This is the conclusion of blogger Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way, who chides the Peoria media for ignoring business ties of the woman who wants to be the Democrats’ choice to challenge Aaron Schock:
A glaring gap in that press coverage needs to be filled. Democratic candidate Deirdre “DK” Hirner was, until recently, Executive Director of the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group. The name certainly sounds environmental and a recent column blandly describes it as a group “which helps businesses work with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.”
The Peoria Journal Starr’s first coverage of her campaign went further, describing it as an “environmental advocacy organization.” It makes me wonder what she’s telling reporters about her job.
The Environmental Regulatory Group is a Chamber of Commerce front group run by the worst polluters in Illinois. The Illinois Chamber website tells us that IERG was started for Chamber members to “represent business interests” in environmental regulation.
Their statement of purpose says they exist to “advance the interests of its Members, which include companies engaged in
industry, commerce, manufacturing, agriculture, trade, energy and transportation.” It doesn’t mention anything about protecting the environment.
We’ll see whether local environmentalists make a big deal about this. I’m guessing they will keep quiet.
Do the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party give much credence to the voting power of environmentalists? Allen Mayer had their endorsement back in the 2008, but Jehan Gordon won the Democratic nomination, and later the general election, and now served in the Illinois House of Representatives.
 |
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
While labeling companies as “polluters” that are legally emitting pollutants may be literally accurate, it’s ironic that it’s even more disingenuous than Hirner’s disingenuous characterization of the organization’s work.
Hard to believe that silly season is upon us again already.
Mayer learned that a handful of extremists, no matter how noisy and capable of bullying weak-kneed politicians into submission, fell woefully short of representing the community as a whole.
If the label “polluter” is “technically accurate” in what sense is it false? In the sense that people such as Ms. Hirner manage to hide the truth about the pollution from the public? In the sense that it is reallu not pollution if it is legal? In the sense that the very high rates of cancer and respiratory disease in Peoria are “normal” for the degree of “legal pollution to which we are subjected?
Since when does wanting to improve the health and livability of the community in which we live make us “bullies”? Since when does a pollititian’s desire to improve the health and livability of the community he represents make him “weak-kneed”?
Nontimendum, you may be happy with the abnormally high rates of disease in this community but it takes a lot of nerve to name-call those who would give of their own time, effort and money to improve it for you as well as all others who live here!
nontimendum,
If there’s something you think is disingenuous about my blog post I’d invite you to describe specifically what that is. I provided quotes and cited links to the websites of IERG and the Illinois Chamber describing their close working relationship to weaken environmental protections. If you believe that’s inaccurate then I’d suggest following the sources I linked.
I don’t understand your suggestion that it’s wrong to call companies who operate the highest polluting sites in Illinois “polluters.” Do you prefer we live in a world where no one is held responsible for their actions, and no one is called what they are? Perhaps you could suggest an alternate name for drug dealers, something like “recreational street vendors.”
“Silly season” and “extremists” are words that get tossed around a lot but it rings hallow if you don’t get specific.
I don’t know if environmentalists in Peoria will be vocal about this race. But many environmental leaders are aware of IERG’s work and more people are becoming aware of Hirner’s work history.
The Gordon/Mayer primary was a close one. Not to be too nitpicky, but Sierra Club endorsed Jehan Gordan in the general election and worked to support her after the primary.
And thanks for the link! If nothing else, people deserve to know that IERG isn’t as environmentally friendly as the name implies.
Don’t get me wrong, I cannot stand Aaron “stand up for the health insurance companies” Schock. The race for his congressional district as it stands with Hirner and Carl Ray, is unwinnable barring some kind of scandal. The district simply leans too comfortably republican. Not to mention, the dems have to recruit better candidates, again though, this is difficult to do when the numbers are so dismal.
“I’m guessing they will keep quiet.” That was a swipe. On the basis of what, exactly, do you make that guess? Because that’s what we do, sit quietly on the sidelines?
“Environmentalists” are not a monolithic entity, and there are many issues of concern to environmentalists aside from environmental ones. Some will likely be voting Green Party, and some may be voting for Carl Ray.
For me, there are two huge issues. One is her wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing “environmentalism.” The other is that she doesn’t even live in our district and has been foisted upon the district by the state-level Democrats, presumably because of her ability to raise money. I generally vote Democratic, though not automatically by any stretch. It’s staggering the extent to which the local party can’t get it’s act together.
First it says a lot about Hirner’s ethics that she would try to pass herself off as an “environmental lobbyist.” Of course everyone naturally assumes that title means she is a lobbyist advocating for strong environmental protection rules and laws.
Aside from the fact that she works for corporations instead of an environmental organization, she also argued with a reporter saying she was not really a “lobbyist.” She said she does not lobby the state legislature, just state agencies such as the IL Environmental Protection Agency and the Dept of Natural Resources, DNR, to “help them write regulations” to carry out laws. And Deirdre D.K. Hirner is a registered state lobbyist in Springfield. That is public record.
The polluters love it. Their hack, Hirner, knows mid-level bureaucracy and she goes in and offers to write the regulations for them. Well of course she writes the regulations as generously as possible for the polluters she works for. At times in the past doing just this has been a scandal. Lobbyists are not supposed to write regulations to carry out the will of the legislative branch.
Remember when Cheney had energy executives in secret meetings to come up with a national energy policy??
Very smart of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce to create a deceptive name for a subsidiary: Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group.” But make no mistake, these corporations only hire Hirner to water down environmental laws.
Lobbying legislators is fine. They hear from both sides. But going in at the end stage and taking hold of how to word the rules to carry out a law, is ultra-lobbying. In this case, there was no Sierra Club or Natural Resources Defense Council lobbyist also there writing rules and regulations. The rules were one sided because DK Hirner got to write them herself and the bureaucrat had their work done for them.
Hirner not only is a lobbyist for polluters but she is a deceptive serial liar as well.
1. She tried to convey she works for environmental organizations instead of the polluters she actually does work for.
2. She lied to a reporter saying she didn’t remember what she spoke to Carl Ray about when she called him to tell him his ballot petitions were likely to be challenged. She spoke to the reporter the next day. She said she “didn’t recollect” what else she and Carl Ray spoke about. She also said her call was definitely not an attempt to pressure Ray to drop out of the race.
3. She denied to a reporter that she was a “lobbyist.” She quibbled with that fact even when the reporter told her she was on the official state register of lobbyists.
4. She said she resigned November 1, 2009 from the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group, naturally leading people to believe she had severed her ties with them. Well, well, more deception followed. She has a consulting contract and kept her office. She just doesn’t have to work 9 to 5 and can work some at home. How cushy. But she is worth it to the polluters.
DK Hirner is very annoying to listen to. She addresses an audience in a very condescending tone and some one needs to tie her hands down when she talks. She is also trying to come off as the anti-Schock candidate. If it didn’t work for Callahan, it ain’t going to work for her.
Wow, cast a stone..
I said what I meant. It is literally accurate to call anyone who emits pollutants a “polluter” That doesn’t make it intellectually honest. Gas stations are some of the worst “polluters” of volatile organic emissions. That smell as you fuel your vehicle? Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene. Look them up and tell me how they contribute to the health of a human body. Should we shut them down? Is any lobbyist for that industry engaged in nefarious activity and unworthy of my vote? Of course not, but a propagandist could certainly spin it so.
Suzanne, I don’t know who you are so I am not speaking to anything you have done or failed to do. In my experience, the environmentalists I wrote of become singularly focused on a “cause,” which is often misguided, and become oblivious to any data that challenges its premise(s) in their zealous quest for victory. The problem is, this ilk finds an all-too-willing partner in today’s politicians who exist only to further their own political aims.
Praytell what “polluter(s)” in Peoria is causing these supposedly abnormal rates of cancer and respiratory disease?. I suggest that industry is responsible for almost none, and genetic predisposition and lifestyle choices most.
I think I understand now. You know my statement is accurate but it makes you uncomfortable to hear such a plain statement of reality that calls major polluters what they are. My writing that IERG represents the worst polluters in the state was not a rhetorical device. It is both literally and intellectually accurate.
nontimendum,
I also don’t know who you are but you have my name. I don’t hide behind a pseudonym.
