It Is Time To Classify Carbon As A Toxic Substance

There's been a lot of talk about global climate change, but very little has been done to stop or mitigate it. In fact, it continues to get worse. Since Congress refuses to take adequate action, some now want the government to classify carbon as a toxic substance. It makes some sense.

Here is part of what Eugene Robinson has to say about this in The Washington Post:

“We should have started taking action decades ago. That’s the best time,” James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate experts and the former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told me last week. “The second-best time is now.”

Hansen is among a group of scientists who are trying a novel approach to force our government to act more boldly. On Thursday, they filed an official petition with the Environmental Protection Agency seeking to require the EPA to regulate carbon under existing legislation, the Toxic Substances Control Act.

By law, the EPA has 90 days to respond with a determination as to whether carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases pose“an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was signed into law in 1976 and updated in 2016.

It is the law that was used, for example, to ban chemicals known as chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, whose widespread use was damaging the ozone layer of the atmosphere, which protects the earth from damaging ultraviolet radiation. Since CFCs were curtailed, the ozone layer has begun to heal itself.

Hansen’s fellow petitioners are Donn J. Viviani, a retired 35-year veteran EPA scientist (whom I have known for years); Lise Van Susteren, a psychiatrist and professor at George Washington University; John Birks, an emeritus professor of atmospheric chemistry at the University of Colorado; and Richard Heede, co-founder of the Climate Accountability Institute.

Deciding that carbon dioxide is a toxic substance as defined by law would only be a first step. The EPA would have to formulate and implement rules that could, for example, impose a fee on carbon emissions — and also require companies to remove carbon from the atmosphere they have already expelled.

Using existing law and agreed-upon science is a clever strategy. But the major impediments to addressing climate change have always been political. The fossil-fuel industry would use its vast stores of money and influence to fight EPA regulation of carbon. The Biden administration might well balk at the idea of taking any such action at a time when world energy markets are in turmoil and U.S. consumers are paying about $5 a gallon for gasoline. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court might be skeptical, if not scornful, of the idea that such sweeping change could be mandated by executive branch rulemaking.

But it’s all there in black and white in the Toxic Substances Control Act, which passed and was amended with bipartisan support. Textualists will have to tie themselves in knots to explain why the law’s words don’t mean what they clearly say.

You might ask what difference this or any other dramatic action to curb U.S. emissions would make, given that our country is responsible only for about 13 percent of global carbon emissions. China emits about twice as much and is by far the world’s biggest carbon polluter.

“U.S. action is a necessary condition” for effective international action, Viviani said. As the world’s greatest economic power, we are responsible for more of the accumulated extra carbon presently in the atmosphere than any other nation.

We led the way into this mess. We need to lead the way out.

After Years Of Getting Better, Air Pollution Is Getting Worse

A new study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives us some bad news. It shows fine particulate air pollution is getting worse. Between 2010 and 2016, this pollution had decreased, thanks to regulations put in place by the Obama administration.

But in 2017 and 2018, that air pollution got worse -- 5.5% worse in 2018 than it had been in 2016.

What is different in 2017 and 2018? A new Republican administration that has made it a point to put lobbyists in charge of the environment and deregulated what corporations must do to protect the environment. These Republicans seem to believe that we can have deregulated corporations and a clean environment. They are living in a dream world.

Corporations are not created to be good citizens and protect the environment. They have only one purpose -- to make as much money as possible. If a corporation can make a bigger profit by dumping more pollution in our air (and water), then that is what they are going to do.

How much longer will we put up with a Republican president and Congress members that don't care about the environment? How much dirtier do we want our air and water?

Scott Pruitt "Resigns" (Was Fired) As EPA Administrator

 (Cartoon image is by Steve Sack in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.)

On Thursday, Trump sent the tweet above, announcing that he had accepted the resignation of Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt. Make no mistake though. Pruitt was fired from that job. He loved the job, and would never have resigned on his own.

Pruitt had piled up a list of ethical lapses that was pages long, and at least 15 investigations into his conduct were under way. Under any ethical presidential administration (of either party), Pruitt would have been fired many months ago. But ethics is not a concern of the Trump administration, and Pruitt was doing what Trump wanted done -- trashing regulations that prevented corporations from fouling our air and poisoning our land and water -- so Trump kept him in the job and ignored the numerous ethical violations.

Pruitt was a friend to the fossil fuel industries and corporate polluters, and he was a climate change denier. That was what Trump liked about him, and putting him in charge of the EPA was like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse. It may take decades to undo the damage Pruitt has done to our environment.

So, why did Trump fire him? If it wasn't for the ethical violations and Trump was happy with him trashing the environment, why was he fired? Simple -- he had become an embarrassment that Trump could no longer ignore. Pruitt was in the headlines too much, taking up headlines and air time that Trump thinks only he has the right to. Trump was getting tired of making excuses for Pruitt and afraid that Pruitt's corruption was starting to taint the Trump administration (even though Trump is the most corrupt individual in Washington).

In the end, Pruitt learned what many other former Trump employees have learned. While Trump demands loyalty, that loyalty is a one-way street (and is never returned). Trump will happily toss an employee under the bus to save himself. On Thursday, Pruitt got tossed under that bus.

Trump / Pruitt Purge The EPA Of All Its Scientists

 (These caricatures of Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt are by DonkeyHotey.)

Donald Trump has said he would protect the environment, but that is just another of his many lies.

We know that because of his withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on global warming, his executive orders repealing Obama's clean air and water efforts, and his appointment of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- a man with a history of opposing EPA actions. While Trump mouths environmental platitudes, it is obvious that what he really wants to do is let corporate polluters off the hook. Now we find that its gotten even worse.

Trump and Pruitt are actively removing all the scientists from the EPA -- those people who tell the truth about pollution and global climate change. They will be replaced with lobbyists and sycophants who mirror Trump's own corporate polluter friendly views.

Here is what Mark Sumner at Daily Kos has written about the purge of scientists:

Scott Pruitt had already moved to replace much of the scientific review boards at the EPA with industry lobbyists. 

The Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed at least five members of a major scientific review board, the latest signal of what critics call a campaign by the Trump administration to shrink the agency’s regulatory reach by reducing the role of academic research.
 

And with that minor test run over, Pruitt has moved on to a wholesale purge of scientists from his supposedly scientific agency.

The Environmental Protection Agency has given notice to dozens of scientists that they will not be renewed in their roles in advising the agency, continuing a scientific shake-up that has already triggered resignations and charges from some researchers that the administration is politicizing the agency.

With climate change data hidden or destroyed, Pruitt directly working to raise funds for Republicans, and actions that go beyond accepting climate change to denying basic science, it’s no doubt inconvenient to have people around who know what the hell they’re doing. So that is being remedied. Pronto. And just in case any of those scientists were thinking about saying something Pruitt wouldn’t like, he made sure that wouldn’t happen—at least not on EPA grounds.

None of the subcommittees will have a chair or vice chair, and all committee meetings scheduled for late summer and fall have been cancelled.

Pruitt’s actions completely wipes out the existing Board of Scientific Counselors. It means the whole board can now be reappointed, filled with industry lobbyists and science deniers, and the EPA can then go forward on the basis that “its scientific advisers” tell it that carbon dioxide is good for plants, only God can change the climate, and Donald Trump is nature’s bestie.

President Trump has directed Mr. Pruitt to radically remake the E.P.A., pushing for deep cuts in its budget — including a 40 percent reduction for its main scientific branch — and instructing him to roll back major Obama-era regulations on climate change and clean water protection. 

No clean water. No clean air. Certainly no scientists.

It seems pretty clear that neither Trump nor Pruitt understand what “protection” means. They certainly don’t understand “environmental.”

General Public's Worry About Pollution Is Increasing

Donald Trump doesn't seem to be worried at all about the environment and keeping it clean for everyone. He has put an EPA-hater  in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency, and proposed cutting funding for the agency by around 25%.

This flies in the face of the general public's view on the environment and pollution. About 63% of the public say they worry a great deal about pollution of drinking water -- and 57% say they worry a great deal about the pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Those are significant majorities.

In fact, those who worry a great deal has increased each of the last three years regarding all aspects of the environment -- 8 points for pollution of drinking water, 10 points for pollution of rivers & lakes & reservoirs, 9 points for air pollution, 13 points for global climate change, 11 points for loss of tropical rain forests, and 8 points for extinction of animals/plants.

Once again, Trump is following a policy that goes against the wishes of most Americans.

The chart above is from three years of questioning by the Gallup Poll -- the most recent being done between March 1st and 5th of a random national sample of 1,018 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Conservative Newspaper Says No To Pruitt Heading The EPA

Trump choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency is Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (caricatured here by DonkeyHotey). The choice horrified Democrats and environmentalists. They knew Pruitt as an enemy of the EPA, and an official who had long been bought off by the big oil and gas industries.

But it's not just those on the left who oppose the nomination of Scott Pruitt. The traditionally conservative newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, has also come out against Pruitt heading the EPA. Here is the editorial written by that paper's editorial board:

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a veteran of a years-long courthouse campaign to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency, is the wrong choice to lead the agency under President Donald Trump. It's hard to imagine a worse choice, and when his nomination comes to the Senate floor, likely next week, Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz should vote no. 

The post of EPA administrator is a critical one, and no where is that more tangible than here in energy-rich Texas. Many industry voices have already raised toasts to Pruitt's nomination, concluding that his plans to eviscerate the EPA's regulatory oversight of oil and gas companies, and other polluters, will strengthen the state's economic fortunes.

