Coal State Dems Question EPA Climate Regs

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The revolt against the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions intensified on Friday, as eight coal-state Democratic senators sent a letter to administrator Lisa Jackson detailing “serious economic and energy security concerns” with potential regulations.

“Ill-timed or imprudent regulation” of emissions “may squander critical opportunities for our nation, impeding the investment necessary to create jobs and position our nation to develop its own clean energy,” wrote the group, which was led by Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) and joined by Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Robert Casey (Penn.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Carl Levin (Mich.). 

The senators stopped short of endorsing a plan offered by Republican Lisa Murkowski and backed by several Democrats that would block the EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide. But they outlined a series of questions making clear that when it comes to Murkowski’s measure, their votes are still in play. Among their concerns were whether Congress would be able to review the EPA’s carbon regulations and how the agency would assess the “direct and indirect cost implications” of its new rules. The group also asked what impact Murkowski’s measure would have on the EPA’s ability to regulate and on the agency’s broader work monitoring the impacts of climate change.

Murkowski’s measure already has 40 cosponsors, including Democrats Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (La.). Jim Webb (Va.) has also expressed support for the measure, which requires only 51 votes to pass. Murkowski’s bill is expected to go to a vote next month. If it passes, both the House and President Barack Obama would likely reject it. But it would deal yet another political blow to Senate Democrats’ wider climate agenda.

 

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate