Sunday, June 12, 2016

Republicans to delay Reduction in ground level Ozone Emissions, "Balance" Jobs and Affordability over Lung Disease.

Paul Ryan's House of Representatives defeated an amendment by Democrats that would stop deregulation if it "inflict harm on public health or the environment." You read that right. Roll Call
The amendment sought to blunt arguments by bill backers that environmental regulations should be weakened in deference to jobs and economic growth.
Like mining, high capacity wells and CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) in Wisconsin, Scott Walker "balanced" jobs and corporate profits over the public's safe drinking water. Ryan is bring that same "balancing" act to the nation: 

DELAY OF OZONE STANDARDS: The House passed a bill (HR 4775) that would delay from 2020 to 2026 the year by which states must submit plans to the EPA for reducing ground-level ozone emissions within their boundaries ... breathing unsafe levels of ozone causes or triggers ailments such as lung disease and asthma, particularly for children and the elderly. 
Common Sense would tell us to get rid of ground level ozone, saving lives and the cost of medical care. 

But Republicans have been relentless pushing the lunacy that there is some kind of "balance" to be made: 
Critics said the ozone regulations would stifle development and cost jobs in counties on the receiving end of ozone pollution that is generated in areas beyond their control.

The bill also would require the agency to take “affordability” and “technical feasibility” into account — along with health effects — in setting rules under the Clean Air Act.
Republicans James Sensenbrenner, Glenn Grothman, and Reid Ribble voted for a more profitable "balance." Sean Duffy missed this vote, but when has he ever broken away from the pack?

Shocked by their vote, Democrats Mark Pocan, Ron Kind, and Gwen Moore proposed the amendment below:
OZONE, PUBLIC HEALTH, THE ENVIRONMENT: The House defeated an amendment that would undercut HR 4775 (above) by nullifying any provisions that would inflict harm on public health or the environment. 
So, in what direction do you want to take the country? 

No comments: