Monday, January 5, 2009

20090105 The Decider and the Environment

I wanted to link to some recent events with our President for the last 8 years and the EPA, so I did a Google search. I'm glad that I did. It allows me to paint with a wider brush now:
  • January 4, 2009 - Brown Takes on "Audacious" Bush EPA Plan
  • December 24, 2008 - Court orders EPA to stick with Bush clean air rules--for now
    ...allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with our opinion would at least temporarily preserve the environmental values...

  • December 18, 2008- E.P.A. Ruling Could Speed Up Approval of Coal Plants
    ...a memorandum issued by Mr. Johnson late Thursday puts the agency on record saying that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant to be regulated when approving power plants...
  • March 14, 2008 - Ozone Rules Weakened at Bush's Behest
  • September 30, 2007 - Bush's EPA is Pursuing Fewer Polluters
  • Pesticides and the Clean Water Act - November 2006

    In one of the Bush administration's typical "clarifications" that result in weakened standards, pesticides are no longer pollutants under certain conditions. Now, as long as companies apply pesticides deliberately over water to control mosquitoes, other insects, and aquatic weeds, they need no permits.

  • Particle Pollution - September 2006

    Despite the recommendations of its own science advisors, the EPA strengthens the daily standards for particle pollution , or soot, but not the annual one. Breathing soot can trigger and worsen asthma attacks and cause other lung and even heart problems, and the very next month National Public Radio reports even more alarming evidence. NPR is holding the EPA's own documents showing estimates of lives saved for both standards, indicating the tougher, rejected one would have saved thousands of lives more than the one the EPA chose to implement.

  • Mercury from Power Plants - March 2005

    The EPA institutes a cap-and-trade policy to reduce mercury emissions from coal power plants but not until 2010. This move not only delays any reductions in mercury, but it also marks the first time cap-and-trade has ever been instituted for a toxin. Mercury exposure can cause nerve, brain, and kidney damage.

  • Car Emissions - August 2003

    In what will become a familiar refrain throughout both terms of the Bush presidency, the EPA claims no authority over emissions from car and oil companies, meaning it refuses to regulate these very problematic greenhouse gases.

  • Ocean Vessel Emissions - January 2003

    January was not an easy month for air quality five years ago. The EPA instituted a long-awaited ruling on ships and other sea vessels, which are responsible for a large portion of air emissions. The new regulation? The EPA will "promote" new, cleaner engines but not require them - so more of a suggestion, really, and not so much a regulation.

  • Atrazine in Drinking Water - January 2003

    Atrazine is an herbicide linked to cancer in humans and animals, and it's banned in parts of Europe. During 2003, the EPA acknowledges that atrazine levels in the drinking water of over 1 million U.S. citizens have exceeded its own safety standards but chooses not to regulate it.

  • Arsenic in Drinking Water - May 2001

    The Bush administration withdrew a new EPA limit on arsenic in drinking water, down from 50 parts per billion (ppb), set in 1942 before researchers discovered arsenic's link to cancer, to 10 ppb. Plus, it suspended the right-to-know provisions that compelled water utilities and suppliers to inform customers about arsenic levels in water. Suspending the new, stricter standard would have set back over two decades of Congress's work to strengthen it in the first place, but a National Academy of Sciences review forced the EPA to retreat.

I need to go back & link all of these stories properly - but by trying too hard to make everything perfect I don't end up posting very often. So I'm just going to put this up as-is in the name of progress & sharing & stuff... MMMkay?


Clean coal companies said...

I'm very proud of what you accomplished during the semester and your Top Ten convinces me that you learned a lot.
Great reflection on the excellent review

gregor42 said...

Golly that sounds lovely. Now what on Erf are you talking about? What Semester? I'm not a student and you're talking nonsense. To what Top Ten do you refer?

And isn't "Clean Coal" an oxymoron? I could see where you could achieve much better efficiency - by processing only the most expensive coal that there is - you can run far more cleanly than a "normal" plant.

Or even more cleanly than all of the "Clean coal" plants in China. They have all of the latest technology. It's still brand new - and completely unused. They burn the cheapest coal with the most sulfur content in those 'clean' facilities and negate all of the benefits that they bought into whilst paying lip service to the West.

But is that what your outfit is up to? Do tell us more.