Image via WikipediaA new bi-partisan survey released yesterday claims Americans trust the EPA not Congress to protect them from pollution.
The survey was released just one day before the US House of Representatives votes on a bill that would curtail the EPA's ability to protect public health from air pollution.
The American Lung Association (ALA) commissioned the survey, conducted jointly by the polling firms Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (Democrat) and Ayres, McHenry & Associates (Republican).
What they found was that three out of four American voters support the EPA setting tougher standards on specific air pollutants, including mercury, smog and carbon dioxide, as well as setting higher fuel efficiency standards for heavy duty trucks.
Perhaps most relevant to the current debate in Congress, according to the ALA, is that "68 percent of voters oppose Congressional action that impedes the EPA from updating clean air standards generally and 64 percent oppose Congressional efforts to stop the EPA from updating standards on carbon dioxide."
"Voters clearly recognize and respect the role of the EPA in protecting their families from breathing toxic air," said Paul Billings, vice president for national policy and advocacy at the American Lung Association. "They don’t want Congress to interfere with the EPA's authority to take action when lives are clearly at stake."
The House has proposed cutting the EPA’s budget by one third.
"The survey clearly indicates that voters strongly trust the EPA to deal with clean air standards more than Congress," reads a memo from the two pollsters to the ALA. "A bipartisan 69 percent majority believes that EPA scientists, rather than Congress, should set pollution standards. This is despite opposing language arguing that our elected representatives in Congress would do a better job than 'unelected bureaucrats at the EPA.'"
The full survey, along with slides and a memo from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and Ayres, McHenry and Associates, can be found here.
American Voters Want EPA, Not Congress, to Set Standards
Authored by:
Scott Edward Anderson
Scott Edward Anderson is currently global marketing director for cleantech at Ernst & Young. He is the founder of the popular blog, The Green Skeptic, and the VerdeStrategy consultancy. He has held management positions with Ashoka and The Nature Conservancy and is co-founder of the Cleantech Alliance Mid-Atlantic. An award-winning poet, Scott was a John Sawhill Conservation Leadership Fellow, ...
Other Posts by Scott Edward Anderson
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
A guest says:
While I would agree that the EPA and administrator Jackson have over-stepped their chrter on occasion -- trying to regulate farm dust, for example -- I don't think advocating wooping anybody's ass is a good solution.A guest says:
Dr. Spock notwithstanding, there are times when a "trip to the woodshed" is the most effective means of dealing with a "failure to communicate".
I would suggest that a 1/3 cut in the EPA budget would constitute the equivalent of a "trip to the woodshed".
Global climate change is. by definition, a global issue. International diplomacy is the proper role of the President and the Department of State, not a domestic environmental regulatory agency. The negotiation of international treaties is the proper role of the President and the Department of State. The ratification of international treaties is the proper role of the Senate. The development of US environmental laws is the proper role of the Congress. The proper role of US EPA is developing and implementing regulations to achieve the objectives of legislation passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President. The proper role of US EPA is NOT to revise and extend the law to suit its institutional preferences.
US EPA is not capable of "solving" the global climate change "problem". US EPA is not capable of protecting the US population from the effects of global climate change. I trust that Administrator Jackson and Majority Leader Boehner both understand those facts. For some reason, Administrator Jackson's actions suggest that she is choosing to ignore those facts. She should not be permitted to do so with impunity.
Scott Edward Anderson says:
I don't disagree with much of what you say, Ed.
I agree that the EPA is not capable of solving the global warming "problem" any more than international bodies have been able to. I believe we need to get beyond global warming and concentrate on unlocking our human potential for adaptaion and innovation to address what changes may be coming our way, however great or small.
I also agree that the "proper role of US EPA is developing and implementing regulations to achieve the objectives of legislation passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President."
That said, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote in 2007 that, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA "has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal." (NY Times, April 3, 2007)
My post was reporting on the results of a recent survey that found Americans "strongly trust the EPA to deal with clean air standards more than Congress."
If the Supreme Court and the American people believe the EPA should fulfill the Clean Air Act, they should be allowed to do so.
I want to make sure Administrator Jackson performs her duties in a way that is fair and balanced and kept in check. And I agree with you that "She should not be permitted to do so with impunity."
(Nevertheless, I still think "taking out to the woodshed" is a poor choice of metaphor.)
Thanks for the dialog.
A guest says:
EPA is a creature of Congress. Its budgets are the responsibility of Congress. The laws under which it develops and implements regulations originated in and were passed by the Congress. Some degree of deference would appear to be appropriate, under the circumstances. EPA appears to have lost some degree of perspective regarding its role in life. Restoration of that perspective would appear to be the proper role of Congress. Administrator Jackson is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, as shocking as she might find that reality.
Congressman Boehner and his band of "merry persons" might just whip out a "big can of woop-ass" if that is what it takes to clear up this "failure to communicate".
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Gary Hunt Gary is an Executive-in-Residence at Deloitte Investments with extensive experience in the energy & utility industries. More »
Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at MIT with expertise in energy technology, policy, and innovation. More »
Jim Pierobon helps trade associations/NGOs, government agencies and companies communicate about cleaner energy solutions. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Gary Hunt
- Jesse Jenkins
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Jim Pierobon
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- Dan Yurman

About Social Media Today





