Republicans in the House and Senate are pushing hard for two polluter poison-pill provisions in the payroll tax cut extension bill. Guaranteeing a year-end flood of contributions from the fossil fuel industry, the GOP has attached language to override the Obama administration’s actions on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and air-pollution rules for industrial boilers, known as the Boiler MACT rules. In a striking but incomplete victory for the climate movement, the Obama administration has extended the review of the Keystone XL pipeline until 2013. Fighting intense polluter lobbyist pressure, EPA has announced watered-down Boiler MACT rules that exempt 99 percent of industrial boilers from having stricter limits on mercury, dioxin, particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, and carbon monoxide.

If passed, these love-letters to the oil and coal industries would be devastating to public health and the environment, risking infant brain damage and poisoned aquifers.

On Fox News Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) admitted the Keystone XL and Boiler MACT poison pills threaten the passage of the payroll bill. He told Wallace that the payroll tax cut extension “obviously” will pass, but claimed Republicans have added these pollution poison pills on a “bipartisan basis“:

But we also need to have something in there that prevents the loss of jobs and something that will create the jobs. And that’s why we inserted Boiler MACT, supported on a bipartisan basis and the Keystone pipeline supported on a bipartisan basis. One would save jobs, one would create jobs right now.

McConnell is technically not lying about the bipartisan support, as there are a handful of Democrats who have cast their lot in with polluter interests instead of people’s health like the Republicans on both issues. However, neither the Keystone nor Boiler MACT poison pills would save or create jobs — studies have found that the economic and societal impact of their increased pollution would far outweigh any short-term benefits of allowing polluters to keep dumping waste into the atmosphere and water without consequence.

President Obama has said unequivocally that he will “reject” any attempt to include the Keystone language in the payroll bill, but has not issued a similar veto threat on Boiler MACT.

Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, which “goes beyond its commonly stated farm dust mission to exempt a variety of situations from Clean Air Act authority,” including particulate pollution from open-pit mining, lead smelters and chemical and industrial facilities.

Republicans are running a shell game based on numerous lies:

– Even though dust related to industrial agriculture can be toxic and dangerous, conservatives like Newt Gingrich mock the threat.

– Even though the Environmental Protection Agency isn’t planning any new regulations, Republicans claim the EPA is trying to issue a new rule.

– Using “farm dust” as cover, Republicans write legislative language to exempt toxic pollution from mining and other industrial activities.

The “farm dust” scam is pernicious and deadly. But it’s a polluter lobbyist’s dream.

by David Roberts, in a Grist cross-post

Political reporter John Broder had a long piece in The New York Times [Thursday] chronicling Obama’s decision to delay a tighter national smog standard. I have no desire to relitigate that fight, but I do want to pluck out one particular bit of Broder’s piece to illustrate a point.

In a recent piece kvetching about media coverage of Solyndra, I said: “Republican talking points are delivered as first-order news. Liberal talking points are wrapped in meta-news about liberals and their talking points.” Let’s look at an example — not the biggest deal in the world, but quite illustrative.

Here’s the 11th paragraph of Broder’s piece:

The standard for ozone was last set in 2008 by the Bush administration at a level of 75 parts per billion, above the range of 60 to 70 recommended by the E.P.A.’s scientific advisory panel at the time, but never enacted. Environmental and public health groups challenged the Bush standard in court, saying it would endanger human health and had been tainted by political interference. Smog levels have declined sharply over the last 40 years, but each incremental improvement comes at a significant cost to business and government.

Look closely at those last two sentences. They contain four assertions:

1. Bush’s ozone standard would harm public health.
2. Bush’s ozone standard was subject to political interference.
3. Smog levels have declined over the last 40 years.
4. Each smog reduction imposes “significant costs” on “business.”

Now let’s re-order them based on how well they are supported by evidence:

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

By Jorge Madrid and Matt Kasper

The modern version of the Clean Air Act turns 21 years old this week, and we have two trillion reasons to celebrate.

The 1990 amendments to the original law were specifically designed to curb four major threats to the health of millions of Americans: acid rain, urban air pollution, toxic air emissions, and stratospheric ozone depletion. The economic benefits of these amendments will reach close to $2 trillion in 2020 while saving millions of lives from premature death over the span of the law.

