|
Sorry, MagiK, I refuse to comment on an article by the NRO assessing Bush and environmentalism. A less biased source would be more appropriate. I've read waaay too many articles quite to the contrary - it would take me an hour just to decide what parts of the ABA Section of the Environment and National Resources article I would want to toss out to refute this. Suffice to say that in a fair grading system with enviro's on one side and industry on the other, Bush got cumulative bad grades, ranging from a "D" (climate change and international environmental law) to a "B-" in renewable energy (based solely on his promise to get a no emission vehicle to market).
However, the one thing that I think best sums it up is that EPA (Bush directs Whitman of course) has been handing out harsh penalties and settlements on current EPA cases while the administration has been fighting pretty hard to back off on the rules that determine those cases. It's a schizophrenic approach, and it has both sides disliking the situation.
His adjustments to the New Source Review under the Clean Air Act are especially threatening. The Clean Air Act requires new plants (power plants, chemical factories, etc) to adopt the BEST industry standards - it is a "race to the top" scheme. The Act grandfathered older plants. How do we fix the old BigDirties? Well, when they grow, expand, or update those plants to increase output, the modifications must meet the New Source standards. Thus, the grandfather plants slowly get pulled under the umbrella. Bush wants to back off on this "modification rule" and allow these old BigDirties (actual words from Congressional hearings from the 70's, btw) to grow without adopting today's technology at the newly-built parts. Does that make sense???
Now, the biggest thing touted by industry about the New Source Review scheme is that it creates Oligopolies, whereby the big old rich plants get to remain the same while new entries to the market must struggle to meet tougher standards. Two points here. 1) almost all new entries into the chemical or power plant market are owned by the big plants anyway, though they hide it because each plant is a separate "mini corporation" LLC (remember the corporate liability wall?) 2) Bush's retraction of the provisions requiring modifications to meet New Source Review standards actually serves to make this Oligopoly problem worse, because those old plants never get under the Clean Air Act New Source umbrella.
Just to note: avoiding New SOurce Review doesn't just avoid addressing how much CO2 (arguably, global warming) you throw in the air, or SO2 and NOx(acid rain), or Volotile Organic Compounds (Ozone precursors), but also all HAPs (Hazardous Air Pollutants) that these facilities can emit, including such favorites as formaldehyde, sulphur, and chlorine.
In other words, Mr. "I get paid by industry" picked the wrong bone to gnaw on when he picked New Source Review.
[ 04-22-2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
 
|