Our Neighborhood Earth

FactCheck: Oil independence will take 25 years, not 5 years

McCain announced a lofty, and, according to experts on the subject, improbable goal of ending foreign oil imports in five years, saying: "We have got to achieve energy independence, oil independence in this nation. I will make it a Manhattan Project, and we will in five years become oil independent."

We can't predict the future, so perhaps McCain can make this happen. But experts have serious doubts. Says one expert, "You can't institute technological change that quickly. It takes 15 years now to turn over the car fleet," citing a report commissioned by the secretary of energy that found the US could realistically reduce its reliance on oil imports by a third by 2030.

Another study, partly funded by the Pentagon and published in 2004, said it would take until 2040 for the nation to be free of all oil imports, by primarily using new technologies and competition.

About 66% of the oil used in the US in 2006 came from foreign imports, which amounted to 13.7 million barrels a day.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Des Moines Register Republican debate Dec 12, 2007 Top

Climate change is real; nuclear power is solution

[We need to] stop the contamination of our atmosphere. Climate change is real & is taking place. We have now a confluence of two national security requirements. One is to address the issue of climate change, and nuclear power is a very big part of that. And it's also a requirement to not allow Chavez in Venezuela, Putin in Russia and the president of Iran to dictate world events and use oil as a weapon which would probably further terrorism and endanger this nation's national security. Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007 Top

Public pressure on oil industry to invest in alternatives

Q: Should the oil industry be required to use some of their profits to help solve our energy problems?

A: I would hope that they would use those profits to further the cause of alternate energy, nuclear power, a lot of other ways that we have to employ in order to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

Q: Do you support drilling/exploration off the coasts of Florida and California? A: I wouldn't drill off the coast of Florida unless the people of Florida wanted to. And I wouldn't drill off the coast of California unless the people of California wanted to, and I wouldn't drill in the Grand Canyon unless the people in Arizona wanted to.

Q: But you wouldn't require the oil industry to use its profits to help pursue alternative energy?

A: I would not require them to. But I think that public pressure and a lot of other things, including a national security requirement that we reduce and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007 Top

FactCheck: nuclear plants do emit no GHGs, but do have waste

Sen. John McCain would have us believe that nuclear power is good for the environment because nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases. McCain said, "Nuclear power is safe, nuclear power is green--does not emit greenhouse gases."

McCain is correct to say that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases; in that respect, it is far more environmentally friendly than fossil fuel power plants. McCain neglects to mention, however, that nuclear power poses a different set of environmental worries. High-level nuclear waste--the sort produced as a byproduct of nuclear power generation--is potentially quite harmful. Some of the isotopes in spent nuclear fuel have half-lives as long as 24,000 years. At present, high-level nuclear waste is mostly stored in pools at nuclear power plants, a temporary solution. Fights have raged for years about the location of a permanent nuclear waste repository, but the NRC plans to open one in 2017 under Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007 Top

Reinvest oil profits in nuclear power

Q: Do you have a problem with Big Oil companies making these huge profits?

A: Sure, I think we all do. And they ought to be reinvesting it. And one of the areas that they ought to be involved in is nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe, nuclear power is green--& does not emit greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is used on Navy ships which have sailed around the world for 60 years without an accident. And of course we ought to be investing in alternate energy sources.

Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007 Top

Ethanol made no sense in `05 but with $60/bbl it makes sense

Q: You said: "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality." And after you said that, you acknowledged you might pay a political price for that view. You said:

(Videotape of McCain, 6/19/2005):
My opposition to ethanol obviously would hurt me. But I've got to do what I think is right. And if it offends a certain political constituency, I regret it, but there's really nothing I can do about it.

A: When oil is $15 a barrel, ethanol does not make sense. When oil is $60-plus a barrel, then ethanol does make sense.

Q: So you've changed your mind.

A: No, I haven't. I have adjusted to the realities of the world we live in today.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series May 13, 2007 Top

Strengthen Clean Air & Water Acts; but not Kyoto

Strengthen the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, in order to “improve efficiency and effectiveness”.
Require states to fully compensate citizens when environmental regulations limit uses of privately-owned land, “consistent with Constitutional takings clause.”
Does not support the United Nations (Kyoto Conference) treaty regarding global climate change.

Source: Vote-Smart.org 2000 NPAT Jan 13, 2000 Top

Supports alternative fuels, emission controls, & CWA

Strengthen the Clean Water Act.
Encourage development of alternative fuels to reduce pollution.
Strengthen emission controls on all gasoline or diesel powered engines, including cars and trucks.

Source: Project Vote Smart, 1998, www.vote-smart.org Jul 2, 1998 Top

Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR.

To remove the establishment of an oil and gas leasing program in the Alaskan Coastal Plain. The original bill allows for an oil and gas leasing program in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Voteing YES on this amendment would remove that section, hence barring leasing in ANWR. Reference: Bar Oil and Gas Leasing amendment; Bill S Amdt 2358 to S 1932 ;
vote number 2005-288 on Nov 3, 2005 Top

Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency
oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas.

To provide for appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Vote on a motion to waive the Budget Act in order to adopt an amendment that appropriates federal funds for the LIHEAP program. A 3/5th vote is required to amand a budget bi Reference: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program appropriation; Bill S.AMDT.2033 to HR 2863 ; vote number 2005-250 on Oct 5, 2005 Top

Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%).

Amendment to improve the energy security of the United States and reduce United States dependence on foreign oil imports by 40% by 2025. The amendment seeks to reduce usage by 7.6 million barrels of oil a day, out of a total usage of 20 million barrels of oil a day. The bill without amendment seeks to reduce usage by 1 million barrels of oil a day. Opponents of the amendment said, "It would be disruptive of jobs if you set a 78 mile per gallon CAFÉ standard for cars, a 185-percent increase; a 60 mile per gallon standard for trucks, light trucks, a 174-percent increase. [The unamended version] is more in keeping with President Kennedy's "man on the Moon" goal. [The amended version] is a "man or woman on Mars" goal, and maybe we will get there one day, but it is unrealistic today." Reference: Energy Policy Act of 2005; Bill S.Amdt. 784 to H.R. 6 ;
vote number 2005-140 on Jun 16, 2005 Top

Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Vote to adopt an amendment that would strike a provision in the concurrent resolution that recognizes revenue from oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The amendment says: "To ensure that legislation that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, other federal lands, and the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling receives full consideration and debate in the Senate under regular order, rather than being fast-tracked under reconciliation procedures; to ensure that receipts from such drilling destined for the federal treasury are fairly shared with local jurisdictions; and does not occur unless prohibitions against the export of Alaskan oil are enacted." Reference: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge anti-drilling Amendment; Bill S AMDT 168 to S.Con.Res. 18 ; vote number 2005-52 on Mar 16, 2005 Top

Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy.

Vote to pass a bill would overhaul the nation's energy policies, reorganize the electricity system and make available approximately $15 billion in energy-related tax incentives. It also would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a new CAFE standard within 15 months to two years. It would support the use of alternative energy and call for utilities to increase their dependence on renewable fuels. Reference: Energy Policy Act of 2003; Bill HR 6 ;
vote number 2003-317 on Jul 31, 2003 Top

Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010.

Dorgan Amdt. No. 865; To require that the hydrogen commercialization plan of the Department of Energy include a description of activities to support certain hydrogen technology deployment goals. Part of S 14 Energy Omnibus bill; this vote would pass an amendment that would call for the Department of Energy to set targets and timelines to maintain the production of 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010, and 2.5 million vehicles annually by 2020. It also would call for the department to set targets for the sale of hydrogen at fueling stations. The bill would require the Energy secretary to submit a yearly progress report to Congress. Reference: Bill S.14 ; vote number 2003-212 on Jun 10, 2003 Top

Voted YES on removing consideration
of drilling ANWR from budget bill.

Boxer Amdt. No. 272.; To prevent consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a fast-track budget reconciliation bill. S Con Res 23 Budget resolution FY2004: Vote to pass an amendment that would strike (remove) language in the resolution that would permit oil drilling and exploration in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. [Voting No favors drilling for oil in ANWR]. Reference: Bill SConRes 23 ; vote number 2003-59 on Mar 19, 2003 Top

Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds.

Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Murkowski Amendment No. 31323; To create jobs for Americans, to reduce dependence on foreign sources of crude oil and energy, to strengthen the economic self determination of the Inupiat Eskimos and to promote national security. Would allow gas and oil development in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if the president certifies to Congress that production in the area is in the nation's security and economic interests (qwhich Prsident Bush would). If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. A yea vote for this bill was one in favor of drilling in the reserve. Three-fifths of the total Senate (60) is required to invoke cloture. Reference: Bill S.517 ; vote number 2002-71 on Apr 18, 2002 Top

Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months.

Levin Amendment No. 2997; To provide alternative provisions to better encourage increased use of alternative fueled and hybrid vehicles. Vote to pass an amendment that would remove the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard (CAFE) and instead establish a new automobile efficiency standard in 15 months. Congress could veto any CAFE increase and would be allowed to increase the standard if no changes are made with 15 months. The bill would overhaul the nation's energy policies by restructuring the electricity system and providing for $16 billion in energy-related tax incentives. Reference: Bill S.517 ; vote number 2002-47 on Mar 13, 2002 Top

Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling.

Vote to preserve language in the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Framework that assumes $1.2 billion in revenue from oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] in Alaska. Reference: Bill S Con Res 101 ; vote number 2000-58 on Apr 6, 2000 Top

Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.

In June of 1999, Senator Jeffords (R-VT) was prepared to offer an amendment which would have added $62 million to the Energy Department solar and renewable energy programs. This action was blocked by Senator Reid (D-NV).
Status: Motion Agreed to Y)60; N)39; NV)1 Reference: Motion to table the recommital; Bill S. 1186 ;
vote number 1999-171 on Jun 16, 1999 Top

Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository.

Approval of the interim nuclear waste repository. The repository would be located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, with an integrated management system for storage and permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Voting YES would authorize the President with sole and unreviewable discretion to determine the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site.
Status: Bill Passed Y)65; N)34; NV)1 Reference: Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997; Bill S. 104 ;
vote number 1997-42 on Apr 15, 1997 Top

Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline.

Funding a mandated percentage of market share for the use of ethanol in gasoline, to be funded b reducing NASA budget b $39 million..
Status: Table Motion Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES Reference: Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995; Bill H.R. 4624 ;
vote number 1994-255 on Aug 3, 1994 Top

Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating
opposition to energy independence.

McCain scores 17% by CAF on energy issues

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows:

0% - 30%: opposition of energy independence (approx. 206 members)
30% - 70%: mixed record on energy independence (approx. 77 members)
70%-100%: support for energy independence (approx. 183 members)

About the CAF (from their website, www.ourfuture.org):

The Campaign for America's Future (CAF) is a center for ideas and action that works to build an enduring majority for progressive change. The Campaign advances a progressive economic agenda and a vision of the future that works for the many, not simply the few. The Campaign is leading the fight for America's priorities--against privatization of Social Security, for investment in energy independence, good jobs and a sustainable economy, for an ethical and accountable Congress and for high quality public education.

About the CAF report, "Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric":

Energy independence has surfaced as a defining issue in the current elections. Are most candidates and both parties truly committed? To help distinguish the demonstrated level of support for homegrown, clean energy alternatives, we examined the voting records of current U.S. Representatives and Senators on bills vital to promoting those interests. Key pieces of legislation included goals for independence, and subsidies for the development of alternatives compared to subsidies for drilling and digging. We then compared votes on these issues with campaign contributions from major oil interests. The results show strong inverse correlations between political contributions from big oil and votes for energy independence.

Source: CAF "Energy Independence" Report 06n-CAF on Dec 31, 2006 Top

Supports immediate reductions in greenhouse gases.

McCain adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership issue stance:

The Republican Main Street Partnership supports the goal of immediate, near-term reductions in greenhouse gases, and would move toward this goal by providing strong incentives that have minimal adverse impact on the economy, and to continue to apply our best scientific minds to developing a better understanding of the long-term nature of climate change and the means to cope with it.

create an "early action crediting system" to provide assurances to companies that actions taken now to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will be recognized and credited in the eventual system of emissions reductions standards that will be developed; and
commit the necessary resources to national and international scientific efforts to better understand the cause and effect of global climate change.

With regard to global warming, the Republican Main Street Partnership recognizes that a longer debate over the proper U.S. role in implementing the Kyoto Protocol should and will occur. In so doing, we hope to bolster our scientific understanding of the problem and perhaps, in turn, provide immediate incentives for communities and corporations to act in their own and the nation's best interests in reducing emissions. We are strongly committed to acting on the emerging consensus for progress and constructive change, and maintaining America's ability to lead the world in the critical area of environmental protection. Source: Republican Main Street Partnership Issue Paper:
Environment 98-RMSP2 on Sep 9, 1998 Top

FactCheck: Criticized $3M "bear DNA" study, but voted for it

McCain's TV ad criticizes an earmark that provided "$3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana." This is not the first time McCain has poked fun at the bear project. He first mentioned it on the Senate floor, on Feb. 13, 2003: "One can only imagine and conjure up an idea as to how this might be used. Approach a bear: That bear cub over there claims you are his father, and we need to take your DNA. Approach another bear: Two hikers had their food stolen by a bear, and we think it is you."

Good laugh lines, maybe, but the USGS's Grizzly Bear Project didn't study DNA for paternity tests or forensics. Rather, it explored a means of estimating Montana's grizzly bear population by analyzing bear fur snagged on barbed wire.

McCain he didn't actually try to remove the bear project from the bill. He did introduce three amendments to reduce funding, but none removing the grizzly bear project appropriations. And despite his criticisms, he voted in favor of the final bill.

Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2007 campaign ad, "Outrageous" Nov 20, 2007 Top

Economic & environmental interests not mutually exclusive

John McCain has a proud record of common sense stewardship of our nation's rich natural heritage. Along with his commitment to clean air and water, and to conserving open space, he has been a leader on the issue of global warming with the courage to call the nation to action on an issue we can no longer afford to ignore.

America has been blessed with a rich and diverse natural heritage. In the tradition of his hero, Theodore Roosevelt, John McCain believes that we are vested with a sacred duty to be proper stewards of the resources upon which the quality of American life depends.

John McCain believes that America's economic and environmental interests are not mutually exclusive, but rather inextricably linked. Our economic prospects depend greatly upon the sustainable use of ample and unspoiled natural resources. A clean and healthy environment is well served by a strong economy. History shows that poverty is a poor steward.

Source: Campaign website, www.johnmccain.com, "Issues" Sep 1, 2007 Top

Preserve and help our National Parks

Q: Do you think tougher laws are needed to protect our environment?
A: Theodore Roosevelt was my hero and is to this day. He was responsible for the National Parks system, the crown jewels of America. They are $6 billion underfunded, they’re under enormous strain. Source: GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa Jan 16, 2000 Top

Repeal ban on new roads in wilderness due to bad process

McCain would repeal Clinton’s recent executive order banning roads in more than 50 million acres of pristine wilderness. McCain did not oppose protecting the national forest preserve. Rather he objected to taking the action through an executive order, even though the order set off a rule-making process that includes public comment. “The idea that Washington knows best and that local residents cannot be trusted to do what’s right in their own backyard is the epitome of federal arrogance,” he said. Source: NY Times, p. A22 Dec 21, 1999 Top

