

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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) 727-2700"Clearly, the international repression of the Palestinian cause knows no bounds."
Ninety-five-year-old Richard Falk—world renowned scholar of international law and former UN special rapporteur focused on Palestinian rights—was detained and interrogated for several hours along with his wife, legal scholar Hilal Elver, as the pair entered Canada for a conference focused on that nation's complicity with Israel's genocide in Gaza.
"A security person came and said, ‘We’ve detained you both because we’re concerned that you pose a national security threat to Canada,'” Falk explained to Al-Jazeera in a Saturday interview from Ottawa in the wake of the incident that happened at the international airport in Toronto ahead of the scheduled event.
“It was my first experience of this sort–ever–in my life,” said Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, author or editor of more than 20 books, and formerly the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories.
Falk, who is American, has been an outspoken critic of the foreign policy of Canada, the United States, and other Western nations on the subject of Israel-Palestine as well as other issues. He told media outlets that he and his wife, also an American, were held for over four hours after their arrival in Toronto. They were in the country to speak and participate at the Palestine Tribunal on Canadian Responsibility, an event scheduled for Friday and Saturday in Ottawa, the nation's capital.
The event, according to the program notes on the website, was designed to "document the multiple ways that Canadian entities – including government bodies, corporations, universities, charities, media, and other cultural institutions–have enabled and continue to enable the settler colonization and genocide of Palestinians, and to articulate what justice and reparations would require."
In his comments to Al-Jazeera, Falk said he believes the interrogation by the Canadian authorities—which he described as "nothing particularly aggressive" but "random" and "disorganized" in its execution—is part of a global effort by powerful nations complicit with human rights abuses and violations of international law to “punish those who endeavour to tell the truth about what is happening” in the world, including in Gaza.
Martin Shaw, a British sociologist and author of The New Age of Genocide, said the treatment of Falk and Elver should be seen as an "extraordinary development" for Canada, and not in a good way. For a nation that likes to think of itself as a "supporter of international justice," said Shaw, "to arrest the veteran scholar and former UN rapporteur Richard Falk while he is attending a Gaza tribunal. Clearly, the international repression of the Palestinian cause knows no bounds."
Canadian Senator Yuen Pau Woo, a supporter of the Palestine Tribunal, told Al-Jazeera he was “appalled” by the interrogation.
“We know they were here to attend the Palestine Tribunal. We know they have been outspoken in documenting and publicizing the horrors inflicted on Gaza by Israel, and advocating for justice,” Woo said. “If those are the factums for their detention, then it suggests that the Canadian government considers these acts of seeking justice for Palestine to be national security threats–and I’d like to know why.”
"I refuse to believe that in a state like Maine where people work as hard as we do here, that it is merely hard work that gets you that kind of success. We all know it isn't. We all know it's the structures. It's the tax code."
Echoing recent viral comments by music superstar Billie Eilish, Maine Democratic candidate for US Senate Graham Planter is also arguing that the existence of billionaires cannot be justified in a world where working-class people with multiple jobs still cannot afford the basic necessities of life.
In video clip posted Friday of a campaign event in the northern town of Caribou from last month, Platner rails against the "structures" of an economy in which billionaires with vast personal fortunes use their wealth to bend government—including the tax code—to conform to their interests while working people are left increasingly locked out of controlling their own destinies, both materially and politically.
"Nobody works hard enough to justify $1 billion," the military veteran and oyster farmer told potential voters at the event. "Not in a world where I know people that have three jobs and can't even afford their rent."
With audience members nodding their heads in agreement, Platner continued by saying, "I refuse to believe that in a state like Maine, where people work as hard as we do here, that it is merely hard work that gets you that kind of success. We all know it isn't. We all know it's the structures. It's the tax code. That is what allows that money to get accrued."
No one works hard enough to justify being a billionaire. pic.twitter.com/Ezvf5fPLfv
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) November 14, 2025
The systemic reasons that create vast inequality, Platner continued, are also why he believes that the process of the super wealthy becoming richer and richer at the expense of working people can be reversed.
"The world that we live in today," he explained, "is not organic. It is not natural. The political and economic world we have did not happen because it had to. It happened because politicians in Washington and the billionaires who write the policies that they pushed made this happen. They changed the laws, and they made it legal to accrue as much wealth and power as they have now."
The solution? "We need to make it illegal again to do that," says Platner.
The comments questioning the justification for billionaires to even exist by Platner—though made in early October—echo more recent comments that went viral when spoken by Billie Eilish, a popular musician, who told a roomful of Wall Street movers and shakers in early November that they should do a better job reflecting on their outrageous wealth.
"Love you all, but there’s a few people in here that have a lot more money than me," Eilish said during an award event in New York City. "If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties."
"If you're a billionaire, why are you a billionaire?"
— Billie Eilish clocking billionaires.pic.twitter.com/BVpRExp1GQ
— Billie Eilish Spotify (@BillieSpotify_) October 30, 2025
While those remarks took a long spin around the internet, Eilish on Friday doubled down on uncharitable billionaires by colorfully calling Elon Musk, who could end up being the world's first trillionaire, a "fucking pathetic pussy bitch coward" for not donating more of his vast fortune, among the largest in the world, to humanitarian relief efforts.
This week, as Common Dreams reported, a coalition of economists and policy experts called for the creation of a new international body to address the global crisis of inequality.
Like Platner, the group behind the call—including economists like Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Piketty, Ha-Joon Chang, and Jayati Ghosh—emphasized the inequality-as-a-policy-choice framework. Piketty, who has called for the mass taxation of dynastic wealth as a key part of the solution to runaway inequality, said “we are at a dangerous moment in human history” with “the very essence of democracy” under threat if something is not done.
On the campaign trail in Maine, Platner has repeatedly suggested that only organized people can defeat the power of the oligarchs, which he has named as the chief enemy of working people in his state and beyond. The working class, he said at a separate rally, "have an immense amount of power, but we only have it if we're organized."
No one from above is coming to save us. It’s up to us to organize, use our immense power as the working class, and win the world we deserve. pic.twitter.com/Xm3ZIhfCJI
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) November 11, 2025
"No one from above is coming to save us," Platner said. "It’s up to us to organize, use our immense power as the working class, and win the world we deserve."
"I am not buying Starbucks and you should not either."
The mayors-elect in both Seattle and New York City are backing the nationwide strike by Starbucks baristas launched this week, calling on the people of their respective cities to honor the consumer boycott of the coffee giant running parallel to the strike so that workers can win their fight for better working conditions.
“Together, we can send a powerful message: No contract, no coffee,” Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist who will take control of the New York City's mayor office on January 1, declared in a social media post to his more than 1 million followers.
In Seattle, mayor-elect Katie Wilson, who on Thursday was declared the winner of the race in Seattle, where Starbucks was founded and where its corporate headquarters remains, joined the picket line with striking workers in her city on the very same day to show them her support.
"I am not buying Starbucks and you should not either,” Wilson told the crowd.
She also delivered a message directly to the corporate leadership of Starbucks. "This is your hometown and mine," she said. "Seattle's making some changes right now, and I urge you to do the right thing. Because in Seattle, when workers' rights are under attack, what do we do?" To which the crowd responded in a chant-style response: "Stand up! Fight back!"
Socialist Seattle Mayor-elect Katie Wilson's first move after winning the election was to boycott Starbucks, a hometown company. pic.twitter.com/zPoNULxfuk
— Ari Hoffman 🎗 (@thehoffather) November 14, 2025
In his post, Mamdani said, "Starbucks workers across the country are on an Unfair Labor Practices strike, fighting for a fair contract," as he called for people everywhere to honor the picket line by not buying from the company.
At a rally with New York City workers outside a Starbucks location on Thursday, Mamdani referenced the massive disparity between profits and executive pay at the company compared to what the average barista makes.
Zohran Mamdani says that New York City stands with Starbucks employees!He points out their CEO made 96 billion last year. That’s 6,666 times the median Starbucks worker salary. Boycott Starbucks. Support the workers. Demand they receive a living wage.
[image or embed]
— Kelly (@broadwaybabyto.bsky.social) November 12, 2025 at 10:45 PM
The striking workers, said Mamdani, "are asking for a salary they can actually live off of. They are asking for hours they can actually build their life around. They are asking for the violations of labor law to finally be resolved. And they deserve a city that has their back and I am here to say that is what New York City will be."