|
Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 00:24 PM CDT
|
(This is a good diary, and I broke it in half so be sure to read the rest of it "below the fold" by clicking on the "There's More" link at the bottom of the post. - promoted by Phillip Martin)
Yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a new set of smog rules, decreasing the amount of dangerous ozone to be allowed in the air. Forgive me as I quote heavily while fleshing this story out. Per the AP: EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson called the new limits "the most stringent standards ever," and he said they will require 345 counties _ out of more than 700 that are monitored _ to make air quality improvements because they now have dirtier air than is healthy to breathe. ... The new EPA standard will lower the allowable concentration of ozone in the air to no more than 75 parts per billion, compared with the old standard of 80. The new rules drew criticism from several angles. Governor Perry chimed in with this: The EPA's decision to change ozone air quality attainment standards has Texas and other states chasing a moving target at the expense of taxpayers and our economy, Yet Perry's criticism pales in comparison to the benefits to be gained by the new standards: The EPA estimated that compliance with a 75 parts-per-billion smog standard would cost $7.6 billion to $8.5 billion a year and "yield health benefits valued between $2 billion and $19 billion." Some examples of these health benefits include preventing nearly 1,100 premature deaths and 5,600 less hospital or emergency room visits. So while the benefits seem to be great, the new rules also drew criticism from those within the agency. Two of the agency's scientific advisory panels recommended an even more stringent set of smog standards: The science boards had told the agency that limits of 60 to 70 parts per billion are needed to protect the nation's most vulnerable citizens, especially children, the elderly and people suffering from asthma and other respiratory illnesses. |
|
|
The EPA is not legally required to consider the costs to the parties implementing their reforms, so if was generally better for our environment to recommend the 60 ppm standard, then that's what the EPA should have reported. But, I understand the nature of politics. If the EPA suggests highly stringent rules, as those suggested by the science advisory boards, the Agency risks the noncompliance of polluters and the admonition of both the federal and local governments. So while I was disappointed the new regulations did not go far enough, I appreciate the necessity of compromise that resulted with the more moderate reduction. A moderate decrease means less political fallout, and it makes it more likely that polluters will comply with the new standards. BUT, then I read this gem in the Chronicle: The Environmental Protection Agency agreed to weaken an important part of its new smog requirements after being told at the last minute that President Bush preferred a less stringent approach, according to government documents. Well I don't mind telling you that I just got mad then. Apparently at issue was another set of smog standards. The environmental limits are split into two categories - the primary standards for humans, and a secondary standard for the environment. The "public welfare" — or secondary — standard is fashioned in a way to protect against long-term harm to the environment. The limits on ozone under this standard are likely to have more impact on rural areas than urban centers. Before the Bush modifications, the EPA air quality standard was to have even more strict ozone requirements for the public welfare standard. The Bush administration argued that their interference was necessary to keep the human and environmental smog standards consistent. Unfortunately for all of us, this is a weak argument that flies in the face of science: In recent weeks the Agriculture Department has weighed in against making the public welfare ozone standard tougher. The department expressed concerns about the impact additional pollution controls might have on agriculture and development of biofuels, especially ethanol. The department made its concerns known to OMB. EPA officials said the need was clear for a different standard for public welfare and that drifting ozone pollution has been found to cause "adverse effects" on agricultural crops, forests and vegetation. You've got to be impressed with how much our President is willing to give up for the sake of "consistency". "Never before has a president personally intervened at the 11th hour, exercising political power at the expense of the law and science, to force EPA to accept weaker air quality standards than the agency chief's expert scientific judgment had led him to adopt," said John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private advocacy group. "It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference." So regardless of the concrete benefits these new regulations will bring to human and environmental health and safety, it is still not enough to keep this president from subverting the law for his own ends. I am so tired of that. |
|
| Connect With BOR |
Your source for Texas politics.
On Facebook: BOR
On Twitter: @BOR
On the Go: Mobile App
|
| Upcoming BOR Events |
"Do I Look Illegal?"
Arizona GOP Debate Watch
Wednesday, February 22
6:00-9:00 p.m.
Angie's Restaurant
1307 E. 7th Street
RSVP on Facebook
Save The Date:
Super Tuesday Super Watch Party!
Tuesday, March 6
6:00-10:00 p.m.
Scholz Garten
1607 San Jacinto
|
|
