AIR POLLUTION: EPA “completely blindsided” by President Obama’s decision to scrap tougher smog rules

Posted on September 3, 2011 by Buck

President Obama has, in the past, made decisions that have been unpopular with his base. For example, the President extended the unpopular Bush Tax Cuts, which were never paid for. Now, he’s unexpectedly scrapped the implementation of EPA’s tougher smog rules.

However, he’s undoubtedly made decisions that have been popular with his base. Though, it seems that the former have drawn more attention than the latter, because arguably, again, the American people lose at the expense of corporate favoritism or over some perceived threat that doesn’t actually exist.

The effects of air pollution are quantifiable. Air pollution costs governments millions in healthcare costs, and poor air quality costs people their lives. In fact, EPA “estimates indicate the stricter [smog] rule would have cut asthma attacks in [certain] areas, as well as reduc[e] premature deaths.”

The President is taking a huge gamble by compromising with Republicans too much and by compromising over issues that are considered significant to his base. Certainly, it doesn’t matter how much the President gives up, because Republicans would rather watch Obama fail even if the President’s policies could be helpful to the American public. Also, the Republicans never seem to give the President credit, without attacking him, even though he’s made huge concessions to them. In fact, although “Republicans said [that] scrapping the smog rule was the right thing to do . . . they hammered Obama anyway.”

Perhaps the President truly believes that abandoning tougher air pollution regulations will assist economic recovery. However, the economy is most certainly so damaged by Bush-era policies that I seriously doubt rolling back environmental policies and regulations will actually have a meaningful, positive effect on economic recovery or job recovery. In fact, rolling back environmental regulations will have the opposite effect or a negative impact, I believe, by making people sicker and less productive.

Obviously, sick people aren’t as productive as healthy people, so employers or corporations and small businesses lose profits when their employees can’t be productive due to sicknesses that have been brought on by environmental degradation. Furthermore, since some employers provide their employees with health insurance, employers certainly pay more when their employees suffer from sicknesses associated with environmental degradation.

Also, the healthcare system (or lack thereof) of the United States isn’t a system that’s affordable. People have lost their homes simply because they got sick. Thus, I believe it’s a terrible idea to abandon environmental regulations and policies that make (or will make) the environment cleaner and ensure that more people remain healthy.

Furthermore, by abandoning environmental policies, the President is sending the message to the American people and to the international community that the environment is less important than corporate profits — despite the fact that without the environment, there can be no corporations, markets, or societies, because all of the goods and services that we depend on come directly from the environment. Also, even though the new smog rules will certainly cost corporations capital to implement, these rules could spur the development of new, useful technologies and save corporations money for the aforementioned reasons. Ultimately, everyone loses when we abandon environmentalism for profit — people, employers, and corporate profits.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me, and their image is protected under an attribution license.

POLITICS: Did Republican shenanigans result in the United States’ credit downgrade?

Posted on August 6, 2011 by Buck

Image via

It appears that the manner in which the Republicans steered or conducted the debt-ceiling debate, or given the fact that Republicans refuse to end the crippling Bush tax cuts or implement measures to raise revenue for the U.S. government, resulted in the United States’ credit downgrade by Standard & Poor’s. Also, the Republican Party’s refusal to work with President Obama, or consider his policies, has certainly played a part in the overall uneasy attitude towards Congress regarding its inability to manage the U.S. economy, to implement policies to spur job growth, or to implement legislation to curb the United States’ debt. Also, the Tea Party, through it’s influence and inability to grasp the important role that government is supposed to play in managing the well-being of society, has been a major factor in generating political insanity and economic uncertainty. Via NationalJournal.com:

The big new element on Friday was an official outside recognition that U.S. creditworthiness is being undermined by a new factor: political insanity. S&P didn’t base its downgrade on a change in the U.S. fiscal and economic outlook. It based it on the political game of chicken over the debt ceiling, a game that Republicans initiated and pushed to the limit, and on a growing gloom about the partisan deadlock.   Part of S&P’s gloom, moreover, stemmed explicitly from what a new assessment of the GOP’s ability to block any and all tax increases.

S&P was remarkably blunt that its downgrade was mostly about heightened political risks: “The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed,” it said.

(TEXT: Politicians React to Downgrade)

“The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.”

To be sure, S&P didn’t specifically single out Republicans. It criticized the overall $2.4 trillion deal as too limited, and it implicitly criticized both political parties for refusing to tackle their sacred cows – entitlements, in the case of Democrats; tax increases in the case of Republicans.

But it’s hard to read the S&P analysis as anything other than a blast at Republicans. In denouncing the threat of default as a “bargaining chip,” the agency was saying that the GOP strategy had shaken its confidence. Though S&P didn’t mention it, the agency must have been unnerved by the number of Republicans who insisted that it would be fine to blow through the debt ceiling and provoke a default.

As many other analysts have noted, the deficit-reduction deal wouldn’t stop debt from climbing faster than the nation’s GDP over the next decade.   It warned that the government’s publicly-held debt would climb from 74 percent of GDP at the end of this year to 79 percent by the end of 2011.

But one reason S&P said it had become more gloomy was that it had revised its assumptions about the most likely course of fiscal policy. In previous projections, it said, its “base case scenario” had assumed that Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would expire at the end of 2012, while tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 a year would be extended. That, it said, would have reduced deficits about $950 billion over ten years.

But the new S&P base case assumes that Congress extends all the Bush tax cuts.   “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act,” S&P said.

POLITICS: Government shutdown looms as Republicans refuse to compromise on conservative policy riders

Posted on April 7, 2011 by Buck

Political cartoon via Clay Bennett

Despite a looming government shutdown, Republicans are still using the budget bill process to impose right-wing policies on all Americans by inserting policy riders that have no place in a budget bill. These policy riders have included riders to defund healthcare reform, defund NPR, defund PBS, cut spending for Planned Parenthood, and cut spending to the Environmental Protection Agency, thereby attacking healthcare reform, women’s health, clean air, and clean water. Furthermore, these policy riders attack domestic discretionary spending that has nothing to do with avoiding a government shutdown or reducing the national deficit or the national debt and could actually result in more debt and put Americans at risk. Republican shenanigans to force a government shutdown could also hurt economic recovery. Undoubtedly, the spending cuts are more ideological in nature and have nothing to do with passing a budget or keeping the U.S. government running. Most recently, Tea Party members actually cheered for a government shutdown (and it appears that a majority of Republicans actually favor a government shutdown over a budget compromise), but a government shutdown would actually cost taxpayers money. According to U.S. Senator Jack Reed, “The Gingrich-led government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996 lasted 26 days and cost taxpayers over $1.4 billion.”

On the Net:

AIR POLLUTION: American Lung Association launches billboard campaign against Fred Upton

Posted on March 25, 2011 by Buck

Images via American Lung Association

Fred Upton, who is a Republican Representative from Michigan and the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, wants to “to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of the ability to regulate climate-warming gases like carbon dioxide, which the agency declared a threat to public health and safety in 2009.” The American Lung Association (ALA), in response, placed “four ads in Upton’s district, some in direct view of Upton’s district offices.” More via the ALA:

The American Lung Association is working to protect the public health from air pollution. We are defending the Clean Air Act to ensure that all Americans can have air that is safe and healthy to breathe. The Clean Air Act has provided the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the authority and the responsibility to protect and clean up the nation’s air since 1970. Thanks to that law and later amendments that strengthened it, people throughout the nation breathe cleaner, healthier air.

But, the work is not done; millions of Americans continue to breathe unhealthy air. Polluters and some members of Congress want to interfere with EPA’s ability to protect public health. Most Americans believe that the Clean Air Act needs protecting. We are fighting hard to prevent anyone from weakening or undermining the law or the protective standards the law provides. We are fighting to ensure EPA has the legal authority and necessary funding to continue to protect public health.

