Political Climate: March 2008 Archives

Moderate Democrats are making a killing from energy company donations, as the companies seek to buy influence in Congress ahead of key environmental votes. I've posted some thoughts over at Political Climate:

Of course, cash doesn’t come for free: The energy companies are hoping to bank karma ahead of coming floor votes. It’s a tactic that’s worked for them in the past: Centrists have already forced Democratic leaders to dilute environmental legislation on issues like renewable energy and auto-fuel efficiency standards. Now the energy sector - and their Blue Lapdogs - are eying long-awaited climate legislation, hoping to scale back emission cuts and pencil in big subsidies for the coal and nuclear industries.

In response, the Democratic leadership plans to hold over the legislation until after the November election, when it expects to win a heftier majority. The truth of the matter, though, is that if the Democrats expand their majority this November, it’ll largely be by fielding moderate candidates capable of winning red-state seats. As long as the energy sector keeps its wallet open, it’ll continue to have plenty of friends on the Hill.

More here.

Hillary Clinton fudged a question on mountaintop-removal mining this week during a public-radio interview. "I'm not an expert," she said - before going on to call for a compromise solution allowing the filthy and environmentally destructive mines to stay open. I've responded over at Political Climate:

So far, neither Clinton nor Obama have set out satisfactory plans for dealing with the coal industry: Both merely say that they'll invest heavily in "clean coal", despite the fact that both the Department of Energy and energy consultancies say that we're at least two decades from viable zero-emissions coal technology. Still, Clinton really should know better than to embrace mountaintop-removal mining, an especially filthy process also known as "strip mining on steroids".

Mountaintop removal involves literally hacking the top off mountains in order to reach the coal that lies beneath: Each year, mining companies use the equivalent of 58 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs to blast their way through the bedrock. Across Appalachia, a million acres of land and more than 470 entire mountains have already been destroyed; the resultant rubble has clogged more than 1,200 miles of mountain streams, and produced vast slurry pits laced with poisons including lead, arsenic and mercury.

Read more here.

The Senate is gearing up to begin work on the Lieberman-Warner climate bill - but California Democrat Barbara Boxer says she'll probably shoot down the bill rather than allowing it to come to a vote. I've posted some thoughts over at Plenty's Political Climate blog:

Instead of buckling under pressure from scaremongers who say a carbon cap would cost millions of jobs, Boxer is betting that come November, voters will give Democrats an even heftier majority on the Hill. Congressional greens would then be able to take another stab at the Lieberman-Warner proposals – and with more muscle on the Senate floor, they’d have a better chance of pushing the legislation through without having it torn to shreds.

There’s a risk, of course, that Boxer’s gamble will backfire: If the Democrats don’t make gains this November it could prove harder than ever to pass meaningful climate reforms. Still, her delaying tactics are probably the right move. Given the high stakes, compromises and half-measures simply aren’t good enough.

Read more here.

As predicted, EPA chief Stephen Johnson has caved in to industry pressure, introducing new smog standards that are barely tougher than the existing rules. Adding insult to injury, he's now asking Congress to overhaul the Clean Air Act and formalize his cosy relationship with corporate America. I've responded over at Political Climate:

At present, the law says that in regulating the air we breathe, the EPA’s sole priority must be protecting the public health. Only after reasonable safety standards are set can factors like economic impact be taken into consideration. Now, though, Johnson is asking lawmakers to scrap those safeguards and grant him the explicit right to prioritize corporate interests above the public health.

In practice, that might not make much difference to the way the EPA handles its regulatory deliberations. It’s abundantly clear that in arriving at the current smog “compromise” Johnson illegally weighed the impact on industry against the potential health benefits, receiving plenty of friendly advice from industry lobbyists and even direct orders from President Bush not to clamp down too hard on Big Business.

Still, swapping lobbyists’ de facto influence for a de jure corporate veto on environmental regulations would be disastrous. The threat of legal action has consistently been the only way to cajole or coerce the EPA into carrying out its mandate; giving Johnson’s agency the legal right to pander to corporate interests would undermine one of the few defenses we have left.

Read more here.

John McCain has got a grudge against grizzly bears: on the stump and in campaign ads he's been lashing out at a "wasteful" federal study of grizzly-bear DNA. I've posted some thoughts over at Political Climate:

In reality, as the Washington Post reported yesterday, the study in question had a more useful purpose: Testing DNA from tree-rubs is the only way to assess the grizzly population. With bear numbers at a mere three percent of their historic levels, the tests provided vital data on whether preservation efforts under the Endangered Species Act were up to snuff– and helped ensure that federal conservation funds were directed to where they would do the most good.

McCain’s camp now says the senator didn’t mean to say the bear project was unworthy, but only that it shouldn’t have been funded as a pork project. That’s disingenuous: Calling the study “a waste of money” seems pretty unambiguous. Either way, the question remains: Why pick out an environmental project for special criticism? There were plenty of other projects to choose from: Lawmakers have ploughed through a quarter-trillion dollars of pork since 1991, sending home $10.8 billion in defense projects and $2.4 billion in homeland security projects in 2007 alone.

More here.

The EPA is poised to announce new smog standards; unfortunately, the agency looks likely to push through relatively weak rules, bowing to industry lobbyists who say strict standards would be expensive to adhere to. I've posted full details over at Political Climate:

Insiders now say that EPA officials plan to propose a half-hearted compromise, setting ozone standards in the region of 0.075 ppm – significantly higher than the threshold called for by the agency’s own experts. It’s even been suggested that the agency might cave in completely, agreeing to set new standards identical to the current limit – a move that would, of course, achieve absolutely nothing.

This isn’t merely a question of arguing over numbers, it’s a matter of life and death. The EPA says that setting a 0.075 ppm threshold would save between 230 and 2,400 lives a year – but admits that imposing a slightly tougher standard of 0.070 ppm would save up to 4,000 lives a year, producing additional health benefits worth $11 billion a year. Even tougher cuts would, of course, produce even greater benefits.

Read the rest here.

Government scientist Chris De Rosa is doing the rounds with even yet another tale of the Bush administration's attempts to suppress inconvenient scientific evidence: his superiors at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry nixed an important study on pollution and health problems in the Great Lakes region. I've posted details at Political Climate:

The report, produced by researchers at the government’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), studied 26 sites where lake-water was known to have been contaminated with a cocktail of toxic chemicals ranging from lead and mercury to cyanide, DDT, and dioxin. Comparing public health records for the surrounding area with those from neighboring counties and those from the country as a whole, researchers found a long list of worrying markers: Infant mortality was elevated in 21 of the 26 regions studied; breast cancer death rates were elevated in 17 of the regions. Colon and lung cancer rates were similarly high; so too were rates of fertility deficits, low birth rates, and immune system dysfunction.

Equally alarming was the sheer number of people the study found to be potentially affected by the chemical waste. Nine million people live in the so-called “areas of concern”; of those, at least 230,000 “vulnerable” people – young children, reproductive-age women, and the elderly – live within a mile of contaminated sites.

But when lead researcher Chris De Rosa – the director of the ATSDR’s toxicology division – tried to publish his findings, he hit a wall. Long after the standard peer-review process was completed, and with the report just a week away from publication, agency bigwigs caught wind of the report and halted its publication. To drive the point home, they had De Rosa demoted to a non-supervisory position.

Read the rest here.

Surprise! Ralph Nader is running for president again. I've posted some thoughts over at Plenty's Political Climate blog explaining why greens shouldn't give his candidacy a second glance:

Ralph Nader can claim a decent slice of the credit for much of the good that’s been done in Washington in recent decades; his Public Citizen advocacy group helped pass benchmark legislation like the Freedom of Information Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, and was instrumental in the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. If he’d quit while he was ahead, he’d have gone down in history as an environmental hero.

But then came the 2000 election. One shouldn’t blame Bush’s victory exclusively on Nader, of course: Kathy Harris must shoulder some of the blame for the fiasco in Florida, and Al Gore’s campaign team didn’t exactly cover itself with glory. But the fact remains that the 97,000 votes cast for Nader in the Sunshine State put Bush in the White House and ushered in eight long years of environmental neglect.

... One shouldn’t begrudge Nader his right to take a shot at the White House; in America, everyone’s entitled to ride their egotism as far as it’ll take them. But we should say as loudly and clearly as we can that with so much at stake, greens should back a major-party candidate: This year, more than ever, a vote for Nader is a vote wasted.

Read more here.