Another Romney Flip Flop: More Pollution From Cars and Trucks

Another day, another flip flop. At Sunday’s Mike Huckabee-hosted presidential forum, Republican candidate Mitt Romney offered up yet another flip flop, this time on reducing global warming pollution from cars and trucks. He said that he would “get the EPA out of its effort to manage carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and trucks.”

Back in 2004, then Governor Romney signed Massachusetts up to copy California in implementing carbon emissions standards for light duty vehicles. The car companies pretty much hated that because it created a dreaded “patchwork,” in which the standard would apply in about half of the states but not in the rest.

Luckily, the Obama administration stepped in. The President brokered a deal to come up with a single national standard to reduce carbon pollution, which the car companies, the states, unions, EPA, and environmental groups like NRDC could all agree on. He made it happen primarily through a rule issued by EPA, which reduces pollution, saves consumers money, and reduces confusion for industry. That program was so successful that last month, EPA proposed to extend and strengthen the program through 2025.

Back to Romney. Of course, no one likes a flip-flopper. But the truth is, sometimes it makes sense to change your mind. You get new information, like former climate-skeptic Richard Muller who came to his senses and realized the globe really is warming up. That’s what makes Romney’s latest flip flop so infuriating. Almost every bit of new information we have shows that the need to reduce global warming pollution is greater than ever and the dangers are worse than we previously thought.

And the rules that Romney once supported, but now decries, provide tremendous benefits. The new set of rules would save over 4 billion barrels of oil. Owners of new efficient vehicles would save up to $4,400 over the life of the vehicle. Since he doesn’t seem to have any problem with changing his positions, can we humbly suggest that the Governor just go ahead and switch back to the position that is good for industry, good for consumers and good for the planet?

Rep. Altmire: Your Pants Are Officially On Fire

Pennsylvania Congressman Jason Altmire is learning a hard lesson this week: When you vote repeatedly for bills that will mean more illness and death for your constituents, you have to expect to “own” those votes.

And make no mistake about it, Rep. Altmire has repeatedly voted to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from protecting public health and Pennsylvania families from dangerous mercury pollution and smog. (HR2250, House Vote 791, 10/13/11; HR2681, House Vote 764, 10/6/11; HR2401, House Vote 741, 9/23/11; HR1, House Vote 86, 2/17/11).

That’s why the League of Conservation Voters and the NRDC Action Fund is running this TV spotin Rep. Altmire’s congressional District.

In his defense … well, it isn’t much of a defense, really. So, let’s let Rep. Altmire speak for himself and then look at the facts in each case.

Altmire complains that “Once again, a Washington, D.C.-based special interest group has come into western Pennsylvania…”

Funny, Altmire doesn’t seem to have any problem with Washington, D.C. when it comes to fat-cat campaign contributions from energy and other industries. In fact, an analysis of his contributors reveals that his four biggest donors have Washington, D.C. addresses and five out of his top ten donors are based in Washington, DC.

Altmire says: “When I travel around Western Pennsylvania to discuss the factors holding back our economic recovery, onerous EPA regulations are at the top of the list.”

We say: Not so much. According to polling conducted by several different business groups, regulations are NOT on the top of the list:

  • The Small Business Majority (SBM) recently released a report, “Small Business Owners Believe National Standards Supporting Energy Innovation Will Increase Prosperity for Small Firms,” which found only 13 percent of small business owners believe regulation is the biggest problem facing their businesses.
  • McClatchy/Tribune News Services recently surveyed a random sample of small business owners nationwide and found Big Business rhetoric over regulation to be completely overblown. Under the headline “Regulations, taxes aren’t killing small business, owners say”, McClatchy/Tribune News reported that “McClatchy reached out to owners of small businesses, many of them mom-and-pop operations, to find out whether they indeed were being choked by regulation, whether uncertainty over taxes affected their hiring plans and whether the health care overhaul was helping or hurting their business. Their response was surprising. None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it.”
  • The National Federation of Small Business (NFIB) polls reveal that only 14 percent of their members consider regulations the “single most important problem” their business faces.
  • Even the U.S. Chamber’s own survey of small business shows small business owners do not name regulations as a major cause holding back job growth. Only 8% of Chamber members say that “Too much regulation” is the greatest obstacle to hiring new employees.

Altmire says: “I represent 700,000 residents of Western Pennsylvania and live here myself, along with my family,” said Altmire. “To imply that I would support any legislation that would promote an unhealthy environment and pollute the air we breathe and the water we drink is preposterous.”

It is preposterous to think that any Member of Congress would do such a thing. The only problem here is that’s exactly what Rep. Altimire did.

Here are the facts:

  • One of his anti-EPA votes repeals a clean air standard estimated to save as many as 2,900 lives per year in Pennsylvania alone.
  • Another Altmire vote would allow out-of-state power plants to continue dumping smog and soot pollution into the air would harm the 260,000 asthmatic kids in Pennsylvania, including the 32,500 kids in Allegheny, Beaver, Butler and Lawrence Counties – not to mention the more than 120,000 asthmatic adults in those counties.
  • And as our ad mentions, nearly one in ten women of child-bearing age in the region have blood mercury levels high enough to pose a risk to a developing baby.

Altmire says: “These regulations would dramatically raise our electricity rates and make it impossible for local energy producers to compete economically and to continue employing thousands of western Pennsylvania workers.”

Nonsense. Exelon and Constellation Energy, both major power producers with coal and fossil-fuel plants in Pennsylvania, support the stronger standards. In fact, a group of power companies subject to stronger EPA standards said of them: “these air regulations will not impact rates dramatically. Rather, the capital investments related to these regulations will create needed jobs and will yield many hundreds of billions of dollars in annual health benefits.”

Given that none of Rep Altmire’s rationales for stripping away health protections from his own constituents holds up to scrutiny, constituents can fairly ask the question: why is Representative Altmire protecting polluters, instead of our kids and families?

Michigan children suffer the consequences of air pollution

According to a striking new study from University of Michigan researchers, air pollution near Michigan public schools may jeopardize children’s health and academic success.

It’s surprising that Michigan and 23 other states do not require the environmental quality of areas under consideration for new schools to be evaluated (and they do not prohibit the placement of new industrial facilities and highways near existing schools). This means that school officials often have to site new schools where property values are low, such as near “polluting industrial facilities, major highways, and other potentially hazardous sites.”  The result: More than 63% of Michigan public schools were located in the more polluted parts of their districts.

The study’s authors found that schools located in areas with the highest pollution levels “had the lowest attendance rates (a potential indicator of poor health) and the highest proportions of students failing to meet the state’s educational testing standards.”  It shouldn’t come as any surprise that when you expose children to toxic chemicals, some of which are believed to impair mental development, there will be consequences.
Read More »

Tags: , , ,  

Rep. Upton pitches softball questions to big donor at House hearing

Its never surprising to see members of Congress toss softball questions to witnesses they’ve summoned to Washington to make political points. But even some jaded eyebrows in Washington were raised last week when Rep. Fred Upton tossed a bunch of softball questions to the chairman of a DTE Energy, a company that is one of his largest political donors.

It gets worse: In the month before the hearing, Upton received $12,000 from DTE Energy’s staff and PAC. Contributors included DTE Energy’s Chairman/CEO, President, Executive Vice President, Senior Vice President and Attorney.   In fact, DTE donated more than $19,000 to Rep. Upton during 2009-2010 and was his 5th largest contributor.

DTE Energy donates to a number of politicians from both political parties, but these donations in the weeks before a hearing on air pollution are notable — especially since DTE Energy is being sued by the EPA for violating the Clean Air Act for failing to install required pollution controls on its biggest coal-fired power plants(one of the dirtiest in the nation).

Not surprisingly, Upton asked softball questions of DTE’s Chairman/CEO Anthony Earley, Jr. and echoed the dirty energy industry’s messaging:

Is it any wonder that Rep. Upton has been repeatedly criticized for promoting special interest’s profits over the public health?

You can read the NRDC’s testimony on the same topic or this blog post .

You can also watch NRDC’s John Walke testimony at the same hearing here:

Tags: ,