Please join us in this fight for air. Click here for an interactive overview of the fight.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, determined that carbon emissions can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The Court also determined that if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wishes to regulate carbon emissions or if the agency wanted to decide against regulating carbon emissions, then the EPA must determine whether greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to climate change and therefore endangers the public’s health and welfare. Consequently, the EPA reasonably concluded in an endangerment finding that “six long-lived and directly-emitted greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆)” threaten the public’s health and welfare. Via the EPA (emphasis added):

The Administrator has considered how elevated concentrations of the well-mixed greenhouse gases and associated climate change affect public health by evaluating the risks associated with changes in air quality, increases in temperatures, changes in extreme weather events, increases in food- and water-borne pathogens, and changes in aeroallergens. The evidence concerning adverse air quality impacts provides strong and clear support for an endangerment finding. Increases in ambient ozone are expected to occur over broad areas of the country, and they are expected to increase serious adverse health effects in large population areas that are and may continue to be in nonattainment. The evaluation of the potential risks associated with increases in ozone in attainment areas also supports such a finding.

. . .

There is some evidence that elevated carbon dioxide concentrations and climate changes can lead to changes in aeroallergens that could increase the potential for allergenic illnesses. The evidence on pathogen borne disease vectors provides directional support for an endangerment finding. The Administrator acknowledges the many uncertainties in these areas. Although these adverse effects provide some support for an endangerment finding, the Administrator is not placing primary weight on these factors.

Finally, the Administrator places weight on the fact that certain groups, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to these climate-related health effects.

The Administrator has considered how elevated concentrations of the well-mixed greenhouse gases and associated climate change affect public welfare by evaluating numerous and far-ranging risks to food production and agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea level rise and coastal areas, energy, infrastructure, and settlements, and ecosystems and wildlife. For each of these sectors, the evidence provides support for a finding of endangerment to public welfare. The evidence concerning adverse impacts in the areas of water resources and sea level rise and coastal areas provides the clearest and strongest support for an endangerment finding, both for current and future generations. Strong support is also found in the evidence concerning infrastructure and settlements, as well ecosystems and wildlife. Across the sectors, the potential serious adverse impacts of extreme events, such as wildfires, flooding, drought, and extreme weather conditions, provide strong support for such a finding. Water resources across large area

On the Net:

POLITICS: Republicans attack policies and regulations that promote energy conservation, address environmental degradation, and protect the public’s health

Posted on March 10, 2011 by Buck

Republicans are using the state of the economy and the debate over the national debt to attack the EPA, to rollback environmental regulations, and to rollback policies that address overconsumption, pollution, and our addiction to oil. Republicans aren’t considering the best interests of the American people or the welfare of the public when they imprudently decide to attack policies that attempt to address issues threatening U.S. national security. Climate change, pollution, and our reliance on dwindling, dirty fossil fuels are all issues that the federal government must address to secure our future. Instead, the majority of Republicans don’t consider climate change, energy security, or environmental degradation as issues that must be addressed in order to preserve national security and to protect the public welfare. For example, House Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican from Idaho, “added language to the Continuing Resolution that would block any attempt by the Obama Administration to enforce rules under the Clean Water Act, undermining the EPA’s ability to administer these programs.” Another House Republican, Michele Bachmann, recently “introduced legislation that would eliminate federal light bulb standards passed in 2007 that are expected to have the effect of phasing out some incandescent bulbs in the next few years.” Republicans also want to defund the EPA, and Tea Party Republican Rand Paul recently blamed the Department of Energy for his toilet problems. Another Republican Tea Partier, Marco Rubio, a junior Senator from Florida, “hopes to use the budget debate happening now in the Senate to block new pollution controls for Florida waterways.” Since Republicans [are] reversing a series of in-house green initiatives undertaken by Democrats” at the U.S. Capitol, their regressive efforts aren’t limited to rolling back major U.S. environmental regulations. Given the GOP’s shenanigans, I’m baffled that they can even get elected into a majority.

On the Net & Resources:

The Conservation Report

Tracking news regarding conservation, the environment, energy, politics, and technology

Tag Archives: Republicans

AIR POLLUTION: EPA “completely blindsided” by President Obama’s decision to scrap tougher smog rules

POLITICS: Did Republican shenanigans result in the United States’ credit downgrade?

POLITICS: Government shutdown looms as Republicans refuse to compromise on conservative policy riders

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: