air pollution

The EPA’s phony explanation of its rejection of California

After more than two months, the Bush administration today finally articulated its legal case for rejecting California's greenhouse-gas standards for motor vehicles. The argument is here.

It reads like something written up in the boardroom of General Motors or a law firm working for car companies. It even cites arguments made by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers as justification for the decision!

It's a phony argument designed to protect the auto industry -- and it's typical of the Bush administration to dump out bad news like this on a Friday to minimize media coverage.

Air doing OK, say officials; water, perhaps not so much

Beijing officials were recently accused of falsifying statistics and manipulating data to make the city’s air pollution seems less of a problem in the run-up to the Summer Olympics. Unsurprisingly, a spokesperson for the city’s Environmental Protection Bureau refutes the accusation, insisting, “We will honor all the environmentally related pledges made during the Olympic bid. […]

Factory farms fight to avoid reporting on toxic emissions

This article in the WaPo shows yet again how insidious the agricultural lobby in this country is, and how we need leadership that will take it on. This time it's the factory farms fighting laws that mandate that they provide information on their emission of toxic gases (from animal waste).

Breaking the power of the agricultural lobby should be a top priority for the environmental community; at every turn it fights for corporate welfare and against environmental progress and the public good.

EPA staffers warned Johnson he might have to resign if he denied Cali’s waiver

Stephen Johnson. Lordy. Not only did Stephen Johnson’s staff at the EPA oppose his decision to deny California’s waiver, but they warned him that if he denied the waiver he might have to resign in shame. Boxer’s EPW committee has gotten ahold of some internal memos and briefings from the EPA. To pick just one […]

NBC on ABEC

Via ThinkProgress comes this segment on NBC Nightly News: [vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1011965&w=425&h=370&fv=launch%3D23279992%26amp%3Bwidth%3D400%26amp%3Bheight%3D320] Obviously I am totally unable to judge these things with any sort of objectivity. All I see is a huge, wealthy, politically connected industry using propaganda techniques to push a dirty facility on a community that is so poor and desperate that it’s willing […]

A view behind the scenes at the EPA and the White House

It is now less than four weeks until the EPA announces its decision on whether to change current national standards for ozone or smog. And things are getting very interesting behind the scenes.

Officially, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget website, the EPA has not yet transmitted its plan to the White House for review. The truth is, the EPA is obviously being picked at by the OMB already.

The Bush administration is just trying to keep the details of this matter as secret as possible. (Some business lobbyists have heard that the EPA is pushing a tougher new standard, though weaker than that recommended by their science advisers.)

Despite the efforts at secrecy, some information is creeping out as EPA puts information in its official regulatory docket. (You can see this for yourself here by searching for docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172. )

Outlook not good for air quality at Delhi-hosted games

Think the air quality at this summer’s 2008 Beijing Olympics is going to be bad? When New Delhi hosts the 2010 Commonwealth Games, it’ll probably be even worse.

Our command-and-control air-pollution regulations are working against our climate policy

With the climate policy discussion now settling into lines of cap & trade vs. carbon tax, and allocation vs. auction, it has implicitly moved beyond the top-down, command-and-control models favored by early plans (and in particular the multi-pollutant, "4P" bills).

This market focus is a good thing, on balance. What isn't good is that it's only being applied to greenhouse gas pollution. Our existing air pollution laws create disincentives to GHG reduction. Modernization of these (non-carbon) pollution laws may be the single most important thing the federal government can do to lower GHG emissions. As we head out of the harbor, it's time to haul up the anchor.

Relevant history

The Clean Air Act, coupled with New Source Review, has dramatically lowered SOx, NOx, and particulate emissions. It has also substantially increased GHG emissions. The reasons why are three-fold:

1. The rules were set on a so-called "input basis." Come under a certain parts-per-million of exhaust and you are OK. Exceed it and you're in violation.

This has the perverse effect of discouraging energy efficiency: if I lower absolute pollution (tons/yr) by 40% and cut fuel use by 50%, I have reduced the flow of fuel and combustion air by more than I've reduced pollution (e.g., the "millions" in the parts-per-million formulation). Thus my ppm actually increases and I can't get a permit anymore.

All four Republican candidates support California’s right to a waiver from the Bush EPA

In tonight’s debate, much to my surprise, the Republican candidates got a direct question about the California waiver. Also rather to my surprise, all four said they support California’s right to a waiver. It’s amazing how isolated Johnson (*cough*Cheney*cough*) is on this. Not one of his party’s standard-bearers will back him up. That is some […]