Yesterday, the New York Times wrote an editorial that lambasted Lisa Murkowski. It seems that The Times is quite incensed with our Senator’s influence on the climate change debate.

They want her to roll over and play dead…

Well, that ain’t gonna happen.

Lisa is standing up for Alaska. And, whether The Times knows it or not, she’s standing up for the nation.

Here’s some background info: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently ruled that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” (never mind the fact that CO2 is the basis for all plant life, not a pollutant). By this decision, the EPA gave themselves the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

How did the EPA get away with this? Well, they perverted the meaning of the, Clean Air Act which originally gave the EPA power to regulate actual “pollutants.” (In 1990 the Act was updated to stop acid rain).

It worked. Since 1990, the incidence of acid rain has dramatically fallen.

Enter: Obama. The president religiously believes that carbon dioxide is to blame for the vast majority (if not all) of global warming.

From the start, Obama has pushed Congress to pass a Cap and Trade bill that would cut greenhouse emissions – and economic prosperity (For further information on the devastating costs of cap-and-trade, see Cost of AB 32 on California Small Businesses) .
.
The Senate, however, has refused to bow to President Obama’s demands.

So, in an effort to force their hand, the president had the EPA redefine carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.” This definition change gives him the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (the president is in charge of the EPA) .

So much for checks and balances…

At first, the EPA will only regulate large industrial plants -- those plants that emit more than 25,000 tons of CO2 per year (if you wonder where they got that arbitrary number… well, you’re not alone).

This opens up a Pandora’s box of litigation.

Here’s an example. There are two industrial plants: one emits 25,000 tons of CO2 per year; the other, emits 24,750 tons per year. Under the new EPA rules the first plant would have to pay an exorbitant fee. The second plant gets off scott free.

Of course, the plant that emits more than 25,000 will sue the EPA, because the 25,000 ton level is an arbitrary number that produces grossly unfair results.

But wait -- there’s even more lawsuits on the horizon…

Environmentalists will also sue the EPA because they want to regulate all plants that emit over 250 tons per year (see: massive taxes).

These are just the litigation nightmares. The economic scenario is just as bleak.

As Congresswomen Valazquez said, “The Clean Air Act… was not written with the complexities of climate change in mind. The reforms needed are sweeping, and Congress must craft a policy that takes small business needs into account.”

Congressman Collin Peterson of Minnesota agreed,
saying that, “With or without Congressional action, EPA will be free to regulate greenhouse gases, resulting in one of the largest and most bureaucratic nightmares that the U.S. economy and Americans have ever seen… Let me be clear, this is not a responsibility we want to leave in the hands of EPA.”

By the way -- they’re both Democrats.

And, they’re not the only Dems who oppose Obama’s EPA move. Rep Dingell of Massachusetts,
and Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, have both expressed disgust over the EPA ruling.

In fact, even the EPA seems to oppose the EPA’s new powers (which shows how convoluted this whole process is). EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, stated, "I have never believed and this agency has never believed that setting a national ambient air quality standard for greenhouse gases was advisable.”

So, no one really wants the EPA in charge.

Enter: Lisa. She realizes the grave consequences of EPA regulation. And she (gasp) has the impudence to do something about it (such nerve…).

Tomorrow, January 20, Lisa is expected to announce one of two things: She may introduce an amendment that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses (in other words, the EPA could no longer redefine the meaning of the Clean Air Act).

Or, Lisa will introduce a “resolution of disapproval” that will overturn the EPA’s ruling that greenhouse gasses cause global warming.

Either way, Lisa is working to slow the president’s March-to-the-Economic-Sea.
And for that The New York Times hates Lisa.

What a compliment.