In a newsletter to her constituents today, Vicky Hartzler boasts about her vote on the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, a bill designed to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing rules regarding pollution from cement plants. Though she mentions the cost of compliance and the potential loss of jobs for plants that can’t or won’t comply, she doesn’t say a word about the type of pollution that the EPA is trying to curb.

The EPA’s new rules on cement plants are designed to reduce emissions of mercury. Exposure to mercury causes a variety of health problems, including damaging brain development in young children, but Hartzler is careful to never mention the word “mercury” when discussing her dislike for the new EPA rules. The EPA estimates that the rules Hartzler is fighting against would save billions of dollars in health care costs and save thousands of lives. Again, Hartzler doesn’t mention that, but she does cite a statement from a Mexican-owned cement corporation.

Here’s Hartzler:

The House has passed the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to reissue rules and standards on the cement industry to allow businesses to realistically comply. This current proposed requirement is yet another job-destroying government intrusion into the free market. Texas-based CEMEX USA says if the current Cement MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) rules are allowed to go into effect about 18 to 20 cement plants will close down because they will not be able to comply with new regulations. Furthermore, the Portland Cement Association has warned Congress about the direct loss of up to 4,000 jobs after the rules are implemented. The EPA, itself, says these rules would cost the industry $2.2 billion to implement. It is unconscionable that when so many Americans are looking for work, the EPA would enforce rules that make it nearly impossible for job creators to operate and grow their businesses. I urge the Senate to quickly take up this legislation and pass it.

When there’s a conflict between the bottom line of a big corporation and the health of her constituents, Vicky Hartzler can be counted on to fight for the corporation, allowing them to pollute our land and water and poison our children.

Meet the members of congress that sided with corporate polluters

Via ThinkProgress’s Wonk Room:

Fifty senators – 46 Republicans and four Democrats – recently voted to deny the science of global warming and permanently ban limits on the carbon pollution that threatens the health of children and seniors. Not surprisingly, the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity group lent its voice in support of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) dirty-energy amendment.

A ThinkProgress analysis finds that the senators voting for McConnell’s amendment raked in $1.8 million dollars from Koch Industries over the course of their careers. Not only did these senators ignore the will of 71 percent of voters who support the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to restrict emissions, but they put the 15 million people with asthma in their states at risk by voting to stop the EPA from limiting carbon pollution.

And guess which Missouri senator is prominent among those who make up what ThinkProgress calls the “Koch Head Caucus,” the “top ten recipients of Koch cash in the U.S. Senate”? If you guessed Senator Roy Blunt, you would be correct. Blunt has pulled in $96,700 in Koch subsidies – a sum that was evidently sufficient to tip the scales against the needs of the 511,717 Missourians who suffer from asthma. For some reason, Missouri voters saw fit to move Blunt from the House to the Senate, and now, apparently, it’s time for Daddy Blunt to resume doing business as usual in his new storefront.

Remember during the Senate campaign, when everything that might have disadvantaged Blunt’s corporate patrons was dubbed “job-killing” – no matter how tenuous the connection to jobs? I wonder how long we’ll have to wait to hear him express any concern about conditions that are potentially human-killing?  

The execs at AmerenUE aren’t fools. They know they’ve gotta move fast because the EPA may well decide to reclassify coal ash as hazardous waste, and that decision could come as early as this fall. If that happens, FEMA regs would prohibit Ameren from putting its next landfill for coal ash on the Missouri river floodplain at Labadie in Franklin County.

Now you have a chance, and it’s your last chance, to have a say-so about how the EPA rules on coal ash impoundments and landfills. The EPA is taking public comments until November 19th–that’s a week from this Friday–and environmental groups have been aiming to get half a million people to e-mail the agency. Half a mill is the old comments record, and we want to meet or break that.

What environmental groups want is for the EPA to forbid coal ash landfills near water or on floodplains and for the EPA to adopt Subtitle C, which lays out enforceable standards–as opposed to the agency’s other choice, Subtitle D, which sort of suggests that polluters not be bad boys.

Sierra Club members have been sending postcards to the EPA Director, Lisa Jackson, that say:

If the BP oil disaster and the Tennessee coal ash tragedy taught us anything, it’s that we can’t just take the polluter’s word for it anymore. I urge you to stand up to industry pressure and quickly issue strong, federally enforceable safeguards to protect communities from toxic coal ash. Continuing to ignore scientific and safety concerns comes at a high cost to our families, communities and economy.

Coal ash is hazardous, but less strictly controlled than household garbage. EPA must adopt enforceable federal safeguards, not suggested guidelines for states, to protect our communities.

If you go to https://secure.earthjustice.org, siteAdvocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=996, all you have to do is fill in your personal info on a form and a letter will be sent on your behalf.

Go. Do the earth and your health a little bit of good.

You can’t make this stuff up.  Last week I attended a talk and power point presentation by an Ameren Missouri official who tried to convince his audience that Ameren is one of the leaders in pollution control and the transition to clean energy.  He obviously didn’t know what he was talking about, and members of the audience didn’t buy his company propaganda.  And most of the people in the audience were nuns!

Fast forward to a Department of Natural Resources public hearing at Labadie Elementary School last night.  The woman running the show pointed out that they don’t usually get anyone to come to these hearings, so they weren’t prepared for 200 people.  The school janitor was kept busy bringing more folding chairs into the gym, and someone finally asked him for a sound system so we could hear the testimony of the 30 or so speakers.

I can’t say enough about Maxine Lipeles and the Wash U Law School group of students who have been guiding and providing the research for the Labadie Environmental Organization.  It was on behalf of the Sierra Club that Maxine requested the public hearing be held in Labadie.  Although LEO’s concern is the proposed 400 acre coal ash landfill next to the Missouri River, last night’s topic was air pollution.  Companies have to ask permission to pollute our air and water, and those permits have to be renewed every five years.  So it was time for Ameren to reapply.

Members of Sierra Club and the Wash U law students ripped apart the draft application Ameren has submitted to DNR, but it was the testimony of neighbors of the plant that was shocking.

One woman held up two zip lock bags of gunk that her neighbor wiped up from her patio table.  She reported on behalf of her neighbor who has lived in the same house for 40 years that something new is happening at the plant because the grey gunk that covers her patio and lawn every morning didn’t used to be there.  Several other neighbors reported similar discoloring of their buildings.  One man, who had an office in downtown Labadie, said he had to have his building power washed twice a year to keep it clean.

But the saddest stories were from people whose animals are dying.  A woman who lost several old horses this past summer explained how the toxic materials from the plant’s smokestacks enter her horses’ bodies from being inhaled, from their hooves and through their skin.  She is working with a veterinarian in Oklahoma who specializes in toxic chemicals.  She herself has had blood tests that show dangerous levels of benzene and other harmful substances in her system.

A man who said he and his wife bought property in Labadie 8 years ago in order to have a place for their horses reported burying 7 different animals in the past few years, all of them under 15 years of age.

After the hearing, several residents gathered in the back of the room comparing notes on all their dead horses, dogs, cats and goats.  The Ameren plant in Labadie is the 11th largest coal fired plant in the country and one of the worst polluters.  People in the area are finally getting together to share their experiences which is good.

But I seriously doubt the government agencies and officals who are supposed to protect the health and safety of the citizens will do anything other than shake a finger at the Ameren top brass.  Despite tons of evidence about the dangers of the coal ash landfill in a floodplain, the county planning and zoning commission voted to let Ameren build it as a permitted use as opposed to a conditional use.  A CUP would have required a more thorough application process and conditions placed on the project.  Hard to believe, but that’s the way it is.  The next step is the county commissioners, and the new Presiding Commissioner, John Griesheimer, has been a good friend of Ameren for lo, these many years.  He gets nice campaign donations from them and has one of their hardhats in his state senate office.

So what are the chances that the county commissioners will do the right thing?

Our only hope is the state DNR or the federal EPA.  The Ameren plant in Labadie was given a Notice of Violation in 2001, and their reply was that they “disagree with the standards.”  Of course, the EPA under George Bush didn’t press the matter.  Meanwhile, animals are dying near the plant and all metro St. Louis residents are breathing polluted air.   The most frustrating thing is how many folks in the danger zone vote Republican out of self interest.  They think they are saving money on taxes, but they are paying the price with their health and lives.  

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at the opening press conference of the NAACP national convention in Kansas City.

Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, spoke on the subject of the Gulf oil spill at today’s opening press conference for the NAACP national convention:

….Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency: …I’m honored to join the NAACP at their annual convention, their hundred and first convention. And it makes me, uh, very proud to know that this organization continues to fight the fight for environmental justice in our country.

This morning I had a conversation with the local Chamber of Commerce which has done a great job supporting a green economy here in Kansas City. I spent time with Congressman Cleaver and the green impact zone in this fair city which he has been so passionate about, not just defining, but devoting real resources to. I’ve just discussed, I was a few minutes late, I was with the NAACP’s Gulf Coast leadership, uh, to talk about the status of our work in the Gulf and hear their concerns, hear their concerns. And we’re gonna have a, another, uh, great step this afternoon, I’m going to leave here and go to a Congressional Black Caucus environmental justice town hall with Representative Cleaver. I’m sure he’ll mention [inaudible]. He’s been my host, he’s been a wonderful partner.

I just want to echo what we just heard the President of the NAACP say, we take it for granted, the air in the Gulf Coast is not safe. But it’s not because of the BP spill. In fact, we can’t differentiate the contamination that we see and have been measuring for months now. You can’t attribute any part of that to the BP oil spill. That makes some sense, it’s happening fifty miles out at sea and there’s a lot of other things going on. But, it’s those other things going on that I hope we don’t forget as a whole…

…Right now there are red and orange ozone alert days all over our country, especially in the Gulf Coast. When the weather is warm it is not safe for our children to be outside, for our elderly to decide to take a stroll around. If you have heart or lung problems you are advised to stay inside and seek out a place that has air conditioning. That is the status quo. And that is the heart of our concerns when it comes to environmental justice. For too long too many areas in this country have just had to live with the fact that when it gets hot you, we have to change our lifestyle.

So I don’t want to minimize the impact of this spill on the Gulf Coast region. I grew up, I was raised in New Orleans, my mother lost her home in Hurricane Katrina. I already know there will be refugees, if you will, from this latest disaster. With the President, what President Obama’s called the greatest environmental disaster our country has ever faced. EPA pledges, Mr. President [Benjamin Todd Jealous] that we will be a partner in trying to insure justice in this response. But we are also gonna, uh, work to insure overall justice – clean air, clean water, clean land, clean dirt as you put it earlier – for every single American, every single American. ‘Cause that’s part of our, uh, birthright as well.

Nothing illustrates the need for us to focus our attention on a clean energy future like the BP oil spill. It is but one incident, but it is indicative of the challenges we face as a country, whether it’s our addiction to foreign oil, whether it’s the wars we fight on behalf of that oil, whether it’s air pollution that, killing, literally killing our children, or whether it’s the need for a new economy, one that gives jobs to people who are now displaced because of an oil spill or who were displaced long before that oil spill because of the greatest recession our country has seen since World War Two.

We need a foundation for prosperity and clean air and clean water and clean land [inaudible]. We’ll continue to push, we’re happy to work to push, uh, this response to be community centric as possible, to include local contractors, local business men and women, and of course, to look holistically at health concerns, not just the concerns from this incident, but concerns for the health of the people, all the people, of the Gulf Coast region. So thanks very much. [applause]

Later, during the question and answer portion of the press conference:

….Lewis Diuguid, Kansas City Star: …And what about the safeguards for the workers health [in reference to the BP spill]? Are they being properly equipped to do the cleanup work?

[….]

