EPA orders tougher standards for cutting smog

***Gunny*** · #1 (**permalink**) 03-12-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson called the new smog requirements "the most stringent standards ever," and he said they will require 345 counties -- out of more than 700 that are monitored -- to make air quality improvements because they now have dirtier air than is healthy.

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

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

Johnson's decision is likely to be met with sharp criticism from health experts and some members of Congress because it goes counter to the recommendations of two of his agency's scientific advisory panels -- one on air quality and the other on protection of children.

The new EPA standard will lower the allowable concentration of ozone in the air to no more than 75 parts per billion, compared with the old standard of 80.

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.

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 take into account the cost of meeting the new requirements. States and counties would have to require emission reductions from factories, power plants and cars to meet the tougher health rules.

The EPA has estimated that compliance with a 75 parts per billion smog standard would cost as much as $8.8 billion a year by 2020, when many of the counties are expected to be meeting the requirement. That estimate, however, does not take into account balancing reductions in health care costs that could be even greater.

Electric utilities, oil companies and other businesses had lobbied hard for leaving the smog rule alone, saying the high cost of lower limits could hurt the economy.

The federal Clean Air Act requires that health standards for ozone and a handful of other air pollutants not take costs into account.

But Johnson said that ought to change. He said the Bush administration plans to propose legislation to Congress to overhaul the 1970 law so that in the future, costs can be considered when setting health standards.

Any such move is likely to be met with strong opposition in Congress. Health experts and environmentalists view the setting of health standards without consideration of cost as essential for assuring public health.

more ... http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/03/12....ap/index.html

And guess who ends up paying for this crap? It sure isn't the EPA.

Bern80 · #2 (**permalink**) 03-13-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunnyL

And guess who ends up paying for this crap? It sure isn't the EPA.

Looks to me like this is a problem that would eventually work itself out. If people who live in these smog ridden areas are more prone to health complications and maybe death if it gets bad enough, then if enough them die there will be fewer people putting smog in the air, so smog levels shoudl eventually go down.

Larkinn · #3 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunnyL

And guess who ends up paying for this crap? It sure isn't the EPA.

And guess who ends up paying for the health bills of those who breathe in this crap? It sure isn't the companies that are polluting. So much for the Republican idea of personal responsibility.

***Gunny*** · #4 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinn

And guess who ends up paying for the health bills of those who breathe in this crap? It sure isn't the companies that are polluting. So much for the Republican idea of personal responsibility.

I'm about as much a Republican as you are, and nowhere do you see a statement from me advocating anyone shirking responsibility.

I have a problem with everything this government does costs me more and more, instead of THEM being responsible and cutting some of their bullshti spending to fund their great ideas.

Larkinn · #5 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunnyL

I'm about as much a Republican as you are

LMAO. Of all the presidential candidates who ran in the primaries name your top 5.

Quote:

and nowhere do you see a statement from me advocating anyone shirking responsibility.

So then you do thing that businesses should have to pay to offset their pollution?

Quote:

I have a problem with everything this government does costs me more and more, instead of THEM being responsible and cutting some of their bullshti spending to fund their great ideas.

Oh no...you may have to pay some more money to keep innocent kids from getting sick. I feel oh so sorry for you.

Psychoblues · #6 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008, 11:03 PM

Great call by the EPA. The polluters need to pay the price for their pollution. The polluters don't have a right to damage me or my environment. Lemme know the next time you ride an elevator, gunny. I'll be sure to ride with you and give you an enormous fart for you to enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

***Gunny*** · #7 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinn

LMAO. Of all the presidential candidates who ran in the primaries name your top 5.

There weren't 5 people I'd vote for in the primaries. There's aren't 3 people in the primaries I'd vote for currently.

Quote:

So then you do thing that businesses should have to pay to offset their pollution?

Smoke and mirrors. There is no "offsetting pollution." There's only scamming on a way to steal some of their profit.

Quote:

Oh no...you may have to pay some more money to keep innocent kids from getting sick. I feel oh so sorry for you.

I'm quite sure you have no problem with stealing money I have earned right out of my wallet to support your agenda(s).

Larkinn · #8 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunnyL

There weren't 5 people I'd vote for in the primaries. There's aren't 3 people in the primaries I'd vote for currently.

Name all who you would vote for.

Quote:

Smoke and mirrors. There is no "offsetting pollution." There's only scamming on a way to steal some of their profit.

Umm, actually there are ways to offset pollution. Trees help. As does polluting less.

Quote:

I'm quite sure you have no problem with stealing money I have earned right out of my wallet to support your agenda(s).

Not really no. Neither do you have any problem with doing the same to me. But nice bullshit rhetoric there.

By the way...its pretty pathetic that you can't get on board with an agenda that, as said in this thread, is based towards allowing people to live in environments that don't lead to their deaths because of corporate greed.

rayboyusmc · #9 (**permalink**) 03-21-2008, 08:55 AM

Not to worrry. Bush already rolled back some of the EPA rules to protect our fukking environment.

Quote:

Ozone Rules Weakened at Bush's Behest
EPA Scrambles To Justify Action

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 14, 2008; A01

The Environmental Protection Agency weakened one part of its new limits on smog-forming ozone after an unusual last-minute intervention by President Bush, according to documents released by the EPA.

EPA officials initially tried to set a lower seasonal limit on ozone to protect wildlife, parks and farmland, as required under the law. While their proposal was less restrictive than what the EPA's scientific advisers had proposed, Bush overruled EPA officials and on Tuesday ordered the agency to increase the limit, according to the documents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...304175_pf.html

Some day we will have to play the game, "How Bush & Company Have Raped Our Protective Agencies" by putting them in charge of former lobbyist for the industries they are supposed to regulate.

Have to take a break and change the cartridges on my respirator.

AllieBaba · #10 (**permalink**) 03-21-2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinn

And guess who ends up paying for the health bills of those who breathe in this crap? It sure isn't the companies that are polluting. So much for the Republican idea of personal responsibility.

Get rid of government sponsored health care and voila, problem eliminated.

Larkinn · #11 (**permalink**) 03-23-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllieBaba

Get rid of government sponsored health care and voila, problem eliminated.

Because if the government didn't pay for it, then the companies that polluted would pay for it?

Not quite. You missed the point by a rather large margin.