This is the nineteenth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
From the Scotch-Irish who settled there starting in the 1760s to today's residents, the people of southwestern Virginia are fiercely independent. The 9th Congressional District, which covers all of southern Virginia west of Roanoke, has been known as the "Fighting Ninth," because of its raucous politics. The district was first dominated by farmers, later coal miners (though the coal industry has been in decline for more than twenty years there), and now by workers in high-tech industries. Bill Clinton carried the district twice, however George W. Bush won in 2000 and 2004 by wider margins than Clinton ever did, and John McCain won the district 59-40% in 2008.
Democrat Rick Boucher is in his 14th term representing the district in the U.S. House. Boucher's family is steeped in southwest Virginia politics - his mother was Washington County's Democratic Party chairwoman, and his grandfather and great-grandfather were Democratic members of the state House of Delegates. He hasn't faced a particularly close race since his first re-election bid in 1984. This fall he will be challenged by Republican Delegate and House Majority Leader, Morgan Griffith.
During his long Congressional career, Boucher has voted as a moderate, making his greatest mark on telecommunication and technology issues. He's been a reliable vote on clean energy and environmental issues, earning a c from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) last year. Boucher played an influential role in shaping the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first global warming bill ever to pass a chamber of Congress, as the leading voice for coal-state representatives on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On the House floor during debate on ACES, Boucher said the bill:
...achieves broad reductions in greenhouse gases, enhances America's energy security, and by placing a price on carbon dioxide emissions will unleash investments in clean energy technologies that will create millions of new jobs. These energy technologies will evolve from America's laboratories. They will be deployed at home. They will be exported around the world. They will be the foundation for our next technology revolution...
This is a responsible measure. It is carefully balanced. It reduces greenhouse gases by 83 percent by 2050 as compared to 2005 levels. It keeps electricity rates affordable. It enables coal usage to grow as the demand for electricity increases. And it opens the door to a more secure energy future and the creation of millions of new jobs innovating, deploying and exporting to the world the new low CO2 emitting technologies that will power our energy future."
Boucher backs up his claims in that speech with facts from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and experts at the Environmental Protection Agency. But that hasn't stopped Morgan Griffith from asserting, without any persuasive evidence, that ACES will "result in massive job cuts in Southwest Virginia's coal industry while raising electricity, gasoline, and heating prices for all consumers." Though, as someone who also says that "many scientists do not even believe [global warming] is happening," Griffith doesn't seem bound by the facts.
The truth, according to our top experts at the National Academy of Sciences is that "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities." As to Griffith's loss of jobs argument, according to collaborative research by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California, ACES could lead to as many as 1.9 million new jobs nationally; 50,000 in Virginia alone.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
Two disasters flared up this week, one environmental, the other political. Off the coast of Louisiana, oil from a sunken rig is leaking as much as five times faster than scientists originally judged, and the spill reportedly reached land last night. And in Washington, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) jumped from his partnership with Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) just before the scheduled release of the draft of a new Senate climate bill.
The trio had worked for months on bipartisan legislation on climate change. After Graham's defection, his partners promised to press on, but the bill's chances of survival are dimmer.
The next Exxon Valdez?
As Grist puts it, the spill off the Louisiana coast is "worse than expected, and getting worser." The oil rig sank on April 20, and since then, oil has been pouring out of the well and into the Gulf of Mexico.
British Petroleum (BP), which operates the rig, along with the Coast Guard and now the Department of Defense, has pushed to contain and clean up the spill. The problem is deep under water and difficult to measure, but by mid-week, experts estimated that it was gushing 5,000 barrels a day from three different leaks.
Interior department officials said the spill could continue for 90 days. Mother Jones' Kevin Drum looks at a couple of estimates for how much oil could end up in the Gulf and concludes, "An Exxon Valdez size spill might only be a few days away."
The federal government has rallied to respond. Administration officials have traveled to Louisiana, and both the executive branch and the legislative branch have announced investigations into the spill. But, as Care2 writes, the White House is saying that the explosion should not derail plans for future drilling.
"In all honesty I doubt this is the first accident that has happened and I doubt it will be the last," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, according to Care2.
New drilling, no regulations
Just a few weeks ago, President Barack Obama announced that the government would open up areas off the East Coast for offshore oil and gas drilling. The proposal already had some opponents, and the spill makes the politics of new drilling that much trickier. Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard reports that White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner acknowledged the issue, along with energy experts around Washington.
"This reopens the issue: Is the risk worth the reward?" Lincoln Pratson, a professor of energy and environment at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, told Sheppard.
And even though BP is relying on the Coast Guard and the Department of Defense for help managing this spill, the company is pushing back on efforts to minimize those risks, Lindsay Beyerstein reports for Working In These Times.
