Sigh, more of the same. _________________ Studies: New rules would add pollution Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Air pollution from oil refineries and factories would increase under new rules the Bush administration is preparing, according to two new studies by a consultant used by the Environmental Protection Agency. The studies were released on the eve of a deadline today for the EPA to deliver to a Senate committee documents detailing the Bush administration's proposed relaxation of former President Clinton's controls for emissions. They were commissioned by the Environmental Integrity Project, a group funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund and headed by Eric Schaeffer, a former chief of civil enforcement at the EPA. Using computer models, Cambridge, Mass.-based Abt Associates examined emissions from recent upgrades at an Exxon Mobil refinery in Joliet, Ill., and a Nucor Steel plant in Crawfordsville, Ind. Their analysis found emissions would have increased had the new rules been in effect when the upgrades were made. By measuring pollution under less stringent standards that the EPA has proposed, emissions of nitrogen oxides would have risen by a combined 125 tons per year at the refinery, which relocated a preheater, and at the steel mill, which installed new burners, the studies say. EPA spokesman Joe Martyak said the new studies are "too speculative and full of variables" to be conclusive. Bush administration and EPA officials have said there is no analysis showing how the new rules would affect emissions, yet they wouldn't increase air pollution. Sen. James Jeffords, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee due to receive the EPA documents, said the studies confirm what he has suspected all along. "The administration's proposal would weaken pollution controls on utilities, refineries and other major sources of pollution," said Jeffords, I-Vt. Sylvia Lowrance, who recently retired as the EPA's deputy chief of civil enforcement, wrote last week to Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., that the proposed rule-making "promises to make many actions that are violations of the Clean Air Act today permissible tomorrow."
It's no coincidence that Houston surpassed LA as the most polluted city in the US during Bush's terms as governor. Anybody who denies that his "self regulation" laws were directly resposnisble are living in la la land.
I'm very sorry that an extra .00005% air pollution will kill your favorite endangered spotted howler monkey in Brazil, but I for one would like to have cheaper power and cheaper gas. There are *benefits* to providing financial incentive to energy companies, people seem to forget this (or intentionally choose to 'forget' this) Pollution is a nice theoretical concern, cheaper energy is a *practical* concern.
I guess you do not know any asthmatics who have pollution triggered asthmatic attacks (which could be fatal for some if not treated immediately). These asthmatics consider pollution a *practical* concern.
What about the people who live in this city? Is cheaper gas worth the health problems that are developing in Houston? The next time you see a little kid wheezing while on a breathing machine, why don't you pat them on the head and say, "Thanks litlle buddy, your sacrifice has saved me a 2 dollars on my last fill up." I don't even remember mentioning endangered animals. Smog
My understanding is that when the readings were taken it was about 10pm in Glendale, CA (an LA suburb) and 3pm in Deer Park, TX. Not surprising that there were differences. Also Bush's self-regulation were all he could do under the existing laws. As governor he didn't have the power to overturn these laws, so he started a program by which companies could sign up. To bas Bush for this would be to advocate that he should have done nothing.
Houston has the highest pollution (allegedly) because it carries the burden of the oil refineries on its back. Because of the huge energy industry which is concentrated here, we have higher emissions. This should surprise no one. It is a shame that Houston gets negative press for the emissions, when this is half the story. Houston's energy economy is the lifeblood of America's robust economy.
honestly, i don't know why that's so hard to understand. i'm not saying we can't work to mitigate it...but geez.
Cheap water and cheap air is a practical concern. I believe in Texas there is a program (If it is still running) that will pay the cost of retrofitting/ purchasing equipment (Cost of new equipment - cost of less enviromental option) to lower nitrous oxides. This is done to remove most of the economic advantage to use less environmentally friendly equipment, but there is more legwork involved.
I'm with TheFreak! We've started the greatest mass extinction since the Cretaceous (dinosaurs, et al.), and if we all pull together, keep those life styles a rollin' and that population a climbin', we can challenge the all time record of the Permian extinction! Go team! What's wrong with a future planet of only humans, weeds, and roaches, as long as I've got my convenience and my cash?
But even with all the refineries, we still managed to stay out of the top spot for many years. I still don't see how paying the extra cash for gas isn't worth making things easier on our own citizens. That's not the only problem, Houston needs to improve public transportation so that less cars will be on the roads. When is the monorail supposed to be built, if ever???
Hmmm... interesting, considering the estimated # of deaths that occur each year because of pollution. Asthma in children. Etc. Pollution is not abstract. It's extremely practical. Of course, there are economic benefits to polluting. But those must be balanced against the health care costs. Bush wants to permit the industry to externalize the cost far too much. Some radical environmentalists fail to realize that internalizing the costs affects the consumer in the long-term as well. Still, the industry isn't going to take steps to reduce pollution unless the costs are internalized. Hence, I think the new rules suck .
i'm all about the monorail!! bring it!!!!!!! that's good long-term planning, in my book. plus, it just looks cool!
Actually, you should ask Bob Lanier. He's the one that blocked it for so long, with the support of Houston conservatives (even though he identifies himself as a Dem). Better still, why don't you ask Tom Delay who's done everything in his power to block light rail, even while authorizing funds for same to Dallas. Max is right -- it is good long term planning. It's a shame it wasn't started a long time ago.
First off, people dying of cancer is a practical issue. If you know anyone who has had cancer related to negligent chemical companies who refused to pay up until forced to, you truly understand the impact it has. Besides, they don't call the area between Louisiana and Corpus Christi along the Gulf Coast "cancer alley" for nothing. You think it's a coincidence that Houston's medical center has the best cancer treatment and research facility in the world??? As for light rail, actually you should ask the far right wing conservatives. Each time a rail issue has come up for a vote and even when it has passed, a conservative group based in San Antonio has aligned with local conservative politicans in every city (Austin, Dallas and Houston) to oppose it and even go to court to stop it if necessary. Tom Delay, your friendly GOP senator from Houston, blocked funding for light rail in Houston even though he allowed it in Dallas. Bob Lanier, a moderate conservative, actually ran on an anti-rail platform and has recently aknowledged that was a huge mistake. All along, it has been the moderates and liberals (as well as the technology sector) who have supported and advocated light rail. Brown, along with Gordon Quan, Annise Parker, Gabe Vasquez and a few others on city council have backed and even fought for light rail. It was Rob Todd, the right-wing conservative who also happened to be caught cheating with his best friend's (and fellow city councilman, Bert Keller) wife, who opposed the rail referendum even after it passed all the way to the Texas Supreme Court wasting over $1 million in taxpayer money to do it. Others like Bruce Tatro, Kellar and the like have been staunch opposition to rail even after some of their fellow GOP members sitting on the Greater Houston Partnership begged them to stop so rail could be built. Metro, a woefully inept group unfortunately, has not done a good job of managing or promoting itself and a lot of that is on Shirley Delibero, who is basically univerally disliked among her peers and employees. However, the fight over rail has more to do with the constant conservative opposition than the failings of Metro. Even in Dallas after their 6-mile light rail line was built in downtown (sound familiar?) and found to be highly successful, the conservative opposition from San Antonio came out of the woodwork to oppose a referendum to build more light rail corridors throughout the area by increasing local sales tax, which is almost sacrelige in Texas. Their argument was that no one would use it. Of course, Dallas citizens knew that the trains were mostly full in downtown and voted overwhelmingly to extend the line and increase the tax. We have the same opportunity in Houston and it would have been done a long time ago if it weren't for those who stood in the way as far back as the late 80's. So, if you want to blame someone for the non-existence of light rail, start with the GOP and the conservatives in Houston and Harris County. You can't lay this one off on Democrats.
In your small world of absolute self-interest, perhaps you are right. However, the rest of us live in the larger world where pollution is more than a theoretical concern: Pollution causes respiratory problems, which drive up health insurance costs and place a burden on public programs. Sick leave related to air pollution costs businesses millions per year. Air pollution affects our drinking water supply, weakens our forests, and destroys our buildings and monuments. Refineries also have an abysmal record on groundewater pollution, a source of drinking water for manay Americans. Reduced crop yields directly attributable to air pollution costs American Farmers upwards of $7.5 billion per year. In terms of cheap energy, how cheap is it really... Air and water pollution costs from burning gasoline range from $25.5 billion to $267 billion each year. One estimate of the annual costs associated with petroleum leaks and spills is 237 million barrels annually or about $4.3 billion. The costs of protecting access to oil from foreign countries ranges from $26.6 billion to $70.7 billion, with a greater probability attached to the higher end of the range. The United States spends over $200 million annually to maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and we are currently facing a $100 million tab for decommissioning and moving a portion of the Reserve because of water intrusion and contamination. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the cost of just cleaning up petroleum contaminated ground water at $790 million per year. The costs of ozone generated by motor vehicles - in terms of health effects, lost labor hours, and reduced agricultural revenue, is at least 8.3 cents per gallon of gasoline. Pollution is a real economic concern in the real world.
