SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_3_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_13_0_0_1.row-wrapper{margin:40px auto;}#sBoost_post_0_0_1_0_0_0_1_0{background-color:#000;color:#fff;}.boost-post{--article-direction:column;--min-height:none;--height:auto;--padding:24px;--titles-width:100%;--image-fit:cover;--image-pos:right;--photo-caption-size:12px;--photo-caption-space:20px;--headline-size:23px;--headline-space:18px;--subheadline-size:13px;--text-size:12px;--oswald-font:"Oswald", Impact, "Franklin Gothic Bold", sans-serif;--cta-position:center;overflow:hidden;margin-bottom:0;--lora-font:"Lora", sans-serif !important;}.boost-post:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){min-height:var(--min-height);}.boost-post *{box-sizing:border-box;float:none;}.boost-post .posts-custom .posts-wrapper:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article:before, .boost-post article:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row:before, .boost-post article .row:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row .col:before, .boost-post article .row .col:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .widget__body:before, .boost-post .widget__body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .photo-caption:after{content:"";width:100%;height:1px;background-color:#fff;}.boost-post .body:before, .boost-post .body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .body :before, .boost-post .body :after{display:none !important;}.boost-post__bottom{--article-direction:row;--titles-width:350px;--min-height:346px;--height:315px;--padding:24px 86px 24px 24px;--image-fit:contain;--image-pos:right;--headline-size:36px;--subheadline-size:15px;--text-size:12px;--cta-position:left;}.boost-post__sidebar:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:10px;}.boost-post__in-content:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:40px;}.boost-post__bottom:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:20px;}@media (min-width: 1024px){#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_13_0_0_1_1{padding-left:40px;}}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_16_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_16_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}#sElement_Post_Layout_Press_Release__0_0_2_0_0_11{margin:100px 0;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper{background:none;}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Suzanne Struglinski, sstruglinski@nrdc.org (202)289-2387
A strong majority of registered voters across the United States - including those in all 19 key Congressional Districts polled - oppose the U.S. House votes last week to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating clean air safeguards needed to protect the health of Americans, according to major new Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey results released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The survey results show that all 19 of the House members - including U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Tea Party leader Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn - who supported blocking the EPA are out of step with their constituents.
Nationwide, about six out of 10 Americans (58 percent) - including 55 percent of Independents and roughly half (48 percent) of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution," according to the survey of 784 registered voters conducted February18-20, 2011 by PPP for NRDC. Additionally, more than two thirds of Americans (68 percent) - including 54 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
In separate surveys conducted in 19 Congressional Districts, PPP asked registered voters if they agreed with their member of Congress' decision to vote for legislation barring the EPA from updating clean air safeguards. In all 19 districts polled, respondents across the political spectrum said they oppose their representative's votes to handcuff the EPA and think instead that Congress should let the agency do its job of protecting public health and the environment.
The average level of public opposition to the anti-EPA votes across the 19 Congressional Districts was 66 percent - including 45 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of Independents. For a full overview of the 19 surveys, go to https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/2-23%20Poll%20Table.pdf.
PPP polled registered voters in the following Congressional districts in eight states: Illinois (Reps. Joe Walsh, IL-8, Robert Dold, IL-10, and Bobby Schilling, IL-17); Michigan (Reps. Daniel Benishek, MI-1, and Mike Rogers, MI-8); Minnesota (Reps. Michele Bachmann, MN-6, and Chip Cravaack, MN-8); Montana (Rep. Denny Rehberg (MT-At Large); Ohio (House Speaker John Boehner, OH-8, and Reps. Patrick Tiberi, OH-12, and Jim Renacci, OH-16); Pennsylvania (Reps. Jason Altmire, PA-4, Jim Gerlach, PA-6, Patrick Meehan, PA-7, Lou Barletta, PA-11); Virginia (Reps. Robert Hurt, VA-5, Scott Rigell, VA-2); and Wisconsin (Reps. Reid Ribble, WI-8, and Sean Duffy, WI-7).
