Representative Lance votes to allow allow coal companies to expose people to pollution

Stream Protection RuleAs noted earlier this month, Congress voted to repeal the Stream Protection Rule that would require coal companies to prevent pollution from their activities from entering drinking water. This vote, supported by Mr. Lance, effectively moves to kill a rule making that the CRS (Congressional Research Service) noted would “reduce human exposure to contaminants in drinking water, and the probability of adverse health effects.”

The CRS also pointed out that there would be a cost of $52 million to the coal industry and that up to 590 people might lose mining jobs. Of course, it is also noted that coal worker jobs would be decreasing by more than 15,000 workers due to lower demand without the rule.

I think that on balance, Ms. Rois of West Virginia said it best…”orange is not the color of water.”

Nice going Mr. Lance. Another vote to help people get sick.

Read the full article:
Republicans Move to Block Rule on Coal Mining Near Streams
Limited free access; NY Times subscription may be required.

Share

Representative Leonard Lance Wrong on His Pipeline Statements

Recently, among a rash of actions by the President, Mr. Lance stated that the President was right to move both the Keystone XXL and Dakota Access Pipelines to be built.

Leonard LanceI have commented on both projects before, but Mr. Lance’s comments deserve to be criticized as what they are; pandering and ignorant.

His support is based on two claims. One that the pipelines will help to reduce the price of oil and two that they have been deemed environmental safe and endorsed by labor unions and business organizations alike.

Well, on the first point, what is his evidence? Oil has remained fairly stable as a result of conservation activities as much as new sources of energy. Also, the Alaskan pipeline was built with many of the same promises. Guess what, the oil from that pipeline rarely made it to the U.S. Market.

As to environmental safety. The number of spills from oil pipelines is not exactly reassuring. As to labor unions and business endorsing the pipelines, well, that makes sense. They benefit from the work.

No Mr. Lance, the President’s action on these pipelines is not well thought out and your support is poorly thought out as well.

Read the full article:
Lance Statement on President Trump’s Executive Action on Pipelines

Share

Maybe saying the words “Climate Change” should be avoided. Say “Economics” instead.

It is heartening to read an article that shows that people can embrace environmentally conscious ways of running a business without being labeled an environmentalist. A farmer in Kansas has, “embraced an (sic) environmentally conscious way of farming that guards against soil erosion and conserves precious water.”

climate change economicsWhat was that? A farmer in the heartland of America? Yes. The key throughout this article is not that he is doing this, it is that he is doing this because it makes economic sense. In the same breath, he will not use the words “Climate Change.” And he is right.

I really don’t care about the argument for or against climate change any more (well I do from an intellectual exercise standpoint), but I do care that we all take actions that encourage sustainability. I have tried to make this point to people for many years.

Sustainability is not about terms, it is about Environmental, Economic and Social responsibility that in the end causes the economy to grow and to continue to be able to grow.

Well, it makes sense that a farmer would understand that concept!

Read the full article:
In America’s Heartland, Discussing Climate Change Without Saying ‘Climate Change’
Limited free access; NY Times subscription may be required.

Share

Gas Tax Narrow Mindedness

As much as I think that the ultimate deal on passing the gasoline tax was a poorly thought out compromise, it does at least allow New Jersey to fund its transportation infrastructure. Now, several legislators want to undermine the law by limiting the tax to road improvements at the expense of mass transit improvements.

New Jersey Gas TaxIt is frightening to hear such provincial thinking. Apparently these legislators are of the mind set that it is ok to subsidize roads with general tax dollars and have mass transit cost more in this state than almost any other part of the country but it is not ok to have a gasoline tax pay for mass transit.

More disturbing is the provincial self serving attitude that since their communities have limited mass transit services from rail, it is not in the best interest of the state to use this money for a broad range of transportation improvements.

Instead of this silly statement, why not take real action on the rail line that they purport to support?

Come on, we are all in this together.

Read the full article:
Some N.J. Republicans think revenue from gas tax increase should only pay for roads

Share