But Cruz and Cornyn must look beyond that short-sighted calculus and vote in the long-term interests of Texas. Put simply, Texas' economy will be stronger over time if its environment is cleaner and if its people are healthier. 

There is room, especially under a Republican president, to adopt a less-aggressive stance at the EPA than has been its posture under President Barack Obama. Not since the agency was created by Richard Nixon in 1970 has it taken on such a wide array of major enforcement actions as it pursued under Obama.

 But there is such a thing as an over-correction, and placing Pruitt in the EPA administrator's seat would be a  reckless example.

Pruitt has spent his career arguing that each state, and not the U.S. government, should monitor companies' compliance with environmental safeguards. Now in his seventh year as Oklahoma's chief legal officer, he has sued the EPA at least 14 times. He would have Americans rely on a patchwork of rules, with enforcement priorities shifting from state to state, despite the obvious inefficiencies that would create for companies whose interests, just like the pollution they produce, regularly cross states lines.

But even as he argued for a larger state role, as attorney general he dissolved that office's standalone environmental crimes unit, which had been responsible for scores of enforcement actions against polluters and others since 1996.

States are often under tremendous pressure to go easy on the industries they regulate. In Pruitt's case, that pressure has too often proved too hard to resist. In 2011, for example, just before an Oklahoma oil company was due to meet with EPA officials in Washington, Pruitt sent a letter on state letterhead arguing that the EPA was grossly overstating the impact of air pollution from natural gas wells in Oklahoma.

"Fantastic!" the company's chief lobbyist wrote to Pruitt soon after, according to a Pulitzer Prize-winning expose by The New York Times in 2014. No wonder the company was excited. The stories also revealed that Pruitt's letter, like many others he wrote as attorney general, had been carefully drafted by the company's lobbyists. 

That kind of coziness was wrong for the Oklahoma attorney general. It could prove disastrous on a national level. And it's just one reason why he's profoundly unsuited to lead the agency charged with safeguarding Americans' health and environment.

White House Statement On The New "Clean Power" Plan

(This image of a U.S. coal-burning power plant is from greenpeace.org.)

On Monday, President Obama announced that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is instituting tough new pollution standards for power plants in the United States. The plan will not only help to protect the world from the disastrous effects of climate change, but will also improve the health and safety of American citizens (by cleaning up the air we must breathe).

The Republicans have already started whining about the plan, which is no surprise, since they consider the campaign donations they will receive from the power industry much more important than citizen safety or the impending climate change disaster.

Before the media gives those Republican lies too much air time, I thought we should see what the real facts are about this new plan. Here is part of the statement released by the White House press office:

KEY FEATURES OF THE CLEAN POWER PLAN

The final Clean Power Plan takes into account the unprecedented input EPA received through extensive outreach, including the 4 million comments that were submitted to the agency during the public comment period. The result is a fair, flexible program that will strengthen the fast-growing trend toward cleaner and lower-polluting American energy. The Clean Power Plan significantly reduces carbon pollution from the electric power sector while advancing clean energy innovation, development, and deployment. It ensures the U.S. will stay on a path of long-term clean energy investments that will maintain the reliability of our electric grid, promote affordable and clean energy for all Americans, and continue United States leadership on climate action. The Clean Power Plan:   

• Provides Flexibility to States to Choose How to Meet Carbon Standards: EPA’s Clean Power Plan establishes carbon pollution standards for power plants, called carbon dioxide (CO2) emission performance rates. States develop and implement tailored plans to ensure that the power plants in their state meet these standards– either individually, together, or in combination with other measures like improvements in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The final rule provides more flexibility in how state plans can be designed and implemented, including: streamlined opportunities for states to include proven strategies like trading and demand-side energy efficiency in their plans, and allows states to develop “trading ready” plans to participate in “opt in” to an emission credit trading market with other states taking parallel approaches without the need for interstate agreements. All low-carbon electricity generation technologies, including renewables, energy efficiency, natural gas, nuclear and carbon capture and storage, can play a role in state plans.
   
• More Time for States Paired With Strong Incentives for Early Deployment of Clean Energy: State plans are due in September of 2016, but states that need more time can make an initial submission and request extensions of up to two years for final plan submission.  The compliance averaging period begins in 2022 instead of 2020, and emission reductions are phased in on a gradual “glide path” to 2030. These provisions to give states and companies more time to prepare for compliance are paired with a new Clean Energy Incentive Program to drive deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency before 2022.
   
