With the recent legislation proposed by the GOP that requests for the removal of the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, one has to wonder if such a move is in the best interest of the average American family. Carbon emissions, cigarette smoke, lead-based paint, asbestos, and house hold chemicals are environmental toxins are scientifically proven to be harmful, especially to children. Removing the authority of the EPA to regulate emissions will put many urban, inner city communities with high concentrations of industry at significant risk.
The only way to minimalize the risks of environmental hazards is to limit exposure to them. Unlike certain health problems that we have no control over, environmental health hazards are issues we can prevent from happening. One thing to consider is that we are usually unable to see the effects of environmental toxins until children have grown into adults. For instance, mesothelioma symptoms, a lung disease caused by exposure to asbestos, have a latency period of as long as twenty years. It is important to educate families of the threat environmental toxins pose so they can prevent them as early as possible.
Children are especially vulnerable to environmental toxins. When children are growing, their behavior puts them closer to the ground ultimately promoting closer proximity to potential toxins. Additionally, their organs are developing, their bodies are smaller, and they breathe faster and take in more substances than adults. An increased breathing rate raises an individual's susceptibility to the fibrous asbestos material that can cause mesothelioma and other lung cancers. Furthermore, the risk is compounded for families that can't afford to live in places that are environmentally safe.
The Greater Birmingham children's Environmental Health Initiative (GBCEHI) did a study targeting 12 zip codes in the Birmingham area. Their focus of study involved mostly populations that were primarily African-American and low-income. They found that these communities had high population densities with even higher concentrations of heavy industry. They have since discovered that one of the most prominent environmental hazards is poor indoor air quality, citing it as a massive contributor to asthma. More frighteningly, asthma shares the basic symptoms of most lung diseases: coughing, shortness of breath, and chest heaviness. Because of the similarities, most lung disease is not diagnosed until it is far too late. With the mesothelioma life expectancy being as short as fourteen months, the impact of environmental toxins can be devastating to a community.
Organizations such as the EPA and the GBCEHI are attacking the problem of environmental hazards on several fronts. To slash the EPA's budget and remove their power over the regulation of carbon emissions seems to be counterproductive to the health and wellbeing of American citizens. We can only hope that our representative examine this issue thoroughly and come to a conclusion that finds a favorable balance for both environmental safety and American industry.
While the state is drowning in debt, the General Fund is being drained by the government-created toxic drainage crisis in the San Joaquin Valley. Please read this outstanding article by Patrick Porgan of Planetary Solutionaries, one in a series entitled "Doubts about the Drought."
General Fund Being Drained by Budget Crisis and Government-Induced Drainage Crisis
by Patrick Porgan, Planetary Solutionaries
While Californians are being held captive waiting for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature to adopt a budget, already more than 80 days late, costing "We the People" $52 million a day; more than $4 billion to date, they are also throwing $100s of millions down the drain and compounding California's government-induced water crisis.
Within the past decade California has been besieged by a water supply crisis, a budget crisis, a credit-rating crisis, a jobs crisis, an education crisis, a health care crises and a water quality crisis. The water quality crisis was identified as a potential crisis in the 1950s, and has contributed to the pollution of a significant length of the 330 mile San Joaquin River. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 215.4 miles of the river are on the 303(d) list, (the latest EPA approved list is from 2006), adding to demise of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The primary sources of the water quality crisis is from toxic salt discharge from lands irrigated by subsidized water delivered by the federal Central Valley Project to contractors "farming" on the arid west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Millions of acre-feet of water are exported from the project's Delta pumping plants which transport salt to and from those lands. All of this is being done as the government declares its intent to "save the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary" while sanctioning its demise. Common sense dictates that it is not possible to continue sanctioning the dumping of hundreds of tons of toxic salts into the San Joaquin River and the Bay-Delta Estuary annually and expect it to survive.
Toxic salt loading is not only taking its toll on the river and Bay-Delta Estuary, it is draining the State General Fund, as a myriad of publicly funded programs for drainage, water quality improvement, fisheries restoration and others continue to be financed with borrowed money from the deficit-ridden General Fund.
Water officials have wasted more than $10 billion and 35 years in extended delays in their failed attempt to carry out their legal mandates to protect the waters of the state and restore the Bay-Delta Estuary. In addition, the Bay-Delta Estuary was touted as the "ground-zero poster child" pitched by water officials in support of the so-called historical 2009 "Water Package" - $11 billion bond act, approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor. Even the mainstream media acknowledged this "package" as a "backroom-pork-barrel deal". The "package" is once again being sold to "improve" the Estuary. The bond measure has been rescheduled for the 2012 ballot.
The fact remains that for decades the "responsible" government officials and political appointees on both the State Water Resources Control Board and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (boards) have been sanctioning the discharge of trainloads of toxic substances into the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay Estuary. The discharges have been reported to exceed the state's toxic threshold limits. The question as to whether this train wreck in the making will be allowed to continue dumping and pumping in excess of 3.4 million pounds of toxic salts per day into the waters of the state will be the subject of a meeting scheduled before the State Board on 5 Oct. 2010.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/...
A significant portion of the San Joaquin River has been declared to be water quality impaired-polluted (unfit to swim in, eat certain species of fish and so forth). On a map published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 1999, entitled, Index of Watershed Indicators, it shows that the valley is the single largest "more serious water quality problem - high vulnerability" area in the nation. This dubious
distinction is the direct result of the boards' failure to take action to stop the discharge of these toxic substances into the waters of the state, which exceed both state and federal water quality standards.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency - Index of Watershed Indicators
Last Thursday, the Senate voted 53 to 47 to defeat the Murkowski resolution that would have undermined the EPA's ability to reduce global warming pollution. The vote provides a useful guide to how senators might act on a climate vote.
Of course, it is not a clear-cut comparison because some people voted against the flawed resolution to make a point about process or simply to support the science. It is significant to note that we have 10 more votes in favor of reducing carbon emissions than we did the last time climate change was discussed on the Senate floor two years ago.
But here is what I find most interesting about last week's vote: the number of Senators who have all publicly exclaimed that global warming is a pressing problem but who voted to block the EPA from dealing with it. Are they sitting on an "election year fence" or are the deep pockets of Big Oil & Coal companies propping up their campaign contribution fences? The question must be asked - Why do these senators benefit from burning caveman fuels?
Senator Rockefeller, for instance, said: "I am not here to deny or bicker fruitlessly about the science... In fact, I would suggest that I think the science is correct. Greenhouse gas emissions are not healthy for the Earth or her people, and we must take significant action to reduce them. We must develop and deploy clean energy, period."
And yet the man voted to hamstring the EPA. Indeed, Senator Rockefeller intends to push his own bill that would put the EPA's effort to confront global warming on hold--giving West Virginia's coal industry a free pass for two more years.
Senator Chambliss from Georgia, meanwhile, said, "I know the climate is changing." And Senator Hutchison from Texas declared: "As a solution to climate change, we need to work together to promote the use of clean and renewable sources of energy....It is important that we work together. We are the elected representatives of the people."
And yet both of them voted against one of our main tools for combating global warming pollution: the EPA.
I'm sorry, but if you really believe this is a crisis, why wouldn't you want to fight it with every weapon available? Why wouldn't you deploy the muscle of both Congress AND the federal government?
While I was listening to last week's debate, I couldn't help but be reminded of teaching my three-year-old how to tie her shoes. I showed her how to do it with two hands, of course. Why on earth would I suggest she do it with one?
Yet that is what these Senators seem to be proposing. Senator Collins from Maine said: "I believe global climate change and the development of alternatives to fossil fuels are significant and urgent priorities for our country."
Why would she want us to fight global warming with one hand tied behind our back?
On the one hand, these statements are good news - despite the yelping of Inhofe and Hatch, the Senate is not a bastion of climate deniers. There's even a consensus that something must be done. The bad news is they're still not doing it. What is it that these Senators actually would support that isn't just some vague theory?
This is a pivotal week in the clean energy debate. The Senate will vote on Murkowski's short-sighted resolution to take away the EPA's authority to regulate pollution. As we head into this critical time, it's not the Inhofe-cloned climate deniers who trouble me - it's the knowing bystanders who are keeping me up at night.
Before I start this rant, let me just state for the record that I still think deniers are about as accurate as my three year old is when she is trying to describe quantum physics at her make-believe tea parties (although they are wholly less adorable). The vast majority of these deniers resist climate legislation because they really don't believe global warming is a problem - yes their heads are in the sand. But for the purposes of the Murkowski resolution, their vote is already lost.
Lately I am even more frustrated with Senators who recognize that climate change is an urgent challenge, but who sit idly by on the sidelines doing nothing. For me, they raise the fundamental question - Who is worse - those that deny the existence of climate change or those that believe in the upcoming catastrophe and continue to lack focus or alarm?
Take Senator Schumer for example. He has stated that he thinks the Senate should confront the impacts of climate change. Yet just this week, when leaders should be pushing hard for climate action, Schumer's support has been tepid at best. On Morning Joe, he showered Senator Bingaman's energy-only bill with praise, then said, "What do you do about climate change? Kerry has a proposal that has pretty broad support...He is going to get a chance to offer that opinion, and we will see if it has the votes."
We are looking for more from our Leaders than a passive wait and see attitude. Senator Schumer is the third ranking Democrat, and that means he needs to do more than wait around to cast a vote. It's time for real leadership, which means rolling up his sleeves and making sure a bill passes. We need him in the trenches. In fairness, the Senator walked himself back a bit after people threw a fit over his Morning Joe ambivalence. He has pledged to meet with Senator Kerry on a path forward but until he demands action and puts him ample political muscle behind that call, I am skeptical.
Exhibit #2 is Senator Rockefeller. As a Senator from West Virginia, he wants the federal government to do a better job of regulating mine safety, especially after the horrifying disaster at the Massey coalmine. I applaud him for that stance, but here is where I get confused. When it comes to global warming--something Rockefeller says, "America must address"--he suddenly gets allergic to federal regulation. He wants the Senate to block the EPA from reducing global warming pollution until Congress gets it's act together. The federal government can and should be involved - today. Just as federal regulation needs to be strengthened to deal with mine safety, we need to let the regulators use the tools on the books begin addressing greenhouse gases.
And finally, the fence sitters continue to be the best example of willful negligence. The Senate is going to consider a resolution this week from Senator Murkowski to put the breaks on EPA's efforts to address greenhouse gases. There is a small group of Senators - like Collins, Snowe, Pryor, Webb, and Scott Brown - who say they want to reduce global warming pollution but may vote for Murkowski's resolution to overturn the EPA's authority to do so. If you think carbon emissions are dangerous, wouldn't you want to use every weapon at your disposal to fight it?
When I see Senators backpedalling, downplaying and side stepping climate action, I want to ask them: what are you waiting for? When is there going to be a better time to transition to clean energy? America is watching the cost of failed energy policies literally washing up on our shores. Our nation is desperately in need of the jobs and economic growth that a clean energy economy can provide. Congress has the most pro-clean energy members we are likely to get for several years.
I think I just answered my own question - which is worse, a climate-denier or a knowledgeable staller.... I vote that someone who fails to act when they know the stakes is much worse.
"Adequate control of human exposure would be difficult, if not impossible." -CA Scientific Review Committee
This is the time of year many talk about United Farm Workers' founder Cesar Chavez. Cesar was many things, among them he was a strong voice on pesticides.
Cesar Chavez said, "In the old days, miners would carry birds with them to warn against poison gas. Hopefully, the birds would die before the miners. Farm workers are society's canaries. Farm workers-and their children-demonstrate the effects of pesticide poisoning before anyone else...There is no acceptable level of exposure to any chemical that causes cancer. There can be no toleration of any toxic that causes miscarriages, still births, and deformed babies."
WHITE HOUSE FINALIZES HISTORIC VEHICLE STANDARDS TO SAVE OIL, CUT POLLUTION, AND CREATE JOBS:
The Obama White House yesterday finalized new clean car rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Dept. of Transportation (NHTSA), securing the largest boost in fuel economy in decades and, for the first time, using the Clean Air Act to require reductions in the amount of heat-trapping emissions from cars and light trucks.
"To paraphrase the Vice-president, this is a really big deal," said Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles Program. "Because of these standards, Americans will drive vehicles that save them money at the pump, cut the country's oil dependence, and produce a lot less global warming pollution."
The joint rule will boost the average fleetwide fuel economy of new vehicles sold in the United States to 34.1 miles per gallon by model year 2016. The standards also set national global warming pollution standards for vehicles at 250 grams per mile, roughly 25 percent less than the emissions produced by today's average new vehicle.
We have reached a pivotal point in fire safety. Recently, the fire protection industry announced a new generation of fire safety products. Citizens for Fire Safety has worked tirelessly to encourage and promote this next generation of fire retardant products that are safe, effective and environmentally friendly. This groundbreaking move is one of many in the industry's unwavering commitment to environmental sustainability and fire safety.
This commitment has been hailed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, credited by the International Association of Fire Fighters, and will undoubtedly prove to be the paramount model of sustainable fire safety in the future.
The EPA agreement sets forth a rational, effective transition to newer alternatives, while allowing critical services such as police, fire and airlines to continue to use existing fire safety products that are critically important to saving lives. Proactive fire safety companies have already announced the production of environmentally-friendly fire retardants which minimize the use of raw materials, energy, byproducts and waste. This progressive thinking is largely a result of the efforts of Citizens for Fire Safety and their coalition of supporters across the nation.
As we make this transition, we must remain watchful of legislation that would preemptively ban existing products, leaving communities without adequate fire safety protection. This kind of legislation has been recently considered in states like Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, New York and Connecticut. While these states should be commended for their vigilance in the fight for fire safety and environmental health, we believe that the timeline that has been worked out with the EPA is the most appropriate. Let's trust the scientists of the federal environmental agencies and not act precipitously to put our families and children at risk of serious injury or death. An effective national solution to this critical issue is the only solution that is truly safe.
In order to stay at the forefront of fire safety, Citizens for Fire Safety needs your support. It is our job to keep you informed as an important new generation of fire safety emerges. If you have any questions regarding the EPA announcement, state legislation, or require more information, please do not hesitate to contact Citizens for Fire Safety at 310-310-2616 or info@cffsi.org.
Luis Medellin and his three little sisters, aged 5, 9 and 12, live in the middle of an orange grove in Lindsay, CA--a small farming town in the Central Valley. During the growing season, Luis and his sisters are awakened several times a week by the sickly smell of nighttime pesticide spraying. What follows is worse: searing headaches, nausea, vomiting.
The Medellin family's story is not unique. From apple orchards in Washington to potato fields in Florida, drifting poisonous pesticides plague the people who live nearby--posing a particular risk to the young children of the nation's farm workers, many of whom live in industry housing at the field's edge.
This situation also often exists in schools in agricultural areas where it's not uncommon to have a school next to a field.
The Associated Press reports that abandoned mercury mines in the western hills of the Central Valley are still polluting California's streams, lakes, the delta and the bay. Sources are widespread, located from Clear Lake in the north to the San Joaquin River in the south. Even the hills near San Jose have mines that drain to south San Francisco Bay.
The highly toxic, mutagenic, new pesticide methyl iodide is currently being given a comprehensive review by the Department of Pesticide Regulations and the agency's registration decision is pending advice from a panel of scientists convened specifically to review this chemical.
However, according to inside sources, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is being pressured by corporate interests to fast-track registration of this toxic pesticide--despite serious concerns from the state's own scientists at the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).
Take action:http://bit.ly/jfrEt
President Obama has officially directed the EPA to review the decision to deny California (and 17 other states) a waiver under the Clean Air Act to regulate its own greenhouse gas emissions, and considering that Obama's EPA is about to hire the lead attorney in the Supreme Court case that found the EPA has the authority regulate carbon emissions, I expect we will see the waiver granted in short order.
"For the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change," Obama said in the East Room of the White House. "It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs."
Today's actions come as Obama seeks to fulfill campaign promises in the first days of his administration. The moves fulfill long-held goals of the environmental movement.
Lawmakers and environmentalists throughout California are hailing the move (I'll put some reactions on the flip). But notably, another group on board with the decisions are - wait for it - the automakers.
Auto-industry officials were surprisingly receptive to President Obama's announcement about tightening emission standards, saying the steps he announced were the best they could hope for.
"It seems the president has set out a reasonable process," said a top industry official who refused to be named. "He can say with credibility that there's a new sheriff in town. Now, maybe there's room to discuss this with stakeholders."
The uncertainty of the process, given the Bush Administration's failure to set standards passed by Congress in the 2007 energy bill and this looming fight over the California waiver which could have ended up in Congress or the courts, may be a factor in the auto companies' tepid support. So too is the fact that Obama and the federal government still partially controls the fate of the Big Three in the auto industry bailout.
Eventually, we will much to what amounts to a national standard, with 40% of the country's population poised to back California's emissions targets and the auto industry forced to calibrate to the higher standard. This will SPUR innovation, not dampen it, and will eventually be a boon to an industry which has failed to adapt to changing needs for far too long.
President Obama will direct federal regulators on Monday to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict automobile emission and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said Sunday.
The directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and signifies a sharp reversal of Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions would be one of the most emphatic actions Mr. Obama could take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.
Mr. Obama's presidential memorandum will order the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration's past rejection of the California application. While it stops short of flatly ordering the Bush decision reversed, the agency's regulators are now widely expected to do so after completing a formal review process.
Just to pre-empt the whining from the right, the EPA had never before in its history denied California a waiver under the Clean Air Act. The courts have looked at this from the perspective of the automakers and have ruled repeatedly in favor of California and other states, agreeing that they are well within their rights to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Not only did the Bush Administration deny California the right to implement their tailpipe emissions law, they slow-walked the fuel efficiency standards passed by the Congress and signed by the then-President in 2007. President Obama will direct the Transportation Department to finalize those standards as well.
This will be announced in the East Room tomorrow. We now have a President who understands the need to act swiftly to combat the worst effects of climate change. California will finally be allowed to lead this effort.
It's worthwhile every so often to look for the silver lining in the storm clouds over this state. After all, we do have a new President! That seems to be working out! And his pick for EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, was confirmed last night. Which means that it's probably only a matter of days before California gets its long-sought waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions.
With a new occupant in the White House, California could soon start enforcing its landmark 2002 law requiring a sharp reduction in vehicle emissions.
State leaders and environmentalists are pressing for quick approval of a waiver that would let California and at least 13 other states impose tougher air-quality standards than allowed under federal law. The Bush administration rejected the request a year ago, but that could be reversed by President Barack Obama and his environmental team.
During the presidential campaign, Obama said he backed the California law. Last year, he co-sponsored a bill by Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California to approve the waiver.
"If I'm confirmed, I will immediately revisit the waiver," Lisa Jackson, Obama's choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency, told Boxer at her confirmation hearing last week.
This would set in motion a program to reduce emissions from vehicles by 30 percent over the next seven years. It would spur alternative transportation development like SUPERTRAINS out of necessity, and force the production of clean-energy vehicles. Industry was not going to innovate on their own; they had 30 years to recognize this problem but they sat on their hands. It's not a question of whether or not we can afford to implement this; given the natural disasters like wildfires that hit the state with increasing frequency, given the melting of the Sierra snowpack which decreases our access to water resources, given the public health effects of dirty air (a recent report showed that clean air increases lifespans by up to three years), given all the ancillary costs of climte change, we can't afford not to.
The Governor and state leaders have been lobbying for the waiver since President Obama's inauguration, and I'm confident that we'll see granting within the next week.
Among the many executive orders that Barack Obama will seek to overturn to rack up some quick victories at the beginning of his term, none may have a more lasting impact than granting the waiver to California to regulate their tailpipe emissions.
The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.
California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.
"An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
There are two reasons this is a major change. One, by granting that carbon dioxide emissions threaten human welfare, you open up a whole toolkit of innovative policy choices to follow to restrict them. Cap and trade or a carbon tax becomes not just a policy option but a madate under the EPA. The second, as noted in the article, is that dozens of states will seek to follow the California ruling on tailpipe emissions over the federal government. And once you have 45% of the market mandating a higher fuel efficiency standard, it is unlikely that automakers will create a secondary market at the lower standard. You will have raised the CAFE number by default.
All of this is a recognition that the dangers of global warming is real, and that an Obama Administration will not stand in the way of sound science that declares the danger and seeks to mitigate it. For all of the effort by polluters to save John Dingell's chairmanship from the clutches of Henry Waxman (and they're enlisting all the legislators they've bought off to that end), this executive order would have lots of reach regardless who controls global warming legislation in the Congress. It would mean that California can control its own destiny and regulate its own air. It will force innovation and create economic opportunity and improve public health and possibly save lives.
• A Superior Court judge in Alameda County has ruled that cell phone companies cannot charge early-termination fees, and has ordered that Sprint return $18.2 million dollars to consumers. This will probably get fought on appeal, but right on. The concept of fee for service has worked pretty well for most of consumer capitalism, as has being nice to your customers instead of bullying them into compliance.
• There's been a lot of outrage at the LA City Council's ruling banning new fast-food restaurants from breaking ground in South LA for a year. Actually, far from being an issue of infringing on freedom, it's a little thing called land use, and every city has them - even the one that the outraged Will Saletan lives in.
I'm pretty skeptical that these proposed South LA regulations will do any good. But it's not unique or unusual for land use regulations to exist. And working class people around the country suffer dramatically larger concrete harms from the sort of commonplace suburbanist regulations that Saletan's been living with, without apparent complaint, in Chevy Chase. Those kind of regulations are bad for the environment, bad for public health, and serve to use the power of the state to redistribute upwards. So if you're going to rail against land use regulations, maybe pick the ones that really hurt people.
• In environmental news, Senate leaders like Barbara Boxer are calling for the resignation of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson for his preferring ideology over science, defying the advice of his own staff, evading oversight and misleading Congress, particularly about refusing the California waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions. They're also asking the Attorney General to investigate whether Johnson perjured himself at one of the California waiver hearings in Congress. In addition, Jerry Brown is suing the EPA for their refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions at the nation's ports.
• And this is pretty interesting, turns out the Sarah of "Sarah's Law" (parental notification) doesn't have the squeaky-clean image her sponsors claim:
Backers of a ballot measure that would require parents to be notified before an abortion is performed on a minor acknowledged Friday that the 15-year-old on which "Sarah's Law" is based had a child and was in a common-law marriage before she died of complications from an abortion in 1994 [...]
A lawsuit co-sponsored by Planned Parenthood Affiliates and filed Friday in Sacramento County Superior Court asks the Secretary of State to remove the girl's story and other information it deemed misleading, including any reference to "Sarah's Law," from the material submitted for the official voter guide.
"If you can't believe the Sarah story, there's a lot in the ballot argument you can't believe," said Ana Sandoval, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood and the campaign against Proposition 4.
Using someone's life story for political means, and wrongly at that. Good people.
Don't forget the Begich fundraiser in SF tonight.
The No on 6 campaign will be doing some organizing in the next few weeks against Prop 6, another Runner initiative to wastefully incarcerate more of California's youth. There will be meetings in SoCal (tomorrow), SF(9/9), and in the Central Valley (9/16). Full details at the No on 6 website here.
Just to update on the EPA's denial of a waiver to California to regulate its own greenhouse gas emissions - the White House is now refusing thousands of documents on the matter to Henry Waxman's Oversight and Government Reform Committee, citing executive privilege.
"I don't think we've had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is conducting the investigation.
An EPA official, Jason Burnett, has told committee investigators that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson had favored granting the waiver but denied it after meeting with White House officials. In testimony last month, Johnson refused to say whether he'd discussed the waiver request with Bush.
The White House waited until the very day that the Oversight Committee was going to rule on contempt citations for failing to respond on this issue. And the OMB and the EPA basically answered by saying "we've given you enough documents, no more documents for you."
It's clear that the EPA and the Bush Administration will stonewall until the day they leave office on this front, and so it's up to the next President to make a determination on the waiver. And all you need to know about California's chances of being able to regulate emissions is that Obama supports the waiver, and McCain has been vague and evasive about it (not to mention he's taken more money from oil companies than any other Presidential candidate).
Meanwhile, California is offering another regulatory solution: they're adding a Global Warming score to the sticker of every car for sale in the state.
The California Air Resources Board said Thursday the window sticker will give consumers the information they need to choose a cleaner-burning car or light truck.
"This label will arm consumers with the information they need to choose a vehicle that saves gas, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps fight smog all at once," board chairman Mary Nichols said in a statement. "Consumer choice is an especially powerful tool in our fight against climate change. We look forward to seeing these stickers on 2009 model cars as they start hitting the showrooms in the coming months."
We'll see if this affects consumer choice in the coming months, although the fuel economy portion of the sticker is already driving demand. To say nothing of those 5 hydrogen fuel cell cars turning up on Southern California roads.
• Do read Robert in Monterey's report about Abel Maldonado, Don Perata's best buddy, running as a write-in candidate in the Democratic primary to stall an attempt to get an opponent on the November ballot. First of all, this is an example of why crossfiling should be banned once and for all. Second, Abel Maldonado is a snake and I can now see why Don Perata would knock on doors for him. Apparently, neither of them have much interest in the democratic process.
• Arnold thinks the legalization of gender-neutral marriage will be a boost to the sluggish economy, but I hope he's not basing his entire budget on a sharp uptick in gay weddings. I mean, there are only so many Mr. Sulus rich enough to have that surge register more than a blip. By the way, good for Mr. Sulu. And good for Ellen DeGeneres for telling Straight Talk Express where to shove it.
• Lucas mentioned this, but Darrell Issa got in the middle of a heated exchange between Henry Waxman and EPA Adminstrator Stephen Johnson over the EPA's breaking the Clean Air Act. Emptywheel has video:
• Why Fabian Nuñez is claiming racial bias at this late date over questions about his travel practices is completely beyond me. And he's taken to Spanish-language television for these accusations to stoke divisiveness in the Latino community, too. It's so counterproductive, as well as misleading.
• Speaking of Spanish-speaking media, this is an older story, but it's fascinating to me that the Spanish-language channels in LA are so much more substantive than the English-language ones, featuring longer, "more deeply reported" pieces.
• We could see a settlement very shortly on prison overcrowding in the state which would not require early release. There are some decent components to this deal, but it basically gives everyone three more years to clean up their act, and I wouldn't be surprised if it just puts us in the same siutation come 2011. The policies needed are well-known; the political will remains elusive.
• The Bay Area AQMD passed a carbon tax for businesses that emit greenhouse gases. It's "not enough to change behavior," one expert said, but it does presage what may be coming down the pike for polluters. Whether you get there through selling carbon permits at auction or with a tax, the bottom line is that pollution is going to cost enough money to alter business' approach to engaging in it. This is a good step.
• Interesting that we denied the endorsement to Rep. Laura Richardson (CA-37) on the same day that she is forced to defend herself against allegations that she walked away from her foreclosed home in Sacramento. It sounds like the Congresswoman renegotiated the loan, but the conservative fever swamps are all over this one (check the comments in that LAT blog post). She did buy the half-million-dollar home with no money down, and then left Sacramento almost immediately after winning election to fill the open seat in Congress.
Henry Waxman has assembled a litany of evidence detailing the role of the White House in the EPA denial of a waiver to California to implement the landmark tailpipe emissions law under the Clean Air Act. The most intriguing pieces of information are emails between EPA staffers and White House officials, which show how the staff found the waiver routine, and the White House stepped in to block it. Also, EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett admitted in a deposition that the White House was the main player in the negotiations:
According to Mr. Burnett's deposition testimony, Administrator Johnson's preference for a full or partial grant of the waiver did not change until after he communicated with the White House. When asked by Committee staff "whether the Administrator communicated with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant and the ultimate decision" to deny the waiver, Mr. Burnett responded: "I believe the answer is yes."
California creates the same amount of greenhouse gases as the entire country of Mexico. With the other 17 states that have signaled they would take the option of following the California emission plan added in, you have the emissions equivalent of maybe half a billion to 750,000,000 people on the planet that would be reduced if it weren't for the White House stepping in to stop progress. I believe in state-level innovation as steps to solving the crisis of climate change, but here we have a case where California did everything right, and the White House still held the trump card.
There's a hearing today in the House Oversight Committee, and EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson is planning to testify.
(b) As a state regulation related to fuel economy standards, any state regulation regulating tailpipe
carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles is expressly preempted under 49 U.S.C. 32919.
(c) A state regulation regulating tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles, particularly a regulation that is not attribute-based and does not separately regulate passenger cars and light trucks, conflicts with:
1. The fuel economy standards in this Part
2. The judgments made by the agency in establishing those standards, and
3. The achievement of the objectives of the statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 329)
This actually changes little in the near term. The EPA has already denied California a waiver to regulate their own emissions, a ruling that is under court appeal. And the Supreme Court has already ruled on the belief that gas mileage standards and greenhouse gas emissions are separate, and that the states may act to regulate the latter.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and a coalition of governors have acted swiftly:
NHTSA has no authority to preempt states from regulating greenhouse gases. Congress and two federal district courts have rejected NHTSA's claim to such authority. Furthermore, this attack completely undermines the cooperative federalism principles embodied in the Clean Air Act, and is an end run around 40 years of precedent under that law.
Our states intend to comment on the proposed rulemaking and, if necessary, will sue NHTSA, just as California and other states have sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to ensure that states retain the right to reduce global climate change emissions...
It just adds to the extreme hackitude that has characterized this Administration's actions on global warming. We learned this week that over half of all EPA scientists have "experienced incidents of political interference in their work." Now the Department of Transportation gets added to the list.
