N.Y. Times, Washington Post Argue Against EPA Restrictions

The New York Times and the Washington Post, in editorials published today, opposed efforts by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to limit EPA's power to restrict GHG emissions.

The Times defended the Obama administration and EPA, calling Murkowski's Senate resolution "mischievous and potentially destructive." The editorial cautioned that Murkowski's proposal would "repudiate years of work by America's most reputable scientists and public health experts. It would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from sources like refineries and power plants in the future. And it would send a discouraging message to a federal agency that appears to take its regulatory duties seriously, unlike the Minerals Management Service, which failed to police the oil industry."

The Post struck a more sanguine note, agreeing with Murkowski's stance that Congress should design a more efficient emissions-reduction policy. The Post wrote that the "next logical step is to insist that Congress pass a bill that establishes a price on carbon and rebates the proceeds to consumers, which would be cheaper and more predictable than EPA regulation alone. Instead, Ms. Murkowski favors eliminating Plan B--EPA regulation--before it's clear that Plan A--passing a serious climate bill--will proceed. Plan B isn't the best solution; that's why it's Plan B. But, if designed carefully, it would at least begin to scale back America's greenhouse-gas emissions, a job that it is critical to start as soon as possible. And it would keep pressure on lawmakers to pass climate legislation."