Use park visitor fees for park development bonds

McCain called for new investment in the country’s 379 national parks, including the creation of bonds backed by park visitation fees. He proposed to create “capital development bonds” to refurbish the parks. Under his plan, the secretary of the interior would contract with private fund-raising groups to issue the bonds. McCain also said that $800 million recently awarded to the federal government from a settlement over disputed Alaska oil lease revenues should be dedicated to the parks. Source: NY Times, p. A22 Dec 21, 1999 Top

Preserve natural resources for future.

McCain has worked creatively to help preserve our natural resources for future generations. Source: McCain Exploratory Cmte. Web Site Jul 2, 1999 Top

Voted YES on including oil & gas
smokestacks in mercury regulations.

A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 15, 2005, relating to the removal of coal- and oil-fired electric generating units from the list of major sources of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule:

Limits smokestack emissions in a two-phase program founded on a market based capping system
Calls for the first cap to limit mercury emissions to 38 tons in 2010
Requires the second and final cap to begin in 2018 and stay fix at 15 tons

Reference: EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule; Bill S J Res 20 ;
vote number 2005-225 on Sep 13, 2005 Top

Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior.

Vote to confirm the nomination of Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. [Ms. Norton generally favors conservative or libertarian stances on the environment.] Reference: Bill Confirmation vote ; vote number 2001-6 on Jan 30, 2001 Top

Voted YES on transportation demo projects.

McCain amendment to the transportation reauthorization bill (S. 1173) would require that funding for demonstration projects be covered by their respective state allocations instead of being funded individually in the transportation bill.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)78; N)22 Reference: McCain Amdt #1726; Bill S. 1173 ; vote number 1998-29 on Mar 12, 1998 Top

Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests.

Vote on an amendment to cut the $47.4 million provided for Forest Service road construction by $10 million, and to eliminate the purchaser credit program [which provides credits to timber companies to offset what they owe the government]. Reference: Bill HR.2107 ; vote number 1997-242 on Sep 17, 1997 Top

Voted NO on continuing desert protection in California.

Invoking cloture on the California desert protection bill. ["Invoking cloture" means "ending the discussion and calling a vote." A NO vote in this case would continue discussing whether to terminate the existing program, and hence is considered pro-business and/or anti-environment].
Status: Cloture Agreed to Y)68; N)23; NV)9 Reference: California Desert Protection Act of 1993; Bill S. 21 ;
vote number 1994-326 on Oct 8, 1994 Top

Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments.

Require risk assessments of new EPA regulations.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)90; N)8; NV)2 Reference: Safe Drinking Water Act Amdt.s of '94; Bill S. 2019 ;
vote number 1994-117 on May 18, 1994 Top

End commercial whaling and illegal trade in whale meat.

McCain sponsored a resolution for the International Whaling Commission

at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, should remain firmly opposed to commercial whaling,
should initiate and support efforts to ensure that all activities conducted under reservations to the Commission's moratorium or sanctuaries are ceased,
should oppose the lethal taking of whales for scientific purposes unless it is specifically authorized by the Scientific Committee of the Commission,
should seek the Commission's support for specific efforts by member nations to end illegal trade in whale meat, and
should support the permanent protection of whale populations through the establishment of whale sanctuaries in which commercial whaling is prohibited;
At the 12th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, should oppose all efforts to reopen international trade in whale meat or to downlist any whale population; and
should make full use of all appropriate diplomatic mechanisms, relevant international laws and agreements, and other appropriate mechanisms to implement these goals.

Source: Resolution sponsored by 20 Senators 01-SR121 on Jun 29, 2001 Top

Supports grants for brownfields remediation.

McCain adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership agenda item:

H.R. 2941 Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act.
Republican Main Street Partnership Congresswomen Marge Roukema (NJ), Sue Kelly (NY), and Melissa Hart (PA) as well as Congressman Paul Gillmor (PA) have introduced legislation providing a new source of funding for improving former industrial sites. H.R. 2941 reauthorizes the Brownfields Remediation Grant Program as well as creating a new loan program for brownfields redevelopment. The pilot program encourages cities to tap private loans for civic improvements by using the federal grants as collateral. The bill allows for Community Development Block Grants to be used in industrial site clean up as well.

Source: Republican Main Street Partnership Legislative Agenda
02-RMSP2 on May 24, 2002 Top

Make EPA into a Cabinet department.

McCain adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership agenda item:

H.R. 2438/H.R. 2694 Department of Environmental Protection Act.
Republican Main Street Partnership members Sherwood Boehlert (NY) and Steve Horn (CA) each have introduced legislation that would elevate the position of Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to that of cabinet level. Initially, the EPA served as a regulatory agency, but as a result of numerous statutes enacted by Congress, the agency's jurisdiction has swelled. Each bill would redesignate the EPA as the Department of Environmental Protection. RMSP supports the efforts of Congressman Vern Ehlers to include a deputy administrator for science within the department.

Source: Republican Main Street Partnership Legislative Agenda
02-RMSP3 on May 24, 2002 Top

Rated 53% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment.

McCain scores 53% by the LCV on environmental issues

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House. We run tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America. Through our National Environmental Scorecard and Presidential Report Card we hold Congress and the Administration accountable for their actions on the environment. Through regional offices, we build coalitions, promote grassroots power, and train the next generation of environmental leaders. The 2003 National Environmental Scorecard provides objective, factual information about the environmental voting records of all Members of the first session of the 108th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which Members of Congress should be graded. LCV scores votes on the most important issues of the year, including environmental health and safety protections, resource conservation, and spending for environmental programs. Scores are calculated by dividing the number of pro-environment votes by the total number of votes scored. The votes included in this Scorecard presented Members of Congress with a real choice on protecting the environment and help distinguish which legislators are working for environmental protection. Except in rare circumstances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment and issues on which no recorded votes occurred.

Source: LCV website 03n-LCV on Dec 31, 2003 Top

EPA must do better on mercury clean-up.

McCain signed a letter from 45 Senators to EPA

To: Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Dear Administrator Leavitt:

We are writing to urge you to take prompt and effective action to clean up mercury pollution from power plants. The EPA’s current proposals on mercury fall far short of what the law requires, and they fail to protect the health of our children and our environment. We ask you to carry out the requirements of the Clean Air Act to protect our nation from toxic mercury contamination.

On January 30, 2004, EPA proposed two alternative rules to address mercury emissions. Unfortunately, both of these proposals fail to meet the Clean Air Act directives for cleaning up mercury. EPA's proposals permit far more mercury pollution, and for years longer, than the Clean Air Act allows.

The toxicity of mercury has been proven time and again by scientists around the world. The Agency's own scientists just released a study finding that approximately 630,000 infants were born in the US in the 12-month period, 1999-2000, with blood mercury levels higher than what is considered safe. This is a doubling of previous estimates.

The newest scientific studies show that controlling mercury emissions works. As we saw in Florida, sharp reductions in mercury pollution are mirrored by reductions in nearby fish populations. A study in northern Wisconsin indicated that reductions in the input of mercury from air corresponded with marked reductions in mercury fish tissue levels in the 1990s.

As the Administrator of the EPA, you have the legal authority and the responsibility to address mercury emissions and protect public health. We do not believe that EPA's current proposals are sufficient or defensible. We urge you to withdraw the entire proposed rule package and re-propose a rule for adequate public comment that meets the terms of the 1998 settlement agreement and is promulgated by the December 15, 2004 deadline.

Source: Letter from 45 Senators to EPA 04-SEN1 on Apr 1, 2004 Top

Focus on results, not regulation.