Whether you are pro- or con- on the global-warming argument, you need and want the air you breathe to be as pure and clean as possible, right?
Well, the war criminal "president" who gave you: 9/11, two failed-but- continuing wars, prisoner torture, prisoner renditions, secret foreign prisons, crimes against Katrina victims, illegal surveillance of our citizens (you, maybe?), curtailed civil liberties, an inept Homeland Security Department, contractor waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer monies, record high budget deficits, record tax cuts for the rich, the housing crisis, 47-million-plus medically uninsured U.S. citizens, and record trade deficits -- this nincompoop and this "administration" say to you in effect, "Screw you if you want clean air and water, our big- business friends want to build some coal power plants near you and your national parks!"
It's like a farewell nose-thumbing by Bush, who, miffed that he's the most inept, corrupt, and criminal "chief executive" in U.S. history -- and miffed that you know it -- wants to give you yet another parting shot over your bow.
--------------------------- "Clean-Air Rules Protecting Parks Set to Be Eased"
By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 16, 2008; A01
The Bush administration is on the verge of implementing new air quality rules that will make it easier to build power plants near national parks and wilderness areas, according to rank-and-file agency scientists and park managers who oppose the plan.
The new regulations, which are likely to be finalized this summer, rewrite a provision of the Clean Air Act that applies to "Class 1 areas," federal lands that currently have the highest level of protection under the law. Opponents predict the changes will worsen visibility at many of the nation's most prized tourist destinations, including Virginia's Shenandoah, Colorado's Mesa Verde and North Dakota's Theodore Roosevelt national parks.
Nearly a year ago, with little fanfare, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed changing the way the government measures air pollution near Class 1 areas on the grounds that the nation needed a more uniform way of regulating emissions near protected areas. The agency closed the comment period in April and has indicated it is not making significant changes to the draft rule, despite objections by EPA staff members.
Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who now heads the environmental strategies group at the law firm Bracewelll & Giuliani, helped initiate the rule change while heading the EPA's air and radiation office. He said agency officials became concerned that the EPA's scientific staff was taking "the most conservative approach" in predicting how much pollution new power plants would produce.
"The question from a policy perspective was: Do you need to have models based on the absolute worst-case conditions that were unlikely to ever occur in the real world?" Holmstead said in an interview Thursday. "This has to do with what [modeling] assumptions you're required to do. This is really a legal issue and a policy issue."
The initiative is the latest in a series of administration efforts going back to 2003 to weaken air quality protections at national parks, including failed moves to prohibit federal land managers from commenting on permits for new pollution sources more than 31 miles away from their areas and to protect air resources only for parks that are big and diverse enough to "represent complete ecosystems."
For 30 years, regulators have measured pollution levels in the parks, over both three-hour and 24-hour increments, to capture the spikes in emissions that occur during periods of peak energy demand. The new rule would average the levels over a year so that spikes in pollution levels would not violate the law.
A slew of National Park Service and EPA officials have challenged the rule change, arguing that it will worsen visibility in already- impaired areas, according to internal documents obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
In one set of comments, the EPA's regional computer modeling staff wrote that the proposal "would allow for significant degradation" of the parks' air quality. An e-mail from National Park Service staff called aspects of the plan "bad public policy" that would "make it much easier to build power plants" near Class 1 areas, which include some Fish and Wildlife Service-protected land.
When the committee chairman, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), asked the EPA whether the rule would facilitate construction of more power plants near protected areas, Robert J. Meyers, principal deputy assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, replied in an April 24 letter that this was not the intention of the rule but that he could not rule it out.
"We developed this proposal based on the need to clarify how increment consumption must be addressed, and not whether or not it would be easier to build power plants," Meyers wrote. "In the absence of any data or evidence provided by the National Park Service, we are unable to conclusively confirm or deny their suggestion."
Yesterday, the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group, issued a report estimating that the rule would ease the way for the construction of 28 new coal-fired power plants within 186 miles of 10 national parks. In each of the next 50 years, the report concludes, the new plants would emit a total of 122 million tons of carbon dioxide, 79,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 52,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 4,000 pounds of toxic mercury into the air over and around the Great Smoky Mountains, Zion and eight other national parks.
"It's like if you're pulled over by a cop for going 75 miles per hour in a 55 miles-per-hour zone, and you say, 'If you look at how I've driven all year, I've averaged 55 miles per hour,' " said Mark Wenzler, director of the National Parks Conservation Association's clean-air programs. "It allows you to vastly underestimate the impact of these emissions."
Don Shepherd, an environmental engineer at the Park Service's air resources division in Denver, said of the new rule, "I don't know of anyone at our level, who deals with this day to day, that likes it or thinks it's going to make sense.
"We really want to have clean air at national parks all the time, and not just at average times," Shepherd said in a telephone interview. "All of our national parks have impaired visibility. . . . It would really be a setback in trying to make progress."
While the government has made progress in reducing haze-producing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution in recent decades, many of the nation's best-known parks still have poor visibility and air quality.
In October, the Park Service published a 10-year analysis of air quality trends that found that sulfate concentrations in precipitation have declined on the East Coast because of the federal acid rain program, but that Western parks have not experienced similar reductions. The concentrations of ozone smog over an eight-hour period are worsening across almost all of the interior West, including "some of the most remote places in the nation," said Vicki Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.
Jim Renfro, an air resources specialist at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, said the park is suffering from a host of pollution problems, including smog and sulfur and nitrogen deposition. Visibility on summer days is 15 miles, rather than the nearly 80 it used to be, and the park now does not meet federal smog standards.
"There are some days when it's unhealthy to breathe at the park, so that's a major concern. People come here to get away, and they can't believe that sometimes they're better off where they came from," Renfro said. "We've got a long way to go."
Power plant emissions are also affecting vegetation and wildlife, making streams in Shenandoah more acidic and stripping nutrients out of the soil that sustains spruce firs at the Great Smoky Mountains' higher elevations. The Great Smokies have the highest levels of acid deposition of any monitored area in North America.
Georgia Murray, a staff scientist at the Appalachian Mountain Club, an outdoor recreation and advocacy group, said emissions will have to drop significantly for ecosystems on the East Coast to improve. "It's the type of pollution that takes years to recover from," she said.
Holmstead, however, said the administration's Clean Air Interstate Rule, implemented in 2005, will ultimately reduce pollution nationwide.
"What you want to do is reduce the total amount that comes out of these power plants," Holmstead said. "There's no Class 1 area in the country that is only affected by a nearby power plant."
> Whether you are pro- or con- on the global-warming argument, you need > and want the air you breathe to be as pure and clean as possible, > right?
> Well, the war criminal "president" who gave you: 9/11, two failed-but- > continuing wars, prisoner torture, prisoner renditions, secret foreign > prisons, crimes against Katrina victims, illegal surveillance of our > citizens (you, maybe?), curtailed civil liberties, an inept Homeland > Security Department, contractor waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer > monies, record high budget deficits, record tax cuts for the rich, the > housing crisis, 47-million-plus medically uninsured U.S. citizens, and > record trade deficits -- this nincompoop and this "administration" say > to you in effect, "Screw you if you want clean air and water, our big- > business friends want to build some coal power plants near you and > your national parks!"
Our air is cleaner than it has been in a long time. Clean Coal technology is the future of our energy needs. Get used to it.
> It's like a farewell nose-thumbing by Bush, who, miffed that he's the > most inept, corrupt, and criminal "chief executive" in U.S. history -- > and miffed that you know it -- wants to give you yet another parting > shot over your bow.
> --------------------------- > "Clean-Air Rules Protecting Parks Set to Be Eased"
> By Juliet Eilperin > Washington Post Staff Writer > Friday, May 16, 2008; A01
> The Bush administration is on the verge of implementing new air > quality rules that will make it easier to build power plants near > national parks and wilderness areas, according to rank-and-file agency > scientists and park managers who oppose the plan.
> The new regulations, which are likely to be finalized this summer, > rewrite a provision of the Clean Air Act that applies to "Class 1 > areas," federal lands that currently have the highest level of > protection under the law. Opponents predict the changes will worsen > visibility at many of the nation's most prized tourist destinations, > including Virginia's Shenandoah, Colorado's Mesa Verde and North > Dakota's Theodore Roosevelt national parks.
> Nearly a year ago, with little fanfare, the Environmental Protection > Agency proposed changing the way the government measures air pollution > near Class 1 areas on the grounds that the nation needed a more > uniform way of regulating emissions near protected areas. The agency > closed the comment period in April and has indicated it is not making > significant changes to the draft rule, despite objections by EPA staff > members.
> Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who now heads the environmental strategies group > at the law firm Bracewelll & Giuliani, helped initiate the rule > change while heading the EPA's air and radiation office. He said > agency officials became concerned that the EPA's scientific staff was > taking "the most conservative approach" in predicting how much > pollution new power plants would produce.
> "The question from a policy perspective was: Do you need to have > models based on the absolute worst-case conditions that were unlikely > to ever occur in the real world?" Holmstead said in an interview > Thursday. "This has to do with what [modeling] assumptions you're > required to do. This is really a legal issue and a policy issue."
> The initiative is the latest in a series of administration efforts > going back to 2003 to weaken air quality protections at national > parks, including failed moves to prohibit federal land managers from > commenting on permits for new pollution sources more than 31 miles > away from their areas and to protect air resources only for parks that > are big and diverse enough to "represent complete ecosystems."
> For 30 years, regulators have measured pollution levels in the parks, > over both three-hour and 24-hour increments, to capture the spikes in > emissions that occur during periods of peak energy demand. The new > rule would average the levels over a year so that spikes in pollution > levels would not violate the law.
> A slew of National Park Service and EPA officials have challenged the > rule change, arguing that it will worsen visibility in already- > impaired areas, according to internal documents obtained by the House > Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
> In one set of comments, the EPA's regional computer modeling staff > wrote that the proposal "would allow for significant degradation" of > the parks' air quality. An e-mail from National Park Service staff > called aspects of the plan "bad public policy" that would "make it > much easier to build power plants" near Class 1 areas, which include > some Fish and Wildlife Service-protected land.
> When the committee chairman, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), asked > the EPA whether the rule would facilitate construction of more power > plants near protected areas, Robert J. Meyers, principal deputy > assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, > replied in an April 24 letter that this was not the intention of the > rule but that he could not rule it out.
> "We developed this proposal based on the need to clarify how increment > consumption must be addressed, and not whether or not it would be > easier to build power plants," Meyers wrote. "In the absence of any > data or evidence provided by the National Park Service, we are unable > to conclusively confirm or deny their suggestion."
> Yesterday, the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy > group, issued a report estimating that the rule would ease the way for > the construction of 28 new coal-fired power plants within 186 miles of > 10 national parks. In each of the next 50 years, the report concludes, > the new plants would emit a total of 122 million tons of carbon > dioxide, 79,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 52,000 tons of nitrogen > oxides, and 4,000 pounds of toxic mercury into the air over and around > the Great Smoky Mountains, Zion and eight other national parks.
> "It's like if you're pulled over by a cop for going 75 miles per hour > in a 55 miles-per-hour zone, and you say, 'If you look at how I've > driven all year, I've averaged 55 miles per hour,' " said Mark > Wenzler, director of the National Parks Conservation Association's > clean-air programs. "It allows you to vastly underestimate the impact > of these emissions."
> Don Shepherd, an environmental engineer at the Park Service's air > resources division in Denver, said of the new rule, "I don't know of > anyone at our level, who deals with this day to day, that likes it or > thinks it's going to make sense.
> "We really want to have clean air at national parks all the time, and > not just at average times," Shepherd said in a telephone interview. > "All of our national parks have impaired visibility. . . . It would > really be a setback in trying to make progress."
> While the government has made progress in reducing haze-producing > sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution in recent decades, many of > the nation's best-known parks still have poor visibility and air > quality.
> In October, the Park Service published a 10-year analysis of air > quality trends that found that sulfate concentrations in precipitation > have declined on the East Coast because of the federal acid rain > program, but that Western parks have not experienced similar > reductions. The concentrations of ozone smog over an eight-hour period > are worsening across almost all of the interior West, including "some > of the most remote places in the nation," said Vicki Patton, deputy > general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.
> Jim Renfro, an air resources specialist at Great Smoky Mountains > National Park, said the park is suffering from a host of pollution > problems, including smog and sulfur and nitrogen deposition. > Visibility on summer days is 15 miles, rather than the nearly 80 it > used to be, and the park now does not meet federal smog standards.
> "There are some days when it's unhealthy to breathe at the park, so > that's a major concern. People come here to get away, and they can't > believe that sometimes they're better off where they came from," > Renfro said. "We've got a long way to go."
> Power plant emissions are also affecting vegetation and wildlife, > making streams in Shenandoah more acidic and stripping nutrients out > of the soil that sustains spruce firs at the Great Smoky Mountains' > higher elevations. The Great Smokies have the highest levels of acid > deposition of any monitored area in North America.
> Georgia Murray, a staff scientist at the Appalachian Mountain Club, an > outdoor recreation and advocacy group, said emissions will have to > drop significantly for ecosystems on the East Coast to improve. "It's > the type of pollution that takes years to recover from," she said.
> Holmstead, however, said the administration's Clean Air Interstate > Rule, implemented in 2005, will ultimately reduce pollution > nationwide.
> "What you want to do is reduce the total amount that comes out of > these power plants," Holmstead said. "There's no Class 1 area in the > country that is only affected by a nearby power plant."
darth gore wrote: > "uUGLY2" <jismqu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:5e450cf6-3e58-4a17-a994-503a81af14ff@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... >> Whether you are pro- or con- on the global-warming argument, you need >> and want the air you breathe to be as pure and clean as possible, >> right?
>> Well, the war criminal "president" who gave you: 9/11, two failed-but- >> continuing wars, prisoner torture, prisoner renditions, secret foreign >> prisons, crimes against Katrina victims, illegal surveillance of our >> citizens (you, maybe?), curtailed civil liberties, an inept Homeland >> Security Department, contractor waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer >> monies, record high budget deficits, record tax cuts for the rich, the >> housing crisis, 47-million-plus medically uninsured U.S. citizens, and >> record trade deficits -- this nincompoop and this "administration" say >> to you in effect, "Screw you if you want clean air and water, our big- >> business friends want to build some coal power plants near you and >> your national parks!"
> Our air is cleaner than it has been in a long time. Clean Coal technology > is the future of our energy needs. Get used to it.
You're a delusional liar. Bush is the most anti-environmental president in modern U.S. history.
>> It's like a farewell nose-thumbing by Bush, who, miffed that he's the >> most inept, corrupt, and criminal "chief executive" in U.S. history -- >> and miffed that you know it -- wants to give you yet another parting >> shot over your bow.
>> --------------------------- >> "Clean-Air Rules Protecting Parks Set to Be Eased"
>> By Juliet Eilperin >> Washington Post Staff Writer >> Friday, May 16, 2008; A01
>> The Bush administration is on the verge of implementing new air >> quality rules that will make it easier to build power plants near >> national parks and wilderness areas, according to rank-and-file agency >> scientists and park managers who oppose the plan.
>> The new regulations, which are likely to be finalized this summer, >> rewrite a provision of the Clean Air Act that applies to "Class 1 >> areas," federal lands that currently have the highest level of >> protection under the law. Opponents predict the changes will worsen >> visibility at many of the nation's most prized tourist destinations, >> including Virginia's Shenandoah, Colorado's Mesa Verde and North >> Dakota's Theodore Roosevelt national parks.
>> Nearly a year ago, with little fanfare, the Environmental Protection >> Agency proposed changing the way the government measures air pollution >> near Class 1 areas on the grounds that the nation needed a more >> uniform way of regulating emissions near protected areas. The agency >> closed the comment period in April and has indicated it is not making >> significant changes to the draft rule, despite objections by EPA staff >> members.
>> Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who now heads the environmental strategies group >> at the law firm Bracewelll & Giuliani, helped initiate the rule >> change while heading the EPA's air and radiation office. He said >> agency officials became concerned that the EPA's scientific staff was >> taking "the most conservative approach" in predicting how much >> pollution new power plants would produce.
>> "The question from a policy perspective was: Do you need to have >> models based on the absolute worst-case conditions that were unlikely >> to ever occur in the real world?" Holmstead said in an interview >> Thursday. "This has to do with what [modeling] assumptions you're >> required to do. This is really a legal issue and a policy issue."
>> The initiative is the latest in a series of administration efforts >> going back to 2003 to weaken air quality protections at national >> parks, including failed moves to prohibit federal land managers from >> commenting on permits for new pollution sources more than 31 miles >> away from their areas and to protect air resources only for parks that >> are big and diverse enough to "represent complete ecosystems."
>> For 30 years, regulators have measured pollution levels in the parks, >> over both three-hour and 24-hour increments, to capture the spikes in >> emissions that occur during periods of peak energy demand. The new >> rule would average the levels over a year so that spikes in pollution >> levels would not violate the law.
>> A slew of National Park Service and EPA officials have challenged the >> rule change, arguing that it will worsen visibility in already- >> impaired areas, according to internal documents obtained by the House >> Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
>> In one set of comments, the EPA's regional computer modeling staff >> wrote that the proposal "would allow for significant degradation" of >> the parks' air quality. An e-mail from National Park Service staff >> called aspects of the plan "bad public policy" that would "make it >> much easier to build power plants" near Class 1 areas, which include >> some Fish and Wildlife Service-protected land.
>> When the committee chairman, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), asked >> the EPA whether the rule would facilitate construction of more power >> plants near protected areas, Robert J. Meyers, principal deputy >> assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, >> replied in an April 24 letter that this was not the intention of the >> rule but that he could not rule it out.
>> "We developed this proposal based on the need to clarify how increment >> consumption must be addressed, and not whether or not it would be >> easier to build power plants," Meyers wrote. "In the absence of any >> data or evidence provided by the National Park Service, we are unable >> to conclusively confirm or deny their suggestion."
>> Yesterday, the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy >> group, issued a report estimating that the rule would ease the way for >> the construction of 28 new coal-fired power plants within 186 miles of >> 10 national parks. In each of the next 50 years, the report concludes, >> the new plants would emit a total of 122 million tons of carbon >> dioxide, 79,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 52,000 tons of nitrogen >> oxides, and 4,000 pounds of toxic mercury into the air over and around >> the Great Smoky Mountains, Zion and eight other national parks.
>> "It's like if you're pulled over by a cop for going 75 miles per hour >> in a 55 miles-per-hour zone, and you say, 'If you look at how I've >> driven all year, I've averaged 55 miles per hour,' " said Mark >> Wenzler, director of the National Parks Conservation Association's >> clean-air programs. "It allows you to vastly underestimate the impact >> of these emissions."
>> Don Shepherd, an environmental engineer at the Park Service's air >> resources division in Denver, said of the new rule, "I don't know of >> anyone at our level, who deals with this day to day, that likes it or >> thinks it's going to make sense.
>> "We really want to have clean air at national parks all the time, and >> not just at average times," Shepherd said in a telephone interview. >> "All of our national parks have impaired visibility. . . . It would >> really be a setback in trying to make progress."
>> While the government has made progress in reducing haze-producing >> sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution in recent decades, many of >> the nation's best-known parks still have poor visibility and air >> quality.
>> In October, the Park Service published a 10-year analysis of air >> quality trends that found that sulfate concentrations in precipitation >> have declined on the East Coast because of the federal acid rain >> program, but that Western parks have not experienced similar >> reductions. The concentrations of ozone smog over an eight-hour period >> are worsening across almost all of the interior West, including "some >> of the most remote places in the nation," said Vicki Patton, deputy >> general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.
>> Jim Renfro, an air resources specialist at Great Smoky Mountains >> National Park, said the park is suffering from a host of pollution >> problems, including smog and sulfur and nitrogen deposition. >> Visibility on summer days is 15 miles, rather than the nearly 80 it >> used to be, and the park now does not meet federal smog standards.
>> "There are some days when it's unhealthy to breathe at the park, so >> that's a major concern. People come here to get away, and they can't >> believe that sometimes they're better off where they came from," >> Renfro said. "We've got a long way to go."
>> Power plant emissions are also affecting vegetation and wildlife, >> making streams in Shenandoah more acidic and stripping nutrients out >> of the soil that sustains spruce firs at the Great Smoky Mountains' >> higher elevations. The Great Smokies have the highest levels of acid >> deposition of any monitored area in North America.
>> Georgia Murray, a staff scientist at the Appalachian Mountain Club, an >> outdoor recreation and advocacy group, said emissions will have to >> drop significantly for ecosystems on the East Coast to improve. "It's >> the type of pollution that takes years to recover from," she said.
>> Holmstead, however, said the administration's Clean Air Interstate >> Rule, implemented in 2005, will ultimately reduce pollution >> nationwide.
>> "What you want to do is reduce the total amount that comes out of >> these power plants," Holmstead said. "There's no Class 1 area in the >> country that is only affected by a nearby power plant."
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars
...
> [ . . . ] Bush is the most anti-environmental president > in modern U.S. history.
Yep, tis true. >>However, there are less than 249 full days left, and counting.
FDR changing the landscape for his public works programs, belching all that crud for WWII, wasting all those resources on his war, killing millions of innocent lives, fouling the air and water in the process while the nation was rationed was just raping the environment for his own desires. The evil (sob) the evil.
> Yep, tis true. >>>However, there are less than 249 full days left, and counting.
> FDR changing the landscape for his public works programs, belching all > that crud for WWII, wasting all those resources on his war, killing > millions of innocent lives, fouling the air and water in the process while > the nation was rationed was just raping the environment for his own > desires. The evil (sob) the evil.
247 days and the loser and his incompetent administration will be gone
>> Yep, tis true. >>>> However, there are less than 249 full days left, and counting. >> FDR changing the landscape for his public works programs, belching all >> that crud for WWII, wasting all those resources on his war, killing >> millions of innocent lives, fouling the air and water in the process while >> the nation was rationed was just raping the environment for his own >> desires. The evil (sob) the evil.
> 247 days and the loser and his incompetent administration will be gone
And we will get some other incompetent administration.
>>> Yep, tis true. >>>>> However, there are less than 249 full days left, and counting. >>> FDR changing the landscape for his public works programs, belching all >>> that crud for WWII, wasting all those resources on his war, killing >>> millions of innocent lives, fouling the air and water in the process >>> while the nation was rationed was just raping the environment for his >>> own desires. The evil (sob) the evil.
>> 247 days and the loser and his incompetent administration will be gone
> And we will get some other incompetent administration.
Only if McCain is allowed to continue Republican failure
