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."
If I get it right, the EPA is allowed to be given authority to do things as long as they have no real effect? Of course the EPA is going to have a profound effect on every sector of the economy. If you curtail CO2 emissions you are basically affecting every step of production delivery and consumption of most goods. That is, after all, the gravity of the situation.
WTF is the EPA for anyway?
OTOH this is looking like an episode of Yes Minister, with the approach of overdoing a popular idea to make sure it sinks.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Technically you're not far from the truth - Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy allowed (among other things) all business owners to purchase a $100,000 hummer h2 and write it off completely.
That could, in a sense, be considered forcing people to drive them if it was the only affordable option.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
But, the max write-off used to be MUCH smaller at $25K. The point is that by upping the max to $100K, lots of doctors and lawyers went out and bought Hummers on the tax payers' dime.
If that's forcing people to buy a Hummer, I'd like to meet those people. They still had to have the $100,000 up front to purchase it...
Next time you're getting your prostate fingered, say "hi" to one of the beneficiaries. I imagine that there are a lot of upper-class professionals with $100K to drop on a car if they know it's free money come tax time. IANAAccountant, so please explain how this isn't a huge incentive/smart business move to buy what was once a lucrative luxury item that the merchant probably wanted already.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!