Mercury as A Pollutant Corner: Millions in Politics tied to Mercury debate

(Ed. note. The Sierra Club has published a memo detailing how mercury is a factor in the VanHollen race.)

􀀃
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Bruce Nilles
Friday, October 27, 2006 608.712.9725
Sierra Club: Van Hollen’s Repeated Promises to Not Enforce
Environmental Laws Demonstrates He is Unfit to Be Attorney General
Madison, WI:

In the final public debate between the two candidates running for the state’s top
cop, Van Hollen again reiterated that he would drop at least three lawsuits that the state of
Wisconsin has filed against the nation’s largest corporate polluters and the Bush Administration.
Van Hollen has described these lawsuits as “frivolous, ideologically-motivated, partisan-driven
lawsuits.”1 These three lawsuits include two against the Bush Administration for failure to curb
mercury and global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants and another against the
Nation’s six largest emitters of global warming pollution.


“Van Hollen’s promises to drop these lawsuits demonstrates that he cannot be trusted to uphold
the oath of the office of the Attorney General, to faithfully enforce all of our laws, and be a
steward of our great natural resources,” said Gerard McMullen, Political Co-Chair for the John
Muir Chapter of the Sierra Club. “More troubling still is that large corporate polluters, who have
a direct financial interest in these lawsuits, including the industry lobbyists at Wisconsin
Manufacturers and Commerce, are spending a record $1.7 million in attack ads against his
opponent. This is a favorite tactic of the Bush Administration: When it can’t rollback our
Nation’s environmental laws, it simply elects not to enforce them. In this case, corporate
polluters have found an AG candidate that has promised to not enforce our environmental laws
and are spending millions to get him elected.”


Not only has Van Hollen stated he would drop the current lawsuits against the Nation’s largest
polluters and the Bush Administration, he has also said that he would not file any suits against
other governmental agencies.

In contrast to the majority of criminal laws that are enforced by district attorneys in each county,
the Wisconsin Attorney General has the lead responsibility in the state for enforcing all laws that
protect our clean air, clean water, and natural resources.
1 Van Hollen Press Release, May 9, 2006
􀀃

The Attorney General is the state’s lawyer when the DNR identifies another governmental entity,
such as a city, county, or another state, that is violating environmental laws. For example, earlier
this month the Attorney General at the DNR’s request settled a case against Barron County for
repeated air pollution violations at its trash incinerator. This trash incinerator is one of the state’s
largest sources of dioxin – a toxin that EPA has described as one of the most dangerous
chemicals known to science. The settlement required Barron County to install and operate new
pollution controls. According to Van Hollen’s blanket promise not to enforce environmental
laws against other governmental agencies he would have rejected the DNR’s request to bring this
lawsuit and curb Barron County’s pollution. Similarly, should the DNR determine that the state
of Illinois is not doing enough to curb its pollution and that pollution is blowing into Wisconsin,
Van Hollen’s promise not to sue other governments indicates he would not file suit against
Illinois either.

Before deciding to run for attorney general Van Hollen was appointed U.S. Attorney for the
Western District by the Bush Administration—the same administration that Robert Kennedy Jr.
has described as the worst environmental administration this country has ever seen. Van Hollen
has never spoken out against the extreme anti-environmental agenda of his former employer.
Instead, Van Hollen has stated that he does not think Wisconsin should ever file suit against the
anti-environment agenda of those in Washington. After leaving the Bush Administration, Van
Hollen joined a large Madison law firm where he now represents some of the state’s biggest
corporate polluters.2

Special interest groups, headed up byWisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce—who represent
many of the state’s largest polluters and is a client of Van Hollen’s law firm—have spent
upwards of $1.7 million on TV ads blasting Van Hollen’s opponent Kathleen Falk because she
has a strong record of supporting clean air and clean water.
Editorial writers have noted that Van Hollen does not understand (or does not want to
understand) that protecting clean air, clean water and the state’s natural resources is a critical
component of the Attorney General job description:

Van Hollen fails to appreciate that while education and voluntary compliance are
important tools in conserving natural resources, sometimes there is no substitute
for aggressively enforcing the law. Does Van Hollen recall that two trout streams
and a lake in southern Wisconsin have been rendered lifeless by recent manure
spills? Or that mercury emissions continue to contaminate lakes and make fish
unsafe to eat? Or that open burning of household waste loads the air, soil and
water with dangerous toxins? Van Hollen’s attack [of Falk] raises troubling
questions about his commitment to protecting Wisconsin’s natural resources.
Environmental protection isn’t, as Van Hollen’s believes, a “social agenda.” It’s
an absolute necessity.3
2 http://www.dewittross.com/lawyers/lawyer.php?staff_id=98&stc=l;
http://www.lawyers.com/Wisconsin/Madison/DeWitt-Ross-and-Stevens-S.C.-1793895-f.html
3 Tomah Journal Editorial, October 2, 2006
􀀃
Here are some of the lawsuit that Van Hollen has promised to drop if elected:

1) In March 2005 the Bush Administration proposed two separate rules that would weaken
Clean Air Act requirements and allow more mercury pollution to be emitted from the
nation’s coal-fired power plants. Scientists estimate up to 600,000 children are born
annually in the United States with neurological problems, including brain damage,
because of mercury exposure while in the womb. Wisconsin has issued a statewide fish
consumption advisory for all inland waters due to mercury contamination, which includes
nearly 15,000 lakes and 32,000 miles of rivers located in the state, as well as Lakes
Michigan and Superior and the Mississippi River on its borders. Not only does the Bush
rule threaten Wisconsin’s stronger mercury requirements, but it would allow power plants
across our borders (such as the Alliant plant in Dubuque, IA or the Midwest Generation
plant in Waukegan, IL), to avoid installing cost-effective mercury controls and to
continue to dump high levels of mercury into our state waterways. A coalition of eleven
states, including Wisconsin and Illinois, has filed suit against the Bush Administration’s
efforts to weaken mercury rules. That case is pending before the appeals court in
Washington, D.C.
WMC also opposes this suit
2) Despite promising action as a candidate, once he took office President Bush has
steadfastly refused to take action on global warming. Global warming poses significant
economic threats to Wisconsin, particularly our agricultural, tourism and forestry sectors.

To protect Wisconsin’s interests and minimize global warming pollution the State of
Wisconsin has joined with other states to sue the Nation’s six largest global warming
polluters. That case was filed on July 21, 2004 and is currently pending before the
appeals court in New York.
WMC also opposes this suit
3) On April 27, 2006 a coalition of states, including Wisconsin, filed suit against the
Bush Administration for failing to adopt more stringent pollution requirements for
power plants. The Bush Administration had proposed lax standards which
completely fail to regulate power plant emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary
pollutant causing global warming. This case is pending in the appeals court in
Washington, D.C.
WMC also opposes this suit
Authorized by Wisconsin Sierra Club Education Committee, John Reindl, Treasurer. Reproduced without expense
to Sierra Club. Not authorized or paid for by any candidate or candidate committee.