|
|
Joe Biden on EnvironmentFormer Vice President; previously Democratic Senator (DE) |
BIDEN: Those people live on what they call fence lines. [Trump] doesn't understand this. They live near chemical plants that pollute, chemical plants and oil plants and refineries that pollute. I used to live near that when I was growing up in Claymont, Delaware and there are more oil refineries in Marcus Hook and the Delaware River than there is any place, including in Houston at the time. When my mom got in the car to drive me to school, turning the windshield wiper, there'd be an oil slick in the window. That's why so many people in my state were dying and getting cancer. The fact is those frontline communities, it's not a matter of what you're paying them. It matters how you keep them safe. What do you do? You impose restrictions on the pollutions that if the pollutants coming out of those fence line communities.
BIDEN: Oh, I don't think it's too much. Now, I have my own deal. I've laid it out in great detail. [The Green New Deal] was the Democratic Party's adopted platform. It requires for us to move in a direction to fundamentally change the way in which we deal with environment. I'm the guy that ran the Recovery Act which invested over $90 billion in bringing down the cost of renewable energy. So it's now more competitive than it is for coal, or for oil, or for gas. And by the way, before I actually went through the whole thing. I sat down with every one of the major unions, they all endorsed me. And I said, "look, this is good. It's not only good for the environment, it's going to provide jobs and you're not going to lose your jobs. Not producing the same energy producing different kind of energy."
BIDEN: On regulation that relates to fertilizer and water tables: In Delaware, we have a $4 billion poultry industry, and all the manure, a consequence of chickens, is polluting the Chesapeake Bay. We've invested a lot of money, and we found out you can pelletize this and take out the methane, so you can use that fertilizer without the damage that was being done before. The same way with horse manure and cow manure and pig manure. And we can create thousands of jobs in rural America as a consequence of setting up these small industries within communities. That's the way you'll be able to continue to farm without worrying about whether or not you're polluting, & be in a position where you're able to make money by what you do in the transition as well as be able to grow more.
BIDEN: Two ways. Number one, we should provide for your ability to make a lot more money, as farmers, by dealing with you being able to put land in land banks, and you get paid to do that to provide for more open space and provide for the ability of you to be able to be in a position that we are going to pay you for planting certain crops that in fact absorb carbon from the air. That's part of what my plan relates to, in terms of agriculture and the environment. But if you are talking about regulation that relates to fertilizer and water tables, that's a different thing [and requires regulation].
In addition, I would immediately rejoin the Paris climate accord, which I helped put together. I would call on the 100 nations, the 100 major polluters, in the first 100 days, to up the ante and make it clear that in fact if they didn't, there'd be a price to pay.
And lastly, I would be right now organizing the hemisphere and the world, to provide $20 billion for the Amazon, for Brazil no longer to burn the Amazon, so they could have forests. They could have farming [but instead of burning, say], "This is what we're going to do." The region is burning out.
TWO CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Kamala Harris; Jay Inslee.
Utilities and scientists are developing nuclear power reactors that are much smaller than the massive facilities that have been used in past decades. The new reactors, called Small Modular Reactors that the Energy Department's national labs are helping to develop, would produce perhaps 50 to 100 megawatts.
KUCINICH: Absolutely. The aftermath underscores everything that’s wrong in this country about race.
GRAVEL: Yes.
DODD: I would as well. New Orleans and Katrina have become a symbol of everything that went wrong with this administration’s failure to respond to a people in need.
CLINTON: I have proposed a 10-point Gulf Coast Recovery Agenda, because even if we were to give people a right, there is nothing to return to.
BIDEN: We got to step up and pay to rebuild those firehouses, pay to bring those cops back, pay to rebuild those hospitals. It is a nation’s problem, it is not the problem merely of the people of Louisiana or New Orleans. This is an American city incapable on its own of doing this. It’s an American problem. We should guarantee the reconstruction.
RICHARDSON: Yes, I would support that. I would also support the Katrina Recovery Act.
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House. We run tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America. Through our National Environmental Scorecard and Presidential Report Card we hold Congress and the Administration accountable for their actions on the environment. Through regional offices, we build coalitions, promote grassroots power, and train the next generation of environmental leaders. The 2003 National Environmental Scorecard provides objective, factual information about the environmental voting records of all Members of the first session of the 108th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which Members of Congress should be graded. LCV scores votes on the most important issues of the year, including environmental health and safety protections, resource conservation, and spending for environmental programs. Scores are calculated by dividing the number of pro-environment votes by the total number of votes scored. The votes included in this Scorecard presented Members of Congress with a real choice on protecting the environment and help distinguish which legislators are working for environmental protection. Except in rare circumstances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment and issues on which no recorded votes occurred.
To: Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dear Administrator Leavitt:
We are writing to urge you to take prompt and effective action to clean up mercury pollution from power plants. The EPA’s current proposals on mercury fall far short of what the law requires, and they fail to protect the health of our children and our environment. We ask you to carry out the requirements of the Clean Air Act to protect our nation from toxic mercury contamination.
On January 30, 2004, EPA proposed two alternative rules to address mercury emissions. Unfortunately, both of these proposals fail to meet the Clean Air Act directives for cleaning up mercury. EPA's proposals permit far more mercury pollution, and for years longer, than the Clean Air Act allows.
The toxicity of mercury has been proven time and again by scientists around the world. The Agency's own scientists just released a study finding that approximately 630,000 infants were born in the US in the 12-month period, 1999-2000, with blood mercury levels higher than what is considered safe. This is a doubling of previous estimates.
The newest scientific studies show that controlling mercury emissions works. As we saw in Florida, sharp reductions in mercury pollution are mirrored by reductions in nearby fish populations. A study in northern Wisconsin indicated that reductions in the input of mercury from air corresponded with marked reductions in mercury fish tissue levels in the 1990s.
As the Administrator of the EPA, you have the legal authority and the responsibility to address mercury emissions and protect public health. We do not believe that EPA's current proposals are sufficient or defensible. We urge you to withdraw the entire proposed rule package and re-propose a rule for adequate public comment that meets the terms of the 1998 settlement agreement and is promulgated by the December 15, 2004 deadline.
Sen. CANTWELL. I reintroduce today the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation has won the unanimous approval of the Senate several times, but unfortunately has not yet reached the finish line.
There is no doubt, animal fighting is terribly cruel. Dogs and roosters are drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries such as punctured eyes and pierced lungs. It's all done for "entertainment" and illegal gambling. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs, while others allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public.
The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act will strengthen current law by making the interstate transport of animals for the purpose of fighting a felony and increase the punishment to three years of jail time. This is necessary because the current misdemeanor penalty has proven ineffective--considered a "cost of doing business" by those in the animal fighting industry which continues unabated nationwide.
These enterprises depend on interstate commerce, as evidenced by the animal fighting magazines that advertise and promote them. Our bill also makes it a felony to move cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These are razor-sharp knives known as "slashers" and ice pick-like gaffs designed exclusively for cockfights and attached to the birds' legs for fighting.
This is long overdue legislation. It's time to get this felony animal fighting language enacted. It's time for Congress to strengthen the federal law so that it can provide as a meaningful deterrent against animal fighting. Our legislation does not expand the federal government's reach into a new area, but simply aims to make current law more effective. It is explicitly limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects states' rights in the two states where cockfighting is still allowed.