Attack On EPA and Clean Air Act

I've been waiting to post these until I saw what the new conservative House would do. Falling right in line with their corporate sponsors...

This is a big post because I'm tying lots of stuff together to give you the comprehensive, timeline view. Sorry, but I ask you to bear with me - I'll try to quote as little as possible from each source and leave it to you to read them in their entirety as you have time. Our clean air and water is at stake.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... -regs.html
On Eve of New Climate Regs, A Primer on the Federal Greenhouse Gas Regime: Part I
by Eli Kintisch on 29 December 2010

For 2 years industry officials, states, and environmentalists have had 2 January 2011 circled on their calendars. That's the date greenhouse gases officially become regulated pollutants under the Clean Air Act—a direct result of a 2007 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under that law. But those dates could change—or the deadlines extended indefinitely if Congress decides to intervene. Legal efforts, which ScienceInsider will tackle tomorrow, could also throw a monkey wrench in the works.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... rimer.html
On Eve of New Climate Regs, A Primer, Part II: Lawsuits
by Eli Kintisch on 30 December 2010

Yesterday ScienceInsider went through the implications of new federal rules on greenhouse gases for industries which pollute the air with these pollutants. But legal challenges could complicate an already complex landscape for the rules.

It's worth noting that some power companies are not only staying out of court but defending the EPA regime. Earlier this month, west coast utility Pacific Gas and Electric and seven other big power companies wrote in support of the new rules: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... %3Darticle

Now, a month and a half later, the Republicans are right on track.
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-18 ... -your-air-
GOP would rather shut down the government than protect your air and water
by Jess Zimmerman
18 Feb 2011

Rather than propose their environment-killing provisions individually, Republicans are sticking them in as amendments on spending legislation. Among the amendments, which fill hundreds of pages, are ones that would block the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting hazardous pollutants at power plants, from studying whether the farm herbicide atrazine has health hazards and from tightening rules on toxic coal ash. Many of the amendments would strip the agency of funds to carry out pollution restrictions that industries have fought. Some of the amendments' goals, according to Mother Jones:

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011 ... -continues
GOP "Carpet Bombing" of Environmental Protection Continues
— By Jaeah Lee
Feb. 17, 2011

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-16 ... o-butt-out
New poll: The public trusts EPA, loves the Clean Air Act, and wants Congress to butt out
by David Roberts
16 Feb 2011

As everyone knows by now, Republicans have launched a massive, coordinated assault on EPA, attempting to block its greenhouse gas regulations, www.grist.org/article/2011-01-11-the-dan...in-epa-climate-rules its air and water regulations, www.grist.org/article/series/2010-08-20-...-new-epa-regulations and in some cases its very existence. motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/newts-call-...so-popular-after-all

But if we can collectively pull our heads out of the Beltway's ass and take in a wider view of the country, it quickly becomes clear that the Republican attack on EPA is radically unpopular with voters across parties and demographics. The top line is this: The public overwhelmingly supports EPA in updating Clean Air Act standards and overwhelmingly opposes congressional efforts to block EPA. When it comes to clean air, the public trusts EPA far more than Congress.

Yet another key fact: The public does not distinguish greenhouse gas standards from other air quality standards. When asked about four specific regulations, CO2 standards were just as popular (77 percent support) as smog limits, even a hair more popular than vehicle fuel efficiency standards. Crucially, there was majority support in both parties for all four standards:

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-16 ... an-air-act
Let’s keep the ‘clean’ in the Clean Air Act
by Jay Inslee
16 Feb 2011

Hundreds of thousands of children face the severe health risks associated with air and water pollution. That is why Congress first adopted the Clean Air Act under President Richard Nixon, and, in the 40 years since its enactment, air pollution has been reduced by 60 percent, while our economy has grown by more than 200 percent. In its first 20 years, the Clean Air Act has prevented an estimated 843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million cases of respiratory illness among children, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 21,000 cases of heart disease and 200,000 premature deaths. Further, studies show that the benefits of Clean Air rules to the American people outweigh any costs by 30 to one. www.epa.gov/40th/achieve.html

But the hearing last week wasn't about how the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress could better protect children. Instead it was about Republican proposals to gut the Clean Air Act, to hamstring the EPA, and write Big Polluters a blank check. Some folks wrote about it, but the effort by Republicans to replace successful and needed legislation with their Dirty Air Act has largely slipped beneath the mainstream media. It is clear, however, that Republicans do not intend to modify the act, revise it, or improve it -- they intend to eviscerate it.

