Does that sound like hyperbole?
Not when one looks at what the GOP has in store for gutting the Environmental Protect Agency. A GOP that so far has failed to eliminate the EPA altogether as promised by most every leading 2012 republican presidential candidate, yes, even then Texas governor Rick Perry despite his "oops..I can't" remember moment - the EPA in question),
It ramped up in 2011 with HR 3010: The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011, a somewhat less onerous version of HR 10 masquerading as one of many pseudo "Jobs Bills" and is now in the works as HR 185: The Regulatory accountability Act of 2015 (pdf)
John Walke has the story here: New Congress Prepares to Take Away Your Right to Clean, Safe Air | January 12, 2015 - (very informative with many links and well worth reading - imo)
The Regulatory Accountability Act would take away this right and eliminate the Clean Air Act's health centerpiece. The bill does so by directing that EPA shall consider cleanup costs by polluting industries when defining clean air and telling Americans whether the air is safe.
The legislation requires all federal agencies carrying out all federal rulemakings to consider costs to regulated corporations "notwithstanding any other law." (pdf) Legislative drafters use this phrase when they want a law (here, the Regulatory Accountability Act) to take precedence and reign supreme over any other otherwise applicable law. So, embedded within the Regulatory Accountability Act is a radically sweeping alteration of scores of federal laws governing clean air and clean water, food safety, investor protections, civil rights and on and on. I doubt the legislation's co-sponsors even have a complete list of all the federal laws that their bill would supersede
- emphasis added
So it's the
"Regulatory accountability Act of 2015" ?
Republicans demand accountability.. yet "Not withstanding any other law" (?) So the peoples advocate (EPA) for clean air and the Clean Air Act of 52 years is accountable to those industries that pollute?
Wow, not only is the arrogance of considering the EPA "accountable" to corporations instead of the people a contemptible bit of legislation labeling, but a transparent attempt to cover exactly what the GOP is attempting to do - legislate away all corporate accountability (read: responsibility and legal liability) piece by piece.
Leaving that political hubris aside and the absurd notion that requiring polluting corporations to prevent damage to the environment, public health and safety and clean up their profit making endeavors is unfairly "burdensome regulation", it raises a question that every republican voter who bought into the; "I built that" - "pulling ones self up by their boot straps" -"rugged individual" gospel should ask themselves.
Why would the republican representative they voted for aid and abet any polluting corporation that shirks taking responsibility for completing a job, including the damage prevention and cleanup phase of any job large or small, and then shield them from legal consequences? Would their republican representative also do the same for the common republican voter?
There are plenty of republican voters that want clean air, pure water and land that isn't reduced to a toxic waste dump. They should ask whose interests their congressperson is looking out for - imo
But the more important question: Is it now okay for a corporation to foul the air, land, and water by allowing those same corporations the legal standing to add their own pollution as a cost that not only we the people must pay for, but that the pollution cost itself carries legal weight as a deciding factor in how much pollution is allowed?
I had to let that sink in wondering if I had read the republican Bill HR 185 correctly. What the republican shell corporate aka the GOP is attempting is to put into law that the cost of preventing and cleaning up pollution caused by corporations is now a huge part of the deciding factor in EPA regulations "notwithstanding any other laws".
Iow's measuring and considering how safe the air is to breathe or clean the water is to drink will be replaced by how much it costs corporations to comply with the EPA regulations designed to ensure a clean environment
Whatever happened to that accountability? republican once again accusing their political enemies of exactly what they are most guilty of
Make a mess so bad, the environmental damage so irreversible that it becomes legal? or rather "too burdensome" to regulate? example: "sorry we dynamited that entire mountain down, polluted every river with crap, and now it is beyond saving".
That is exactly the kind of "unburdened" license to pollute that will happen if this EPA gutting is allowed.
That is crazy corrupt.
John Walke introduces work by an NRDC colleague, Daniel Rosenberg who has traced the origin of the "least burdensome" language that gouged out a vital part of the Toxic Substances Control Act:
In 1989, after spending TEN YEARS and MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, to develop a 45,000 page record, EPA (under George Bush the first) proposed to ban most uses of asbestos in the United States.
The science on asbestos is strong.
It is KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER IN HUMANS (not just animals).
Roughly 10,000 people die in the U.S. EACH YEAR as a result of exposure to asbestos. More than 50 other countries have banned its use. Those facts don’t matter. What matters is that in 1991 a federal court overturned EPA’s ban on existing uses of asbestos (it allowed a ban on any new uses).
The court held that EPA had not met the “least burdensome” test by conducting a thorough cost-benefit analysis of each of the potential regulatory options at the agency’s disposal, and demonstrating that the one it chose was the least costly effective approach.
This is what the new congress is up to today.The "least burdensome regulation" story is the same false blame game we've heard ad nauseam for many years now.
By incorporating the cost of pollution into the calculus of what level of pollution is to be tolerated as a standard, the polluters buying this legislation (republicans shills) have created an incentive to pollute and removed the negative incentive (the costs of prevention & clean-up) that actually does reduce pollution.
The bigger the mess/amount of pollutants; the greater the cost of clean-up; therefore inviting the "justification" of lowering standards to keep clean-up costs down - and profits up
That right there is the very definition of 'race to the bottom' legislation. Not only that; it is reversing the "free market" rule that republicans say they believe in; rules of responsible accountability in competition. A corporation paying for its own costs of production including cleaning up its waste/pollution and not putting the costs/burden onto society
Here is the benefits of the EPA standards that the republicans are in the process of gutting:
For example, EPA projects its health standards for fine soot pollution (PM2.5) will yield total health benefits to Americans up to $9.1 billion yearly, with up to $171 in health benefits for every $1 invested in pollution reduction.
Those health benefits come from avoiding heart attacks, strokes and premature deaths; avoiding asthma attacks and clogged arteries; and letting people continue to go to work and school and lead healthier lives.
The EPA Saving the environment, lives and money:
EPA recently proposed (pdf) to strengthen national health standards for smog pollution.
Then the shell corporation's response:
Almost immediately, some Republicans in the House and Senate introduced legislation announcing a frontal assault on the Clean Air Act, eliminating the law's health foundation, forcing consideration of polluter costs and blocking safe smog standards.
Firing back:
The Obama White House has vowed to veto (pdf) similar dirty air legislation previously
h/t to
LakeSuperior for lookin' out & the link
note: this story is a few days old January 12, 2015, so apologies if I missed it and posting nothing new