Area lawmakers are making no apologies for the low marks they
received this week from PennEnvironment on their legislative votes.
The
statewide environmental advocacy group tracked legislative votes on
such issues as open space, renewable energy, conservation and public
transportation to score lawmakers.
"They are very tree huggy,"
state Rep. Garth Everett, R-Muncy, said. "I guess they think we should
all live in caves. In my opinion, they don't have a lot of balance."
According
to PennEnvironment, Everett had an environmentally friendly voting
record of just 22 percent, matching the score of state Rep. Matthew E.
Baker, R-Wellsboro.
State Rep. Steven W. Cappelli, R-Williamsport, scored 33 percent.
State
Sen. Roger A. Madigan, R-Towanda, was issued a mark of 43 percent, and
state Rep. Michael D. Hanna, D-Lock Haven, scored 50 percent.
"That's
probably the highest one I've ever gotten," Madigan laughed. "They
probably raised it because I'm getting out (of office)."
Statewide,
91 of the House's 203 members scored 80 percent or above. Only seven of
the Senate's 50 members scored 80 percent or higher.
The average score for the House was 62 percent, and for the Senate, 50 percent.
Nathan
Wilcox, PennEnvironment's energy and clean air director, noted that
Democrats tended to receive higher environmental scores.
However, he said the group tried to concentrate on those bills that would not simply be a reflection of party line votes.
PennEnvironment considered votes taken by the Senate on seven bills.
Of
those, Madigan cast environmentally favorable votes on public
transportation and the reappointment of state Environmental Secretary
Kathleen McGinty.
The transportation bill provided "historic"
increases in the state's mass transit systems as a means of helping cut
vehicular global warming and air pollution.
He voted in favor of
prohibiting the state from requiring power plants to reduce mercury
emissions beyond weaker federal standards, explaining that the
reductions would be insignificant.
The pollutant-reduction equipment, he added, would diminish power at plants.
"A
lot of their (PennEnvironment) positions are good for the environment,
but tough on Joe Lunch Bucket. The average citizen pays through the
nose for this," Madigan said.
Madigan also voted to prevent the
state from cutting pollution from vehicles beyond weaker federal
standards and in favor of taking money from a fund designated to
conserve open space.
On the latter issue, Madigan said he voted
against the bill because he thought it might reduce available areas for
forestry practices.
Everett and Cappelli both voted for a similar
bill in the House that give townships better legal means of protecting
open spaces. The bill included language to help townships respond to
frivolous lawsuits by developers, which was later presented as an
amendment and voted against by the two.
The two lawmakers also
voted to allocate $30 million toward promotion of wind energy in the
state, but against a bill to provide the state's largest-ever funding
increase for clean energy measures, as well as against a bill to
establish programs to cut energy use statewide.
Both also voted
in favor of an amendment calling for up to $25 million to be diverted
from alternative energy projects to subsidize required improvements at
coal-fired power plants.
"I'm not for polluting the environment," said Everett, noting he is an outdoorsman.
He said that for now, at least, natural gas, coal and nuclear resources must be tapped for energy sources.
He
said some lawmakers, particularly those from more affluent legislative
districts including southeastern Pennsylvania, tend to be more
pro-environment.
After all, their constituents can better afford to take steps necessary to comply with environmental standards.
"Their constituency expects them to vote green," he said.
Madigan
noted that much of his district is agricultural, where his people have
taken a more practical approach to issues that require a balancing of
commercial and environmental interests.
"Here, our farmers have been the real conservationists," he said.
Cappelli
explained that fiscal restraint prevents many of the state's rural
lawmakers from scoring higher on environmental issues.
"The requirement to accomplish in the longterm ... it involves borrowing, fees. That is just not palatable to them."
Still, he said he's proud of his own environmental record.
"I think the last three years have been the most progressive in Pennsylvania on environmental issues," he said.
PennEnvironment
Director David Masur said the scorecard is an important measuring stick
in considering the voting records of lawmakers.
"In order to
protect and preserve Pennsylvania's environment, we need our elected
officials voting for the strongest environmental protections possible,"
he said.
Cappelli said he has some problems with the system used by PennEnvironment to rate lawmakers.
"I've agreed with some of their analysis and disagreed with some of their analysis. It's really a fine line, quite frankly."
"They are just very, very green. There's nothing wrong with that," Everett added.
Baker and Hanna could not be reached for comment for this report.