The company "continues to oppose a proposed rule by the Minerals Management Service (the agency that oversees oil leases on federal lands) that would require lessees and operators to develop and audit their own Safety and Emergency Management Plans (SEMP)," Beyerstein writes. "BP and other oil companies insist that voluntary compliance will suffice to keep workers and the environment safe."
Climate bill catastrophe
The country might also have to rely on companies' "voluntary compliance" with measures to combat global warming: Congress doesn't seem likely to pass a bill regulating carbon any time soon. Sen. Kerry and friends were supposed to release their version of climate legislation Monday, but over the weekend, Sen. Graham backed out. His reason? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had floated the idea of prioritizing immigration reform, which Graham argued would undermine work on energy legislation.
"It seems like the senator...has a bit of an attitude problem," wrote The American Prospect's Gabriel Arana. "He storms out of climate talks because Democrats have dared consider working on two things at once? The degree to which movement in the Senate hinges on this single, mercurial senator, seemingly the only one whose agenda includes something more than stymieing Democrats, is remarkable."
Call the clean up crew
After Graham's announcement (Arana called it a "hissy fit"), congressional democrats scrambled to prove that the climate bill was not knocked entirely off course. On Monday, Sen. Kerry and Sen. Lieberman met with their wayward colleague; by Wednesday, Sen. Reid had promised that he would "move forward on energy first;" and by Thursday, Kerry and Lieberman had asked the EPA to start evaluating the bill's environmental and economic impacts.
Although a draft of the bill was supposed to come out on Monday, no one has seen it. At Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard reports that even the EPA, which is supposed to analyze the bill, hasn't received the full draft.
"According to the EPA, the senators submitted a "description of their draft bill" for economic modeling," she writes. "The agency confirmed in a statement to Mother Jones the senators "have not sent EPA any actual legislative text." The agency is determining whether it has enough information about the bill to produce an analysis of its economic and environmental impacts."
Despite assurances from the Senate leadership, it's not clear if climate legislation will come to the floor this year or, if it does, that it will pass.
Not a disaster
There was one bright spot of news for environmentalists this week: the United States will build its first off-shore wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod. The project, called Cape Wind, has a host of opponents, but Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar decided to approve it. The scale will be smaller than originally planned-130 rather than 170 turbines, the Washington Independent reports-which could mollify critics who worried about its visual impact.
Cape Wind is a prime example of how clean energy projects can still cause harm or anger the people who live in their shadow. The Texas Observer recaps opposition to clean energy projects: A working-class neighborhood fought against efforts to build a biomass plant in their town, and won.
"Despite some activists touting these projects as solutions to global warming, and politicians promoting them as the key to economic prosperity, renewable energy projects tend to have their own sets of problems for local residents," reports Rusty Middleton.
Biomass is one thing: burning materials like waste wood might produce fewer greenhouse gasses, but a biomass plant still dirties the air around it. But if the choice is between an off-shore wind farm that could mar a pleasant vista or an off-shore drilling operation that could spill gallons of oil onto your coast, it seems clear which is the better option.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
On Thursday afternoon, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) pulled out a rarely-used Congressional tool in an attempt to keep the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon and other greenhouse gasses. Sen. Murkowski offered a "resolution of disapproval" of the EPA's impending action, which would limit companies' carbon emissions.
The resolution would overturn the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide is harmful to the public health. Three Democrats-Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)-joined Sen. Murkowski and 35 Republicans in sponsoring the resolution.
"Ms. Murkowski's Mischief'"
"This command and control approach is our worst option for reducing the gasses associated with climate change," said Sen. Murkowski on the floor of the Senate yesterday. She called the EPA's actions "backdoor climate regulations with no input from Congress" and said they would damage the country's flailing economy.
The EPA first announced in April 2009 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses posed a threat to the public health. The agency formalized that finding last month, giving itself the power to regulate emissions of greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act. In March 2010, for instance, the agency is expected to announce carbon emissions rules for the auto industry that would match California's higher standards. Sen. Murkowski's resolution would derail that process.
Sen. Murkowski argued that she wants to give Congress room to come up with a legislative solution to climate change, but her critics see a more dangerous tilt to her resolution. "It's a radical attempt by the legislative branch to interfere with executive branch scientists," writes David Roberts at Grist.
Responding to "Ms. Murskowski's mischief" on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called the resolution an "unprecedented effort to overturn scientific decision" and "a direct assault on the health of the American people."
Resolution of disapproval
What is a "resolution of disapproval?" Grist's Roberts called it "the nuclear option."
"It would rescind the EPA's endangerment finding entirely and thereby eliminate its authority over both mobile and stationary sources," Roberts explains. "Furthermore, the administration would be prohibited from passing a regulation "substantially the same" as the one overruled, so the constraint on the EPA would effectively be permanent."
This type of resolution was created by the Clinton-era Congressional Reform Act. The resolution has one big advantage: It cannot be filibustered. Passage requires only a majority in both houses of Congress. Members have tried using it in the past to delay the Dubai Ports World deal, derail FCC regulations on new media, and stop the flow of bailout funds.
Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones has been following Sen. Murkowski's actions closely. She reports that "Senate supporters of climate action say Murkowski could obtain the votes of moderate Democrats from coal, oil, and manufacturing states. However, a resolution would still need to be approved by the House and signed by the president-both long shots, to put it mildly. 'I think we're a little worried about [Murkowski's resolution] winning. I'm not sure we're worried about it becoming law,' a Senate Democratic staffer says."
But Grist's Roberts argues that passage in the Senate alone would be a problem. "Even if blocked by the House or vetoed by the president, such a public, bipartisan slap at the administration would be highly embarrassing and demoralizing," Roberts writes. "It would mean at least ten conservative Democrats washing their hands of the administration's initiative."
Climate change and Congress
Sen. Murkowski insists that she's still ready to work with her colleagues on climate change and that it's better to approach the problem of climate change via legislation, not regulation.
But no one in Washington believes that climate change legislation is going to pass-even come to the Senate floor-any time soon. The issue was already in line behind health care, and the election of Republican candidate Scott Brown to Sen. Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts seat this week means that none of the bills that the Senate is working on are likely to come to a vote this year.
"There was hope that the [climate] bill would come to the floor in the spring," writes Steve Benen at Washington Monthly. "Regrettably, a narrow majority of Massachusetts voters have made it significantly more likely that Congress won't address the problem at all. Proponents focused on solutions have vowed to "persist," but Massachusetts has made a difficult situation considerably worse."
The role of special interests
Sen. Murkowski has come under criticism for allowing Bush-era EPA administrators, now lobbyists representing clients on climate change issues, to help her craft an earlier amendment cracking down on the EPA. Yesterday, she said that those criticisms are "categorically false."
But as JP Leous reports at Care2, Sen. Murkowski does receive substantial backing from energy industries that oppose climate change legislation and regulation.
"According to OpenSecrets.org Sen. Murkowski has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from polluting companies, and some of her biggest campaign contributors in recent years include firms with fossil-fueled motives like Exxon Mobil Corp," Leous writes "Add those dots into the mix and a different picture emerges - and it starts to look like a person who is poised to introduce legislation next week attacking the Clean Air Act."
On the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Boxer charged, "Why would the Senate get in the business of repealing science? Because that's what the special interests want to have happen now. Because they're desperate."
The Democratic Senators who co-sponsored the resolution also come from energy producing states where companies object to the new EPA regulations.
If at first you don't succeed...
If Sen. Murkowski's resolution does pass the Senate, there's little chance it will pass the House as well. But this isn't the only option that regulation opponents are looking at to fight the EPA. The Chamber of Commerce and other groups are planning to challenge the regulatory action in court, as Mother Jones' Sheppard reports.
Last week, these opponents met to discuss their strategy. What's interesting, Sheppard says, is that "the group was apparently divided on the best course of action. The Hill observes that "two camps have emerged." One wants to challenge whatever rules the EPA issues, while another wants to question the science of global warming itself."
We're back to that old saw? With legislation off the table, the fight over climate change, for now, is in the regulatory arena.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, narrowly passed in the U.S. House of Representatives at the end of June. The ACES bill seeks to mitigate climate change via emission reductions, investments in energy technology, creation of clean energy jobs, and rigid standards for energy efficiency. Check out Grist for a valuable breakdown of the act.
We all know that our movement is broadly cultural as well as specifically political, and we are excited and grateful that Open Left has invited Living Liberally, the national network of social events around progressive politics, to contribute this site. Each day, we will offer cultural observations, lifestyle tips and a little humor from the collected wisdom of the social clubs of Drinking Liberally social clubs, the comedians of Laughing Liberally, the grass-fed grassroots of Eating Liberally, the movement movie-goers of Screening Liberally and the dead-tree-huggers of Reading Liberally.
In addition to one post a day from Living Liberally, you'll be seeing a Laughing Liberally Joke-of-the-Day to lift you out of the Blue State Blues.
Since even the most ardent activist can't start his or her day on an empty stomach, we're beginning our contributions to Open Left with a morsel from the Eating Liberally Kitchen.
Eating Liberally's unearthed a vintage gem of dietary wisdom from Thomas Jefferson that's timelier than ever. Jefferson was passionate about produce and considered meat more of an afterthought, calling it a "condiment for the vegetables which constitute my principal diet."
Jefferson chose beets over beef because he believed that a plant-based diet is better for you. But now we know that it's better for the planet, too, because it turns out that the meat industry is a greater emitter of greenhouse gases than all those gas guzzling Hummers.
More power to you if you're saving your pennies for a Prius, but you can make an even bigger difference right now, starting today, by simply cutting back on your burger consumption. If you can do it by swearing off factory farm meat products, you get a "twofer", striking a blow against agribiz animal abuse and fighting global warming, too!
STATE BLOGS
