Bush Administration an Ecological Disaster?

This is an excerpt from an article put out today.



Contrary to such hysterical claims, the Bush administration has been extremely modest — perhaps too modest — in its efforts to reform federal environmental law. Many of the so-called "assaults" on environmental protection are little more than modest changes in existing policy; others are nothing more than refusals to implement a policy changes proposed by President Clinton. For instance, whereas the Clinton administration sought to require that new air conditioners be 30 percent more energy efficient than existing models, the current administration is under fire because it adopted a rule requiring that new models are "only" 20 percent more efficient instead. At the same time, the Bush administration has tightened numerous environmental regulations from drinking-water standards to diesel engine emissions.

The Bush administration reversed a Clinton proposal to ban the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park in return for the adoption of more stringent controls on snowmobile exhaust. Some might consider such a result as a "win-win" scenario — wintertime visitors still get snowmobile access and the park gets greater protection from pollution. Yet some environmental activists act as if this policy is an unconscionable environmental affront. Whatever one thinks about the merits of such policy decisions, they hardly amount to a massive environmental rollback.

One of the most controversial environmental-policy initiatives of the Bush administration is a series of changes to "New Source Review" (NSR) regulations under the Clean Air Act. These regulations require utilities and industrial facilities to install costly pollution control equipment on major new sources of air emissions, including modifications to existing facilities. The Bush team's proposed policy changes are aimed at allowing routine maintenance and repair at older industrial facilities — including steps to maintain or improve efficiency at existing plants — have environmental groups up in arms.

Environmental critics ignore the fact that the existing rules can discourage efficiency improvements and repairs that are environmentally beneficial. Under current standards, even relatively minor revisions can require the imposition of costly controls. Thus, some facility operators are loath to engage in repairs or maintenance for fear of triggering the NSR requirements. This can prevent plant modifications that reduce energy use and industrial emissions. The problem is compounded because companies are not always sure what changes will trigger added regulatory burdens. To address these concerns the Bush EPA proposed relatively modest changes in the way plant repairs and upgrades are characterized so as to increase the predictability and reduce the burden of the rules.


The Link to the whole article is here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/adler/adler042203.asp

[Attalus]

MagiK, don't you know that the Administration can do no right in the eyes of the Left?

[Davros]

Maybe it's just the way the article reads, or the fact that the author does a poor job of selling his (or her) views, but to me they seem to come across as a bunch of half steps and weak compromises. Not for one minute am I proposing that there are too many governments in the world doing such a "way better job" on the environment, but might I suggest a new publicist be hired with a more effective brand of spin.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Attalus: MagiK, don't you know that the Administration can do no right in the eyes of the Left?

Oh goody - a right wing pep rally!!

When in doubt go to the National Review Online to stir up an argument.

[pritchke]

The Bush administration reversed a Clinton proposal to ban the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park in return for the adoption of more stringent controls on snowmobile exhaust.

I don't think snowmobiles were banned from Yellowstone park because of exhaust. Possibly more due to noise, I hate how those things sound (hurts my ears) and I am quite sure animals don't like the sound either. As far as stringent controls on snowmobiles for exhaust, it is good idea but a very small step. Why not on all vehicles? I am sure people in states like Texas, Florida, and California will have no problem with stringent controls on snowmobile exhaust. I wonder even just how many Americans own snowmobiles and will be affected?

One of the most controversial environmental-policy initiatives of the Bush administration is a series of changes to "New Source Review" (NSR) regulations under the Clean Air Act. These regulations require utilities and industrial facilities to install costly pollution control equipment on major new sources of air emissions, including modifications to existing facilities. The Bush team's proposed policy changes are aimed at allowing routine maintenance and repair at older industrial facilities — including steps to maintain or improve efficiency at existing plants — have environmental groups up in arms.

Environmental critics ignore the fact that the existing rules can discourage efficiency improvements and repairs that are environmentally beneficial.

I have no problem with improving efficiency as it gives more bang for the buck and reduces pollution for the amount of production. But it possibly could mean that the plant will produce more so the end result will be the same amout of waste just less waste for the amount produced. I think environmental groups big problem could be that he is catering to business. CEO's make millions yet they are to cheep to install, and upgrade existing facilities. What are the penalties for not following regulations? Maybe the reason that upgrades are not made is the consequence(cost) to add upgrade is more than the consequence for not upgrading(fine). I am quite sure that there isn't enough information presented in this article to show the real reasons why people could be justified in being angry with Bush in this article.

[ 04-22-2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[Thorfinn]

pritchke: But it possibly could mean that the plant will produce more so the end result will be the same amout of waste just less waste for the amount produced.

So? The simple fact is that population is growing, so we will need to produce more. What is the downside of producing more goods to support the growing population, yet producing no more waste than before?

BTW, though CEOs could propose new capital expenditures, by and large, that all comes through the board of directors, and thus through the stockholders. CEOs are employees -- they cannot ignore the directives of the board without risking being fired. It is not a matter of being too cheap, but simply that the cost-benefit comes out as a loss, and a CEO who did that too often would have little in the way of job security.

Timber, surely you are not proposing ABA as an unbiased source, are you? After all, when Bush told ABA, "Thanks for your recommendations, but if my judicial nominees agree with your assessment, it is purely coincidence", they took it rather poorly. ABA makes a ton of money from environmental litigation. It has a vested interest in very strict regulations, the more vague, the better.

Also, the "race to the top" sounds good, but reveals the utter fantasy world in which government people live. What would happen if Congress mandated the same thing in computers? Any time you buy a new computer, you have to buy a top-of-the-line model? Not only do you put all the discount computer suppliers out of business, since by law, they could not peddle their wares, but you have priced a significant fraction of the population out of having a computer at all, other than the old clunker you currently have. The exact same thing happens in vehicle safety -- as new safety features were mandated, the price of cars went up, making less affluent people keep their older cars longer, tying them together with baling wire and duct tape, since they simply cannot afford a new one with all the whiz-bang safety features. These older cars are often poorly maintained, and the net result is that the roads are even less safe than they were before the regulations.

Similarly, in business, since CAA mandates only latest and greatest technology (FWIW, remember that Hooker Chemical disposed of its wastes in the latest and greatest methods, and Manville Asbestos provided the latest and greatest fire protection for decades), only those companies who have sufficient output can afford to upgrade. The net result is that the only companies who can afford the latest and greatest are the big established companies. It is latest and greatest type government regulations that drives towards oligopoly, not some inexorable fact of capitalism.

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[Thorfinn]

You know, the part that bugs me is that virtually no one seems to be able to divorce opposition to government doing something from the thing itself. I oppose pollution and I oppose the gov't regulations preventing pollution. They don't work, can't work, other than in a very limited sense, and lead to an increase in mercantilism and consequent oligopoly.

The proof is in the pudding -- companies would not spend a single dime on lobbying unless they expected to get whatever rules are promulgated written in their favor. The simple fact that money continues to flows that way is a pretty strong indication that it works.

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.

No, you are missing the obvious. Rather than buying any baghouses or scrubbers, companies have a perverse incentive to do nothing, not even tweak the burners, lest they be forced to upgrade. In one of my contracts once I proposed putting a series of sensors in the stack to give some feedback about what adjustments needed to be made to operations to run more efficiently. I was told in no uncertain terms that if I so little as added a single sensor, they would have to rip the whole thing down. They were better off running by gosh and by golly, regardless of how inefficiently it was running, than take a chance at having to install equipment they could not afford. The net result is that you end up with companies retaining increasingly inefficient outdated equipment, rather than even being able to improve to make less pollution.

I thought you were opposed to pollution.

Now perhaps you could tell me why you think a consumer buying a computer is different than a company buying new capital equipment, rather than just dismissing it as irrelevant.

And while I am indeed safer in my new Suburban, I do feel sorry for any people who can't afford better because of the gov't created increases in automobile prices. These duct tape and bondo deathtraps have virtually no chance of protecting their occupants if they do smash into me, or a bridge abutment, maybe even a paper bag. And as I drive down the freeway and see tailpipes dragging on the ground, and cars in desperate need of shocks bouncing next to me, damn right these poorly maintained vehicles present more of a threat to me than the newer vehicle in the other lane. Since you live in Chicago, no doubt you have seen more than your fair share of car parts littering the medians. I know I have. Are you contending that cars that drop mufflers at 65 mph are somehow safer to the drivers behind them than those that do not?

As for ABA bias, it seems to me that you are for government regulations on the environment. Anyone with that mindset will not see bias in a body which favors those regulations. They are indeed biased, but just biased in a different way, one more in line with your point of view.

[ 04-22-2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, yes, I am for government/legal regulation. But, not necessarily command-and-control style. If the law simply properly provided for remedies, as you have mentioned, it would be fine. Strict liability for the harms of your pollution and all that.

But, there *is* a system of regulation, and it has been challenged many times since the first agencies were set up and it ain't going away. Rather than advocating ripping the house down and starting anew, which almost no one will go for, I am trying to work within the existing system and deal with changes I can actually hope to make. So, please don't confuse me with pro-regulation. While I too have pipe dreams of a more efficient and smaller government, I recognize them as pipe dreams and simply try to concern myself with what I see as more do-able.

And, the stack test is a good point. I could talk about ways the rules could be modified and simplified to alleviate that problem, while still making the overall rules *simpler,* but I know, I know, you don't want any rules at all. It is more a difference in approach than a difference in goal that you and I have. Or, maybe a difference in the *extent* of our goal rather than the *type.*

Computers are end-consumer products. We are talking about inputs to the production process. Also, computers are some of the lowest-polluting things out there - IF you don't count all those old motherboards-made-into-clipboards-and-clocks.