"The message here is as clear as clean air: In every district we polled, Americans want their elected representatives to let the EPA do its job instead of putting the profit-driven agenda of big polluters ahead of the health of their children," said Peter Altman, Climate Campaign Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Politicians who are considering blocking the EPA and updates to Clean Air Act safeguards should understand that doing so is very unpopular. Americans know where these actions will lead and they want their kids to be able to grow up breathing clean air."
"Americans are clearly persuaded that their health needs should take priority over the profits of polluters" said Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling. "Political affiliation doesn't appear to count for much when constituents are asked whether their representatives in Congress should be siding with the public's health or the political clout of polluters."
The national and 19 Congressional District findings are consistent with national polling released over the last few weeks by the American Lung Association https://www.lungusa.org/about-us/our-impact/top-stories/clean-air-survey.html and the Natural Resources Defense Council https://www.nrdc.org/media/2011/110210.asp and https://www.nrdc.org/media/2011/110202.asp.
The poll was timed to ask several questions about positions lawmakers took during last week's debate over the federal budget. During that debate, House members cast a number of votes that would severely limit the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to protect public health from water and air pollution. The Continuing Resolution (CR) itself cut 30 percent of the EPA's budget. The CR also contained policy provisions to block EPA from setting limits for carbon dioxide pollution. In addition, several amendments were passed that also would block the EPA from doing its job of protecting public health, including Representative Ted Poe's (R-TX) amendment to bar the EPA from taking any actions to reduce carbon dioxide pollution for any reason, Representative John Carter's (R-TX) amendment to prevent the EPA from reducing toxic pollution such as arsenic and mercury from cement kilns and Representative Mike Pompeo's amendment to prevent EPA from collecting data about carbon and other pollution.
Keeping with tradition, Speaker of the House John Boehner did not actually vote on the bill or the amendments, but supported the bill's passage as amended. Every other member whose district was polled voted for the EPA-blocking amendments, and every member except for Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) voted for the final package.
For more information on how individual members voted and how the votes put public health at risk, see https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/19%20Member%20Votes%20on%20CR.pdf and https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/strong_opposition_nationally_a.html.
FINDINGS FROM NATIONAL SURVEY
The national survey of American registered voters also showed the following
* 69 percent of Americans - including 59 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents - think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 64 percent of Americans - including 57 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only about a third of Americans (36 percent).
* One of the poll questions revealed particularly strong support for clean air updates the EPA is putting forward today: 66 percent of Americans -- including 54 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Independents -- favor the EPA requiring stricter limits on the amount of toxic chemicals such as mercury, lead, and arsenic that coal power plants and other industrial facilities release.
* 78 percent of Americans - including 69 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
* 66 percent support "requiring stricter limits on the amount of toxic chemicals such as mercury, lead, and arsenic that coal power plants and other industrial facilities release."
* 65 percent support "limiting the amount of carbon pollution that big power plants and other industrial facilities release."
* 64 percent favor "requiring stricter limits on the amount of smog that vehicles and industrial facilities release."
FINDINGS FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
The following 19 Congressional Districts illustrate the broad public support for the Environmental Protection Agency and the EPA's planned updates to key anti-pollution safeguards for the protection of the health of Americans:
Illinois -- Rep. Joe Walsh, IL-8, 571 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 4.1%
* 68 percent - including 60 percent of Independents and 57 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 73 percent - including 62 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 80 percent - including 74 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 76 percent - including 65 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 24 percent.
* 83 percent - including 74 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Illinois - Rep. Robert Dold, IL-10, 690 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.7%
* 74 percent - including 69 percent of Independents and 53 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 77 percent -- including 65 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 80 percent - including 67 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 77 percent - including 62 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 23 percent.
* 83 percent - including 75 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Illinois - Rep. Bobby Schilling, IL-17, 931 registered voters, 2/19-2/20, margin of error 3.2%
* 65 percent - including 64 percent of Independents and 46 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 71 percent -- including 59 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 76 percent - including 65 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 73 percent - including 60 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 27 percent.
* 81 percent - including 72 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Michigan - Rep. Daniel Benishek, MI-1, 1,135 registered voters, 2/20-2/21, margin of error 2.9%
* 62 percent - including 55 percent of Independents and 42 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 66 percent -- including 52 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 74 percent - including 63 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 69 percent of Americans - including 56 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 31 percent.
