An environmental group on Tuesday plans to start airing more than $1 million in TV ads attacking U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk for a recent vote to block an Obama administration effort to curb global warming.
The Natural Resources Defense Council’s ad campaign, which it said will run through July 17 on Chicago broadcast and cable stations, comes as the first-term Republican senator already faces a difficult re-election effort next year.
The 30-second spot contends that a vote Kirk cast last month on an Environmental Protection Agency bill allowed power plants to “keep polluting our air.”
“Polluters are breathing a lot easier, but nearly 300,000 Illinois children aren’t,” the narrator says in the spot, which depicts pollution streaming from smokestacks, a field of withered corn and an infant breathing through a nebulizer mask.
Kirk, a member of the panel, had a provision in the Interior spending measure he was championing — a ban on sewage dumping into the Great Lakes by 2035. Kirk has worked on protecting Lake Michigan since he was a member of the House.
The sewage ban is one of his signature issues.
Nonetheless, Kirk was a key vote against an amendment by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., which would have taken out of the EPA bill the provision letting states opt out of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. Udall would have prevailed if Kirk sided with him. […]
Kevin Artl, Kirk’s campaign manager said, “Sen. Kirk’s most recent clean water legislation creates a strict new ban on sewage dumping in the Great Lakes, including a $100,000 per day fine on polluters that would fund the construction of new treatment plants. The simple truth is that Sen. Kirk is responsible for the most aggressive measure ever taken to protect the Great Lakes.”
Kirk could not have been expected to vote against his own “landmark Great Lakes protection language,” Artl said.
The Sierra Club launched a week-long advertising campaign Monday to slam Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) for voting to scrap the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) climate rule for power plants.
The environmental group started its “aggressive” campaign with a full-page ad in the Daily Herald, circulated in Chicago’s suburbs.
It accuses Kirk of voting three times “to put big polluter profits before the health of Illinois families,” and urges readers to tell Kirk to “stop attacking clean air” and “support the Clean Power Plan.”
Kirk For Senate campaign manager Kevin Artl has released the following statement in response to the ads by the Natural Resources Defense Council attacking Senator Mark Kirk’s environmental policy record:
“Senator Kirk has shown bold, independent action in Congress to reduce carbon emissions, protect against air pollution and enact aggressive measures to protect our great lakes from polluters and oil spills. The recent partisan attack ads by DC special interest groups, the same groups that once praised Senator Kirk’s work on behalf of protecting the environment, are not only false but sickening, beyond the pale of reasonable discussion and should be taken down.”
Everybody on both sides, is setting up their big guns to prepare for a withering barrage. This is seen by some to be the most vulnerable of all Republican Senate seats in the country. All the national groups will play.
This is the problem with hard liners on both sides of the aisle. Doesn’t matter if its environmental, anti-tax, pro-life, etc. They demand 100 percent loyalty or their turn on you.
Mark Kirk has been a moderate and been very helpful to them during his tenure yet they spend millions against him. I hope he wins and shoves it down their throats.
- the Other Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 11:32 am:
If the vote was on the EPA amendment, how could it be construed as a vote against Kirk’s language regarding Great Lakes sewage?
I think we could in fact expect Kirk to vote against the EPA/Clean Air amendment.
Was this a poison provision that would have doomed the bill to failure in the Republican-led Congress, or no? Seems quite possible at first glance. Is the motivation of these groups to pass a bill, or to play campaign politics?
Don’t know enough about the dynamics at play to have the answer, but it seems like a possibility.
The simple truth is NRDC and Sierra Club are wholly owned arms of the Democratic Party. They take orders from Harry Reid et am, and no Republican will get a fair shake from them.
Kirk has taken countless votes against GOP leadership on the environment, but it will never satisfy the enviro-left.
“Asthma babies? I can’t even take that ad seriously.”
Asthma is the number 1 cause of ER admissions for children. In Chicago, rates of childhood asthma have spiked. Think what you want of Kirk, but the science and rationale behind the ad are legit.
I have a coworker who hasn’t had a real vacation in years because she spends all of her PTO dealing with her son’s hospitalizations because of his asthma.
Am I reading that right, that he is proud that he championed an amendment to prohibit sewage dumping into the Great Lakes STARTING in 2035? What are the chances that the 2035 start date gets delayed once it gets closer?
Any hope that the Senate race wouldn’t be completely taken over by polar opposite entities just went out the window.
Senator Kirk has always been a fairly pro-environment officials. He took enormous heat for his vote in favor of Cap & Trade.
I have asthma. My younger son does, too. A lot of people have asthma. Blaming it only on power plants and pollution is a bit much. It can be caused by a number of factors: stress, activity, pets, mold, allergies, excessive coughing, lack of physical fitness, etc. I know those factors don’t help, but we have one of the cleanest coal-fired plants (Dallman 4) in the state and no one can burn leaves in town. I still have flare-ups, and so does my little guy. The terms “causation” and “correlation” come to mind.
