Rand Paul’s Pro-Polluter Bill Shot Down by Senate

November 15th, 2011 by Susan Kraemer

All but one of the Senate Democrats – and even seven Republicans – defeated a bill on Thursday that would have blocked the EPA from slashing power plant air pollution that blows downwind to other states and causes lung and heart problems.

Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and Tea Party favorite, proposed a bill to kill the Cross State Air Pollution Rule that the EPA finalized in July. The EPA rule is designed to slash air pollution from coal-fired power plants east of the Rocky Mountains. It would reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent by 2014, from 2005 levels. It would cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 54 percent by 2014.

Paul’s bill to stop the EPA needed only a simple majority of 50 to pass, not the now familiar 60. Because Republicans were in favor of the bill to curtail the EPA, they did not prevent the majority from holding the vote using with their now-inevitable cloture-vote “filibuster” under which, according to Senate rules, a minority of 40 can refuse to hold a vote. Now increasingly used by Republicans, it essentially requires 60 votes to agree to hold an up or down vote on any bill, resulting in a gridlocked government that is essentially nonfunctioning.

But the bill to kill the Cross State Air Pollution Rule the EPA finalized in July was one of the few to be allowed in Minority Leader “Mitch McConnell’s Senate” this year, because the coal industry predominantly funds Republicans – while environmental public interest groups – that oppose fossil energy – mostly fund Democrats.

Surprisingly, though, once the bill went to the normal up or down vote, not even all the Republicans actually supported killing the EPA rule. All of the Democrats except one and seven Republicans flouted the coal industry. In an up or down vote, 52 Democrats AND 40 Republicans agreed to continue to allow the EPA to do the work that we taxpayers hired the EPA to do. House Republicans have already passed a similar bill. But with this defeat, the EPA rule lives.

The EPA is one of the few tools that the Obama administration has to prevent “the seas from rising.” Shutting down polluting coal powered energy and replacing it with clean powered energy is only sensible, because the greenhouse gases that coal power emits will ultimately end our civilization within centuries, while clean power will allow its continuation, which should not be an issue about which reasonable people get so upset, but in the US, it is.

So the framing is all about how disgusting dirt is, as that is something that apparently polls better with conservatives, even though it is not as dangerous as climate change.

“I know all of us, 100 of us in this chamber would condemn it if somebody took all their garbage and put it on the lawn of the next-door neighbor,” the Democratic Chairman of the Environemt and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer said on the Senate floor.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, EPA, Senator Rand Paul

About the Author

Susan Kraemer writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times. Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ULXTHGKOA4TKROVFQT7XFPLI7M Americus Soul

I need to add – you may not know how much it pains us to think about how much work we have ahead of us. Pain about pollution is known by us all, yes. But pain about the work required to deal with it in the best manner possible given the limitations we have now is equally high. The cynicism (sp) of the active political supporters (you, us, me) is at an all time high . Because of this, people jump to conclusions and label people like the Pauls as “big business supporters, polluters, whatever.

The power of the hatred and level of cynicism should be of great concern to anyone who sees it clearly and who cares about this country as a system – not just as a pile of problems to fix one by one, independently and with a mindset of compartmentalization. Only the most focused and selfless of us will be able to allow ourselves to take the time out of our days to learn the truth, fight for the truths, and actually effect positive change in this country.

The biggest threat is from people who seem to be informed, but who only have half the picture and yell that they know the truth from the top of the mountain. And they gather followers who also know only a portion of the picture and-or consider only the truths they are told by those who have taken only enough time to learn half of the story.

If I wasn’t so optimistic I would say this country is going to go to **** in a basket. But I am not afraid to work and work and work and work in hopes that my efforts can help open some minds and they can open some minds and at some point urge and guide (aka vote) get this country back to a realistic pragmatic path. For now, we are wasting zillions and the EPA is the least of our problems. The military occupations around the world (ever growing, you see) are one of the few businesses this country has left. Sad to say.

