Hillary's support for International Paper's toxic tire burn in NY: Defend this.

[cali]

<snip>

At the time, of course, Clinton was hotly engaged in a campaign to increase her margin of victory in her bid for reelection in her New York Senate race. Her triumph was never in question: she faced only token Republican opposition in a heavily Democratic state. But she was desperate to prove that she could win with a big margin in more conservative areas of upstate New York so she could prove to Democrats that she would be viable in similar conservative areas around the country during her presidential bid.

That understandable political aspiration came head to head with New Hampshire children's health in 2005, when the International Paper logging company unveiled a proposal to burn tires at its Ticonderoga paper mill in upstate New York on the border with Vermont. Burning tires to power its operations would save IP money on its electricity bills, but it came with a heavy price.

Burning tires produces massive quantities of mercury, benzene, and other cancer-causing poisons, and prevailing winds would carry those poisons into Vermont, New Hampshire, and the rest of New England. At the time, doctors and public health officials warned that even a very limited tire burn could cause permanent damage to New Englanders' health, especially that of children, whose developing bodies are especially vulnerable to exposure to toxic chemicals. According to the American Lung Association, exposure to burning tires can cut years off someone's life. The dangers were so bad that Vermont's Republican governor, Jim Douglas, took up the cause and launched lawsuits and an extended public campaign to persuade New York not to expose the residents of his state to these deadly risks.

Normally, it's likely that Vermont's efforts along with those of New York environmentalists would succeed in stopping such an outrageous plan. But IP had an ace up its sleeve in Hillary Clinton. The logging company's strategists knew that Clinton would do almost anything to win votes in upstate New York and so they resorted to an old polluter trick: they threatened to close down the plant and fire the workers if they weren't allowed to burn the tires.

<snip>

Clinton could have just stayed silent - the permit to allow the tire burn was a state issue. But she went out of her way to help the logging company, actively lobbying the state government to allow the tire burn to go ahead. With Clinton's influence behind them, the logging company had the bipartisan support it needed and New York State approved a two-week test tire burn, as a prelude to a permanent permit.

<snip>

But the episode did show that Hillary Clinton is willing to sacrifice even her most cherished value - children's welfare - when she sees even the smallest political advantage in doing so. It's the kind of decision we fear she would make over and over in The White House. In a world where children need all the help they can get, we need someone who will stand up for them even when it's politically tough to do so, and Clinton just isn't meeting that standard.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-hurowitz/hillary-clintons-toxic-n_b_80260.html

[styersc]

1. Saved jobs?

Bitch!

[cali]

3. As a Vermonter who was actively

against this and went to several hearings on it, I was pissed at Hillary's stance on this. This is a huge reason why she won't win here.

Still, I wish we'd stay away from calling her sexist names.

[MADem]

4. Yeah, she should have just let those folks, parents many of them, lose their jobs!

What's the MATTER with her?

:rofl:

[cali]

7. Nobody lost any jobs, but it's nice to know that you have no

problem poisoning Vermont children.

[MH1]

12. It seems to me that a strong leader would have worked for saving the jobs

without risking the poisoning of other people.

Thanks for this informative post, cali.

[MADem]

16. Wow, that was a leap worthy of Superman, for a test that lasted three days.

Let's talk about the coal industry, and in particular, high-sulphur content Illinois coal, if you want to talk about poisoned New England children...hmmmm?

[BootinUp]

2. Oh yes allowing a test burn was just such an awful thing

I would be more impressed by the Hil-haters if they could show where she favored actually removing or loosening safety standards. But this is a non-story.

[cali]

6. No, it's not a non-story here. Not even close

It's been a huge story here for a long time- and so was her support for the burn. Everyone knew WITHOUT the fucking test how toxic the chemicals released are, and we in Vermont damn well know where those chemicals would go.

[BootinUp]

8. I guess you have a problem with the concept of a test. nt

[cali]

11. So did my repug governor and VPIRG and every environmental

group in the state, and Bill McKibben and the vast majority of the Vermont House, both repugs and dems and progressives, and the Vermont Senate, and the Times-Argus, and the Burlington Free Press, and every environmental group in NY. Duh. There was no fucking need for a test; everyone knew what the results of the "test" would be.

[BootinUp]

13. There can be knee jerk reactions

even on the left, or by folks that don't want it in their backyard regardless.

I can easily imagine a scenario where a test could have made sense on technical grounds even though there was such an outcry. The point is that someone paid for a test to insure that it would have to meet standards before being allowed to continue.

Yes this is a non issue.

[creeksneakers2]

21. Did the plant have emissions scrubbers?

Because unburnt tires are an environmental problem too.

[catgirl]

9. Unless, of course, if you live in VT, NH, MA

and you don't want your family to get Lymphoma cancer. To view
this as a non-story says a lot...Politics comes first for Clinton-even
if it means jeapordizing childrens health. She didn't do this to save,
she did this for votes. Yuck.

[AP]

5. If she wasn't on the side of Wall St, Lazlo or Guiliani would be Senator from New York?

If you wanted a NY Senator willing to fight Wall St, then you better find one that has a ton of charisma and has total control of the way the public perceives him or her, and find one who could completely circumvent the media's "mediation" of his or her image to the public (in other words, create a time machine, and stop JFK Jr from learning how to fly).

[bigtree]

10. I saw NewsMax was also running this story

It is at odds with her dogged efforts to challenge Bush's EPA on their cover-up of the toxins in New York's air resulting from the collapse of the towers.

but for this article:

Wrong -- she supported only the TEST

This article deeply troubled me until I looked further. When I read the letter which the supposedly demonstrates Clinton's willingness to "sacrifice" children on the altar of her "desperate" "ambition," I found only her support for a two-week TEST, NOT for final approval.

Bloomberg.com reports a statement from her office that she "takes seriously the outstanding questions about the environmental impacts, and believes that the two-week test will provide the information needed to answer those questions."

She was right... it did. The test failed, and from what I can tell she appropriately dropped her support given the evidence. I supect that one failed test will do far more to halt tireburning plans around the nation than all the efforts to prevent the test.

Action based on evidence -- makes sense to me. Isn't that we want Americans to do in the face of global warming? Obama has done far greater damage with his support of the horrendous 2005 energy bill, which Clinton opposed. The real poison here is in the hyperbole of this article.

by Bo Gardiner at 4:56 AM on 08 Jan 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/6/101959/1284

[cali]

14. You can't sell me that shit. I live here.

I went to meetings about this. There was NEVER any fuckng need for a test- let alone a two week test spewing highly toxic chemicals in significant amounts into MY state. The science was completely known. And this stand of Clintons is a big deal here.

She's gonna get walloped here- in part because of this. It was a front page story repeatedly.

[bigtree]

15. It was a test which led to the rejection of the plan

but, you go on a hyperventilate like you were personally affected by this. I think the entire argument is contrived bullshit. Obama voted for the industry Energy bill. Clinton voted against it. Top that (explain that away), if you're REALLY so all fired up about the environment.

[MADem]

17. But hey, sulphur laden coal from Illinois--that's the ticket!! Fired up and ready to go! nt

[texastoast]

19. Erm

Burning tires has already been tested long before this. We already knew the hazards.

[karynnj]

18. I hope that she is asked about this.

This matches things Bill did - but it would be good if there was some backup that proves this is not distortion.

I also hope RFKjr is asked about this. It is 100% against his life work.

[guruoo]

20. Didn't they allow the new system test to determine what the real impact would be? n/t