It's a certainty in Washington that lobbyist talking points and inside-the-beltway speeches are going to be overblown and exaggerated. But lately, misleading claims about the EPA's work have been making their way into the mainstream debate.
The most notable is an industry report that the EPA is responsible for an unprecedented "train wreck" of clean air standards that will lead to the mass closure of power plants. The "train wreck" claim has been repeated by everyone from congressional leaders to major newspapers. It sounds pretty scary, but the trouble with these reports -- there is no "train wreck."
Earlier this month a Congressional Research Service report concluded that industry's claims were made "before EPA proposed most of the rules whose impacts they analyze," and are based on "more stringent requirements than EPA proposed in many cases."
On the issue of plant closures, I take the word of industry leaders like the Chairman and CEO of Exelon Corporation, who said "These regulations will not kill coal... up to 50% of retirements are due to the current economics of the plant due to natural gas and coal prices." The Congressional Research Service report also found that EPA's standards will primarily affect "coal-fired plants more than 40 years old that have not, until now, installed state-of-the-art pollution controls." That echoed the remarks of the CEO of American Electric Power from April of this year: "We've been quite clear that we fully intend to retire the 5,480 megawatts of our overall coal fleet because they are less efficient and have not been retrofitted in any particular way."
This is just one example from the larger debate over the EPA's effect on the economy. That's an important debate when job creation is our nation's top priority, and that makes it all the more troubling to see the EPA attacked for measures we haven't actually proposed, and to hear our fundamental responsibility of protecting the health and environment for all Americans targeted as an enemy of job creation.
Some in Washington are working to weaken safeguards and undermine laws that protect our families from pollution that causes asthma, cancer and other illnesses, especially in children. Big polluters are lobbying Congress for loopholes to use our air and water as dumping grounds. The result won't be more jobs; it will be more mercury in our air and water and more health threats to our kids. As a senior official from the Bush EPA recently wrote, "Abolishing the EPA will not cause a revival of America's economy, but it will certainly result in a major decline in public health and our quality of life."
It's time for a real conversation about protecting our health and the environment while growing our economy. EPA's 40 years of environmental and health protection demonstrate our nation's ability to create jobs while we clean our air, water and land.
When big polluters distort EPA's proposals as a drag on our economy, they ignore the fact that clean air, clear water and healthy workers are all essential to American businesses.
They also overlook the innovations in clean technology that are creating new jobs right now. The CEO of Michigan's Clean Light Green Light recently said, "EPA has opened the doors to innovation and new economic opportunities. By spurring entrepreneurs who have good ideas and the drive to work hard, the EPA has helped give rise to countless small businesses in clean energy, advanced lighting, pollution control and more, which in turn are creating jobs."
It's time to recognize that delays of long-expected health standards leave companies uncertain about investing in clean infrastructure, environmental retrofits, and the new workers needed to do those jobs. These are potential opportunities for engineers and scientists, as well as pipefitters, welders and steelworkers. Pledges to weaken or slow proposed standards, many of which have been developed over years and with industry input, prevent businesses from investing in those jobs.
Some leaders in Congress have already stated their intent to roll back critical environmental protections when they return to session. Misleading claims are translating into actions that could dismantle clean air standards that protect our families from mercury, arsenic, smog and carbon dioxide. All of this is happening despite the evidence of history, despite the evidence of Congress' own objective Research Service, and despite the need for job creation strategies that go well beyond simply undermining protections for our health, our families and our communities.
Telling the truth about our economy and our environment is about respecting the priorities of the American people. More than 70 percent of Americans want EPA to continue to do its job effectively. Those same Americans want to see a robust economic recovery. We have the capacity to do both things if we don't let distractions keep us from the real work of creating jobs.
Frances Beinecke: GOP Repackages Old Attacks on Environmental Safeguards and Calls It a Jobs Plan
Jeff Biggers: Appalachian Coalfield Leaders Join Tar Sands Pipeline White House Protest
Donnie Fowler: GOP Presidential Candidates on Clean Energy and Climate Change
Tempers Flare At Hearing On EPA Policies | FoxNews.com
GOP EPA Ban Rejected By Senate Democrats
GOP Debt Deal Agenda Included Wave Of Anti-EPA Riders
Carol Browner: GOP fight against EPA a replay of '95 - Dan Berman ...
What if Republicans Closed the E.P.A.? - Room for Debate ...
Republicans propose $1.6bn cut to Environmental Protection Agency
I have watched you speak at some seminars and before Congress. It is hard to belive that nothing has been done regarding regulation or chemical reform since the 70's when the Toxic Substance Control Act was enacted. Companies were supposed to start telling the EPA what chemicals are used in their products.
How strange that this is how the system works we need legislation to allow the EPA to have knowledge as to what chemicals are used in our products. Especially in these dangerous times anyone could set up shop and make a product and put whatever they want and do harm. Oh they are already doing that... I know people all over the world suffering from just everyday fragrance which as you know can contain anything or any number of unknown chemicals.
I appreciate your work and hope this legislation or someone should take responsibility for the sick before this gets out of control. I know our leaders have no idea what is in our products or how many are suffering while all this bickering goes on in Washington. There is no medical help for being poisoned when the poison is everywhere you go.
Red tape was cut, procedures were skirted and guess what, they just went belly up (bankrupt for those who don’t understand). Even it’s own accounting firm told the governemnt that they were a dubious risk and in trouble prior to the loan!
And guess what, the Department of Energy has lost all the paperwork, emails, etc. used to justify this loan. Now, that’s transparency isn’t it?
The shortages this Summer were from a persistent high pressure system which stopped ground winds and idled the turbines (or "fans" as you call them). The overabundance of wind electrical production is from a similar effect, our lack of technology to damp out the swings in wind power.
Yes, we do have problems with the EPA -- it isn't strong enough to do what it has to do, or to pay inspectors to do it. But keep in mind that solar PV power comes from semiconductor manufacture, which uses large amounts of cadmium, lead, mercury, harsh reagents, and has a history of under-regulation.
Sorry, but there's no easy way out. "Drill, Baby, Drill!" and "(Wind) Mill, Baby, (Wind) Mill!" make good sound bites, but that's all. Solving our energy problems will not be the no-sweat task that ANY part of the energy industry would have us believe. But the quicker we get to it, the better off we will be.
Really? OK, here is the bottom line.
I am old enough to remember smog covered cities and burning rivers. There were no enviromental regulations then. No one wants to go back to that. We have made great progress and our enviroment is by any measure MUCH cleaner than in the 1970’s.
All regulations cost money and jobs, you just have to balance the two. The problem is now our economy is already way down, you want to implement a bunch of new regulations we have not had before, at a time when we are out of money and need jobs.
Most people think the rules we have are working just fine. Our air is cleaner and our water is cleaner than in the 1970’s. Most people think NOW is just not the time to add a bunch of new and very expensive regulations.
Even Chris Mathews on MSNBC said, “we need to forget about green jobs for awhile and just concentrate on jobs period”.
Not high energy prices. That is a major difference.
Forget the highly charged debate about climate change. Let’s focus on health and safety issues. The sources of energy that we must take out of the ground are not limitless. We will need to drill deeper and encroach on fragile ecosystems to feed the beast. The historical record is not good – more miners/drillers will die and environmental disasters will continue. And the cost will increase because of scarcity of resource and expense of mining/drilling.
We have a growing population and energy needs will increase. As a nation, do we intend to meet those needs by building more coal plants to supply the grid? Do we intend to continue to build cars that burn fossil fuel? Is dumping more metric tons of pollution into our air the best we can do? The historical record here is not good either. Health care costs will continue to climb as more people become affected by pollution.
This is a failure of leadership. It is a failure of coal/oil/gas CEOs to see their companies as “energy” companies and reinvent themselves. And it is a failure of our government leaders to define a vision for this country and provide incentives to make that vision a reality.
I am all for the idea of making energy cheap. But let's use fair comparisons. We may find that the cheapest forms, when all costs are considered, are also the best forms for our society's welfare. And if not, let's innovate to reach our goal.
If we let the captains of industry call the shots, we're headed for higher energy costs as carbon-based finite resources become more scarce. We have an opportunity right before us to change the cost equation. The question is - when will we wake up? Will it be when we're pulling the last ounce of oil out of the ground with no alternative?
ECOPOLITICS
ECOPOLITICS
You understand that by giving the EPA the power to regulate CO2 emissions, you are giving the EPA the power to regulate the act of breathing.
You gain no deeper control over a person than that.
Which is the whole point anyway really isn't it?
We are not talking about regulating chemical discharges that pollute the air and water, but the regulation of one of the most prolific naturally occurring compounds in our universe.
The "science" of carbon "pollution" and it's affect on our planet dovetail quite nicely with the progressive political agenda. How convenient is that?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect you were serious, but thanks for the best laugh of the day anyway!
Today, the EPA essentially will not allow mining operations to built ponds like these because delays, rule changes and politics make it impossible for a business to plan around the EPA.
This is keeping the prices up and is doing no good for the environment.
Funny.
The EPA's deciding an area is wetland and cannot be used by a new operation when an old unregulated mining operation created the wetland in the first place is absurd.
Also, the EPA's constant rule changes delays the review of mine plans to the point that makes it impossible for a company to make plans.
The companies know it is easier to avoid areas where the EPA will drag out the approval for years. Coal that would be economically and responsibly mined is avoided and will not be mined at all once the mine is closed. This results in lost resources, higher prices
and the benefit to the environment is questionable when situations like the above are happening.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/28/couples-case-against-epa-to-be-heard/
The EPA abuses their power. I believe the EPA has good and bad people. The bad apples spoil the barrel. We have a similar but thankfully much more limited situation in Lewes DE. My friend has his dream beach house which he is slowly renovating. But we have stories to tell about the interlocking graft and corruption when it comes to land development around a lake. To shorten this story the EPA lied about their tests and refused to disclose their test results. They still have not given us their results. We hired an independent expert who tells us our land is not a wetland. But the story has a twist. The wetland on our property they say is 33x100 feet. It magically conforms to our survey boundaries and has square edges.
The truth our expert found is that the wetland is at best - 4x10 feet. 40 square feet. Versus 330 square feet they say. In fact even the 40 square feet is questionable. But the point is the EPA will twist the truth to write these administrative letters. The EPA can lie.
Watch the Supreme Court!
Surely not every word printed in the WT is a lie and your claim that it is tells us a lot about you.
The EPA is over stepping and the may destroy themselves in the process.
During the summer there have been electricity shortages across the southwest, and the EPA is closing plants AND delaying permits for new ones.
More and more people are getting angry. When your electricity is failing you just want to make sure the government is fixing the problem and not making it worse.
Next you're going to say the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus don't exist.