Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cover-Up on Clean Air -(New York Times Editorial)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 12:34 PM
Original message
Cover-Up on Clean Air -(New York Times Editorial)
Last week, EPA's own investigative arm determined that recent revisions to Clean Air Act rules were - drum roll - a big benefit for polluters. The Administration's revisions to a set of rules known as New Source Review make it easier for polluting power plants to put off -- or even avoid -- adopting pollution reduction technologies. Lawsuits have delayed implementation of the revisions, but their impact has already been felt. Compelling polluters to clean up their acts through the courts has been "seriously hampered" despite assurances from top former energy lobbyists -- uh, we mean top EPA officials -- that the revisions would have no adverse affect on enforcement. "This report is further evidence that the Bush Administration has been trying to gut the enforcement of the Clean Air Act since coming into office," said Senator James M. Jeffords.

http://www.lcv.org/News/News.cfm?orgid=insider100704&ID=3309&c=27&MX=462&H=1

Cover-Up on Clean Air
New York Times Editorial
October 6, 2004



The Bush administration made sure early on to fill important environmental agencies with lawyers and lobbyists from the very industries the agencies are supposed to regulate. Nikki Tinsley, the E.P.A.'s inspector general, sharply criticized the administration for revoking an important rule governing pollution from power plants and other industrial sources, and for misinforming Congress about the potential impact of that decision on the government's ability to enforce the law.

Michael Leavitt, the E.P.A. administrator, has shown no interest in turning things around. Getting rid of New Source Review is just too important to this administration. Instead, Mr. Leavitt insists that another rule he's proposed called the "transport rule" - dealing with pollution carried from west to east by prevailing winds - will clean the air faster and more cheaply than New Source Review. This recalls similar representations made by Ms. Whitman, who promised that Mr. Bush's "Clear Skies" proposal would be bigger and better than New Source Review. Yet Clear Skies never materialized, and neither has the transport rule. All we've seen is something that works flying out the window.<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC