Well, I'll be damned! God, I hate the freakin' oil and gas industry. (no offense, Behad ) New rule on diesel will stand EPA won't delay action by Clinton By BILL DAWSON Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle Environment Writer In a major environmental action, the Bush administration will let a new rule go into effect to slash air pollution from diesel trucks and buses. The rule was adopted by the Clinton administration in its waning days, and refiners had hoped the new president would soften it and slow down implementation. Environmentalists, leery of President Bush's close ties to the oil industry, had feared he would do just that when the rule was put on hold along with other late regulatory decisions by his predecessor. But Christie Whitman, Bush's new Environmental Protection Agency chief, announced Wednesday that his administration has "determined that this action not be delayed in order to protect public health and the environment." The new rule will require modern emission controls on new trucks and buses, as well as cleaner diesel fuel. The EPA estimates that this combination will cut pollution from such vehicles by 95 percent, annually preventing 8,300 premature deaths and 23,000 bronchitis cases, and helping avoid more than 750,000 asthma attacks and related symptoms. Diesel exhaust is associated with several air-quality concerns. It contributes to ozone, smog's chief ingredient. It contains tiny soot particles linked to several health problems. And officials of federal, international and California agencies regard it as a potential or probable carcinogen. Supporters of two new federal standards that set maximum allowable levels of smog and soot in the air have been counting on the new diesel rule to help cities that exceed those limits achieve compliance. The new standards, also adopted by the Clinton administration, were upheld Tuesday in a unanimous Supreme Court ruling. The Bush administration's decision to phase in the new diesel rule on its original schedule was immediately praised by environmentalists and other backers. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, which had strongly opposed Bush's election, applauded Whitman "for taking a bold step toward making the air cleaner for all Americans." Bill Becker, who heads national organizations representing state and local air quality officials, noted that Texas, with Bush as governor, and New Jersey, with Whitman as governor, had both backed the new diesel rule. For Bush to dilute or delay it now would have "symbolically horrified the public," Becker said. "Imagine (Bush's) first environmental decision weakening an extremely important rule that will reduce thick, noxious, suffocating diesel exhaust," he said. Becker had helped assemble what he called a "historic coalition" of automakers, state and local officials, environmental and health groups, and the oil company BP to urge Whitman to stand by the rule. But other major refiners have been urging the new administration to delay it. The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, which represents most U.S. refineries, also filed suit to block the rule early this month. Robert Slaughter, the association's general counsel, said this lawsuit will continue. The group, he said, is disappointed by the decision to let the rule take effect, but hopes the administration will review it again in two or three years. The rule will phase in a requirement for low-emission engines from 2007 to 2010 and for cleaner-burning fuel from 2006 to 2009. The fuel portion will mandate a 97 percent reduction in the sulfur content, because sulfur fouls pollution-control equipment. Refiners say the diesel rule should be delayed a few years because they are also facing new requirements to start making lower-sulfur gasoline between 2004 and 2006. "We favor a significant reduction in diesel's sulfur content," but challenge "the wisdom of putting it on top of the gasoline sulfur reduction," Slaughter said. "Refiners will provide the environmental benefits in the rule, but they can't do everything at once," he said. The EPA estimates that the rule will increase vehicle costs by $1,200 to $1,900, and fuel by 4 or 5 cents a gallon. But the oil industry warned that needed refinery modifications will be so costly that they will result in fuel shortages that will hurt the entire U.S. economy. Whitman said, however, that she looks forward to helping ensure "that diesel trucks and buses remain a viable and important part of the nation's economy" at the same time the air gets cleaner. ------------------ "You know what they say about the music business. Here today, gone TODAY! - Chris Rock at the MTV Music Video Awards
Thats great news. But I got a good laugh this morning on two other news stories. President Bush's comments on West Coast earthquake The Associated Press (March 1, 2001 9:54 a.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com) - Text of President Bush's comments in Little Rock, Ark., about the earthquake in the Northwest on Wednesday: I send my prayers to express our country's concern for our fellow citizens in Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia and areas in the state of Washington. Those folks were affected by a major earthquake today. Our prayers are with those who were injured and their families, and with the many thousands of people whose lives have been disrupted. Thousands of people in Washington are without power or phone service. Airports are closed and many buildings have sustained structural damage. My administration stands ready to help in any way we can. I have asked the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Joe Allbaugh, to travel to Seattle to offer our assistance. He is on his way in a couple of hours and he will be traveling with members of the Washington state congressional delegation. I talked to Director Allbaugh. He told me he felt like Senator (Patty) Murray (D-Wash.) would be going and they are reaching out to other members of the congressional delegation to travel with him. We will work with state and local officials to provide whatever help we can to the people of the state of Washington. And then he turns around and does this… Bush budget would end disaster program The Associated Press WASHINGTON (February 28, 2001 4:42 p.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com) - The Northwest earthquake struck on the same day President Bush proposed killing a federal program designed to help communities protect themselves against natural disasters. Bush's proposed federal budget recommends saving $25 million by ending the Project Impact disaster preparedness program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The program "has not proven effective," Bush's budget book states. Seattle itself was one of the nation's first "Project Impact" communities. In February 1998, FEMA designated Seattle a "disaster-resistant community" for its efforts to reduce the potential costs and consequences from natural disasters. Other participants in Washington state are King, Pierce, Walla Walla, Kitsap and Clark counties. FEMA spokeswoman Mary Margaret Walker said the project's main thrust is less about federal dollars and more about "encouragement for local level initiatives to be taken. It may be that that will continue" without Project Impact. She added that the Seattle area "is very, very earthquake savvy. With or without Project Impact, I think they will be addressing their concerns." Sorry Jeff, didn't mean to derail your thread. ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is. [This message has been edited by mc mark (edited March 01, 2001).]
Glad to hear that Bush isn't gutting the environmental order. However, the guy's still acting way too conservative for the non-existant mandate he has. 500,000 more people voted for Gore than Bush. Bush was one of the people that claimed Clinton DIDN'T have a mandate in 96 for not winning 50% of teh vote. His own mandate must be infinitely less. Seriously, he talked about "healing wounds." I haven't seen any sign of it. I initially thought that Bush was stupid, but relatively harmless. Now I'm not so sure. "Compassionate conservatism" may just be a wolf in lamb's clothing. ------------------ Why is it that everytime BC defeats a major conference opponent, that opponent promptly goes on a losing streak? PS. Notre Dame sucks
This is kindof OT, but I think it is an important point. The buzzword of the past three months among political discussion and media attention has been "mandate". "Bush doesn't have the mandate for this" or "There is no clear mandate". What I question is if the same people who argue over no clear mandate would say the same thing if roles were reversed. i.e. If Gore were president, would there be so much of a focus on him "not having a clear mandate" or "not being conservative enough for the mandate he was given"? I just think it's an important point. As far as the bills go: I like the first one, and I don't REALLY see that much wrong with removing the Project Impact program. Obviously, in an ideal world we'd be able to keep this program and not have to pay for it, but as far as cuts go, I don't think this is a horrible move. For what it's worth, Project Impact doesn't really DO a whole lot, it's kindof like an expensive government consulting firm. But I could be wrong about that. ------------------ What can change the nature of a man?
Being the neck that I am, you wouldn't believe that I like the idea of a doing something about the crap some of those rigs and busses are putting out. Nothing pisses me off more than having to have a converter on my hot rod (most of the time), while I sitting behind a bus that is bellowing out enough smoke so that I can't read the "How's my driving" sticker becuase my eyese are all watery. Ok...that's enough, I almost had a thought to go outside and huge a tree. ------------------ In the end there will be no judges...only witnesses to my greatness.
