For some representatives, the health of schoolkids just doesn’t seem to be the priority.

Some questions should be easy to answer. But, with Congress, some things are never easy. Fresh off the House vote to let polluters dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air, a House subcommittee under the jurisdiction of chair Fred Upton (R-Mich.) will start to consider letting polluters dump unsafe amounts of toxic pollution into the air.

You see, for years a lot of polluters have avoided having to reduce their emissions of toxic pollution — this is the hard-core stuff that causes cancers, birth defects, developmental disorders, etc. Power plants, cement kilns [PDF], and other industrial plants [PDF] have either never had to meet clean air safeguards for toxic pollution, or have not had to meet effective ones. By updating clean air safeguards on toxic pollution, the EPA will save over 25,000 lives per year.

The EPA’s stronger safeguards to protect against toxic air pollution will have profound benefits for health at the local level. As USA Today documented in a superb special report focusing on toxic emissions near schools, the more toxic pollution in the air, the more health problems you’ll find near the plant dumping the stuff out:

In some school districts, emissions from the smokestacks of refineries or chemical plants threatened students of every age, preschool through prom. Outside those schools, reports from polluters themselves often indicated a dozen different chemicals in the air. All are considered toxic by the government, though few have been tested for their specific effects on children.

Scientists have long known that kids are particularly susceptible to the dangers. They breathe more air in proportion to their weight than adults do, and their bodies are still developing. Based on the time they spend at school, their exposures could last for years but the impact might not become clear for decades.

So health and other groups applauded [PDF] when the Environmental Protection Agency started updating clean air safeguards to protect our health from these deadly toxins.

Unfortunately, for some members of Congress, the health of schoolkids — and the rest of us — just doesn’t seem to be the priority. Which brings us back to the hearing this Friday, which will be the first formal hearing to discussion stopping or delaying the EPA from reducing toxic pollution.

So I thought it would be illuminating to take a look at how proposals to stop or delay the EPA might affect things back home … in the districts of members who will be taking this issue up.

Let’s start with Fred Upton, from Michigan’s 6th District. NRDC’s analysis of Toxics Release Inventory data shows that Upton’s district is home to 33 plants that emit over 365,000 pounds of toxic pollution annually, and that there are 247 schools within 5 miles of these plants.

Here’s a map of Upton’s district, with toxic polluters and nearby schools clearly marked.

USA Today‘s page is really handy here, since it allows you to zoom in and see the names of the plants and the schools, plus it ranks the air quality around each school.

Now, who in their right mind would advocate for EPA to do anything other than hurry up and cut the pollution coming from these kinds of plants?

Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is teaming up with House Energy and Commerce Chair Fred Upton (R-Mich.) to introduce a bill to allow America’s biggest polluters to continue dumping unlimited amounts of carbon emissions into the air. It’s not that surprising that Inhofe is pushing this in the Senate. After all, Inhofe has always prided himself on being a little “out there” in a distinctly Charlie Sheen “wild man” kind of way.

But what is going on with the formerly-known-as reasonable Rep. Upton?

Just about every major health group in the United States is now telling Upton that he is putting the welfare of millions of Americans at risk who suffer from asthma (that’s 24 million people right there — including 7 million children!) and other respiratory diseases.

Consider this from the American Lung Association:

The enactment of Chairman Fred Upton’s bill would strip away Clean Air Act protections that safeguard Americans and their families from air pollution that puts their lives at risk. The protections against the health harm from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution are essential to public health and must be preserved. — Charles D. Connor, president and chief executive officer

And it’s not like people back home in the Michigan sixth congressional district are exactly clamoring for more pollution. The American Lung Association estimates [PDF] that over 225,000 Michigan children have asthma, a condition made worse and more dangerous by air pollution.

Perhaps not surprisingly, our Feb. 2011 survey [PDF] conducted in Upton’s congressional district found:

• 62 percent of Upton’s constituents oppose a bill he is sponsoring to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to reduce carbon dioxide and other pollutants;
• 67 percent — including 60 percent of Republicans — agreed with the statement that “Congress should let the EPA do its job,” as opposed to the minority who believe that “Congress should decide” what actions are taken to curb carbon pollution;
• 61 percent say that “the EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water”;
• 57 percent favor “the EPA setting new standards with stricter limits on air pollution.”