• Creates Jobs and Saves Money for Families and Businesses: The Clean Power Plan builds on the progress states, cities, and businesses and have been making for years. Since the beginning of 2010, the average cost of a solar electric system has dropped by half and wind is increasingly competitive nationwide. The Clean Power Plan will drive significant new investment in cleaner, more modern and more efficient technologies, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Under the Clean Power Plan, by 2030, renewables will account for 28 percent of our capacity, up from 22 percent in the proposed rule. Due to these improvements, the Clean Power Plan will save the average American nearly $85 on their energy bill in 2030, and save consumers a total of $155 billion through 2020-2030, reducing enough energy to power 30 million homes.
   
• Rewards States for Early Investment in Clean Energy, Focusing on Low-Income Communities: The Clean Power Plan establishes a Clean Energy Incentive Program that will drive additional early deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency. Under the program, credits for electricity generated from renewables in 2020 and 2021 will be awarded to projects that begin construction after participating states submit their final implementation plans. The program also prioritizes early investment in energy efficiency projects in low-income communities by the Federal government awarding these projects double the number of credits in 2020 and 2021. Taken together, these incentives will drive faster renewable energy deployment, further reduce technology costs, and lay the foundation for deep long-term cuts in carbon pollution. In addition, the Clean Energy Incentive Plan provides additional flexibility for states, and will increase the overall net benefits of the Clean Power Plan.
   
• Ensures Grid Reliability: The Clean Power Plan contains several important features to ensure grid reliability as we move to cleaner sources of power. In addition to giving states more time to develop implementation plans, starting compliance in 2022, and phasing in the targets over the decade, the rule requires states to address reliability in their state plans. The final rule also provides a “reliability safety valve” to address any reliability challenges that arise on a case-by-case basis. These measures are built on a framework that is inherently flexible in that it does not impose plant-specific requirements and provides states flexibility to smooth out their emission reductions over the period of the plan and across sources.
   
• Continues U.S. Leadership on Climate Change: The Clean Power Plan continues United States leadership on climate change. By driving emission reductions from power plants, the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Clean Power Plan builds on prior Administration steps to reduce emissions, including historic investments to deploy clean energy technologies, standards to double the fuel economy of our cars and light trucks, and steps to reduce methane pollution. Taken together these measures put the United States on track to achieve the President’s near-term target to reduce emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and lay a strong foundation to deliver against our long-term target to reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The release of the Clean Power Plan continues momentum towards international climate talks in Paris in December, building on announcements to-date of post-2020 targets by countries representing 70 percent of global energy based carbon emissions. 
   
• Sets State Targets in a Way That Is Fair and Is Directly Responsive to Input from States, Utilities, and Stakeholders: In response to input from stakeholders, the final Clean Power Plan modifies the way that state targets are set by using an approach that better reflects the way the electricity grid operates, using updated information about the cost and availability of clean generation technologies, and establishing separate emission performance rates for all coal plants and all gas plants. 
   
• Maintains Energy Efficiency as Key Compliance Tool: In addition to on-site efficiency and greater are reliance on low and zero carbon generation, the Clean Power Plan provides states with broad flexibility to design carbon reduction plans that include energy efficiency and other emission reduction strategies.  EPA’s analysis shows that energy efficiency is expected to play a major role in meeting the state targets as a cost-effective and widely-available carbon reduction tool, saving enough energy to power 30 million homes and putting money back in ratepayers’ pockets.
   
• Requires States to Engage with Vulnerable Populations: The Clean Power Plan includes provisions that require states to meaningfully engage with low-income, minority, and tribal communities, as the states develop their plans. EPA also encourages states to engage with workers and their representatives in the utility and related sectors in developing their state plans.
   
• Includes a Proposed Federal Implementation Plan: EPA is also releasing a proposed federal plan today. This proposed plan will provide a model states can use in designing their plans, and when finalized, will be a backstop to ensure that the Clean Power Plan standards are met in every state. 

Since the Clean Air Act became law more than 45 years ago with bipartisan support, the EPA has continued to protect the health of communities, in particular those vulnerable to the impacts of harmful air pollution, while the economy has continued to grow. In fact, since 1970, air pollution has decreased by nearly 70 percent while the economy has tripled in size. The Clean Power Plan builds on this progress, while providing states the flexibility and tools to transition to clean, reliable, and affordable electricity.

And Here are some of the myths and facts about the new plan:

Myth: Carbon pollution standards will destroy jobs and hurt the economy.

Fact: Americans know we can cut pollution and protect the health of our kids while creating jobs.

Myth: Carbon pollution standards will cause Americans’ utility bills to spike.

Fact: Cutting carbon pollution will help eliminate waste and save families money on their electric bills.

Myth: Carbon pollution standards will hit low-income communities the hardest.

Fact: EPA’s Clean Power Plan will protect the health of low-income communities and help them save on their energy bills.

Myth: This administration is waging a war on coal.

Fact: For years, the President’s political opponents have been blaming him for market trends that started well before the President took office.

