If we MUST compromise on our health and safety, I don't want congress people corrupted by corporate money to be the ones deciding on the compromise. I will accept an independent body such as the Union of Concerned Scientists but not a bunch of Monsanto-owned know-nothings.
18
This year 1,500,000 Americans will be diagnosed with cancer and 750,000 will die notwithstanding the best cancer treatments.
Over 100,000 chemicals permeate the food, air, water and environment in America.
The Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is a very small step for man - not a giant leap for mankind.
As a nation and a world, we can not afford to allow the profits of industry to triumph over the future health and welfare of humanity.
Over 100,000 chemicals permeate the food, air, water and environment in America.
The Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is a very small step for man - not a giant leap for mankind.
As a nation and a world, we can not afford to allow the profits of industry to triumph over the future health and welfare of humanity.
14
You'd think Times readers and the folks who post here would be the open-minded ones ready to listen, compromise, and arrive at solutions that respected diversity in opinion and in people's orientation to the problem at hand. Fox is famous for dogmatic vitriol and narrow views of the world. Unfortunately, if you read the comments here or the comments to any of a thousand Times articles over the past several years, you see that we are no more open minded or willing to compromise. We are no more respectful of those with different opinions or life styles. Look at the venom spewed about SEC football and sororities in America's southeast. Look at the silliness about Donald Trump, Rick Perry, and the like (and at least those two examples are really beneath the energy these pages have devoted to ridiculing them). Read the tripe about free trade in this weekend's comments (there can only be one view on corporate America - it's evil and our sophomore sociology professor told us so). Read the anger in people's comments about fundamentalist Christians on these pages and tell me these are the folks advocating diversity. So while (at this point) 108 people have posted here about the value of compromise, the truth is these pages are no more open to others' ideas than those at Faux News or anywhere else in America. John Boehner did not grow weary just of his GOP brethren and their failure to listen or govern - he grew weary of the entire whirligig of public discourse - I am weary of it too.
16
I am really taken aback at how shallow and uninformed this column is. Mr. Nocera, you talk with your friend, then write an article putting forward her side with just a call to the other side, which consists of a coalition of many groups? What kind of research is that? Barely blog standards.
There is much more to the politics of this issue than this column puts forth and it does a disservice to many who've been part of the process. And frankly, it gives the wrong impression of what happened. EDF was asked to leave the coalition because it deceived the members and put its own organizational interests above the whole. EDF may have a different idea of what constitutes a decent bill that can pass. That's fine. But its tactics undermined what others were trying to do (strengthen the bill) and it made no sense for coalition members to strategize with them. Mr. Nocera, do your homework.
More importantly, I agree with a previous writer: why are you highlighting differences within the environmental community that your friend complained to you about? Why not talk about the bill itself and what it will and won't do? If you must talk about politics, talk about Senators Vitter and Udall's ties. This column picked low hanging, insignificant fruit. Lazy journalism.
There is much more to the politics of this issue than this column puts forth and it does a disservice to many who've been part of the process. And frankly, it gives the wrong impression of what happened. EDF was asked to leave the coalition because it deceived the members and put its own organizational interests above the whole. EDF may have a different idea of what constitutes a decent bill that can pass. That's fine. But its tactics undermined what others were trying to do (strengthen the bill) and it made no sense for coalition members to strategize with them. Mr. Nocera, do your homework.
More importantly, I agree with a previous writer: why are you highlighting differences within the environmental community that your friend complained to you about? Why not talk about the bill itself and what it will and won't do? If you must talk about politics, talk about Senators Vitter and Udall's ties. This column picked low hanging, insignificant fruit. Lazy journalism.
15
450 groups oppose this bill because it's weak. The Environmental Defense Fund got hoodwinked from the start into linking arms with the chemical lobby. Now Mr. Nocera is carrying EDFs water. Want the real story? 450 groups lay it out here: http://saferchemicals.org/2015/10/06/responding-to-joe-noceras-column/
27
Nocera's column is ill-informed and one-sided, giving short shrift to the House legislation ("much narrower"? How so, Joe?) while blatantly favoring his friends at EDF. Safer Chemicals Healthy Families is a wonderful coalition and this columnist surely has better things to do with his time than carrying water for a deeply compromised organization like EDF.
6
Yes the super pious environmentalists can be insufferable. I thought this was well laid out in John Tierney's column on recycling a couple of days ago. He compared these unyielding & uncompromising zealots with religious fanatics, and indeed they have stood in the way of many meaningful steps forward towards an overall better environment for all.
I have always been taught (and try to pass to my own children) the dictum that half a loaf is better than no loaf. But when no-compromise activists that Mr. Nocera cites insist on all or nothing, we often get nothing!
A parallel can be seen in the major step forward that the TPP represents. The inclusion of environmental conditions in the agreement is a huge step forward, yet it's not good enough for the true believers who will oppose it. They want the type of nut case legislation the CA & NY state have passed banning virtually any & all trade in ivory; no matter how many centuries old it is or what priceless art work it represents - ban it all!
I have always been taught (and try to pass to my own children) the dictum that half a loaf is better than no loaf. But when no-compromise activists that Mr. Nocera cites insist on all or nothing, we often get nothing!
A parallel can be seen in the major step forward that the TPP represents. The inclusion of environmental conditions in the agreement is a huge step forward, yet it's not good enough for the true believers who will oppose it. They want the type of nut case legislation the CA & NY state have passed banning virtually any & all trade in ivory; no matter how many centuries old it is or what priceless art work it represents - ban it all!
3
The uber-environmentalists have never really been a problem because their numbers are few and with one or two exceptions, they tend to be harmless cranks. That is not the same as people who are deeply offended by commerce in the products of illegal poaching, or more recently, so-called 'conflict diamonds' from Africa, where illegal mining operations encourage and sustain armed conflict on an enormous scale. By closing down commercial outlets, those who profit from that illicit trade are less able to turn the products of those conflicts into ready cash. For the same reason, sober-minded people enact and enforce prohibitions against importation of looted artifacts from archaeological sites, stolen works of art, and other products from endangered species.
Just because the middleman or the ultimate purchaser does not have animal blood on his hands does not make his participation in that trafficking any less wrongful.
I would certainly disagree with your statement that ivory-infused artifacts of known provenance that predate anti-poaching regulations are automatically excluded from importation or sale, either within the United States generally, or within the several states. In California, private possession of any part or product of an animal listed as an endangered species must antedate January 1, 1985. Nonetheless, the burden of proof always lies with the owner or importer to overcome the presumption that the artifact involved comes within a lawful exception.
Just because the middleman or the ultimate purchaser does not have animal blood on his hands does not make his participation in that trafficking any less wrongful.
I would certainly disagree with your statement that ivory-infused artifacts of known provenance that predate anti-poaching regulations are automatically excluded from importation or sale, either within the United States generally, or within the several states. In California, private possession of any part or product of an animal listed as an endangered species must antedate January 1, 1985. Nonetheless, the burden of proof always lies with the owner or importer to overcome the presumption that the artifact involved comes within a lawful exception.
1
The case for compromise? That's exactly what Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families has been doing over the last two years, and the bill has improved as a result. As someone who has worked on TSCA reform for years, this column reads more like a recount of a divorce by someone who knows nothing about the relationship, rather than journalism. At the end of the day the conversation around protecting our health from toxic chemicals isn't about coalition politics it's about substance. Reiterating the talking point that "perfect can't be the enemy of the good" misses the point. The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families campaign has never been about waiting for the perfect version of TSCA reform, it's been about finding a 'moderate yet meaningful' overhaul of our chemical safety laws. If it weren't for the leadership of Andy Igrejas and the coalition the bill wouldn't have seen significant improvements for public health.
9
Does that mean SCHF supports the Senate bill?
Compromise is an absolutely essential ingredient of democracy (take note, far right Republicans). Without it, we can't live together. Democracy, at base, requires us to accept things we don't like to live in an orderly society and, it is to be hoped, to get somethings we do like. However...
