As Congress finally begins to move chemical security legislation in the House Homeland Security and Energy & Commerce Committees, Greenpeace is urging everyone to weigh in and remind Congress what they have to do before October 4th when the fatally flawed temporary law expires. A blue-green coalition of more than 50 organizations including the Steelworkers, UAW, Teamsters, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Group are also working hard.
For almost eight years this legislation has been held up by a coalition of chemical industry lobbyists representing giants like Dow and DuPont, the Bush administration and their allies in Congress. In 2008 the industry deployed some 200 lobbyists spending millions to successfully stall this legislation for the seventh year in a row. In the same seven years, hundreds of chemical plants have converted to safer chemicals, eliminating risks to millions of Americans. Unfortunately at the current rate it could take 70 years to eliminate these hazards at the nation’s highest risk plants.
This year the chemical lobby is at it again. As you can see by their March 2nd letter to Congress, they are obsessed with killing legislation that could require any chemical plant to use safer chemicals that will eliminate the risk of a Bhopal magnitude disaster. Instead they are pressuring Congress to make the temporary law permanent. They ghost wrote that law in 2006 in a successful effort to derail stronger legislation. That “law” actually PROHIBITS the government from requiring the use of safer chemicals and EXEMPTS thousands of chemical facilities completely, including all water treatment plants.
Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the largest chemical companies are pretending to have a kinder, gentler side in contrast to the more publicly dogmatic wing that signed the March 2nd letter. They apparently think Congress is as naive as Little Red Riding Hood because this “kinder” wolf is the primary lobbying arm of Dow and DuPont, aka the American Chemistry Council (ACC). By not signing the March 2nd letter the ACC companies hope Congress will forget that they spear headed the industry lobbying over the last eight years that either killed, delayed or weakened chemical security legislation. As you can see by the flow chart, ACC leaders Dow and DuPont are also prominent members of many of the hard-line lobbying groups that signed the March 2nd letter.
Now not all the companies in these lobbying groups necessarily agree with the March 2nd letter. The railroads are also members of some of these groups but in February 2008, the Association of American Railroads released a statement saying: "It's time for the big chemical companies to do their part to help protect America. They should stop manufacturing dangerous chemicals when safer substitutes are available. And if they won't do it, Congress should do it for them."
The railroads are the largest shippers of the poison gases that make them and U.S. chemical plants among the most vulnerable terrorist targets in the U.S. Shipping these gases represents less than 0.3 percent of their business but it’s 80 percent of their liability.
Recognizing that major companies such as Dow and DuPont also have enormous liability exposure, we sent their CEOs extensively documented letters citing the millions of people that Dow and DuPont plants put at risk and urged them to join other companies in switching to safer available chemicals. We also asked them to follow the railroad’s example and break with the industry groups lobbying AGAINST legislation that could ensure that high risk plants convert to safer chemicals. I wish we could say we’ve reached a break through with them but I can say we’ve definitely gotten their attention at the highest levels.
Remember, help is on the way. It’s in your own emails, calls and letters to Congress. The two House Committees taking up this legislation understand the stakes but they need to hear from you today if they’re going to keep the proverbial wolf away from the door. If we’re successful this summer the next stop will be the House floor, hopefully no later than September. In the meantime the U.S. Senate will have to get serious because the chemical lobby doesn’t take the summer off.
--Rick
You must have an account and be logged in to post comments.
Please log in or create an account to share your comments.
The planet needs you, and so do we. Join our mailing list to get the latest Greenpeace news, online action alerts, and more delivered to your inbox. It's one more way you can help create a more green and peaceful future.
Join the conversation on the Greenpeace Activist blog! Start your own blog and connect with other bloggers. Network with fellow activists, share your stories, discuss latest news and trends and trade tips on organizing and living green. The Greenpeace Activist blog is your place to help build and engage with the environmental movement.
February 2010 (5)
January 2010 (18)
December 2009 (45)
November 2009 (40)
October 2009 (40)
September 2009 (37)
August 2009 (26)
July 2009 (34)
June 2009 (40)
May 2009 (25)
April 2009 (42)
March 2009 (28)
350
Alternet
Bright Green Blog
Celsias
Climate Progress
DeSmogBlog
Dateline Earth
Dot Earth
EcoGeek
Environmental Capital
Green For All Blog
Green Inc.
Greenspace
Grist Magazine
The Huffington Post
It's getting hot in here
Mother Jones
NRDC blogs
Outside Blog
Skeptical Science
The Skywriter
Sustainablog
The Thin Green Line
Treehugger
Understory
Unsilent Generation
Utne Reader
Warming Law
Wonk Room
Yahoo! Green
1Sky
350
Apollo Alliance
Boreal Songbird Initiative
Environmental Investigation Agency
ForestEthics
Green for All
Markets Initiative
Natural Resources Defense Council
NukeFree.org
Rainforest Action Network
Sierra Club
Sustainable South Bronx
True Majority
We Can Solve It
Wow... 3% of their business represents 80% of their risk?! Yet they're trying to PROTECT that scenario! Either you're wrong, or they're stupid.
Does Greenpeace use spokespeople who are ignorant of Greenpeace’s best interests? …Of course not. Should Greenpeace “lobbyists” be dismissed solely on the reputation of their client?
Is it possible that the chemical lobbyists are the best qualified to promote the well being of their clients? You seem certain that the chemical companies’ best interest doesn’t coincide with our best interests. Are you suggesting that those companies are ignorant of the massive risks you mention?
I repeat: Either you’re wrong, or they’re stupid. Something tells me they’re not stupid…
said, “We cannot allow chemical industry lobbyists to dictate the terms
of this debate. We cannot allow our security to be hijacked by corporate
interests."