Click the image to view an interactive map of how the new EPA clean air rules will allow 33 new coal-fired power plants to pollute our national parks

Under this White House, the EPA isn't so much the Environmental Protection Agency as it is the Energy Protection Agency. With Clean Air Act rules already relaxed for mercury emissions by power plants near highly populated areas, the EPA now says they're likely to relax the rules near our nations most pristine lands, the National Parks so they can pave the way for even more polluting power plants.

The Bush administration is on the verge of implementing new air quality rules that will make it easier to build power plants near national parks and wilderness areas, according to rank-and-file agency scientists and park managers who oppose the plan.

The new regulations, which are likely to be finalized this summer, rewrite a provision of the Clean Air Act that applies to "Class 1 areas," federal lands that currently have the highest level of protection under the law. Opponents predict the changes will worsen visibility at many of the nation's most prized tourist destinations, including Virginia's Shenandoah, Colorado's Mesa Verde and North Dakota's Theodore Roosevelt national parks.

Nearly a year ago, with little fanfare, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed changing the way the government measures air pollution near Class 1 areas on the grounds that the nation needed a more uniform way of regulating emissions near protected areas. The agency closed the comment period in April and has indicated it is not making significant changes to the draft rule, despite objections by EPA staff members. (emphasis added)

That last point is important to keep in mind. Many, if not most of the people who work for the EPA are good people who truly want to do their jobs. But at every turn, they're overruled by political flaks put in place by the Bush White House to make the rules as beneficial to big business as possible, especially big energy.

But here's the real problem with the ruling.

On Thursday, the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group, issued a report estimating that the rule would ease the way for the construction of 33 new coal-fired power plants within 186 miles of 10 national parks. In each of the next 50 years, the report concludes, the new plants would emit a total of 122 million tons of carbon dioxide, 79,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 52,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 4,000 pounds of toxic mercury into the air over and around the Great Smoky Mountains, Zion and eight other national parks.

"It's like if you're pulled over by a cop for going 75 miles per hour in a 55 miles-per-hour zone, and you say, 'If you look at how I've driven all year, I've averaged 55 miles per hour,' " said Mark Wenzler, director of the National Parks Conservation Association's clean-air programs. "It allows you to vastly underestimate the impact of these emissions."

Unfortunately, the public comment period for the proposed rule changes ended in April, so there's pretty much nothing that can be done now. It seems like the changes will likely take effect, so this ends up being just one more thing added to the list of thousands that we hope the next President sees fit to undo.

You can click the image to view a map of how the new rules will impact our National Parks, or for more information visit the National Parks Conservation Association.

Yesterday I posted a short rant about the EPA apparently canceling plans to announce tougher restrictions on ozone emissions across the nation. Turns out, they only canceled the announcement, not the restrictions themselves.

The EPA did in fact issue new, tougher guidelines on ozone emissions, and they now say that 345 of 700 monitored counties now have air that is too dirty to breath.

The air in hundreds of U.S. counties is simply too dirty to breathe, the government said Wednesday, ordering a multibillion-dollar expansion of efforts to clean up smog in cities and towns nationwide.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced it was tightening the amount of ozone, commonly known as smog, that will be allowed in the air. But the lower standard still falls short of what most health experts say is needed to significantly reduce heart and asthma attacks from breathing smog-clogged air.

The question is, are they serious about enforcing the new standards? Apparently not...

Johnson said that state and local officials have considerable time to meet the requirements - as much as 20 years for some that have the most serious pollution problems. EPA estimates that by 2020 the number of counties failing to meet the new health standard will drop to about 28.

About 85 counties still fall short of the old standard enacted a decade ago.

In other words, the worst polluters in the nation have around 20 years to reduce the amount of ozone they're pumping into the atmosphere, regardless of the health impact it has on the people who live in those counties. The excuse is that because they are putting out more pollution, it will take them longer to reduce it.

Bullshit.

I've lived in a monitored county for most of my adult life, and believe me, if they want to meet ozone emission standards, they can do it. All it takes is the political will to enforce the law.

It's not like ozone emission standards are anything new. The counties that have problems now have had the same amount of time to reduce emissions as everyone else, for the most part, and the only reason they haven't reduced their ozone emission levels is for lack of the political will to enforce the standards.

And as much as I rag on corporations for fighting pollution standards, my neighbors are just as much a part of this particular problem as anybody else. Even so, it's still up to local officials to have the political will to enforce these standards. If my neighbor is out mowing his grass at 4:00 in the afternoon in 95 degree weather, not only is he an idiot, but he's contributing to my county's average ozone level. The cop driving down the street needs to stop, get out of his air-conditioned car, and either tell the guy to save it until later or write him a ticket.

Anyway, before I go on too much of a rant, let me finish up by saying one last thing. I'm glad the EPA is setting tougher ozone emission standards. This is a good thing. But it's not good enough.

We need to continue pushing for even tougher standards. This idea that dirty air is acceptable has got to be thrown out once and for all, and the only way to make that happen is by directly engaging the government. These standards are better than what we had before, but they're not good enough and we have to keep the pressure on.

As much as I hate to admit it, government is the only resource we have for solving problems like this, because they're the only ones with the authority to enforce high standards of air quality nation-wide. So rejoice in that this is a step forward, but keep pushing for even tougher regulations than we have now.

Oh, as an afterthought, let me give you one other thing to get pissed off about on this topic.

The science boards had told the agency that limits of 60 to 70 parts per billion are needed to protect the nation's most vulnerable citizens, especially children, the elderly and people suffering from asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

"Today's decision means millions of Americans will not get the protection that the law requires," said Bernadette Toomey, president of the American Lung Association, which had strongly urged the EPA to follow the advice of the science boards.

Johnson said he took those recommendations into account, but disagreed with the scientists. "In the end it is a judgment. I followed my obligation. I followed the law. I adhered to the science," Johnson said in a conference call with reporters.

Johnson said he did not consider the cost of meeting the new air standard. States and counties would have to require emission reductions from factories, power plants and cars to meet the tougher health rules.

I only point this out because EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson just said very explicitly that science "is a judgment".

In a reality based world, that would be enough to get him fired. But right now we're living in bizarro-Republican land, and hell, that's about the best we're gonna get.

Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey have introduced a new bill that strictly limits how new coal-fired power plants are being built. From their announcement:

"Comprehensive economy-wide regulation to address global warming is coming soon," said Rep. Waxman. “But new uncontrolled coal-fired power plants are being built today. My legislation says: “No new plants without emissions controls.” The alternative is senseless - locking in decades of additional global warming emissions and requiring greater emissions reductions across the U.S. economy to compensate."

"If we lose control of coal, we will have lost control of the climate," said Markey, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "This bill will make companies prepare for the future and prevent them from building low-tech coal-fired power plants before a global warming bill is passed that will necessitate the use of the newest, most climate-friendly technology. "

Without emissions controls, a new coal-fired power plant will emit hundreds of millions of tons of global warming pollution over its fifty-year lifetime. Over 100 new plants have been proposed, and even if just a portion of these are built, they will emit over a hundred million tons of carbon dioxide a year. One of these plants alone could offset the reductions that will be achieved through the Northeastern states' Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

The bill places a moratorium on either EPA or states issuing permits to new coal-fired power plants without state-of-the-art control technology to capture and permanently sequester the plant's carbon dioxide emissions. The moratorium extends until a comprehensive federal regulatory program for global warming pollution is in place.

The bill also bars a new coal-fired power plant without state-of-the-art control technology from receiving any free or reduced cost emissions allowances under a future federal program to address global warming.

While it's not an outright ban on new coal-fired power plants, it may work out to becoming an effective ban. Companies are not going to want to build coal-fired power plants when the costs of meeting these strict requirements are so high.

An outright ban on coal power plants, while it would be the most desirable action, isn't likely to pass either the House or Senate. As it is, this bill is going to have a long, hard fight in order to make it to the President's desk. And I highly doubt the President will sign such a strongly worded bill.

But more often than not, legislation of this type takes three or four attempts before it becomes law, and with a new President in office in less than a year, chances are it's only a matter of time before coal goes away forever.

