Murkowski vs. EPA, Public Sector Unions and Ozone Rules
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) leads the opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
For the first time in U.S. history, there are more union employees working for the government than for private-sector employers.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposes stricter new air quality regulations for ground-level ozone.
Listen to LibertyWeek, the CEI podcast, here.
1. CONGRESS
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) leads the opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
CEI Expert Available to Comment: Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis on the importance of Murkowski’s resolution:
“…the resolution is a referendum on the propriety of EPA taking control of the economy without so much as a by-your-leave from the people’s elected representatives. The Murkowski resolution vetoes the endangerment finding’s regulatory force and legal effect, not its intellectual content. EPA’s endangerment finding…would launch an era of runaway regulation without representation. The Murkowski resolution is a gutsy action to safeguard the economy, government’s accountability to the people, and the separation of powers under the Constitution.”
2. BUSINESS
For the first time in U.S. history, there are more union employees working for the government than for private-sector employers.
CEI Expert Available to Comment: Editorial Director Ivan Osorio on what this means for the size and scope of government:
“For the cause of limiting the size of government, the implications of this development are ominous. Because they depend on the growth of government to increase their membership over the long term, government employee unions function as a permanent lobby for bigger government — one that is organized, motivated and well funded.”
3. ENVIRONMENT
The Environmental Protection Agency proposes stricter new air quality regulations for ground-level ozone.
CEI Experts Available to Comment: Adjunct Fellow Michael Fumento of the slanted science in the ozone debate:
“There’s more than number game-playing going on, though. The statistical studies ozone alarmists use measure ozone increases over eight hours. But this ‘makes no biological sense’ says Michael Honeycutt, a toxicologist with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. ‘Most people are indoors for 90% of the time.’ A one-hour measurement would be more sensible, he says. But those measurements are the least likely to show harm—and thus be least useful to the alarmists.”
Listen to LibertyWeek, the CEI podcast, here.
