October, 13 2011, 02:11pm EDT
National Poll Shows Strong Disapproval for President Obama's Smog Rule Delay, Unfavorable Ratings for Congress' Assault on Clean Air Act
9 Battleground States Also Surveyed: Suburban Women in MI, OH, PA, and Latino Women in CA, FL and NM Disagree With Obama Decision; Health Also Trumps Polluters in CO, NV, VA
WASHINGTON
President Obama's decision to block new public health standards for ozone and smog pollution may have pleased big business, but it but it sorely disappointed key demographic groups, including Latinos and women nationally and in nine key 2012 battleground states, according to 10 new polls conducted for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the League of Women Voters of the US (LWV).
Among the national poll's major findings:
- Nationwide, 70 percent of Americans disapproved of Obama's decision to block the ozone pollution standard while only 30 percent approved. Roughly eight out of 10 women (79 percent) overall and 71 percent of Latino women disapproved of Obama's decision on ozone.
- Nearly four out of five Americans (78 percent) want the EPA to hold corporate polluters accountable for what they release into the community. Better than four out five women (83 percent) and 80 percent of Latino women share this view.
Americans don't buy the line from some in Congress that EPA safeguards are bad for jobs and the economy and they support stricter safeguards against the toxic chemicals released by power plants. Women and Latino women particularly want stronger protections from toxic air and carbon pollution.
- Roughly seven out of 10 Americans (69 percent) agree with health experts who support reducing toxic air pollution from industrial sources and oppose those in Congress who say they must overrule the EPA to protect jobs; three out of four women overall and 73 percent of Latino women agree with health experts.
- Seven out of 10 support the EPA requiring stricter limits on the amount of toxic chemicals that industrial facilities can release and 69 percent are in favor of the EPA limiting the amount of carbon pollution that power plants and industrial facilities can release. Among women overall, 77 percent support stronger toxics limits and 78 percent support limiting carbon pollution; 76 percent and 77 percent of Latino women support those limits, respectively.
The polls, conducted between October 6-9, 2011 by Public Policy Polling (PPP), surveyed 1,249 registered voters nationwide (as well as a national oversample of 200 Latino women); and surveyed voters in nine 2012 battleground states: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Virginia with oversamples of suburban women and Latino women in several states. To access all PPP survey results, go to https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/polls_obamas_ozone_retreat_dis.html.
"What is clear from this polling is what we've known all along: Americans want cleaner, healthier air and want corporate polluters held accountable for their actions. President Obama's decision to delay the ozone air pollution standard puts him out of step with most Americans, and notably with independents, women and Latinos," said Wesley Warren, director of programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"Delaying clean air standards endangers Latino communities across the country. This poll shows how disappointed the Latino community is with President Obama and Congress when it comes to cleaning up our air," said Brent A. Wilkes, national executive director, League of United Latin American Citizens. "Latinos are more likely to live in counties with air pollution levels that are unhealthy due to fine particulates and ozone -- two dangerous and prevalent pollutants that cause or worsen respiratory problems. Latino children are 60 percent more likely to have asthma than non-Hispanic Whites."
Support for the EPA and stricter pollution limits is particularly strong among Latino women in key states. Asked whether they support the EPA's work to hold polluters accountable, 80 percent of Latino women in California, 79 percent in Florida and 86 percent in New Mexico said yes.
"Americans clearly are very displeased that politicians are interfering with EPA scientists. It's wrong to play politics with the health of our children and seniors," said Elisabeth MacNamara, president of the League of Women Voters of the US. "From the president's decision to delay smog pollution standards to the Congress's attempts to block EPA action on everything from mercury to soot to carbon, the voting public is fed up with politicians second guessing the science. It's fundamentally unfair for polluters to force us to live with unhealthy air, which causes asthma attacks, heart attacks and even premature death."
Support for stronger pollution limits and opposition to blocking the EPA is markedly strong among suburban women in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
- 79 percent of suburban women in Michigan, 76 percent in Ohio and 87 percent in Pennsylvania disagreed with Obama's decision to block stronger smog standards.