It deserves such approbation because it flies in the face of something we all desire -- to breathe clean air.

Even more ridiculous and self-defeating, Newt Gingrich is calling for abolishing the EPA and replacing it with "something else"...that sounds suspiciously like the EPA, but with ill-defined contributions from things like "incentives" (eg paying industry to clean up their messes - more taxpayer dollars going the wrong way) and "creativity" (whatever the hell that means).
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/new ... -after-all
Newt's Unpopular Anti-EPA Crusade
— By Kate Sheppard
| Wed Feb. 2, 2011

Newt Gingrich has made abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency a central theme in what many believe to be the early days of a presidential bid. He first referenced the idea in a speech last week in Iowa, then elaborated on the plan in an email to his supporters. motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/gingrich-wa...b-killing-nature-epa But if Gingrich is serious about the White House, he may went to throttle back on the EPA bashing. Doing away with the EPA is pretty unpopular with Americans—even with Republicans, according to a poll released Wednesday. switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/2-2%2...0Survey%20Report.pdf

The poll was conducted by Opinion Research Center International and commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Health Care Without Harm. It found that 67 percent of Americans—including 61 percent of Republicans—opposed the idea of abolishing the agency.

The poll also asked about efforts to strip the EPA's authority to act on greenhouse gases, the more realistic threat to the agency's mission right now, as both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have floated plans that would strip that authority to varying degrees. According to the poll, 77 percent of Americans oppose efforts to restrict the EPA's efforts on air pollution, including 61 percent of Republicans. "Democrats, Republicans, and Independents want politicians to protect the health of children and adults rather than protecting polluters," said Pete Altman, climate campaign director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/gin ... nature-epa
Gingrich Warns Of "Job-Killing Nature of the EPA"
— By Kate Sheppard
| Fri Jan. 28, 2011

...potential GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich outlined on Friday his plans to eliminate the EPA in an email to supporters. The former House speaker warns of the "job-killing nature of the EPA" and calls on his fans to "get the word out." He goes on to write: The EPA should therefore be replaced with a new and improved agency dedicated to bringing together science, technology, entrepreneurs, incentives, and local creativity to create a cleaner environment with a stronger economy that generates more American jobs and more American energy.

CriticalBill wrote: Can you give us the bottom line summary and what your opinion is? I appreciate the time you always take to make a comprehensive post, but guys llike me often have a short attension span for multiple articles in a single post.

Bottom line is the Republicans are trying to gut the EPA, keep it from regulating pollution, and greenhouse gases in particular, and, in essence, revoke the Clean Air Act despite the consistently strong support from the American public for the EPA and regulations stemming from the Clean Air Act. And the Dems aren't much better, sitting on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs. This is what industry wants, and our corrupt politicians are giving it to them.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01
Oil & Gas

This industry, which includes multinational and independent oil and gas producers and refiners, natural gas pipeline companies, gasoline service stations and fuel oil dealers, has long enjoyed a history of strong influence in Washington. Individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02 ... ateau.html
Check out the top contributor: Chamber of Commerce - $132M in donations

http://www.desmogblog.com/us-chamber-la ... -opponents
U.S. Chamber Launches Covert Attacks on Their Political Opponents
11 Feb 2011

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been on the forefront of lobbying against legislation to control greenhouse gas emissions or legislation that would have spurred investment into alternatives to oil. As DeSmogBlog reporters detailed in the past, the Chamber helped parrot GOP talking points www.desmogblog.com/chamber-commerce-stud...ng-points-carbon-cap regarding cap and trade, they poured millions of dollars www.desmogblog.com/big-polluters-big-ad-...clean-energy-efforts into campaign ads attacking climate legislation, and held meetings with Republican Senators www.desmogblog.com/senators-meet-pollute...conomy%E2%80%99-bill to insure that climate change legislation wouldn’t pass the Senate last year.

