Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
It seems that you can’t go anywhere on the Internet and not read an attack on the EPA by a Republican member of Congress. The Hill; McClatchey Unfortunately, I was not surprised how many of the Republican Congressmen were attacking the EPA and its attempts to control and eliminate air pollution. However, I was surprised by how many of those Congressmen were physicians.
“What would you think if your physician told you, “Keep smoking because quitting would kill tobacco and health care jobs.” Or, “Don’t take your high blood pressure medicine, you can’t afford it.” And, “Don’t lose weight, no one has proven obesity is bad for you.” That’s exactly the quality of medical advice we are getting from the 18 Republican physicians currently serving in Congress. Some of the most well known are the father and son team of Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Rand Paul, and Sen. Tom Coburn. Almost all of these physician/Congressmen have been key soldiers in the Republican war on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling it a “job killer,” pronouncing relevant health science “unproven,” claiming we “can’t afford” their regulations.” Truthout
The “unproven” science that claims that air pollution is deadly comes from over 2,000 medical studies is significant in its numbers and content. “In the last ten years, over 2,000 scientific studies published in the mainstream medical literature have revealed that air pollution has much of the same physiologic and disease consequence as first- and second-hand cigarette smoke.(1, 2) Those studies show that just as there is no safe number of cigarettes a person can smoke, there is no safe level of air pollution a person can breathe. Even pollution at “background” levels still causes health consequences, including increased mortality rates.(3, 4)” Dr. Brian Moench
Dr. Moench’s Truthout article provides a plethora of citations to studies that confirm the need for and importance of taking the steps that the EPA has outlined in its August, 2010 report titled, “The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990-2020”. EPA I guess some people can deny the science behind the studies and the EPA report. We have seen the climate change deniers put ear plugs in their ears when legitimate and voluminous studies are presented. Maybe I am naive, but I cannot understand how medical doctors can claim that we can’t afford the regulations needed to save lives of adults and children.
Over 1,800 medical doctors, nurses and health care professionals signed a letter to Congress imploring the Congressional members to honor the original intent of the Clean Air Act and allow science to trump politics by implementing the needed regulations to save lives. “The result is saved lives and improved quality of life for millions of Americans. But the job is not finished. Communities across the nation still suffer from poor air quality. Low income families face the impacts of toxic air pollution every day. From smog causing asthma attacks to toxic mercury harming children’s neurological development, far too many people face a constant threat from the air they breathe and the impacts of climate change. Please fulfill the promise of clean, healthy air for all Americans to breathe. Support full implementation of the Clean Air Act and resist any efforts to weaken, delay or block progress toward a healthier future for all Americans.” Lung.org
As someone who has Asthma, this fight to allow for the full implementation of the Clean Air Act has special meaning. I can only hope that Congress, including the Doctors who are in Congress will hear the call to do whatever is necessary to save lives. Politics should never get in the way of common sense and achievable changes and improvements in the air that we breathe.
Do you believe in the science behind the Clean Air Act and if not, where is the science to refute the claims of over 2,000 studies from all over the globe? Is there any health issue that can trump the vitriolic politics of our time? As quoted above, the original Clean Air Act and its amendments enjoyed bipartisan support. Why can’t that same bipartisan support be found for the full implementation of the Clean Air Act knowing it will save lives and create jobs? How many more must die or suffer before political gain is put aside?
raff,
Agreed.
Gene,
The relationship between pollution and sickness is what I am concerned with and it seems the Right wants no part of keeping children healthy because it may upset their corporate bosses. When so many of the obstructionists in the Congress are physicians it is a sad situation. .
The most important thing is to save the soul being like Jesus is. Teach the kids to do likewise. .
Then that’s all the much sadder that he apparently doesn’t understand that relationship then.
Bdaman was the first person [or close to] on this blog to state that weather over time is climate.
Bdaman,
That dog won’t hunt. The bad choices are the head in the sand approach and your go after the worst offenders approach. The worst offenders is exactly who the EPA is designed to go after, but we can’t have a federal agency telling those nice corporations that they have to retrofit or obtain new, less polluting equiptment. If we keep denying and keep preventing the EPA from doing their job, we won’t have to worry about anyone else going dark. We won’t be able to breathe and sickness and death will increase unnecessarily.
Ooo. Or how a global problem is going to be solved by taking no action or retrograde action locally. Yeah. That’s pretty funny too.
weather \ˈwe-thər\, n.,
1: the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness
2: state or vicissitude of life or fortune
3: disagreeable atmospheric conditions
climate \ˈklī-mət\, n.,
1: a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
[emphasis added]
Really, Bdaman, you should try to get over your own insecurities about your intelligence. It causes you to make mistakes like thinking weather isn’t climate. Besides, where I place on a statistical distribution (which is 97th percentile if you want to be accurate – not that accuracy is your hallmark) is irrelevant to the conversation even though it is the truth of the matter. So either you continually bring it up out of your own insecurity or you think it’s what? some sort of attack? That’s just funny. Would you like me to dumb it down for you, Bdaman? I don’t see how I could get much more basic than pointing out that your apparently made up definitions of words are crap, but I’ll try if it makes you feel better. Nah! I really don’t care if you’re intimidated by people smarter than you. It’s your problem. I think jealousy and insecurity are funny and a complete waste of time. Kind of like your perpetual denier posts. Mildly entertaining but ultimately lacking much if any substance . . . like a Chuck Lorre sitcom.
Now what was that you were saying about climate not being weather and weather not being climate? I’m also interested in hearing about how the hydrological cycle isn’t related to the atmosphere. Oh, and how free markets bereft of regulation is going to solve the pollution problem as long as there is profit to be made polluting.
Of course, your solution would be to have no standards and let the market take care of it.
Raff that is not my solution. There is no question man is polluting the planet. Lets go after the worst offenders. By suffocating the U.S. in more increased regulations will not guarantee more cleaner air but instead will cripple the U.S. economy. Are you aware that because of the choices Germany has made that over a half a million people now sit in the dark. This is where the U.S. is headed if we don’t reverse course.
Bdaman,
The washington examiner is a rag and should not be relied upon for anything, except maybe the weather.
On the air standards issue. You are correct that setting high standards does not guarantee the best air quality. Of course, your solution would be to have no standards and let the market take care of it. We know and history shows us, how that turned out.
Well you can now add obesity to the list.
Danish researchers have announced a rather wild hypothesis: Perhaps we are getting fatter and fatter because of the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
http://sciencenordic.com/new-theory-co2-makes-you-fat
” What ever the plants worth, no matter what the industry is they would have to uh, uh retro fit their operations. That will cost money and they will pass that on to consumers.”
Regulation Nation: New study finds Obama’s regs cost $46 billion a year
Some 10,215 new federal regulations from the Obama administration are costing consumers, businesses and the economy overall $46 billion annually, more than five times the regulatory price tag of former President Bush in his first three years in office. Worse: just implementing those regulations had a one-time additional cost of $11 billion.
The most expensive regulation of 2011 was from the Environmental Protection Agency, which added five major rules costing $4 billion. Among them, stricter limits on industrial and commercial boilers and incinerators, for a cost of $2.6 billion annually for compliance.
“Without decisive steps, the costs of red tape will continue to grow, and the economy, and average Americans, will be the victims.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/03/regulation-nation-new-study-finds-obama%E2%80%99s-regs-cost-46-billion
“What is climate disruption? Isnt that weather?”
It sure is weather.
Where is Ms. Elaine, Could you please explain to Gene weather is not climate. You would think that someone who is smarter than 99 percent would know this.
Bdaman,
O you really want to bring China into this discussion? At first you claim that the US as one of the best air pollution standards, but you want to be like China and burn more coal. How did the US get the high standards for ar quality? The work of the EPA.
Raff having high standards does not always equate to clean air.
http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/the-worlds-cleanest-air
Take a deep breath. Chances are, the air filling your lungs is far from pure. Even if you live in a clean, ecologically conscious area, you may be inhaling pollutants from faraway, less-pristine locales. Your hometown air may contain microscopic particles of mercury-coated coal dust from China, diesel from Europe, ozone from Los Angeles, or carbon monoxide from India—or possibly a cocktail of all of the above.
There were a few surprises along the way. It came as quite a shock, for instance, that all of Continental Europe had to be excluded from our list. (The reason: population density combined with reliance on diesel engines.) Another surprise?Forest air doesn’t necessarily mean clean air.
The lesson is don’t confuse standards with results. Europe uses the most of green technologies yet has the worst air.
“What is climate disruption? Isnt that weather?”
It sure is weather. Increasingly unpredictable and severe weather. Also, you should read back Bron. I wasn’t the one who brought that term to the party.
Bdaman,
O you really want to bring China into this discussion? At first you claim that the US as one of the best air pollution standards, but you want to be like China and burn more coal. How did the US get the high standards for ar quality? The work of the EPA. The very agency that you argue is unnecessary. Why should you be surprised at coal exports when most of the oil that you want to drill ends up bing exported?
Hey Bdaman:
Are you a chowder head?
Gene made this statement: ““climate disruption””
What is climate disruption? Isnt that weather? And doesnt weather change from year to year and decade to decade? What was once hot becomes cold and what was once cold becomes hot.
Wasnt the Sahara Desert a grass land at one point in time? Now it is a desert. I would call that climate disruption and all without benefit of fossil fuels.
Funny how the earth’s climate has been in disruption for all of its 6 billion years and man has only been burning fossil fuels in any significant amount for around 100 years. That is like looking at a just fertilized ovum and projecting his great grandchild’s station in life at 60.
Gene, true dat.
OS,
At least in bagpipe music, the drone is broken up by a melody.
Gene, I have given up on trying to follow Bdaman’s mental and logical gymnastics. I prefer my music to have more than one note and the lyrics to have more than just the four-line chorus.