...I have seen decades of how compromise often works in the nation's capital. Problems arise, big deal solutions are then proposed. Good, so far. After years of huffing and puffing, a bill is proposed. Then, the bill is hacked to death. What had in the past been illegal or at least considered immoral becomes codified into law and the needs of the public are sold
down
the
river.
The fundamental problem is that the "voice of the people" is not strong enough, the pro-business lobbyists are at their tasks full time, well paid.
Yes, I will take minor improvements over nothing, but be aware that some improvements are attached to poison or almost poison pills. Every year or two, you have to go back and fix the things that were messed up at the start. It is a long, never ending task.
...I have seen decades of how compromise often works in the nation's capital. Problems arise, big deal solutions are then proposed. Good, so far. After years of huffing and puffing, a bill is proposed. Then, the bill is hacked to death. What had in the past been illegal or at least considered immoral becomes codified into law and the needs of the public are sold
down
the
river.
The fundamental problem is that the "voice of the people" is not strong enough, the pro-business lobbyists are at their tasks full time, well paid.
Yes, I will take minor improvements over nothing, but be aware that some improvements are attached to poison or almost poison pills. Every year or two, you have to go back and fix the things that were messed up at the start. It is a long, never ending task.
2
It is unfortunate that the ever stronger non-profits in the US have more to gain through intransigence. As long as this is the case we as a society will continue to suffer the consequences.
In a nation that is made up of far too many scientific illiterates any kind of compromise around chemistry and technology is endemically endangered from inception. Coupled with the socioeconomics interests of private business chemical industry manufacturers, distributors and sellers any kind of political advancement is tough. But the notion of false moral and justice equivalence is flawed. Human health and safety concerns occupy the moral humane justice high ground in contrast with mere commercial interests.
4
Our democracy was built on compromise. It is the magic that drives us toward a more perfect union. The Affordale Care Act is a great example. It is a Republican plan passed entirely by Democrats. The left demanded a single payer system. The right wanted no change. The result imperfect but at the same time assures that no participant will be bankrupted by medical costs. A major benefit for millions of Americans. Thanks Joe for your timely much needed column. You are spot on.
3
Yet another column which does an inside baseball treatment of our political process. Honestly, I could care less who is involved and whether they compromise, or play smart politics or not. What I want to know is, what chemical problems does this leave unaddressed that might harm me and/or have lasting effects on the environment? To treat that as some political football that can be tossed back and forth until some compromise is reached, is to fail to realize why Americans are so frustrated with our political system. We are asking politicians to save us from things that will kill us. And forgive us if we aren't willing to "give a little."
9
Paula, it's good that you want to know "what chemical problems does this leave unaddressed . . ."
The answer was in the article: the bill requires EPA to start working on currently unregulated chemicals. So it leaves many chemical problems unaddressed, while starting to address others.
Gridlock doesn't come from people failing to get what they want; it comes from people insisting that NOTHING should happen until they get what they want. The reasons - whether protect gun rights; save us from chemicals that harm us; ban all abortions - seem to always be more important than making progress.
Said another way, every month that this bill is not passed delays added protections against some chemicals . . . and who bears that responsibility?
The answer was in the article: the bill requires EPA to start working on currently unregulated chemicals. So it leaves many chemical problems unaddressed, while starting to address others.
Gridlock doesn't come from people failing to get what they want; it comes from people insisting that NOTHING should happen until they get what they want. The reasons - whether protect gun rights; save us from chemicals that harm us; ban all abortions - seem to always be more important than making progress.
Said another way, every month that this bill is not passed delays added protections against some chemicals . . . and who bears that responsibility?
5
I live in California, and Mr. Nocera is suggesting that I should support this bill because even though it limits my state's ability to regulate harmful chemicals, it offsets this by regulating chemicals in other states that refuse to protect their citizens.
I suspect that if the legislation was about guns, and the compromise was to limit New York's ability to regulate guns, while increasing slightly federal regulation in neighboring states, Mr. Nocera would oppose that legislation just as eloquently as he supports this bill.
I suspect that if the legislation was about guns, and the compromise was to limit New York's ability to regulate guns, while increasing slightly federal regulation in neighboring states, Mr. Nocera would oppose that legislation just as eloquently as he supports this bill.
2
The bill allows states that have regulations on the books to keep those regulations, even silly ones like Prop 65.
3
Compromise-dead in the house.
1
I honestly cannot wait for past generations and their feudalistic mentalities to die off.
2
I guess the groups that oppose the compromise are full of supporters of Sanders for the Democratic nomination. "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees," and so on. Delusional.
4
So am I to understand this correctly? One group on the left doesn't want to compromise because the bill, in their estimation, doesn't go far enough and another (the House) on the right that doesn't want to compromise because, in their estimation, the bill goes too far? When did I fall down the rabbit hole? I'm shaking the cobwebs out of my head at the moment in (continual) disbelieve. A pox on both your houses.
2
The bill has close to 60 sponsors, both Ds and Rs alike, so I'd say it's about as bipartisan as you can get.
2
As a chemist by training, I have long concluded that I must be my own "decider" about what is safe to have in the house and what is not. What is save to pour down the drain and what is not. Most important however is that I have no influence over what the chemical industry disposes into our waterways and lakes. That might show up n my drinking water if government dos not reign it in.
8
Other laws like the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, etc., cover disposal practices by companies.
3
So this compromise bill allows chemical industries to ignore the laws of the most populous state in return for a promise that the few residents of Pig Knuckle, Louisiana might someday, in the nebulous future, no longer pay as much for the mistake of electing the corrupt clowns that they did? Hail Democracy, the corporations' dream!
10
If you actually read the bill, you'll notice that all current state laws are not preempted, even ones as silly as Prop 65. Welcome to Pig Knuckle.
2
Ooh, the horrible, terrible, no good, really bad law that prohibits letting known carcinogens into the drinking water! Protect us from it!
2
It is important to remember that our Constitution came to fruition through reaching the Massachusetts Compromise with the two noted anti-Federalists, John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Democracy is enfeebled and our form of government is paralyzed without compromise.
Our politicians should heed Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's advice, "Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable - the art of the next best."
Our best hope for an effective government lies with the electorate voting for compromising conciliators as their leaders and punishing the inflexible demagogues.
Our politicians should heed Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's advice, "Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable - the art of the next best."
Our best hope for an effective government lies with the electorate voting for compromising conciliators as their leaders and punishing the inflexible demagogues.
13
I follow the argument and if it passes the legislation will be an improvement over the status quo. There's a lot to dislike but perhaps something is better than nothing. It's nice for once to see Mr. Nocera not claiming expertise in the energy field, but addressing his recommendation of useful compromise to Lautenberg's work (a man whose ethical intelligence is sorely missed).
There are ethical and human survival issues with our assumption of the right to poison our environment for the sake of convenience and maintaining our lifestyle. We all do it, with very rare exception, since it is almost impossible to get by in westernized culture without all this stuff. We are told that wealth and technology will take care of it, but fix it later doesn't cut it.
"Don't scare the horses" has encouraged do-nothingism to the extent that vast populations are unaware of the serious consequences of the physical and chemical brinksmanship we take as normal.
Marketing is a runaway wagon that is directing traffic towards ever more convenience, ever more packaging, ever more waste. Too bad most people don't realize how toxic all that stuff is; it doesn't just magically disappear. The bubble of two dimensional living is threatened by a very real three-dimensional world, overcrowded and bursting at the seams, reliant on "better living through chemistry" and damn the torpedoes; gotta have stuff, gotta have excitement, gotta trend ...
It's time to wake up, not tomorrow, but today.
There are ethical and human survival issues with our assumption of the right to poison our environment for the sake of convenience and maintaining our lifestyle. We all do it, with very rare exception, since it is almost impossible to get by in westernized culture without all this stuff. We are told that wealth and technology will take care of it, but fix it later doesn't cut it.
"Don't scare the horses" has encouraged do-nothingism to the extent that vast populations are unaware of the serious consequences of the physical and chemical brinksmanship we take as normal.