As this story continues to develop and more emails are released, be prepared to find environmental groups being attacked as well. The US Chamber’s member corporations have a lot to lose if Americans begin waking up to the truth about climate change

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/oil&gas_tools.php
'Fueling Washington' Series Tools

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/oil&gas.php
Fueling Washington: How Oil Money Drives Politics

No, it's build-up is affecting the wildlife downstream. Quickly pre-rinse or scrape your dishes and use Method Smarty Dish Tablets (one of the best that don't have phosphate according to Consumer Reports). Sorry TM!

pineinthegrass wrote: I haven't really studied this decision as much as I should, but must admit that the 2007 Supreme Court decision declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant and forcing the EPA to control it surprised me. Is there a precedent for finding something essential to life, and something we all emit just by exhaling, to be called a pollutant? And it was another one of those 5-4 decisions which I'm really finding disturbing, no matter which way they go. It just shows the Supreme Court decisions have been pretty much predetermined due to politics, except for one rogue in Kennedy. I wish all 9 justices were more independent like Kennedy, not that they'd have to vote the same way. The Supreme Court is no longer an independent branch, IMO, and hasn't been in some time.

Arsenic and iron are two metals that are necessary for normal metabolic functions, but are toxic in high concentrations. The use of each in industry is regulated by the EPA. Too much CO2 isn't a pollutant in the normal sense of the word (ie, it doesn't affect our bodies directly, unless you put a bag over your head - then see how benign CO2 is!), but in higher concentrations than have been seen in the last 11,000 years, will cause dramatic climate changes, in turn causing detrimental effects on plant and animal life. Regulating the metals I mentioned is done to make sure that the public isn't unwittingly exposed to higher risks of disease and health burden; CO2 increasing will have those same effects, but indirectly on us through the environment as opposed to directly in our bodies like the metals.

I agree that the Supreme Court has become too politicized, and I see that as a symptom of the times. They accepted a case from the states calling for the EPA to regulate CO2 since Congress wouldn't, and ruled in favor. It should be something handled by our legislative branch, but they've been stalling and pandering to corporate interests for decades. Isn't that why we have a judicial branch - to provide checks and balances of power?

BTW, I'm not even arguing here about CO2. I think it does contribute to warming. But putting it under the EPA is a joke to me because they are a political entity too. And there is no way they can do enough about it anyway, because other nations (like China and India), beyond their jurisdiction, are now becoming as big of contributors as us.

If not under the EPA, and keeping in line with the Clean Air Act legislation, then where should it fall? So because China and India are going to keep polluting, that's our excuse to continue as well? I don't buy that. Getting off oil is going to make our energy prices more stable in the long run and improve our national security - two good enough reasons all in their own right. And the EPA becoming politicized is a symptom of the times as well that I deplore - it should be cut and dried based on the data and without political interference.

And SC, you are quoting more and more from left wing websites, just as the conservatives here quote from NewsMax or WorldNetDaily. To me, both are very biased, and I'd say Fox News (at least the news they show on TV) or MSNBC, while biased in their own way, are still more moderate than either. Fine if you want to do that for balance here or whatever, but I know info from those sites will probably be biased, and I have to waste more time checking out what they say than if the information came from a more neutral source.

