American Voters Want EPA, Not Congress, to Set Standards

Image via WikipediaA new bi-partisan survey released yesterday claims Americans trust the EPA not Congress to protect them from pollution.

The survey was released just one day before the US House of Representatives votes on a bill that would curtail the EPA's ability to protect public health from air pollution.

The American Lung Association (ALA) commissioned the survey, conducted jointly by the polling firms Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (Democrat) and Ayres, McHenry & Associates (Republican).

What they found was that three out of four American voters support the EPA setting tougher standards on specific air pollutants, including mercury, smog and carbon dioxide, as well as setting higher fuel efficiency standards for heavy duty trucks.

Perhaps most relevant to the current debate in Congress, according to the ALA, is that "68 percent of voters oppose Congressional action that impedes the EPA from updating clean air standards generally and 64 percent oppose Congressional efforts to stop the EPA from updating standards on carbon dioxide."

"Voters clearly recognize and respect the role of the EPA in protecting their families from breathing toxic air," said Paul Billings, vice president for national policy and advocacy at the American Lung Association. "They don’t want Congress to interfere with the EPA's authority to take action when lives are clearly at stake."

The House has proposed cutting the EPA’s budget by one third.

"The survey clearly indicates that voters strongly trust the EPA to deal with clean air standards more than Congress," reads a memo from the two pollsters to the ALA. "A bipartisan 69 percent majority believes that EPA scientists, rather than Congress, should set pollution standards. This is despite opposing language arguing that our elected representatives in Congress would do a better job than 'unelected bureaucrats at the EPA.'"

The full survey, along with slides and a memo from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and Ayres, McHenry and Associates, can be found here.

Related articles

• American Lung Association Bipartisan Poll Shows Strong Public Support for Lifesaving Clean Air Act (prnewswire.com)
• New poll: the public trusts EPA, loves the Clean Air Act, and wants Congress to butt out (grist.org)
• EPA enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support (sfgate.com)

Obama Tells G20: "I'm Putting a Gag Order on Greenhouse Gases"

LONDON, April 1 - US President Barack Obama today told the leaders of the G20 that he was "putting a gag order on greenhouse gas emissions" and that the US was going to start at home, with Congress and members of his own Administration.

"Today I have imposed a gag order on the most harmful greenhouse gas polluters in the United States," President Obama told the group of leaders gathered in London. "I have put a gag order on certain members of Congress and on members of my own Administration."

In an unusual move, the President revealed details of his plan, which many are calling the "Greenhouse Gag-order," specifically referencing some of the most wasteful CO2 polluters in Washington.

"I have put Representative Barney Frank on notice," Mr. Obama told an enthralled crowd. "Look, it's as simple as this: If he opens his mouth again, he will have to pay a hefty fine."

In addition to Congressman Frank, Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Obama named Timothy Geithner in his gag order, suggesting that his Treasury Secretary will only be allowed to speak during the work week. This move may be designed to help curtail the Secretary's long-winded explanations on weekend television news media, which have only exacerbated the financial picture.

"Look, we have to do something about the windbags in Washington," Mr. Obama said. "It is my hope that the Secretary and Mr. Frank will be leaders in putting a cap on the greenhouse gas emissions in our own hallowed halls."

Mr. Obama went on to say that he hoped others in Washington would follow suit, and that he was considering a voluntary carbon credit option to be implemented as early as this summer.

Secretary Geithner, when asked for comment on the President's plan, said, "This is consistent with the Administration's plans to tax wealthy individuals across the board. We feel a carbon cap on loquacious individuals is totally within our reach."

A person close to the Office of the President indicated the Administration was considering similar sanctions on vociferous celebrities, such as Rush Limbaugh, Oprah Winfrey, and Robert Scoble.

Calls made to Rep. Frank's office for comment went unanswered.

President Obama wants to help fight climate change by capping emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, from big industries -- and now individuals -- and allowing them to trade rights to pollute. Such systems are commonly called "cap and trade."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Geithner Seeks New Powers Over Financial Companies (abcnews.go.com)
• Obama Faces High-Stakes China, Russia Meetings (abcnews.go.com)
• Treasury pushes for more power (money.cnn.com)
• Talking Business: The Problem With Flogging A.I.G. (nytimes.com)
• Obama Uneasy About Tax on Bonuses (nytimes.com)
• Obama scores a 45 on the Change-o-Meter. (slate.com)
• Obama climate bill could side-swipe Alberta oilsands (canada.com)
• Recession Is Good For Climate Change, Say Experts (lightbulbs.org)
• EPA proposal aims to regulate carbon (msnbc.msn.com)
• Obama Budget Includes Billions Of CO2 Trade Revenue (huffingtonpost.com)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

On Obama's Address to Joint Session of Congress and His Energy Investments

Tonight President Barack Obama addressed concerns that many of us were feeling the past few weeks, that the President who rode in on hope had changed to the steed of despair.

His address tonight was to the Joint session of Congress, but he was also delivering a message to the American people: "We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."

He needed to reassure us that his economic solutions were not a pump and dump play, that he remains confident and hopeful that the American people have the wherewithal to succeed.

"It begins with energy," Mr. Obama said. "We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet, it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient. We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea."

All valid points and something a number of us have been saying for some time: we need to lead in this space and others are already at the table.

President Obama sounds much like candidate Obama on this point, "I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders – and I know you don’t either. It is time for America to lead again."

He is still calling for doubling the US supply of renewable energy in the next three years, and for laying down "thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy to cities and towns across this country."

Even energy efficiency got its due: "We will put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills."

He pushed the point further by saying that "to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy."

He asked Congress to send him legislation that "places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America."

In support of that, he outlined how the US "will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks."

I got some flak for defending clean coal in Obama's list. (It's okay, I'm used to it.) I simply think we need to invest in figuring out whether clean coal technologies CAN be developed before we dismiss it outright. (Someone on Twitter reminded me of GreenFuel Technologies Corporation, which "recycles" CO2 emissions using high-yield algae farms. The CO2 recyclers seemed to get stiffed in the StimPack, which is unfortunate in my view.)

I'd like to see more details and look forward to tracking this as it develops.

For now, the message was positive: "We can and will," rather than, "Holy Shit, this is worse than I thought." Thank you, speechwriters!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Can economic rescue plans save planet? (guardian.co.uk)
• For a Long-Term Stimulus, Invest in Green Energy (blogs.harvardbusiness.org)
• Obama's Stimulus Plan: The Energy Debate (cbsnews.com)
• Obama: State of the Union Address ... Almost (dailykos.com)
• What Obama presidency means for clean tech (news.cnet.com)
• Carbon Recyclers Get Short Shrift in Stimulus Bill (businessweek.com)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">