Is “Clear Skies” really so ghastly? 1

David Whitman, in a compelling article in the Washington Monthly, argues that Bush's Clear Skies initiative is getting a bum rap from enviros. (He also argues that the much-vilified Jeff Holmstead, the Bush appointee who heads the EPA's Office for Air and Radiation, doesn't wholly deserve his anti-green rep.) Whitman asserts that the bill would do some real good, and debunks the widely repeated claim that the proposal would permit more pollution than the Clean Air Act. (Turns out there was more than met the eye to that bit about a secret EPA PowerPoint slide asserting that Clear Skies would make compliance cheaper and easier for utilities.)  Whitman doesn't claim the Bushies are without fault, and he certainly berates them for plain old dumb PR strategy surrounding their air-pollution initiatives. And he doesn't claim that Clear Skies is the best thing since sliced bread. Rather, his point is that this issue isn't black and white -- or black and green, as enviros have tried to paint it.  

As expected, the big green groups have reflexively bashed Clear Skies, loath to admit that something halfway decent could emanate from a Bush admin compromise, or that making some progress, even if not as much as they want, is better than no progress at all. Whitman also criticizes enviros for having little good to say about the admin's Clean Air Interstate Rule, a regulatory version of some more likeable portions of Clear Skies (though Grist's Muckraker managed to quote a couple greenies saying a few half-hearted almost-positive things about it).    

But there have been developments since Whitman's article came out. The admin surprised folks earlier this month by throwing a wrench into the EPA's plan to finalize the Clean Air Interstate Rule, the aim being to increase pressure on Congress to pass Clear Skies, which the White House is now declaring a priority. Now that the admin has disowned the rule, enviros are finding lots of nice things to say about it. And the White House is looking less credible about wanting to make progress rather than score political points.

Lisa Hymas is Grist’s senior editor.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Lisa Hymas's avatar

    Lisa Hymas Posted 3:24 am
    26 Jan 2005

    NRDC talks back

    John Walke at NRDC found plenty to fault in Whitman's article. Here's a letter to the editor he submitted to The Washington Monthly in response:

    The Bush Air Pollution Bill: Dirtier Air Longer

    David Whitman's apologia for the Bush administration's air pollution agenda -- and his attack on the health groups that oppose it -- misleads readers with false and incomplete information ("Partly Sunny," December 2004).

    The administration is promoting an industry-backed bill that would weaken and delay health protections required by today's Clean Air Act. Whitman claims the bill would reduce power plant pollution 70 percent by 2018. But the Environmental Protection Agency's own analysis acknowledges the White House bill would not achieve these nominal reductions until some time after 2025.

    The current law's deadline to clean up the air in regions where more than 100 million Americans live is 2010. The administration's bill postpones that deadline to 2023. Worse, it does so to mask the fact that its feeble and delayed requirements make the 2010 deadline unattainable.

    Compared to current law, the Bush bill also would allow as much as seven times more mercury pollution, and wouldn't fully achieve its own targets for two decades.

    Health groups aren't alone in condemning the bill. The bipartisan association of state air officials, for example, has denounced it for repealing important clean air safeguards, undermining state authorities, relaxing national park protections, and setting standards too weak and too protracted to protect pubic health.

    Whitman ignores all this. His story would have been more accurate had he talked to the bill's critics, not just Bush EPA officials. Further, Whitman mischaracterizes health groups' primary reason for opposing the bill. Our principal concern is that it weakens public health protections, not that it also worsens global warming pollution.

    The EPA today has the authority to require deeper, cost-effective, achievable pollution cuts from utilities in the next five years. Current law protects Americans better and faster than the Bush administration's proposal to weaken the Clean Air Act.

    John D. Walke
    Clean Air Director
    Natural Resources Defense Council

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Emailed
More
Advertisement