Anti-Environment Dems

From http://www.bushgreenwatch.org:

"September 16, 2005

Six Senate Democrats Vote to Retain Bush Mercury Rule

The nation's environmental health protections suffered a severe
setback this week when six Democratic Senators joined 45
Republicans to defeat an effort to overturn the Bush
Administration's new rule regulating mercury emissions.

Health experts assert that the new EPA rule, which institutes a
"cap-and-trade" system for mercury emissions, will cause
dangerous hot spots of mercury pollution in regions where a
power plant can buy pollution "credits" rather than reduce its
emissions.

Democrats joining in the 51-47 vote against repealing rule
included Senators Max Baucus (MT); Robert Byrd (WV); Kent Conrad
(ND); Byron Dorgan (ND): Ben Nelson (NE); Mark Pryor (AR).

Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) called the new rule illegal."

There is more of this article at the bushgreenwatch.org website.

Yet another example of Democrats siding with their corporate masters rather than with the health and well-being of their constituents. We need to lean on these people and somehow either change their ways or change who has their Senate seats.

•  Didn't some Republicans vote against mercury?

  Maybe we should give them some recognition--maybe even invite them to abandon the party of sinking-into-darkness and join the party of light?

  by daulton on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:00:29 AM PDT

  •  see below

    by red clay dem on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:58:44 AM PDT

•  This is a big problem

  The Repub majority gives these turncoat Dems a place to hide. If the Dems were in the majority, they couldn't get away with this. But with the GOP running the show, the Dems can be anti-environment and hope that it slips under the radar screen.

  by Naturegal on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:00:30 AM PDT

  •  Environment should be a bigger issue

    I only care about whether evolution is taught in the schools for symbolic reasons. I doubt a legal abortion would have much effect on the number of abortions, or even necessarily on their cost or safety. I'm open to the possibility that the Middle East is such a mess that we might be in trouble in Iraq even if Bush weren't a lunatic.

    But I know that I can't live on a planet that looks like Mars or Venus and that I don't want mercury in my tuna fish. I know that when I was pregnant it was almost impossible to find a good source of natural protein in my neighborhood, other than beans and organic eggs. (Did you know that eating too much soy can cause thyroid problems???)

    Even many of the wingnuts understand that the environment is a big issue. Drudge has an item up today about the ice on the North Pole possibly disappearing by 2070.

    It would be great if the Democrats could be running ads all the time talking about the difference between sane people and wingnuts on the environment and shaming Democrats who vote with the wingnuts on these sorts of issues.

    by sclminc on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:05:52 AM PDT

•  politics

  Senators Max Baucus (MT); Robert Byrd (WV); Kent Conrad (ND); Byron Dorgan (ND):
  ---These guys are all from coal mining states. Most, in fact maybe all, of the other senators from coal mining states are Repubs, so their votes are unnoticed.

  Ben Nelson (NE); Mark Pryor (AR).
  -- Not sure what's up with these guys

  ----
  Also 5 of these Democratic senators are from upwind states, so don't get a whole lot of the mercury from power plants raining down on their constituents.  Byrd's constituents do, but then again big coal is a big deal in WV

  by walden on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:08:55 AM PDT

  •  Coal Combustion

    They should still have helped, irrespective of the coal interests of their states. During the past few years coal combustion technology has been improving its ability to reduce Hg emissions (and other contaminants, even to some extent CO2 although it is still a big problem) through the use of such things as integrated coal gasification technology. The defeat of this rule change would have helped to force implementation/conversion to these newer, low-emission technologies.

    by ChemBob on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:34:58 AM PDT

  •  It was also

    probably re-election related since those states all average about 60%+ Bush (and conversely Chafee also crossed over.)

    by BlueEngineerInOhio on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:43:23 AM PDT

    •  which other Republicans crossed over?

      Did the Maine ones?  anyone else?

      by walden on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:47:50 AM PDT

      •  We picked up these R's

        Mostly the downwind New England states, plus a few others.  Enviro organizers were working to put heat on Senators in MN and OR, so good to see that pay off.  

        Snowe (ME)
        Collins (ME) why oh why won't these ladies switch?
        Sununu (NH)
        Gregg (NH)
        Chafee (RI)
        Coleman (MN)
        Alexander (TN) that had to be a surprise
        McCain (AZ)
        Smith (OR)

        by red clay dem on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:55:29 AM PDT

    •  Weird decision, if that's their worry

      weakening environmental rules is widely unpopular among voters in both parties.  There couldn't have been much constituent pressure to vote this way; more likely they have a lot of state utility interests whispering in their ear and then there was an absence of public comment on the other side.

      by red clay dem on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:57:50 AM PDT

•  No problem with emissions trading.

  That is, as long as the overall limit for emissions drops. This has been a success in reducing Sulphur Dioxide emissions, and emissions trading when done right utilises capitalism to improve standards.

  Of course, if they aren't significantly reducing the overall mercury emission rate then it's worthless, but I think there's an irrational fear of emission trading sometimes.

  by Expat Briton on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:33:03 AM PDT

  •  Hot spots

    The emissions trading scheme, to my understanding, doesn't account very well for the development of Hg "hot spots" where the Hg concentrations will increase significantly in certain areas. What do you say to the folks living in those areas?

    The fact is that Hg is a tremendous health hazard. These Senators should be working at least as hard to develop cleaner coal technologies and promoting the development of alternative energy research in their states (in which the coal companies could invest and profit) as they are to preserving the coal company status quo. IMHO.

    by ChemBob on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:40:22 AM PDT