Sam Edmondson writing for Earthjustice describes some tense moments at a June 8th hearing before two subcommittees on the Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works.
The testimony of two paid big polluter advocates claim that future regulations should follow an economic model, rather than the good sense model of children's health shouldn't be determined by corporate profits. Sam makes an excellent closing point that dispels that standard industry argument--the health and mortality costs to all of us far outweigh the corporate costs of compliance.
Especially when it comes to our children.
Especially when it comes to our children.
The hearing room on the 4th floor of the Dirksen Senate Office building was packed—so packed that some onlookers stood in the back of the room to see the action unfold. All had gathered earlier today for "Air Quality and Children's Health," a hearing before members of two subcommittees of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Before a panel of senators sat five witnesses—two of them with the shameful purpose of arguing against air quality standards that protect children's health.
Tension crackled throughout the room when Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) grilled witness, Margo Thorning: "Is your testimony that those suffering from asthma should just get a job? What about those families that are working and have a child with asthma?"
Read more hereThorning had provoked Whitehouse's ire by arguing that health protections against air pollution are untimely and unnecessary. What we really need to do, she said, is focus on economic growth—a thinly veiled version of the polluter mantra that health protections against the pollution they generate cost too much and are unfair, unfair, unfair. Nevermind that the Office of Management of Budget, the Environmental Protection Agency and independent analysts have found this to be untrue.
Link to archived webcast and transcripts.
Click on names for transcripts.
Photo credit: Sura
Subscribe in a reader