- 78 percent of suburban women in Michigan, 78 percent in Ohio and 82 percent in Pennsylvania support reducing toxic air pollution from industrial sources and oppose those in Congress who say they must overrule the EPA to protect jobs.
Independent respondents also expressed strong support for the EPA's mission and efforts to reduce pollution, and disagree with those who would block the EPA. More than three out of four (77 percent) support the EPA's efforts to hold polluters accountable and 68 percent say the President should not have blocked stronger smog standards and that Congress should not block stronger limits on toxic air pollution.
Tom Jensen, director, Public Policy Polling, said: "The shorthand version of these findings is clear: Attacks on clean air and the federal agency charged with protecting the environment and the health of Americans is an unpopular position with most Americans, including those in nine key 2012 battleground states. These poll findings provide more than ample evidence that assaults on the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency are likely to be perceived as decidedly extreme and well outside of the mainstream of the public's thinking."
About the national poll: The margin of error for the national survey is +/-2.8 percent. Margins of error for oversamples and states vary. Public Policy Polling surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews. PPP is a national survey research firm located in Raleigh, North Carolina. It was named by the Wall Street Journal as one of the two most accurate polling companies in the country for its swing state polling in 2008. More recently it was recognized by the Washington Post and Politico for its pinpoint polling of the surprising results in the Delaware Republican Senate primary and the Massachusetts Senate special election.
For more information, go to: https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/polls_obamas_ozone_retreat_dis.html.
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
Indigenous Brazilians Lament Lula's Unfulfilled Land Demarcation Promises
"This is revolting for us Indigenous peoples to have had so much faith in the government's commitments to our rights and the demarcation of our territories," said one Indigenous leader.
Apr 19, 2024
Friday is Indigenous Peoples Day in Brazil, and tribal leaders and activists used the occasion to criticize the left-wing government of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for falling short on promises to safeguard native land rights.
On Thursday, the Brazilian government announced the demarcation of Aldeia Velha, land of the Pataxó people, in the northeastern state of Bahia, as well as the territory of the Karajá people in Cacique Fontoura, Mato Grosso.
"Since the beginning of the current government, 10 areas have been regularized out of a total of 14 routed for approval," the government said in a statement. "The act reaffirms the focus of the federal government on the protection and respect of Indigenous peoples."
However, Indigenous peoples were anticipating the demarcation of six new territories. Lula acknowledged their disappointment.
"I know you are apprehensive and expected the demarcation of six Indigenous lands. But now we only announce two. And I'm being real with you," he said.
"Some of this missing land is occupied either by farmers or peasants," the president explained. "We cannot arrive without giving these people an alternative. Some governors asked for time to resolve, in a negotiated manner, the eviction of these territories so that we can demarcate them."
"The definition of these lands is already ready. What we do not want is to promise you today, and tomorrow you read in the newspaper, that a contrary decision was made," Lula added. "The frustration would be greater."
But the frustration was already there—and growing.
"This is revolting for us Indigenous peoples to have had so much faith in the government's commitments to our rights and the demarcation of our territories," Alessandra Korap Munduruku, a member of the Munduruku people and a 2023 winner of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize, told Amazon Watch in a statement published Friday.
"We hear all of these discussions about environmental and climate protection, but without support for Indigenous peoples on the front lines, suffering serious attacks and threats. Lula cannot speak about fighting climate change without fulfilling his duty to demarcate our lands," she added.
Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), an umbrella group, said in a statement earlier this week that "the most serious thing is that the Lula government is tarnishing its historical trajectory."
"Since campaigning for his first term in 2002, the president has committed to demarcating Indigenous lands, but he was one of the governments that demarcated the least," the group contended. "And now, like other old and conservative governments, in the name of the country's progress and economic development, [Lula's government] undermines the basis of Indigenous peoples' existence, becoming hostage to the market, the powerbrokers, agribusiness, evangelicals, and the military."
APIB demanded that Lula "put an end to the criminal organizations that intimidate our people and communities, persecute and murder our leaders" and "dedicate farms for agrarian reform and demarcate our lands, which have been invaded and plundered for centuries by the invaders who arrived here 524 years ago and their current descendants."
Thousands of Indigenous peoples from throughout Brazil are expected to rally in the capital Brasília next week for the Terra Livre—or Free Land, camp—the country's largest annual native mobilization. Two years ago, Lula, then a presidential candidate, told Terra Livre attendees that he would end illegal mining on Indigenous lands. Despite a crackdown that resulted in an initial dramatic drop in illicit mineral extraction on Indigenous lands, illegal miners have returned with a vengeance in places including land belonging to the Yanomami people.
Criticism of Lula's demarcation process and the Brazilian government's Indigenous rights record came from outside Brazil as well.
"Human rights defenders are under extreme threat in Brazil. The federal government knows this but has so far failed to put the structures in place to provide them with better protection and tackle the root causes of the risks they face," Mary Lawlor, the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in a Friday statement after an official visit to Brazil.
"Land is also the key to the protection of these defenders," she continued. "When I asked them what they thought would protect them they were clear: removal of invaders and demarcation now; accountability for environmental crimes. This for them is what collective protection, which is what is needed, means."
"There must be demarcation and titling," Lawlor added. "There can be no more delay."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Person Self-Immolates Outside Courthouse of Trump's NY Trial
An unverified online manifesto identifies the person as "an investigative researcher" who has discovered that "our own government (along with many of their allies) is about to hit us with an apocalyptic fascist world coup."
Apr 19, 2024
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
Law enforcement officials confirmed to CNN that someone lit themself on fire Friday outside the New York City courthouse where former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, is on trial for allegedly falsifying business records.
"The man walked into the park across the street from the courthouse, throwing flyers into the air," the network reported, citing law enforcement. "He then pulled something out of a backpack—it was not immediately clear what the item was—and lit himself on fire."
Journalists were in the area for the historic trial and CNN anchor Laura Coates was among those who described the scene live on-air as New York Police Department officers and emergency responders worked to extinguish the fire.
Police were "slow to respond in part because of barricades around park," Politico's Emily Ngo explained, sharing photos and videos from the scene on social media. There is "only one way to get into park outside the courthouse without jumping the fence. It's been barricaded in anticipation of protests. And since there hasn't been much in the way of protests, police presence is light. Police had to run all the way around to get to the man."
The person who self-immolated "was responsive when he was removed but he is very, very badly burned. Body charred," Ngo said.
CNN reported that the flyers featured allegations of wrongdoings against New York University and said, "NYU is a mob front."
A self-identified citizen journalist named Jack shared on social media a photo of a booklet the person reportedly left in the dirt.
An unverified Substack post says in part: "My name is Max Azzarello, and I am an investigative researcher who has set himself on fire outside of the Trump trial in Manhattan. This extreme act of protest is to draw attention to an urgent and important discovery: We are victims of a totalitarian con, and our own government (along with many of their allies) is about to hit us with an apocalyptic fascist world coup."
Inside Manhattan Criminal Court, the remaining jurors were sworn in for Trump's case, in which he faces 34 charges for records related to alleged hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. There are 12 jurors and six alternates.
The former president was indicted by a New York grand jury last spring. He also faces two federal criminal cases—one related to his handling of classified material and another for trying to overturn his 2020 loss, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection—as well as an election interference case in Georgia.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Important Step': EPA Finalizes Rule to Clean Up Forever Chemical Contamination
While praising the move, campaigners also said that the agency "must require polluters to pay to clean up the entire class of thousands of toxic PFAS chemicals, and it must ban nonessential uses."
Apr 19, 2024
Environmental and public health advocates on Friday welcomed the Biden administration's latest step to tackle "forever chemicals," a new Superfund rule that "will help ensure that polluters pay to clean up their contamination" across the country.
"It is time for polluters to pay to clean up the toxic soup they've dumped into the environment," declared Erik D. Olson, senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We all learned in kindergarten that if we make a mess, we should clean it up. The Biden administration's Superfund rule is a big step in the right direction for holding polluters accountable for cleaning up decades of contamination."
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—called forever chemicals because they remain in the human body and environment for long periods—have been used in products including firefighting foam, food packaging, and furniture, and tied to various health issues such as cancers, developmental and immune damage, and heart and liver problems.
"This action, coupled with EPA's recent announcement of limits on PFAS in drinking water, are critical steps in protecting the public."
As part of the Biden administration's "PFAS Strategic Roadmap," the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule designates perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Superfund law—the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
"President Joe Biden pledged to make PFAS a priority in 2020 as part of the Biden-Harris plan to secure environmental justice. Today the Biden EPA fulfilled this important promise," said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
David Andrews, EWG's deputy director of investigations and a senior scientist, has led studies that have found that PFAS are potentially harming over 330 species and more than 200 million Americans could have PFOA and PFOS in their tap water.
"For far too long, the unchecked use and disposal of toxic PFAS have wreaked havoc on our planet, contaminating everything from our drinking water to our food supply," he noted. "Urgent action is needed to clean up contaminated sites, eliminate future release of these pollutants, and shield people from additional exposure."
Walter Mugdan, a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network and the former Superfund director for EPA Region 2, explained that the "landmark action will allow the agency to more strongly address PFAS contamination and expedite cleanups of these toxic forever chemicals while also ensuring that cleanup costs fall on those most responsible—the industrial polluters who continue to manufacture and use them."
"This action, coupled with EPA's recent announcement of limits on PFAS in drinking water, are critical steps in protecting the public from these harmful compounds," added the former official, referencing the first-ever national limits on forever chemicals in drinking water that the agency finalized earlier this month.
As an EWG blog post detailed in anticipation of the new rule earlier this week:
A hazardous substance designation allows the EPA to use money from its Superfund—the EPA's account for addressing this kind of contamination—to quickly jump-start cleanup at a PFOA- or PFOS-polluted site and to recover the costs from the polluters. If a company that contributed to the PFAS contamination problem refuses to cooperate, the EPA can order a cleanup anyway and fine the company if they fail to take action.
[...]
When a chemical is added to the list of hazardous substances, the EPA sets a reportable quantity. Any time a substance is released above that quantity it must be reported. By imposing reportable quantities, the EPA will get immediate information about new PFAS releases and the chance to investigate immediately and, if necessary, take actions to reduce additional exposures. This information is also shared with state or tribal and local emergency authorities, so it can reach communities more quickly.
"For years, communities that have been exposed to these chemicals have been demanding that polluters be held accountable for the harm they have created and to pay for cleanup," Safer States national director Sarah Doll highlighted. "We applaud EPA for taking this step and encourage them to take the next step and list all PFAS under the Superfund law."
Liz Hitchcock, director of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, the federal policy program of Toxic-Free Future, similarly celebrated the EPA rule, calling it "an important step forward that will go a long way toward holding PFAS polluters accountable and beginning to clean up contaminated sites across the country."
Like Doll, she also stressed that "until we declare the full class of PFAS hazardous and prevent further pollution by ending the use of all PFAS chemicals in common products like food packaging and firefighting gear, communities will continue to pay the price with our health and tax dollars."
Mary Grant, the Public Water for All campaign director at Food & Water Watch, agreed that further action is necessary.
"Chemical companies have attempted to hide what they have long known about the dangers of PFAS, creating a widespread public health crisis in the process," Grant emphasized. "These polluters must absolutely be held accountable to pay to clean up their toxic mess."
"Today's new rules are a necessary and important step to jump start the cleanup process for two types of PFAS," she said. "While we thank the EPA for finalizing these rules, much more is necessary: The EPA must require polluters to pay to clean up the entire class of thousands of toxic PFAS chemicals, and it must ban nonessential uses of PFAS to stop the pollution in the first place."
Noting that it's not just the EPA considering forever chemicals policies, Grant called on Congress to "reject various legislative proposals to exempt for-profit companies, including the water and sewer privatization industry, from being held accountable to pay to clean up PFAS."
"It is an outrageous hypocrisy that large for-profit water corporations seek to privatize municipal water and sewer systems by touting themselves as a solution to PFAS contamination, and yet they want to carve themselves out of accountability for cleanup costs," she argued. "No corporation should have free rein to pollute."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular