<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Even though conventional wisdom says you need him to pass major environmental legislation]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Hudson</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/dingell-is-dispensable/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:35:40 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/dingell-is-dispensable/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>The true face of Dingell</strong></p><p>In the 1990s, the Clinton-era EPA was investigating a large coal-burning cement plant owned by Holnam (now Holcim) in Dundee, Michigan.</p><p>
EPA found that the plant had been exceeding its permitted levels of sulfur dioxide emissions by 700% -- for over 17 years.</p><p>
So what did Dingell do? He wrote letters to EPA demanding that the agency go easy on Holnam.</p><p>
SO2 is a major greenhouse gas. No one who truly cares about his constituents' (or planet's) health would behave that way. But Holnam was a big supporter of Dingell.</p><p>
In the end, the plant was fined over $500,000. That may sound like a lot, but if you amortize it over two decades, and consider how much extra profit this highly-profitable plant made over that period, it was like you or me getting a parking ticket.<br>


<p>Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends. -- George Bernard Shaw</p></br></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>The true face of Dingell</strong></p><p>In the 1990s, the Clinton-era EPA was investigating a large coal-burning cement plant owned by Holnam (now Holcim) in Dundee, Michigan.</p><p>
EPA found that the plant had been exceeding its permitted levels of sulfur dioxide emissions by 700% -- for over 17 years.</p><p>
So what did Dingell do? He wrote letters to EPA demanding that the agency go easy on Holnam.</p><p>
SO2 is a major greenhouse gas. No one who truly cares about his constituents' (or planet's) health would behave that way. But Holnam was a big supporter of Dingell.</p><p>
In the end, the plant was fined over $500,000. That may sound like a lot, but if you amortize it over two decades, and consider how much extra profit this highly-profitable plant made over that period, it was like you or me getting a parking ticket.<br>


<p>Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends. -- George Bernard Shaw</p></br></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by drosenblum</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/dingell-is-dispensable/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:43:56 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/dingell-is-dispensable/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Carbon Tax Is a Good Test</strong></p><p>"It's important to keep an eye on what he's actually doing where it matters -- and whether he's gaining any traction. So far, he's fought hard against all steps forward, but it hasn't made much difference in policy." &nbsp;</p><p>
Dingell's anticipated carbon tax proposal will be an excellent test of whether there is substance behind the rhetoric. &nbsp;If he uses his remaining power to help pass a revenue-neutral carbon tax, he will conclusively demonstrate his commitment to serious action on global warming. &nbsp;If it's lip service designed to sabotage other efforts, you're right that we should stop obsessing about what Dingell thinks or does.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Carbon Tax Is a Good Test</strong></p><p>"It's important to keep an eye on what he's actually doing where it matters -- and whether he's gaining any traction. So far, he's fought hard against all steps forward, but it hasn't made much difference in policy." &nbsp;</p><p>
Dingell's anticipated carbon tax proposal will be an excellent test of whether there is substance behind the rhetoric. &nbsp;If he uses his remaining power to help pass a revenue-neutral carbon tax, he will conclusively demonstrate his commitment to serious action on global warming. &nbsp;If it's lip service designed to sabotage other efforts, you're right that we should stop obsessing about what Dingell thinks or does.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>