Blowing Smoke

A new ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week will require 27 states, including Texas, to reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from its coal-fired power plants by installing updated equipment. The decreased output of greenhouse gases will benefit air quality on a national scale. Despite resistance from Texas officials, The Houston Chronicle argues that the mandate is perfectly reasonable, and states that "clean air does not start or stop at the state line."


Perry and republican leaders cite federal overreach, loss of jobs, and increased expenses for Texas families as reasons why the new plan is not in Texas's best interest. However, no one can dispute the significant incentives for instating the new regulations. The EPA projections are clear, "by 2014 the rule will prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 1.8 million sick days a year, saving up to $280 billion annually in health costs." Furthermore, The Houston Chronicle counters Perry's claims by noting that the $800 million required annually to bring about the change will cost Texas families about an additional dollar to their monthly electricity bill. The logic in these straightforward arguments are credible and aim to convince opponents of the new ruling that these required improvements will benefit Texas, and the United States, with extremely minor inconveniences for Texans. 


Finally, support of the EPA's new ruling is a moral obligation on Texas's part. The state of Texas has 19 coal-fired power plants (the most in the country) and is the biggest polluter of the nation. Texas pollutes the air of many other states, and is the leader in nitrogen oxide emissions. Rather than resist environmental policy at every turn, Perry should welcome the opportunity to improve Texas's environmental record and take steps to lose the title as "the #1 polluter in the U.S." (and #7 polluter in the world!, climateark.org)


As The Houston Chronicle states, "we're all in this together." Let's help to enact this change, rather than fight it.

The Leal Execution: What does it mean for Texans, Americans, and Perry's Potential Run for President?

In 1995, Mexican citizen Humberto Leal Jr. was convicted of the rape and murder of a 16 year-old girl and sentenced to death by a Texas jury. Just last week, the day scheduled for his lethal injection finally arrived. Despite pleas from the Obama administration, and objection from the global community, the death penalty was carried out as planned. The controversy surrounding the case was that Leal, as a Mexican citizen, was not informed of his right to seek assistance from the consulate. The execution was noted as violating international treaties and potentially endangering Texans (and Americans) abroad. John B. Bellinger III, a former Bush administration State Department lawyer stated that we did "not comply with our obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the U.N. Charter." 


Texas's stance on the death penalty has always been controversial, but with a Mexican citizen involved this case received international attention. Not only does this force Texas to reflect on its policy, but places the spotlight on Governor Rick Perry, who could have granted a 30 day stay on the execution. With an expectation to announce his intentions of a presidential run in the next couple of months, Perry may face some political fallout as a result of Leal's execution. Leal's lawyer, Sandra Babcock, said that "Perry needs to start looking at, 'what are the countries' interests in this case?' not just what are Texas's interests." However, disapproval from foreign dignitaries could actually be a positive for Perry in the Republican primaries, notes political pundit Harvey Kronberg, publisher of The Quorum Report.