Recent Posts:

NRDC Action Fund’s Ad Campaign Tells Sen. Toomey: Support the Clean Power Plan

Toomey AF digital ad

This week, the NRDC Action Fund is launching a nearly $1 million ad campaign in Pennsylvania urging Senator Pat Toomey to take a bold step on climate change by backing the Clean Power Plan.

Why focus on Sen. Toomey? He has voted to block climate action at every turn, including voting against the Clean Power Plan—America’s historic effort to limit carbon pollution from power plants.

Pennsylvanians deserve a senator who will stand up for their health, not push the big polluter agenda.  Our TV ad calls out Sen. Toomey on this vital issue. Climate change is serious in Pennsylvania – communities across Pennsylvania got hit with five heat waves this summer. The state was also soaked with nearly twice the average amount of rain in June. Hot, rainy summers are part of life in the Keystone State, but climate change is making them worse. According to a new report from Penn State, Pennsylvania will experience more destructive storms and be over 5 degrees warmer within 35 years. Experts say that means more smog, asthma attacks, property damage and bankrupt ski resorts.

Pennsylvanians know we need to tackle climate change. Seventy-two percent of Pennsylvania voters, for instance, support the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to limit climate change pollution from power plants, according to a survey from Hart Research Associates. Even in western coal-producing regions, 63 percent say the EPA should limit this dangerous pollution. And a large majority of Pennsylvania Republicans—58 percent—feels the same.

Unfortunately, so far, instead of representing his constituents’ interests, Sen. Toomey has been taking the side of dirty industries. Sen. Toomey has taken more than $1 million from polluters, and now he wants to let them keep pumping unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into our air.

video screenshot 1

According to the League of Conservation Voter’s analysis, in 2013 Sen. Toomey opposed every single piece of environmental legislation that LCV tracked except one. This includes votes against limits on toxic air pollution from power plants, disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy, Department of Defense investments in biofuels, and safeguards against climate change. He signed on to Senator Mitch McConnell’s 2014 letter urging President Obama to withdraw the Clean Power Plan. And earlier this year, he joined 98 other senators in acknowledging that climate change is not a hoax and that humans play a role in the crisis, but he opposed an amendment stating that humans “significantly” contribute to climate change.

Meanwhile, he has failed to provide or support a single proposal for how the nation can defuse the climate threat.

Solutions exist. America has the clean energy resources we need to slash carbon pollution and shield future generations from the destructive power of climate change. The Clean Power Plan will unleash many of those solutions, and in the process, it will prevent 90,000 asthma attacks and 3,600 premature deaths a year and generate enormous energy and cost savings.

Pennsylvania will reap these benefits. The state is already home to 4,200 clean energy companies—companies have created 57,000 jobs in the state. The wind industry has invested more than $2.7 billion in the state, and the solar sector attracted more than $114 million to Pennsylvania in 2013 alone.  The Clean Power Plan will expand these opportunities. According to an NRDC analysis, Pennsylvania could see the creation of 5,100 new jobs and the state’s households and businesses will save $465 million on their electric bills in 2020 if the state takes a bold approach to reducing carbon pollution.

Yet instead of fostering these benefits, Sen. Toomey is aligning himself with dirty energy donors. It’s time for him to change course and stand with the people of Pennsylvania. It’s time for Sen. Toomey to support the Clean Power Plan—and the good jobs, clean air, and reduced climate risk it will deliver.

Pete Altman is the Climate Campaign Director for the NRDC Action Fund.

Sen Capito’s Polluter Protection Act

UPDATE: This post was last updated on June 25, 2015 to reflect additional cosponsors.

Last week, a team of Senators supported by nearly $43 million in contributions from dirty polluters—and who have voted in favor of polluters over people 98 percent of the time—teed up yet another proposal to block much-needed efforts to protect the health of children and future generations from dangerous carbon pollution.

This newest pro-polluter proposal comes from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) who introduced a bill that aims to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan by thrusting “multiple knives into the Clean Air Act,” as my colleague David Doniger explains.

The Clean Power Plan sets the first ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants and invests in clean energy sources and energy efficiency, while Sen. Capito’s bill protects the big polluters and lets them off the hook by:

  • Rubbing out the Clean Power Plan altogether. The bill simply declares that the Clean Power Plan and its first-ever limits on carbon pollution “shall be of no force or effect, and shall be treated as though the rules had never been issued.” With admirable directness, the EPA proposals are simply disappeared. But that isn’t enough for Capito and her cronies. The bill also protects polluters by:
  • Blocking the EPA’s proposed standard for new coal power plants while also effectively blocking EPA’s plans to regulate existing plants too.
  • Forcing the EPA to choose between carbon standards and mercury standards, making them “pick their poison.”
  • Tying up the Clean Power Plan with litigation for years, placing an unprecedented “stop work” order found nowhere else in the nation’s environmental or regulatory laws.
  • Destroying the EPA’s authority to take action to protect our families and communities if states fail to act on their own by letting Governors “opt out,” and letting polluters off the hook.

And who else has their hands on the proverbial knife? Thirty-three other U.S. Senators joined Senator Capito to support these extremist attacks on public health.

We took a look at the records of Senator Capito and her bill’s co-sponsors using our website, which tracks polluter contributions to members of Congress and their votes. Here’s what we found:

  • Combined, the Senators backing Capito’s bill have taken $42,762,026 from polluters for their election campaigns.
    • Among the top three recipients of polluter contributions among these Senators are Senator Mitch McConnell who has been flailing away at the carbon standards for months now, and Senator Jim “the Snowball” Inhofe who has promised to make this bill a central focus of his Senate Committee in the coming weeks.
    • On average, each Senator has received nearly $1.26 million from dirty polluters each.
  • Combined, these Senators have cast 538 dirty votes on 49 pieces of climate and clean air legislation and/or amendments in Congress since September 2011.
  • These Senators have voted dirty 98 percent of the time they’ve had to choose between protecting polluters or public health.

Among other dirty bills, these lawmakers voted to block public health safeguards many, many times, to block all efforts to cut carbon pollution, to undermine science, and to block funding for climate change research.

Sen. Capito and her bill’s supporters aren’t looking out for the American public—they’re looking out for the Big Polluter Agenda and their own campaign coffers.

Americans want to carbon to be regulated. Poll after poll shows that that a bipartisan majority—70 percent of Americans—support the federal government limiting greenhouse gases from existing power plants, and 70 percent also support requiring states to limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in their borders (check out the most recent poll from the Washington Post.)

But these Senators think they can get away with taking dirty money from the deep-pocketed polluters and voting against clean air and protecting. They think their voters won’t notice them voting against the very policies Americans support.

You can help shine a spotlight on those lawmakers who are voting against the best interests of their constituents by going to and tweeting at the Dirty Air Villains. Tell them to reject the Big Polluter Agenda and listen to the American people.

Co-Sponsors / Sponsor Dirty Money Number of Dirty Votes Percent of Dirty Votes
$5,378,412 15 100%
John Cornyn [R-TX] $5,342,638 14 100%
John McCain [R-AZ] $3,814,138 15 100%
Mitch McConnell [R-KY] $3,229,136 15 100%
Jim Inhofe [R-OK] $2,207,770 15 100%
David Vitter [R-LA] $1,866,136 9 100%
Ted Cruz [R-TX] $1,530,696 15 100%
Roy Blunt [R-MO] $1,486,800 15 100%
Pat Roberts [R-KS] $1,479,406 36 100%
Bill Cassidy [R-LA] $1,432,970 14 93%
Lisa Murkowski [R-AK] $1,370,624 14 100%
John Thune [R-SD] $1,298,822 38 100%
Shelley Capito [R-WV] $1,210,252 15 100%
Roger Wicker [R-MS] $1,108,122 11 73%
Lamar Alexander [R-TN] $1,093,632 15 100%
John Barrasso [R-WY] $1,024,366 15 100%
Michael Enzi [R-WY] $979,610 25 100%
Tom Cotton [R-AR] $965,964 25 100%
Steve Daines [R-MT] $899,980 15 100%
Thad Cochran [R-MS] $626,916 15 100%
Daniel Coats [R-IN] $625,198 15 100%
Michael Crapo [R-ID] $611,674 15 100%
John Hoeven [R-ND] $604,802 24 100%
Tim Scott [R-SC] $521,028 15 100%
Johnny Isakson [R-GA] $512,500 12 80%
Joe Manchin [D-WV] $379,100 15 100%
James Risch [R-ID] $266,904 15 100%
John Boozman [R-AR] $242,300 15 100%
Ron Johnson [R-WI] $235,890 15 100%
Rand Paul [R-KY] $212,640 10 100%
Deb Fischer [R-NE] $50,900 9 100%
David Perdue [R-GA] $50,900 9 100%
Mike Rounds [R-SD] $50,900 9 100%
Thom Tillis [R-NC] $50,900 9 100%
Dan Sullivan [R-AK]

*NRDC Action Fund policy experts identify the votes that have the greatest impact or potential to impact clean air and climate policy. Members who vote against clean air 80 percent or more of the time are considered “Dirty Air Villains.” Those who vote to strengthen protections 80 percent or more of the time are considered “Clean Air Heroes.” All other members have no assigned status, but their dirty and clean percentages are listed

About That Next Debate, President Obama

You can bet on this (let’s say a buck rather than ten grand): Mitt Romney is out on the campaign trail somewhere today trashing the EPA, belittling clean solar and wind energy, dumping on electric cars, and making it sound like we should ditch “apple pie” and start talking about America as being all about motherhood, baseball and coal.

As they look to recover from the disappointing first debate performance, President Obama and his advisors should recognize one central fact: Romney is not taking all of these anti-environmental stances just because his funders and Tea Party backers want him to do so. The other reason is that Romney wants to muddy up these issues precisely because he knows that they can hurt him.

That may sound a little counter intuitive, but it is how the game of politics is played. Its an old strategy – attack your opponent’s strengths to cover up your own weakness (remember how George W. Bush went after Kerry’s 3 purple hearts?) It may be “smart politics” for Romney to protect his exposed flank this way, but it would be nothing short of silly for President Obama to go along with that strategy.

As the President looks ahead to tomorrow night’s debate, here are three compelling reasons for calling Mitt Romney out on his diverse range of anti-environmental stances:

  1.  Let’s not mince words about it: Romney is flat wrong about much of what he says about clean energy and clean air. His debate performance and other recent political claims have been fact checked and debunked far and wide. For Obama, this isn’t a case of having to argue one side of an issue against another.  All that is necessary is for President Obama to point out that Romney either doesn’t understand the issues or, even worse, he gets them just fine and he’s fine with making up his own facts about them.   (Call me cynical, but my money is on the latter.)  Either way, voters are not going to be comfortable with a candidate who can be so cavalier about the truth when our clean air and clean water are at stake.  But you need to call out Romney on all of this to make the point, Mr. President.
  2. President Obama, you have compiled a strong first term record on the environment.   Embrace it.   Tout it.  Shout about it from the rooftops.   You have advanced the growth of clean wind and solar power.  Your Environmental Protection Agency has made major strides on the Clean Air Act Front while protecting American jobs.   And let’s not forget the health benefits of a vigilant EPA:  The Obama campaign web site correctly points out that your Administration “established the first national safeguards to cut down on mercury and other toxic air emissions from power plants, which will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 540,000 missed work days, and 130,000 cases of asthma each year, helping to keep our children out of the hospital and in school.”  This is one of the health standards that Romney would cut down with his plan to “take a weed whacker”to the EPA.It doesn’t stop there:  You also are making possible the revival of the U.S. auto industry through increased fuel efficiency standards for autos.  These are huge accomplishments that should not be allowed to disappear under a blizzard of Romney lies.    You have a hell of a story to tell here, Mr. President.  Don’t be bullied into silence on this important topic.
  3. Voters support what you are doing; don’t let Romney sucker you into ditching what are winning issues.  Everyone knows that this election has come down to a narrow band of undecided voters in eight or so swing states.  Good news, Mr. President!  Recent Public Policy Polling survey of more than 22,000 likely voters in battleground states shows the following:   “Undecided voters in eight swing states — Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin — decisively favor candidates for president and Congress who support clean air and clean energy policies over candidates who don’t, according to eight new state-specific surveys.”Romney has come out on the wrong side of the issue again and again – from opposing measures to reduce toxic mercury pollution, to rejecting standards for more efficient autos, to dismissing the need to reduce dangerous carbon pollution. Voters side with your views on these issues, but you still need to get in there and make that point, Mr. President.  And it is definitely there to be made!

This whole issue of undecided voters really is the heart of the matter when it comes to the Romney strategy of fuzzing up the environmental issues, Mr. President.  If he can get you to stay away from environmental topics in the campaign, you get fewer undecided voters in the key battleground states. In some ways, Romney is running less to persuade those voters to join him than he is to keep you, President Obama, from connecting with them. Don’t fall for it, Mr. President. Not only are you too smart to play Romney’s game, but you’ve got the winning formula in your environmental track record to “seal the deal” in the key swing states.

Tomorrow’s debate is only part of the challenge that the President faces in the coming weeks on environmental issues.   Fossil fuel giants and their allies have poured $153 million into campaign ads as of mid-September, and there will be millions more lavished on the dirty air and dirty energy agenda.    That fact just makes it even more important that the second debate is one in which President Obama takes back the environmental issues that he already owns in this campaign.

Thirty (five) Deadly Signatures

Some steal with a sword, some with a pen, the saying goes.

And some steal the rights of Americans to breathe clean air, and are willing to allow thousands to die and hundreds of thousands to get sick, in order to protect the powerful utility industry from having to cut its deadly toxic pollution.

At least thirty US Senators were known to have put their signatures on a petition to force the US Senate to debate and vote on Senator James Inhofe’s proposal to repeal the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard.

The EPA estimates that the standard will save as many as 11,000 lives and prevent as many as 130,000 heart attacks every year once implemented. But as far as 35 US Senators are concerned – and Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, we’ve learned – preventing those health consequences just isn’t worth the effort.

That puts them – and any Senators voting to repeal the health standard – way out of step with the majority of Americans, according to a bi-partisan poll sponsored by the American Lung Association which found in March that 78% of likely voters support the stronger standards.

NRDC and NRDC Action Fund repeatedly asked Senator Inhofe to reveal the “Dirty Thirty” but the Senator refused those requests.  Only yesterday, as the deadly debate got underway on the Senate floor, did the list become public-only with 35 names on it.

Who are these Dirty Thirty and Filthy Five? Our best interpretation of the signatures on the petition produces the following list (any who are mistakenly listed, please let us know):

  1. John Boozman (AR)
  2. David Vitter (LA)
  3. John Cornyn (TX)
  4. Jon Kyl (AZ)
  5. Pat Roberts (KS)
  6. Jim Inhofe (OK)
  7. Tom Coburn (OK)
  8. John McCain (AZ)
  9. Pat Toomey (PA)
  10. John Thune (SD)
  11. John Barrasso (WY)
  12. Thad Cochran (MS)
  13. Jim DeMint (SC)
  14. Roy Blunt (MO)
  15. Richard Burr (NC)
  16. Rand Paul (KY)
  17. Jerry Moran (KS)
  18. Rob Portman (OH)
  19. Michael Enzi (WY)
  20. Lisa Murkowski (AK)
  21. Daniel Coats (IN)
  22. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
  23. Roger Wicker (MS)
  24. Orrin Hatch (UT)
  25. Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)
  26. Jeff Sessions (AL)
  27. Mitch McConnell (KY)
  28. Ron Johnson (WI)
  29. Mike Johanns (NE)
  30. James Risch (ID)
  31. John Hoeven (ND)
  32. Richard Shelby (AL)

While we are quite sure that the signatures on the petition are from the Senators listed above, it isn’t quite as clear for those below. We are attempting to confirm this list with the Senate. If any of the following Senators are not signatories to the Inhofe petition, please let us know and we will correct the list.

 33. Mike Lee (UT)

 34. Johnny Isakson (GA)

 35. Mike Crapo (ID)

The constituents these members represent should be furious at the betrayal of their health in favor of corporate polluters.

UPDATE:  In a welcomed show of bi-partisan support for clean air, the US Senate just voted against Senator Inhofe’s proposal to repeal the Mercury and Air Toxics standard. We’ll have more posts on the vote shortly.

Voting Against Children is Bad for Lawmakers’ Political Health

Turns out dirty air isn’t just bad for kids’ health – its bad for members of Congress who vote for it.

New polling conducted by Hart Research finds:

In a policy climate that is heavily focused on jobs and economic issues . . .  pollution and clean air standards—especially when framed around public health impacts—are an important and electorally relevant issue for voters in this critical target audience.

The findings are based on an intensive polling program commissioned by the NRDC Action Fund and focusing on three members of Congress, two of whom voted to block clean air standards and one of whom voted to strengthen them.

Following their votes to block the cleanup of toxic pollution from incinerators and industrial boilers (HR 2250), the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter and the League of Conservation Voters ran an ad criticizing Representative Tim Walberg (MI-07) and Environment Ohio ran an ad criticizing Representative Steve Stivers (OH-15).

Environment Ohio also praised Representative Betty Sutton (OH-13) in a TV ad, for her vote to clean up the toxic pollution from these sources.

NRDC Action Fund commissioned Hart Research to poll moderate ticket-splitting voters in each of their districts before and after the ads ran, to find out what effect knowledge of their member’s votes on air pollution would have on how they see them.

In other words, how members of Congress vote on air pollution and health motivates most swing voters; voting against clean air can politically hurt politicians, while voting for it can help them.

A quick recap of the findings:

In Tim Walberg’s district (MI-07):

  • Swing voter support for Tim Walberg dropped by 9 points between the pre-ad and post-ad polls; while the percent of undecided voters increased by 14 points during the same period, landing at 48% undecided after the ad.
  • Most swing voters – 57% say that knowing their Representative had voted to weaken clean air standards would cause them to feel less favorable toward the Rep – and 33% say this would make them feel much less favorable.
  • Walberg’s favorability among swing voters took a hit as well, his unfavorability going up 6 points from before to after the ad. Of those voters who definitely recalled the ad, 42% viewed Walberg negatively.

In Steve Stivers’ district (OH-15):

  • Swing voter support for Steve Stivers dropped by a stunning 15 points between the pre-ad and post-ad polls, cutting his advantage over an unnamed opponent from a twenty point lead to a five point lead. At the same time, the percent of undecided voters increased by 15 points during the same period, landing at 53% undecided after the ad.
  • Most swing voters – 53% say that knowing their Representative had voted to weaken clean air standards would cause them to feel less favorable toward the Rep – and 27% say this would make them feel much less favorable.
  • Swing voters’ negative feelings toward Stivers went up by 6 points between pre- and post-ad polls. Of those voters who definitely recalled the ad, 28% viewed Stivers negatively.

In Betty Sutton’s district (OH-13), ads praising the member for standing up for clean air clearly had a positive impact:

  • Betty Sutton’s net advantage over an unnamed opponent increased by 5 points.
  • 53% of swing  voters say that knowing their Representative had voted to protect clean air standards would cause them to feel more favorable toward the Rep.
  • Positive feelings about Betty Sutton went up as well, going from 28% positive pre-ad to 34% positive post-ad.

The campaign wonks out there will want to dig in to the memo, so I’ll let it get the rest across. But the bottom line message is pretty clear: a vote against clean air can cost members swing votes back home.

This post was updated 11/15/11.