Marketing is a runaway wagon that is directing traffic towards ever more convenience, ever more packaging, ever more waste. Too bad most people don't realize how toxic all that stuff is; it doesn't just magically disappear. The bubble of two dimensional living is threatened by a very real three-dimensional world, overcrowded and bursting at the seams, reliant on "better living through chemistry" and damn the torpedoes; gotta have stuff, gotta have excitement, gotta trend ...
It's time to wake up, not tomorrow, but today.
19
Sorry, Joe and Fred Krupp lost the ear of this environmentalist (and the EDF a regular contribution) when they nuzzled up to fracking interests. Joe nationwide, with a paean to T Boone Pickens which (deliberately?) misled readers by conflating old technology vertical fracking with the new horizontal fracking, about which much less is known about the risks and the chemical cocktail in use. Krupp deigned to pronounce that fracking was inevitable in New York and that we all should make peace with that. He's now out in the cold since Andy Cuomo surprisingly went for the indefinite fracking moratorium.
I am utterly unconvinced that either Joe or Fred has environmental stewardship credibility at all.
Finally, what chance does this bill have in the House, where EPA is a four letter word?
I am utterly unconvinced that either Joe or Fred has environmental stewardship credibility at all.
Finally, what chance does this bill have in the House, where EPA is a four letter word?
4
The House bill is not quite as complex as the Senate bill and passed by a vote of 398 to 1.
3
The chemical industry has no business in crafting legislation designed to regulate it.
20
Without the chemical industry's input, regulators have no idea what they're even discussing. That would be like the medical industry not being allowed to comment on legislation regulating medical devices (you MAY want some medical practitioners and/or device manufacturers to give their opinion). That doesn't mean the chemical industry should have final say in what laws are passed, just that there has to be some consideration of how laws will actually AFFECT the real world. For instance, it would be easy to craft a safety law saying, "no poisonous substances will be permitted within city limits." Those who deal with chemicals, despite their obvious bias, would be correct in saying that "poison" is almost always a question of dosage and that legislators were about to open a floodgate of problems in every industry across the nation.
6
This act to control chemicals unless it is written by the lobbyists for the chemical industry shall not pass until the voters speak and maybe if there is not a Democratic landslide then. The particulars of this bill do not matter what does matter is that it is a government regulation of business, it is bipartisan and not part of the GOP agenda. .
It was was the product of compromise rather than Republican extortion, the y way that R's “legislate” in the absence of a majority of the votes necessary to do so by constitutional means. Their policy is deadlock to protect their benefactors like the NRA and big business. So congress does nothing about the daily slaughter of gun violence in America. Their response: “Stuff happens.” Yes it does but too often and to too many people. Kill a fetus it murder. Kill a class room filled with kids with a handgun with 30 shots and “things happen.”
Regulation of chemicals is in the public interest and the new breed of anti government radicals in the House majority under the GOP House rules do not recognize that the public interest exists.
Congressional scholars Mann and Ornstein have concluded that the “Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” So much for the public interest.
It was was the product of compromise rather than Republican extortion, the y way that R's “legislate” in the absence of a majority of the votes necessary to do so by constitutional means. Their policy is deadlock to protect their benefactors like the NRA and big business. So congress does nothing about the daily slaughter of gun violence in America. Their response: “Stuff happens.” Yes it does but too often and to too many people. Kill a fetus it murder. Kill a class room filled with kids with a handgun with 30 shots and “things happen.”
Regulation of chemicals is in the public interest and the new breed of anti government radicals in the House majority under the GOP House rules do not recognize that the public interest exists.
Congressional scholars Mann and Ornstein have concluded that the “Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” So much for the public interest.
18
I guess you don't understand what the word "bipartisan" means.
3
Certainly there are legitimate reasons and issues ripe for compromise. it's part of our daily lives. However, there are times that compromise makes no sense. Unfortunately, the Republican party has swung so far into outer space that in many cases compromise would still mean bad new for our nation and humanity. would you compromise when it comes to your children's health? Of course not. A prime example in today's political environment is the issue of climate change. On one hand we have a very clear signal from the best science. climate change is very real, it is bearing down on us right now and it is mainly caused by humans burning fossil fuels AND consuming massive quantities if meat. These two reasons alone account for the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions.
So we have Dems, Pres. Obama, the Pope, our own military and many in business saying this is true and we want to tackle this existential issue. We have the majority of Republicans who say they don't believe climate change is real and certainly don't believe it's caused by us humans.
Should we compromise when one person or group is either lying through their teeth or just ignorant of the facts and science? When people choose ignorance, how do you suggest we compromise, especially when the future of our children and all life is at stake? How do you compromise with a worldview that simply ignores the reality, the science and facts (there really are such things as "facts").
So we have Dems, Pres. Obama, the Pope, our own military and many in business saying this is true and we want to tackle this existential issue. We have the majority of Republicans who say they don't believe climate change is real and certainly don't believe it's caused by us humans.
Should we compromise when one person or group is either lying through their teeth or just ignorant of the facts and science? When people choose ignorance, how do you suggest we compromise, especially when the future of our children and all life is at stake? How do you compromise with a worldview that simply ignores the reality, the science and facts (there really are such things as "facts").
8
"...(Climate change) mainly caused by humans burning fossil fuels AND consuming massive quantities if meat. These two reasons alone account for the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions."
Not even close to correct. Please read more.
Not even close to correct. Please read more.
The biggest flaw in the "no compromise" approach is that it assumes someone actually knows the entire "perfect" solution up-front. On complex issues, this is never the case. If you passed a "no compromise" bill, reality would soon demonstrate all of its flaws and unintended consequences, and its opponents would cite this as proof that you were wrong to begin with. The proponents would be so personally vested in the "perfect" solution as to be unwilling to change it.
Better to put in an admittedly imperfect solution, and adapt it as you learn. This is how almost all human progress takes place.
Better to put in an admittedly imperfect solution, and adapt it as you learn. This is how almost all human progress takes place.
6
Brian, look through the Comments section & you'll find plenty convinced they're the possessors of "perfect" solutions. On many many topics..
1
There really are two issues here. Joe asks us to accept the idea that compromise is a good principle. Fine.
Secondly, Joe seems to be saying that the proposed compromise on this particular Bill is a good one. I don't think I have any way of knowing that from this column, especially since I live in California. But putting aside my residence for the moment, we know from this column that significant improvements to the bill were extracted from the chemical industry only because environmental hardliners did not agree to earlier compromises. How many concessions to clean air make a good compromise?
Secondly, Joe seems to be saying that the proposed compromise on this particular Bill is a good one. I don't think I have any way of knowing that from this column, especially since I live in California. But putting aside my residence for the moment, we know from this column that significant improvements to the bill were extracted from the chemical industry only because environmental hardliners did not agree to earlier compromises. How many concessions to clean air make a good compromise?
17
Wait a sec. Would this bill ever pass in the GOP-controlled House, where the "Freedom Caucus'" has mounted a concerted effort to destroy the capabilities -- and perhaps the very existence -- of the EPA?
And it's all very well to say that preemption won't cripple effective state regulation because it's time-limited, but how much time would have to elapse before states could recover their regulatory authority? Sufficient delay (perhaps augmented by "extensions") could effectively kill state action.
There's just not enough info here to determine whether this bill is an example of constructive compromise or just more ineffectual wheel-spinning in our massively broken government. In fact, the only tentative conclusion that I can draw from the information provided is that -- over a controversy in which reasonable people can disagree -- it seems petty to boot the Moms Clean Air Force out of the SCHF coalition.
And Joe, the intransigence and destructive influence of the ideologically purist left, however real, is as nothing to the horrific damage wrought by the radical extremists on the right. Paralysis in DC is principally a Republican pastime. Indeed, for many Republicans, it is the whole point.
And it's all very well to say that preemption won't cripple effective state regulation because it's time-limited, but how much time would have to elapse before states could recover their regulatory authority? Sufficient delay (perhaps augmented by "extensions") could effectively kill state action.
