In a truly significant national commitment to curb greenhouse gases, the Obama administration, a labor union and key auto manufacturers including Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Honda and Hyundai have joined with the state of California to reach a critical deal requiring passenger vehicles to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

Also announced—and broadly agreed upon—were the first ever standards for heavy duty trucks that will reduce their fuel use by 10 to 20 percent by 2018. Currently, more than 30 percent of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions in this country come from petroleum that is used mainly by the transportation sector.

Fuel efficiency standards that cover all cars and trucks mean that we will see innovation and fuel savings in all types of vehicles, from semi-trailers and school buses to pickup trucks, minivans, family sedans and electric cars like the Chevrolet Volt, pictured here.

These landmark White House agreements came about through responsible negotiations with automakers, environmentalists and labor unions. While we did not get the full 60 mpg for which we had called for, these standards will make a very significant dent in tailpipe pollution. And we will continue to work with all the parties to speed innovation in cars and trucks.

New Fuel Standards Mean Gas Savings for all Vehicles

According to the Union of Concern Scientists, the latest passenger vehicle agreement will cut carbon pollution by more than 308 million tons in 2030—the equivalent to shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants. The group also predicts “lower fuel expenditures at the pump by over $80 billion in 2030—even after paying for the cost of the necessary technology, consumers will still clear $50 billion in savings that year alone.” These savings mean billions more being spent at home, boosting our economy locally and improving our serious trade deficit. They also will reduce our dependence on Middle East oil by saving as much as 23 billion gallons of gasoline annually by 2030, which is equal to the total current annual imports from both Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

The many hybrid models now in the market have certainly contributed to improving the nation’s overall fuel efficiency. As an owner of a hybrid, I can assure you that I enjoy passing gas stations that I once stopped at to fill up. But standards that cover all cars and trucks mean that we will see innovation and fuel savings in all types of vehicles, from semi-trailers and school buses to pickup trucks, minivans, family sedans and electric cars.

Will the House of Representatives Stand in the Way of More Efficient Cars?

The final rule for heavy duty trucks was adopted in August. The handshake agreement for passenger vehicles will be proposed formally as a draft regulation open for public comment and input by the end of September. A final rule, if adopted, will be published in July 2012.

Leave it to the U.S. House of Representatives to oppose the passenger vehicle agreement and try to block any responsible solution to a serious environmental and economic problem. In a three-page letter sent to the CEOs of nine major automakers, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said the committee “has begun an investigation into the nature of the negotiations.” He added that the deal appears “to have been negotiated in secret, outside the scope of law, with potentially significant negative impacts for consumers.”

The Obama administration has estimated that, under the plan, consumers will save $1.7 trillion at the pump. It appears that the only “significant negative impact” will be to big oil interests that have made record profits in recent years and pocketed many billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidizes, and their Middle East suppliers who will sell a lot less oil to the United States. The legislative backlash should be expected, since oil interests are making huge contributions to lawmakers who watch out for their interests and protect their tax subsidies.

We commend the Obama administration for working in a spirit of cooperation with affected interests to forge a reasonable compromise with major benefits for the public, the economy and wildlife. We are saddened by all attacks on our landmark environmental and conservation laws, including the Clean Air Act, that underpin these standards. As this passenger vehicle agreement (as in previous fuel-efficiency agreements) will be submitted to a formal rule-making process in which all U.S. citizens will have a chance to voice their opinions, we encourage NWF members to actively participate as it moves forward.

Share Your Views

What do you think about these new standards? Do you know if your representatives support them? Comment on this blog or connect with me on Facebook or Twitter and let me know what you think.

Related Links:

• Is an electric car right for you?
• New Report: Standards Deliver “Trucks That Work” For Wildlife, Economy
• Learn about National Wildlife Federation’s efforts to promote clean fuels

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Rep. Lois Capps, and Rep. Doris Matsui speak to protect children's health from mercury pollution

A press conference was held on Capitol Hill today in support of an amendment to the House Environment and Interior Appropriations bill that would protect people and wildlife by striking a rider in the bill that delays the Environmental Protection Agency’s  ability to limit mercury and other harmful air toxics emitted from power plants.

The amendment, introduced by Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) would allow the EPA to set standards for dangerous air pollution that will save thousands of lives each year and reduce 90% of mercury that is emitted from coal fired power plants.

Mercury is a particularly harmful air toxic because it settles from the air onto our lakes, rivers and forests, polluting the environment and accumulating up the food chain as fish and wildlife consume the contamination.

Please call your Representative at 1- 202-224-3121 and tell him or her to vote “YES” on the Capps amendment to H.R. 2584, the House Interior and Environment Appropriations bill.

NWF activists support Rep. Lois Capps and Rep. Jan Schakowsky as they work to limit mercury pollution

Mothers in Congress spoke at the event, including Rep. Lois Capps, Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL).  All expressed concern about the effects of mercury on children and women of child bearing age. Mercury is especially dangerous to children and developing fetuses; exposure affects a child’s ability to walk, talk, read, write and learn.

The EPA is currently accepting public comments on a proposed rule to limit mercury and air toxics from power plants. The public has been largely supportive of this rule. EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe noted that since March, the EPA has received over 800,000 comments from across the country in support of regulating these harmful emissions.

To learn more about the impacts mercury has on wildlife, visit http://www.nwf.org/mercury

US Capitol with its power plant in foreground (via Flickr's Matthew Hurst)

The U.S. House of Representatives today takes up a bill that would halt endangered species listings, block Clean Water Act protections, and gut the Clean Air Act. Why would any member of Congress support it?

As National Wildlife Federation President and CEO Larry Schweiger said today, the House’s fiscal year 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations would be a giveaway to big polluters:

From politically-motivated budget tricks to policy riders that have nothing to do with the deficit, this bill contains dozens of attacks on America’s wildlife, air, water, and public health. Poll after poll has shown that strong majorities of voters across party lines – Democrats, Republicans, and independents – stand together against the House leadership’s attacks on America’s longstanding national commitment to protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink. It’s fair to ask who members of Congress supporting this massive overreach are representing – their constituents or polluter lobbyists?

This legislation would take every single American backwards. If a child in your family suffers from asthma, you should oppose this bill. If you’re a sportsman, a wildlife lover, or value America’s national parks, you should oppose this bill. If you think your vehicle should carry your family further every time you pay for a tank of gas, you should oppose this bill.

From Puget Sound to the Chesapeake Bay to your own backyard, ClimateProgress.org has a list of the top 10 American vacation spots the bill could harm.

The National Wildlife Federation’s staff is working to fight this attack and we need your help. Please take a moment to ask your members of Congress to vote down this reckless bill.

It’s a tradition to play the 1960s classic hit Dirty Water as a victory anthem after every Red Sox win. True to its name, the lyrics mention how polluted the Charles River and Boston Harbor were at the time. It’s a past we don’t want to go back to, a past the Clean Water Act helped clean up.

Listen and learn, lawmakers.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Basic common sense says that if you want to increase oil production, you at least need to pay for more rig inspectors to handle the extra work.

But the new annual government spending bill introduced this week in the House of Representatives is an assault on common sense: not only does it under-fund BOEMRE (the oil watchdog agency) but it also includes a provision to speed up drilling offshore Alaska and re-write the Clean Air Act in favor of major polluters. Meanwhile, in the Senate, lawmakers are trying to put oil rigs off the coast of Virginia and in the Arctic Ocean.

Arctic drilling places endangered species -- like this Polar Bear -- in harm's way (photo: Amy Messere)

Would Congress be so eager to drill if they paid attention to the news?

Some recent headlines:

• “Oil and gas spills in North Sea every week, papers reveal” – July 5, The Guardian (UK)
• “After Gulf, now China spill spells doom” – July 21, The Times of India
• “Coast Guard checks reported oil spill off Louisiana” – June 8, Reuters
• “Oil slicks in Gulf of Mexico” – June 30, SkyTruth

Since the Gulf disaster we have learned that spills are the rule, not the exception, when it comes to offshore drilling. Many of them go unreported; the Guardian article cited above calls its findings just “the tip of the iceberg.”

Other accidents are kept quiet, [whistleblowers] claim, because workers fear they cannot report them in case they lose their jobs. One veteran said that although everyone is formally told to report anything that goes wrong, staff adhere to an informal code to remain silent to avoid a halt in drilling that loses money for the companies.

So the deck is stacked against safety from the beginning, and BOEMRE (The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement…whew!) already has its hands full: a senior staffer told us that the House’s budget is $35 million less than BOEMRE needs for inspectors and permit planning for future leases.  For an agency that already runs on fumes and table scraps, that’s a huge chunk of money.

In what world does this make sense? It’s another kick to the teeth of environmental and public health programs, which are being dismantled before our eyes by this Congress.  Make sure to check out National Wildlife Federation’s breakdown of the spending bill and then TAKE ACTION by sending a message to your representatives in Washington.

——————

Stop the stealth attack on wildlife!  Please speak up for wildlife TODAY, urging your federal officials to protect our nation’s bedrock conservation laws: http://bit.ly/defendwildlife

Coming soon to a coastline near you? (photo: flickr/hunting.glee)

Now, it’s one thing to support offshore drilling, but the Hastings bills are something else entirely: they would actually weaken the rules that were in place a year ago, before the BP rig sank and spewed 2oo million gallons of crude oil into the ocean. And keep in mind that Congress still hasn’t passed a single bill addressing oil spills, worker safety or Gulf restoration.

The House of Representatives just approved the first of the three today, opening new areas including offshore Virginia to drilling.  The bill also forces regulators to rely on outdated, pre-BP spill Environmental Impact Statements, the government’s tool for deciding where it’s safe to drill and what steps we should take to prevent disasters.  They’ll be voting on a second bill next week that limits the regulators’ ability to review drilling permits; the third bill would open up virtually the entire US coast to oil development.

Essentially what this says is, “All the lessons we’ve learned since the spill?  Just ignore them.”

The bills’ supporters, to nobody’s surprise, are dusting off the gas prices bogeyman.  They figure that Americans care enough about $4 gas that we’re willing to overlook everything else, but the fact is that more offshore drilling won’t affect the price at the pump: according to the nonpartisan Energy Information Agency, opening up the entire US coast to development (which is what the House bills would do) wouldn’t lower costs at all by 2020, and would only lower prices by three cents a gallon by 2030! And we’re already producing oil and gas at the highest levels in nearly a decade.  It’s hard to get much plainer proof than that–the US can’t drill its way to cheap gas.

So what are these bills really about?  It’s hard to see them as anything except a giveaway to Big Oil companies (who, in case you didn’t notice, are doing just fine) and a political reaction to the White House’s post-spill drilling reforms.  And what’s really scary is that the offshore drilling agency is already short on resources and can’t possibly keep pace with the new paperwork and oversight responsibilities the bills would create…talk about kicking someone when they’re down.

Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, put it more bluntly:

“I don’t have amnesia, and neither does the president.  And much of the legislation that I have seen being bandied around, especially with the House Republicans, is almost as if the Deepwater Horizon Macondo well incident never happened.”

Today’s vote, though, showed that amnesia is a bipartisan problem: 33 Democrats joined 231 Republicans on the wrong side of this issue.

NWF sent a letter to Congress opposing the bills, and we’ll continue to fight these and other irresponsible policies that endanger wildlife, coastal communities, and the natural resources we all rely upon.  To read more about our work to restore the Gulf and prevent another disaster, visit nwf.org/oilspill.

————————————

NWF letter – Hastings bills

Sportsmen oppose cuts to conservation. Photo: Flickr

There’s a lot of political theater on Capitol Hill these days.  That may not be much of a surprise to anyone who has followed the Continuing Resolution (aka the ‘CR’) budget debate over the last few weeks.

But what may surprise many people are the threats to our clean air and water by political “riders” that don’t have anything to do with the budget process. Not only that, but there are a number of of proposed cuts to programs that actually boost the creation of jobs — especially jobs in rural economies.

One example of a program in jeopardy that supports jobs is the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF funds do not derive from taxpayer dollars–they are revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling in federal waters. The LWCF program works in partnership with state and local efforts to conserve irreplaceable lands and improve outdoor recreation throughout the country.

Some of America’s most treasured places have been acquired by using the Land and Water Conservation Fund, including Grand Canyon National Park, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and many historic Civil and Revolutionary War Battlefields. In addition, the LWCF provides matching grants to help states and local communities protect open spaces, build trails and playgrounds, and construct boat houses and other outdoor recreation facilities.

Unfortunately, the new short-term CR that was just passed by Congress cuts LWCF 16% from the last enacted budget and almost 36% from the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget proposal. That’s not all. One budget proposal, passed by the House of Representatives but not the Senate, made a decimating of 90% to the LWCF.

Further attacks to the LWCF program will have immediate impacts to projects that enhance public lands and are critical to tourism and recreation spending across the country.  According to the Outdoor Industry Foundation, recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy and supports nearly 6.5 million U.S. jobs. Without LWCF investments, the natural resources that are vital to the survival of communities close to outdoor destinations (think rural towns that depend on visitor spending) will be placed at risk. Without LWCF investments, many Civil War and Revolutionary War battlefields will be sold, developed, and perhaps lost forever. Simply put, without LWCF investments many places in the great outdoors will be developed and the economic benefits will be lost forever.

The LWCF is appealing to many different groups. Sportsmen support the improved access the program provides to prime hunting and fishing spots and healthy wildlife populations from protected habitat. Families appreciate local parks and trails with playgrounds to help get kids outside. Communities that depend on wetlands to act as a buffer against floods or public lands to act as a buffer against forest fires need those ecosystem services that LWCF provides.

Despite the attacks to LWCF, the program has a strong bipartisan reputation on the Hill. The American public also overwhelmingly supports LWCF. A recent bipartisan poll showed that 86% of voters nationally support committing LWCF’s offshore drilling revenues to the program.

The House and Senate are negotiating the details of a CR budget agreement in the next few days. If you are one of the many that support programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, now is a crucial time to make your voice heard.

Contact your elected official in Congress and tell them that enough is enough: additional cuts to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and other conservation programs are unacceptable.

The amendments and riders attached to the House-passed Continuing Resolution are dismantling Clean Water Act (CWA) protections. The CWA protects clean drinking water for millions of Americans, limits pollution and helps to restore troubled waters.

Who's laughing now? Photo:Flickr

Another troublesome bill stripping away Clean Water Act safeguards is H.R. 872, which recently passed in the House of Representatives. The legislation, otherwise known as the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, could be a big burden on public health and wildlife habitat. This legislation rolls back CWA by giving free reign to industries that pollute our waters with pesticides.

The battle over polluter bailouts in H.R. 1 isn’t over, yet. The Senate, House of Representatives and White House must reach a budget compromise, and legislators have an opportunity to restore the Clean Water Act and other bedrock environmental safeguards. Tell your papers and your members of Congress not to let big polluters have free reign with our natural resources. Clean water isn’t a joke, and lawmakers shouldn’t treat it that way.

Pennsylvanians Protest Rep. Thompson's Anti-Environmental Votes

Oil companies and other polluters have once again convinced a new crop of political leaders to take a crowbar to the nation’s environmental laws and try to wedge open a few new loopholes.

It first happened in 1995.  Congress’ attack on the Environmental Protection Agency and their efforts to add anti-environmental riders to budget bills became a central issue as President Clinton vetoed the bills, leading to the last government shut down (and Republican losses in the 1996 elections).

Fast forward to 2011.  The new GOP majority in the House is traveling down the same path, loading up their 2011 spending bill with assaults on the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act that amount to the largest assault on America’s bi-partisan legacy of environmental and wildlife safeguards in history.

Who are the House leaders making these decisions?  Meet Ed Whitfield (R-Kentucky), the new chair of a key congressional subcommittee on energy, who explained to the National Journal why Republicans are trying to block EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act:

“This is a much broader issue than the health of the American people and lungs and emphysema; it’s how can we balance that in the global marketplace for jobs.”

Rep. Whitfield’s premise that Americans must sacrifice our children’s lungs in order to protect jobs points to the huge gulf between the extreme views of some GOP House leaders and the American public.  The polluter bailouts nestled in the 2011 budget bill have become a liability for the House GOP.  The attacks on the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are starting to expose the hidden agenda of members like Rep. Whitfield, and they are now a barometer of the extreme political agenda that is being advanced under the guise of deficit reduction.

Public Backlash to Attacks on Environment

The sneak attacks have also created a backlash among the public (not surprising, since 3-out-of-4 voters support the EPA setting tougher standards on pollutants such as mercury, smog and carbon dioxide).  After the vote, House members returned home for the recess, where they have faced tough questions from angry constituents.

Here’s a local press report of a town hall meeting held by Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH), who recently won back his seat in New Hampshire’s second district:

“About 50 people crowded into the Salem Town Hall to hear from the Republican congressman, who took questions on illegal immigration, the national debt, health care, education, and other topics. But climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases dominated most of the discussion…”

Not many of Rep. Bass’ colleagues were as willing to have public meetings during this recess, but that didn’t stop concerned constituents from turning up at their offices.  A few that are being reported by local news stations and creating buzz include constituents of Representatives Glenn Thompson and Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania and Steve Stivers in Ohio.

Congress’ attacks on the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Acts have also rallied a broad cross-section of civic leaders across the nation who are speaking out, including:

• Doctors and nurses
• Hunters and anglers
• Churches and religious leaders
• Workers and labor unions
• Business groups and small businesses
• State and local officials
• Scientists
• State Wildlife Conservation Groups and National Environmental groups

Hopeful Signs?

A piece of good news comes from the same House GOP leaders who initially opened the door to adding polluter favors to the budget bill.  A temporary 2-week extension offered Friday night is a clean bill without any of the oilmarks included one week ago.  While this is good news, it is a baby step and may be a fleeting victory.  The House GOP leaders are still threatening a showdown with the Senate and President Obama, and they have not given any sign that, as the additional 2 weeks expire, they will back away from the extreme and reckless bill they recently passed.

It’s still not clear where this showdown is headed when any short-term extension expires.  President Obama promised a veto of the House budget bill passed last week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) got it right when he said this week:

“We believe that the hundreds of riders and legislative matters [added to the House CR] are strictly the worst kind of politics. How do they expect us to agree to any of that? And we’re not going to. … The CR is to deal with funding for our government, not all these other goodies they think are cute at this time.”

House GOP leaders have proven with the 2-week extension that they are capable of leaving the polluter favors and oilmarks out of the spending bill.  They would be wise to do so.

Editorial Boards and Opinion Leaders Speak Out

The backlash against the extreme environmental attacks in the budget bill have also attracted the attention of editorial boards and opinion leaders across the nation.  Rob Perks at NRDC has been tracking these stories on his blog, which you can read here.  I have captured a sampling of media below.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA) Editorial:  Pollution pinata: Budget cutting becomes an excuse for EPA attacks

But for a sense of spending cuts made solely for political sake, nothing quite beats the attack on the environment in this spending bill. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were assaulted repeatedly. Much of it took the form of stripping the Environmental Protection Agency of its enforcement powers to protect the health and well-being of the American people.

The range and destructiveness of these assaults were breathtaking. They include provisions to curtail the scientific study of climate change, blocking the EPA from protecting wetlands and streams from harmful dumping, stopping the EPA from dumping waste from mountain top removal in stream valleys, and, that old GOP favorite, barring the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

The National Wildlife Federation called the spending bill a “pollution pinata.” It identified 14 egregious examples of environmentally damaging amendments for which the total budget savings was zero (although many of them will end up costing the nation money by endangering public health). It also noted that an amendment that would have eliminated billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies was defeated. So much for this being all about the deficit.

New York Times: Why Wouldn’t the Tea Party Shut It Down?

Look to Washington for the bigger story. As The Los Angeles Times recently reported, Koch Industries and its employees form the largest bloc of oil and gas industry donors to members of the new House Energy and Commerce Committee, topping even Exxon Mobil. And what do they get for that largess? As a down payment, the House budget bill not only reduces financing for the Environmental Protection Agency but also prohibits its regulation of greenhouse gases.  Here again, the dollars that will be saved are minute in terms of the federal deficit, but the payoff to Koch interests from a weakened E.P.A. is priceless.

USA Today Editorial

If [entitlement] costs are contained, there will be no need to live with dirtier air or other cuts rooted more in ideology or corporate self-interest than in governance that is effective, affordable and responsibly financed.

Times-Picayune (LA), House Republicans are cutting a lot more than the deficit

Last November Americans demanded that Congress take immediate action to shrink fish and wildlife populations, speed the end of duck hunting, reduce the safety of our drinking water, destroy more wetlands, dirty the air we breathe, increase the rate of sea level rise swamping our coast- and protect profits for oil companies.

Didn’t know that?

Then you haven’t been listening to Republicans like our own Steve Scalise (R-Jefferson) and Tea Partiers who now control the House of Representatives. All those changes are included in the budget resolution they sent to the Senate last week.

Patriot-News (PA) Editorial:

“The BP oil spill, the worst in America’s offshore drilling history, is not even a year old. Only weeks ago, lawmakers demanded more accountability in drilling and oversight. Now Republicans see no issue chopping away at that oversight.”

Albany Times Union Editorial:  An Assault on the Environment

The new House Republican majority likes to say that the American people spoke last year. If the GOP’s spending bill is any indication, it seems the American people are clamoring for more mercury in their fish, oil on their coasts and pollution in their drinking water. Those would be just some of the environmental highlights of a House spending bill to keep the government running through Sept. 30. Or perhaps anti-environmental highlights would be more apt. Anti-health, too.

Detroit Free Press Editorial:  U.S. House Republicans swing a dangerous budget ax

The budget passed by U.S. House Republicans — it got zero Democratic votes — early last Saturday morning is rash and dangerous. Designed to get the country through until Oct. 1, the House resolution slashes programs in midstream and ties the hands of several departments, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency.

New York Times Editorial: The Dirty Energy Party

Yet even this retailored approach is sure to whip the Republicans into a fresh frenzy of opposition. They have already made clear their determination to cut off financing and otherwise undermine the Environmental Protection Agency, which plans to regulate carbon emissions from power plants and other industrial sources using its authority under the Clean Air Act.

But basic scientific research? Energy efficiency? Cleaner fuels? The House Republican budget resolution gives the back of its hand to even these worthy and unobjectionable strategies, which until now have enjoyed reliable bipartisan support.

Concord Monitor (NH) Editorial: A Vote for the Environment is a Vote for N.H.

Generations of 2nd District congressmen (including Bass himself, in an earlier congressional tenure) have consistently argued that representing New Hampshire means looking out for the environment. In this case, the health of Bass’s constituents could be improved by better regulation of aging power plants to the west. The health of everyone’s constituents will be improved by more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. And, of course, there is an economic component to that environmentalism too: New Hampshire’s tourism and recreation industries depend on climate protection.

Raleigh News & Observer Editorial (NC): Mercury Rising

In one of history’s sorrier twists, Republicans in the U.S. House are down on the Environmental Protection Agency, way down. This week they’re trying to gut its powers to regulate pollutants in the air, on farmland and in water. Yet the national movement to protect our environment had its roots in the heyday of Republican Theodore Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon helped create the EPA. So why all the animosity now? Overreaching regulations that stifle business, agency opponents say. However, the EPA generally proposes rules that are required by law – and common sense. The more we know about ill-health in humans and ill-effects on the natural world, the more obvious it is that industrial processes must be regulated for the common good. Some pollution is inevitable, but the government is right to put a lid on it.

Wisconsin State Journal: Lawmakers should reject cuts to EPA

To ensure that the health and environment of Wisconsin’s families are protected, Wisconsin’s members of Congress should reject the funding cuts, and instead stand up for cleaner air, cleaner water, and preserving our environment.

Providence Journal (RI) Editorial:  EPA Under Attack

Republicans in Congress, and some Democrats, are bent on blocking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from curbing greenhouse gases. For that matter, they would be happy to have the agency stand back in a number of areas, from safer toxic coal-ash disposal to improving the efficiency of industrial boilers and solid-waste incinerators. One reason they give is that regulation is bad for business. The main source they cite: senior business executives desirous of maximum short-term corporate profits, and thus maximum compensation for the execs. The other aspects of the equation — public health and welfare — are rarely mentioned. Indeed, the long-term health of the U.S. economy stands to benefit greatly from a shift to cleaner and more efficient energy.

St. Petersburg Times (FL) Editorial: Serving Ideology, Not Voters

The House plan also takes aim at specific regulations that Republicans find politically objectionable. For example, it bars the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing limits on carbon dioxide pollution. Like a tea party manifesto, the plan strips funding from federal regulatory agencies that protect workers, food safety and the environment.

Battle Creek Enquirer , Stop Attack on Clean Air, Water

What do clean water and clean air have to do with the budget? Absolutely nothing – the budget deficit is being used as cover to mount a reckless and irresponsible sneak attack on the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act that endangers the air we breathe, the water we drink and the wildlife and lands we cherish.

South County Independent (RI): Don’t Water Down Clean Air Act

Some members of Congress have launched a stealth attack on one of the most important laws protecting our health and our children’s future by adding amendments to the Continuing Resolution – a stop-gap measure to keep the government running through the end of this fiscal year – that would roll back portions of the Clean Air Act.

Miami Herald, Fouling the Clean Air Act

Largely hidden in its attack on the federal budget, the House of Representatives has approved a key Republican campaign promise to big business: Protecting it from what the new majority argues are the handcuffs of environmental safeguards. The Republicans would cuff the Environmental Protection Agency instead.

The Colorado Independent, Gardner Hammers on EPA Re Clean Air Act But Poll Says Voters in CD4 Want More Regulations

U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., helped lead last week’s GOP onslaught against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, despite polling in his congressional district showing two-thirds of his constituents feel “Congress should let the EPA do its job.”

The Tennessean: Air Standards Have Saved Lives for Decades

Having personally experienced a child struggling for breath during an asthma attack, I can assure you little else matters when children’s health is at risk. This is why I’m so offended by a number of professional politicians’ attempts to undermine life-saving protective health standards enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Concord Monitor (NH): An assault on our air, water

Passed under cover of night on Saturday, this bill endangers the health of New Hampshire’s children, elderly citizens and other vulnerable populations by blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job and cleaning up coal-fired power plants and other large sources of dangerous carbon dioxide pollution. It also cuts the EPA’s overall budget by the largest percentage in 30 years, severely threatening the agency’s ability to ensure that all New Hampshire residents have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.

AlterNet, Get Ready: The GOP Has Declared War on the Environment

Republicans are trying to take down the EPA and with it environmental regulation that seeks to protect our air, water, food and health.

Des Moines Register (IA):  Budget Deficits and the Environment

H.R. 1 cuts the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by almost a third and hamstrings the EPA’s ability to protect the environment and Americans’ health. For example, the measure prevents the EPA from protecting communities from mercury, lead, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from cement plants, leaving thousands of children exposed and at risk of asthma, slowed brain development and other neurological disorders. The EPA safeguard that the measure blocks would have reduced mercury pollution by more than 90 percent and saved 2,500 lives each year.

Chicago Tribute Local (Libertyville, IL), Dold Out of Touch on Environmental Issues in the 10th Congressional District Illinois

Salem News (OR), Editorial Backlash to Republican Budget Attack on EPA Health Protections

Lake Erie (Mark Hogan/Flickr)

Here is a list of some of the successful regional initiatives that will be cut significantly by the continuing resolution:

• $441 million from the Army Corps construction budget that includes projects to restore coastal Louisiana and the Florida Everglades
• $250 million from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
• $10 million from the Chesapeake Bay Program
• $20 million from Puget Sound restoration
• $2 million from the San Francisco Bay Program
• $4 million from the Long Island Sound Program
• $2.6 million from Lake Champlain restoration
• $1.5 million from the Gulf of Mexico Program
• $5.6 million from the National Estuary Program ($200 million per watershed)
• $2.1 million culled from all of the other geographic restoration initiatives

In additon to cutting programs that keep our waters clean and safe, the continuing resolution also severely handicaps the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce the Clean Water Act. Cuts to clean water mean more pollution, fish kills, dead zones, invasive species, health threats and less tourism, fishing, and recreation jobs and dollars.

Visit the National Wildlife Federation’s Action Center to tell Congress to stop making cuts to clean water jobs and programs. Water is the lifeblood of this country, and we can’t afford to let lawmakers drain us dry.