Nine states are suing the Bush administration for what they see as negligent environmental policy by the Environmental Protection Agency that would relax emission upgrade standards for industrial businesses. Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont are among those suing, and believe that the EPA under Bush control is pushing business over environmental policy.
The new policy went into effect Jan. 1, and alters a previous law that made it mandatory, when engaging in any facility improvements, no matter how large or small, to require plant-wide modifications that would meet stringent new EPA regulations on emissions. The new law changes the demands to apply only to large-scale renovations, not smaller projects like “”routine maintenance.”” The previous wording of the law did just that: made it mandatory for entire plant modifications even when undergoing routine improvements.
The benefit to industry is that facilities can now upgrade without being forced to make further unwanted modifications.
But as well as being pro-industry, the new piece of legislation is also pro-environment. When plants are forced to pay for unwanted upgrades (under the old statute), they are less likely to undergo any partial environmental improvements which would trigger, by law, modifications of the entire plant, the logic being that facilities with only enough funding or inclination to make minor pollution control improvements will abstain from any at all.
The previous policy clearly negates any potential for environmental benefit. While facilities that have the funds to indulge themselves in a major renovation would do so without EPA interference, those without the capital to satisfy auxiliary adjustments, but that do have the means to engage in only partial upgrades, would have no incentive to do so out of fear of being forced to pay for plant-wide restructuring.
When a plant has only two options — to upgrade all facilities to strict EPA standards (at enormous financial cost) or to do nothing — it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what path will be chosen, rightly or wrongly. The result is that plants would opt out of any pollution-reducing improvements to escape the penalizing nature of the previous EPA rule.
But while the new law fixes this, the nine states have brought litigation against the EPA under a certain air of idiocy: not meeting stricter pollution emission standards at all is better than satisfying a few requirements.
Taking their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 31, 2002, the states charge that the “”new source review”” rule — which changed the language of the law to no longer apply to routine maintenance but to major plant overhauls — contributes to the negligence of the Bush administration to effectively deal with environmental issues.
However, the new rule easily induces keener improvements in efficacy and environmental friendliness. But the policy is an easy target because of the appearance that it has discounted environmental concerns; it leads the common observer to put heart before mind, concluding through emotion that the policy is in the wrong, rather than determining through reason that, although not perfect, the policy is the best method to achieve that which needs achieving.
Opining on the matter, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton said, “”The administration’s rules are clearly not what Congress intended when it passed the Clean Air Act.”” Would that be the part that encourages more or less environmental pollution on the part of industry?
Taking a page from Senator Clinton’s playbook, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said the new rules should be considered an “”assault on the Clean Air Act and [we need to] continue to fight to achieve the goals that the law intended.””
I must concede that it was a sly move on the part of the opposition to prop up a Clean Air Act straw man, linking the new legislation as being pro-environmental destruction. Accusations are cheap. And those such as these are meant for nothing more than sound bytes on the nightly news, where those unfamiliar with the reasoning behind the new policy can have free reign to yell at their television, cursing the day Bush assumed the role of president.
How does Bush’s policy gut the Clean Air Act? By making it more efficient? Thankfully for the suing states and their supporters, that’s a question they will never have to answer in our age of simple accusations without explanations. Say whatever you want. We all know that nine times out of 10, you will not be called on it. And even in the case that you are, we will not ask for an apology since your heart — not your mind — was in the right place.
Having the ability to improve pollution controls without being penalized for doing so is a recourse for action we must give to our industries. Without such an option, we deter them from making any advances in the name of environmentalism in the first place. This law should be praised by environmentalists. Instead, it is complete anathema to those who wish to pursue emotion-based politics over substance, chastising Bush because of nothing else than that he is, well, Bush.