1. The Environmental Protection Agency, having been told by the Supreme Court that its authority under the Clean Air Act to determine what forms of air pollution threaten public health – and regulate them accordingly – includes the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions on public health, proposes to move ahead to limit GHG emissions, since the science linking GHG to warming and warming to harms to health is not in legitimate dispute.
2. Lisa Murkowski (R-Pipeline) offers a “resolution of disapproval,” under which the Congress can veto regulatory actions. Since EPA hasn’t proposed specific regulations, in effect the resolution constitutes a finding that GHG emissions don’t endanger health.
Yes, there are better ways to regulate GHG emissions than Clean Air Act-style regulations. Carbon taxation is obviously better, as are some but not all versions of cap-and-trade. But the Republicans are against those, too. They’re voting to let the planet fry.
Under no sane use of language can that position be called “conservative.” It’s an appalling radical gamble that some unknown mechanism will turn out to mitigate the otherwise straightforward conclusion that if we keep raising the fraction of incident solar energy that is retained in the atmosphere rather than re-radiated something very bad will eventually happen.
Every time Democratic officeholders make me wonder why I remain a Democrat, Republican officeholders remind me. Thanks, I guess.