Slashdot Mirror
Two Powerful Blows Against Air Pollution Controls
The NYTimes reports from Washington on two separate actions on Friday that, between them, have halted Bush administration clean-air initiatives in their tracks. The current administration is no favorite of environmental groups, but these groups sided with the administration in a court case brought by the utility companies. On Friday an appeals court threw out the EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule, established in 2005. The court ruled that the EPA had exceeded its authority when it established that rule, which set new requirements for major pollutants. According to the article, even the utilities were appalled to see the rule completely gutted; their objections had been narrower. Here is a podcast with the reporter (MP3) giving some background on the ruling. The second major blow to clean-air efforts came later in the day on Friday. Quoting: "...the EPA chief rejected any obligation to regulate heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide under existing law, saying that to do so would involve an 'unprecedented expansion' of the agency's authority that would have 'a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy,' touching 'every household in the land.'... In effect, Mr. Johnson was simultaneously publishing the policy analysis of his scientific and legal experts and repudiating its conclusions."
To be fair, the EPA is a pretty powerful outfit that has had a significant effect on industry and environment ... whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. They are not just a band-aid group.
I work in the petroleum industry, and I'll tell you this: companies that run pipelines and tank farms are generally far more concerned with state Environment agencies. They're a lot tougher than the Feds in many areas.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I had my accountant do the math...
Since Hummers were classifed as light trucks in 2003 by the Bush administration, I could get a write off for my business far in excess of what I could get for a car. Having one would have saved about $12k in taxes the first 2 years I owned it.
Of course, the additional amount I would have paid in gas would have offset that figure considerably. How much, I don't know, I bike wherever I can.
M
Common anti-environmentalist talking point, and pretty much completely made up. A single unsubstantiated claim by some reporter in the '70s was dug up and seized on as ``the opinion of every climate scientist at the time''.
A straw man, nothing more.
The parent is so far off base it's not even funny. Just take a look at the website the photo of the National Geographic Magazine was located at. (here's the page for the November, 1976 edition). Here's a summary of the website by the way:
Perfect is the enemy of done.