Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The 'Clear Skies' Battle Heats Up

By Brad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor. Posted February 25, 2005.


Ten state attorneys general are accusing the Bush administration of diluting air-pollution standards – and experts agree that the administration "has distanced itself from scientific information."

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Brad Knickerbocker

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The congressional fight over the Bush administration's clean air plan has turned into a political knock-down, drag-out at several levels.

Ten state attorneys general are publicly opposing it. Environmental activists and labor unions are at odds over the measure, illustrating the classic split over jobs versus the environment. State and local air-pollution control officials and agencies have weighed in, prompting the chairman of the Senate environment committee to question their motives and investigate their possible connection to activists.

Two prominent Republican governors – George Pataki of New York and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California – have urged Washington to make sure that states be allowed "to have stronger pollution controls than those set for the nation as a whole," as is the case under current law. Their recent letter to congressional leaders was polite, but it made an important point: That heavily populated areas like New York City and Los Angeles may need stronger laws than those favored by the Bush administration and polluting industries.

Meanwhile, speakers at the annual meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science this week complained that the administration "has distanced itself from scientific information" on such issues as environmental protection.

President Bush and his supporters in Congress say the "Clear Skies" legislation will reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and mercury 70 percent below current levels by 2018, with "major reductions" in the next five years. What's more, they say, a new approach is needed, since attempts to regulate such emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act typically have been tied up in legal battles.

The model here is the "cap and trade" method of reducing pollution, successfully, used for acid rain that's been relatively litigation-free. "The Clear Skies legislation will clean up the air by reducing utility emissions faster, more cheaply, and more efficiently than the Clean Air Act," says James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma, who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. "Anyone who doubts this either does not understand the legislation or has not paid attention to the endless litigation over the last 15 years."

Republican-turned-independent Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont, one of the authors of major Clean Air Act amendments 15 years ago, takes a decidedly different view.

The president's proposal "is rife with loopholes for polluters and litigation," says Mr. Jeffords, the senior minority member of the Senate committee. It "rewrites major portions of the Clean Air Act to delay attainment of the health-based standards – leaving millions of Americans to breathe dirty air longer."

Meanwhile, a long list of outside interests has been weighing in as well.

The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (whose members install and maintain much of the pollution-control equipment in the U.S.) favors Bush's Clear Skies Act. "It requires $52 billion in investment to meet air-quality standards, a significant portion of which will be paid in wages to boilermakers and other union craftsman," says union lobbyist Abraham Breehey.


Digg!

Brad Knickerbocker is a staff writer at the Christian Science Monitor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Obama vs. McCain: Who Won? Short Takes on the Debate
Election 2008: Liliana Segura, Don Hazen, Joshua Holland, David Sirota, Jill Tubman, Arianna Huffington, Andrew Sullivan and others share their thoughts.
AlterNet. October 8, 2008.
Is This Election the Major Historical Turning Point It Seems to Be? Yes
Election 2008: A small election victory won't drastically turn around any of the darker challenges our country faces -- only a massive victory can do that.
By Chalmers Johnson, Tomdispatch.com. October 8, 2008.
Top 5 Things That Might Keep You From Voting
Election 2008: Hurry up and register -- it might already be too late in your state.
By Allison H. Fine, Huffington Post. October 8, 2008.

Advertisement