Sen. Murkowski should resist EPA expansion
Although the Post-Gazette Editorial Board bemoans Sen. Lisa Murkowski's resolution to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions ("Hollow Victory," June 13), it is the PG's reaction to this sensible effort that is truly dismaying.
Leaving aside the debate over climate science for a moment, the enormous ramifications of regulating emissions should entail a fair and open discussion among America's elected representatives, not decrees from unelected, self-aggrandizing bureaucrats.
Such a discussion has been occurring and it has not been favorable toward the EPA's aims. Cap-and-trade legislation that would have imposed similar regulations barely passed the heavily Democratic House of Representatives last year and never came up for a vote in the Senate, even with a filibuster-proof majority.
Perhaps the PG's outrage over Sen. Murkowski's resolution is understandable in the context of the larger debate over climate change. Recent developments in the debate have not been kind to global warming advocates, with revelations about the unscrupulousness of some among them and the belated recognition of genuine scientific dissent on the matter. Naturally, to implement their agenda, more radical measures are needed, such as vastly expanding the EPA's power.
However, the American people have made clear that they are deeply skeptical of climate change and highly unwilling to bear the onerous economic burdens of carbon dioxide regulation. To impose such far-reaching restrictions by bureaucratic fiat, even with more conclusive scientific support, would be an affront to representative government.
KEVIN BAIRD
Springdale
Leaving aside the debate over climate science for a moment, the enormous ramifications of regulating emissions should entail a fair and open discussion among America's elected representatives, not decrees from unelected, self-aggrandizing bureaucrats.
Such a discussion has been occurring and it has not been favorable toward the EPA's aims. Cap-and-trade legislation that would have imposed similar regulations barely passed the heavily Democratic House of Representatives last year and never came up for a vote in the Senate, even with a filibuster-proof majority.
Perhaps the PG's outrage over Sen. Murkowski's resolution is understandable in the context of the larger debate over climate change. Recent developments in the debate have not been kind to global warming advocates, with revelations about the unscrupulousness of some among them and the belated recognition of genuine scientific dissent on the matter. Naturally, to implement their agenda, more radical measures are needed, such as vastly expanding the EPA's power.
However, the American people have made clear that they are deeply skeptical of climate change and highly unwilling to bear the onerous economic burdens of carbon dioxide regulation. To impose such far-reaching restrictions by bureaucratic fiat, even with more conclusive scientific support, would be an affront to representative government.
KEVIN BAIRD
Springdale