Lisa Jackson: …I have a wonderful partner over at the Department of Labor, uh, Secretary Hilda Solis, uh, who was a representative from the State of California, a fierce advocate not just for worker’s rights, but also for, uh, people for whom English might not be their first language. And you heard we have Vietnamese, we have, uh, Spanish speaking people in the Gulf. I think the situation there, thanks to the, uh, attention brought to it by, uh, organizations like the NAACP and other advocates, has improved. People are getting, uh, the training that they need. We are still encouraging, uh, people to , uh, insure that they have safe havens, places where they can speak up if they feel that they are being pressured or may be in fear of losing their job if they speak up about unsafe conditions. I can tell you that, uh, there is monitoring and modeling going on for a range of air contamination. The biggest threat out there is that with the hot weather, uh, that is a light crude oil. It does vaporize, about forty or so percent of it goes straight up into the air so you can get unsafe levels of what we call volatile organic compounds very close to the well. You can smell it all the way on shore. And we already know, as I said earlier, that that smell just compounds the, uh, for people who already have lung, uh, or heart disease the, the health issues and irritation that they can suffer as a result. I do think things are getting better, but I think it requires constant vigilance and I know that Secretary Solis, uh, has been, uh, along with her OSHA, the Occupational  Safety and Health people, all over the issue [inaudible].

Question: With your meeting with the Gulf Coast, uh,  representatives, what’s [inaudible] you’re gonna take away from this meeting today?

Lisa Jackson: You know, that, that meeting, uh, was about empowerment. These were, uh, uh, leaders who were not asking for any handout. They wanted the ability to represent that their community wants power to impact itself. So, from EPA’s perspective power comes in the form of air sampling and water data that communities can take and bring to their own validators and say, hey, maybe I want to take this to my universities and make sure I feel comfortable. But I think the larger issues, whether it’s making sure that there are command stations and government representatives in, uh, all along the Gulf Coast, making sure that community representation is a part of the command structure. Because, remember, in many places we’re dealing with a government structure that doesn’t necessarily have a huge community component. And making sure that constantly in this response, ’cause it is a long term one, that we honor President Obama’s desire to have this be a community based, from, uh, the community up, uh, restoration plan for the Gulf. All those things are probably the big messages. It’s about empowerment….

Lisa Jackson with NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous.

Previously:

The 101st NAACP National Convention in Ka
nsas City

NAACP in Kansas City: Benjamin Todd Jealous at the opening press conference

Tonight President Obama eloquently elaborated on the lessons that we need to take from the disastrous gulf oil spill – lessons that apparently are way over Roy Blunt’s head. Blunt, simple soul that he is, professed via twitter that:

I was stunned to hear the president use the BP oil spill disaster as an opportunity to push for his job-killing national energy tax plan

It does seem clear that ol’ Roy hasn’t had time to peruse the EPA analysis of the American Power Act:

The Environmental Protection Agency has released its analysis of the American Power Act today, agreeing with independent studies that the legislation would cut energy bills, create jobs, and strengthen national security. Most critically, they also looked at the effect of the legislation on the fate of the planet’s climate. Scientists have repeatedly warned that catastrophic tipping points – global species collapse, megadroughts, rapid sea level rise, ice cap destruction – become inevitable as the planet warms more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Quite simply, an American cap on carbon is the deciding factor

Of course, since the EPA has as its mission the protection of the environment, Blunt, like other GOPers and some ConservaDems who have as their mission the protection of oil and coal cronies,  might not be inclined to consider the EPA’s expert analysis any time soon.

Nevertheless, when we’ re dealing with a crisis, I’m not sure I want my politicians to spout pre-digested focus group talking points, complete with catchy but empty phrases like “job-killing national energy tax.” I know that it’s got to be so much easier than actually thinking, but don’t we elect these clowns to actually, substantively deal with our problems?  

Senator Claire McCaskill, in a statement posted today on The Hill’s Congress Blog, said that she was voting no on Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) resolution to weaken the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions, because:

… it would eliminate EPA’s ability to regulate emissions from vehicles. The government and the auto industry have agreed to set these new standards for vehicle emissions and it would be a mistake to jeopardize this historic agreement, which will reduce our dependence on oil by 1.8 billion barrels.

But wait just a minute before you start celebrating. The glass is only half-full. McCaskill quickly added that she was, instead, collaborating with Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) to hamstring the EPA in a slightly less onerous fasion (automobile emissions could be regulated by the EPA in the proposed Rockefeller legislation) for two years in order:  

… to give Congress time to figure out how we can reduce emissions without burdening consumers and small businesses in Missouri, while still allowing the EPA to move forward on regulating auto emissions.

Give Congress time …. hmmm, where have I heard that before. Isn’t this the mantra of all the obstructionists for whom it’s becoming fashionable to bellyache about usurping congressional privilege while refusing to let the Congress ever do anything? Seems to me that Congress has had lots of time, but I don’t see that they’ve made much progress.  It is hard not to agree with Davis Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center:

….Blocking the Clean Air Act will do nothing to bring Congress closer to passing comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Rather than fighting global warming solutions, we need to focus on cutting carbon pollution in a way that will spur clean energy investment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Oh well, I guess I should be happy that the glass is half-full and not empty, and that McCaskill won’t back Murkowski’s particular obstructionist efforts. I’ll call her and let her know that I appreciate her vote – and that I really wish she’d reconsider endorsing Rockefeller’s efforts.  There are issues where there’s room to hew to the center; but the climate crisis is not one of them.

UPDATE. The Murkowski resolution was defeated 47-53. So give McCaskill her props on this one.

It’s a sure thing that Kit Bond will respect the GOP love affair with Big-Oil and King-Coal, not to mention his party’s general policy of obstruction when it comes time to consider the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act – just consider his absurd response to new EPA clean air regulations. Claire McCaskill, on the other hand, may hew to her Republican-not-so-light line, but, given her recent actions in regard to clean energy initiatives, it’s just possible that she may be coming around to understanding that CO2 emission control is part-and-parcel of getting to where we need to be, and that she needs to take a few risks and show some innovative, forward-looking leadership to help us get there.

It is surely this possibility that has led organizations like  Repower America and Clean Energy Works to lobby as hard as they can to bring Senator McCaskill on board. Which brings us to a conference call earlier this morning organized by Clean Energy Works. The call, which consisted of brief presentations from Missourians representing political, business, farm, and military interests, fleshed out four compelling arguments for passing the American Power Act (and, I hope, for improving that flawed proposal):

Clean energy alternatives are here right now: This point was made forcefully by Steve Flick, Board President of Show Me Energy Cooperative, “a non-profit, producer owned cooperative founded to support the development of renewable biomass energy sources in West Central Missouri.” The Cooperative has used “stable biomass” as the basis for a “bio-pellet” that can be used for heat as well as to create electricity – recently the KCP&L utility company purchased the pellets to try them out as an alternative to coal for generating electricity.

Better yet, given McCaskill’s concern that Missourians not “get the short end of the stick” economically, bio-pellet production has the potential to increase farm income. One of the goals of the Cooperative, for instance, is to  “provide additional revenue streams for farmers and producers for their products by utilization in biomass energy production.”

Clean Energy is politically viable: State Senator Joan Bray (D-24) observed that the public is ahead of the policy makers and wants the transition to clean energy now. She noted that the Massey coal mine disaster and the current catastrophic BP oil spill have brought home to Americans the costs of doing nothing. The public expects action not dithering from a congress that, according to Bray, doesn’t seem to be able to “walk and chew gum at the same time.” This argument might reassure our politically cautious McCaskill, especially since it is supported by some recent polling (see also here).

McCaskill, who professes to worry about the impact of precipitate action on the business climate, should also be receptive to Bray’s observation that Congress must make prompt decisions about energy for economic reasons as well, since businesses need to be able to rely on known rules if they are to plan intelligently.

Clean Energy makes us more secure: Jack Hembree, a U.S. Army veteran from Springfield and a member of Operation Free discussed the fact that because most of our oil comes from the Middle East – only 3% of our consumption is supported by domestic oil production – we will have no choice but to continue our military involvement in the region until we can move to clean energy. Listening to Hembree, it occurred to me that since McCaskill claims to support our troops, given the role of oil in putting them in harm’s way, how can she do other than to vote for the American Power Act?

Clean Energy has no downside: Ralph Bicknese, of Hellmuth & Bicknese Architects in St. Louis offered this formula for evaluating the real costs of our energy sources: just ask what happens when things go wrong.

Coal? Produces coal ash that ends up in unlined and unregulated sludge ponds. And what’s wrong with that? Think about toxic chemical byproducts seeping into your water, not to mention spills – remember what happened in Kingston Tennessee?

Oil? If I need to spell the downside out, you’ve been living in a cave for the last four decades.

Nuclear? As Bicknesse put it, when Nuclear goes wrong, it goes very wrong. Think Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and then think abut the problems inherent in storing poisonous waste with a half-life of a couple of millennia. Not to mention that power from nuclear energy is expensive. It’s a dangerous energy source and it’s not cheap.

Wind, solar? Maybe there are some little implementation problems but nothing that can go catastrophically wrong – no downside at all really. Biomass? essentially no downside that can’t be easily dealt with.

Given Senator McCaskill’s obvious understanding of at least some of the issues, as she articulates them on her Website, if she continues to walk backwards, as she did in her response to the proposed EPA regulations, we must demand that she tell us just why the considerations above do not convince her to not only support, but work to improve the American Power Act. So go call her – let her know that if she does the right thing, we’ll have her back in 2012.

For those who want to make their opinions about the dangers of coal ash in our environment known to the EPA, here is the pertinent info.  This may seem too wonky for most readers, but it’s really a big deal that the EPA is even considering designating coal ash as hazardous waste.  What’s in a name?  “Hazardous” means a whole different list of rules will have to be followed.  

Below the fold are links to letters from our Missouri officials opposed to the new designation.

EPA announced May 4, 2010, that it is proposing to regulate for the first time coal ash to address the risks from the disposal of the wastes generated by electric utilities and independent power producers.  EPA is considering two possible options for the management of coal ash for public comment. Both options fall under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under the first proposal, EPA would list these residuals as special wastes subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, when destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments.Under the second proposal, EPA would regulate coal ash under subtitle D of RCRA, the section for non-hazardous wastes. The Agency considers each proposal to have its advantages and disadvantages, and includes benefits which should be considered in the public comment period. More information is available  here.   Comments on the rule can be submitted for 90 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register (will be changed with the exact dates after publication).  Comments can be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov; submitted via email to rcra-docket@epa.gov,Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640; faxed to 202-566-0272;Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640; or mailed to the Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of SpecialWastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities and CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation and Reportable Quantities Docket, Attention Docket ID No., EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460.  Please include a total of two copies if sending by mail. David W. Bryan, APRPublic Affairs SpecialistOffice of Public Affairs EPA Region 7901 N. 5th Street Kansas City, KS 66101913.551.7433, Fax: 913.551.7066

Rep. Luetkemeyer

Rep. Skeleton

Lt. Gov. Kinder

MO Dept Natural Resources

MO Dept Natural Resources

When I learned via Prime Buzz that Ike Skelton and Minnesota’s Collin Peterson have introduced legislation that would “veto the EPA’s finding in December that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare,” I was not really as surprised as Caesar was by Brutus’ nasty knife in the back. Just another Missouri Democrat out to establish his credentials as a running dog for big coal – first Claire McCaskill, and now the ever-predictable Mr. Skelton. Nevertheless, I did wonder if he couldn’t have just waited and voted on some other jerk’s bad legislation? Did he have to initiate?

The real eyeopener, though, can be found in the comments on the Prime Buzz article. One blighted-in-the-bud intellect declares that no matter what Skelton does, the voters of his district will never regard him as anything other than “just another Pelosi lackey.” Too bad nobody told Pelosi – she could surely have made much better use of Skelton had she known that he is just another one of her lackeys. Of course, on the other hand, some of us are more concerned about Peabody Coal’s lackeys than Pelosi’s.