Marking the occasion with a special event and press conference, U.S. Senators  Tom Carper (D-DE), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Congressman John Dingel (D-MI) joined the former Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy and former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, along with the executive director for the Institute of Clean Air Companies David Foerter,  Chairman of the American Lung Association’s board of directors Dr. Albert Rizzo, and President and Founder of Hunter Panels Manufacturing Alma Garnett.

All of the participants at the event agreed on the need for more bipartisan support to continue protecting public health, while also growing the economy in a sustainable way.

“We’re going to work with Republicans and Democrats to better protect the health of this nation,” said Sen. Cardin, “we can’t do it without government regulations… our economy can’t grow unless our air is clean.”

As longest serving administrator of the EPA, Browner emphasized that the clean air standards helped grow the economy and drive innovation:

“Whenever we set new standards, American innovation and ingenuity rose to the occasion…we created American jobs. We don’t have to choose between clean air standards and jobs. We have to continue fighting for clean air in this country.”

 

Read more

Voting Against Children is Bad for the Political Health of a Member of Congress (MOC):

– by Pete Altman, NRDC, in a repost

Turns out dirty air isn’t just bad for kids’ health – its bad for members of Congress who vote for it.

New polling conducted by Hart Research finds:

In a policy climate that is heavily focused on jobs and economic issues . . .  pollution and clean air standards—especially when framed around public health impacts—are an important and electorally relevant issue for voters in this critical target audience.

The findings are based on an intensive polling program commissioned by the NRDC Action Fund and focusing on three members of Congress, two of whom voted to block clean air standards and one of whom voted to strengthen them.

Read more

House members’ anti-clean air actions may hurt their re-election bids, a new poll from the NRDC Action Fund and Hart Research Associates finds. A majority of those polled responded less favorably after political ads ran on three representatives’ positions on a clean air measure.

Voter support clearly drops for the two candidates voting to weaken public health rules. As the chart below illustrates, a majority responded less favorably to Rep. Tim Walberg’s (R-MI) and Rep. Steve Stivers’ (R-OH) support for weaker air quality standards, with at least a quarter responding much less favorably. Support for Stivers fell a huge 15 points after the ads, shrinking his lead over an unnamed opponent to only five points.

The reverse effect in polls proved true as well, for the member who took a pro-clean air position. A majority of voters found Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) more favorable, leading to a five-point uptick over her unnamed opponent.

The polling only reinforces how Senators made the right decision last week for their political futures — if not for the quality of public health — by voting down Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s (R) attempt to overturn key air regulations.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) is a bottomless source of slipshod attacks on environmental protections and the EPA. This year, Paul insisted that the EPA “turns everyday life into a federal crime” and regulations like the Clean Air Act have somehow “done more harm than good.”

Continuing his crusade against breathing, Paul is forcing a vote on a resolution this Thursday to overturn the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, a regulation that “seeks to reduce smog and particulate-forming pollution from power plants in 27 eastern states.” But not all Republicans are falling in line. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) announced yesterday that he would vote against Paul’s resolution, “a rare instance of a split within the Republican party over environmental policy.” His reason is simple: Air pollution “makes our citizens sick“:

“Air pollution blowing in from other states makes our citizens sick, especially children and older Tennesseans,” Al[e]xander said. “It is also a jobs issue — pollution makes our mountains smoggy, driving away tourists. And it makes it harder for communities to secure the air-quality permits that allow auto suppliers and other manufacturers to locate in, and bring jobs to, our state.”

Alexander is correct. The EPA notes that this protection actually prevents “as many as 34,000 premature deaths by limiting harmful air pollution that crosses state lines.” As an economic driver, clean air regulations pushed the GDP in 2010 to “1.5 percent higher than it would have been without the Clean Air Act.” The Institute for Clean Air Companies estimated that complying with just one clean air standard created about 29,000 full time jobs each year for the past seven years.

The White House threatened to veto this resolution that “would cause substantial harm to public health and undermine our Nation’s longstanding commitment to clean up pollution from power plants.” Noting that the rule also prevents “more than ten thousand heart attacks and hospital visits for respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and alleviate hundreds of thousands of childhood asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses,” the White House points out the rule “will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in net benefits each year.”