* 78 percent - including 69 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Michigan - Rep. Mike Rogers, MI-8, 754 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.6%
* 64 percent - including 63 percent of Independents and 40 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 67 percent -- including 45 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 77 percent - including 61 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 74 percent - including 60 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 26 percent.
* 80 percent - including 63 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Minnesota - Rep. Michele Bachmann, MN-6, 956 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.2%
* 64 percent - including 60 percent of Independents and 35 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 69 percent -- including 47 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 73 percent - including 58 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 70 percent - including 50 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 30 percent.
* 78 percent - including 60 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Minnesota - Rep. Chip Cravaack, MN-8, 1,022 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.1%
* 67 percent - including 58 percent of Independents and 36 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 69 percent -- including 38 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 73 percent - including 53 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 71 percent of Americans - including 50 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 29 percent.
* 79 percent - including 57 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Montana - Rep. Denny Rehberg, MT-At Large, 1,065 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3%
* 58 percent - including 54 percent of Independents and 32 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 58 percent -- including 32 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 67 percent - including 39 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 62 percent - including 41 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 38 percent.
* 72 percent - including 56 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Ohio - U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, OH-8, 805 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.5%
* 56 percent - including 51 percent of Independents and 37 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 62 percent -- including 49 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 71 percent - including 60 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 66 percent - including 56 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 34 percent.
* 75 percent - including 66 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Ohio -- Rep. Patrick Tiberi, OH-12, 729 registered voters, 2/20-2/21, margin of error 3.6%
* 65 percent - including 57 percent of Independents and 44 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 67 percent -- including 48 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 73 percent - including 58 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 69 percent - including 57 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 31 percent.
* 77 percent - including 63 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Ohio - Rep. Jim Renacci, OH-16, 705 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.7%
* 59 percent - including 48 percent of Independents and 41 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 64 percent -- including 48 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 71 percent - including 57 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 68 percent - including 52 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 32 percent.
* 76 percent - including 65 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Pennsylvania - Rep. Jason Altmire, P-4, 867 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.3%
* 61 percent - including 56 percent of Independents and 46 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 66 percent -- including 52 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 72 percent - including 64 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 70 percent - including 60 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 30 percent.
* 80 percent - including 71 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Pennsylvania - Rep. Jim Gerlach, PA-6, 839 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.4%
* 72 percent - including 69 percent of Independents and 48 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 76 percent -- including 57 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 78 percent - including 62 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 76 percent of Americans - including 58 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 24 percent.
* 86 percent - including 75 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Pennsylvania - Rep. Patrick Meehan, PA-7, 542 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 4.2%
* 76 percent - including 80 percent of Independents and 57 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 80 percent -- including 62 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 84 percent - including 79 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 80 percent - including 69 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 20 percent.
* 87 percent - including 76 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Pennsylvania - Rep. Lou Barletta, PA-11, 859 registered voters, 2/20-2/21, margin of error 3.3%
* 70 percent - including 58 percent of Independents and 53 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 79 percent -- including 68 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 82 percent - including 75 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 79 percent - including 68 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 21 percent.
* 88 percent - including 82 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Virginia - Rep. Robert Hurt, VA-5, 767 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 3.5%
* 68 percent - including 69 percent of Independents and 37 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 73 percent -- including 55 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 74 percent - including 61 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 73 percent - including 52 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 27 percent.
* 83 percent - including 64 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Virginia - Rep. Scott Rigell, VA-2, 556 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 4.2%
* 66 percent - including 67 percent of Independents and 49 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 74 percent -- including 62 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 79 percent - including 75 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 79 percent - including 70 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 21 percent.
* 81 percent - including 71 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Wisconsin -- Rep. Reid Ribble, WI-8, 1,398 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 2.6%
* 64 percent - including 60 percent of Independents and 46 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 70 percent -- including 60 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 74 percent - including 69 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 71 percent - including 63 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 29 percent.
* 79 percent - including 72 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
Wisconsin - Rep. Sean Duffy, WI-7, 1,578 registered voters, 2/18-2/19, margin of error 2.5%
* 62 percent - including 55 percent of Independents and 37 percent of Republicans - oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution."
* 66 percent -- including 44 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Independents -- said the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."
* 74 percent - including 64 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Independents -- think EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.
* 69 percent - including 51 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Independents -- think "Congress should let the EPA do its job" versus "Congress should decide when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated," which was favored by only 31 percent.
* 79 percent - including 63 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Independents -- support the EPA's mission of "protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment."
The national survey by PPP for NRDC was conducted February 18-20, 2011, with a sample size of 784 registered voters and a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. Full reports on the national and district-level polling results, including sample sizes, polling dates and the margin of errors associated with each of the surveys can be found at https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/2-23%20Poll%20Table.pdf and https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/2-23%20PPP%20Poll%20National%20and%20District%20Results.zip.
For all 20 of the national and Congressional District surveys, PPP conducted automated telephone surveys of registered voters using voter lists provided by Aristotle Inc. At least three attempts were made to reach every potential respondent.
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) 727-2700Citing US President Donald Trump's anti-climate executive actions, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Friday unveiled a proposal to end a program that requires power plants, refineries, landfills, and more to report their emissions.
While Zeldin claimed that "the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality," experts and climate advocates emphasized the importance of the data collection, which began in 2010.
"President Trump promised Americans would have the cleanest air on Earth, but once again, Trump's EPA is taking actions that move us further from that goal," Joseph Goffman, who led the EPA Office of Air and Radiation during the Biden administration, said in a statement from the Environmental Protection Network, a group for former agency staff.
"Cutting the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program blinds Americans to the facts about climate pollution. Without it, policymakers, businesses, and communities cannot make sound decisions about how to cut emissions and protect public health," he explained.
As The New York Times reported:
For the past 15 years, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program has collected data from about 8,000 of the country's largest industrial facilities. That information has helped guide numerous decisions on federal policy and has been shared with the United Nations, which has required developed countries to submit tallies of their emissions.
In addition, private companies often rely on the program's data to demonstrate to investors that their efforts to cut emissions are working. And communities often use it to determine whether local facilities are releasing air pollution that threatens public health.
"By hiding this information from the public, Administrator Zeldin is denying Americans the ability to see the damaging results of his actions on climate pollution, air quality, and public health," Goffman said. "It's a further addition to the deliberate blockade against future action on climate change—and yet another example of the administration putting polluters before people's health."
Sierra Club's director of climate policy and advocacy, Patrick Drupp, stressed Friday that "EPA cannot avoid the climate crisis by simply burying its head in the sand as it baselessly cuts off its main source of greenhouse gas emissions data."
"The agency has provided no defensible reason to cancel the program; this is nothing more than EPA's latest action to deny the reality of climate change and do everything it can to put the fossil fuel industry and corporate polluters before people," he added. "The Sierra Club will oppose this proposal every step of the way.”
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, similarly said that "the Trump administration's latest pro-polluter move to eliminate the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is just another brazen step in their Polluters First agenda."
Responding to the administration's claim that the proposal would save businesses up to $2.4 billion in regulatory costs, Alt said that "under the guise of saving Americans money, this is an attempt on the part of Trump, Lee Zeldin, and their polluter buddies to hide the ball and avoid responsibility for the deadly, dangerous, and expensive pollution they produce."
"If they succeed, the nation's biggest polluters will spew climate-wrecking pollution without accountability," she warned. "The idea that tracking pollution does 'nothing to improve air quality' is absurd," she added. "If you don't measure it, you can't manage it. Hiding information and allowing fossil fuel companies to avoid accountability are the true goals of this rule."
The Trump admin is now proposing to kill the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which since 2010 has required 8,000+ coal plants, refineries, and factories to report their climate pollution.Without it, polluters get a free pass.No reporting = no accountability.
— Climate Action Now (@climateactapp.bsky.social) September 12, 2025 at 7:04 PM
BlueGreen Alliance executive director Jason Walsh declared that "the Trump administration continues to prove it does not care about the American people and their basic right to breathe clean air. This flies in the face of the EPA's core mission—to protect the environment and public health."
"The proposal is wildly unpopular with even industry groups speaking against it because they know the value of having this emissions data available," he noted. "Everybody in this country deserves to know the air quality in their community and how their lives can be affected when they live near high-emitting facilities."