Ps – if you agree with me and Paul, I want to share this with you – there is pure speculation that Obama is not going to let this xborder pollution thing pass. Many are thinking it is simply too dangerous to enact at this point, but Big O wanted to hold it for a while as a political teaser for his constits. A tool until the elections get closer and then he can delay it. We’ll see , I guess. What happens happens!
- Anonymous
  
  So, still dodging the core issues that were brought up below.
  The fact remains that the Paul’s ideology is one that is not supported by historical reality.
  The fact remains it will mean a greater divide between rich and poor (wiht the rich getting ever greater political control), erosion of workers rights, and increased air/water/food pollution. Hence the reason for the corporate funding of their agendas and the astroturfing of the teaparty’s “movement”.
  
  “The biggest threat is from people who seem to be informed, but who only have half the picture and yell that they know the truth from the top of the mountain. And they gather followers who also know only a portion of the picture and-or consider only the truths they are told by those who have taken only enough time to learn half of the story. “
  
  Something about pots and kettles comes to mind…
  
  “If I wasn’t so optimistic I would say this country is going to go to **** in a basket.“
  
  Agreed. Curious however, how that is coinciding with GOP’s victories in advancing their agenda though, isn’t it?
  
  “For now, we are wasting zillions and the EPA is the least of our problems.“
  
  Again agreed, especially since the EPA is a net positive (as already noted below in my reply to BJK) and serves to protect people’s personal and property rights from aggression by polluters. So why then are the Paul’s and the GOP attacking it with corporate money?
  
  “The military occupations around the world (ever growing, you see) are one of the few businesses this country has left. “
  
  Yes because the GOP is pushing for wars and their polices makes it easier for bigger corporations squeeze out and consume smaller businesses at an alarming rate. Funny how the USA’s recent wars seem to center around oil isn’t it?
  
  “there is pure speculation that Obama is not going to let this xborder pollution thing pass. Many are thinking it is simply too dangerous to enact at this point, but Big O wanted to hold it for a while as a political teaser for his constits“
  
  Well they already have the regulations in place for restricting pollution specifically since it does cross state borders.
  Obama doesn’t need to approve anything there at all, so his view is irrelevant, with the exception of the other pro-special interest decisions he has already made at the expense of the public’s health. The issue discussed was Rand Paul trying to undo those regulations that are protecting the public from being poisoned for profit (you know, increasing pollution). Maybe you are thinking of something else? Your comment was rather vague.
  
  “We’ll see , I guess. What happens happens!“
  
  At this rate….
  Arctic being ice free in summer by the 2030’s. Bye, bye polar bears.
  No more glaciers in Glacier National Park by around 2030 (possibly the 2020’s). There used to 150 glaciers there, today there are 25. —–> Twilight of the Glaciers
  Increasing rates of alternations between flood and droughts, with other extreme weather thrown in depending on the region.
  Increasing volatility in food prices as agriculture become increasingly difficult, until most agriculture is moved indoors.
  Increase spread of disease and pests into areas they used to not live in.
  More wars in the middle east as long as the world relies on oil.
  More damage caused by coal pollution and nuclear accidents.
  How’s that sounding so far?
Anonymous

Well, Rand is from a coal mining and firing state. One thing with relation to coal and natural gas is that these rules will favor natural gas over coal, leading to more intensive fracking as more coal plants shut down because they won’t be able to install the scrubbers or cooling towers required. This would be an awesome chance for geothermal, wind and solar thermal to step in and pick up the slack, but natural gas appears to have the political support to forge ahead. Natural gas doesn’t emit sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide and its carbon emissions are less than coal, but it sure emits a hell of a lot of methane, ozone and then there’s the whole exploding water wells predicament.

I’m very happy that this rule has passed. With this and the Keystone XL kick the can down the road, I think the climate movement can build some momentum heading into these elections.
Anonymous

Yes, he does want to pour oil *and* mercury into your coffee or cereal. Rand and Ron want to take this country back to the rules of the 19th century where the workers work for peanuts (literally), children under 14 will work grueling 60 hour work weeks, no health insurance, and no regulations. Those two loonies are already filthy rich and really don’t care about anything except making money and pleasing their corporate masters.
- BJK
  
  No, that is untrue. What they oppose is some unelected and unaccountable know-all forcing their opinions via an over-burdensome code onto others. The costs of these codes has made America broke and beholden on other countries to fund these excessive regulations. Unworkable and expensive ideas do not make good policy nor do they fix the problem. Our federal government has infringed on the rights of states and individuals beyond allowed by the 10th Amendment. It is acting unconstitutionally. This needs to end and will with the next election.
  - Anonymous
    
    Those “unelected and unaccountable” are working for people we elect. If they are in the EPA then Barrack Obama is their ‘high boss’. The rules that they enforce are determined by people we elect. The bills are written and approved by Congress and signed by the president.
    
    The Pauls live in a fantasy land.
    
    It’s like people who get caught up in reincarnation, learning about their previous lives in which all were princesses and kings.
    
    In Paul-land everyone lives in a castle with their own armed guards and bottomless bank accounts, never getting crapped on by those above them. We need to send these idiots off to play computer games.
  - Anonymous
    
    Wow serious Poe’s Law here…
    Well just in case the poster was serious.
    
    “unaccountable know-all” [sic]
    
    I think you mean ‘qualified experts in the relevant fields that are accountable to the dully elected representative in congress’. BTW do you think we should have people that know nothing about pollution making these kinds of decisions? I could never understand that line of “reasoning”.
    
    It just so happens that these “over-burdensome” codes often create new jobs and save the country money in the long run. For example the Clean Air Act has cost the country $53 billion in 2010, but it has saved over $1.3 trillion in costs to health care costs in 2010 alone by reducing pollution, and other benefits too.
    —–> The UCS Clean Air Act Ticker
    —–> EPA bashers aren’t protecting ‘jobs,’ they’re protecting polluters
    
    Why is it though, that right-wing types usually think that it’s morally acceptable for for large companies to poison the public with their waste products rather than clean up after themselves? That’s something else that doesn’t make any sense. Why should large companies be able to force the public (i.e. the taxpayer) to pay for the messes they create? Do you like corporate welfare? Because that’s what getting rid of the EPA amounts to.
    
    I’d also like to see your explanation for how environmental laws are responsible for the multiple wars and tax cuts for the rich that have turned the federal budget that was at a surplus under Clinton into a defect before George W. Bush even finished his first term. Really, I’d like to hear that explanation. Can you maybe even find a way to blame the EPA for the banking scandal that has scuttled the economy?
    
    “ Unworkable and expensive ideas do not make good policy nor do they fix the problem. “
    
    No they don’t make good policy. Good thing the EPA isn’t proposing anything like that. Care to offer a specific example so that we can publicly shoot it down?
    
    “ Our federal government has infringed on the rights of states and individuals beyond allowed by the 10th Amendment. “
    
    You seem to conveniently be leaving out the 14th amendment that overrides much of that in many cases.
    
    “ It is acting unconstitutionally “
    
    Technically, no it’s not. But have fun arguing that in court!
    
    What techieguy1 said is correct, that is in fact the corporation funded GOP/libertarian agenda whether the voters for their party realize it or not. just look at the laws attempting to roll back child labor laws and so forth in this country.
    - Susan Kraemer
      
      Haha, nicely put!
      
      “”Unworkable and expensive ideas do not make good policy nor do they fix the problem. ”
      
      No they don’t make good policy. Good thing the EPA isn’t proposing anything like that. Care to offer a specific example so that we can publicly shoot it down?”
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ULXTHGKOA4TKROVFQT7XFPLI7M Americus Soul

You can’t always believe the viewpoint. This EPA rule will squash certain states and leave other states with little benefit. You have to look at this country as a pile of states, not just one big homogenized mass. Your beliefs might just hurt us in relation to the rest of the world.

Look at it with a critical eye. I can assure you, Rand Paul doesn’t want to pour oil or mercury into your coffee or cereal. Get serious.
- Anonymous
  
  Ron Paul and Rand Paul are twisted individuals who really don’t give a damn about others.
  