If you were a member of Congress would you look at the following chart and assume that your constituents are best served by handcuffing the Environmental Protection Agency in its efforts to keep our air as clean as possible?

Click for a larger version.

Of course, the easy Washington answer here is to say “follow the money.”

And it’s worth noting that over the course of his career, Upton has taken over $750,000 from polluters. But, in some ways, that’s too easy and too cynical an answer. After all, it’s not like all polluters are looking to dismantle the EPA.

As PoliticoPro [$ubreq] reported yesterday:

Top power company CEOs rained on the Republican parade Tuesday as Congress eyes legislation forcing an outright halt to EPA climate change rules.

The leaders — from American Electric Power, NextEra Energy, Southern Co., and Dominion Resources — said to varying degrees that they support allowing the EPA to proceed on a “reasonable” time frame on greenhouse gas rules for power plants, petroleum refiners and other major stationary sources.

They also didn’t sound so thrilled with the draft bill preempting the EPA that House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) plans to start moving later this spring.

“I think that’s probably a bit strong,” said Michael Morris, president and CEO of Columbus, Ohio-based AEP, in an interview at an energy industry conference in Washington. “Congressman Upton is a dear friend and a very strong leader and a visionary elected official, but I think even he knows that that probably isn’t going to happen.”

“I don’t support complete preemption,” Lewis Hay, chairman and CEO of NextEra Energy, a Juno Beach, Fla.-based power company, told Politico. “When I look at what EPA has done so far and the position they’ve taken on greenhouse gases, I think it’s actually been pretty moderate.”

So just why is Fred Upton waging this war against 24 million American asthma victims?

Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Yesterday, members of Rep. Fred Upton’s (R-Mich.) House Energy and Commerce Committee held their first hearing on Chair Upton’s proposal to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating Clean Air Act safeguards to protect our health from life-threatening carbon pollution. (Hat tip and bow to EPA chief Lisa Jackson who withstood hours of dirty air extremism from panel members, and didn’t give one inch on the EPA’s obligation to protect public health by limiting carbon pollution.)

We’ve already learned most Americans don’t support various proposals to eliminate or block the EPA, as Reuters, Time, and USA Today have reported.

But what about the views of the voters in the districts of specific members of Congress? Say, voters in Upton’s district? Do they support blocking the EPA, as their own representative is proposing? What about voters in the districts of other committee members who will have to vote on blocking the EPA in coming weeks?

Turns out, new polling shows that voters Upton’s are not at all behind him on this, and the voters in eight other districts we looked at aren’t either. Get the release here.

In fact, nearly two-thirds of Upton’s own constituents oppose his bill to block EPA from limiting carbon pollution:

Click for a larger version.

Here’s a quick scan of the Upton results:

• 67 percent — including 60 percent of Republicans — agreed with the statement that “Congress should let the EPA do its job,” as opposed to the minority who believe that “Congress should decide” what actions are taken to curb carbon pollution.
• 61 percent say that “EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water.” 
• 57 percent favor “the EPA setting new standards with stricter limits on air pollution.”

You can read the full report on Upton’s district here [PDF].

We also found solid majorities oppose Upton’s proposal in the districts of eight other committee members: Reps. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), Charlie Bass (R-N.H.), Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), Mike Doyle (D-Penn.), Charles A. Gonzalez (D-Texas), and Gene Green (D-Texas). You can view all the results in this single table [PDF] here or look at individual reports [all PDFs], linked below. 

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.)

559 voters interviewed Feb. 4-5/margin of error: plus or minus 4.1 percent

• 59 percent say, “Congress should let the EPA do its job.”
• 53 percent say that “EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water.”
• 56 percent oppose the Upton proposal “that would block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution.”
• 51 percent favor “the EPA setting new standards with stricter limits on air pollution.”

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)

519 voters interviewed Feb. 4-5/margin of error: plus or minus 4.3 percent

• 66 percent say, “Congress should let the EPA do its job.”
• 54 percent say that “EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water.”
• 61 percent oppose the Upton proposal “that would block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution.”
• 55 percent favor “the EPA setting new standards with stricter limits on air pollution.”

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.)

627 voters interviewed Feb. 4-5/margin of error: plus or minus 3.9 percent

• 72 percent say, “Congress should let the EPA do its job.”
• 63 percent say that “EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water.”
• 66 percent oppose the Upton proposal “that would block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution.”
• 61 percent favor “the EPA setting new standards with stricter limits on air pollution.”

Rep. Charlie Bass (R-N.H.)

555 voters interviewed Feb. 4-5/margin of error: plus or minus 4.2 percent

• 67 percent say, “Congress should let the EPA do its job.”
• 65 percent say that “EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water.”
• 64 percent oppose the Upton proposal “that would block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution.”
• 61 percent favor “the EPA setting new standards with stricter limits on air pollution.”

Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.)

628 voters interviewed Feb. 4-5/margin of error: plus or minus 3.9 percent

• 74 percent say, “Congress should let the EPA do its job.”
• 70 percent say that “EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water.”
• 72 percent oppose the Upton proposal “that would block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution.”
• 69 percent favor “the EPA setting new standards with stricter limits on air pollution.”

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Penn.)

692 voters interviewed Feb. 4-5/margin of error: plus or minus 3.7 percent

• 74 percent say, “Congress should let the EPA do its job.”
• 77 percent say that “EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water.”
• 73 percent oppose the Upton proposal “that would block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution.”
• 74 percent favor “the EPA setting new standards with stricter limits on air pollution.”

Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez (D-Texas)

506 voters interviewed Feb. 4-6/margin of error: plus or minus 4.4 percent

• 71 percent say, “Congress should let the EPA do its job.”
• 72 percent say that “EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water.”
• 70 percent oppose the Upton proposal “that would block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution.”
• 71 percent favor “the EPA setting new standards with stricter limits on air pollution.”

Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas)

597 voters interviewed Feb. 4-5/margin of error: plus or minus 4 percent

• 64 percent say, “Congress should let the EPA do its job.”
• 72 percent say that “EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water.”
• 65 percent oppose the Upton proposal “that would block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution.”
• 67 percent favor “the EPA setting new standards with stricter limits on air pollution.”

The next step for the committee is to markup and vote on Upton’s proposal to block the EPA (or as my colleague David Doniger writes, his proposal to put polluter profits ahead of public health).

Let’s see if the committee members pay attention to the views back home.

National health organizations are not scoffing at the link between pollution and asthma.

As my colleague David Doniger explained, there’s a new pollution promoter on the scene, and his name is Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). Barrasso has introduced a bill (S. 228) that would allow unlimited carbon dioxide pollution and dismiss by Congressional fiat the scientific understanding of the life-threatening health threats posed by CO2 pollution.

Barrasso takes his place next to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), whom the The Hill reports is once again trying to persuade his colleagues to sign onto his bill to stop the EPA’s public health protections in its tracks.

I blogged last week about how members of Congress who sign up to stop the EPA’s work of protecting our health are putting their constituents and Americans at greater risk for a wide range of health effects, including one that so many people are familiar with: asthma attacks. Some members questioned the link. For instance, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) scoffed at the notion that climate change could impact asthma sufferers, saying, “The NRDC’s connection between greenhouse gasses and asthma is a reach at best.”

But it isn’t a reach for the nation’s leading health experts and organizations, who last fall told Congress as much in a public letter, saying:

Far too many of our nation’s children, elderly, and people with asthma, cardiovascular and lung diseases and diabetes live under added threats to their health from breathing polluted air and the impacts of global warming.

(Signers to this letter are too many to list right in the middle of a blog. Check at the bottom for the list.)

My colleague Kim Knowlton has discussed these and other health connections several times (here, here, here, and here).

So, let’s get back to who is putting America’s 24 million asthmatics — including over 7 million children — at greater risk of having to be rushed to the emergency room gasping for breath. Here’s a quick rundown of the newest bad air bill cosponsors, the number of asthmatics in their state, and how much money they’ve taken from polluters during their careers:

Click for a larger version. [PDF]

Here’s the list of the national health organizations signed on to the letter I referenced: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Children’s Environmental Health Network , Health Occupations Students of America, National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care, National Association of County and City Health Officials, National Environmental Health Association, National Home Oxygen Patients Association, National Physicians Alliance, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Prevention Institute, Public Health Institute, and the Trust for America’s Health.

One of the things that makes asthma worse is air pollution, specifically smog, and one of the things that makes it harder to reduce smog is carbon pollution.In fact, as my colleague Kim Knowlton has explained, rising temperatures driven by carbon pollution can actually make smog – and thus kids’ health – worse.

Given all that, you might wonder why Massachusett’s own Senator Scott Brown is telling constituents that he doesn’t think the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should update public health protections to limit the amount of carbon that polluters can dump into the air. Right now, there are NO limits for life-threatening carbon pollution.

So today, Natural Resources Defense Council and Environment Massachusetts are teaming up to let Massachusetts residents know that:

“… (Senator Brown’s) actions threaten the health of hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts residents, especially children with asthma and seniors.

Brown has expressed support for congressional efforts to block EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution. Carbon dioxide pollution increases the risk of heat stress, promotes the spread of infectious diseases and makes it more difficult to reduce smog pollution, which threatens the health of asthma sufferers and others with respiratory problems.”

Check out the radio ad that NRDC and Environment Massachusetts are running on Bay State radio stations this week.The text of the radio spot is as follows:

“For 40 years, the U.S. EPA has protected the health of all Americans by cracking down on big polluters and the life-threatening pollution they pour into our air. But now Senator Scott Brown wants to cripple the EPA when it comes to protecting us from carbon dioxide, by letting big polluters dump unlimited amounts into our air. Please call Scott Brown at 202-224-4543 and ask him why he’s putting corporate polluters and their profits ahead of the health of our families. Paid for by NRDC.”

We think Massachusetts residents (and the rest of us) deserve better. We all know that big polluters don’t want the EPA to do its job. Some of them have given generously to Senator Brown – during his 2010 campaign, energy and natural resources sent nearly $150,000 to the Brown campaign. I’m not suggesting the Senator Brown is trying to cripple the EPA just because polluters funded his campaign. But they did help put him in office, and its what he does there that counts.

Senator Brown needs to hear from folks back home that he should stand up for clean air and public health, instead of standing up for polluters.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.): “Someone should be standing up for children’s lungs.”

Yesterday, I noted that several polluter-supported members of Congress are introducing legislation to “throttle” the Environmental Protection Agency, which would sacrifice much-needed safeguards by putting the profits of corporate polluters at the top of their agenda.

Fortunately, some members of Congress are just as determined to make sure the EPA can keep doing the job it has for the last 40 years — protecting the health of all Americans by cracking down on corporate polluters and the life-threatening air pollution they recklessly dump.

As E&E News reports, several Democratic senators took a hard-line stand against proposals to limit the EPA’s ability to protect public health. Kudos to these members for standing up to the polluter-driven agenda:

• Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.): “There is a case to be made that, in the contest between corporate profits and children’s lungs, someone should be standing up for children’s lungs.”
• Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.): “People on the other side can talk about costs [of EPA safeguards]. What’s the cost of a life? What’s the cost of a disability? … We’re not going to cower in a corner.”
• Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) pledged to “do everything we can to prevent the taking away of the responsibility of EPA to protect our environment and our health.”
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa): “I never defend — I always attack … If they want to repeal EPA [regulations] and stuff like that, I think we ought to go after them. I say, give them rope.”

And as Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) told Politico: “I will use every single tool to me as chairman of this committee and as a senator from California to oppose any legislative effort that threatens the health or safety of the well being of the people of this great nation.”

There is no question that making sure the EPA can do its job without polluter-driven interference is essential for the protection of all our health. As I’ve mentioned before, hundreds of public health and other organizations, including the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics told Congress in a letter [PDF] that:

Over the coming years the EPA will be fulfilling its duty to reduce the smog and soot pollution, air toxics, and global warming pollution that are the cause of these public health threats. We urge you to fully support the EPA in fulfilling this responsibility. Doing so is quite literally a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of people and will mean the difference between chronic debilitating illness or a healthy life for hundreds of thousands more.

What’s the bottom line?

As Charles D. Connor, president and CEO of the American Lung Association (ALA) said, “We urge members of Congress to reject the pleas from polluters and continue to support the Act and the EPA’s ability to protect the air we breathe.”

You can join ALA in urging your representatives to stand up for clean air and stand against polluters by signing on to their letter of support for the EPA. Here’s one for medical and health professionals, and here’s one for regular folks.

Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Some people out there seem to think we’d be better off without the Environmental Protection Agency, which for 40 years has protected the health of all Americans by cracking down on corporate polluters and the life-threatening air pollution they recklessly dump. Others want to abolish it altogether.

Sadly, it hasn’t taken long for some in the new Congress to throw in their lot with this polluter-driven agenda. The Hill is reporting that some House members are backing a bill to abolish the EPA’s power to do its job to protect us from carbon pollution, which will give polluters a free pass to dump it into our air without limit.

By taking this radical step the first week of the new Congress, these members are showing their true colors — that they are ready to stand with the most extreme elements in order to let corporate polluters off the hook and dump as much carbon pollution into the air as they want. Its even sadder to watch them read right out of the playbook that polluters like Koch Industries and the Tea Party are writing. It doesn’t take much reading to realize the effort to abolish the EPA’s ability to do one of its jobs may only be a first step.

Make no mistake about it. Anyone who supports this bill is helping to light the Tea Party fuse to blow up the Clean Air Act and the EPA. As I mentioned yesterday, even former moderates like Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) are opposing EPA’s efforts to update the Clean Air Act to reduce toxic pollution. We need to resist any efforts by Congress to block the EPA’s ability to protect our health.

Check out this little video that helps explain why:

Image: Scholastic, U.S. Chamber [PDF]

Politico reports that the Scholastic company — producer and distributor of a wide range of educational products to our nation’s school systems — has teamed up with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on an “educational” program about U.S. energy consumption.

In the article, entitled “Chamber: Worry about energy regulations, kids,” Politico writes:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants middle school students to consider what would happen if government regulations shut down the coal industry or another domestic energy source.

The question is part of a teaching guide the group plans to distribute to roughly 100,000 classrooms across the country as part of its “Shedding Light on Energy” program with educational publisher Scholastic Inc.

“What do you think could happen if one of our energy sources was suddenly unavailable (e.g., power plant maintenance, government curb on production, etc.)?” the guide asks.

Chamber officials maintain that there is no “hidden agenda” behind the question or the educational outreach effort in general. But given the current political climate surrounding the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the group’s direct involvement in public school education is expected to make environmentalists and like-minded progressives uncomfortable.

Actually, the fact that Scholastic is using its wholesome name to traffic the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s pollution-friendly propaganda should be alarming to anyone with kids in the public school system. (I have two.) In fact, the hypocrisy embedded in the U.S. Chamber’s involvement in producing education materials on energy for kids is downright shocking.

What makes the U.S. Chamber such an inappropriate partner in child education?

One reason is that the Chamber’s information is extremely one-sided. It neglects to mention the public health, environmental, and national security consequences of our reliance on dirty energy sources. The coal and oil which supply a great deal of our energy also create extraordinary amounts of air, water, and soil pollution, and of course are primarily responsible for the warming of our planet. Our addiction to oil makes the U.S. vulnerable to oil-producing nations that wish us harm. These are consequences that today’s kids will have to deal with as tomorrow’s leaders.

It is puzzling that Scholastic is willing to align itself with incomplete and biased material, especially since its own “Kids’ Environmental Report Card” ranks global warming and other pollution issues as serious challenges kids want to take on.

But even more puzzling is why Scholastic would partner with an organization that has so little regard for the health and welfare of our nation’s kids. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a long track record of opposing common-sense public health protections, especially those intended to protect our children. A few examples:

• The U.S. Chamber has been a consistent opponent of efforts to reduce mercury pollution. Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin that interferes with children’s brain development and can cause severe learning disorders. Unborn children are especially vulnerable – according to the EPA, “Impacts on cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills have been seen in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb.”

  Despite the dangers, the Chamber’s answer has been to rely on misinformation as a tool to oppose stricter standards.  

  So … the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposes measures that would limit our children’s exposure to mercury, which is known to cause serious learning disorders, is producing educational materials for kids?

• The U.S. Chamber is currently opposing tighter standards to reduce smog or ground-level ozone, a widespread pollution problem responsible for a range of health effects to which children are especially vulnerable. Smog pollution contributes to thousands of premature mortalities every year and is a known cause and trigger for respiratory problems like asthma, a disease that is spreading most rapidly in children younger than 17 years old, who also account for the highest overall rates of asthma among the population at large. 

  The U.S. EPA is working to tighten standards for this kind of pollution in order to prevent as many as 12,000 deaths per year and thousands of other effects, but the U.S. Chamber is trying to block these crucial health protections. 

  Making this even more ironic is the fact that the tighter standards the Chamber is trying to block would reduce by over 2 million the number of days of school kids miss due to air-pollution related illnesses. Hey, how are the kids supposed to read the Chamber’s communiqués if they are gasping for breath in the emergency room?

• The U.S. Chamber has urged Congress to oppose efforts to ban dangerous chemicals commonly found in children’s toys. Phthalates are chemicals used in many common consumer products, including as softeners of plastic children’s toys — like a rubber ducky.

  As NRDC’s Sarah Janssen explains, “Some phthalates are hormone-disrupting chemicals that interfere with production of the male hormone testosterone, and have been associated with reproductive abnormalities.”

  Yet the U.S. Chamber opposes protecting children from these dangerous chemicals, explaining in one letter to Congress that “Manufacturers would be forced to use more expensive alternatives that may unfairly subject them to additional safety and legal liability concerns.”

Scholastic’s decision to partner with the U.S. Chamber is all the more disappointing because it does include environmental education resources (full disclosure, including some links to NRDC.)

So what can you do about this? You can let Scholastic’s CEO and executives know that you are concerned about the partnership with the U.S. Chamber and ask them
to stop the program. Here’s how you can reach them (and a sample note is below).

Write these top Scholastic executives:

• Richard Robinson, President and CEO (rrobinson@scholastic.com)
• Dina Paul-Parks, Education and Libraries (ssinek@scholastic.com)
• Cathy Lasiewicz, Community Affairs and International (clasiewicz@scholastic.com)
• Kyle Good, VP, Corporate Communications (kgood@scholastic.com)
• Sara Sinek, Consumer Marketing (ssinek@scholastic.com)

If you prefer snail mail:

Scholastic
557 Broadway
New York, NY 10012

Or a phone call:
(212) 343-6100

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Mr. Robinson and Scholastic,

I am writing to express my concern about Scholastic’s “Shedding Light on Energy” partnership with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The materials that have been made public fail to shed much light on the critical consequences of our energy use and fail to challenge students to think of creative solutions to our energy problems. They also appear to neglect topics that Scholastic’s own “Kids’ Environmental Report Card” identifies as important.

In addition, the U.S. Chamber has a long record of opposing efforts to protect children from dangerous chemicals and pollutants like mercury, smog, and phthalates.

Kids today will be our leaders tomorrow. We owe them — and ourselves — better than what the U.S. Chamber materials have to offer.

I urge you to end the partnership with the U.S. Chamber, and to recall and recycle all materials printed and distributed in association with it.

Please let me know what you plan to do.

Sincerely,
Your name, address, and zip

But we’ve still got more work to do, and that’s why I’m going to keep fighting to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation in Washington. We’re going to try to get it done this year.

And as the Washington Post reported last week:

In a speech at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University, Obama made one of his strongest pitches for comprehensive climate legislation, arguing that the case for breaking the nation’s addiction to fossil fuels has been made clearer by the environmental catastrophe in the gulf.

“I will make the case for a clean-energy future wherever I can, and I will work with anyone from either party to get this done. But we will get this done,” Obama said. “The next generation will not be held hostage to energy sources from the last century.”

But, knowing that some are still calling for the Senate to think small by passing a bill that just boosts energy production from clean and dirty sources, I thought it would help to outline five reasons why a comprehensive package will do more for national security, the economy, the budget, and the environment than an energy-only bill.

Independent analyses show that a strong comprehensive clean energy and climate bill would:

• Cut U.S. oil imports in half, by reducing our dependence on oil and enabling U.S. producers to maximize the output of aging land-based wells, according to Advanced Resources International. An energy-only bill won’t.
• Cut Iran’s oil revenues by $100 million. A strong limit on carbon pollution could significantly cut the flow of petrodollars to Iran, which would lose approximately $1.8 trillion worth of oil revenues over the next 40 years. Meanwhile, an energy-only bill would do little to reduce U.S. oil imports beyond opening new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to oil drilling with all the attendant environmental problems.
• Cut our budget deficit by $24 billion between 2010 and 2019, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). An energy-only bill would increase the deficit by $13.5 billion over the same time period, according the CBO’s analysis.
• Create about 1.9 million jobs, according to independent analysis by the University of California and further substantiated by a literature review by Third Way. That’s nearly four times as many jobs as an energy-only bill would create.
• Cut 2 billion metric tons of global warming pollution from 2005 levels, by 2020. An energy only bill would at best cut just a tenth of that amount, but could also increase pollution levels depending on its details.

Anyone contemplating supporting energy-only over a comprehensive bill should bear these facts in mind. And realize that whether your top priority is national security, deficit reduction, job creation, or pollution reduction, a comprehensive bill clean energy and climate bill does a lot more for our country.

This post originally appeared Pete’s Switchboard blog.

As the Gulf Coast oil disaster shows, America has a failed national energy policy. We need a new clean energy policy to break our addiction to oil, enhance our national security, limit carbon pollution and lead us to clean American energy. Last June, the House passed a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill. But so far the Senate has dragged its feet in enacting legislation.

Please join us in calling on President Obama to work with the US Senate to form a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that can be passed and signed this year.

Because every day we delay,

The United States imports 11.7 million barrels of oil. According to the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. imported an average of 11.7 million barrels per day of crude and other oil products in 2009.

Iran earns $173 million in oil revenues. The Economist Intelligence Unit forecasts that Iran will generate oil export revenue at $63.4 billion this year  from output of 3.82 million barrels per day (bpd).  $63.4 billion divided by 365 days is $173.7 million.

Up to 4 million gallons of oil surges into the Gulf. The official estimate is that about 5,000 barrels of oil are spilling per day, but independent experts contend that the actual amount is far higher – as much as 95,000 barrels per day. A barrel holds 42 gallons.

China invests $95 million in clean energy – nearly double the United States investment ($51 million.) In 2009, China invested $34.6 billion in clean energy compared to $18.6 billion in the U.S. ($34.6 billion/365 = $95 million a day, $18.6 billion/365 = $51 million a day.)

100,000 solar panels roll off Chinese production lines. Solar module production in China and Taiwan will increase 48 percent to 5,515 megawatts in 2010, according to a February, 2010 report by Yuanta. One megawatt requires about 5,000 panels. Assuming 250 production days per year, this translates to 110,300 panels per day.

The United States generates 19 million tons (metric) of greenhouse gas emissions. EPA’s most recent greenhouse gas inventory reports that the U.S. produced 6,956.8 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalent basis) in 2008. That’s 19,059,726 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions each day.

But, by passing clean energy and climate legislation, Congress could:

Create 1.9 million clean energy jobs here in the US. A strong clean energy and climate bill with would stimulate clean energy manufacturing here in the US. A bill with strong energy efficiency incentives would create a net of 1.9 million jobs, according to in-depth modeling built on collaborative University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California.

Increase household income by up to $1,175 per year and boost GDP by up to $111 billion. The same study found that a bill would boost US GDP by as much as $111 billion and increase average annual household income by $1,175 per year.

Cut US oil imports in half. Clean energy and climate legislation would drive investments in more fuel-efficient cars and trucks as well as alternatives to imported oil, cutting our current oil import level in half.

Cut Iran’s oil revenues by $100 million. A strong limit on carbon pollution could significantly cut the flow of petrodollars to Iran’s hostile regime. Based on an economic analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology of a carbon cap that reduces global warming pollution by 80 percent by 2050, Iran would lose approximately $1.8 trillion worth of oil revenues over the next forty years — over $100 million a day.

Strategically position the US to lead a $13 trillion global clean-energy market. The clean energy industry offers significant growth opportunities for American businesses. Under a global policy aimed at keeping carbon concentrations below 450ppm, clean energy investments are forecast to exceed $13 trillion over the next two decades. A strong climate bill in the US would trigger investments that pay for themselves in lower energy costs and help establish global markets that would directly benefit US manufacturers of cleaner cars, cleaner fuels, and cleaner power (see table below) and companies involved in improving industrial, power plant, and building efficiency.

Cut dangerous global warming pollution by 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. A strong clean energy and climate bill would cut global warming pollution by 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% percent by 2050.

If not now, when?

This post originally appeared my Switchboard blog.