Waxman is going to punch somebody 13

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Sean Casten Posted 1:48 am
   21 May 2008

   Where was YouTubeBack when these sorts of squabbles could be settled with a good-old-fashioned caning?

   Permalink

2. 

   DarthPetrol Posted 4:01 am
   21 May 2008

   Waxman is a BullyWaxman was holding his own private inquisition.  Representative Issa let it go on for 2 whole minutes before he jumped in and asked for a point of order.  This is one of the few tools the minority has to control or limit debate.  Waxman was clearly operating outside the rules and Issa called him on it, so Waxman lost his temper.    
   The Wall Street Journal tagged Waxman with an apt moniker: "Beverly Hillbilly" taking him to task over the whole ozone issue.  
   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121115921730002453.html
   EPA is proposing lowering the Ozone standard from 0.84 to 0.75 ppm.  One should ask Rep. Waxman why if his congressional district is in violation of the EXISTING standard he is asking for an even lower standard.  From the WSJ:
   "As it happens, Mr. Waxman's own 30th California House district is already in gross violation of even the 1997 Clinton Administration standard of 0.084. This is part of the wealthy automobile mecca of Santa Monica, Westwood and of course Beverly Hills. In fact, Southern California is the only area in the country that has been designated by the EPA to be in "extreme noncompliance" with the ozone standards, which conveniently means it has been granted 20 years to clean up its act."
   "The odds are close to zero that Mr. Waxman's district could come anywhere close to complying even with the new EPA standard, much less the one the Congressman wants to impose on the entire country. According to Joel Schwartz, a clean-air scientist with the American Enterprise Institute, "even if Southern California abolished every automobile in the metropolitan area, it couldn't meet these stricter rules." We'd love to see how many of Mr. Waxman's constituents would give up the keys to their Lexus convertibles and hop on a Los Angeles bus in exchange for a minuscule improvement in air quality."  
   So Waxman's inquisition is about Bush bashing and not about public health.  
   Go ahead Dave, try to defend the little Weasel Waxman on this one.

   Permalink

3. 

   Darrell Posted 4:17 am
   21 May 2008

   Proud of Waxman!Makes me proud to have Henry Waxman as my Congressman as Stephen Johnson plays a Donald Rumsfeld role.
   BTW, Santa Monica residents are leading on reducing GHG emissions with a municipal solar program, leading local bus system, light rail coming, more high-mpg cars like Priuses than anywhere else I've seen in the US, and a strong General Plan update nearing completion.

   Permalink

4. 

   DarthPetrol Posted 5:13 am
   21 May 2008

   Sorry DarrellRep. Waxman's constituents might be saving on GHG emissions, but the issue here is ozone and the appropriate standard.  LA County curretnly averages 0.112 ppm, some of the worst air in the country.  If people want to get healthier, they should move to Houston. (You'd not only get healthier air, you might even be able to buy a house!)  
   Lowering the standard from 0.084 to 0.075 adds many counties to the list of non-attainment for ozone and should have a positive health benefit.
   
   The county list is here: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/2008_03_design_v ...
   But going to 0.060 is overkill.  For example, this would put Napa County in non-attainment.  It would also put 4 counties in North Dakota in non-attainment.  Now seriously, when people think of smog does North Dakota come to mind???  

   Permalink

5. 

   tdballo Posted 7:05 am
   21 May 2008

   end vs. means
   
   One should ask Rep. Waxman why if his congressional district is in violation of the EXISTING standard he is asking for an even lower standard. ...  So Waxman's inquisition is about Bush bashing and not about public health.
   
   
   It's true that Waxman's "inquisition" is not really about public health, but the attainment status of Waxman's district has no relevance here.  
   First, the standards at issue (the standards on which Bush intervened) are the secondary standards for ozone, which must protect public welfare (plants, soils, etc.).  They are distinct from the primary ozone standards, which must protect public health.  
   Second, this argument seems to take the view that attainment is an end in itself, but compliance with a lax secondary standard does nothing to ensure the protection of public welfare.  Only compliance with a secondary standard that meets the Clean Air Act's criteria ("a level of air quality ... requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air") would have that effect.  
   Here, because EPA has allegedly diverged from those criteria in establishing the secondary ozone standard, it has violated the Act.  Waxman's district may not comply in any case, but EPA's decision has pernicious effects nationwide.
   Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we think clean air is or looks like.  From the perspective of the Clean Air Act, the judgment of EPA's Administrator (as bounded by the Clean Air Act's criteria) define what clean air is.  If Bush has ordered a weakening of the secondary ozone standard based on motivations that depart from the Act's criteria, then the standard is illegal.    

   Permalink

6. 

   DarthPetrol Posted 8:09 am
   21 May 2008

   Huh?The NAAQS primary and secondary standard for Ozone are the same.  In fact the only secondary standard allowed is for SO2 and it is HIGHER than the primary standard.  
   http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html
   I attended the NAAQS ozone hearings last fall. Nobody was arguing that the proposed limit was a secondary standard. All I heard about was increased asthma cases and lost work days (primary standard).    
   "EPA's decision has pernicious impacts nationwide."  What? They are LOWERING the standard from 0.080 to 0.075 and eliminating the 2 digit rounding, effectively lowering the limit by 0.009 ppm.  
   I would agree with you that had EPA gone to 0.060 that would have been pernicious, it likely would have resulted in the premature death of thousands of people by slowing or reversing economic activity and local wealth creation, which gives people the means to better health care, nutrition, and higher living standards which prolong life.

   Permalink

7. 

   David Roberts Posted 8:19 am
   21 May 2008

   Of course,Waxman's hearings aren't about re-legislating the ozone standards. They are about political interference in EPA's decisionmaking. So handwaving distractions aside, DP, can you explain what Waxman's alleged sin here is?
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

8. 

   DarthPetrol Posted 8:53 am
   21 May 2008

   DROther than being obnoxious, how about abusing his position as a committee chair to conduct political witch hunts?  
   I think the mistake that President Bush made is even responding to this clown. I would have told Waxman to pound sand. The EPA has some discretion over setting these limits. The adminstrator gets to weigh the scientific evidence and the cost and benefit to society from the new standard.  I don't see the need to throw counties in North Dakota into non-attainment.

   Permalink

9. 

   David Roberts Posted 9:02 am
   21 May 2008

   DP,Do you think it's ok if the EPA's precedent, science, and advisers point one way, and the administrator decides the other way after a call from the White House?
   Also, do you think Congress is a co-equal branch of gov't?
   These things seem basic, but the right has put them into question in the last few years, so it's best to start with the groundwork.
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

10. 

    tdballo Posted 9:04 am
    21 May 2008

    Well, no.
    
    In fact the only secondary standard allowed is for SO2 and it is HIGHER than the primary standard.
    
    
    This is simply not true.  Section 109 of the Act gives EPA the authority to adopt secondary standards that are distinct from primary standards.
    By setting an illegally weak target, EPA allows communities to escape having to implement the Act's nonattainment provisions, which are designed to result in cleaner air sooner.  
    Finally, regarding your last argument, as no less a Clean Air Act authority than Justice Scalia has noted, "EPA may not consider implementation costs in setting the secondary NAAQS."

    Permalink

11. 

    DarthPetrol Posted 9:32 am
    21 May 2008

    YesIt is called discretion, and it happens all the time.  Otherwise we wouldn't need an EPA administrator or President for that matter, we could just rule by scientific committee.  
    Mr. Waxman's problem is he almost exclusively persecutes Republicans.  
    Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.
    The idea that EPA should set a lower standard for public welfare than for public health (somehow animals and buildings are harmed more than humans) is nonsense.  The one NAAQS example we have is SO2 where the primary 3-hr standard is 0.14 ppm and the secondary 1-hr standard is 0.5 ppm.  
    
    

    Permalink

12. 

    kmp Posted 10:43 am
    21 May 2008

    Bully?Frankly, I thought Waxman showed remarkable restraint.  I would shoot myself in the head if I had to do his job.

    Permalink

13. 

    DarthPetrol Posted 12:23 pm
    21 May 2008

    Beverly HillbullyI had a typo in the earlier post. Hillbully was what I meant.  
    Hey this ought to be fun.  Gov. Sarah Palin and the State of Alaska is going to sue over listing the polar bear as "threatened".  You go girl!!!
    (Or does DR not believe in states rights.)
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90QBM4G1&sho ...

    Permalink