NRDC: Lawmakers' Actions against Clean Air Will Put Children at Risk

The Natural Resources Defense Council and Health Care Without Harm say that efforts to block EPA's carbon dioxide pollution actions will result in adverse health consequences.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says that 123 U.S. representatives are supporting legislation (pdf) that would prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from updating the Clean Air Act. The group, along with Health Care Without Harm, is concerned that these actions will put Americans at increased risk of adverse health consequences.

According to the NRDC's press release, the following three bills and one resolution make up some of that legislation:

Marsha Blackburn

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) sponsored the "Free Industry Act" (H.R. 97) that the NRDC says would permanently block EPA from limiting carbon pollution. This bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the day it was introduced, Jan. 5., and has seen no action since that time.

Shelley Moore Capito

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W. Va.) sponsored the "Protect America's Energy and Manufacturing Jobs Act of 2011" (H.R. 199), which the environmental action group says would block EPA from taking any action under the Clean Air Act to limit carbon and methane pollution, for two years. It has been sitting in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce since it was introduced on Jan. 6.

Ted Poe

Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) sponsored the "Ensuring Affordable Energy Act" (H.R. 153), which the NRDC says would prohibit EPA from developing or enforcing standards to limit carbon pollution. It also has seen no action other than being referred to the energy and commerce committee on Jan. 5.

John Carter

Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) has introduced a resolution titled, "Disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants" (H.J. RES. 9) that the NRDC says would permanently block EPA from reducing the soot, mercury, cancer-causing toxic and smog-forming pollution that cement kilns dump into the air. However, resolutions are not enforceable legislation.

Only time will tell if any of these bills will see further action.

The environmental action group also shared these numbers:

In 2009, EPA scientists determined carbon dioxide emissions are a public health risk, including its role in worsening the smog pollution to which asthmatics are particularly vulnerable. Regarding the effects on air quality, agency experts say “The evidence concerning adverse air quality impacts provides strong and clear support for an endangerment finding. Increases in ambient ozone are expected to occur over broad areas of the country, and they are expected to increase serious adverse health effects in large population areas that are and may continue to be in nonattainment. The evaluation of the potential risks associated with increases in ozone in attainment areas also supports such a finding.”

Warmer temperatures also are associated with increased morbidity and mortality due to increased weather events, such as hurricanes and floods; the spread of disease-bearing vectors; and heat-related illnesses, all of which incur additional health care costs.

“Putting the EPA in a political stranglehold will sentence tens of thousands of people to debilitating, respiratory illnesses such as asthma, adding to the burden of chronic disease in the nation and increasing the financial burden to the health care system,” said Health Care Without Harm’s Climate Policy Coordinator Brenda Afzal, MS, RN. “Let’s be clear: If these lawmakers are successful in blocking the EPA from doing its job to cut life-threatening pollution, more asthma sufferers, particularly children, will wind up gasping for breath.”

Health Care Without Harm, one of nearly 300 national and local health groups and other organizations, recently called on Congress to fully support EPA’s efforts to limit the pollution responsible for climate change, which increases a wide range of health risks. Pollution from cement kilns includes cancer-causing toxic pollution, mercury, soot and smog-forming pollution.

“Our elected representatives should hold big polluters accountable, not help them block the strong safeguards that would protect our health and quality of life,” said Dan Lashof, an environmental scientist and director of NRDC’s Climate Center. “We think the scientists and experts at the EPA should decide what pollution limits are needed, not politicians whose careers have been supported by big polluters.”

Comments

Tue, Feb 8, 2011 Mark Michigan

Hello: I'm not sure I understand how the NRDC is tieing this information together to interpret that there is a health threat by not enforcing proposed greenhouse gas regulation. The enclosed link to the ALA appears to indicate in the excecutive summmary that people were asked if they had a lung related issue or not. It wasn't tied into a scientific study of the lung ailment being casued by greenhouse gases. Obviously, the average person in not an atmospheric physicist or medical professional dealing in carbon dioxide impacts to the human body and wouldn't know how to answer such a question.

Wed, Feb 2, 2011 Manassas Mike Virginia

Mike C, the fact that you consider carbon emissions evil is part of the problem. I was not comparing the actual public health impacts of medical misadventures to the fraud of global warming/climate change. My point is that the groups out there lobbying for controls on our economy to mitigate fictional threats like global warming should instead focus on actual threats to the public and the environment.

Wed, Feb 2, 2011 Mike C Ohio

I believe compairing one evil that can be addressed (carbon emissions) with another (medical errors) that is a result of human error is irrelevant. Are you saying that because we can not address one issue all issues are non-adressable? How do you decide which science to believe? Science is the search for truth. seems to me if science implies something profitable is bad for the environment, then the science must be bad! Go figure!

Tue, Feb 1, 2011 Manassas Mike Virginia

Health Care Without Harm should be focusing on minimizing "medical misadventures" rather than GHGs to protect public health. I'll bet Mr. Obama's next paycheck that more Americans die from medical misadventures than exposure to CO2!

Tue, Feb 1, 2011 John IN

I agree with Mark that the GHG attention is misguided. I am also amazed by the amount of propaganda that our tax money pays for.

Tue, Feb 1, 2011 Chris NC

It's all Al Gore's fault, if he hadn't invented the internet, then we wouldn't need so much coal fired electricity, so much concrete for data center construction, we wouldn't have global warming caused from the heat generated by those data centers, and we wouldn't have any excuse for sitting on our backsides and would be getting exercise and would be healthier.

Tue, Feb 1, 2011 Mark W Texas

The current EPA is extremely focused on GHG emissions as a large culprit to "global warming". So focused that, in an attempt to quantify very insignificant amounts from industry, multi-state areas have been designated as "GHG basins" in order to collect sufficient emissions for a count. Sorry EPA, but your GHG attention is misguided..

Tue, Feb 1, 2011 Dave Plymouth

It's all about the state of fear. These environmental groups exist so people will send them money and they can keep living large, flying in their fancy jets and driving their gas guzzlers and maintaining their energy wasting mansions. Al Gore is probably a backer of these groups. Stop the madness, tell the kids to go out and play and run around and you will see the obesity and asthma rate drop in this country. And while their at it, the obese parents should get off their butts, run around and play with their kids and see the obesity rate plummet!

Tue, Feb 1, 2011 Kurt South Dakota

Amazing scenario - carbon based life forms are worried about "carbon pollution". And where is the evidence that CO2 causes asthma, which is implied in the article? Question everything this government, or it's minions, publish.

Tue, Feb 1, 2011 Fed up CA

I thought we as a nation had finally learned to put the health of our people, especially our children, ahead of the greed of the oil and coal companies and their lackies in Congress. I guess I was wrong.

Tue, Feb 1, 2011 Scot TEXAS

ANYTIME you hear, It is for the CHILDREN, you need to follow the money. Normally you will find this is seldom the case. The EPA needs at least a 2 year time out, to close the agency, fire all the staff, repeal every law and regulation. After 2 maybe 4 years the EPA can be rebuilt into an enviromental protection agency, and not what it is become today. Enviromental protection is to important to be left to the current EPA

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above