Area lawmakers score low on the environment

Article Photos

Fact Box

HOW THEY SCORED:

Rep. Michael D. Hanna, 50 percent

Sen. Roger A. Madigan, 43 percent

Rep. Steven W. Cappelli, 33 percent

Rep. Matthew E. Baker, 22 percent

Rep. Garth Everett, 22 percent

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.