In The News
SUPERfund Deception?
Wednesday March 31, 2004
The following is a list of those polluters who have been identified as a viable, liable party under the superfund law and are not being held accountable:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
...we couldn't find any-- can you?
FACT: The "polluter" already pays. When there is an identifiable and viable "polluter", consistent with the law, they are held liable. Governor Whitman testifying before the Environment and Public Works committee addressed this very issue answering a question from Senator Inhofe:
Ø “No, Senator, I couldn't think of an instance where a viable, responsible party has not been held liable. There have been instances where we can identify a responsible party but the company has subsequently gone out of business, gone into bankruptcy, where we have had difficulty in recovering. But wherever we know the responsible party, that is our first line of defenses, our first line of funding for Superfund sites. We did last year stayed up at the level that has been consistent throughout the history of Superfund, the 70 percent. We were actually a little bit higher at 71 percent, but that goes up and down from year to year. We are absolutely committed to the polluter-pays principle here.”
FACT: The Superfund Tax was levied on business - many of which never caused ANY contamination, and those that do are already held liable. So it is factually incorrect to call this a "polluter tax.” Governor Whitman at the same EPW hearing in an answer about who actually pays this tax said:
Ø “It was certainly a broad-based tax that captured everyone in the industry, whether they had, in fact, been responsible for specific pollution or not.”
FACT: There is no correlation between the dollars in the Super Fund (from the collected tax which expired in 1995) and the level of funding that goes to Superfund clean ups. There has never been a delay in clean ups due to lack of a Superfund tax. Funding for actual clean up has remained constant or increased under President Bush.
FACT: This is simply a tax increase wrapped in a good sound-bite -- a sound-bite based on anything but the FACTS. The Sierra Club and the Democratic Party continue in their all out mission to defeat President Bush once again show they will stop at nothing in their efforts and distort the truth for political gain.
Click here for link: (.pdf)
Click here for link: (.pdf)
Villain of the Month Club
Tuesday March 2, 2004
Fact: Every month Clean Air Trust names their “Villain of the Month.” This person or group has failed to adhere to the strict liberal agenda of the Clean Air Trust. When the Catholic Charities of Cleveland testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee and failed to tow the extremist line the way the Clean Air Trust required, they announced the group as “Villain of the Month” in June 2002. Even likeminded liberal environmental group are subject to ridicule. When The Adirondack Council supported President Bush’s Clear Skies Bill, thus supporting the environment and letting go of political partisanship, the Clean Air Trust made an example of the group by adding them to the club in April 2002. It is clear that the new EPA administrator can wear becoming a member of this exclusive club as a badge of honor.
Money behind the Science
Tuesday February 24, 2004
“President Bush's supporters promptly denounced the statement and the report as an overdrawn and politically motivated work issued in an election year by an advocacy group known for its liberal disposition.”
At least the New Your Times recognizes the liberal agenda advocated by the Union of Concerned Scientists. It would behoove them though to dig a little deeper and let their readers know just how politically tied this organization is to the Democratic Party and one Presidential candidate in particular.
Fact: Teresa Heinz-Kerry is the chairman of the board of the Howard Heinz Endowment, which donated over $4,000,000 to the Tides Foundation. So when the Union of Concerned Scientists receives significant donations from the Tides Foundation and later comes out bashing the President, responsible citizens should be left questioning the political motives and the validity of scientific data of such an organization -- shouldn’t they?
Green Power
Tuesday November 4, 2003
FACT: US PIRG’s utopia is contradicted by experience. Consider the Board of Water and Light (BWL) in Lansing, Michigan, which began buying green power two years ago. Under a new program, customers could get half of their power from green sources, but at an extra cost of $7.50 a month. The result? Only 700 of the company's 100,000 customers signed up for it. In a story titled “Utilities Struggle to Sell Green Power,” the Great Lakes Radio Consortium reported, “Rate payers have shown they're not that interested in buying green power. Lansing Board of Water and Light officials…say unless more people become willing to pay for cleaner energy, they likely won't expand the program any further.” Joe Nipper of the American Public Power Association pithily explained the lack of enthusiasm this way: “For many folks the power bill is a significant part of their bills every month and they watch that closely.” But the utopians don’t care about such mundane concerns. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium reported, “David Gard of the Michigan Environmental Council says instead of a voluntary program, all customers should share the cost of green power.”
Global Warming "Consensus"
Tuesday October 28, 2003
FACT: This statement by no means settles the global warming debate—far from it. The statement is typical of such “consensus” documents, which say a lot without saying much at all. For instance, the observation that “temperatures are, in fact, rising,” proves very little. It fails to answer several obvious questions, such as: Rising by how much? Is the increase meaningful? Does the increase pose catastrophic consequences (droughts, floods, etc.) for mankind? The NRC notes that, “changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities?” What kind of changes, exactly? It is a truism in climate science that climate is always changing. Further, the qualifiers “likely” and “mostly” belie claims that mankind is unequivocally the only cause of global warming. Even if one accepts the alarmist interpretation of the above quotation, it is amply contradicted throughout the NRC report. Just read about the manifold uncertainties of climate science on pages 1, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/).
GAO Report on New Source Review
Friday October 24, 2003
FACT: Jeff Holmstead is right, the Democrats are wrong—this is according to a clear, rational, sober-minded reading of the report. First, throughout, GAO reaches very tentative conclusions. For example (note: pay very close attention to the use of the subjunctive mood and subjective qualifiers), here’s the report’s summary conclusion: “Some of the EPA enforcement officials and key stakeholders [read: environmental groups] are concerned the August rule could serve as a disincentive for utilities to settle the remaining seven cases and could affect judges’ decisions on remedies in these cases, especially regarding the installation of pollution controls, affecting the expected emission reductions.” Are concerned? Could serve? Could affect? Obviously, this is hardly definitive. Secondly, EPA responded to concerns about the impact on the cases by making changes to the final rule. “EPA staff assessed the potential impact of the NSR revisions on the utility enforcement cases,” GAO found, “and, according to current and former EPA enforcement officials, determined that some of the revisions could affect the cases. As a result of the assessments, EPA changed some of the revisions before issuing them as final and proposed rules in December 2002.”
Public Support for Lieberman-McCain
Tuesday October 21, 2003
FACT: The Zogby poll provides no evidence of overwhelming support for S. 139 or Kyoto-style restrictions on energy use. Consider the questions: “Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman have proposed legislation to begin addressing global warming. If enacted, the bill would—for the first time—require major industries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, these industries would be required to reduce emissions to year 2000 levels within the next 7 years. How you feel about this proposal?” Not surprisingly, 75 percent “feel” pretty good about it, because the question says nothing about costs, who pays them, or what it means—both for consumers and the economy—to reduce emissions to 2000 levels. Here’s another: “Addressing global warming by requiring major industries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can improve the environment without harming the economy. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?” Again, many respondents thought that sounded plausible as an abstract proposition. What might the reaction be to this question: “How would you feel about this legislation if you knew that, when fully implemented, it would increase your electricity bill by 46 percent?” Or: “How would you feel about this bill if you knew that, when fully implemented, it would impose a tax of $1,000 on every American household?” Or even: “Would you support the Kyoto Protocol if you knew it would impose substantial burdens on the poor, elderly, and minorities?”
Global Warming and Outbreaks or Increases in Disease
Monday October 20, 2003
FACT: There is no connection between global warming and outbreaks or increases in disease, tropical or otherwise. Dr. Paul Reiter, who worked for 22 years as a medical entomologist for the Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Disease of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and now head of the new unit of Insects and Infectious Disease at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, recently complained that those making such a connections (including the U.N.’s IPCC) are “exploiting common misconceptions: mosquito-borne diseases are ‘tropical,’ hot weather and heavy rainfall mean more mosquitoes, mosquitoes die if the weather is cold, and more mosquitoes mean more infections.” As he put it, “It is immoral for the political activists to mislead the public by attributing the recent resurgence of these diseases to climate change, particularly in Africa. The true reasons are far more complex, and the principal determinants are politics, economics, and human activities. A creative and organized application of resources to change the situation is urgently needed, regardless of future climate.”
U.S. PIRG and Global Warming
Wednesday October 15, 2003
FACT: USPIRG’s study is pure alarmist fantasy, and if the group had its way, Americans would be paying hefty prices, with serious economic consequences, and no environmental benefits. Even assuming USPIRG is right—that taking their recommended steps would save $90 billion—the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. economy $400 billion, according to the Clinton Energy Department. The Lieberman-McCain global warming bill, modeled after Kyoto, would reduce U.S. GDP by $106 billion, not to mention the competitiveness of American manufacturers, already a beleaguered lot. CAFÉ at 40 mpg? The National Academy of Sciences said CAFÉ kills an additional 2,000 people a year. So much for “savings.” As for the science, U.S. PIRG is wrong. Case in point: Dr. William Gray, professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, and the world’s foremost expert on hurricanes, found that hurricane activity follows a natural 20 to 30 year cycle in ocean currents. Researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that droughts follow a natural “20 to 30 year periodicity.” In other words, there is no connection between global warming and extreme weather.
Environmental Defense and Global Warming
Thursday October 9, 2003
FACT: Environmental Defense’s claims amount to nothing more than scare tactics with no scientific basis whatsoever. According to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, “significant uncertainty exists as to how much climate will change overall and how it will change in specific regions.” There’s more: “These limitations in knowledge introduce major uncertainties in climate predictions, climate change projections, and estimates of the limits of climate predictability, especially for regional climate.” Scientists with the U.K.’s Hadley Centre agree: “In areas where coasts and mountains have significant effect on weather [and this will be true for most parts of the world], scenarios based on global models will fail to capture the regional detail needed for vulnerability assessments at a national level.”