Smoke Screen

[Guest guest]

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/09/we_304_01.html

 

Smoke Screen

 

 

How President Bush has clouded the clean air debate with a green-sounding,

polluter-friendly emissions initiative.

 

By Michael Scherer

February 24, 2003

 

 

 

 

Americans might be forgiven for believing that President George W. Bush had

turned an environmental corner during last month's State of the Union address.

He seemed to be saying all the right things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Among his proposals for funding hydrogen cars and forest fire prevention, Bush

vowed to " promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically

improving the environment. " At the heart of this pledge is a package of

legislation known as " Clear Skies, " which the president said " mandated a 70

percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. "

The promise certainly sounded good, and it drew hearty applause from the

assembled lawmakers and administration officials. But, according to data from

Bush's own Environmental Protection Agency, " Clear Skies " would actually be a

big step backward. Not only would the legislation weaken and delay emissions

reductions mandated in the Clean Air Act, it will even allow some power plants

to pollute more in the coming decades by purchasing emissions credits from

cleaner plants.

" It's utterly Orwellian in terms of how they approach all these issues, " says

Wesley Warren, an economist for the Natural Resources Defense Council. " Put some

kind of great sounding name on it and claim in is some sort of great new

program. "

Based on data from a 2001 EPA briefing, the emissions reductions mandated in

" Clear Skies " would actually fall short of existing limits required by the Clean

Air Act, allowing power generators to pump higher levels of deadly compounds

such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxide, and mercury into the atmosphere than they

would under current rules. " It's a great deal if you are the electric industry

and a bad deal if you are the breathing public, " says Becky Stanfield, a staff

attorney for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Administration officials are doing their best to downplay such outside

criticism. But the most damning evidence of the plan's shortcomings can be found

in a 2001 EPA report presented to the Edison Electric Institute -- the electric

power industry's chief lobbying group. In the report, agency officials described

the expected emissions guidelines if the Clean Air Act was implemented under a

'business as usual' scenario. If the Clean Air Act were simply enforced, the

agency estimated, sulfur dioxide emissions would be reduced by 82 percent by

2012; nitrogen oxides would be reduced by 78 percent in the eastern region of

the country by 2010; and mercury would be reduced by at least 70 percent by

2008.

By comparison, the president's new plan requires sulfur reductions of 73

percent, nitrogen reductions of 67 percent, and mercury reductions of 69

percent. What's more, while the Clean Air Act would require all power plants to

comply with the tighter standards, the administration's plan will allow

highly-polluting power plants to avoid penalties by purchasing emissions credits

from cleaner generators. And, finally, the deadline for all the new mandates

under " Clear Skies " has been pushed back until 2018.

Joe Martyak, a spokesman for the EPA, says that the data presented in the 2001

report should not be used in comparing the two programs. The 2001 benchmarks

were " preliminary numbers that had not been put through a more deliberate

process, " Martyak contends. " That was meant to be an illustrative timeline to

show how the regulatory process would evolve without factoring in some variables

like litigation. " A practical projection of the Clean Air Act's impact would

have to account for unknown factors, such as delays related to rulemaking and

lawsuits, neither of which were considered in preparing the 2001 presentation,

Martyak says. But John Walke, a clean air lobbyist for the NRDC, suggests that

any discrepencies between the 2001 figures and such a practical projection would

more likely be the result of the EPA's less-than-rigorous approach to enforcing

environmental laws under the Bush administration. " They can sandbag

implementation of the Clean Air Act, " Walke said.

The stakes of this debate can be measured in the number of lives lost to lung

disease. At current rates, sulfur and nitrogen are the gases most responsible

for the 6,000 premature annual deaths, 140,000 asthma attacks and 14,000 cases

of acute bronchitis linked each year to the nation's eight largest electric

utility companies, according to a recent study by Abt Associates, an EPA

contractor. Another recent federal study found that 8 percent of women of

childbearing age were found to have unsafe levels of mercury in their systems, a

condition that puts both mothers and children at risk of mental disability.

These dire statistics have raised alarms in Congress, where several Senators,

including Vermont Independent James Jeffords, have introduced legislation to

counter the administration's " Clear Skies " rollback. The Jeffords bill joins an

existing proposal introduced by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman. Both the

Jeffords plan and the McCain-Lieberman proposal would maintain tougher

restrictions on power companies while also reducing carbon dioxide emissions, a

prime cause of global warming ignored by Clear Skies. During the 2000 campaign,

then-candidate Bush promised to cap carbon dioxide emissions. Last year, he

backtracked from that promise after Vice President Dick Cheney's office received

a letter from Haley Barbour, a power industry lobbyist who served as chairman of

the Republican Party's fundraising arm during Bush's 2000 campaign.

Such connections between the administration and the electric industry have

become increasingly common. In early 2001, Bush appointed Jeff Holmstead, a

former lawyer and lobbyist for the electric industry, as the EPA's chief clean

air official. Among Holmstead's clients was Alliance for Constructive Air

Policy, a coalition of power companies which lobbied the Clinton administration

to reduce Clear Air Act caps on ozone pollution. And Holmstead has maintained

his corporate ties while at the EPA. Documents obtained under the Freedom of

Information Act by Greenwire show that Holmstead met with industry lobbyists at

least 16 times in drafting the " Clear Skies " proposal. He met with environmental

groups at least nine times.

And the power industry has strong allies in the Republican Congress, as well.

Earlier this month, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the new chair of the

environment and public works committee who received more than $518,000 from

energy interests for his 2002 campaign, appointed John Shanahan to head up the

committee's work on air pollution issues. Shanahan is the chief air quality

lobbyist for the National Mining Association, the coal industry's trade group.

Facing such a lineup, environmentalists expect a bitter fight as the narrowly

divided Senate considers the competing clean air initiatives. In the meantime,

many fear that the president will continue scoring political points with " Clear

Skies, " deceptively spinning a polluter-friendly initiative to paper over the

administration's true environmental record.

" Whenever the administration is cornered they can just say 'Clear Skies,' "

explains Eric Schaeffer, the EPA's former enforcement chief who resigned in

protest last year. " By the time the campaign season comes around they will

probably be putting it to music. " What do you think?

 

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more