Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Oct 2011, 12:14 pm

I don't think this is typical and it should not be. This is not a political position, is it?

Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. They have picked up the pace recently — just last week they voted to stop the EPA's efforts to limit mercury and other hazardous pollutants from cement plants, boilers and incinerators — and it appears their campaign will continue for the foreseeable future.

Using the economy as cover, and repeating unfounded claims that "regulations kill jobs," they have pushed through an unprecedented rollback of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and our nation's waste-disposal laws, all of which have successfully protected our families for decades. We all remember "too big to fail"; this pseudo jobs plan to protect polluters might well be called "too dirty to fail."

The House has voted on provisions that, if they became law, would give big polluters a pass in complying with the standards that more than half of the power plants across the country already meet. The measures would indefinitely delay sensible upgrades to reduce air pollution from industrial boilers located in highly populated areas. And they would remove vital federal water protections, exposing treasured resources such as the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Erie, the Chesapeake Bay and the Los Angeles River to pollution.

How we respond to this assault on our environmental and public health protections will mean the difference between sickness and health — in some cases, life and death — for hundreds of thousands of citizens.

This is not hyperbole. The link between health issues and pollution is irrefutable. Mercury is a neurotoxin that affects brain development in unborn children and young people. Lead has similar effects in our bodies. Soot, composed of particles smaller across than a human hair, is formed when fuels are burned and is a direct cause of premature death. Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds contribute to the ozone alert days when seniors, asthmatics and others with respiratory problems are at serious risk if they do nothing more dangerous than step outside and breathe the air.

"Too dirty to fail" tries to convince Americans that they must choose between their health and the economy, a choice that's been proved wrong for the four decades that the EPA has been in existence. No credible economist links our current economic crisis — or any economic crisis — to tough clean-air and clean-water standards.

A better approach is the president's call for federal agencies to ensure that regulations don't overburden American businesses. The EPA has already put that into effect by repealing or revising several unnecessary rules, while ensuring that essential health protections remain intact.

We can put Americans to work retrofitting outdated, dirty plants with updated pollution control technology. There are about 1,100 coal-fired units at about 500 power plants in this country. About half of these units are more than 40 years old, and about three-quarters of them are more than 30 years old. Of these 1,100 units, 44% do not use pollution controls such as scrubbers or catalysts to limit emissions, and they pour unlimited amounts of mercury, lead, arsenic and acid gases into our air. Despite requirements in the bipartisan 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, these facilities have largely refused to control their emissions — creating an uneven playing field for companies who play by the rules and gaming the system at the expense of our health.


From Heritage:

The National Economic Research Associates (NERA) has put out an analysis that shows that EPA regulations are both costing consumers more in their home energy bills and costing jobs our economy desperately needs.

The EPA’s Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR) and Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) were the only regulations included in the report, which means that other EPA burdens such as greenhouse gas regulations, new standards for refineries and utilities, and other such legislations will actually make the toll on Americans much higher. According to the report:

Average U.S. retail electricity prices in 2016 would increase by about 12%, with regional increases as much as about 24%
Net employment in the U.S. would be reduced by more than 1.4 million job – years over the 2013-2020 period, with sector losses outnumbering sector gains by more than 4 to 1.

Basically, what this says is that due to these regulations, you will be paying higher electricity prices and there will be fewer jobs. Costs rise, jobs decrease.

This is yet another example of the utopian society that the liberal left believes in being forced on us in our current economic vulnerability – and the resulting costs of that belief. Americans, and our economy, just can’t afford these increases.


To me, this is another case of Obama using the government to demonize his opponents by lying, distorting and misrepresenting the facts. No one wants dirtier air or water. The unintended consequences of many bills are catastrophic (I guarantee you that no one can even estimate how much the Clean Water Act costs each year for miniscule effect--see the over-regulation of every 'wetland' in the US).
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 24 Oct 2011, 11:04 am

Looks like a scientific one to me. Regulations, and upholding them, can reduce the ill-health effects of pollution. That money is seen as more important that this is what I would think of as a political position that 'should not be', but we have to tolerate such foolishness.