I am not your average “greenie” but I do believe we are putting ourselves at risk in this world by our careless use and misuse of resources. I am a nurse (R.N.) and have seen the patients in Peoria with cancer dying of malignancies that have nothing to do with personal lifestyle choices or genetic predisposition. I know that, next to air, water is our most necessary resource. We die in minutes without air, days without water and weeks to months (depending upon our weight when we begin starvation) without food. i don’t have the numbers immediately at hand but know that the neighborhoods close to PDC#1 have a higher rate of cancer and childhood respiratory illness, mostly asthma. I also know that the “environmentally responsible” PDC is not required to monitor air quality around its facility. To their credit, they do this voluntarily. To their discredit, when there was a FOIA request for the air quality monitoring results, harmful components were above EPA allowable limits for some but they still were not required to monitor air quality. They also reported only on particulate matter of 10 microns and over when the most dangerous particulate matter is that which is under 10 microns.
How about giving us some explanation of who, or what, you are and where you get the information for your defense of pollution and polluters.
Nontimendum,
How many environmentalists do you know, and how well do you know them? I think your experience may be a bit narrow. I know quite a few, and I know them well. They are hard-working, well-informed folks who do their homework and can back up their stances with well-reasoned arguments. They have nothing personal to gain, but are concerned with the legacy we leave future generations. Maybe that, and participating in their local political process, makes them “noisy extremists” in your view?
They are generally well-informed, not just about environmental issues, and don’t necessarily vote for what the less-informed masses might think is the default “environmental candidate,” especially if they have a questionable record on other issues. They see the big picture.
It’s easy to “suggest” scenarios that fit your prejudices and don’t challenge your world view and offer no data to support them. If you want to begin to understand the cancer rates in this area, and how small a role genes and “lifestyle” play, read Sandra Steingraber’s “Living Downstream.” She’s a scientist who grew up in Pekin and the book takes a detailed look at the Peoria/Tazewell County environment. It addresses the exact issues you raise. Don’t just “cast stones”–educate yourself.
nontimendum, you look like you could use some help… I think the point being made is that all of you who are criticizing nontimendum’s post are hypocrites because there isn’t a one among you who doesn’t pollute or contribute to pollution in some form or fashion.
Sure, you may not pollute as much as other people or companies out there but your holier than thou attitude is hardly earned. Companies have a right and a good justification for making sure that environmental rules and regulations make sense not only for the environment but also but the people and companies that have to operate within those rules. To label all corporations or Illinois Chamber members as polluters and anti-environmentalist is to label all of you as militant as the Environmental Liberation Front.
Now of course, reality doesn’t necessarily make for good PR for your cause so I doubt you’ll acknowledge any of my points.
Hypocrites? Because we want improve living conditions in our city and our country?
No one can live today in this country without contributing to pollution. We all drive cars, live in heated (and frequently cooled) houses, we all eat foods raised or produced commercially, we all have plumbing. Are we hypocrites because we don’t live in caves, hunt for meat, eat it raw (fire pollutes), hunt weeds and seeds for food? How can you label anyone who might want to improve living conditions as “holier than thou”? Perhaps we are simply more educated or more informed or concerned than thou.
Yes attack someone’s intelligence, that’s an excellent way to make a point! Since you don’t know me you might want to resist the urge ti make assumptions on my education and how well informed I am. My point, that you so clearly missed in your rush to attack me personally without any knowledge of me, was that these businesses are members of a environmental lobbying group for the very same reason we as individuals can’t be pollution free. It is part of modern society, so these corporations are trying to ensure that rules and regulations on pollution aren’t unnecessarily strict and are within reason.
Now you can carry on with your infantile attempt to attack my intelligence. ..
here’s one way to educate yourself on pollution levels in Peoria, and who those specific polluters are:
http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/index
This study uses EPA models – and indicates pollution levels well above EPA standards and regulations, from several companies in the area – about which the EPA has taken NO ACTION.
In my long years of environmental activism, companies always, always, work first to protect their profits. Second to follow environmental regulations – though, the question is, do those regulations truly protect the public health and safety? Many of them do not. And it is only after disasters like Love Canal does the EPA come along and regulate properly. Unfortunately.
Suzanne, I was not defending polluters, but rather challenging the disingenuous definition being used. See the difference? As an example, this week the EPA found greenhouse gases to be dangerous pollutants, instantaneously making individuals and animals major “polluters.” That rank political move notwithstanding, I don’t think my neighbor or his cow (had he such) meet a colloquial, intellectually honest definition of “polluter.”
Just to be clear, you don’t have the numbers close at hand but are saying that the PDC is violating emission limits and causing cancer in nearby neighborhoods?
As to your co-optation of Daltrey, who I am is of no concern. If you choose to disregard anything or all of what I write because I choose to remain anonymous, it’s no skin off my ass. The words remain the same.
Lisa, I myself live my life as a responsible environmental steward and could hold forth at length regarding the wonderful things I do, but there is nothing to be gained by talking. I will agree that most true environmentalists are hard-working and will even give you well-intentioned, but well-reasoned most are not. Unfortunately, too many are not subject matter experts but think themselves such based on what they learn through limited research. Read the headline today regarding Al Gore if you need an immediate example of that. I won’t be reading the book you recommend, but as a charitable act would you share with us who you (channeling Steingraber, of course) believe is causing cancer in the area?
cgiselle, what you stated as fact regarding companies is the most inaccurate and paranoid statement I have read in a long time. Cite some examples. I have worked for and with many companies and not one ever put profits ahead of regulatory compliance. Also, don’t confuse regulatory compliance with risk management; many companies are very effective at the latter even if not so much the former.
http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/school/29603
Let’s take Peoria Central as it is in the worst 1% of schools in the country for air quality according to this (gulp) USA Today study. (I feel dirty typing that.)
* ADM Peoria, Illinois
* Komatsu America CorpPeoria, Illinois
* Aventine Renewable Energy Inc .Pekin, Illinois
* Keystone Steel & Wire CoPeoria, Illinois
* East Peoria Plant –Tttd & TbuEast Peoria, Illinois
Further if you click through the link at the top of this post, you can click each of those companies to see what types of chemicals they emit.
And, dude, come on… ADM… http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/facility.tcl?tri_id=61602RCHRDFOOTO#maps
Dude, you missed the point. cgiselle claims “companies always, always, work first to protect their profits. Second to follow environmental regulations…” To believe that, you have to believe those companies are making conscious decisions to violate the law to save money. Anyone with any real-world business experience knows how nutty that is. This day and age, any company doing that is very small and the rare exception rather than the rule.
I am saying just what I said. PDC is not required to do testing of air around PDC#1 but, to their credit, they have done so. Also there is an increased rate of cancer and especially of respiratory problems in those neighborhoods. Nowhere did I say PDC emissions are causing cancer.
We have no cause and effect proof in this matter. Only the fact that it happens. In fact it is probably a cumulative thing from industrial polluters, even those within legal limits, and hazardous waste. That is a part of the problem with legal limits. Several polluters in an area, all within legal pollution limits, create an unhealthy environment and which one should get the blame? ——- My answer would be those who created the limits which, cumulatively, turn out to be unlimited. Small particulate matter can travel on wind and air currents for more
than three miles.
No, the EPA did not declare people and animals to be polluters that can be regulated. The new greenhouse rule applies to major sources of CO2, such as coal power plants. Bringing up people and animals is a cute line from a propagandist’s perspective but it’s neither intellectually or literally honest.
Will:
I didn’t suggest they would be regulated. I was simply using your logic and pointing out that animals are now major polluters of dangerous greenhouse gases. In 2007, the last year EPA inventoried and reported greenhouse gas emissions, livestock enteric fermentation (digestion) and manure management totaled almost half of all methane emissions. By your logic, even though Elsie’s not breaking the law, she’s a major polluter. Bad girl!
Did Hirner represent any livestock?
You also claimed the PDC was emitting pollutants “above EPA allowable limits.” Presumably, you still “don’t have the numbers immediately at hand but know that the neighborhoods close to PDC#1 have a higher rate of cancer and childhood respiratory illness, mostly asthma.” It’s irresponsible to make the statements you have with no data for support. But then again, you’ve proven my point by doing so.