ACC-SPAN Washington DC
Ideas flew at Monday's preliminary meeting of the Senate committee on the Environment and Public Works. Most were batted down by the waving hands of opposition, some took flight and will be pushed forward for floor debate.
The committe led off with a controversial proposal by Oklahoma Conservative
James M. Inhofe, with the “Removal of Ethanol Act of 2010” Mr.Inhofe states as a primary benefit that removing or reducing Ethanol from fuel related products will decrease cost of corn (syrup) for edible consumption, moreover,it will decrease cost of fuel pump filters, which is increasing as more ethanol is going bad.
The discussion did not reach a depth as the consensus was very much in opposition of removing ethanol. An option would be to increase production of fuel flex cars instead of getting rid of ethanol.
The Bill was voted 9 in favor of removing the bill
Next was the Democratic legislative team of Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid, and their “Proper Disposal of Mercury Act.”
Most agreed with the need for better disposal of Mercury, there were, however, contentions in the area of storage and transportation. Suggested changes made:
(a) All mercury containers should be placed in a larger container with a tight fitting lid.
(b) Kitty litter or oil-absorbent matter around product during transportation
(c) Label all containers containing mercury
(d) you must wait for a hazardous waste collection day, store products safely in their containers with labels intact, and keep them out of reach of children and pets.
(e) Transport container to a household hazardous collection center in a cardboard box. Secure them so they do not tip over. This will minimize shifting or sliding during sudden or turns.
(f) Transport containers in the back of a pick-up truck or in a car trunk. If you must transport in the passenger compartment, make sure there is adequate ventilation.
Sec. 3 Recycling and Disposal
(a) All state and local agencies will have developed collection/exchange programs for mercury-containing devises, such as thermometers, manometers, and thermostats, and recycling programs for fluorescent light bulbs. All counties and cities must also have household hazardous waste collection programs.
(b) If you improperly dispose of products with mercury in them, they may break and release mercury vapors which are harmful to human and ecological health, so all mercury has to be disposed of properly, if not then heavy taxing will be imposed.
The committee unanimously agreed that proper disposal is necessary. Arlen Specter(D-Pa) brought a good point to the table, reminding us that in 1997 he voted in favor disposing of excess mercury inside the Yucca mountains in Nevada. 6 voted in favor of imposing a tax to fun safe removal and fines be placed on those that don’t dispose of mercury properly.
Next on the roster was Senator David Vitter(D-LA)- “Hybrid Car and Green Environment Act of 2010” which Proposes a minimum quota of 10% to car manufacturers in The United States of America to produce hybrid cars
Sec. 3 Proposes
(a) To reduce the toxic pollutants on city roads
(b) Promote a healthier or green environment for city roads
(c) Reduce the noise pollution on city roads
(d) Reduce the nation’s consumption of automobile fuel
Senator Vitter stated this would not only reduce our dependency on oil and increase jobs as well. Senator Reid(D-NV) speculated the over the higher cost if hybrids, around $7000 stated by Vitter. Senator Specter(D-PA) mentioned the positive response from the Cash for Clunkers rebate receiving up to $4500, “which is more than enough to put on a down payment on a hybrid”. The final decision was that in order to consider the bill more research needed to be done.
Senator Mitch McConnell(R-KY)-“Enhancing Mining Operations Act” definitely had the coal lobby's black fingerprints all over it.
Sec. 2
(a) Redirect $0.01 on the dollar of federal energy tax revenue to Kentucky Center for Technologies, in order to develop technologies that are cleaner and safer, for the fiscal years of 2011 and 2012
Sec. 3 Allow continued production of coal mining industries in absence of EPA permit
(a) Coal mining companies may begin/continue operations in six months of submitting proper permit applications with the EPA
(b) The EPA is not permitted to enforce a stop operations of a mining companies production after a company’s permit application has been submitted for a period of six months and has not been processed.
(c) If the EPA has reviewed and processed the application within the six month time frame, then part (a) of sec. 3 no longer applies
(d) If the EPA processes permit application after the six month period and part (a) has been acted upon, and succinctly find a company incongruent with the environmental guidelines, then that company must have no less than one months notice to stop operations
Christopher Bond(R-MO) opposed sec. 3 (a) “You cannot tell a business mining for over 50 years to stop production while a permit is being processed, it will go out of business.” He proposed a grace period be made to continue production while waiting on the permit. If the permit doesn’t pass then enact sec. 3 (d) . The committee agreed unanimously to revise the wording of Sec. 3 this bill awaits the greenlight.
No comments:
Post a Comment