U.S. Army Captain Michael Kelvington, commander of the Battle company, 1-508 Parachute Infantry battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, bows next to remains of Gulam Dostager, a member of Afghan Local Police who was killed in the blast of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) during the joint Tor Janda (Black Flag in Pashtu) operation, in Zahri district of Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan May 25, 2012.  REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov  (AFGHANISTAN - Tags: MILITARY CIVIL UNREST CONFLICT TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Members of the U.S. Navy Blue Angels fly over the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan as part of the 25th annual Fleet Week celebration in New York, May 23, 2012.  REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz (UNITED STATES - Tags: MILITARY ANNIVERSARY TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Fleet Week

The U.S. Navy takes Manhattan for a week.  Slideshow 

Photo

The SpaceX mission

A privately owned unmanned rocket blasts off on a mission to be the first commercial flight to the International Space Station.  Slideshow 

Senate defeats move to stop EPA CO2 regulation

WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:42pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Thursday killed legislation that would have stripped the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from large factories, electric power companies and automobiles.

The defeat of the Republican-inspired measure knocked down the most serious legislative challenge the EPA faced on regulating planet-warming gases, although it may have to contend with lawsuits from companies and industry groups.

In a procedural move, the Senate voted 53-47 to block the bill offered by Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski.

"We managed to avoid taking a big step backwards, and now it's time to come together and focus on creating clean energy jobs and moving into an energy independent future," EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said.

The defeat of the bill could give new life to the effort in Congress to pass a broad energy and climate legislation, a top goal of President Barack Obama's even before the BP Plc oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

That is because many heavy industry companies, like power utilities and steel and cement makers, prefer that Congress craft a plan to cut emissions over facing likely tougher rules issued by the EPA.

"Today's vote is yet another reminder of the urgent need to pass legislation that would help America transition to a 21st century clean energy economy that would create jobs, strengthen our national security, and protect our environment for our children," Obama said in a statement.

Had Murkowski's move succeeded, it would have been another setback in the global climate change fight before the next U.N. talks in Mexico later this year.

Obama has always said he prefers that Congress deals with climate, but that the EPA would act if a bill failed.

In fact, the EPA last month finalized rules that would require large power utilities, manufacturers and oil refineries to get permits to emit greenhouse gases starting next year. In addition, it has issued rules on requiring autos to use less gasoline and diesel fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

PRE-EMPTING EPA

The comprehensive climate bill unveiled last month by Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, and Joe Lieberman, an independent, would pre-empt greenhouse gas regulation by the EPA, a move aimed at gaining support from lawmakers from energy states.

But passing a climate bill in the Senate, which would require 60 votes rather than the simple majority that Murkowski's resolution required, faces an uphill battle amid opposition from many lawmakers from oil and coal states.

Still, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he wants a climate bill to move to the Senate floor in coming weeks.

Reid met on Thursday with Democratic Senate leaders on clean energy. "There are a variety of opinions within our caucus about how to develop a bipartisan bill that can gain the necessary support, but there is also resolve to move forward with this effort," he said in a release.

Environmentalists applauded the Senate vote. "Senators today defeated a plan that would have shielded oil companies and other corporations from government oversight, letting those companies increase carbon pollution and America's dependency on oil," said Joseph Mendelson, director of global warming policy at the National Wildlife Federation.

The EPA is expected to release next week an economic analysis of the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill. If, as expected, it shows that carbon controls would only raise consumer costs slightly, it could boost Senate support for the bill.

(Additional reporting by Donna Smith, Tom Ferraro and Steve Holland; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (15)
bck555 wrote:
Attempts to dictate or mandate science and natural processes through legistation are misguided, arrogant, and only done with political intent. CO2 is not a “legislatable” component of our surroundings. Attempts to artifically change the natural atmospheric constitutes are asinine. The recent volcano emissions of CO2 emissions and are a much larger changes in a few days to the Earth’s atmospheric makeup than man could create in decades, and those changes were neligible at best.

Admit the real reasons for attempting to “contol” the climate. It is only to “control” man’s behavior for social purposes and therefore increase the role of government in everyone’s lives. Wake up America! Your country is being confiscated and hijacked by elected Democrates who have become rulers through the new Democratic Socialist Party. This new party is not what the American people voted into office.

Jun 11, 2010 2:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Gen wrote:
This pushes more jobs to China where there is very little in real pollution standards. In effect this will make the problem worst and just move the problem to a country that will not keep the standards we currently have here now.

The second big problem is the idea of “Green Jobs”. This is just smoke and mirrors. “Green Jobs” in effect means we are going to tax/raise fees on Americans to creat jobs that will go to China.

The third problem is the idea of “Cap and Trade”. Once speculators get a hold of carbon credits then Wall St will have another tool to rip off the US consumer.

Great plan for China …bad plan for the future of America

Jun 11, 2010 6:00am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mike_s1 wrote:
Funny, those were the same arguements made by the Big Three against tailpipe emmissions…won’t work, too expensive, will cost jobs. But we somehow got clean air, didn’t lose jobs, and people still bought just as many of those ‘much more expensive’ cars with emmissions controls.

China is already the world leader in alternate energy (#1 in solar, #2 in wind) and will eat our lunch if we have no energy plan. Every barrel of foreign oil is cash out…money alternate energy users can reinvest within. Why pay for an army in the Persian Gulf if they no longer have a strategic asset?

Still trying to figure out when we all became socialist. I feel pretty much the same way I did last year…and the year before…haven’t had anything confiscated from me. Must be a top secret economic subversion. But I’ll stop driving on those federally funded roadways just in case. And I don’t want that FDIC watching my money any more…I can trust those big corporations to keep my air and water clean.

Jun 11, 2010 9:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.