mykeystrokes.com

"Do or Do not. There is no try."

“The GOP Won’t Be Happy”: Preparing For The Great Republican Freak-Out Over Obama’s Environmental Regulations

On June 2, President Obama is expected to announce his new EPA rules on extant coal-fired power plants. As Jonathan Chait points out in an excellent background piece on the legal issues, this will be the centerpiece of his second-term agenda. How strong these rules are, and whether or not his administration manages to guide them successfully through the bureaucratic gauntlet, may well outstrip ObamaCare in historical importance.

In another good piece, Chait outlines why the political blowback from these rules is likely to be very bad:

Republicans are likely to have the better of the debate politically. Support for regulating carbon emissions may be broad, but it’s tissue-thin — Americans rank climate change near or at the bottom of their priorities. A 2011 survey found the amount an average American would pay in higher electricity costs for the sake of clean energy to be a pitiably low $162 a year. The absence of an extended, ObamaCare-style legislative slog will help Obama’s case, but years of lengthy court battles won’t. Opponents may manage to sustain state-level challenges and overwhelming red-state resistance. [New York]

It’s an all too convincing argument. However, I think the political forecast is not quite so dire as he makes out, for two reasons: El Niño, and the fact that the weakened coal industry is already teetering. Knowing Republicans, there is probably nothing that will forestall an enraged GOP backlash, but these two facts might take some of the wind out of their turbines.

First: El Niño. It’s a deeply complex and still not fully understood phenomenon (Brad Plumer has a nice explanation here), but the bumper sticker idea is that the surface of the tropical Pacific gets much warmer than usual. Scientists are now giving it about a 75 percent chance that El Niño will develop over the next few months. This matters for the politics, because it means it will get hot.

El Niño is strongly correlated with high surface temperatures — both 2010 and 1998, the first- and second-hottest years ever measured, respectively, were El Niño years. Last month tied for the hottest April of all time, and this summer could be even hotter. (And down the road, 2015 will almost certainly break the record for hottest year ever recorded, possibly by a lot.)

As Nate Cohn explains, extreme heat tends to shift belief in climate change, especially when combined with El Niño’s typical bouts of extreme weather. This is a bit silly, scientifically speaking (a cold winter doesn’t disprove global warming), but it does seem to have a robust political effect.

Second is the weak position of the coal industry. Though it has made a small comeback in the last year or so, its long-term decline is almost certainly unstoppable. For most of the Obama era, it has been hammered by cheap natural gas and regulations on heavy metals, resulting in dozens of plant closures.

Solar is now so cheap that it is becoming a legitimate threat. Almost one-third of all new electricity generation was solar last year. The carbon barons are fighting a desperate rearguard action to legislate solar out of the market, but if prices continue to fall (as they are predicted to do) these kinds of actions will be ever more unjustifiable. Increasingly, coal is simply an antiquated and crummy way to generate electricity.

Of course, these trends don’t guarantee that the EPA regulations will come out unscathed. But they will shift the political terrain. Just like it’s hard to argue in favor of deregulation during a financial crisis, it will be harder to argue against climate regulations during record-smashing heat waves. And while Republicans would dearly love to burn every single gram of coal on the planet, they’ll have a harder time time doing it if Big Coal is simply losing in the market.

 

By: Ryan Cooper, National Correspondent, The Week, May 22, 2014

May 23, 2014 Posted by | Climate Change, Coal Industry, Environmental Protection Agency | , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Hypocrisy And Stupidity Of The GOP’s Hatred Of The EPA

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum has taken advantage of his newfound popularity to get on board the Republican war against clean air and water.

According to Santorum, the new EPA rule that will finally place limits on how much mercury the nation’s coal and oil fired power plants can spew into the air —a regulation specifically created to protect young children and developing fetuses from the damage known to be caused by mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin—will shut down 60 power plants in the US and is “not based on any kind of science.”

Nonsense.

What Santorum is not telling you is that we have long had regulations on mercury emissions for other types of emission sources such as waste incinerators. Why? Because it is no secret that mercury is highly damaging to our health, particularly the health of children and developing fetuses.  Yet, coat and oil fired power plants, the single-largest source of mercury emissions, were never included in the limits —until now.

Indeed, the only thing not based on any kind of science is Santorum’s determination that causing some private power plant operators to install the technology required to stay within the new emission limits is more important than the estimated 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks that will be prevented each and every year as a result lowering the level of mercury in the air.

While it may not play well with the GOP base and Tea Party members committed to ending federal government regulations—even when they make sense—the new EPA rules are the result of a peer-reviewed study that has taken twenty years to complete.

But it’s not like one requires a degree in chemical engineering to appreciate that mercury in the air can’t be a good thing.

If you doubt this, just listen to the never-ending GOP complaints over the dangers of mercury escaping from the compact florescent light (CFL) bulbs the government will soon require us to use in place of the highly inefficient incandescent bulbs. While the supposed dangers of mercury from a broken CFL bulb falling to the carpet is enough to motivate conservatives to fill their basements with stockpiles of old-school style light bulbs as if they were preparing for electric-Armageddon, they don’t seem to have a problem with coal plants pouring this neurotoxin into the air where it can cause all sorts of serious health problems for the entire population.

How does that make any sense? You would think that these Republicans and their children breathe different air than the rest of us.

But then, maybe they do.  You don’t find a lot of coal burning power plants in upper-class neighborhoods – only the people who own the plants and would prefer not to have to spend the money to upgrade their technology to meet the new standards to protect the rest of their fellow citizens.

While you may wish to argue that the amount of mercury exposure resulting from a busted CFL bulb in your house is, somehow, more dangerous than being exposed to mercury 24/7, you would be wrong.  Despite the horror stories being pitched suggesting that people in hazmat gear will be required to clean up a busted light bulb, the truth is a broken CFL bulb will be swept up (not vacuumed) just as broken bulbs have always been swept up.  A little more care is required in disposal just as more care is required when disposing of used batteries.

And yet, despite these obviously contradictory impulses, the GOP is ready to shut down the EPA because the agency dared to require power plants to reduce the amount of mercury it pumps into the air.

If this behavior fails to strike you as sufficiently odd, consider the hypocrisy of a man like Rick Santorum—as dedicated a pro-lifer as you will find—who argues, in defense of life, that a physician who performs an abortion should be treated as a criminal and thrown in jail but defends the practice of spreading the very neurotoxins through the air that damage the development of many unborn children along with the many already born children who will grow up to be sickly adults—or worse— due to the illnesses caused by mercury.

If you are going to protect life, then protect all life — not just the ones that will win you some votes. To do otherwise is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

We all understand that, from time to time, the government can get carried away and over regulate. If it can be shown that a regulation is causing far more harm than good, I have no problem doing away with that regulation.

However, when it comes to our health and the health of our children, is over-regulation even possible? Does it ever make sense to balance the need to drive profit against the desire to have healthy children?

The bottom line here is that the GOP has picked the wrong enemy in taking on the EPA. You simply can’t argue that you are pro-life and then be unwilling to protect that life because you believe it is bad for business.

With the exception of the die hard GOP base, it’s a losing pitch as voters just aren’t going to buy it.

And we all know what that means.

 

By: Rick Ungar, Contributing Writer, Forbes, January 3, 2012

January 4, 2012 Posted by | Energy, Environment, Environmental Protection Agency | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The GOP Magical World Of Voodoo ‘Economists’: Repeal The 20th Century

If you came up with a bumper sticker that pulls together the platform of this year’s crop of Republican presidential candidates, it would have to be:

Repeal the 20th century. Vote GOP.

It’s not just the 21st century they want to turn the clock back on — health-care reform, global warming and the financial regulations passed in the wake of the recent financial crises and accounting scandals.

These folks are actually talking about repealing the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agency, created in 1970s.

They’re talking about abolishing Medicare and Medicaid, which passed in the 1960s, and Social Security, created in the 1930s.

They reject as thoroughly discredited all of Keynesian economics, including the efficacy of fiscal stimulus, preferring the budget-balancing economic policies that turned the 1929 stock market crash into the Great Depression.

They also reject the efficacy of monetary stimulus to fight recession, and give the strong impression they wouldn’t mind abolishing the Federal Reserve and putting the country back on the gold standard.

They refuse to embrace Darwin’s theory of evolution, which has been widely accepted since the Scopes Trial of the 1920s.

One of them is even talking about repealing the 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution, allowing for a federal income tax and the direct election of senators — landmarks of the Progressive Era.

What’s next — repeal of quantum physics?

Not every candidate embraces every one of these kooky ideas. But what’s striking is that when Rick Perry stands up and declares that “Keynesian policy and Keynesian theory is now done,” not one candidate is willing to speak up for the most important economic thinker of the 20th century. Or when Michele Bachmann declares that natural selection is just a theory, none of the other candidates is willing to risk the wrath of the religious right and call her on it. Leadership, it ain’t.

I realize economics isn’t a science the way biology and physics are sciences, but it’s close enough to one that there are ideas, principles and insights from experience that economists generally agree upon. Listening to the Republicans talk about the economy and economic policy, however, is like entering into an alternative reality.

Theirs is a magical world in which the gulf oil spill and the Japanese nuclear disaster never happened and there was never a problem with smog, polluted rivers or contaminated hamburger. It is a world where Enron and Worldcom did not collapse and shoddy underwriting by bankers did not bring the financial system to the brink of a meltdown. It is a world where the unemployed can always find a job if they really want one and businesses never, ever ship jobs overseas.

As politicians who are always quick to point out that it is only the private sector that creates economic growth, I found it rather comical to watch the governors at last week’s debate duke it out over who “created” the most jobs while in office. I know it must have just been an oversight, but I couldn’t help noticing that neither Mitt Romney nor Perry thought to exclude the thousands of government jobs included in their calculations — the kinds of jobs they and their fellow Republicans now view as economically illegitimate.

And how wonderfully precise they can be when it comes to job numbers. Romney is way out front when it comes to this kind of false precision. His new economic plan calculates that President Obama would “threaten” 7.3 million jobs with the ozone regulation that, in fact, the president had just canceled. By contrast, Romney claims his own plan will create 11 million jobs in his first term — not 10, not 12, but 11 million.

When you dig into such calculations, however, it turns out many are based on back-of-the-envelope extrapolations from industry data that totally ignore the dynamic quality of economic interactions.

One recent example comes from the cement industry, which now warns that new regulations limiting emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide could close as many as 18 of the 100 cement plants in the United States, resulting in the direct loss of 13,000 jobs.

Then again, where do you think all those customers of the 18 plants will get their cement? Do you think they might get some of it from the other 82 plants, which in turn might have to add a few workers to handle the additional volume? Or that a higher price for cement might induce somebody to build a modern plant to take advantage of the suddenly unmet demand? Or perhaps that higher prices for cement will lead some customers to use another building material produced by an industry that will have to add workers to increase its output? And what about the possibility that the regulation will encourage some innovative company to devise emissions-control equipment that will not only allow some of those plants to remain open but generate a few thousand extra jobs of its own as it exports to plants around the world.

Such possibilities are rarely, if ever, acknowledged in these “job-scare studies.” Also left out are any estimates of the benefits that might accrue in terms of longer, healthier lives. In the Republican alternative universe, it’s all costs, no benefits when it comes to government regulation. As they see it, government regulators wake up every morning with an uncontrollable urge to see how many jobs they can destroy.

If consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, then these Republican presidential candidates are big thinkers, particularly on fiscal issues.

In the Republican alternative universe, allowing an income tax cut for rich people to expire will “devastate” the U.S. economy, while letting a payroll tax cut for working people to expire would hardly be noticed. Cutting defense spending is economic folly; cutting food stamps for poor children an economic imperative.

My favorite, though, is a proposal, backed by nearly all the candidates along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to allow big corporations to bring home, at a greatly reduced tax rate, the more than $1 trillion in profits they have stashed away in foreign subsidiaries.

“Repatriation,” as it is called, was tried during the “jobless recovery” of the Bush years, with the promise that it would create 500,000 jobs over two years as corporations reinvested the cash in their U.S. operations. According to the most definitive studies of what happened, however, most of the repatriated profits weren’t used to hire workers or invest in new plants and equipment. Instead, they were used to pay down debt or buy back stock.

But fear not. In a new paper prepared for the chamber, Republican economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin argues that just because the money went to creditors and investors doesn’t mean it didn’t create jobs. After all, creditors and shareholders are people, too — people who will turn around and spend most of it, in the process increasing the overall demand for goods and services. As a result, Holtz-Eakin argues, a dollar of repatriated profit would have roughly the same impact on the economy as a dollar under the Obama stimulus plan, or in the case of $1 trillion in repatriated profit, about 3 million new jobs.

It’s a lovely economic argument, and it might even be right. But for Republican presidential candidates, it presents a little problem. You can’t argue, at one moment, that putting $1 trillion of money in the hands of households and business failed to create even a single job, and at the next moment argue that putting an extra $1 trillion in repatriated profit into their hands will magically generate jobs for millions.

It took a while, but even Richard Nixon came around to declaring himself a Keynesian. Maybe there is still hope for Perry and the gang.

By: Steve Pearlstein, Columnist, The Washington Post, September 10, 2011

September 14, 2011 Posted by | Affordable Care Act, Banks, Class Warfare, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Economic Recovery, Economy, Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Budget, Global Warming, GOP, Government, Health Reform, Ideologues, Ideology, Jobs, Medicaid, Medicare, Middle Class, Politics, Public, Regulations, Republicans, Right Wing, Social Security, Taxes, Tea Party, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Unemployed, Wealthy | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Year After BP’s Oil Spill, Congress Sits Idly By: “It’s Not In The Headlines Anymore”

A year has passed since BP PLC’s Macondo well exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 rig workers and launching the nation’s worst oil spill — and an all-encompassing environmental drama that played out for months as the oil industry and federal government struggled to contain the gusher.

But the heart-wrenching images of oil-slicked pelicans and the otherworldly videos of oil spewing from the seafloor largely seem to have faded from the minds of lawmakers on Capitol Hill. A year after the blowout, members of Congress have made little progress toward addressing the issues raised by the disaster.

The reasons for their lassitude are numerous.

Chief among them is the highly partisan environment on Capitol Hill, where a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate struggles to find common ground with the overwhelmingly Republican House.

“We haven’t responded because of the general polarization that has affected us in the last few months,” said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.).

Also key is a shift in concern over offshore drilling safety, regulatory reform and coastal restoration to a closer-to-the-belt fear about the economic ramifications of escalating gasoline prices.

“It’s not in the headlines anymore,” said Rep. Joe Barton(R-Texas), the former ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who infamously apologized to BP’s then-CEO Tony Hayward last summer for having to endure what Barton characterized as a White House “shakedown.”

Indeed, in the months since BP contained the gusher, a nuclear crisis in Japan and political unrest in the Middle East have sparked a rapid rise in crude oil prices, shifting the energy conversation from one disaster to another. And a resumption of deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico — albeit slowly — has dampened the urgency to pass a spill-response bill that would end the Obama administration’s ban on offshore exploration, a GOP priority.

Still, the lack of progress on a congressional spill response is not sitting well with many in the environmental community.

“I don’t think anybody in Congress has a legitimate excuse for the fact that they’ve done nothing to respond to the worst environmental disaster this nation has ever seen,” said Regan Nelson, senior oceans advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Nor has it quelled the concerns of some of the staunchest environmental Democrats on Capitol Hill.

“We should have moved last year. We need a response,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

History repeating itself?

But there is historical context for the delay. Congress waited a year and a half after the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Alaska’s Prince William Sound in March 1989 before taking legislative action.

That spill happened at the beginning of the 101st Congress, when Democrats held the majority in both chambers.

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is different. The disaster occurred in an election year, and although the House was able to pass a Democrat-authored spill-response measure last summer, the Senate ran out of political steam to push a bill through in the weeks before the election or in the “lame duck” session last fall.

The House-passed measure (H.R. 3534 (pdf)), which incorporated Democratic language from three House committees, would have beefed up offshore worker and environmental safety standards, imposed new ethics standards on federal drilling regulators, created a restoration program to coordinate efforts to rehabilitate the Gulf of Mexico and created a new industry-funded endowment to protect oceans, among other provisions.

It also would have eliminated liability limits on companies drilling offshore, something most Republicans and oil-state Democrats are staunchly against because of the impact it could have on smaller and independent drillers. Despite GOP resistance to the liability language and other provisions — 193 Republicans and oil-state Democrats voted against the measure — the legislation was ultimately reported favorably. But talks quickly stalled in the Senate, where Democratic margins were smaller and resistance to the liability language from two moderate oil-state Democrats was too great to allow time for passage in the waning months of 2010.

The liability issue is complex and hearkens back to the legislation passed in response to the Exxon Valdez spill. Under that law, Congress capped oil companies’ liability for economic damages related to a spill at $75 million. Oil companies are still responsible for paying the full cost of containing and cleaning up a spill.

At the Obama administration’s prodding last summer — the “shakedown” Barton referred to — BP set up an independent $20 billion claims fund to pay for spill-related damages.

And even though BP agreed to pay for all the financial costs related to its spill — such as fishermen put out of work or empty hotels at the beach at high season — many Democrats in Congress watched in horror as the price tag of those damages escalated and called for a significant hike or complete elimination of the $75 million liability limit to protect coastal residents from a future spill where the companies involved might not have such deep coffers.

Republicans and the oil-state Democrats are not necessarily opposed to raising the cap. They just do not want to eliminate it outright. Doing so would shut out smaller producers and devastate an already battered coastal economy, they say.

“I think there’s widespread consensus among Democrats and Republicans that the liability limit is too low, that it needs to be raised,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the chief opponents of the unlimited liability language. “We want to do that in a way … that keeps the industry as robust as possible between the large multinational companies and the smaller independent companies” (E&E Daily, Feb. 2).

Landrieu is working with Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) on liability compromise language that would raise the initial cap to $250 million after which an industry-funded insurance pool would kick in. But the lawmakers have been negotiating on language since last September, with new promises each week that a bill is forthcoming. They have not introduced a compromise measure yet.

Other Democrats — and a lone Republican — have introduced new measures in both the House and Senate that would eliminate the liability cap entirely.

House focus on drilling

But none shows promise of moving any time soon. Republicans in the House appear poised to take up measures that would instead accelerate domestic oil and gas production, and Senate Democratic leaders have struggled to pass even slightly controversial bills.

Indeed, the House Natural Resources Committee this week marked up three measures from Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) that would force lease sales in new areas and compel the Interior Department to speed up drilling permit processing, among other provisions.

Such a stance is garnering criticism from Democrats on and off the Hill, like Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose agency is responsible for overseeing offshore drilling.

“Much of the legislation I’ve seen bandied around, especially with the House Republicans, it’s almost as if the Deepwater Horizon Macondo well incident never happened,” Salazar told reporters earlier this week. “Some people seem to have gotten amnesia of Deepwater Horizon and the horrific BP spill. I don’t have amnesia” (E&ENews PM, April 12).

Interior has taken great strides to boost its regulatory structure and offshore drilling safety in the months since the spill. The agency has imposed new, stricter permitting safety standards. And it has completely reorganized the beleaguered office that oversees offshore development.

But Hastings bristled at Salazar’s remarks, saying one of his measures would strengthen drilling safety.

“The Gulf bill does two things that’s not current in law: It puts in law the permitting process and it requires the secretary to do a safety review, cleanup review,” Hastings told reporters in the Capitol this week. “Now those two are significant reforms in my vision.”

Democrats have other reforms in mind.

“Here we are, one week removed from the first anniversary of the BP spill, and the Republican majority is marking up a trio of bills that will take us back to the days of rubber stamps and systemic failures,” said Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the leading Democrat on the resources panel, in a statement earlier this week. “This legislative package reflects a pre-spill mentality of speed over safety.”

Markey earlier this year introduced a new spill-response bill (H.R. 501 (pdf)) that largely mirrors the House-passed bill from last summer while incorporating some of the recommendations from the presidential commission tasked with investigating the causes of the disaster.

The seven-member commission issued its final report to the president in January, making a number of recommendations about how to improve offshore drilling safety and citing the BP incident as evidence of “systemic” problems within the industry.

But Republicans have bristled at that language and will likely ignore the commission’s findings — and Markey’s prodding.

Specifically, Markey’s bill includes the unlimited liability language and calls for a dedicated funding stream for the federal agencies overseeing the offshore drilling industry from user fees on the oil and gas industry.

Republicans and the oil industry have raised concerns about language in the bill that would impose new fees on the oil industry.

Legislation that imposes new fees “would not achieve the results that some of these members are trying to achieve. It would actually reduce investment, reduce revenues, harm jobs,” said Eric Wohlschlegel, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s main trade group.

Instead, he said the industry tends to sway toward Hastings’ approach. “Policies that allow for more access will actually accomplish a lot of goals currently on Capitol Hill, which is create jobs, increase revenues and increase energy security.”

Senate movement

On the Senate side, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is prepping spill-response legislation that will likely look similar to the measure reported out of that committee last summer, with some inclusion of the presidential commission’s recommendations. But the measure won’t likely be as severe as Markey’s measure. For one, the energy panel does not have jurisdiction over liability; the Environment and Public Works Committee does. And Bingaman is known for crafting legislation that can get bipartisan support from many of his panel’s members, including Landrieu and Alaska Republican and oil-industry advocate Lisa Murkowski.

“One of the early bills will be a bill to ensure the Interior Department has the authority and resources they need to maintain proper regulation of oil and gas drilling on the outer continental shelf,” Bingaman said. “I think the American people support that, and I think we’ll have strong support again this year.”

Bingaman said he generally supports moving production and safety legislation separately.

“I don’t know why anyone in the Congress would not want to see us improve safety of drilling in the outer continental shelf,” he said. “I think that there ought to be bipartisan agreement to do whatever legislation needs to be done to improve safety and offshore drilling, and separate from that, we should have a full debate about the extent of increased production we want, things we want to do to encourage more production.”

Bingaman’s approach could gain modest support from environmentalists, who would likely still want to see further action on drilling reform.

NRDC’s Nelson called it “a great first step” and said she was looking forward to seeing the legislation.

Other measures she would like to see taken up include beefing up funding for the Interior agency that oversees offshore drilling, significantly raising the liability cap and sending a portion of the penalty money collected from BP for the spill to the Gulf region for coastal restoration work.

A rare area of consensus

The idea to use BP fines to pay for restoration of the coast has broad support among Republicans and Democrats both on and off Capitol Hill. The presidential panel called on the federal government to use 80 percent of the fines collected from BP for Clean Water Act violations to pay for coastal restoration in the Gulf. And Gulf Coast lawmakers are essentially unanimous in their support of such an idea.

Landrieu and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) yesterday introduced legislation that would dedicate 80 percent of BP’s penalty fees to coastal restoration in the states affected by the disaster.

Specifically, the measure would send 35 percent of the penalty money to the five Gulf Coast states — Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas — affected by the spill to be used specifically for ecosystem restoration and to support the travel, tourism and seafood industries. The measure would use 60 percent of the penalty money to establish a federal-state council to direct coastal restoration. And 5 percent of the funds would be used to create a science and technology program focused on coastal restoration, protection and research to improve offshore energy development safety.

The Clean Water Act allows U.S. EPA to collect $1,100 to $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled. Based on current federal estimates of 4.9 million barrels spilled, BP could face fines of $5.4 billion to $21.1 billion. Under current law, that money would be paid to the federal government.

“This is a great opportunity for the nation to do right by the Gulf Coast,” Landrieu said in a statement. “It’s a great opportunity for the polluters to step up and do the right thing.”

Rep. Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, has also authored a measure in the House that would direct some of the funds to Gulf states. And according to Rep. Cedric Richmond, a Democrat from Louisiana, “everybody on the delegation is on board with the 80 percent.”

“It’s important to get it through now while you’re talking about deficit and the debt. You don’t want people to say ‘Oh, here’s this new pool of money, we should pay down the debt,'” Richmond said. “No, we should fix what was broken.”

But despite strong support for such a measure from Gulf state lawmakers, House leaders with jurisdiction do not appear anxious to move such legislation.

“I don’t want to act until all the information is in, and not all the information is in,” Hastings told reporters earlier this week. He wants to wait until all the investigations of the disaster — like the presidential commission’s study — are complete before moving any spill-response measures.

The joint Coast Guard and Interior Department board investigating the disaster recently pushed back the deadline for completing its inquiry until July.

But Hastings did not rule out all chances of movement on oil spill-response legislation this Congress.

“I want to get all the information,” he said, “and we’ll respond accordingly.”

By: Katie Howell, Greenwire; Contribution by John McArdel, The New York Times, Published in The New York Times, April 15, 2011

April 17, 2011 Posted by | Congress, Conservatives, Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill, Democrats, Economy, Energy, Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, GOP, Government, Politics, Regulations, Republicans, Senate, States | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Teaparty Republican Governors Seek Big Cutbacks To De-Regulate The Environment

Gov. Paul LePage wants three million acres of North Woods forests opened to development. Weeks after he was sworn in as governor of Maine, Paul LePage, a Tea Party favorite, announced a 63-point plan to cut environmental regulations, including opening three million acres of the North Woods for development and suspending a law meant to monitor toxic chemicals that could be found in children’s products. Mr. LePage said workers’ and businesses’ interests should be defended “with the same vigor that we defend tree frogs.”

Another Tea Party ally, Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, has proposed eliminating millions of dollars in annual outlays for land conservation as well as cutting to $17 million the $50 million allocated in last year’s budget for the restoration of the dwindling Everglades.

And in North Carolina, where Republicans won control of both houses of the Legislature for the first time in 140 years, leaders recently proposed a budget that would cut operating funds to the state’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources by 22 percent.

In the past month, the nation’s focus has been on the budget battle in Washington, where Republicans in Congress aligned with the Tea Party have fought hard for rollbacks to the Environmental Protection Agency, clean air and water regulations, renewable energy and other conservation programs. But similar efforts to make historically large cuts to environmental programs are also in play at the state level as legislatures and governors take aim at conservation and regulations they see as too burdensome to business interests.

Governor LePage summed up the animus while defending his program in a radio address. “Maine’s working families and small businesses are endangered,” he said. “It is time we start defending the interests of those who want to work and invest in Maine with the same vigor that we defend tree frogs and Canadian lynx.”

When Republicans wrested control across the country last November, they made clear that reducing all government was important, but that cutting environmental regulations was a particular priority. Almost all state environmental budgets have been in decline since the start of the recession, said R. Steven Brown, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States, which works with environmental agencies across the country. What has changed this budget season is the scope and ambition of the proposed cuts and the plans to dismantle the regulatory systems, say advocates who are already battle-hardened. “Historically, we’ve taken pride in being a leader in environmental quality in the Southeast,” said Molly Diggins of North Carolina, director of the state chapter of the Sierra Club. “But there is now such fervor to reduce the size of the environmental agency. The atmosphere is the most vitriolic it’s ever been.”

David Guest, the managing attorney for the Florida office of Earthjustice, a national environmental law firm, said Governor Scott’s budget was “the most radical anti-environmental budget” he had seen in two decades of environmental work. Comparing Mr. Scott’s proposed changes with those of Florida’s previous Republican governors, including Jeb Bush, he called them “a whole new world.”

The strategies have been similar across the affected states: cut budgets and personnel at regulatory agencies, prevent the issuing of new regulations, roll back land conservation and, if possible, eliminate planning boards that monitor, restrict or permit building development.

In New Jersey, for example, Gov. Chris Christie, another favorite among Tea Party loyalists, has said the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, which preserves more than 800,000 acres of open land that supplies drinking water to more than half of New Jersey’s residents, is an infringement on property rights. Mr. Christie has moved to shift power from planning boards and government agencies to administrative judges, political appointees who, environmentalists say, tend to rule more often in favor of developers’ interests.

In Florida, Governor Scott has asked to cut staff members to 40 from 358 at the Department of Community Affairs, which regulates land use and was created to be a control on unchecked urban sprawl. Lane Wright, a spokesman for Governor Scott, said the cuts would enable businesses to grow again in Florida. The governor “does care about the environment,” Mr. Wright said, “but feels it is more important to get people back to work.”

In the first round of federal budget fights, Republicans appear to have won some of what they sought: $1.6 billion in cuts from the E.P.A. and $49 million from programs related to climate change. But they fell short in other areas. Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington policy group, said that by his calculation the Republicans had sought nearly $10 billion in cuts related to efficiency and renewable energy but got less than $3.7 billion. “The Democrats successfully defended investments in clean energy,” Mr. Weiss said.

The eventual outcome at the state level is much less clear. Florida and North Carolina’s budget battles are in the early stages. In New Jersey, where Governor Christie has been in office since 2010, he has held up stricter drinking water standards, saying he is waiting for further research by the E.P.A. And yet, in Maine, Governor LePage’s agenda has engendered such an angry response that the newly elected Republican majority in the State Legislature seems to be backpedaling from many of its strongest components. Mr. LePage’s proposal to open the woodlands has not yet been introduced as a bill. And this month the Legislature made a point of enacting a ban on a chemical detected in sippy cups. All but three legislators voted for it. (Mr. LePage has questioned whether the science is strong enough to support such a ban.) Adrienne Bennett, the governor’s press secretary, acknowledged that Mr. LePage had not gotten everything he wanted, but pointed to some victories. The governor just signed a law that will reduce restrictions for building on sand dunes, and his proposal to provide incentives to businesses to police themselves on a variety of environmental regulations is still in the Legislature. “‘We will continue to move forward,” Ms. Bennett said.

By: Leslie Kaufman, The New York Times, April 15, 2011

April 16, 2011 Posted by | Budget, Businesses, Congress, Conservatives, Energy, Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, Global Warming, GOP, Gov Chris Christie, Gov Paul LePage, Gov Rick Scott, Governors, Greenhouse Gases, Lawmakers, Maine, Politics, Regulations, Republicans, State Legislatures, States, Teaparty | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: