Kerry, House and Senate Environmental Leaders Call for Administration To R

[Mass]

Kerry, House and Senate Environmental Leaders Call for Administration To Reverse Backwards March on Environmental Justice

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=241171

Bush Plan fails to address real environmental justice problems facing our nation's communities

Washington, DC - Several members of Congress -- led by Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and U.S. Representatives Hilda L. Solis (D-Calif.) and Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) -- today are urging the Environmental Protection Agency to drastically improve the shortcomings in the agency's environmental justice plan. In a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, nearly 80 legislators asked the EPA to reverse its failed course on environmental justice and start putting forth a real plan to improve the dangerous effects of pollution in our most vulnerable communities.

The EPA’s draft Environmental Justice Strategic Plan fails to reduce the existing disparate impacts of pollution on low-income and minority communities and may actually contribute to the future increase of these impacts. Specifically, the Strategic Plan disregards race as an environmental justice consideration and fails to provide the necessary tools to identify environmental justice communities, ignoring those communities most harshly affected by pollution. The Strategic Plan also ignores key criticisms of existing efforts at the EPA made by the Inspector General in 2004.

"At a time when we should be working to help the communities bearing the brunt of pollution problems, this administration is turning the idea of environmental justice on its head. By ignoring our minority and low-income communities the Bush Administration is reversing a commitment made to communities across our country," Senator Kerry said. "It's time the EPA starts listening to its own Inspector General, changes course and puts forth a workable solution to bring clean air and water to all our communities."

"The Environmental Protection Agency's strategy plan moves environmental justice and the efforts to help low-income communities in the wrong direction. I am concerned that if implemented, it would rollback environmental justice programs and worsen the health of vulnerable working class communities. I hope that the EPA will work with us to come up with a better plan," said Rep. Hilda Solis, ranking Democrat on the House Environment and Hazardous Materials subcommittee.

“It is beyond irresponsible for the administration to suggest that this plan takes the necessary steps to improve the health and well-being of America’s most vulnerable,” said Rep. Hastings. “It isn’t that EPA doesn’t know what problems exist, it’s their willingness to do anything about it. Shame on them.”

Senator Durbin closed by noting, “Environmental justice should mean more protection, not less, for those Americans most affected by pollution. The Bush Administration continues to disregard years of evidence which show that low-income and minority communities are bearing an unfair burden of pollution in America. The Bush Administration needs to move forward with a plan to guarantee that all Americans live in a clean and safe environment.”

The Strategic Plan has also been criticized by dozens of health, civil rights, and environmental groups, including the American Lung Association, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Hispanic Environmental Council, Latino Issues Forum, Earth Justice, and the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment.

...

[TayTay]

1. Environmental justice, I like that theme.

This is real stuff. Did anyone read Molly Ivins book: Shrub : The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush?http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375757147/qid=1121965323/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/103-9749007-4711003?v=glance&s=books

She talks about the real mess that The Idiot King put Texas in when he was Gov. The people who lived near some of the awful exploding pig waste pools really have no recourse.

This will be an issue that really and truly resonates going forward. I am happy to see this consistent thread on Kerry's part. (Goes hand in hand with the concern over mercury emissions and a generally great evnironmental record.)

Now, about that nuke vote the other day. What the hell was that all about?

[Mass]

2. What nuke test?

[TayTay]

3. The one you had trouble with

Low interest loan guarantees to A Brit co to set up a nuke plant in China. That vote. :wtf:

[Mass]

4. My problem is with the loan

The nuclear plant is going to happen whether the US subsidizes the loan or not. It is a fact. China needs this plant and either Russia, France, or the US will do it, but it will be nuclear (and it is not necessarily worse than pollution created by oil or coal which would be the replacement).

My problem is why the US would have to subsidize a loan for something that seems to give very little to this country (best I heard was 5,000 jobs in Pennsylvania for a few years). I am still very puzzled by that because I have not heard a good reason for that.

For the record (and I know it is controversial), I am not against nuclear energy at all costs. I am against nuclear energy plants controlled by private companies who want to cut costs without thinking of consequences, and particularly when they have a business-friendly government like the Bush administration, which is why I do not support nuclear plants in this country.

I have seen the results of nuclear energy in France, where the plants are under the control of the government. It is no more prone to problems than other energy plants, and, correctly controlled, is a lot less damaging for greenhouse effects than carbon-based energy plants. I certainly would hope than other energies would be developped and that diversification would occur, but, in China, we have to take what we can, and at least, they understand what our government does not seem to understand, that oil supply is limited.

[TayTay]

5. The loan part is what sucks

I am not automatically knee-jerk against Nuke power. But that loan guarantee was stupid. It's a Brit Co funding a plant in China. Why are we guaranteeing it. Because Westinghouse has a toe in on the deal. (Are they in on construction or what? What is the Westinghouse angle anyway?)

I am willing to look at other energy sources for the reasons you stated. (And I like your insistence on controls. Good argument.) But what was up with that vote? Why vote to guarantee this money? What's so special about these guys?

[Mass]

6. I do not know - I am still at a loss with that vote.

I listened to Feinstein and Santorum's arguments on the Senate floor and it did not make any sense to me.