Bush gives 2 stroke emissions 30 years to change
krof htron bum
EPA emissions standards draw fire
Environmentalists outraged at ‘lenient’ off-road
guidelines
MSNBC STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — The Bush administration issued emissions
standards Friday that would force makers of snowmobiles and other
off-road vehicles to make their products cleaner, but
environmentalists say that the rules don’t go far enough and
that the administration caved in to industry lobbying.
• Shop at B&N.com
• Auctions at uBid
• Yellow Pages
• Personals Channel
• Professional Tips
• Shopping
‘They’re lowering the limbo bar on all the engines, but
it’s frankly outrageous that EPA would develop such an
incredibly leninent standard, which will do obviously very little to
reduce smog and toxic pollution.’
— RUSSELL LONG
executive director of Bluewater Network THE STANDARDS will
phase in emission reductions for snowmobiles, dirt bikes, all-terrain
vehicles, diesel-powered boats and some other combustion engines
through 2012. Ultimately, they would remove more than 2 million tons
of pollution each year — the equivalent of taking 32 million
cars, or 15 percent of today’s traffic, off the road, according
to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The final rule is to require makers of dirt bikes, ATVs and
snowmobiles to reduce hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide pollution by
about 30 percent by 2006 and 50 percent by 2012, compared with current
levels.
“When fully implemented, this action will not only
protect public health, but will help restore the view of our
nation’s treasured scenic parks and wilderness areas,” EPA
Administrator Christie Whitman said in a prepared statement.
‘FLABBERGASTED’
But environmental groups were outraged that the emissions
standards did not go further, particularly the snowmobile standard,
which calls for a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2012.
“We were flabbergasted to realize how weak it is,”
said Russell Long, executive director of Bluewater Network, a San
Francisco-based environmental organization. Long said manufacturers
have technology that would allow them to reduce emissions by 98
percent today, if they chose, and he believes EPA should have been
more aggressive in forcing emissions reductions.
Advertisement
“They’re lowering the limbo bar on all the
engines, but it’s frankly outrageous that EPA would develop such
an incredibly lenient standard, which will do obviously very little to
reduce smog and toxic pollution in pristine areas like Yellowstone
National Park,” Long told MSNBC.com, calling the two-stroke
engines of snowmobiles “dirty, noisy” and “the most
polluting engines on the planet.”
“The final standards for snowmobiles are particularly
troubling because they fail to encourage greater use of four-stroke
engines that are already in snowmobiles today,” the Bluewater
group said in a press release. “With this rule, the
administration hands yet another victory to the snowmobile
industry.”
Vickie Patton, an attorney with Environmental Defense, was
similarly displeased, calling the snowmobile standards a “snow
job.”
“It’s a missed opportunity to achieve some highly
cost-effective air pollution reductions from some very dirty
vehicles,” she said. Patton pointed to information on the
EPA’s Web site saying snowmobiles produce as much pollution as
nearly 100 cars in the same time period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White House directives to EPA
IntroductionReview power plant rulesStreamline refinery
permittingReview 'boutique' gasolinesPromote nuclear energyExecutive
order on regulatory actionsExecutive order on energy production
permits
The Environmental Protection Agency has been given marching orders by
President Bush and his new energy policy. Click above for directives
that environmentalists fear will undermine existing EPA rules.
The EPA shall conduct a 90-day study, in consultation with the
Department of Energy and other agencies, of the impact of "new source
review" regulations on investment in new utility and refinery
generation capacity, energy efficiency, and environmental protection.
EPA and Energy Department are directed to work together to ensure that
America has adequate refining capacity by streamlining the permitting
process where possible, adopting comprehensive regulations, and
considering the rules' cumulative impacts and benefits, without
compromising environmental protection.
EPA is directed to study opportunities, in consultation with the
Energy Department and other agencies, to maintain or improve the
environmental benefits of state and local "boutique" fuels program
while exploring ways to increase the flexibility of the fuels
distribution infrastructure, improve fungibility, and provide added
gasoline market liquidity.
To support nuclear energy as a major component of national energy
policy, the best science should be used to provide a deep geologic
repository for nuclear waste and EPA and the Energy Department are
directed to work together to assess the potential of nuclear energy to
improve air quality.
President Bush issued an executive order directing all federal
agencies to include in any regulatory action that could significantly
and adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, a detailed
statement on the energy impact of the proposed action, any unavoidable
adverse energy effects of implementation, and alternatives to the
proposed action.
The president also issued an executive order directing federal
agencies to expedite permits and other federal actions necessary for
energy-related project approvals on a national basis. The president is
directing the Council on Environmental Quality to establish a task
force to coordinate federal agencies actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: EPA, White House energy policy
Printable version
EPA: STANDARDS MIRROR POSSIBLE GOALS
EPA spokesman Joe Martyak said, however, that the emissions
standards reflect attainable goals and will result in substantially
cleaner air and improved public health.
When the program is fully implemented by 2030, the new
standards are expected to prevent 1,000 premature deaths and 23,400
asthma attacks and yield $8 billion in health benefits, according to
the EPA.
“For the environmentalists to belittle this rule is
pretty outrageous given what the benefits are here,” Martyak
said.
He said the snowmobile standard provides incentives for
manufacturers to reduce hydrocarbon emissions, which have harmful
health effects and contribute to smog.
Environmentalist concerns about snowmobile emission standards
were the focus of an Aug. 18 story in the Washington Post Magazine
exploring the role of John Graham, head of the federal Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs — part of the Office of
Management and Budget — in forming environmental policy.
In September 2001, the story states, Graham sent a letter
asking the EPA to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of its snowmobile
regulations. EPA officials, the story says, “believed the EPA
was legally obligated to regulate the engines. Under the Clean Air
Act, they insisted, people had the right to the cleanest air
technologically achievable.”
COSTS VS. BENEFITS
‘I’m sure that Dick Cheney is quietly weighing in.’
— BOB BARBEE
as quoted in The Washington Post Magazine
“Graham’s letter urged the EPA to tally up both costs and
benefits of the rule with equal diligence,” the magazine
reported. “But the specific points Graham raised in his letter
mirrored those of the snowmobile industry — particularly when
Graham wrote that the EPA needed to be aware that the higher price of
cleaner machines would drive away consumers.” Implementing the
new regulations is expected to cost manufacturers $900 per snowmobile.
The Post story also pointed to possible influence from Vice
President Dick Cheney. The story refers to notes taken at a meeting
before Graham met with leaders of the snowmobile industry on Sept. 6.
“‘VP’s office,’ the official wrote, ‘has
an interest in [the snowmobile] portion of the rule, and a few
concerns.’”
The Post reported that Cheney, “a snowmobiler with a $3
million home in Jackson, Wyo., south of Yellowstone, had said during
the 2000 election that he opposed” a proposed ban on
snowmobiling in the national park.
“I’m sure that Dick Cheney is quietly weighing
in,” The Post quoted Bob Barbee, regional director of the Alaska
Region for the National Park Service. “That’s his
style,” said Barbee, who The Post said has snowmobiled with
Cheney when he was both a congressman and secretary of defense.
Cheney’s office had no comment on the Post’s assertions.
SNOWMOBILE INDUSTRY SPEAKS UP
‘They’re ridden in very rural communities. It’s a
pretty small piece of the pie, yet we support reasonable
regulation.’
— EDWARD KLIM
president, International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association
Edward Klim, president of the Michigan-based International Snowmobile
Manufacturers Association, said the EPA is acting reasonably,
especially since snowmobiles aren’t dirtying the air in urban
areas.
“It’s a real small volume — a maximum of 1.6
million registered snowmobiles in the United States,” Klim said.
“They’re ridden in very rural communities. It’s a
pretty small piece of the pie, yet we support reasonable
regulation.”
