« Amazing site on ChernobylRick Santorum's view of Posterity »

Energy Policy versus Environmental Policy

03/06/04 | by david2 [mail] | Categories: General
The NY Times has an article on how the Bush administration methodically adopted a course favoring Energy policy over the protection of the environment.

It details the history of the conflict between the corporate energy interests and the EPA after the Bush Administration took office, and how the energy interests, pushed by corporate interests eventually won out.

There were a few victims. First was Bush's campaign pledge to put controls on the production of carbon dioxide. Within the first year, Bush turned this into a broken promise. Second was "new source review" which was a program forcing power plants to upgrade pollution controls when they upgraded their plants. The EPA changed the rules, thus putting 51 lawsuits against plants in violation of these upgrades in jeopardy. Finally there were the rules for Mercury production. Originally set for 2007, these rules now engage starting in 2018.

I'm not sure whether I find this decision to continue poisoning the environment for the sake of profit ( no other reason -- it's possible to reduce emissions now, it would just cost more ) at the expense of our health ( those mercury warnings you see on tuna? Know where that mercury comes from? -- that's right -- coal-fired plants ) more appalling or that there are so many Republicans, with their knickers in a knot over "responsibility" who seem to think that this is ok.



Comment from: Ed [Visitor]
If the "energy interests" had truly won, there would be new Nuke plants being constructed...much higher margin.

Reducing the limits on mercury emissions (if that's really what happened) is not a victory for the "energy interests."

BTW...there is NO comparison between mercury and exposing mass numbers of people to radiation.

Incidentally, the Mercury emission limits were propsed BY the Bush administration...for the first time ever. The proposed limit was lowered because there is no known technology available to reduce it to the level Bush wanted.

Again David, you've been had because you trust the Times for your "facts."
03/07/04 @ 18:21
Comment from: David [Visitor]
The Bush Administration did not propose the mercury standards. It proposed gutting them. They were due to kick in at 2007. The Bush admin has pushed that back 5 years. The end result is several more million metric tons of mercury. How do I know? Besides the ny times, which reported it correctly, I spoke with my Aunt and Brother, both environmental engineers.

As for mortality rates -- we'll leave it to the actuaries to determine the levels of increased morbidity and mortality. But it's just a matter of degree. Mercury and radiation are both poisons. Make sure you don't feed your new baby any tuna -- too much mercury.

And as for the NY Times, I dunno, Ed. Perhaps you should stick with something else not so complicated. :-)
03/08/04 @ 22:27
Comment from: David [Visitor]
Oops -- did I say 5 years that the Bush administration proposed pushing back mercury regulation -- I meant 11. The bush admin has proposed delaying mercury regulation from 2007 to 2018.

Please don't even TRY to suggest that the Bush administration pushes environmental policies, because it's simply not the case. That'd be almost as silly as suggesting that Sen. Joseph McCarthy was a reasonable person. Oh wait...
03/08/04 @ 23:06
July 2020
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 << <   > >>
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  


The requested Blog doesn't exist any more!

XML Feeds

powered by b2evolution