Little changes at the EPA for Bush administration
Anthony Collins
Issue date: 4/9/08 Section: Opinion
In March the Environmental Protection Agency raised its standards for allowable pollutants in the air for the first time in a decade. Ever so barely it is thought to not only be economically feasible, but according to EPA committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will produce few health or environmental benefits.
"The Bush Administration would have us replace clean air standards driven by science with standards based on the interests of polluters," Boxer says.
Administrator Stephen L. Johnson remained stalwart by his decision to raise EPA emission standards to 75 parts per billion (ppb) "according to new minimum standard laws and recent scientific evidence," he said. This comes despite the EPA advisory committee's unanimous agreement that standards "should be 60 ppb-no higher than 70ppb."
The new pollution rules, the last important environmental decision facing the Bush administration's final year in office, is going to be a significant factor in the quality of air Americans breathe for the next decade.
The EPA has shown that the pollutant ozone has a direct impact on rates of heart and respiratory disease. The agency calculates that the new standard of 75 ppb would prevent 1,300 to 3,500 premature deaths a year, whereas 65 ppb would avoid 3,000 to 9,200 deaths annually.
Johnson has said he intends to push a measure through Congress that would rewrite the nearly 37-year-old "Clean Air Act" in an effort to allow regulators to take into consideration the "cost and feasibility of controlling air pollution when making decisions about air quality.
In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the government needed to base the ozone standards strictly on public health with no regard to cost, which Johnson has said was "too idealistic."
In a March 6 memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget, Susan Dudley questioned the need for "two different ozone standards." The EPA's Marcus Peacock replied the next day that the EPA cannot consider costs into setting a second standard.
The Electric Edison Institute, which represents 70 percent of U.S. electric power, released a statement saying that the EPA had made the "wrong call" in raising the standards and that "taxpayers will have to pay at the pump for benefits they may never see."
But William S. Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agency, representing officials from 48 states and 165 local governments, said that he and his officials were "willing to bear the burden" for the interest of public health.
"It is disheartening that, once again, EPA has missed a critical opportunity to protect public health and welfare by ignoring the unanimous recommendations of its independent science advisers," Becker said.
The next revision of smog and ozone standards won't come until 2013. The only time this administration ever seems to believe in 'fiscal responsibility' is when they're defending their disdain for American health.
"The Bush Administration would have us replace clean air standards driven by science with standards based on the interests of polluters," Boxer says.
Administrator Stephen L. Johnson remained stalwart by his decision to raise EPA emission standards to 75 parts per billion (ppb) "according to new minimum standard laws and recent scientific evidence," he said. This comes despite the EPA advisory committee's unanimous agreement that standards "should be 60 ppb-no higher than 70ppb."
The new pollution rules, the last important environmental decision facing the Bush administration's final year in office, is going to be a significant factor in the quality of air Americans breathe for the next decade.
The EPA has shown that the pollutant ozone has a direct impact on rates of heart and respiratory disease. The agency calculates that the new standard of 75 ppb would prevent 1,300 to 3,500 premature deaths a year, whereas 65 ppb would avoid 3,000 to 9,200 deaths annually.
Johnson has said he intends to push a measure through Congress that would rewrite the nearly 37-year-old "Clean Air Act" in an effort to allow regulators to take into consideration the "cost and feasibility of controlling air pollution when making decisions about air quality.
In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the government needed to base the ozone standards strictly on public health with no regard to cost, which Johnson has said was "too idealistic."
In a March 6 memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget, Susan Dudley questioned the need for "two different ozone standards." The EPA's Marcus Peacock replied the next day that the EPA cannot consider costs into setting a second standard.
The Electric Edison Institute, which represents 70 percent of U.S. electric power, released a statement saying that the EPA had made the "wrong call" in raising the standards and that "taxpayers will have to pay at the pump for benefits they may never see."
But William S. Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agency, representing officials from 48 states and 165 local governments, said that he and his officials were "willing to bear the burden" for the interest of public health.
"It is disheartening that, once again, EPA has missed a critical opportunity to protect public health and welfare by ignoring the unanimous recommendations of its independent science advisers," Becker said.
The next revision of smog and ozone standards won't come until 2013. The only time this administration ever seems to believe in 'fiscal responsibility' is when they're defending their disdain for American health.
Be the first to comment on this story