Keep in mind, however, that while people may not be totally against coal-fired power plants if they're permanently sequestering CO², there are still a lot of coal mines out there wreaking havoc on the environment. The only long-term solution is an outright ban, but I don't have a problem taking small steps towards that goal when the opportunity presents itself

The bill itself hasn't been assigned a number yet, and it isn't listed at the Library of Congress yet, but you can read the text of the bill as it was introduce here (pdf).

Ozone is the primary component in smog

The EPA was supposed to announce tougher ozone emission standards today, but for some unexplained reason, they've decided not to make an announcement.

The Environmental Protection Agency is postponing an announcement Wednesday on whether it plans to tighten federal air quality requirements for smog.

Officials and lobbyists said they had been told the EPA was ready to announce it would tighten the federal ozone, or smog, standard to 75 parts per billion. That's a concentration that falls short of what health experts have said is needed to protect children and the elderly. Business groups have argued that the current 80 parts per billion should not be changed.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar confirmed that the announcement was being postponed and said he could not say whether it would be rescheduled.

Ozone is, of course, the primary component in the smog we see floating above our cities. It's a hazard to the health of not just humans, but the rest of the living world as well.

The worst part about this is that the EPA official didn't know if they were going to reschedule the announcement or not. If they're not, it effectively means that they're not going to call for tougher standards, and that means corporate lobbyists got their way once again. They've once again cried that it costs too much to clean their emissions of toxic chemicals, and once again the government has apparently given in.

As Chris at Americablog says, don't they breathe the air, too?

Don't these people breath? Don't they pay for health care? Surely the EPA and White House are not blind to the health care costs involved with polluted air. It's hard to imagine such a small slice of society holding so much power over others but for the Republicans, they consistently only care about what industry wants without consideration for everyone else.

We'll just have to wait and see if they reschedule the announcement for another day, or if this one is done for good.

The Associated Press has recently conducted a five month survey of our nation's water systems, with some very unnerving results. Normally, people don't think about the water that comes out of their faucets unless it's off-color or smells or tastes funny. But then along comes an enterprising group of journalists and they make us all stop and think about what it is we're taking into our bodies, and worse, giving to our children. In this case, it's prescription medications. Everything from Tylenol to sex hormones.

A vast array of pharmaceuticals -- including antibiotics,
anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones -- have been found
in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an
Associated Press investigation shows.

I'm usually not the kind of person who gets overly worked up when I hear about minor contamination. I don't like it, but I don't let it scare me like, say, a bomb under my house would. But this... this scares me.

We've known the dangers of heavy metal contamination in our water supplies for years, and we've developed filtration systems to deal with that threat. Municipal water systems generally test for and filter heavy metals, and if we're still not comfortable with the level of mercury or lead in our water we can purchase our own filtration systems and install them in our homes.

That's not the case with prescription medications. The chemical makeup of the medications found in our water makes it much more difficult to screen for and filter out the contaminants. We don't really have a defense against ingesting this stuff, especially when you consider how much of our water supply may be contaminated.

Representative Peter Welch of Vermont submitted a bill on Thursday that would allow California and other states to set create their own laws regarding greenhouse gases and other emissions. The bill, H.R. 5560, was has 58 cosponsors. via Reuters.

A bill was introduced in the House
of Representatives on Thursday that would overturn the
Environmental Protection Agency's decision to prevent
California from limiting the amount of greenhouse gas emissions
spewed by cars.

 

The EPA last December turned down California's request for
a waiver from federal law that would have permitted the state
to cut vehicle carbon dioxide emissions, which when implemented
would have likely have raised the required fuel efficiency of
cars and also fought global warming.

A group of 60 House lawmakers introduced legislation that
would immediately grant California's waiver request and also
clear the way for 12 other states to set vehicle tailpipe
emissions standards.

Some have questioned the legality of the EPA's decision not to allow states to set their own emissions standards, but it's widely believed that nothing will be done to pursue the issue within the executive branch. The question remains whether or not this bill can pass the House and Senate, and if it does, whether or not President Bush will allow it to become law.

The alternative is to wait a year and add this issue to the growing list of issues that our next President is going to have to fix.