  Ron let his campaign manager die a terrible death without providing him with health insurance or even doing the “libertarian” thing and kicking in some bucks to help him out. Ron left the hospital holding the $400,000 bag.
  
  Had Ron, the physician, helped out his employee with health insurance the poor guy might have been able to get treatment before it was too late.
  Rand may not want to pour oil or mercury in your coffee or cereal but in his absurd view of how government should (not) work he will do nothing to keep others from pouring oil or mercury in your coffee or cereal. Leave governing up to Rand and you’re on your own against any industry that wants to screw you over, buddy.
  - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ULXTHGKOA4TKROVFQT7XFPLI7M Americus Soul
    
    You need to review the death of Dr. Paul’s manager. It has been spun into a political talking point. You have been misled and are repeating misleading info. The facts are already documented elsewhere and readers can do the research. You are a reader, I suggest you can dig in a little to find the facts before you spread the story contrived by people for evil means and ends.
    
    Regarding the EPA and other ineffective (relative to the money invested/spent/given): most people want to cheer for clean air and babies and all things sweet — without realistically considering who is best to champion the cause all the while considering the costs which will be incurred by championing the cause. Follow me.
    
    Considering that our country is based on fake money and a fake monetary system which siphons wealth from people like you and me into the hands of people who will benefit by good *or* bad decisions equally, well, we all would do well to consider just where the money comes from and how we should spend it more wisely.
    
    With the fake money, we can continue to finance bad ideas — until one day this country won’t exist in any good state. There is a reason the rich keep getting richer and inflation exists and
    China owns us and bad ideas get financed again and again and again. It’s because nobody wants to fix the problem at the core — fake money and the people who benefit from it. And who get cheerleaders to cheer for “good things” like we all want . Without consideration for the future of the fiscal STABILITY and equity of the nation. Try living without a sustainable supply of money and jobs and you’ll see why we are concerned about getting this ship on course sooner than later.
    
    Clean air is very important too. Don’t get me wrong. But it won’t kill you as quickly as starving will. if this sounds alarmist, I apologize . It isn’t meant to be . It is meant to be pessimistically realist.
    
    Fake money financing bad ideas (at any and all costs) … that’s at the foundation of what people like the Pauls are getting to, and as Americans (think freedom and open discussion and the critical thought which can come from both of those — instead of captive minds and support for “the cause” — the end at any cost and means), well, you might see that just because we were given/blessed with an EPA by certain elected officials does not mean that they are the best for the job, nor does it mean that in this day and age they might not be better downsized and replaced with OTHER controlling measures.
    
    That’s the point the Pauls make above all. Nobody, absolutely nobody wants to live in a nation where toxins are floating in the air. To position your political and eco-idea opponents as “poisoners” or whatever is unproductive and diversionary at best.
    
    Get back to the points at hand. We have a fiat money, corrupt and/or misguided government, a population who thinks cheerleading is good enough (when real considerate education is still sorely needed before the cheering can start and do any good) and you have a situation where this country is going to go further down the tubes if we don’t start thinking critically.
    
    I wish it wasn’t so. I live in the USA. I have friends here. I am a nature lover, and a lover of all things good and clean. But what I hate at the top of my list are wasteful people, polluters, and sloppy greedy people. This country needs a cleaning starting in DC. Then it needs a haircut. Again , starting at DC and at the fiscal level.
    
    I don’t expect this diatribe will make too much sense since I am afraid most cheerleaders haven’t taken the time to take all classes required to see how the puzzle will actually work. Just like highschool — often only the best brightest cheerleaders go on to be great leaders. Many of them simply didn’t pay attention in history or civics classes . They were too busy with sports, boys, girls, etc.
    
    Best to you all. We’re gonna need it.
    - Anonymous
      
      You lost me when you started all that “fake money” stuff.
      
      Best of luck to you. May you encounter good sense along your way….
    - Anonymous
      
      So just to some up …
      Eating arsenic and mercury is bad, but using paper money is worse.
      Rriiiggghhht.
      
      Setting aside the distraction of changing the debate from you original complaint about the EPA to the debate over a gold standard, I noticed you’ve still failed to address the points about pollution we’ve raised and how it applies to the EPA. Nice attempt to change the subject though.
      
      “ Regarding the EPA and other ineffective (relative to the money invested/spent/given “
      
      Demonstrably untrue claim as already mentioned in this thread in my reply to BJK.
      
      Aside from that though, how does that morally justify large companies infringing on the rights and property of the public and forcing the public to therefore bear their operating costs of their pollution? I thought one of the few legitimate functions of the government according to the Paul’s and their acolytes, was to prevent acts of violence against the public. But somehow harm by being poisoned/contaminated from pollution doesn’t count? How convenient that those making such arguments (and the “think-tanks” that dream up the arguments) get most of their funding from the same polluting companies, isn’t it?
      
      “ you might see that just because we were given/blessed with an EPA by certain elected officials does not mean that they are the best for the job, nor does it mean that in this day and age they might not be better downsized and replaced with OTHER controlling measures.“
      
      You seem to be misinformed on a couple of points.
      1) The people that select EPA officials are elected. The people that do the monitoring and propose regulations and selected by elected officials for the recognized expertise in their fields (except during Republican administrations where they are apparently selected for willingness to place their own interests over the public’s).
      2) You seem to be ignoring that these “better methods” are also opposed by the same corporations that are paying politician to attack the EPA. They aren’t installing scrubbers voluntarily. If it comes down to a 0.01% decrease in profits from not poisoning the public or a 5% increase in heart attacks (just to make up some simplified numbers for argument)? Well it’s “heart attacks ahoy!” and let the taxpayer worry about the medical bills, as long as someone else pays for it.
      —–> Big Coal: Children’s Health and Clean Air Are Not Worth Our Spending One Penny of the Billions in Cash We’re Sitting On
      
      “Nobody, absolutely nobody wants to live in a nation where toxins are floating in the air “
      
      Really? Then why exactly are they pushing for just that? Why is the rest of the Republican party that doesn’t share your views on paper money pushing for the same thing too?
      
      “To position your political and eco-idea opponents as “poisoners” or whatever is unproductive and diversionary at best.“
      
      No it’s an accurate description because that is exactly the result of such policies, Note that they still have nothing to do with paper money and whether it’s OK for large companies to get a massive form of corporate welfare by being allowed to force the costs to be externalized onto the public.
      
      “Get back to the points at hand.“
      
      No. The point at hand is trying to gut the EPA and the resulting increase in pollution/harm it would cause.
      Go back and look at the title of the article. See? Nothing there about currency policy.
      Go back and look at your first post here. See? Nothing there about the gold standard either.
      The only person attempting to change the subject here is you. Why?
      Why haven’t you addressed the question as to what give one company/state the right to force another states to bear the cost of it’s pollution?
      
      One last note for now, we have taken a look at your “puzzle”. In fact we have many historical examples of how much of it doesn’t work. There are just some things the market can’t handle without government regulation, period. Pollution is one of those issues. Please see the historical prescient of rivers catching of fire in the USA, and the current issue of global warming for further clarification.
- Anonymous
  
  How exactly is not allowing pollution to travel from one state to let another state clean up the mess “leaving other states with little benefit”? The only ones that are “hurt” by the rule are those that want to force the burden of the externalities of their power production choices onto other states that have the misfortune to be downwind.
  
  Rand Paul may not “want to pour oil or mercury” into our food, but that will be the result since he just doesn’t care about the consequences of his dogma. This is because in his interpretation of property rights only big companies matter, not the victims of pollution. At best the victims only get a say *after* the damage has been done…if then. Rand Paul is attempting to return us to the days when our rivers were catching on fire (literally, look it up) because all of the states were just passing the pollution downstream. Do you really think that it’s a coincidence that most of the money behind the push to roll back pollution protections on so-called “Libertarian” grounds comes from the same major corporations that do much of the polluting and would profit the most from rolling back such regulations?