Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) For. Gov. JEB Bush (R-FL)
BTW: There are other GOPers who deny climate change or pollution or stuff like that than those 4 above. A good run down is here from Bill Moyers - check it out. Now the rest of this ongoing story.
Introduction to GOP move to rein in or totally dismantle
the EPA: Newly-elected Senate Majority “Leader” Mitch McConnell
(R-KY) has pledged to rein in the EPA and in his fight he is joined by Sen. Jim
Inhofe (R-Okla.), who also said on election night 2014 that if the GOP gains
the majority that he would become chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee and work against the EPA. Inhofe is an established enemy of the EPA
and a staunch skeptic of the scientific consensus on human-caused climate
change, even written a book two years ago titled “The Greatest Hoax: How the
Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.” Inhofe even compared
the EPA to Nazi Germany’s Gestapo and pushed to roll back water and air
pollution rules, ozone limits and funding for contamination cleanup.
Background: In recent years, the EPA has undertaken a series of actions
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including the carbon pollution that is a
major cause of global warming – that is that which is emitted from stationary
sources such as power plants and mobile sources such as automobiles. All of the
EPA actions fall under the authority of the Clean Air Act. EPA has also
promulgated other standards to reduce air pollution — such as the Mercury and
Air Toxics Standards for power plants that provide indirect climate
benefits by encouraging companies to build and operate newer, more efficient
power plants.
The Clean Air
Act sole purpose is to reduce carbon pollution and other types of air pollution
has been under attack from lawmakers in both parties practically since 1975
when it was enacted.
As polluters and their GOP allies in Congress continue to
attack the EPA, including calls to dismantle the agency (remember Rep. Michele
Bachmann and other speeches calling for that?). On the other hand, a broad
range of constituencies including business, faith, environmental, sportsmen and
women, community development, Latino, and more — have called on Congress to
oppose efforts that block these strong safeguards and to indeed protect our
public health more so.
Now: Republicans in the Senate are pushing forward an environmental
nightmare of a bill — what it would emasculate the Clean Air Act (1975) that they pledged to do since 2014:
* Current standards to curb power plant carbon pollution emission: Blocked.
* The EPA’s power to protect all communities from harmful air pollution: Gone.
* The guarantee that has made the Clean Air Act work for 45 years: Gone.
* The EPA’s power to protect all communities from harmful air pollution: Gone.
* The guarantee that has made the Clean Air Act work for 45 years: Gone.
Why? Painfully obvious: Force legislation that
exists out with that which will pad (more) the pockets of Big Coal, Big Oil,
and anyone else who profits from pollution from those products into the air.
What this bill would do is
cut at the heart of the Clean Air Act that would make it impossible to
effectively limit carbon pollution from power plants into the air and do more
damage not prevent further damage — all that is the #1 source of the pollution that
fuels directly climate change.
What the GOP bill says in
simple language: The Clean Power Plan (the current law) and other clean
air rules … shall be of no force or effect, and shall be treated as though the
rules had never been issued. Again I ask: why?
Meanwhile across town as it were: At a
stop in Bedford, NH hopeful Jeb Bush fielded a question about climate
change, arguing it was a problem but not of the “highest priority,” and that
there needed to be greater discussion about the role of humankind in its
effects. His remarks included him saying in part:
“Look, first of all, the climate is changing. I don’t
think the science is clear what percentage is man-made and what percentage is
natural. It’s convoluted. And for the people to say the science is decided on,
this is just really arrogant, to be honest with you. It’s this intellectual
arrogance that now you can’t even have a conversation about it. The climate is
changing, and we need to adapt to that reality.”
Note: President
Obama spent a recent week pushing climate change as an integral part of U.S.
foreign policy and Jeb called it a “small part,” but quickly added that the
U.S. should take it seriously.
Meanwhile, in the House and directly related: House subcommittee on Energy and Power Chairman Rep.
Ed Whitfield
(R-KY). A bill that would
delay and ultimately weaken the
Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule limiting carbon dioxide
emissions from power plants is making its way through the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Note on Mr.
Witfield and I suspect others, too has received a large chunk of his campaign
contributions from the fossil fuel industry and electric utilities, e.g., in the
2013-2014 election cycle, his top three donors were First Energy Corp., the
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and Alpha Natural Resources (that
according to data compiled by Open Secrets.org).
In his entire career as a member of Congress, Whitfield received
from electric utilities, $707,315; from oil and gas, $503,997; and, from the
mining industry, $315,577.
So, what is
at stake for him and others like him who hate the EP? Oh, yeah their political
survival in office. I call it the “Golden Goose” complex – they can’t or won’t
kill that booger even to serve and protect those they say they are in office to
serve and protect.
Sorry about
the booger reference graphic, but graphics at this point are worthwhile to make
the point against those arrogant, out of touch SOBs in office who serve for
selfish reasons and not much else…!!!
Finally about water – does that matter? EPA reports
that one out of three Americans get their drinking water from sources that
aren't clearly protected, and the new EPA rules under the CWA would make sure those
waters aren't polluted. Some members of congress and at the state levels say it
is an overreach and was aggravating longstanding trust issues between rural
areas and the federal government.
They say the rule would
"trample on private property rights and hold back our economy," was read
from a memo sent out by the office of House Majority Leader McCarthy from California
just before the House floor debate and vote – it (H.R. 1732 passed: 261-155 on May 12, 2015). The White House has
threatened to veto the legislation.
That new rule and EPA
oversight? Broadly, the EPA rule would assert
federal regulatory authority over streams, tributaries, wetlands and other
flowing waters that significantly affect other protected waters downstream. That means some operators who wanted to
dump pollutants into those waters or develop around them would have to get a
federal permit.
So, what is wrong with that you might ask?
Overreach or concern for the water we drink?
No comments:
Post a Comment