Myth: This rule threatens the reliability of Americans’ electricity.

Fact: This flexible proposal allows states to implement the standards without impacting reliability.

Myth: The Clean Power Plan is regulatory overreach.

Fact: The Clean Power Plan is clearly consistent with EPA’s legal authorities

Myth: The final Clean Power Plan drops energy efficiency.

Fact: Investment in energy efficiency will be a powerful strategy for compliance under the final Clean Power Plan.

Myth: Climate change isn’t real.

Fact: Climate change is real, it’s happening now, and it’s affecting every region of the country.

EPA Finally Admits "Fracking" Pollutes Drinking Water

It looks like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finally coming to realize something that most people with half a brain already knew -- that the gas production method called "fracking" does pollute ground drinking water sources.

Here is the conclusion reached by the EPA study:

Through this national-level assessment, we have identified potential mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing could affect drinking water resources. Above ground mechanisms can affect surface and ground water resources and include water withdrawals at times or in locations of low water availability, spills of hydraulic fracturing fluid and chemicals or produced water, and inadequate treatment and discharge of hydraulic fracturing wastewater. Below ground mechanisms include movement of liquids and gases via the production well into underground drinking water resources and movement of liquids and gases from the fracture zone to these resources via pathways in subsurface rock formations.

24. We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more of these mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The cases occurred during both routine activities and accidents and have resulted in impacts to surface or ground water. Spills of hydraulic fracturing fluid and produced water in certain cases have reached drinking water resources, both surface and ground water. Discharge of treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater has increased contaminant concentrations in receiving surface waters. Below ground movement of fluids, including gas, most likely via the production well, have contaminated drinking water resources. In some cases, hydraulic fracturing fluids have also been directly injected into drinking water resources, as defined in this assessment, to produce oil or gas that co-exists in those formations. 

(NOTE -- The image above is from green-4-u.com.)

There's much more, and although the EPA tries to downplay the effects somewhat (probably to placate the giant oil and gas companies, and their GOP lackeys in Congress), it's a really scary assessment. Fracking DOES affect our drinking water, and the more it happens, the more water will be affected.

Government Is Not Doing Enough To Protect Environment

Congressional Republicans are proposing significant cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their proposed budget. They think the government is spending too much to protect the environment, and think it is more important to give new tax cuts to business than worry about our soil, water, and air. They think EPA regulations hurt Wall Street and the giant corporations (their real constituency).

That may be popular with their teabagger base and their Wall Street contributors, but it puts them once again in conflict with the wishes of the general public (just like on other issues -- minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, offshoring of jobs, tax cuts for the rich, subsidies for corporations, etc.).

It turns out that 82% of Americans don't want cuts to the EPA -- and 48% believe the government is not doing enough to protect the environment. Only a tiny 16% agree with the Republicans that government is doing too much to protect the environment. If it wasn't for some very effective gerrymandering in 2010, the Republicans would be in serious trouble -- because they seem determined to go against the wishes of the public in nearly every issue.

These charts were made from information contained in a recent Gallup Poll -- done between March 5th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,025 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Public Supports The EPA's New Rules For Power Plants

(This cartoon image is by Adam Zyglis in The Buffalo News.)

It has become obvious in the last few years that the Republicans will do nothing to stop global climate change (commonly called global warming). They have rejected science as a party, and were long ago bought and paid for by corporate America -- and those two facts combine to make up their total disregard for this country's environment (present and future). It has also become evident that they will use their majority in the House to block any environmental legislation proposed by the president or congressional Democrats.

President Obama has finally realized that he can no longer wait for this do-nothing Congress to act, and instructed the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) to do their job (and enact new tougher emissions rules) -- and last week the EPA did just that. They issued new rules for cleaning up power plant emissions in their Clean Power Plan -- a plan that will lower power plant emissions by 30% (over 2005 levels) by 2030.

This is not a plan that places an onerous burden on U.S. power plants. Each state is allowed to come up with its own plan for meeting the new goals, and the plants have 16 years to come into compliance. There is no legitimate reason why they should not be able to do that -- and do it without undue cost or loss of jobs.

Of course the national Chamber of Commerce (which never met a coal, oil, gas, or energy company it didn't love) immediately began to scream (and churn out propaganda about how this will devastate the nation's energy system). And they were joined by the coal industry (who knows that the dirtiest power plants in the country are coal burning plants).

But these entities are out-of-line -- and out-of-step with the wishes of the American population. Americans know that something must be done, and if Congress won't act, then the EPA must do so on its own. A whopping 70% of Americans say the federal government should require states to limit pollution due to the production of greenhouse gases from power plants. And 63% say this should be done even if it results in a $20 a month higher electric bill.

The survey also shows that the public is starting to come around and realize that global climate change is a problem that must be dealt with. About 57% of the public now sees global warming as a big problem for the United States.

The charts above were made from information contained in the latest ABC News /Washington Post Poll -- taken between May 29th and June 1st of a random national sample of 1,002 adults (with a margin of error of about 3.5 points).

Supreme Court Says The EPA Has The Power To Control Pollution That Crosses State Lines

(This image is from killcoal.org.)

Texas produces more air pollution than any other state in this country. That's because Texas' GOP-dominated government has no interest in controlling that pollution, and the state agency designated to control environmental pollution has become little more than a rubber stamp for corporations to do whatever they want. It has gotten so bad that, if Texas was a country, it would be the seventh biggest polluting country in the world.

But the thing about air pollution is that it doesn't just stay where it's produced. It is carried by the winds to other states, and that is especially true of a big-polluting state like Texas. It ruins the air quality of several other states. And Texas is not the only offender. There are several other states that pollute their neighbors.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided rightly that it was wrong for states to pollute other states, and several months ago they issued a new set of rules -- rules that would force these offending states to stop the pollution (especially that produced by coal-fired plants). Of course this angered the teabagger governor and attorney general of Texas (and several other polluting states). Playing to their right-wing base, they said the federal government had no right to make them stop polluting and they filed suit to stop the new EPA rules.

And they found some judges in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia who were  crazy enough to believe them (although if the federal government can't stop one state from polluting another, I don't know who could). That decision made no sense, and the EPA appealed it to the United States Supreme Court. Last week, the Supreme Court issued their decision.

In a surprising 6 to 2 decision, the Court overturned the Court of Appeals decision. The six justices (Ginsburg, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) said the EPA did have the authority to force polluting states to reduce that pollution. The only two justices dissenting were right-wingers Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas (both of whom sold out to corporate interests long ago). Justice Alito did not vote either way.

This was a good decision, because no state should have the right to destroy the air quality of another state -- and some states, like Texas, have shown they will not act to stop the pollution until they are forced to do so.

Supreme Court Backs EPA Decisions

Big Business and global warming deniers lost some battles in the Supreme Court recently. Lower courts had ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had the right to determine that carbon dioxide (and other climate change pollutants) endangered the health of Americans, and that it could limit the carbon pollution emitted by cars and trucks. This last week, the Supreme Court let both lower court decisions stand -- a huge win for the EPA.

And in a further win for the environment, the Supreme Court refused to reinstate 77 oil and gas leases in the Western United States, offered for sale during the Bush administration and voided by the Obama administration. Those leases would have damaged some pristine areas of Utah -- including Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park, and Dinosaur National Monument.

It was a good week at the court for environmental groups, and the American citizens.

GOP & Public Disagree On EPA Regulations

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just announced new and stricter regulations for new power plants -- regulations that will mandate they produce a much lower level of CO2 emissions (which is a primary cause of global climate change). The regulations are something the Obama administration can do without congressional approval.

But the congressional GOP is upset about the new regulations -- first, because they oppose everything proposed by President Obama (just because it was proposed by the president), and second, because most of those congressional Republicans sold out long ago to the energy industry (both the oil, gas, & coal industries, and the electricity producers who use those energy sources).

And those GOP representatives in the House of Representatives are planning to eliminate the new regulations. When the debt ceiling fight comes up next month, they are planning to demand the new EPA regulations be abandoned (along with the defunding of Obamacare) -- or they will cause the nation to default on its debts by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. The problem is that it once again puts the Republicans at odds with the desires of most Americans.

That is the findings of a new Rasmussen Poll (done on September 20th and 21st of 1,000 likely nationwide voters, with a 3 point margin of error). That survey found that 53% of likely voters agree with the new EPA regulations, while only 33% oppose them (and 14% don't know what they think about those regulations).

Texas Loses Court Battle Against EPA

(This public domain image is from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.)

It is an unquestionable fact that Texas leads all other states in the amount of pollution it dumps into our nation's air. In fact, if Texas was a country, it would be the 7th largest polluting country in the world.  And the state leads in both total pollution and pollution by greenhouse gases. The responsibility for this rests with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). This Republican-dominated commission is responsible for issuing permits and controlling pollution in the state -- but it usually just rubber stamps whatever industry wants to do, including the energy producers in the state.

In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new rules to rein in some of the massive amounts of greenhouse gases being dumped into the air. At that time, they asked the TCEQ to be stricter in the requirements to get a state permit, and to include greenhouse gases in those requirements. The state refused to comply, saying they had the sole authority to issue permits -- and had neither the desire nor the authority to control greenhouse gases.

To their credit, the EPA did not accept that. And since the state would not take action to meet the national standards, they decided to do it for them. The EPA took over the issuing of permits, making sure that the new pollution rules (including the greenhouse gases rules) were considered before any permits were issued. The state objected, and Attorney General Greg Abbott sued the EPA.

Last Friday, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. (D.C.) Court of Appeals ruled against Texas on a 2 to 1 vote. The court ruled the state "has failed to show how it had been injured", and had no standing to bring the case. The EPA will now be permitted to continue it monitoring of and issuance of permits in Texas (and a few other states that also didn't comply).

I wouldn't doubt the state will probably try to appeal this verdict -- either to the full D.C. Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Although the Republicans running state government whine constantly that the state doesn't have enough money, they always seem to have the millions needed to fight for their corporate buddies.

But for right now, this is a victory -- both for the EPA, and for the people of the United States. The EPA is right. It is time for Texas to follow the rules.

Polluting Our National Parks

In this country, we refuse to make the corporations stop their polluting. The bottom line has become more important than the environment or the health of our citizens, so we continue to allow them to pollute our soil, our water, and our air. And now the Republicans want to defund the Environmental Protection Agency to further inhibit it from making these corporations (especially energy, gas, and oil companies) follow the law and clean up their act.

This has been a problem in too many of our cities for quite a while, but now it is even starting to affect areas that we consider to be pristine -- like out national parks. There are at least seven of our treasured national parks that had smog and/or ozone levels that were considered by the EPA to be dangerous last year. Here are the seven parks where the pollution was the worst (ranked from worst to less bad):

1. Sequoia National Park
2. Joshua Tree National Park
3. Great Smokey Mountains National Park
4. Yosemite National Park
5. Rocky Mountain National Park
6. Big Bend National Park
7. Mojave National Preserve

NOTE -- A lot of the park pollution is due to automobiles (which goes back to the oil companies and their lobbying for carbon-based fuels).

Power Plants Are The Biggest "Global Warming" Polluters

Back during the Bush administration, this nation's power plants were excluded from many of the Environmental Protection Agency's pollution regulations. And even though auto pollution was significantly reduced and other industries had to clean up their act, there really wasn't much of a dent put into the pollution being released into the air -- especially as it relates to the pollutants that cause global climate change (commonly referred to as "global warming").

Even though Bush is no longer in power, the Republicans have continued their efforts to protect their buddies in the power production industry. Recently, they even tried to put an amendment on the payroll tax bill that would delay for another five years making the power plants abide by EPA regulations. Maybe they knew what the rest of us suspected -- that the power plants, especially those using coal, were producing far more than their share of the nation's pollution.

On Wednesday, the United States government released the most detailed report yet on just where most global warming pollution was coming from. And there was one industry that produced far more pollution than any other. According to the report, the power plants in America produce an amazing 72% of all the pollution reported to the EPA in 2010. Can you believe that? Only one industry, the power plants, produce nearly three-quarters of all the pollution causing global climate change.

It is time we stop letting the power producers off the hook, especially those who still use coal to fire their plants. And don't even talk to me about "clean coal" -- that is a myth created by the coal industry and simply does not exist. As a country, we must demand action from the power industry to clean up their act. And we must demand the government do more to help the nation move to clean and renewable sources of energy production.

The states with the dirtiest power plants are Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, West Virginia, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wyoming, North Carolina, Kansas, and Kentucky.

A Holiday Present From The EPA

The people of the United States is getting a wonderful, though long overdue, holiday present from the Obama administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They are finally issuing rules which will force the coal-fired energy plants to either clean up their act (install devices to prevent pollution) or shut down.

And we're not just talking about preventing carbon dioxide emissions here. The new rules will "slash mercury pollution from burning coal by 90 percent, lung-damaging acid gases by 88 percent and soot-producing sulfur dioxide by 41 percent", along with a whole host of other poisons and cancer-causing chemicals. It will save American lives by cleaning the air, along with streams, rivers, and lakes.

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson called the new rules "the biggest clean air action yet", even bigger than the rule limiting cross-state line pollution and the agreement to double vehicle fuel economy standards. She said, "Before this rule, there were no national standards limiting the amount of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases that power plants across the country could release into the air that we breathe.

Obama Folds Again To Republican Pressure

I'm getting so tired of President Obama (and many of his Democratic cohorts in Congress) running scared of the clueless and publicly unpopular congressional Republicans. They have caved-in so many times that's it's starting to look like a habit they can't break. They did it on the health care reform, on regulations for Wall Street, on extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, on the 2011 budget, and most recently on raising the debt ceiling (where Republicans got nearly everything they asked for and Democrats got nothing).

Being generally an optimist, I had hoped that maybe Obama had learned his lesson after seeing how the rank-and-file Democrats had reacted to the debt ceiling "compromise". Before that debacle 50% of Democrats were already thinking that the president and congressional Democrats were doing a poor job of upholding Democratic values. After Obama and the congressional Democrats caved-in, that figure rose to 61%. Democrats were getting exasperated with the failure to fight for hurting Americans.

But that turned out to be a forlorn hope. The president doesn't seem to care what his base thinks when it comes to pacifying Republicans. He still thinks that if he gives in enough times, the Republicans will actually compromise on something (even though their actions have proven over and over that it'll never happen). This time it was on the environment.

The EPA had come out with new ozone standards for the air that all Americans must breathe.. Once again this was something that a majority of Americans supported, with poll after poll showing that most Americans want the government to do what it needs to do to protect the air and water in the United States. The new EPA rules, called the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, would have been a step in the right direction. It would have required polluters to abide by a stricter standard and improve air quality.

But the Republicans are so against requiring polluting corporations to spend any money to clean up their polluting ways that they have even tried to abolish the EPA -- regardless of the health effects that would have on Americans. So Obama is once again trying to appease them. He has ordered the EPA to suspend putting into effect the new air quality standards -- delaying any action until the standards can be "reconsidered" in 2013.

Frankly, this latest cave-in has made me wonder if the president's upcoming job plan will even be worth considering. Will it be a bold plan to stimulate jobs? Or will it be a timid plan containing new tax breaks for the rich? I'm afraid it will be the latter, even though a new SurveyUSA Poll shows that 81% of 2008 Obama voters want him to lay out a broad and bold plan and hold Republicans accountable if they block it.

Personally, I doubt that the president, and too many congressional Democrats, have the will or the ability to stand up to the Republicans. Their timidity is starting to be offensive.

Republicans Vote For Big Oil & Against Environment

As unpopular as their attempts to abolish Medicare and Medicaid and cut benefits for Social Security are, those are not the only things the Republicans are trying to do that the American public does not want. Recently, the House Republicans voted unanimously to continue the government subsidies (amounting to several billion dollars) for Big Oil -- even though these corporations continue to make record-breaking profits and no longer need those subsidies. They also voted to slash at least a third of the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- and many of them voted to abolish this agency altogether (to save money for corporations at the expense of the environment).

They may have though they had some kind of mandate to do these things after the last election, but they are wrong. Many recent polls have shown that the majority of Americans are opposed to continuing the subsidies (and other tax breaks) for Big Oil. They also support EPA efforts to insure the country has clean air and clean water.

This was made clear to many of the Republicans during their town hall meetings in the recent congressional break. In addition to catching a lot of flak from their constituents over abolishing Medicare, many people spoke out in these meetings demanding that the subsidies for Big Oil be discontinued and the corporations be made to pay their fair share of taxes (since it is known that some companies, like Exxon, are making record profits but paying no taxes). And much of this discontent is coming from Republican voters -- who are in favor of budget cuts but want them to be more fair.

Some of the House Republicans seemed to be listening to their constituents. They agreed with them that the subsidies for Big Oil must be eliminated. But it turns out they were just lying (because that was easier than telling the truth to their angry constituents). Last week the Democrats in the House tried to introduce a bill that would eliminate about $1.8 billion in oil subsidies for the giant corporations (which is only a fraction of the total subsidies these corporations receive).

What did the Republicans do? They voted unanimously to continue giving ALL of the current subsidies to Big Oil. They did this to protect their true constituency -- corporations. They may talk nice to voters at election time, but when it comes to votes in Congress the Republicans always vote for the corporations and against the interests of ordinary citizens.

And it's not just the House Republicans. Last week the Senate Republicans got into the act by introducing a bill to abolish the EPA. They didn't do this because they necessarily oppose clean water and air. They did it to save money for their corporate masters. They don't want the corporations to have to spend any of their record profits to clean up their emission or discharges (regardless of what it does to the environment).

The Republicans have fooled some of the American public into thinking they are actually trying to balance the budget. They aren't. The massive cuts of the Ryan Plan (including the abolishment of Medicare) don't really bring the deficit (or the national debt) down much at all. That's because those cuts are offsets by new giveaways (tax cuts and subsidies) to corporations and the richest Americans.

While Republicans say they want to balance the budget, what they really want to do is slant our economy even further in favor of the rich and the corporations, and to the detriment of ordinary Americans (who will be left footing the bill). Whatever they may say, you can count on the congressional Republicans to vote to:

* Abolish Medicare and Medicaid.
* Cut benefits to Social Security (and privatize it at the first opportunity).
* Cut food stamps, unemployment insurance, education funds, and any other program that helps ordinary Americans.
* Continue and increase subsidies for the giant corporations.
* Cut taxes for the rich and the corporations even more (in spite of the fact that they are at the lowest point in decades).
* Abolish the EPA, to the detriment of our environment.

If you want these things to happen, then the Republican Party should get your vote. But if you want a cleaner and more economically-fair America, you will never get that by voting for Republicans. Anyone who can't see that by now is not really trying to use that organ between their ears.