A good bit of the political stuff I posted in the WI thread and Planned Parenthood thread came from the more liberally biased sites in order to provide a different point of view, but I deliberately did not include them in this thread for that reason. I would argue that Science is moderate (but with an easily observed, soft left-leaning bias), MotherJones is an equal-opportunity BS detector, Grist and DeSmogBlog is all environmental so you know where their biases stand, and Open Secrets is as unbiased as you can get. Absolutely I expect no one to take my word, or any of my sources as gospel - question everything, accept nothing at face value, remain skeptical, but keep an open mind and be willing to accept that this info may flip your beliefs, or it may reinforce them, but remove what assumptions you can prior so you can make the best informed judgement. And remember to treat your own sources the same as mine - it's what I do with others. Ask critical questions like what agenda is there, and does this impact my own held views, if so by how much? The reason I have to use sites like Grist and DeSmogBlog is because mainstream news is ignoring the climate threat, and when they do write about it, it's to report something sensational or controversial for ratings, not to provide deeper understanding or urgency that this is a valid issue to deal with.
Just so you don't have to spend time looking them up:
http://motherjones.com/about
http://www.grist.org/about
http://www.desmogblog.com/about_us
http://www.opensecrets.org/about/tour.php

Regarding some of the data you posted here. I was really suprised about the graphs you showed from the "opinion poll" because I didn't expect Rebublicans to of voted as they showed in the poll. I'd never heard of that poll before (Greenberg Quinlan Rosner), so I looked it up. Here is one article I found...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Greenberg

Stanley Bernard Greenberg (born May 10, 1945) is a leading Democratic pollster and political strategist who has advised the campaigns of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry.......

A political scientist who received his Bachelor's Degree from Miami University and his Ph.D. from Harvard, Greenberg spent a decade teaching at Yale University before becoming a political consultant. His 1985 study of Reagan Democrats in Macomb County, Michigan became a classic of progressive political strategy, and the basis for his continuing argument that Democrats must actively work to present themselves as populists advocating the expansion of opportunity for the middle class. As the pollster for Clinton in 1992, Greenberg was a major figure in the famed campaign "war room" (and hence the documentary film of the same name).

He is the CEO of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a polling and consulting firm, and co-founder (with James Carville and Bob Shrum) of Democracy Corps, a non-profit organization which produces left-leaning political strategy.

Even if we assume they counted the numbers correctly for their poll, just this guy's background tells me this poll was probably taken in a very biased manner (and we know the way you word a poll means everything). Even though your article from a left wing source suggests they adjusted the results in ways to be fair, I still have to question that poll. If that guy were a judge, he'd have to recuse himself for sure.

Do you really accept that poll, from basically a political operative, as fact? I don't accept it at face value, unless I can find something from a more neutral source to support it. I haven't so far. But you are a great researcher, so please let me know what you find!

pine, you should know me better than that to know I don't accept polls at face value - it's why I cited 2 of 'em in my post so you take an "average" and figure that the true answer lies somewhere in the middle! :thumbsup: Yes, the two polls are from organizations that have a vested interest in keeping the EPA strong so keep that in mind (sorry, but I'm not going to point out a fact like that when posting them, it's obvious to me and I assume that it would be obvious to everyone else. I also couldn't find a more neutral source that asked the public about the EPA, or I would've cited it instead.). But as to this one that you researched, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner wasn't the only firm involved - they were balanced by this group: http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press ... -poll.html

Methodology: The survey was conducted by polling firms Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Ayres, McHenry and Associates. Their firms conducted a national survey of 1021 likely voters reached by both landline and cell phone between February 7and14, 2011. The margin of error for the full sample is 3.1 percent. Margin of error for a half-sample is 4.4 percent.

About Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner is a global leader in public opinion research and strategic consulting. GQR helps elect progressive candidates in the U.S. and around the world, helps NGOs advance their issues, and helps companies understand their reputations and key audiences.

About Ayres, McHenry & Associates
Ayres, McHenry and Associates is a national public opinion and public affairs research firm, providing research and strategic advice for corporations, associations, and Republican candidates for public office. The firm's public work helps craft creative conservative political messages for the 21st century.

Here's the poll so you can read the questions for yourself and decide how they bias the answers: http://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents ... survey.pdf

Here's the other poll commissioned by the National Resources Defense Council: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltm ... Report.pdf

Thanks for your questions and insights - I appreciate it! More tomorrow...