Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Help Support EcoWatch

How Did Coal Money Influence Yesterday's Mercury and Toxics Standards Vote?

Energy
How Did Coal Money Influence Yesterday's Mercury and Toxics Standards Vote?

Oil Change International

By Karen Showalter

Senators voted down a resolution aimed at gutting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Mercury and Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants on June 20 by a vote of 46-53. The 46 senators voting for this anti-science and anti-health resolution are awash in campaign contributions from the very companies that would have profited from its success.

The average senator voting in favor of S.J. Res. 37 has taken more than $212,000 from the coal industry since 1999. The average senator voting against the resolution has taken only $83,000.

That means those voting in favor of mercury-laden toxic air have taken more than 2.5 times the payout from coal companies than those opposing it since 1999.

More broadly, the average senator voting in favor of the resolution has taken almost $580,000 from the oil, gas and coal industries since 1999, while the average senator voting against S.J. Res. 37 has taken $175,000.

During the current Congress, the average senator voting in favor of S.J. Res. 37 has taken almost $63,000 from dirty energy companies while the average nay voter took $22,000.

In total, senators voting in favor of the resolution have taken more than $9.7 million from coal interests since 1999, while those voting against have taken $4.4 million.

The extent to which coal money influences voting is clear when you consider how the senators from coal state West Virginia voted. Sen. Joe Manchin, who voted for the resolution has taken $287,500 from coal interests during this Congress alone. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who voted against the measure, has taken $9,500.

Let’s not forget how wrong it is that any of our representatives are taking any money from the fossil fuel industry. Our fight continues. Find out more by clicking here.

Visit EcoWatch's CLEAN AIR ACT page for more related news on this topic.

 

A meteorologist monitors weather in NOAA's Center for Weather and Climate Prediction on July 2, 2013 in Riverdale, Maryland. Mark Wilson / Getty Images

The Trump White House is now set to appoint two climate deniers to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in one month.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

A plastic bag caught in a tree in New Jersey's Palisades Park. James Leynse / Stone / Getty Images

New Jersey is one step closer to passing what environmental advocates say is the strongest anti-plastic legislation in the nation.

Read More Show Less

Trending

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) talks to reporters during her weekly news conference at the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center on Sept. 18, 2020 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

The House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill to boost clean energy while phasing out the use of coolants in air conditioners and refrigerators that are known pollutants and contribute to the climate crisis, as the AP reported.

Read More Show Less
Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington comforts Marsha Maus, 75, whose home was destroyed during California's deadly 2018 wildfires, on March 11, 2019 in Agoura Hills, California. Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times / Getty Images

By Governor Jay Inslee

Climate Week this year coincides with clear skies in Washington state for the first time in almost two weeks.

In just a few days in early September, Washington state saw enough acres burned – more than 600,000 – to reach our second-worst fire season on record. Our worst fire season came only five years ago. Wildfires aren't new to the west, but their scope and danger today is unlike anything firefighters have seen. People up and down the West Coast – young and old, in rural areas and in cities – were choking on smoke for days on end, trapped in their homes.

Fires like these are becoming the norm, not the exception.

Read More Show Less
Four more years will be enough to cement in place Trump's anti-environmental policies and to make sure it's too late to really change course. Enrique Meseguer / Pixabay

By Bill McKibben

To understand the planetary importance of this autumn's presidential election, check the calendar. Voting ends on November 3—and by a fluke of timing, on the morning of November 4 the United States is scheduled to pull out of the Paris Agreement.

President Trump announced that we would abrogate our Paris commitments during a Rose Garden speech in 2017. But under the terms of the accords, it takes three years to formalize the withdrawal. So on Election Day it won't be just Americans watching: The people of the world will see whether the country that has poured more carbon into the atmosphere than any other over the course of history will become the only country that refuses to cooperate in the one international effort to do something about the climate crisis.

Read More Show Less

Support Ecowatch