tdballo’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  the standards cover general service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps, not the archaic general service incandescent bulbs.

  the rule is at the link below

  www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/incandescent_lamps.html

   

   

  On Obama announces new efficiency initiatives as part of big clean-energy push posted 5 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  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." On Waxman is going to punch somebody posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  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.    On Waxman is going to punch somebody posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses