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.
Comments
View as Threaded
Lisa Hymas Posted 3:24 am
26 Jan 2005
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