There's just not enough info here to determine whether this bill is an example of constructive compromise or just more ineffectual wheel-spinning in our massively broken government. In fact, the only tentative conclusion that I can draw from the information provided is that -- over a controversy in which reasonable people can disagree -- it seems petty to boot the Moms Clean Air Force out of the SCHF coalition.
And Joe, the intransigence and destructive influence of the ideologically purist left, however real, is as nothing to the horrific damage wrought by the radical extremists on the right. Paralysis in DC is principally a Republican pastime. Indeed, for many Republicans, it is the whole point.
19
I think it is important for people to remember that not everything has to be done at once. Yes, this bill only regulates 25 chemicals but get that passed and immediately start a new bill on more. It is an on going work that needs to be done by compromise and in chunks. The all or nothing way to go is an almost impossible road to travel when it covers a whole nation of different people. That way lies continued stagnation.
4
When it comes to public safety, there should be little or no compromise.
5
i.e. little or no progress.
Wouldn't it be great if the names given to all sorts of legislation actually were truthful. During the Bush 43 Administration, for instance, the Clean Air and Waterways Act was nothing more than a law to emasculate the EPA, thus enabling corporations to pollute and contaminate those very same air and waterways, at will?
The only reason why we cannot have a web sit that lists the various contributors to Congressional Campaigns is that the Senators and Congressmen do not want to bite-off the hand that feeds them. And mighty well, I might add! But, the big payday is when they retire and go to "work", in one capacity or another.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The only reason why we cannot have a web sit that lists the various contributors to Congressional Campaigns is that the Senators and Congressmen do not want to bite-off the hand that feeds them. And mighty well, I might add! But, the big payday is when they retire and go to "work", in one capacity or another.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
You're kidding, right? Of course there is a website that lists the contributions made to Federal lawmakers. It's called opensecrets.org and is run by the Center for Responsive Politics. Here's the current page for David Vitter: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009659&cyc..., and here's the page for Tom Udall: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00006561&cyc....
Opensecrets. org has been around since the late 1990s and has won numerous awards.
Opensecrets. org has been around since the late 1990s and has won numerous awards.
7
If I'm not mistaken there are upwards of 80,000 untested chemicals on the market & in our environment. Along with the auto and pharmaceutical industries the chemical industry performs its own tests and then shares the results with the government. We are all learning how well that went with VW.
Perhaps the private industries should take the money slated for their in-house testing and give it to the appropriate governmental agency to provide a disinterested opinion. It's how science is done.
Perhaps the private industries should take the money slated for their in-house testing and give it to the appropriate governmental agency to provide a disinterested opinion. It's how science is done.
16
Most of the testing is done at independent, third-party laboratories. Also, there are not 80,000 chemicals in commerce. According to EPA's chemical data reporting website, less than 8,000 chemicals are reported in commercial amounts.
1
Oh, "commercial" amounts. I get it. A lobbyist term. Rachel Carson would laugh at that 8 thousand number, she citing 30,000 in the sixties, 30,000 new substances never before seen on the face of the earth. But then, never mind these silent springs. Drink deep, there's no money in limiting our toxic spiral.
2
We hear a lot about states' rights when that concept affects whether groups can achieve their goals.That's where "Blah, blah, blah" comes into the picture. When it suits their interest, advocates tout states' rights unless it's easier to get what they want at the national level.
We are also the "United" States and there's a lot of commerce across state lines. That's a conflict for large corporations, but also for the citizens of the country because none of us lives in a walled enclave shut off from the effects of what happens in the rest of the nation.
If the idea of compromise at the national level means anything good, it would be that we are recognizing that regulation is necessary and that we are seeking the best kind of regulation that works for the common good. Ideally, that wouldn't just apply to the environment. As long as there's a conflict between the states and federal government, that division can be exploited. It's not really just a matter of compromise.
We are also the "United" States and there's a lot of commerce across state lines. That's a conflict for large corporations, but also for the citizens of the country because none of us lives in a walled enclave shut off from the effects of what happens in the rest of the nation.
If the idea of compromise at the national level means anything good, it would be that we are recognizing that regulation is necessary and that we are seeking the best kind of regulation that works for the common good. Ideally, that wouldn't just apply to the environment. As long as there's a conflict between the states and federal government, that division can be exploited. It's not really just a matter of compromise.
1
Compromise is necessary.
But the devil is in the enforcement.
And what matters is enforcement, and neither party's leaders are willing to enforce such laws because most Americans just don't get the need to most to cleaner, more sustainable, less environmentally-destructive practices, even as the environment collapses around and on top of them.
But the devil is in the enforcement.
And what matters is enforcement, and neither party's leaders are willing to enforce such laws because most Americans just don't get the need to most to cleaner, more sustainable, less environmentally-destructive practices, even as the environment collapses around and on top of them.
7
I'm all for compromise, as practiced to at least some extent in the pre-money soaked US governmental system. As it is, actors with no interest in the common good, and in some cases interests diametrically opposed to same, armed with enough money, can buy compromise even when compromise leads to a bad outcome for the nation as a whole. In some instances, and I would consider health matters to be a leading example, compromise seems little better than nothing. Yet another screaming example as to why it is in our nation's vital interest to somehow get the money out of government, so that decisions can be made on the basis of fact based reasoning. Then and only then will the benefits of thoughtful compromise be fully realized.
1
The same concept applies to gun control. The extreme left has the ultimate goal of banning all guns. The extreme right (and the NRA in particular) wants gun sales to be unrestricted and unregulated. As long as these two sides dominate the discussion, nothing will happen.
We might make progress with a compromise that (1) acknowledges the right of law abiding citizens to own guns and (2) agrees that laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill are justified and necessary.
Of course, the devil is in the details. Will conservatives see gun registration as the first step to ultimate confiscation? Will liberals oppose oppose "stop and frisk" in high gun crime areas as profiling, or oppose identification of the mentally ill as an invasion of privacy?
I'm betting the extremes will prevail and therefore nothing will happen.
We might make progress with a compromise that (1) acknowledges the right of law abiding citizens to own guns and (2) agrees that laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill are justified and necessary.
Of course, the devil is in the details. Will conservatives see gun registration as the first step to ultimate confiscation? Will liberals oppose oppose "stop and frisk" in high gun crime areas as profiling, or oppose identification of the mentally ill as an invasion of privacy?
I'm betting the extremes will prevail and therefore nothing will happen.
22
Exactly. There can be no compromise, as the Republican party decided a long time ago (e.g., Gingrich) that as a minority the only way to achieve the power they crave is to wage politics as war. Under this mindset no compromises are allowed. And since it has largely worked they must continue down this road. Even when Republican ideas are presented to the Republicans by the Democrats, as for example with Obamacare (Romneycare) the Republicans oppose it. The Republican base demands that the culture be "taken back." Since this cannot really be done (the people, not laws determine the culture), we as a society just spins our wheels with no progress possible.
The only thing that can change things is when the American people have suffered enough to finally admit that the culture cannot be legislated and there is no free lunch. To live the great life we all demand requires sacrifice. Much more pain will be required to wake up people. Until then the mass murder shootings will continue. It will take a catastrophic shooting to move the needle. Otherwise it will just be one slaughter after another with most people not caring (although they won't admit it) because they assume it will never impact them. Too bad.
The only thing that can change things is when the American people have suffered enough to finally admit that the culture cannot be legislated and there is no free lunch. To live the great life we all demand requires sacrifice. Much more pain will be required to wake up people. Until then the mass murder shootings will continue. It will take a catastrophic shooting to move the needle. Otherwise it will just be one slaughter after another with most people not caring (although they won't admit it) because they assume it will never impact them. Too bad.
1
We do NOT hear "banning all guns" in any way dominating the discussion.
