Factual · Powerful · Original · Iconoclastic
Jon Corzine: Putting the Greenpeace Agenda above America’s Safety
"War profiteers" are those who use military conflict to make a quick buck or push an agenda that would fail in peacetime. That describes various extremist environmental groups and their champion, New Jersey Democratic Senator Jon Corzine.
For over a decade these groups have tried to banish vital industrial chemicals, especially chlorine, with false claims about potential harm. Their efforts failed. So now they’ve switched tacks and are trying to piggyback their agenda on the terrorist threat with Sen. Corzine’s legislation, the Chemical Security Act of 2003, and its alleged purpose of protecting "the public against the threat of chemical attacks."
For example, rather than giving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sole charge of establishing and enforcing new chemical industry rules, Corzine’s bill would force the Department to work in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Yet the purpose of establishing the DHS was to pull agencies under a single authority for better coordination. Further, whom would you trust more to keep the bad guys out of a chemical plant, the FBI, CIA, and the Coast Guard – or those "special ops" bureaucrats at the EPA?
Parts of the Corzine bill looks innocent enough unless you understand the parlance of anti-chemical legislation.
Thus, it calls for "high priority categories" to be designated "based on the severity of the threat." The first term means "spending a bunch more bucks to reduce potential risks," which might not be bad except that "severity of the threat" is entirely theoretical. It’s based on documentation that environmentalists had earlier convinced Congress to force industry to prepare, called "Worst Case Scenarios" or (WSCs).
"Um, if it’s okay with you I’d rather fight the EPA than Homeland Security."
Many of the presumptions for these WSCs are bizarre, such as the wind blowing in all directions at the same time. Neat trick, huh? Other presumptions include no obstructions (such as buildings or hills), the perfect temperature for spread, and so on.
Yet the "reality scenario" is that in the past 80 years a billion tons of chlorine have been made in this country with no deaths outside any facility. The actual accidental rupture of a train car in Missouri last year carrying 80,000 pounds of chlorine might have, on paper, killed thousands; in reality nobody died on or offsite.
The bill also demands that, when feasible, facilities switch to "inherently safer technology." This is shorthand for drastically cutting the use of chlorine, about which Greenpeace’s Joe Thornton told Science magazine in 1993, "There are no known uses . . . which we regard as safe." Little wonder that Greenpeace has set aside a page on its website encouraging members to "Take Action!" to support the Corzine legislation.
Never mind that thousands of products and materials are made with chlorine, or that over 98% of water supply systems that disinfect drinking water use chlorine because of its germicidal potency, efficiency, and economy. It kills viruses, bacteria, and fungi.
Without water chlorination, the number of U.S. deaths from horrible diseases such as cholera, typhoid, and dysentery would each day swamp the number killed by terrorists on September 11.
About 85 percent of all pharmaceuticals contain or are produced using chlorine chemistry, including Cipro and other drugs that combat anthrax and other bioweapons.
No chemical plays a more important role in the war on terror. Water chlorination prevents spiking reservoirs with germs. Chlorine disinfected the offices contaminated by the anthrax mailings. Chlorine is used to make the bullet-resistant Kevlar that protects our soldiers and police officers, as well as aircraft, missiles, and rocket fuel.
Osama bin Laden has declared he will destroy our economy, that the September 11 attacks have "shaken the throne of America and hit hard the American economy at its heart and its core." But whatever the economic damage of those attacks, it would utterly pale in significance to irrationally slashing the use of chlorine products and their derivatives that contribute to 45 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product.
The Inhofe bill emphasizes not the restriction or banning of various chemicals but rather taking "security measures" to "reduce the vulnerability of the source."
It also gives sole jurisdiction to the DHS, which is, interestingly enough, fine by the EPA. "It doesn’t matter to us who takes the lead," Craig Matthiessen, associate director in the Agency’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office told me.
Mathiessen notes that DHS would certainly employ EPA’s expertise both in prevention and in emergency response because, "once there’s a discharge, it doesn’t matter whether it was accidental or terrorist-caused."
Further, only Inhofe pre-empts state open-records laws that might allow Osama and friends to discover exactly what safety precautions a facility has taken. Nobody would have access to secret information but the DHS itself and emergency response agencies – not even the EPA.
Why? As a July 2000 General Accounting Office report found, there are "serious and pervasive problems that essentially rendered EPA’s agency-wide information security program ineffective."
This rupture of a train car last year carrying 80,000 pounds of chlorine might on paper have killed thousands; in reality nobody died.
Further, said the report, "Our tests of computer-based controls concluded that the computer operating systems and the agency-wide computer network that support most of EPA’s mission related and financial operations were riddled with security weaknesses. Of particular concern is that many of the most serious weaknesses we identified – those related to inadequate protection from intrusions via the Internet and poor security planning – had been previously reported to EPA management in 1997 by EPA’s Inspector General."
That’s who Corzine wants to co-administer anti-terror regulations?
EPA may have cleaned up its act somewhat since then, but "I’m assuming DHS is going to be more secure than EPA" says Mark Greenwood, who ran the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics from 1990 to 1994. "EPA has historically, and particularly in the last decade, been oriented towards public disclosure. Obviously DHS has a security orientation."
Obviously, DHS is the agency to do the job and Corzine is merely trying to hide a green agenda behind a red, white, and blue veneer. Any congressman can introduce industry-bashing bills whenever he wants, but anti-terror legislation must be just that. You can’t play around when the enemy plays for keeps.