This blogger, having worked in the environmental field since 1972, coincidentally the same year USEPA was formed, remembers air and water quality from the “old days.” Fast forwarding to the present, billions of dollars later, the improvements in same are nothing short of amazing. If you think not, pay a visit the industrial third world. I once got sick from simply walking down the street in an industrial town in coastal Brasil. The life expectancy in that town was less than fifty. So, when I see the maneuvering and religious fervor of the likes of the (new) Sierra Club, National Resource Defense Fund, and similar, I am reminded of the “March of Dimes” that, having lived to see the end of Polio, took on a new life doing whatever it now does. As for the environmental groups, it is my observation that they currently do more for fundraisers, lobbyists, and the legal profession than they have ever done for the environment. I long for the days of the (old)Sierra Club, both intellectually honest, and apolitical. That would be an environmental improvement.
To paint Kirk as anti-environment is laughable. Remember the time he was one of 8 Republicans to vote for Cap and Trade when he was in the House? He caught a ton of flack for that and still survived.
Kirk was decent in the House but lost his moral compass on his way to the Senate. What “bold, independent action” are they talking about? Haven’t seen any in a long time.
12:58 - just curious, but do you follow Senator Kirk (either page) on Facebook? He clearly states positions on social (or “forever”) media that are in opposition to Majority Leader McConnell’s and NRSC Chairman Wicker’s stances. Three recent posts that come to mind are environmental issues, gay marriage and international human rights advocacy.
Why punish power plants that already meet clean air regulations?
A lot of coal burning plants have converted to natural gas because gas is now cheaper then coal and using gas reduces pollution levels from those plants to the point that air is already cleaner then what the clean air regulations require. The EPA seems to want to keep moving the goalpost, so on that vote I would agree with Kirk.
In Chicago, the last 2 coal fired power plants have closed.
It is amazing that Kirk is considered a moderate for his work on improving the environment by championing a ban on sewage dumping into the Great Lakes that will not be in full force for 20 more years - 2035.
It is usually lower income people who will suffer the most from air pollution by living or working near coal power plants and dusty petcoke piles.
I’m not a big fan of Kirk’s, but a couple more ads like that and I won’t just vote for him, I’ll contribute.
- Judgment Day (on the road) - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 4:00 pm:
“It is amazing that Kirk is considered a moderate for his work on improving the environment by championing a ban on sewage dumping into the Great Lakes that will not be in full force for 20 more years - 2035.”
————–
We’ll be lucky if we have all the needed wastewater treatment infrastructure all in place and updated by 2035. And that’s assuming we get long term money allocated for building/upgrading the infrastructure, instead of wasting it on pursuing the current ‘climate change’ pipe dreams.
Even a small wastewater treatment facility can be a 5 year project, and the MSD projects are huge. And MSD doesn’t cover all the municipalities up and down Lake Michigan, much less out of state.
What Mark Kirk did was to fashion a workable compromise, because otherwise there wasn’t going to be anything getting done.
It seems like these days the environmental activist community is going out of their way to prove that they are ’sore winners’. IMO, not a smart approach.
If we don’t want the carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants anywhere near our own neighborhoods or schools, then we should understand why other people don’t want them in their environment.
- walker - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 11:17 am:
Everybody on both sides, is setting up their big guns to prepare for a withering barrage. This is seen by some to be the most vulnerable of all Republican Senate seats in the country. All the national groups will play.
- 4 percent - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 11:31 am:
This is the problem with hard liners on both sides of the aisle. Doesn’t matter if its environmental, anti-tax, pro-life, etc. They demand 100 percent loyalty or their turn on you.
Mark Kirk has been a moderate and been very helpful to them during his tenure yet they spend millions against him. I hope he wins and shoves it down their throats.
- the Other Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 11:32 am:
If the vote was on the EPA amendment, how could it be construed as a vote against Kirk’s language regarding Great Lakes sewage?
I think we could in fact expect Kirk to vote against the EPA/Clean Air amendment.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 11:37 am:
That’s a broadside right at his Suburban Woman base.
- John A Logan - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 11:39 am:
Asthma babies? I can’t even take that ad seriously.
- Liandro - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 11:52 am:
Was this a poison provision that would have doomed the bill to failure in the Republican-led Congress, or no? Seems quite possible at first glance. Is the motivation of these groups to pass a bill, or to play campaign politics?
Don’t know enough about the dynamics at play to have the answer, but it seems like a possibility.
- Adam Smith - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 11:55 am:
The simple truth is NRDC and Sierra Club are wholly owned arms of the Democratic Party. They take orders from Harry Reid et am, and no Republican will get a fair shake from them.
Kirk has taken countless votes against GOP leadership on the environment, but it will never satisfy the enviro-left.
- Ben - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 12:00 pm:
“Asthma babies? I can’t even take that ad seriously.”
Asthma is the number 1 cause of ER admissions for children. In Chicago, rates of childhood asthma have spiked. Think what you want of Kirk, but the science and rationale behind the ad are legit.
- Justice Torch - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 12:01 pm:
Asthma babies? I have one. You can take the ad seriously.
- Namaste - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 12:24 pm:
=sickening= Seems like Artl has a weak stomach.
- Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 12:30 pm:
I have a coworker who hasn’t had a real vacation in years because she spends all of her PTO dealing with her son’s hospitalizations because of his asthma.
- Salty - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 12:34 pm:
Am I reading that right, that he is proud that he championed an amendment to prohibit sewage dumping into the Great Lakes STARTING in 2035? What are the chances that the 2035 start date gets delayed once it gets closer?
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 12:49 pm:
This is like one of those puppy abuse commercials. Yeah - Kirk wants your kids to suffocate if you don’t vote against him.
If this is the kind of stuff we are seeing now than the Senator better get ready for next year’s ads claiming that he eats children.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 12:53 pm:
Any hope that the Senate race wouldn’t be completely taken over by polar opposite entities just went out the window.
Senator Kirk has always been a fairly pro-environment officials. He took enormous heat for his vote in favor of Cap & Trade.
I have asthma. My younger son does, too. A lot of people have asthma. Blaming it only on power plants and pollution is a bit much. It can be caused by a number of factors: stress, activity, pets, mold, allergies, excessive coughing, lack of physical fitness, etc. I know those factors don’t help, but we have one of the cleanest coal-fired plants (Dallman 4) in the state and no one can burn leaves in town. I still have flare-ups, and so does my little guy. The terms “causation” and “correlation” come to mind.
- Keyser Soze - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 12:57 pm:
This blogger, having worked in the environmental field since 1972, coincidentally the same year USEPA was formed, remembers air and water quality from the “old days.” Fast forwarding to the present, billions of dollars later, the improvements in same are nothing short of amazing. If you think not, pay a visit the industrial third world. I once got sick from simply walking down the street in an industrial town in coastal Brasil. The life expectancy in that town was less than fifty. So, when I see the maneuvering and religious fervor of the likes of the (new) Sierra Club, National Resource Defense Fund, and similar, I am reminded of the “March of Dimes” that, having lived to see the end of Polio, took on a new life doing whatever it now does. As for the environmental groups, it is my observation that they currently do more for fundraisers, lobbyists, and the legal profession than they have ever done for the environment. I long for the days of the (old)Sierra Club, both intellectually honest, and apolitical. That would be an environmental improvement.
- ChrisB - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 12:58 pm:
Yeah, I mean its not like IL gets over 50% of it’s power from non-carbon sources…
http://en.openei.org/wiki/Illinois
To paint Kirk as anti-environment is laughable. Remember the time he was one of 8 Republicans to vote for Cap and Trade when he was in the House? He caught a ton of flack for that and still survived.
- Anon - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 12:58 pm:
Kirk was decent in the House but lost his moral compass on his way to the Senate. What “bold, independent action” are they talking about? Haven’t seen any in a long time.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 1:13 pm:
12:58 - just curious, but do you follow Senator Kirk (either page) on Facebook? He clearly states positions on social (or “forever”) media that are in opposition to Majority Leader McConnell’s and NRSC Chairman Wicker’s stances. Three recent posts that come to mind are environmental issues, gay marriage and international human rights advocacy.
- DuPage - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 1:23 pm:
Why punish power plants that already meet clean air regulations?
A lot of coal burning plants have converted to natural gas because gas is now cheaper then coal and using gas reduces pollution levels from those plants to the point that air is already cleaner then what the clean air regulations require. The EPA seems to want to keep moving the goalpost, so on that vote I would agree with Kirk.
In Chicago, the last 2 coal fired power plants have closed.
- Collinsville Kevin - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 1:55 pm:
Kirk a moderate only in the eyes of himself and a few of the commentators. He needs to be put out to pasture.
- Enviro - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 3:05 pm:
It is amazing that Kirk is considered a moderate for his work on improving the environment by championing a ban on sewage dumping into the Great Lakes that will not be in full force for 20 more years - 2035.
It is usually lower income people who will suffer the most from air pollution by living or working near coal power plants and dusty petcoke piles.
- Harry - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 3:14 pm:
I’m not a big fan of Kirk’s, but a couple more ads like that and I won’t just vote for him, I’ll contribute.
- Judgment Day (on the road) - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 4:00 pm:
“It is amazing that Kirk is considered a moderate for his work on improving the environment by championing a ban on sewage dumping into the Great Lakes that will not be in full force for 20 more years - 2035.”
————–
We’ll be lucky if we have all the needed wastewater treatment infrastructure all in place and updated by 2035. And that’s assuming we get long term money allocated for building/upgrading the infrastructure, instead of wasting it on pursuing the current ‘climate change’ pipe dreams.
Even a small wastewater treatment facility can be a 5 year project, and the MSD projects are huge. And MSD doesn’t cover all the municipalities up and down Lake Michigan, much less out of state.
What Mark Kirk did was to fashion a workable compromise, because otherwise there wasn’t going to be anything getting done.
It seems like these days the environmental activist community is going out of their way to prove that they are ’sore winners’. IMO, not a smart approach.
- Enviro - Tuesday, Jul 7, 15 @ 4:04 pm:
If we don’t want the carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants anywhere near our own neighborhoods or schools, then we should understand why other people don’t want them in their environment.