On the contrary, it is the refusal of the gun lobby to acknowledge the need for any restrictions, no matter how reasonable, that stymies action. Every statement by President Obama or proposal by the gun safety proponents includes the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Your completely false equivalency easily betrays which side you are on, and that is the side of "no compromise." Your bogeyman "proposing to ban all guns" has driven the fears of gun owners and the insane proliferation in gun sales in the past few years.
On the contrary, it is the refusal of the gun lobby to acknowledge the need for any restrictions, no matter how reasonable, that stymies action. Every statement by President Obama or proposal by the gun safety proponents includes the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Your completely false equivalency easily betrays which side you are on, and that is the side of "no compromise." Your bogeyman "proposing to ban all guns" has driven the fears of gun owners and the insane proliferation in gun sales in the past few years.
6
You have described the extreme left as having the "ultimate goal of banning all guns." I don't know anybody who actually believes this, though it might come out of us in desperation sometimes. Its a strawman, argument, I see it all over the right wing blogosphere, with its "they're coming for our hunting rifles," rhetoric. They speak about the "draconian" Australian law, which does not take away all guns, but allows for hunting rifles, even handguns, with licensing and training. The "extreme right" actually exists, the "extreme left" is a figment of your imagination, it doesn't exist as an organized group. Or, let's see the statement of the mainstream gun control people, and compare that to the mainstream gun rights people -- uh oh --they are one and the same.
1
"But the chemical industry,tired of dealing with different state standards, insisted on it".
Hmmmm. You know the auto industry felt that way about California as well. So did the motorcycle industry. Guess what they did - they made their cars and bikes "50 state". That is, they made them all up to California standards since these regs were most stringent. And now guess what happened - every state, including red states that would let cars burn coal if they could, received cleaner air. Neat huh?
Wouldn't that have been a better solution for the chem industry. Well I suppose not, because then they would have to be safe and clean everywhere instead of just those pesky blue states. They'd much prefer to poison and polute somewhere.
And did you write that this bill regulates 25 out of "thousands" of chemicals. Are you kidding? We're supposed to consider that regulation. So if there were "thousands" of mass murders out there and we created provisions to corral 25 of them would you feel like The government is doing its job.
Frankly nothing in this piece convinces me that this is even a "compromise".
This looks to me like, as usual, a gift to industry. As you like to say Mr. N.-- follow the money. No here I must agree with the majority in the coalition - this is a sop to industry and it sounds like you Mr. N. are on the payroll.
Hmmmm. You know the auto industry felt that way about California as well. So did the motorcycle industry. Guess what they did - they made their cars and bikes "50 state". That is, they made them all up to California standards since these regs were most stringent. And now guess what happened - every state, including red states that would let cars burn coal if they could, received cleaner air. Neat huh?
Wouldn't that have been a better solution for the chem industry. Well I suppose not, because then they would have to be safe and clean everywhere instead of just those pesky blue states. They'd much prefer to poison and polute somewhere.
And did you write that this bill regulates 25 out of "thousands" of chemicals. Are you kidding? We're supposed to consider that regulation. So if there were "thousands" of mass murders out there and we created provisions to corral 25 of them would you feel like The government is doing its job.
Frankly nothing in this piece convinces me that this is even a "compromise".
This looks to me like, as usual, a gift to industry. As you like to say Mr. N.-- follow the money. No here I must agree with the majority in the coalition - this is a sop to industry and it sounds like you Mr. N. are on the payroll.
33
So we get nothing. Thanks a lot.
Well Grason did you vote? And did you vote republican?
You get what you vote for and you are welcome.
You get what you vote for and you are welcome.
1
It appears you haven't read the bill. It forces EPA to scrutinize chemicals for potential regulation. Under the current law, EPA can choose not to do that. It also requires EPA to use the best available science. The current law doesn't do that. The bill also allows states that have regulations already on the books to continue enforcing those regulations. Kind of like your brilliant Prop 65 law that is the laughing stock for the rest of the country.
Nocera's line of reasoning applies also to the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement. It isn't perfect for any special interest but it's necessary and it's viable, economically and strategically, for the general national interest.
Intransigence on the left or the right is an assured prescription for accomplishing nothing. The political center may be dull, but it's the only place where things get done.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Intransigence on the left or the right is an assured prescription for accomplishing nothing. The political center may be dull, but it's the only place where things get done.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
Mr. Udall is my Senator who I voted for as a liberal Democrat. I heard his arguments, and I don't like that thousands of chemicals will still not be regulated, but in my purple state of New Mexico, virtually no chemicals are regulated. If both sides dislike it these days, it's usually a compromise.
Of course the chemical companies want federal pre-emption. They own Congress but not (all the) state legislatures. More rigorous state laws will be unenforceable, and if we end up with a Republican president (heaven forbid) and thus a Republican in charge of the EPA, the chemical companies will be able to do as they please.
10
The biggest difficulty is not the chemical companies, but lack of scientific knowledge by environmentalists. In the real world it is a major undertaking to change a product's composition when the product is used by hundreds of companies whose own specifications involve that product. Ironic everyone agrees TSCA needs to be updated--actually asbestos was also regulated under TSCA--but nothing is clear cut. PCB's had major benefits, as the increase in transformer fires with mineral oil demonstrates, and recent research indicates the bad actors are not the PCB's, but byproduct reaction chlorinated phenols and weathered byproducts.. The chemical world is not a Manichean universe, and the need, as Mr. Nocera points out, is to develop a process where educated professionals can determine reasonable restrictions upon chemicals after scientific study.
Lack of scientific knowledge is not confined to environmentalists. I seem to have heard several conservatives admit that they are not scientists. And who defines "reasonable" restrictions? The chemical industry will have one set of definitions, and they beleaguered consumers will have quite another. If the definition of "reasonable" rules out "first, do no harm", I'm all for unreasonable.
1
Under this bill, EPA will do everything through public notice and comment, which means that all scientists will have input.
Blah, blah, blah is in fact what's standing in the way of all things notwithstanding.
2
Perfection is what we strive for. Compromise is what we achieve in that process.
1
Joe, there's a problem if you take the notion of compromise to its logical conclusion. Let's say you want to pour contaminants in the river, and I don't want you to. What might you suggest is the compromise?
14
Nice example
Joe's talking about political compromise, not compromise on pollution. The Clean Water Act covers whether or not someone can pour something into the water, not TSCA.
The spirit of legislating requires that significant interests compromise unless one side holds a very large majority, which usually does not last very long. Republicans want a republican czar, who can ignore or penalize, through the law, people who do not agree. That is not how you make opportunities for a better life better more widespread in America. It is how you start wars.
5
Replace "Republicans" with "Democrats". Same thing...
The GOP strategy is designed specifically to exacerbate & exaggerate differences of opinion in order to obfuscate & block any federal governance. This simple albeit dangerous approach to governing allows Corporations to thrive & the stock market to flourish although does nothing to protect citizens from harm. The GOP has spun their magic to brainwash ordinary rural Tea Party voters to believe that they're in danger of illegals, abortions, terrorists, people who want to take away their guns, minorities, gays & lazy people who are "takers" from the government. They've somehow convinced these same primarily rural & suburban Tea Partiers that they need: Job Creators, Traditional Marriage, Pro Life, Drill Baby Drill & $50 tax cuts. In fact, they've brainwashed voters, w/ Koch's help, to believe that climate change is a "hoax" concocted by left-wing Socialists designed to destroy the American way of life. The GOP says the EPA is bad for America because it destroys jobs. The new GOP choice for Speaker of the House is a toss up between Kevin McCarthy who represents the dirty fossil fuel industry & big Agribusiness of Fresno vs. Jason Chaffetz, the public spokesman for a pyramid scheme Corporation called Nu Skin, which is still the biggest supporter of his political career. The FTC as well as the FBI & SEC have opened probes into Nu Skin's pyramid operations. With Koch Industries backed ALEC legislation, states have also abdicated responsibility for the well being of citizens.
5
I've done negotiations in the past, and I am absolutely convinced that incrementalism is the way to go. You get what you can when you can get it, you sign the deal, and the next day you go right back to the bargaining table to start hammering on the things you still wish to improve.
One analogy I like is that it's the difference between National League-style baseball and American League-style. In the NL, you traditionally get runners on base, steal, bunt, sacrifice, and score one run at a time. In the AL style, you traditionally sit around and wait for homers, and score all your runs at once. In politics and collective bargaining, these "home run moments" are extremely rare, and you must instead constantly take a little of what you want while you can.
Over time, you can in this way get the regime you want, but it takes patience and skill--two attributes sorely missing from the body politic.
One analogy I like is that it's the difference between National League-style baseball and American League-style. In the NL, you traditionally get runners on base, steal, bunt, sacrifice, and score one run at a time. In the AL style, you traditionally sit around and wait for homers, and score all your runs at once. In politics and collective bargaining, these "home run moments" are extremely rare, and you must instead constantly take a little of what you want while you can.
Over time, you can in this way get the regime you want, but it takes patience and skill--two attributes sorely missing from the body politic.
39
"Compromise" should never be a goal. This approach ignores the substance of the matter. Nocera should be writing about why the chemical industry wants toxic substances to be free from reasonable regulation. If you die or get sick from exposure to an unregulated chemical it hardly matters that other chemicals are regulated. Why does the chemical industry want to contaminate the environment? That would be a good subject for a column Mr. Nocera.
43
Responding to tbs: With the all-or-nothing approach (which you advocate) you will get nothing. An improvement is better than nothing. Why do you prefer nothing over an improvement?
tbs writes:
"If you die or get sick from exposure to an unregulated chemical it hardly matters that other chemicals are regulated"
It does matter when lives are saved, which won't happen doing things your way.
"Why does the chemical industry want to contaminate the environment?"
Because it costs less. They don't _want_ to contaminate anything per se; they want to keep costs down to keep up with the competition. This is, of course, why we need gov't regulation: to prevent a race to the bottom.
I'm all in favor of reasonable regulation of toxic waste. But you can't have 100% of anything. Resources are limited.
And just how much harm is being done? Can anyone here say? Maybe a little. Maybe a lot. Maybe none. It matters.
Would you ban automobiles to save lives? That's what you're advocating here.
"If you die or get sick from exposure to an unregulated chemical it hardly matters that other chemicals are regulated"
It does matter when lives are saved, which won't happen doing things your way.
"Why does the chemical industry want to contaminate the environment?"
Because it costs less. They don't _want_ to contaminate anything per se; they want to keep costs down to keep up with the competition. This is, of course, why we need gov't regulation: to prevent a race to the bottom.
I'm all in favor of reasonable regulation of toxic waste. But you can't have 100% of anything. Resources are limited.
And just how much harm is being done? Can anyone here say? Maybe a little. Maybe a lot. Maybe none. It matters.
Would you ban automobiles to save lives? That's what you're advocating here.
The bill in this article would update existing laws that already regulate toxic substances. Is that such a bad thing?
Joe, why didn't you compare this bill with how the European union regulates chemicals? In Europe, the REACH regulation of the European Chemicals Agency is far superior to this bill. The perfect may be the enemy of the good but so is the mediocre the enemy of the good and that's what we get in the U.S., mediocrity in legislation and in the context your editorial places this bill in.
3
In some cases, this may be correct. But in terms of climate change, the "good" is NOT good if life on the planet cannot be salvaged. And Mother Nature does not give a damn about the political process. The better analogy would be to try to argue that we must compromise between taking poison and taking an antidote by continuing to take some of both.
2
Might as well stop sending daily emails asking for money Democrats-I'm voting Republican the next election.
1
Really? With all the disfunction on the debt ceiling, ag bills, highway bills, etc, you have to deep dive on some infighting environmentalists? Blah blah blah, wake me when you get to some real fundamentalist purity.
1
No compromise = civil war.
Remarkable are the things a man will tell himself, once accustomed to bargaining with the Devil.
1
Does this bill represent compromise, or is our health and safety compromised by the bill? When it comes to our health and safety is compromise even appropriate? And better than what we currently have is not reassuring. Like a car with 4 flats, replacing one tire does little to remedy the car's safe use.
According to Nocera "There are thousands of unregulated chemicals, yet the bill calls for the E.P.A. to look at only 25 during the first five years after the bill becomes law." At this rate we could all be exposed to cancer causing chemicals like formaldehyde for years as the chemical industry reaps its profits while this bill actually RESTRICTS the EPA from investigating and regulating them.
After 60 Minutes investigated Lumber Liquidator's for selling flooring with dangerous levels of formaldehyde, I found that there is no recourse available to the public but to sue. I had to find an independent lab and pay for private testing.
So is this what we want from our government? The legal sale of unregulated chemical laced products that we must rely on 60 Minutes to investigate after people become ill? No recourse for harm suffered to your family's health except to sue after the fact? An EPA that is RESTRICTED to investigating, regulating 25 chemicals in 5 years while thousands of potentially vary dangerous chemicals are pumped into our environment?
This bill is not a model for legislative compromise; the bill's purpose and our health and safety are compromised.
According to Nocera "There are thousands of unregulated chemicals, yet the bill calls for the E.P.A. to look at only 25 during the first five years after the bill becomes law." At this rate we could all be exposed to cancer causing chemicals like formaldehyde for years as the chemical industry reaps its profits while this bill actually RESTRICTS the EPA from investigating and regulating them.
After 60 Minutes investigated Lumber Liquidator's for selling flooring with dangerous levels of formaldehyde, I found that there is no recourse available to the public but to sue. I had to find an independent lab and pay for private testing.
So is this what we want from our government? The legal sale of unregulated chemical laced products that we must rely on 60 Minutes to investigate after people become ill? No recourse for harm suffered to your family's health except to sue after the fact? An EPA that is RESTRICTED to investigating, regulating 25 chemicals in 5 years while thousands of potentially vary dangerous chemicals are pumped into our environment?
This bill is not a model for legislative compromise; the bill's purpose and our health and safety are compromised.
2
So, this bill doesn't have to go to the House?. Oh, it does. Then why bother.
1
Small steps forward are always better than no steps forward; and usually lead to more steps forward. The "all or nothing" philosophy will almost always fail and then everyone loses.
39
Once again Mr. Nocera backs industry in their riding roughshod over the American population. I doubt he has actually read the bill. For example-there are to be up to 25 reviews in 5 years, a paltry number given the thousands of chemicals out there with many toxic and carcinogenic, and after the review their is no required time limit to do anything about the findings, no requirement to act quickly, and industry can step up and get many of those 25 slots for ones they want-perhaps asking that less serious materials be looked at diluting the need to control the most dangerous. Any time you have someone from Louisiana's cancer alley involved be careful, be very careful.
2
So, are you saying let's do nothing? When the Democrats controlled the Congress and White House, several partisan bills were introduced to reform TSCA. Both collapsed under their own weight because they were far too complex and had zero support from Republicans. This is the first time that a bill has support from both sides of the aisle. It's about the only opportunity we have to reform TSCA. After all the abuse Udall has received from Boxer and her ilk, I doubt any Democrat would be will to champion another TSCA bill any time soon. If I'm not mistaken, that's the point raised in this article.
"“We have always been clear that the way to get this done is to work in a bipartisan manner to support both Democrats and Republicans who were trying to solve the problem of the old law not working,” said Richard Denison, E.D.F.’s point person on the chemical bill. “And while lending our support, we also asked for improvements.” Which they got."
OK. today the role of "ideological purity" is hamstringing government, changing the way Congress does, or doesn't do, the people's business. Thanks, Joe, for illuminating the role of special interest organizations in putting pressure on political leaders. I didn't realize how much of a part these environmental groups were playing in legislating.
But as you point out, they're almost as bad, or worse, than the ideologically 'pure" leaders on both right and left. if Congress doesn't find the will to resurrect the concept of compromise, you can kiss our country goodbye.
Because how often can you get major legislation passed--like the ACA, with no votes from the other side--that affects the lives of all Americans, unless the two sides work together? We have serious problems to face in the coming years--guns, taxes, war, trade, immigration, reproductive rights, drugs, mental health issues--all of which are stalemated by the simple reason Congress feels that crossing the aisle is betraying one's own party.
OK. today the role of "ideological purity" is hamstringing government, changing the way Congress does, or doesn't do, the people's business. Thanks, Joe, for illuminating the role of special interest organizations in putting pressure on political leaders. I didn't realize how much of a part these environmental groups were playing in legislating.
But as you point out, they're almost as bad, or worse, than the ideologically 'pure" leaders on both right and left. if Congress doesn't find the will to resurrect the concept of compromise, you can kiss our country goodbye.
Because how often can you get major legislation passed--like the ACA, with no votes from the other side--that affects the lives of all Americans, unless the two sides work together? We have serious problems to face in the coming years--guns, taxes, war, trade, immigration, reproductive rights, drugs, mental health issues--all of which are stalemated by the simple reason Congress feels that crossing the aisle is betraying one's own party.
2
I was with you until you wanted to preempt California. California remains the future. Sooner or later, it will naturally preempt the failed constituencies east of the Alleghenies.
3
Compromise legislation to control toxic chemical. Maybe, just maybe, a breath of fresh air.
1
Opposing bad legislation is not the perfect being the enemy of the good.
You don’t have to be a cynic to see that the chemical companies would never have their Senators, such as Vitter, and their Congressmen agree to anything that would significantly cut into their freedom to maximize profits. Even if this bill is good in some ways, it seems to have built into it many ways that it will be made ineffective such as that delay time, under-funding the EPA, a Republican President refusing to enforce it, the bill being butchered in the House and so on. That Lautenberg was a Democratic liberal does not mean much. Too many of them end up compromising much too easily.
The only reason someone like Vitter would support such a bill would be because the chemical industry is in trouble and needs something from the government. What is it that it needs? How much more can be wrung out of these companies who have such poor safety, environmental and labor records? How much is this bill even now already quite bad and, like TPP, says one thing but allows loopholes that emasculate its enforcement?
Ultimately, unless we elect someone like Bernie Sanders, this bill will end up making sure that another industry’s power is unimpeded by any real safety regulation.
You don’t have to be a cynic to see that the chemical companies would never have their Senators, such as Vitter, and their Congressmen agree to anything that would significantly cut into their freedom to maximize profits. Even if this bill is good in some ways, it seems to have built into it many ways that it will be made ineffective such as that delay time, under-funding the EPA, a Republican President refusing to enforce it, the bill being butchered in the House and so on. That Lautenberg was a Democratic liberal does not mean much. Too many of them end up compromising much too easily.
The only reason someone like Vitter would support such a bill would be because the chemical industry is in trouble and needs something from the government. What is it that it needs? How much more can be wrung out of these companies who have such poor safety, environmental and labor records? How much is this bill even now already quite bad and, like TPP, says one thing but allows loopholes that emasculate its enforcement?
Ultimately, unless we elect someone like Bernie Sanders, this bill will end up making sure that another industry’s power is unimpeded by any real safety regulation.
1
The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act is arguably the least-effective federal law ever written. Almost any change that doesn't actually gut the law would be an improvement. After 39 years with little to show other than PCB regulation, I suggest that health/environment proponents take whatever improvements they can accomplish, rather than let the current situation continue.
7
Compromise is good when the results don't end up in sacrificing health and safety. In the case of chemical companies, negotiating with them about how much poison they can distribute shouldn't be a question. We don't negotiate with bank robbers for part of the money, and we don't negotiate invading armies to allow them to occupy us a little bit. Both of these examples accurately describe the chemical companies past record.
25
John, your attitude -- on both ends of the political spectrum -- is precisely why so little gets done in Congress today. Please read this comment reflectively and not reflexively.
3
Compromise is the reason we have government. If everybody's interests and behaviors perfectly aligned, we wouldn't need laws.
Democratic government allows people to collectively choose how to manage all the competing values and interests, and ultimately assign legitimacy to some interests and behaviors. Since almost no one agrees on everything, we compromise.
We are broken, because we have somehow taken the position that every issue has a winner and a loser, and we attack like governing is a football game: there is no such thing as a tie. Just overtime.
When you don't have compromise, when you don't have both sides willing to consider or participate in compromise, you have dictatorship. "My way or the highway" is the motto of a dictatorship, collective or not, and not a democracy.
Democratic government allows people to collectively choose how to manage all the competing values and interests, and ultimately assign legitimacy to some interests and behaviors. Since almost no one agrees on everything, we compromise.
We are broken, because we have somehow taken the position that every issue has a winner and a loser, and we attack like governing is a football game: there is no such thing as a tie. Just overtime.
When you don't have compromise, when you don't have both sides willing to consider or participate in compromise, you have dictatorship. "My way or the highway" is the motto of a dictatorship, collective or not, and not a democracy.
27
On many issues, true. But to go to your analogy there will be no overtime on climate change and a "tie" will result in the end of all games. No, I am not recommending dictatorship. But i am recommending vigorous and immediate action to counter the propaganda that makes us believe that climate change doesn't exist. Or that we can "compromise" with the effects of science.
1
One reason you are right is there are far too many lawyers in Congress, who view everything in terms of "winning", guilty/not-guilty etc.
1
The subject of this bill, shouldn't be about compromise with chemical companies, as if they have equal rights with the safety of citizens. The safety of our environment and of our offspring is not something to be compromised. In this case the perfect is not the enemy, but the safety of our commons and of the future of the hunan race.
43
Typical. Why we get nothing done in this country anymore. Everyone knows their side is "right" and the other side is wrong. And since the other side is wrong, we can't compromise. You can plug right wing special interest or left wing in and the result is the same. Spoiled brats who demand their way and whine when they don't get it. And then spend their time writing why this group or that doesn't deserve anything and they deserve everything. It got boring years ago and hasn't gotten any better
4
golflaw..when it comes to public safety, there should be little or no compromise.
1
Hear, hear, golflaw!
What is the 'certain timeframe' included in the Senate bill? When I see omissions like this in a column, I stop trusting the content or the position. What I do find entertaining is how Republicans and conservatives are so very willing to crush states' rights when demanded by their corporate contributors. The trucking bill had the same poisoning anti-state rights language forcing truckers to haul more freight for the same or less money.
51
Given our current House asylum dwellers, it may be more useful to find a couple of non-idealogues at the state level to push legislation protecting its citizens. It would seem more citizens would turn out to vote for their own clean water than for the polluters, regardles the polluters' money for ads.
It might be what we all have to do--no small feat in some states indeed-- until DC understands that the people aren't settling for years-long inaction due to partisanship, more due to re-election money than public good.
Ms Browning might want to start organizing in states. Our Congress is useless at the moment, constant threats to shut down & posturing for cameras.
Time to figure workarounds, for all of us, on so many issues stuck in DC.
It might be what we all have to do--no small feat in some states indeed-- until DC understands that the people aren't settling for years-long inaction due to partisanship, more due to re-election money than public good.
Ms Browning might want to start organizing in states. Our Congress is useless at the moment, constant threats to shut down & posturing for cameras.
Time to figure workarounds, for all of us, on so many issues stuck in DC.
16
Given the current political environment this compromise may be a good thing, but the implicit assumption here that there is something right and proper about treating the health of citizens and the health of chemical company profits as equivalent interests that should find compromise is offensive, dumb, and wrong.
43
Although Citizens United has deemed corporations people, they still can't vote. However, as long as our lobbying laws are sufficiently inadequate to prevent a Louisiana Senator from acting as de facto representative of a dangerous if necessary industry, Blah Blah Blah Chemical Company will have more votes in the senate than the nonentities who actually pull the voting levers. For that reason alone, it's great that Mr. Nocera, who is so unyielding on financial scams, is willing to argue in favor of irresponsible corporations who would save a few bucks by putting lives at risk.
Merely mentioning the topic on this page raises the issue's profile. Who knew that such important legislation was foundering in the cloak rooms of the Senate and House while far more vital public business was being done in the committee rooms in which the dastardly Planned Parenthood might be harangued into torpor and the monstrous Hillary Clinton might be tamed by yet another group of patriotic Republicans who if they're lucky will never get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.
Oscar Wilde once said that life imitates art. If one considers Fox News art, I can see his point.
How many more of these issues vital to our collective safety have been smothered by the urge of our elected representatives to grandstand? How many more Senators are essentially owned by industries and so cannot act to protect ordinary Americans?
Representatives: Drop the schtick and get to the legislating!
Merely mentioning the topic on this page raises the issue's profile. Who knew that such important legislation was foundering in the cloak rooms of the Senate and House while far more vital public business was being done in the committee rooms in which the dastardly Planned Parenthood might be harangued into torpor and the monstrous Hillary Clinton might be tamed by yet another group of patriotic Republicans who if they're lucky will never get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.
Oscar Wilde once said that life imitates art. If one considers Fox News art, I can see his point.
How many more of these issues vital to our collective safety have been smothered by the urge of our elected representatives to grandstand? How many more Senators are essentially owned by industries and so cannot act to protect ordinary Americans?
Representatives: Drop the schtick and get to the legislating!
66
Corporations ain't "people" until Texas hangs one of 'em.
1
--------- i have always wondered why politicians, immediately upon getting elected, feel the need to emulate stand-up comics . . .
The perfect certainly is the enemy of the good, a cause I've tried to evangelize in this community for years. Unfortunately, we don't live in a rational age but one in which our electorate is more polarized than at any other time since our civil war.
But that's not the thrust of my comment here. What's become quite apparent to me by the sheer time it's taken this "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" to come to the Senate floor for a vote that likely will see it pass suggests that we simply can't govern ourselves any longer. If every significant bill that eventually has a chance to actually pass takes as long, 21st century laws may as well be scheduled to be newly effective in the 22nd Century.
This is no way to run a cathouse.
But that's not the thrust of my comment here. What's become quite apparent to me by the sheer time it's taken this "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" to come to the Senate floor for a vote that likely will see it pass suggests that we simply can't govern ourselves any longer. If every significant bill that eventually has a chance to actually pass takes as long, 21st century laws may as well be scheduled to be newly effective in the 22nd Century.
This is no way to run a cathouse.
79
I hope Mr. Nocera, who blithely describes a senator as "allied with the chemical industry," will follow the fate of this bill, which may pass the Senate, but will likely face difficult prospects in the House, especially if we get one of them newfangled extremists as Speaker. It may be part of what allowed all those compromises from the chemical industry's paid representative in the Senate--he knows the bill ain't goin' nowhere. Meanwhile, the legislation itself sounds relatively toothless. I thought Senators were supposed to be representing the people in their states, not prostituting themselves (pun intended, Mr. Vitter) to the moneyed interests that pay their way.
84
While I don't disagree with your point Stuart, we should all remember that a chemical plant in a state is part of a Senator's constituency as well. Right or wrong, Senators represent (or should) everyone in their state including owners of huge polluting factories. The problem comes when they ONLY support owners of big polluting companies.
Often these things aren't so simple. As with coal. We all know it's killing the environment and the people who work and live around the mines. But for many in rural areas it's a job. It's easy for me to say you can't work if you're dead, but I'm not living in a coal producing region where my only way to make a living is in a mine.
Senators represent all of their constituents--good and bad.
Often these things aren't so simple. As with coal. We all know it's killing the environment and the people who work and live around the mines. But for many in rural areas it's a job. It's easy for me to say you can't work if you're dead, but I'm not living in a coal producing region where my only way to make a living is in a mine.
Senators represent all of their constituents--good and bad.
3
A key question now is, what happens in the House? The Senate, Ted Cruz notwithstanding, was never as hostile to compromise as the House is. The fate of this bill may be a harbinger of the kind of leadership the GOP will provide in the post-Boehner era.
As for the compromise itself, it should be judged on two criteria. Does it produce a bill that improves on the one that would pass in the face of a refusal to bargain? Nocera's analysis suggests that the bill passes this test. At least some chemicals will be regulated, and the states will retain the power to regulate in the absence of a federal decision to act.
The second standard of judgment is, will the bill have a more positive impact than a decision to retain the status quo? Given the dominance of the GOP in most states, and the Republican bias in favor of business interests, the bill probably also deserves approval on this criterion.
There is, however, a third way to judge a bill, one that lies outside the issue of whether the compromise deserves support. A law might improve environmental conditions over the status quo or in excess of any politically possible alternative measure. But it still might fail to avert severe long-term damage that would make the improvements achieved through compromise insignificant. In that scenario, the fault would lie, not in the willingness to compromise, but in the existing balance of political power. On that issue, the verdict in this case is still out.
As for the compromise itself, it should be judged on two criteria. Does it produce a bill that improves on the one that would pass in the face of a refusal to bargain? Nocera's analysis suggests that the bill passes this test. At least some chemicals will be regulated, and the states will retain the power to regulate in the absence of a federal decision to act.
The second standard of judgment is, will the bill have a more positive impact than a decision to retain the status quo? Given the dominance of the GOP in most states, and the Republican bias in favor of business interests, the bill probably also deserves approval on this criterion.
There is, however, a third way to judge a bill, one that lies outside the issue of whether the compromise deserves support. A law might improve environmental conditions over the status quo or in excess of any politically possible alternative measure. But it still might fail to avert severe long-term damage that would make the improvements achieved through compromise insignificant. In that scenario, the fault would lie, not in the willingness to compromise, but in the existing balance of political power. On that issue, the verdict in this case is still out.
22
The advantages of compromise are manifold as human experience is long shown that the so-called 'wisdom of the crowd' is usually superior to the mind and experience of single individuals. It is a rule of thumb, a heuristic, but it is not always true in every case. One need only look at the modern Republican Party as it is presently constituted to understand that ignorance begets ignorance, and fear begets demagoguery. Compromise with that sort of mindset is futile because there is no gradation of risk, objectives, and priorities. Discourse is not about the power of ideas; rather, it is about a strict and narrow conformity to a particular ideology based upon the coercive power of those in charge.
Compromise is possible only where the negotiating parties have something to lose if the negotiation fails. With ideologues, there can be no negotiation because outliers are by definition guilty of heresy, to be cleansed away and purged as an example to others. Consequently, bargaining with an ideologue is the equivalent of subverting one's own interest, and there can be no accommodation unless the terms of that amount to a complete surrender.
It is axiomatic that a deal works only when it works for both sides. Parties will compromise if by offering concessions, the expected gain from the bargain outweighs whatever each gets by doing nothing at all. If the parties do nothing because concession offers are not reciprocated, the negotiation fails, despite adverse consequences to both.
Compromise is possible only where the negotiating parties have something to lose if the negotiation fails. With ideologues, there can be no negotiation because outliers are by definition guilty of heresy, to be cleansed away and purged as an example to others. Consequently, bargaining with an ideologue is the equivalent of subverting one's own interest, and there can be no accommodation unless the terms of that amount to a complete surrender.
It is axiomatic that a deal works only when it works for both sides. Parties will compromise if by offering concessions, the expected gain from the bargain outweighs whatever each gets by doing nothing at all. If the parties do nothing because concession offers are not reciprocated, the negotiation fails, despite adverse consequences to both.
27
"...human experience (has) long shown that the so-called 'wisdom of the crowd' is usually superior to the mind and experience of single individuals."
As long as the crowd is provided with relevant facts, there's the argument for democracy over theocracy, plutocracy and every other ocracy in a hand basket. Thanks for a fine summation, Mr. Silen.
As long as the crowd is provided with relevant facts, there's the argument for democracy over theocracy, plutocracy and every other ocracy in a hand basket. Thanks for a fine summation, Mr. Silen.
2