“Knowledge is power and—in this case—health," he concluded. "The administration shouldn't be keeping people in the dark about the air they and their neighbors are breathing."
This proposal from Zeldin came a day after the EPA moved to reverse rules protecting people from unsafe levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called "forever chemicals," in US drinking water, provoking similar criticism. Earthjustice attorney Katherine O'Brien said that his PFAS decision "prioritizes chemical industry profits and utility companies' bottom line over the health of children and families across the country."
"Looking forward to the contortions of people whose paychecks are dependent on denying that any of this is the case," said one observer.
Belying persistent efforts by Israel and its defenders to deny the staggering number of Palestinians killed during the 23-month Gaza genocide, the general who led the Israel Defense Forces during most of the war acknowledged this week that around 220,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded.
Former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi—who stepped down in March after leading the IDF since January 2023—told residents of Ein Habor in southern Israel earlier this week that "over 10%" of Gaza's population of approximately 2.2 million "were killed or injured" since October 2023.
"This is not a gentle war, we took the gloves off from the first minute" Halevi said, adding that "not once" has any legal authority "limited" his wartime conduct.
Following the October 7 attack, the IDF dramatically loosened its rules of engagement, effectively allowing an unlimited number of civilians to be killed when targeting a single Hamas member, no matter how low-ranking.
The IDF’s use of massive ordnance, including US-supplied 1,000- and 2,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs capable of leveling entire city blocks, and utilization of artificial intelligence to select targets has resulted in staggering numbers of civilian deaths, including numerous instances of dozens or more people being massacred in single strikes.
Halevi insisted that "we are doing everything in accordance with international law."
The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague disagrees, having issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes including forced starvation and murder. Israel's conduct in the war is also the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case filed by South Africa and supported by around two dozen nations.
Halevi's admission tracks with official Gaza Health Ministry figures showing at least 228,815 people killed or wounded by Israeli forces in Gaza. GHM also says that around 9,000 people are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble. Experts—including the authors of multiple peer-reviewed studies in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet—assert that the actual death toll in Gaza is much higher than reported.
The remarks by Halevi come less than a month after a joint investigation by Israeli journalist and filmmaker Yuval Abraham of +972 Magazine and Local Call and Guardian senior international affairs correspondent Emma Graham-Harrison revealed that, as of May, 5 in 6 Palestinians—or 83%—killed by the IDF through the first 19 months of the war were civilians. The report, which drew from classified IDF intelligence data, blew the lid off of Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio.
Responding to Halevi's admission, Drop Site News national security and foreign affairs reporter Murtaza Hussain said on social media that he is "looking forward to the contortions of people whose paychecks are dependent on denying that any of this is the case."
Israeli officials and media, along with their supportive US counterparts during both the Biden and Trump administrations, have generally cast doubt or outright denied GHM figures—which have been found to be reliable by the IDF, US officials, and researchers—by linking them to Hamas. This comes in addition to widespread Israeli and US denials of Israel's forced famine and starvation deaths and IDF war crimes in Gaza.
However, there have been rare instances of frankness, including when Barbara Leaf, a senior State Department official during the Biden administration, said that Gaza casualties could be "even higher than are being cited." Biden-era State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller also admitted that the Gaza death toll "could very well be more" than GHM reported, even as he lied to the public about who was thwarting ceasefire efforts.
"If our communities are needlessly split by these new lines, we would no longer see our strong values reflected in the priorities of our congressional representatives," said plaintiff Terrence Wise.
Missouri voters sued on Friday after GOP state legislators sent a new congressional map, rigged for Republicans at the request of US President Donald Trump, to Gov. Mike Kehoe's desk.
Republicans' pending map for the 2026 midterm elections targets the 5th Congressional District, currently represented by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. Voters from the district, including Missouri Workers Center leader Terrence Wise, launched the legal challenge, represented by the Campaign Legal Center along with the state and national ACLU.
"Kansas City has been home for me my entire adult life," said Wise. "Voting is an important tool in our toolbox, so that we have the freedom to make our voices heard through a member of Congress who understands Kansas City's history of racial and economic segregation along the Troost Divide, and represents our needs. If our communities are needlessly split by these new lines, we would no longer see our strong values reflected in the priorities of our congressional representatives."
Marc Elias, the founder of Democracy Docket and an elections attorney for Democrats, also repeatedly vowed this week that "if and when the GOP enacts this map, Missouri will be sued."
"Missouri Republicans have ignored the demands of their constituents in order to follow the demands of a power-hungry administration in Washington."
The governor called a special session for the map after Texas Republicans successfully redrew their congressional districts to appease Trump last month. Kehoe said on social media Friday that "the Missouri FIRST Map has officially passed the Missouri Senate and is now headed to my desk, where we will review the legislation and sign it into law soon."
Former US Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., who now leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, warned in a statement that "Missouri is now poised to join North Carolina and Texas as among the most egregiously gerrymandered states in the nation. Missouri Republicans have ignored the demands of their constituents in order to follow the demands of a power-hungry administration in Washington."
"Missouri Republicans rejected a similar gerrymander just three years ago," Holder pointed out. "But now they have caved to anti-democracy politicians and powerful special interests in Washington who ordered them to rig the map. These same forces ripped away healthcare from millions of Americans and handed out a tax cut to the very wealthy."
"Republicans in Congress and the White House are terrified of a system where both parties can compete for the House majority, and instead seek a system that shields them from accountability at the ballot box," he added. "Missourians will not have fair and effective representation under this new, truly shameful gerrymander. It is not only legally indefensible, it is also morally wrong."
As The Kansas City Star reported, Democrats, who hold just 10 of the Missouri Senate's 34 seats, "attempted to block the legislation from coming to a vote through multiple filibusters," but "Republicans deployed a series of rarely used procedural maneuvers to shut down the filibusters and force a vote," ultimately passing the House-approved bill 21-11 on Friday.
"What we're seeing in Jefferson City isn't just a gerrymander, it's a dangerous precedent," said Missouri state Rep. Ray Reed (D-83), who engaged in a sit-in at the House to protest the bill. "Our institutions only work when we respect the process. Skipping debate, shutting out voices, and following orders from Donald Trump undermines the very foundation of our democracy."
Cleaver said in a Friday statement that he was "deeply disappointed" with the state Legislature, and he knows "the people of Missouri share in that disappointment."
"Despite tens of thousands of Missourians taking the time to call their state lawmakers and travel to Jefferson City to voice their opposition," Cleaver said, "Republicans in the Missouri Legislature followed the marching orders dictated by power brokers in DC and took the unprecedented step of enacting mid-decade redistricting without an updated census."
"I want to be very clear to those who are frustrated by today's outcome: This fight is far from over," he added. "Together, in the courts and in the streets, we will continue pushing to ensure the law is upheld, justice prevails, and this unconstitutional gerrymander is defeated."
In addition to court challenges, the new congressional map is also the target of People NOT Politicians, a group behind a ballot measure that aims to overturn it.
"This is nothing less than an unconstitutional power grab—a blatant attempt to rig the 2026 elections before a single vote is cast," Elsa Rainey, a spokesperson for the group, said after the Senate vote. "It violates Missouri law, slices apart communities, and strikes at the core of our democratic system."
During Kehoe's special session, Missouri Republicans also passed an attack on citizen initiative petitions that, if approved by voters, will make it harder to pass future amendments to the state constitution—an effort inspired by GOP anger over progressive victories at the ballot box on abortion rights, Medicaid, and recreational marijuana.
"By calling this special session and targeting citizens' right to access the ballot measure process, Missouri's governor and his allies in the state Legislature are joining a growing national movement dedicated to silencing citizens and undermining our democracy," said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project.
The Fairness Project, which advocates for passing progressive policy via direct democracy, earlier this week published a report detailing how "extremist" legislators across the United States are ramping up efforts to dismantle the ballot measure process.
"Sadly, what we are seeing in Missouri is nothing new, but we as Americans should all be horrified by what is happening in Jefferson City and condemn the attempts by this governor and his allies in the Legislature to further erode our cherished democracy," Hall said Friday. "With this special session, extremist politicians in Missouri have declared war on direct democracy and vowed to silence the very citizens they have sworn to represent."