Preventing 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks, 11,000 premature deaths too costly to justify, says Trump!

Let's get 3 things straight: 

1. There is no "balance" between business and the environment...

2. ...because it's still pollution, no balance, and... 

3. ...Republicans/conservative voters are willing to let people die for money and business. It's that simple.

Hyperbolic? No, because there's no wiggle room here, Republicans will let people die. It's the price of capitalism, no balance:

The Trump administration proposed major changes to the way the federal government calculates the benefits, in human health and safety, of restricting mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants ... declaring rules imposed on mercury ... are too costly to justify ... ignoring or playing down other health benefits. The administrator “has concluded that the identification of these benefits is not sufficient, in light of the gross imbalance of monetized costs.”

In other words, by narrowly focusing in on mercury, which is no small matter either...

...the costs to industry in installing pollution controls ranged from $7.4 billion to $9.6 billion annually, while the health benefits of cutting mercury ranged from $4 million to $6 million annually. In other words, it said that the costs of the rule outweigh the benefits.

Weakening mercury regulations effects all other pollutants: Not too difficult to understand. Besides mercury, it allows all other particulates in the air that will hurt and kill thousands of Americans prematurely a year:

The Obama administration cited an additional $80 billion in health benefits a year ... the rules would prevent 11,000 premature deaths not from curbing mercury itself, but from what is known as a co-benefit, the reduction in particulate matter linked to heart and lung disease that also occur when a plant reduces its mercury emissions. 

Trump’s revised procedures would essentially ignore co-benefits and count only the direct potential benefits of cutting mercury ... the current limits can no longer be justified as “appropriate and necessary” under the law.

The Energy Industry Opposes Trump's Coal Industry Special Interest Rollback: Another longtime Republican Party platform decision opposed by the energy industry moving quickly into alternative clean energy sources:

The vast majority of utility companies have said the proposed changes are now of little benefit to them, because they have already spent the billions of dollars needed to come into compliance, and have urged the Trump administration to leave the mercury measure in place.

Let's be very Clear about Trump's EPA Coal Industry backed death sentence for thousands of Americans: Note-just damaging the brain and nervous system of children is reason enough, right?

1. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can damage the brain and nervous system in young children, leading to lower I.Q. and impaired motor skills. 

2. The Obama administration estimated that the measure would prevent 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks as well as 11,000 premature deaths by also eliminating fine particulate matter linked to those ailments.

3. Business groups like the Chamber of Commerce and others argue the earlier numbers inflated the benefits of the rule, underestimated costs and improperly justified cutting mercury by relying largely on the benefits of reduced particulate matter. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.

A few dollars in health benefits? Ah, the mind of a great justice. 

Wisconsin Republicans want to eliminate all of Wisconsin’s state air pollution regulations! They really do!!!

Seriously, I nearly spit out my coffee this morning when I heard the WPR headline below...

Under the proposal, the state Department of Natural Resources would have the option to reintroduce those regulations.

Optional? What's the big deal? One of the Senates most backward and clueless Republican legislators ever, Sen. Duey Stroebel, said this in the most nonchalant way...

"All we're asking is that our scientists at the DNR just take a look at all the things that they regulate above and beyond the EPA, and make sure that it still makes sense," said Sen. Duey Stroebel, R-Saukville, one of the bill’s sponsors. "If it does, we'll regulate it. If it doesn't, based upon what the scientists say, we won't." Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute support the bill.

So what's not to like? Yup, it'll be just that easy to reinstate a regulation if our anti-science Republican legislature and depleted DNR staff think we've made a balanced decision weighing the unfair cost to business against the remotely possible environmental benefits. What's the beef?

At least we'll always have the EPA standards as a backup...?

Republicans Roll Back Environmental Protections in Wisconsin at the same time EPA Rolling Back Everything Else: Just by coincidence, this coal industry story hit the fan:

EPA's Rick Perry and Murray Hug!

The Trump administration is rolling back regulations on coal-fired power plants.

A memo written by Robert E. Murray, a longtime Trump supporter who donated $300,000 to the president’s inauguration (and) the head of Murray Energy, presented Mr. Trump with a wish list of environmental rollbacks just weeks after the inauguration ... the White House has completed or are on track to fulfill most of the 14 detailed requests:

1. Ending regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and ozone and mine safety

2. Cutting the staff of the Environmental Protection Agency “at least in half.” 

3. Overhauling the Labor Department’s office of mine safety.

Here's a look at Murray's list to Trump:

Republicans are in Charge, but not Control (of themselves): None of this is new, as you can see at this link where Paul Ryan has been passing this kind of environmental trash out of the House for years. 

Trump horrors at the EPA you won't believe, again!!!

Republicans have made their one big talking point meaningless, that Democrats believe the government is the answer!!! Ah, not anymore.

Where Democrats used to think the government in some cases could provide a solution to serious problems affecting Americans (like health care, clean air, water, and food), Republicans have reversed that perspective now by hiring unqualified agency administrators and employees to federal departments tasked with oversight.

Lacking any calming effect, this headline seemed crazy:

Administrator Scott Pruitt is shaking up the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board: Pruitt has moved in a roster of 18 new people who will now make up about half of the agency's 44-member committee. 

That doesn't bode well coming from an opponent of the environment. Here's who is in control now:

Washington Post

1. The new chair of the board, Michael Honeycutt — the director of toxicology at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality — suggested EPA air quality regulations and ozone limits are unnecessary, because Americans spend 90% of their time indoors, anyway.

2. Robert Phalen, a smog researcher who once famously said that modern air is “a little too clean for optimum health.” He claims children’s lungs need a few irritants to grow hearty, and that pollutants like coal are good for lung defenses. Phalen told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2012, "My most important role in science is causing trouble and controversy." Air pollution is killing one in six people around the world, and it's more deadly than smoking, wars, malnutrition or obesity.

Just this week, schools in New Delhi had to close because Indian officials said the city has become a “gas chamber” engulfed in thick smog. In the US, though, air pollution rates have dropped more than 70% since 1970 — the year the EPA was founded.

In it's typically soft coverage of this outrageous adult behavior, the media weighed in:

In a letter signed by dozens of Democrats and at least one Republican, lawmakers voiced concern that Pruitt's changes might compromise the agency's ability to seek out "objective, independent scientific expertise."

Ya think? 

EPA...Pruitt...you won't believe this...

There's no way I can set this up any better than the Washington Post:

That means only corporate research scientist and conservative climate deniers will be guiding the US's environmental future.

In the upside-down logic of Republican bizarro world domination, only this could make sense:

“It is very, very important to ensure independence, to ensure that we’re getting advice and counsel independent of the EPA,” Administrator Scott Pruitt told reporters Tuesday. He argued that the current structure raises questions about their independence, though he did not voice similar objections to industry-funded scientists.

But the EPA is already independent...like the government is supposed to be...or used to be, where policy depended on science and served the American people. It wasn't supposed to be political. Not anymore!!!

But Pruitt has a more clever motive; force scientists to abandon their important possibly breakthrough research.

He noted that researchers will have the option of ending their grant or continuing to advise EPA, “but they can’t do both.”

For the hardcore religious Republican voter that has invested all their faith in Trump and God, in that order, Pruitt's angelic con went something like this:

Pruitt on Tuesday used the Bible to explain his major changes:“In the book of Joshua there is a story about Joshua leading the people of Israel into the promised land after Moses passed away. And Joshua says to the people of Israel choose this day whom you’re going to serve. And I would say to you this is sort of like the ‘Joshua Principle’ that as it relates to grants to this agency, you are going to have to choose either service on the committee to provide counsel to us in an independent fashion or you can choose grants, but you cannot do both.”

And what about corporate scientists...? Will they ever be free from corporate influence?

EPA will not impose a similar litmus test on scientific advisers who receive grants from outside sources.

The likely appointments include several categories of experts — voices from regulated industries, academics and environmental regulators from conservative states, and researchers who have a history of critiquing the science and economics underpinning tighter environmental regulations.

Reagan Republican Agast: The current Republican Party is so far out now that not even Reagan administration officials can make sense of this:

Terry F. Yosie, who was the advisory board’s director during the Reagan administration, said the changes “represent a major purge of independent scientists and a decision to sideline the SAB (Science Advisory Board) from major EPA decision-making in the future.”

Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union for Concerned Scientists, said in a statement. “The consequences of these decisions aren’t just bad for a few scientists. This could mean that there’s no independent voice ensuring that EPA follows the science on everything from drinking water pollution to atmospheric chemical exposure.”

This all makes sense if you believe the EPA, its scientists, the government are all politically liberal and Democrats. Only hearsay science, anecdotal stories, and special interest scientists know what's really going on. Here's the Bizarro World code from DC Comics, see if you see any similarities:

The possible Pruitt board might include one of the EPA's biggest critics backing coal:

Pruitt said, “If we have individuals who are on those boards, sometimes receiving money from the agency . . . that to me causes questions on the independence and the veracity and the transparency of those recommendations that are coming our way.”

At least three potential appointees ... one of them, Larry Monroe, previously chief environmental officer at Southern who's particular expertise in how the EPA regulated emissions from coal-fired power plants and criticized the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan argued that the plan, intended to reduce carbon emissions, was “unworkable and would increase electricity prices to customers while hurting reliability.”

Nothing about human health, increased premature deaths, or pollution? Oh yea, that's a little hard to prove. 

If you had to take away one important lesson from Republican Pruitt's actions at the EPA, I think this might sum it up:

Michael Honeycutt, head of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s toxicology division, who Pruitt announced Tuesday as the new head of the Science Advisory Board. Honeycutt has suggested that the health risks associated with smog are overstated.

Pruitt's EPA picks Winners (Coal), and Losers (Clean Air/Water)

Come on folks, this is an easy one, and we've been letting Republicans get away with it for years...think about it: The absurdity of striking a "balance" between clean water and air for a few extra jobs and cuts to regulation. Let's see..."a little" dirtier water and air in exchange deregulation and possible jobs?

"Balance?" Nope. And yet we tolerate dumb ass statements by Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, heck every right winger, everyday:

“As EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt is working to strike an appropriate balance between protecting water and air, and preventing the kind of job-killing overregulation,” McConnell said, according to CBS News, adding that Pruitt has been working to “stop the war on coal in its tracks.”

And yet, a new UCS analysis found that humans can effect climate:

Between 2008 and 2016, 17 percent of US coal capacity retired. Another 4 percent converted to other fuels, mostly natural gas. These closures led to:

-80 percent less sulfur dioxide, a source of acid rain,

-64 percent less nitrogen oxide, a key component in smog,

-34 percent less carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas.

Clean Coal Lie Exposed by Coal Baron: Trump shot off his mouth again, without thinking, stirring up his mindless base:

Trump boasted, “We’ve ended the war on beautiful, clean coal, and it’s just been announced that a second, brand-new coal mine, where they’re going to take out clean coal — meaning, they’re taking out coal, they’re going to clean it — is opening in the state of Pennsylvania.” 

Another Trump Lie: Take it away Murray Energy's CEO, and "member of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity — which has spent tens of millions of dollars trying to persuade the public that clean coal is the solution to global warming:"

Coal baron says carbon capture and storage ‘does not work’ and ‘is just cover for the politicians.’ While President Donald Trump continues to tout “clean” coal, coal baron Robert Murray, the CEO of Murray Energy, the country’s largest privately held coal-mining company, says it’s just a fantasy.

“Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It’s a pseudonym for ‘no coal. It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and sequestration. It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, ‘Look what I did for coal,’ knowing all the time that it doesn’t help coal at all.”

Oh, don’t forget how well the move to “clean coal” is going:

Mississippi pulled the plug on one of the country’s biggest CCS efforts last month after the company spent billions on trying, and failing, to make it work. Mississippi utility regulators finally figured out the best way to make the state’s wildly expensive “clean coal” plant much cleaner and more affordable: Skip the coal part entirely.

Free Market Winners and Losers? Nope: Former Republican, turned Democrat, and then Republican again Gov. Jim Justice posed this not so free market idea based on the fear the eastern energy grid might not be secure:

Energy Department Secretary Rick Perry Tried, but failed, to backup Trump's EPA:

Energy Secretary Rick Perry ordered up a study of the reliability of the nation’s electrical power grid. The coal and nuclear power industries had been arguing that the system faced challenges that required special breaks for their energy sectors.

The study was released, and it found the energy grid is in pretty good shape. Wind and solar power are playing an important role on the grid. Cheap natural gas, not government regulation, is primarily responsible for the closing of coal-fired plants … alternative sources like wind and solar are cheap, clean and growing, and appliances are more energy-efficient, meaning energy use is down.

And again, for all those “free market” right wing purists…let's spend taxpayer money on dying industries:

The coal and nuclear industries have been arguing that they need better compensation for the reliability of their energy contribution … the nuclear power industry, which accounts for 20 percent of the U.S. electrical supply, are extraordinarily expensive, and older plants are closing. Illinois is among the states subsidizing aging nuclear plants just to preserve jobs. market forces make such investments dicey.

Walker's Wisconsin, no longer safe for people...

It's almost impossible to pin point what exact era, free from science, Republicans want to take Wisconsin back to.

Sure, the lakes, rivers, wetlands, and geological makeup of Wisconsin differs greatly from other states, that goes without saying. But Republicans, who can't stop complaining about one-size-fits-all big government regulations, are now demanding a one-size-fits-all federal approach to environmental regulation. Never-mind that Trump is targeting those same federal regulations for termination too. That would take us back to the anything goes rough and tumble 19th century.

...and it only took 7 years...

And you can bet their loyal rural voters won't give a damn, as long as they keep getting tax cuts. Again, Republicans are dismantling the EPA, and state Republicans that know that, but are still assuring us the EPA will be there. And it doesn't matter how different geographically our state is. This is what they call "balance," a bullshit feel good word that tips the scale dramatically away from the public good, and life sustaining clean water and air.

Republicans want to eliminate state protections for wetlands and air quality except when mandated by the federal government, saying they are costly for businesses.

About a million acres of wetlands could be left vulnerable and as many as 300 hazardous air pollutants could become unregulated.

The proposal’s backers point out that it would preserve the current legal requirement ... “Wisconsin is one of just a small handful of states that recognizes a class of wetlands beyond what is defined by the federal government,” state Sen. Roger Roth ... “It is with this smaller portion of total wetlands where our bill seeks to strike a balance.”

The wetland association’s Erin O’Brien called it a “pay to pave” plan. “They are eliminating a permit system in favor of just writing a check for permission to fill in a wetland,” O’Brien said.

Air pollution bill: Republicans Rep. Jesse Kremer of Kewaskum, Rep. Cody Horlacher of Mukwonago and Sen. Duey Stroebel of Saukville were seeking co-sponsors for a bill to require the DNR to repeal state rules limiting pollutants not regulated under federal law. “Currently, the DNR regulates nearly 300 more hazardous air pollutants than what is required by federal law, and of those regulated less than a third are actually emitted ... This creates an undue burden on Wisconsin businesses...”

States regulate pollutants that may not be problems nationwide, but can harm health or the environment regionally, such as ammonia from food processing and chlorine dioxide from paper mills in Wisconsin, said Tyson Cook of Clean Wisconsin, which mapped pollution sources that would no longer be regulated under the proposal.

Why does this sounds so wrong, yet so acceptable to Republicans Kremer, Horlacher and Stroebel:

 "(Who) are also seeking support for a bill to stop DNR monitoring of air quality in Kohler-Andrae State Park in Sheboygan County, and to seek an EPA waiver of penalties. Republicans and the DNR say some of the ozone pollution there comes from Illinois and Indiana.

The Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters said the proposals needlessly undercut protections for public health.

Kremer’s research director, Nik Rettinger III said,“All the bills have been receiving solid support among southeastern Wisconsin legislators (whose) constituents and job creators are directly affected by these burdensome policies, as well as legislators from throughout the state who believe these common sense reforms are important to take up to help everyday folks do business in Wisconsin.”

