More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins

Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins

Posted: January 20, 2011 04:12 PM

Earlier this week, behind closed doors, top aides to members of the House energy and Senate environment committees met with industry lobbyists to ask for a favor.

For what you ask? Helping the struggling middle class? Improving public education in our schools? Helping families facing foreclosure stay in their homes?

No, the request was not about any of these issues. These lawmakers had other things on their mind; specifically, they wanted help in threatening public health and safety.

No, this wasn't a typo. Let me explain.

Recently, aides to Congressman Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Senator Jim Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, met with representatives of the energy industry -- reportedly, big players like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute.

According to reports, aides of these two public officials asked the energy representatives for their support in launching a legislative and public relations war against measures to protect and enhance our environment. The beginning of this effort is to handcuff the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Their ultimate goal is to prevent ALL federal and state bodies from having this authority.

To no one's surprise, the energy industry agreed to support this attack on our environment. In some ways, it's fitting that this deal was done behind closed doors because, if this group had their way, the open air wouldn't be safe enough to breathe anyway.

Naturally, such backroom deals raise questions. Are these lawmakers hearing from the other side: the communities who live near toxic and hazardous conditions?

While they focus on the short-term interests of their friends, are they at all considering the long-term impact that their actions will have on our entire nation? It doesn't seem like it.

The shame of it all is that they are doing it under the guise of "saving jobs." The truth is that what's good for the environment isn't bad for the economy. In fact, the growth of the clean energy sector, which makes our communities more sustainable, is also creating good-paying jobs that put people to work.

At Green For All, we look at the big picture and see that it is in the nation's environmental and economic interests to build a green economy. We believe that America must make a serious commitment to this industry now; otherwise we'll fall further behind China and, eventually, the rest of the world. Such a commitment would be good for the public and economic health of our country.

When elected officials refuse to see this -- is it because seeing clearly isn't good for their friends? (Or is the air too smoggy to see through?)

It's appalling that the special interests continue to undermine the public interest, and an issue as important as climate change has become the subject of petty political games.

As a result, all of us will suffer at the hands of lawmakers and lobbyists who want to help each other, even if it means hurting everyone else.

 

Follow Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/phaedraEL

 
 
  • Comments
  • 33
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:21 PM on 01/21/2011
Well, "saving jobs" doesn't mean that they are saving them for US citizens! You know all the big power plants around the country? They need to have maintenance and periodically replacement of insulation, piping and electrical. Entergy Corp lays off local insulators, pipers, etc. then they bring in Russian companies who have greased the palms of Congress to allow them into to the construction industry in the plants. So, your neighbor gets laid off and Ivar gets a job - paid by taxpayer financed incentives.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lance Manling
12:22 PM on 01/21/2011
Perhaps if your story was less whiny and more credible, people might buy it.

I bet Fox News was involved too!
photo
tnkeating
Dyslexic agnostic insomniac
09:42 AM on 01/21/2011
Wrong Phaedra, I think its more like we need protection from the enviroment. The EPA is responsible for protecting the enviroment not taxing we the people. That responsibility lays with the House of Representatives. Just as you people know when to turn tail and run from a war, you should know this war of theorys on the enviroment is long lost. The best you can do is add insulation to your home, make it more structural as we do here in Florida to withstand the storms, its much cheaper than changing the unchangeable.
niko73
Dem belly full but we hungry
09:34 PM on 01/22/2011
How is the EPA taxing you exactly?
08:31 AM on 01/21/2011
Don't worry about the so called 'faulty' science. We are already seeing the effects of global warming. These will only get worse. It is far to late to get back what we have already lost. Just like the extinction of the creatures who lived on earth, whom we cannot get back.
The very best we can do about the climate change would be to completely get off of fossil fuels. However the damage we have already done is unchangeable. So whether you "believe" in it or not doesn't matter. It is like not "believing" you are pregnant, you will still have a child. So, don't believe if you don't want to. It is very unlikely what you believe will make any difference.
03:38 AM on 01/21/2011
My Dear Phaedra,

While what the Repubs you mention want to do is probably not the best of plans, it is justifiable from a scientific point of view. You are apparently unaware that the CRU's climate models that supposedly "prove" AGW are biased(See
beforeitsnews.com/story/0/554/Climategate_Fudged_Climate_Change_Models_from_CRU_also_Released.html). An article will very soon be published in Nature inwhich Mann et al's model was reviewed by a group of statisticians ( whom he did not consult for initial peer review) who applied several sets of random data to his computer model and every time it shows warming ! Further according to the Climategate emails Dr Mann admits that he intentionally used datasets that showed warming(as opposed to a more accurate data set that did not show significant warming). In other words, the data and models that demonstrate AGW were all "fudged". Wait, let me explain that in language that even a liberal arts basket weaving journalist major can comprehend. They falsified their results ! The motive ? Likely to keep research $ flowing.

The EPA were all too eager to accept these faked results(rather than doing their jobs and critically reviewing it). But then, they too stand to benefit from an AGW crisis.

So, is AGW really happening ? We really don't know. Perhaps so, perhaps not. An impartial review is needed. But given these FACTS, can you really condemn them for these actions ?
apiazza
There is no such thing as a fiscal conservative.
07:27 AM on 01/21/2011
You can't argue with people that make up their minds that something isn't true...despite the facts.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
07:34 AM on 01/21/2011
Dear James,

No more "impartial reviews" of AGW are needed. The science is conclusive and all you have left are lies from right wing blogs to try to discredit some of the finest scientists on the planet. These men and women are patriots who have been thanklessly laboring for modest salaries to uncover the greatest danger humanity has ever faced. Rather than have right wing thugs in Congress vilifying them we should be giving them medals and listening to their advice on how to save ourselves from global warming.
photo
tnkeating
Dyslexic agnostic insomniac
09:57 AM on 01/21/2011
If you think thats the greatest danger to mankind, you'd better think again. You want advice, science like the weather changes daily, where sun block daily, add structural elements to your home, maybe build an Ark. Whos vilifying who? Stop with the hate thing, if you don't like what your congressman does, write and tell him, or her.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sister Bluebird
11:33 PM on 01/20/2011
Cant drink oil, natural gas or frack water. Just saying. And you shouldn't eat seafood from the GOM. So no, none of this surprises me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fiddler3
physicist, musician, parent
10:02 PM on 01/20/2011
There are more effective ways to make the point. The GOP is simply doing what they said they would do. The folks named do not believe in AGW and think it is not appropriate for the EPA to be regulating CO2. Of course, if you have a different view of the effects of GHGs, you would come to a different conclusion. But the problem is not one of Republican leaders wishing to do harm to the citizens, it is a question of convincing these Republican leaders (and the voters who support them) that CO2 is causing climate change.
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
08:17 PM on 01/20/2011
Wow thats a pretty hard slant. It's OK for the liberals to talk to Green peace and the rest of the Enviro-mob but it's not OK for the GOP to talk to business organizations about their interests? Too funny did you see the budget proposal the GOP put out today? Should be real fun.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kringle
Resurrection of the Gifting Spirit
07:10 PM on 01/20/2011
Why are we not seeing SERIOUS discussion about hemp-based fuel sources?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William50
07:08 PM on 01/20/2011
Following world war two, when the huge government contacts for the war were ended, when millions of men came home and needed work the government, the United States Government worked with industry to increase jobs, send the men and women to school and grow America.
Grow America, two words that should be shouted every time you talk about unemployment. Grow America, to day we have millions of strong, able, trained Americans and we also have vast needs that have been ignored for decades. To day America needs seven new atomic, seven new coal/gas fired power plants and an equal amount in green energy. Instead of unemployment why not employment checks for jobs we need for today to grow America for tomorrow. Today we need new transmission lines to carry this power, two new oil refineries, and countless water treatment systems across the USA all needing funding to put Americans back to work and to grow America. Today in every mega city are huge areas that need to be rebuilt for this and the next century, again growing America for the future.
Grow America is needed today. Grow America is needed to rebuild, retool and educate America. Grow America will become the battle cry for the next two years from the American Party.
Grow America, pass it along, let your voice be heard and the cry grow over this land. Lets change unemployment to employment and do the jobs this country needs now.
Casey
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
cats530
Valar morghulis
06:13 PM on 01/20/2011
Just when I think the GOP can't sink any lower, they come up with something else.
niko73
Dem belly full but we hungry
05:14 PM on 01/20/2011
Not surprising. Dick Cheney got all the energy execs together at the beginning of the Bush Administration and asked them all what they would like. What regulations should they remove? What policies should they put in place to most benefit their companies? He and Norton promptly put it all in motion.

Wanna know what else? Interior Sec. Ken Salazar did the exact same thing with environmental interests. He asked them what changes these major conservation organizations (Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, etc) would like to see out of the Dept of Interior. One by one, he's going down their wish list: Oil and gas leasing policy. Check. Wild Lands policy. Check. We’re seeing organized environmental interests calling policy shots in the Interior Dept.

I was jaded and thought maybe the Obama Admin wouldn't cater so much to special interests. I thought maybe he would let us normal people influence policy. I was wrong. I happen to agree more with the enviro's recommendations, but it's really the same as what the Repugnants are doing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
slowuncle
Ella Megalast Burls Forever
05:45 PM on 01/20/2011
If the oil lobbyist's chair is empty, I hardly see the scenario you've just painted as a net-loss for the citizen and the consumer when an "enviro" has occupied that empty seat before another oil lobbyist can fill the vacancy.
All special interests are NOT equally toxic to Americans
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
08:21 PM on 01/20/2011
And who are you to decide that?
niko73
Dem belly full but we hungry
09:16 PM on 01/20/2011
Sure, you and I agree. But I live in a rural town of drill baby drill rednecks who don't feel the same.

My point is not that a bunch of enviros telling this administration what to is as bad as a bunch of oil execs telling the last administration what to do. But I'm being impartial. It is the same, or worse, to other people. I keep an open mind and have concluded that both are special interests. Sure, conservation NGOs represent the views of some Americans. But so do oil execs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:10 PM on 01/20/2011
Investors want profit and there is no profit in the "green" industry, until then the industry will meander around. Plants have closed building solar panel on the east coast. Windmill plants have downsizes in the midwest.

The electrical grid can't handle electric cars if demand goes up. The electrical grid can't handle the additional windmill producing energy on the gride. Need to improve the electrical grid prior to electric working.
06:12 PM on 01/20/2011
Umm...what planet are you living on? There is plenty of profit in the green industry. I work for the third largest wind energy company in the world and we just exceeded our PPA targets significantly, despite the bad economy. I agree that the grid needs to be improved, but that's not an argument for stalling on green energy. Here in Texas there are plans to build 12 new coal-fired plants...this electricity has to be carried on grids too, no? If we substituted these plants for wind we all would be in much better shape.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marco01
09:45 PM on 01/20/2011
He's living on the conservative planet where facts are picked and distorted to fit around the ideology.

Fanned for being part of the solution.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Pasterczyk
Banned!
03:09 AM on 01/21/2011
Perhaps you could explain, then, all the power-generating windmills I saw in Indiana around Lafayette or throughout Wyoming of all places on a little jaunt I took recently to view the country from ground level.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
larry putman
pyrgist
05:00 PM on 01/20/2011
why do you have to demonize republicans. businesses pay off the ones in charge, this has nothing to do with party affiliation. the environmental protection agency (EPA) began under a republican. please sustain from childish finger pointing, i am a republican (fiscal conservative) (liberal socially) and i care about the environment and do not know one republican that does not!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
cats530
Valar morghulis
06:17 PM on 01/20/2011
I will have to fave you, even though I don't care for most repubs. To be honest, you are the FIRST repub I've encountered who says he cares about the environment; most I've met are intent on destroying it. I was unaware that EPA began under repub. Thanks for the knowledge.
photo
blackwind
Relax, nothing is under control
06:37 PM on 01/20/2011
If you can't see that the Republican party is hostile to environmental protection of all sorts, then you have been paying no attention at all the last few decades.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cccoyote
Welcome to Citizens United, formerly the USA
04:37 PM on 01/20/2011
If it generates cash and has federal perks, special interests will lobby in full force.
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
08:30 PM on 01/20/2011
Very true! And that applies equally across the entire spectrum.