What to Make of the Murkowski Amendment

Senator Lisa Murkowski's rider on a bill related to government debt caused quite a stir last week -- and probably not the kind the Republican from Alaska was hoping for.

A quick recap: The amendment would block the EPA from regulating stationary-source carbon dioxide emissions for one year. (Stationary polluters are the big ones like utilities and factories.) The amendment was so industry-friendly it almost seemed that Murkowski had read the CEOs' minds -- until it turned out that lobbyists had actually penned the proposal.

Should we just laugh this off as a dirty industry up to its same old dirty tricks?

I don't think so. It's actually a bit more sinister than that.

After all, the EPA carved out a space for itself to regulate CO2 emissions because cap-and-trade legislation is stalled in the Senate. EPA action is Plan B. And having thus far blocked Plan A -- the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill -- fossil fuel sweethearts in the Senate are now moving to block Plan B. What's really sad is that Murkowski was once considered a moderate on climate issues.

And the Alaska Republican's arsenal goes beyond her amendment. Her spokesman told Mother Jones that she may also resort to an arcane procedural maneuver to block EPA regulation outright. Murkowski may prevail in the Senate, but her chances of having that move okayed by the House and the president are slim to none.

But the polluters' arsenal goes beyond Murkowski. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is considering suing the EPA directly to block emissions regulation.

Murkowski's amendment, then, is best seen as a flare signaling the lengths to which industry groups will go to save a dime at the expense of the future.