Air quality problems in southeastern Wisconsin have led to monitoring and alerts when pollutants reach unhealthy levels.

Need I bring up all the other Republican proposals to take out public lands and trash em:

• Limit public opportunities to contest DNR decisions, eliminate an automatic hearing with an administrative law judge and rolls back a judge's authority to halt mining activities if such a hearing was granted.

• Ends DNR authority to require a mining company to provide evidence that its solid waste disposal process will protect ground water indefinitely.

• Repeal a law requiring the DNR to deny a mine's request for a high-capacity well that would unreasonably harm the ability of others to have drinking water or enjoy lakes and streams. Instead require the mine to replace a dried-up water supply or temporarily shore up the water level in an affected lake or stream.

•  Eliminate rules that address the specific problems that a mining project can cause by disturbing the flow of water above and below the surface.

Here's something that ignored and affected a whole bunch of local communities:

WPR: Wisconsin residents can no longer challenge state Department of Natural Resources permits for a high-capacity well if state officials failed to look at what the well might do to overall groundwater in the area. Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker got rid of the cumulative impacts challenge when they passed the state budget a year ago. 

WKOW took a look at Wisconsin's problem with climate change, something that will make everything worse above...

"latest installment of the award winning documentary series, "Our Wisconsin: The climate change effect," examines the environmental, social and political impacts of climate change in Wisconsin."

Big Energy begs irresponsible Republicans not gut all EPA regulations...that's how bad it's gotten.

I'm not trying to be partisan here, but when big energy has to tell the decidedly radical Republican Party that they want to keep some climate regulation in place, we've got a huge problem. 

Politico: The Trump administration is opening the door to offering its own replacement for former President Barack Obama's landmark climate regulation — rather than just erasing it altogether.

A mend-it-don't-end-it approach on Obama's 2015 rule could appease power companies that say the EPA needs to impose some kind of climate regulation — even if it’s much weaker — to avoid triggering courtroom challenges that would cloud the industry in years of uncertainty. But it would run afoul of demands from some conservative activists, who have pressured EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to reject the idea that climate change is a problem requiring federal action.

Kevin Poloncarz, a lawyer with the firm Paul Hastings who represents energy companies supporting the Clean Power Plan, said if EPA simply rescinded the Clean Power Plan without announcing plans to consider a replacement, power companies could face nuisance lawsuits, so issuing the notice could be a compromise position. While it's in place, "the industry should feel some degree of comfort that they're insulated from those lawsuits."

But where do the coal companies stand on all of this?

Even coal-heavy power companies have said they support EPA issuing a replacement rule. American Electric Power, a Midwestern power company that gets slightly less than half of its electricity from coal, would back a new proposal "consistent with the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act," spokeswoman Tammy Ridout said. 

Ryan Plunders Air and Environment endangering Children, Pregnant Women, Seniors, Minority and Low Income Communities for Big Energy!!!

The Paul Ryan congress is now rerunning a whole bunch of outrageous previously passed anti-American, anti-job creation, anti-environmental bills that turns "good old American values" inside out for big energy. Roll Call:

DELAY OF AIR-QUALITY STANDARDS: The House passed a GOP-sponsored bill (HR 806) that would extend from 2017 to 2025 stricter standards under the Clean Air Act for reducing ground-level concentrations of ozone, or smog. The bill also changes from five years to 10 years the frequency of EPA reviews to ensure that National Ambient Air Quality Standards reflect the latest scientific and medical information.

Voting yes on this danger to public health?  James Sensenbrenner, R-5, Glenn Grothman, R-6, Sean Duffy, R-7, and that independent rebel newcomer Mike Gallagher, R-8.

Democrats Counter: Well, you won’t hear the Dems talking about it much, and the press won't make any value judgments, but an important Democratic motion exposed how irresponsible and reckless the Republicans are right now. You'd think human life could stand in the way of big energy?

The Republican House defeated a bid by Democrats to prevent HR 806 (above) from fully taking effect if an EPA scientific advisory committee concludes it would raise health risks to vulnerable populations such as outdoor workers, children, seniors, pregnant women and minority and low-income communities. 

Democrats voting yes to protect children and pregnant women? Mark Pocan, Ron Kind, Gwen Moore.

More Recycled Republican Recklessness: Thanks to Wisconsin's Paul Ryan, big oil just got a pass to take public and private land. There is no going back on this stuff either:

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PERMITS: The House passed a GOP-sponsored bill (HR 2910) that would set tight deadlines for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other federal and state agencies  …  the bill would streamline an overly bureaucratic process. Critics said it would trample on private and tribal property rights and undercut environmental laws. In part, the bill would allow conditional permits to be granted on the basis of aerial data collected by drones that critics said would fail to detect historical sites, endangered species and wetlands.

Republicans voting yes...you guessed it: Sensenbrenner, Grothman, Duffy, and that real independent newcomer Mike Gallagher.

Democrats tried an American Made Steel motion, but Failed: Pointing out the error of their ways, in the most stark terms possible:

AMERICAN-MADE IRON AND STEEL: Voting 193 for and 232 against, the House defeated a Democratic motion requiring all iron and steel components of cross-border pipelines approved under HR 2883 (above) to be made in the United States.

Voting yes to adopt a made-in-America requirement: Pocan, Kind, Moore

Voting no for American Job Creation in the Steel Industry: Sensenbrenner, Grothman, Duffy, Gallagher

Walker Republicans: “We do not seek to withdraw from the Clean Water Act," but want allow Phosphorus Discharge into Lakes and Streams to save money.

How can we "balance" the cost of clean water the cost on business? You either have clean water or you don't, right?

The cost to business is another thing entirely. Republicans seem to have things upside down. If we don't start with reasonable regulation over farm runoff and manufacturing discharge, then the costs skyrocket for local municipalities to keep it clean.

But Republicans are now complaining about the cost of a problem they created:

A group of 31 Republican state lawmakers are calling for the federal government to help ease regulations of phosphorus discharge into lakes and streams, saying complying with the standards is too expensive for small municipalities.

I know, it's impossible to imagine allowing such a thing to continue, and yet it's right there in black and white. 

Phosphorus discharge can cause unnatural weed and algae growth in public waterways ... (laws) were adopted in 2010 by the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board after eight years of scientific review and input from environmental, agricultural and municipal groups.

But scientific "facts" must be balanced with business, say Republicans. The EPA did just that, but with limits:

The EPA granted the state a waiver in response to requests from Republican lawmakers that will allow manufacturers and sewage treatment plants to be exempt from the standards for 10 years if they pay fees to help cut pollution that rain carries off farm fields, which is one of the main sources of phosphorus pollution.

But that just gave state Republicans a little more time to wordsmith another excuse. Shockingly, making the standards sound "pragmatic" with whiny "arbitrary numeric limitations" was all they could come up with:

In their letter to the state’s congressional delegation, the 31 Republicans state that while the creation of a phosphorus pollution standard was “pragmatic, the real-world application of arbitrary numeric limitations has placed significant strain on communities throughout the state of Wisconsin.”

Paying for Clean Water...Nope: The obsession to cut taxes and freeload off the land continues. Just maybe the cost of keeping our water clean will cost everyone a little more money, at least hypothetically:

The letter cites examples of communities where water utility rates would substantially increase if they have to upgrade their wastewater treatment systems. The 973 residents of Benton in Lafayette County could see average residential rates increase from $40 to $75 a month if the village pursues a chemical treatment to reduce phosphorus discharge, they wrote.

With a dash of Humpty Dumptyism (the practice of insisting that a word or phrase means whatever one wishes it to), Republicans settled for this down the rabbit hole contradictory statement:

The letter asks for permission to revise the standards ... “We do not seek to withdraw from the Clean Water Act or ignore our stewardship of the waters in Wisconsin,” the letter states. “We simply seek a way to balance our responsibility with reasonable expectations that we can realistically reach.”

Love that alliteration..."balance our RESPONSIBILITY with REASONABLE expectations we can REALISTICALLY REACH." Anyone see "balance?" The question is; just when is the time to spend that kind of money? 

Sadly, environmental groups struck back with the force, stating forcefully that it was..."unfortunate?" 

More than 20 environmental groups sent their own letter to the congressional delegation in response to the request, calling it a “new attack on the sensible, science-based rules put forward in 2010” and “unfortunate.”

Republicans Cost Taxpayer Millions...again: 

The letter states the DNR conducted a cost-benefit analysis in 2012 that found the rules created a more than $18 million net economic benefit, including $1 billion in increased property values, $596.7 million in additional recreational economic activity and between $4.8 million and $11.4 million in reduced lake cleanup costs per year.

Our anti-science DNR imagined a world where businesses and communities would unfortunately try to keep our water clean: 

The DNR also estimated in 2015 that compliance with the regulations could cost businesses and municipalities $7 billion over 20 years.

Walker lapdog AG Brad Schimel's all out attack on Wisconsin's Environment.

When Brad Schimel ran for the AG spot, he came across as an ass kissing flunky just dying to serve his party. He promised to uphold Republican passed laws because they represented the will of the people. The idea anyone would challenge their legality in court was not even in the cards. To Schimel, the judicial branch had no business telling legislators how to govern. From Upfront with Mike Gousha:

He made it clear over and over. His challenger Jefferson County District Attorney Susan Happ, a Democrat, brought it up so much that Schimel's campaign bashed her for her "wacky" left wing agenda; protecting the environment:

Without one legal reason why Wisconsin should sue the EPA, Schimel went on this partisan special interest rant about the wonders of coal:

Today, we’re on the verge of plundering Wisconsin’s grand environmental resources again, thanks to Scott Walker's lapdog. In another breathtaking Schimel move. SJ:

Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel announced Monday that he has demoted the

longtime head of the Department of Justice environmental protection unit, Thomas Dawson. Dawson announced he will retire in January.

Get a load of the guy Schimel put in charge:

Schimel named Assistant Attorney General David P. Ross as director of the environmental unit. Keith Reopelle, a senior policy director at Clean Wisconsin. “It’s pretty difficult to view this as anything but a continuing softening of that office of environmental protection.”

In announcing Dawson’s replacement, Schimel said DOJ cares about environmental protection. “As I’ve said before, we are ‘stocking the pond’ at DOJ with some of the very best legal minds in the country, and Dave Ross is certainly no exception.”

Wow, that’s an understatement:

1. Working for a series of law firms, mostly in Washington, D.C., Ross helped developers, businesses and trade associations determine how to comply with environmental regulations.

2. Ross defended major homebuilders accused of violating storm water regulations, and represented clients involved in litigation over the Clean Air Act and over water quality standards for Florida, the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River Basin, according to his profile.

3. Schimel’s announcement noted that Ross had represented green energy developers and investors. Ross’ LinkedIn profile indicated he defended a permit allowing a wind-energy facility to impact endangered species habitat...

Schimel is shameless:

This year, he issued a formal opinion that had the effect of rolling back state powers to protect water from high-capacity wells.
At Schimel’s urging, the Republican-controlled Legislature last year created a new five-lawyer office at DOJ to defend state laws from court challenges and to fight the federal government on issues such as climate change and water pollution.

Meanwhile, the environmental protection unit’s staff this year shrunk to its smallest size in 25 years, continuing a long-term trend as state regulators sought fewer fines from polluters.

Walker's DNR not enforcing Water Pollution Laws. Republican Constituents wonder, "What the heck is going on?" Doh!

Here we go again? As if we didn't already have a long list of state problems to solve, leave it to the Walker administration to create new and more serious emergencies, like the DNR's complete breakdown protecting our drinking water.

Members of the Wisconsin DNR's’ policy-making board were surprised and disappointed by an audit that cited serious shortcomings in state enforcement of water pollution laws.

Thanks to Gov. Scott Walker's mind numbing refusal to fix Wisconsin's roads, voters are waking up to the hard reality that many other things are getting a lot worse. You might recall this recent blog post:

Walker's AG Brad Schimel removed DNR oversight, giving away Wisconsin's Drinking Water to Big Business.

"Following guidance provided by state Attorney General Brad Schimel in an opinion issued May 10, the agency will no longer consider the cumulative impact of nearby wells on the aquifer or surface water when deciding whether to permit a well, and it will no longer impose monitoring requirements on well operators."

Republican State Sen. Rob "Part-of-the-Problem" Cowles from Green Bay doesn't like it when he actually has to listen to constituent concerns about something as basic as drinking water:

Sen. Cowles, co-chairman of the Legislature’s audit committee, said that the Legislature should act as soon as possible to allow the DNR to ... hire enough employees to enforce the law.

“I can tell you the DNR board is steaming mad. This was a surprise to them. Three of them called me, and a lot of my constituents did, too. My constituents who saw the story wondered ‘What the heck is going on?’ The people of this state believe in water quality. We brag about our lakes and rivers and having great places to fish in and swim in.”

Welcome to the Republican run government. The key here is "enough employees:"

Leaders of the Legislature, which cut more than 90 positions from the DNR’s budget last year, haven’t publicly commented on the audit.

Gee, GOP "leaders" who made things worse, didn't have a well rehearsed prepared answer?

Incidental Gov. Scott Walker hasn't had much time for things like drinking water and transportation, which still isn't that urgent:

A spokesman for Gov. Scott Walker said any changes in DNR funding will wait until a new budget is enacted next summer.

Government hating Republicans mismanaging government, who could have seen all this coming? 

And really, why would the DNR keep their own board members up to date on how bad they were doing their job?

Board Chairman Terry Hilgenberg said members were told several months ago that the audit was being performed, but Stepp and her staff didn’t update them about the seriousness of the findings before the report was released to the public June 3.

“Board members were being contacted by the media and by other individuals. They’re at Rotary and they’re getting asked ‘What the hell is all that about with that audit?’ and they hadn’t been apprised about all of it. That could create a little angst,” Hilgenberg said.

Welcome to Republican rule. Any surprise they hate government? Oh, and guess when the wheels started coming off?

The DNR has been under fire for the way it protects the state’s waters at least since 2011 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency listed 75 deficiencies in laws, rules and policies. Four of the problems have been cleared up. The state audit provided new details about the shortcomings.

Boy, it would so much easier if Republicans could just get rid of the EPA.

Balance between Environment and Business interests? This is Walker's idea of balance: 
WSJ:

1. Over the last 10 years the DNR failed 94 percent of the time to take enforcement action against sewage plants and industries that exceeded water pollution limits, 

2. Violating its own internal policies, the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau said in its report.

3. DNR employees didn’t have time to adequately review annual reports submitted by concentrated animal feeding operations

4. Didn't review plans describing how millions of gallons of manure they generate annually would be kept out of lakes, streams and groundwater.

5. The DNR didn’t meet its goals for inspections and failed to document that it took any action for months or even years in five incidents where monitoring wells showed feedlots were contaminating groundwater with substances harmful to human health, auditors said.

 As serious as these violations were, along with the loss of 90 employees and funding cuts...

It’s wasn’t clear Tuesday if Stepp would appear at the meeting. The agency is still trying to hire and train new employees after losing large numbers of experienced people to retirement, he said.

I  thought this was also interesting to note. Walker will probably blame Gov. Doyle for the cuts he had to make because of the collapse of the world economy during the Great Recession. A bit unfair I would say, and nothing like the ax Walker voluntarily used to cut spending on the DNR and state parks:

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle oversaw reductions in full-time staff in water pollution regulation programs after the 2008 recession hit.Staffing levels increased in 2011 when Walker and his fellow Republicans took control of state government, but two years later cuts resumed.

And unlike the protected transportation fund, stealing from the DNR's revenue stream might have to stop as well:

The DNR collects $5 million to $7 million annually in fees from concentrated animal feeding operations, known as CAFOs, municipal sewer plants and private industry, but it typically keeps less than $90,000, with the rest going to the state’s general fund.

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? 

Walker's corporate foot soldier AG Schimel abandons law for Capitalism

In one of the most partisan and embarrassing opinion pieces, Attorney General Brad Schimel admits in a Journal Sentinel editorial “Why Wisconsin is suing the EPA,” that he’s there to protect business special interests. And he's got a long list of non-legal reasons why he's supporting Scott Walker's lawsuit.

The following list of purely political justification by Schimel to waste taxpayer money on a lawsuit against the EPA is really jaw dropping. Let's start with his killer opening paragraph:

A lump of Coal this Christmas?

JS: As a strong supporter of capitalism and the free market, certainly I don't begrudge former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg his billions of dollars. I do find it ironic, though, that a man who fuels a private jet and heats his penthouse advocates for federal regulation that will significantly raise electricity rates and kill jobs in Wisconsin.

What in gods name does Bloomberg's private jets have to do with coal pollution? Also keep in mind, the PSC has now dramatically raised rates twice, in the last two years, with no Walker administration objections. In fact, Walker whined that electric bills could jump as much as 29% if the EPA rules go into affect. Yet the PSC raised the fixed rate charge for electricity by more the 80% using good old dirty coal.

Schimel's got every GOP talking point down to the letter. Perhaps he thinks if he says it, that must make it legal:

As one of the top manufacturing states in the country, Wisconsin has much to lose if the Obama administration succeeds in its plan to destroy the viability of clean-coal electric generation.

We in Wisconsin have been and continue to be responsible environmental stewards while also protecting jobs. 

Not only will the EPA rule cause the U.S. to lose jobs to countries such as China and India, but the repercussions of the EPA rule actually may result in increased global carbon dioxide emissions. If American manufacturing jobs move to China and India, both of which rely heavily on uncontrolled coal-fired plants, there is a real potential that carbon dioxide emissions, along with emissions that actually do qualify as "pollution" under the Clean Air Act, will increase globally.

One more thing, Democratic AG's suing are doing so by order of their Republican governors, so it isn't really "bipartisan:"

 ...if the coalition of Republican and Democrat state attorneys general do not succeed in their challenge to the EPA's edict. 

Washington and Wisconsin corporate special interests drag out failed Doom & Gloom "end of the U.S. economy" Warnings about EPA rules.

It's a marvel to watch grown adults in the business community act like whiny victims of a "bully" government unfairly looking out for the health and welfare of the American public.  

Industry and big energy even have the balls to use the same half century old failed arguments against the EPA's new standards. The heck with saving lives and keeping our food supply plentiful. And isn't it about time we question their corporate patriotism every time they threaten to leave and relocate offshore, running from their responsibility to pay for infrastructure, an educated workforce and maintain a healthy work environment? Heck, even in conservative circles, they would be called freeloaders. 

On WKOW's Capitol City Sunday, Greg Neumann's guests offered up a comparison; Tyson Cook of Clean Wisconsin pitting history and science against whiny Washington corporate special interests who wouldn't look out of place yelling from a city street corner about the end of the world. Take special note of these obvious contradictions:

1. While corporate opponents of the EPA's new regulations claim they want sensible cost/benefit considerations, behind the scenes in Washington, they're very close to a Republican majority that will eliminate the EPA and regulatory oversight of our environment. Snakes.

2. While warning how manufacturing will move overseas or go out of business with the new EPA rules, WMC's Kurt Bauer bragged about a company relocating from Mexico to Wisconsin. Huh?

3. While both Bauer and Jay Timmons of the National Assoc. of Manufacturers appreciated our cleaner air and environment, they also still oppose the decades of EPA rules and regulations that gave it to us. 

4. When confronted with their past failed doom and gloom predictions, both Timmon's and Manley changed the subject.

5.There's No Technology? "The EEI study proved false because it ignored the innovation and savings that occur … The EPA found that the Clean Air Act 19 prompted the deployment of new technologies to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, which are ingredients in acid rain and smog."

A few details from a quick Google search:

When it comes to air-pollution reductions, coal and utility companies’ objections to government protections feel like “Groundhog Day” moments. Recently, these industries have again predicted that government pollution limits would result in skyrocketing electricity prices. Their past predictions of doom were wrong, and so are their current claims that the EPA’s first carbon-pollution cuts for power plants would be disastrous.

Over the past 40 years, experience has taught us that industry predictions of apocalyptic costs from pollution-control requirements do not occur. In the 1970s, electric utilities and other industries forecasted huge utility rate hikes from the new clean air law, but in 1982, the CBO concluded that the changes in cost were actually low.

…helped safeguard millions of people from smog, acid rain, and soot particles. These contaminants can lead to respiratory ailments, trigger asthma attacks, and even cause premature deaths. The recent hyperbolic rhetoric around EPA proposals to finally control carbon pollution from power plants is simply a repeat of past hysteria.

An EPA assessment found that there were “net, direct, monetized benefits ranging from 5.1 to 48.9 trillion dollars, with a central estimate of 21.7 trillion dollars, for the 1970 to 1990 period,” due to reductions in diseases, learning impairments, and premature deaths … lower electricity rates in 2009 than in 1990—in 2009 dollars—even after complete implementation of the acid rain provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

Here they go again: Coal and utilities predict huge rate hikes from carbon cuts … keep in mind that utility rates will rise regardless of whether or not the EPA limits carbon pollution from power plants because utilities must invest in revitalizing their electricity delivery infrastructure. The National Journal recently reported that “Your Utility Bill Is Going Up (and There’s Nothing You Can Do About It).”

In fact, back in 1972 one economist predicted the fossil fuel industry’s plan of attack:

At a Senate Public Works Committee Clean Air Act hearing in 1972, Robert J. Rauch warned that polluting companies’ strategy: “An industry confronted with environmental regulations commissions an “expert” study to show that the costs of complying with the regulations would be prohibitive. These cost estimates are then highly publicized and used to generate public demand that the standards be relaxed. Once publicized these cost estimates take on a life of their own—mere repetition assures their acceptance.

[EPA press release - November 29, 1990]: The deplorable state of the environment enabled EPA to successfully argue that cost was not an issue. "Pollution was egregious. It would have been difficult to spend dollars unwisely.” The Agency's strong stand led to strict enforcement of the Clean Air Act … refused to grant extensions requested by automobile manufacturers to meet hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide standards … forcing the adoption of the catalytic converter. Many efforts to trim EPA's authority--to kill requirements for tall stacks, to curtail efforts to prevent significant deterioration of air cleaner were beaten back.

I wonder how many Republicans would react to this outrageous attack on the energy industry by…Reagan:

President Reagan in 1983 … established task forces to deal with such issues as ground water, risk assessment, dioxin, and acid rain. Enforcement was reinvigorated. Civil penalties increased in number and size. And 2,000 new employees were hired. President Bush in 1989 … the Montreal Protocol agreed to a full phase-out of CFCs. Most uses of asbestos were banned. Enforcement figures have been the highest in the Agency's history. Wetlands protection was significantly strengthened. Polls continuously affirm popular support for environmental protection and a willingness to pay for it.

Startup Renewable Energy Crushing Big Oil's Billionaire Big Bosses?

Funny thing happens as time marches on, we progress. Things change.  Sometimes we find better ways to do everything, from modes of travel to curing diseases.

The same thing goes for energy. And yet Republicans don’t want to move into the new millennium. I’d like to shake the hand of the guy who convinced conservatives that rubbing two sticks together wasn’t the best way to light a fire. Thanks to Matchboxes Inc., they scientifically proved that was not the case.

So our conspiratorial Republican big oil lackeys rolled out a group of sad sack CEO victims who, like unlike Match Boxes Inc., merely claimed our actual environmental, wildlife and health officials were trying to destroy their industry and charge families unheard of energy price like we’re already paying for fossil fuel. Oh, and forget about the cost of coal going up because fewer companies are mining due to a lack of demand:

Fox News: A Senate subcommittee on Tuesday heard witnesses argue that “sue-and-settle” legal arrangements involving the EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and hyper-aggressive environmental organizations have cut energy suppliers and state regulators out of the discussion, speeded up the agenda to force unrealistic environmentalist priorities on the energy market, and are likely to cost consumers and producers billions of dollars in the years ahead.

Why wouldn’t you believe big oil special interests and their “scientifically” researched fear mongering, their eyes looked so sad:

“The sue-and-settle model takes policy making away from the public and puts it into the hands of one special interest driving an agenda to ultimately prevent the use of fossil fuels,” declared Katherine Sgamma, vice-president of the Western Energy Alliance, a Colorado-based lobbying organization for small oil and gas producers.

See, Western Energy Alliance is obviously unbiased and only trying to protect the 5 mega oil monopolies from a few startup “special interests” moguls in the wind and solar industries, whoever they are.

Adding insult to injury, the heartless Fish and Wildlife Service schemed with environmentalists to protect 404 threatened and endangered species. What the heck?

In lawsuits involving the Endangered Species, Sgamma noted that after the Fish and Wildlife Service made a deal with one environmental organization that involved 404 threatened or endangered species, the same organization came back the next year with demands involving 53 more.

And the lunacy of cutting down on preventable deaths and saving hundreds of billions of dollars in lost work and health care costs, is one reason big oil special interests are so frustrated:

In the case of the Clean Power Plan, the “artificial urgency” of the legal effort has been “key to push the regulations out the door, rush an incredibly complex and expensive rule through standard regulatory review processes, steamroll any potential political opposition, and put pressure on the states to begin compliance activities immediately,” argued Andrew Grossman, an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Calling the Clean Power Plan announced Monday a “naked power grab” that imposes national standards on state regulators, Grossman charged that “at every step of the way, EPA has relied on sue-and-settle tactics to facilitate its outrageous conduct.”

Of course you have to believe the courts are willy nilly ruling against big energy for the fun of it, and because of liberal judicial activism. Thank god Republicans still believe in federalism:

“This is not how the regulatory process is supposed to work in a country founded on the principles of the rule of law and federalism.”

Republicans, who've been depleting state environmental agencies for years, are now concerned the remaining staff will be overwhelmed by court ordered environmental compliance before it’s all too late for all of us:

Sue-and-settle “overwhelms regulatory agencies, resulting in settlement agreements and consent decrees requiring agencies to promulgate major regulations within an arbitrarily imposed timeline,” said Senator Mike Rounds, R-S.D., who chaired the subcommittee hearing.

Of course states wouldn’t find themselves in this mess if they just did their job enforcing the law.

In the blog post, General Counsel, Avi Garbow,  declared that “the ‘sue-and-settle’ rhetoric, strategically mislabeled by its proponents, is an often-repeated but a wholly invented accusation that gets no more true with frequent retelling.” EPA, he said, had no control over who decided to sue the agency, and “is not complicit in such lawsuits.”