health are once again under an assault that constitutes, essentially, "Murkowski Part II."  The Wall Street Journal reported on June 22:

As U.S. Senate lawmakers attempt to determine the fate of energy legislation, an influential Democrat is boosting efforts to suspend a controversial greenhouse-gas rule passed earlier this year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

After introducing a bill to impose a two-year halt on the new EPA rule, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from coal-rich West Virginia, is now working to round up supporters for his legislation.

It should go without saying that this is completely unacceptable.  As we all know, the public was outraged at Senator Murkowski’s Big Oil Bailout bill.  They understood that this moved the country backward, not forward, and that it was exactly the wrong way to go given the energy and environmental challenges we face.  Through all our efforts, our phone calls and emails (and blog posts and tweets, etc.), we helped to kill Murkowski Part I.  Now, unfortunately, Sen. Jay Rockefeller is pushing Murkowski Part II, yet there’s far less attention being paid to this effort than to the Murkowski’s EPA Castration Resolution Part I.   People have a lot of other things on their minds, and they thought this fight was over back in June.  But, once they find out that this effort is baaaaack, like a monster in a cheesy horror movie, they are not going to respond positively.  

Of course, why would the public – which overwhelmingly supports taking action to promote clean energy and deal with climate change - ever respond positively to a proposal aimed at throwing away one of our key tools to cut pollution and protect public health?  And why would they respond positively now of all times, as oil continues to spew into the Gulf of Mexico, as record heat waves scorch the United States, and as climate science is strengthened every day that goes by?  Last but not least, why would they support an effort to protect the corporate polluters and not all of us who are being hurt by that pollution?

The bottom line is simple: instead of wasting its time on legislation that will only move the country backwards – towards dirty energy forever - the Senate should be busy passing a bill that moves the country forward towards a bright future of green energy, clean tech jobs, energy security and climate protection.   Once our Senators hear that message loud and clear from all of us, Rockefeller’s Murkowski Part II will be rejected by the Senate, just as Murkowski Part I was before it.

This paragraph from NBC's Mark Murray might be the funniest thing I've seen all week. H/T 538's Twitter stream:

Indeed, the poll shows that only 6 percent have a favorable rating of BP. In the history of the NBC News/Journal poll, Saddam Hussein (3 percent), Fidel Castro (3 percent) and Yasser Arafat (4 percent) have had lower favorable scores, and O.J. Simpson (11 percent) and tobacco-maker Philip Morris (15 percent) have had higher ratings.

BTW, this is somewhat old news, but I wanted to make sure you saw that the always-reliable Rep. Steve King (R-IA) followed up his Obama-is-a-racist comments with a defense of BP, telling Laura Ingraham, "I think Joe Barton was spot-on when he called it a shakedown." So that's Reps. Barton, King, Bachman, Fleming, Nunes, the 100 members of the [House] Republican Study Committee, Sen. Cornyn, Senate candidate Paul, and commentator Limbaugh all claiming that BP shouldn't be held accountable for its mess. When the defenses are coming from that many corners, you know Rahm Emanuel was right to point out that this is the Republican governing philosophy, and the McConnells and Murkowskis lose credibility when they feign anger at the accusation.

If nothing else, the Republican defense of BP should put to rest criticism of Democrats as "the Mommy Party." It's the progressives, not the conservatives, who are looking at BP and saying, "Who do you think I am, your mother? Clean up this mess!"

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...