Thought you were against pollution Thorfinn? The CAA targets, in a simplified nutshell, a "no net increase" in air pollution. What's so wrong with that? The improperly-permitted and functioning-in-violation plant I'm currently litigating against produces, we think (as their scientists haven't addressed it and our experts can only do so much until the court lets us test *at* the plant) it tosses 12 tons of acetic acid and 12 tons of formaldehyde into the air every year (and those are just 2 pollutants out of many).
You are missing the obvious. By "routing maintenance" Bush is (among other things) attacking the pollution control devices. Rather than buying updated baghouses and scrubbers when the old ones wear out, he's advocating letting the plants buy circa 1960-70 pollution control devices. That's just stupid.
[edit:] Oh - let me stop you on one misunderstanding before it gets rolling. The CAA does not mandate the "best and latest and greatest" technology in most instances. Rather, it generally mandates the "industry standards." Now, in non-attainment areas (i.e. already over the minimum health thresholds for a particular pollutant), stricter standards do apply - as they should, and the "best" (more or less) technology is required, and you must offset your emissions buy "buying" them from other polluters in the area. But, that's only in the really dirty air areas. Like Chicago.
Comparing it to a consumer buying a computer is coming at the example from exactly the wrong end, and is not applicable here.
Comparing it to the auto industry is interesting. Are you to have me believe that cars on the road are less safe now than before because a few bailing-wire bondo clunkers are rolling around our midst? Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off. You've proven you're better at debating than that half-hearted attempt, and you can do better.
As for the ABA bias, it's not very biased. Certainly not to the degree the NRO is. But, it does advocate keeping the judiciary as a separate arm of the government. Over the past 100 years, the judiciary has in effect lost most of its power in government, and our system of check-and-balances is quite threatened. As proof I offer the development of governmental agencies, purely agents of the Executive, complete with the rule-makers (usurp Congress) and administrative hearings (usurping Judiciary). So, on this, its major bias, I think the ABA has a fair point.
As for supporting the environmental litigation - not likely. It amazes me, but it is true, that we environmental lawyers in private practice generally advocate lesser restrictions for our clients - though sensibly we *should be* opposed to our clients on this point, as it would generate business like you point out. I guess we've simply got enough work that it's not an issue.
Oh, and I saw you were logged on so I knew I could count on a reply to my argument and clicked right to Gen Disc's.
[ 04-22-2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]