Long also said the agency failed to establish standards for
catalytic converters on dirt bikes and didn’t set noise
standards for snowmobiles. He also scored the agency for not moving to
implement electric-power technology for such vehicles as forklifts.
“It’s a real squandered opportunity to advance the state
of the art with electric technology,” Long said.
MSNBC.com’s Michael E. Ross and The Associated Press
contributed to this report.
Russ
the liberal scum bags have to eat dirt while us true conservationists regain
control.and improve nature for both people and animals.
Jerry
"Russ" <ru...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
news:3D85259E...@icehouse.net...
> Great news about the 2 stroke engines when it comes to snow mobiles and
about time
> the liberal scum bags have to eat dirt while us true conservationists
regain
> control.and improve nature for both people and animals.
>
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Ya, you conservatives really care about
the environment! Stop it, yer killin me, yer killin me! What a
knee-slapper--------that's a good one. By-all-means, Bush really gives a
rip over YOUR environment. (in case you couldn't tell, that's sarcasm)
And if you support Bush, then the above statement needed to be explained to
you because of your limited, mental powers.
Jerry
Bob Berger
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/14/politics/14EMIT.html
- - - - -
Air Pollution Regulations Extended to Snowmobiles
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — A final regulation issued today by the Environmental
Protection Agency will impose stringent new pollution regulations on some of the
country's dirtiest engines, the first time snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles
will fall under the Clean Air Act.
The rules will cover hundreds of thousands of off-road vehicles whose pollution
until now had not been regulated. By the time the rules' full effect is felt,
some time after 2012, their impact will be equivalent to reducing the nation's
automobile fleet by 15 percent, or by 30 million cars, agency officials said.
Environmentalists had been lobbying for even stricter rules, and some criticized
the final rule today as a missed opportunity. The final regulations, they noted,
were somewhat less strict than those the administration proposed a year ago.
But the reductions remain sweeping, beginning with a requirement that
snowmobiles sold in 2006 emit 30 percent less hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide
than those sold today. With their dirty, two-stroke engines, off-road vehicles
account for a disproportionate share of the country's air pollution, and E.P.A.
officials said today's action would curb what threatened to be a further rise.
"This is an important additional step in the fight against air pollution," said
Joe Martyak, the agency's chief spokesman.
The rule was signed this evening by Christie Whitman, the E.P.A. administrator,
to meet a court-ordered deadline for action that was set for tonight in response
to a challenge by environmental groups. The contents were described by agency
officials ahead of their scheduled posting on the Internet on Monday and in the
Federal Register in the next two weeks.
In interviews, industry officials generally described the new regulations as
satisfactory, while environmentalists said tougher rules should have been
imposed and could have been achieved at relatively modest cost to consumers.
"This is the squandering of an important opportunity for some cost-effective
emission reductions that the agency won't get back to for a generation," said
Vickie Patton, a lawyer with Environmental Defense, a centrist environmental
organization.
The move is the latest by the Bush administration to affect a category of
vehicles generally reviled by environmentalists but much loved by many outdoor
enthusiasts, particularly in the West, states vital to President Bush's
political support. In June, the administration reversed plans adopted late in
the Clinton administration, thereby allowing snowmobiling to continue in
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. The administration promised to
impose tight restrictions on snowmobile traffic in the parks to deal with
concerns about the vehicles' noise and air pollution.
In a written statement announcing the new rules, Mrs. Whitman said: "If left
unregulated, pollution from these sources will continue to increase. When fully
implemented, this action will not only protect public health, but will help
restore the view of our nation's treasured scenic parks and wilderness areas."
Compared to the 200 million cars and trucks on American roads today, the 1.2
million snowmobiles currently in operation represent no more than a tiny
fraction. But among all off-road vehicles, they have been a main target of
complaints from environmentalists, who cite studies suggesting that a single
snowmobile operating for seven hours may emit as much pollution as a clean
passenger car driven for 100,000 miles.
The E.P.A. said off-road vehicles produce 10 percent of the hydrocarbon
pollution emitted by cars, trucks and other mobile sources each year. With cars
and trucks subject to more stringent controls, the share of hydrocarbon
pollution from off-road vehicles would rise to 24 percent by 2020 without the
new regulations, the agency said.
The new rules will take full effect in 2012, when snowmobile manufacturers will
be required to meet one of two alternatives. One would require reductions in
emissions of both hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide by 50 percent from current
levels. The other is intended to encourage further reductions in hydrocarbons
and would require a 70 percent reduction in hydrocarbons, the source of the more
urgent health concerns, in return for a 30 percent reduction in carbon monoxide.
The more stringent version proposed by the E.P.A. proposed last year set a 2010
deadline for 50 percent reductions in snowmobile pollution. That rule was
criticized as too rigid by the four companies that manufacture nearly all of the
160,000 snowmobiles built and sold in the world this year, all but a tiny
faction of them in the United States.
Ed Klim, president of the International Snowmobile Manufacturers' Association,
said tonight that he could not comment on the final rule until it was posted on
the Web.
The new rules delay the effective date of the requirement by two years, but
still represent what E.P.A. officials said would become the most stringent in
the country, exceeding the modest pollution-controlling rules for off-road
vehicles now in effect in California, the only state that has moved to regulate
such vehicles on its own.
In addition to affecting 150,000 snowmobiles each year, the rules beginning in
2006 will apply to about 800,000 all-terrain vehicles and 200,000 off-road
motorcycles, E.P.A. officials said.
Other vehicles covered under the rules, and also becoming subject to
air-pollution control regulations for the first time, include large diesel
engines of more than 50 horsepower used in recreational boats, and large
non-road gasoline and natural gas engines of more than 25 horsepower used on
forklifts and in airport equipment and in farming and construction operations.
The Clean Air Act, which took effect in 1970, requires the E.P.A. to issue
emission standards that will produce the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through available technology. But exactly what those standards should
be for cars, trucks, motorcycles and now off-road vehicles has been a point of
major contention between environmentalists and vehicle manufacturers ever since.
Some of the environmental groups that criticized the final rules pointed out
that some snowmobiles today already exceed the 2012 standards, in large part
because they use cleaner burning four-stroke gasoline engines, instead of the
two-stroke engines that use a combination of gas and oil.
The new rules do not specify what kinds of engines snowmobile manufacturers must
adopt, but environmentalists say the new rules will leave room for two-stroke
engines to remain a major part of the new snowmobile fleet for years to come.
"Dirty, noisy two-strokes are the most polluting engines on the planet, so
frankly, we're shocked that the Bush administration plans to allow them in new
snowmobiles for at least another decade," said Russell Long, executive director
of the Bluewater Network, a national environmental organization.
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
- - - - -
Then from the LA Times, see:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pollute14sep14.story
Bob
- - - - -
EPA Backs Off Snowmobile Pollution Rules
Environment: Makers get two more years, until 2012, to hit emission reduction
goals.
By ELIZABETH SHOGREN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
September 14 2002
WASHINGTON -- Responding to pressure from the White House and from
manufacturers, the Environmental Protection Agency will give snowmobile makers
more time to reduce pollution under federal regulations released Friday.
The emissions standards for snowmobiles and other primarily gasoline-burning
recreational and industrial engines were released in response to a court order.
They represented the first air pollution rules the Bush administration has
developed and completed.
EPA officials stressed that the new standards are important because, when they
are in full force, they will reduce pollution by 2 million tons a year,
equivalent to taking 32 million cars, or 15% of today's traffic, off the road.
"When fully implemented, this action will not only protect public health but
will help restore the view of our nation's treasured scenic parks and wilderness
areas," EPA administrator Christie Whitman said.
But environmentalists blasted the administration for weakening what they
considered an already lax rule proposed by the EPA a year ago.
"EPA is squandering an important and highly cost-effective opportunity to cut
harmful air pollutants from these very dirty engines," said Vicki Patton, a
senior attorney for Environmental Defense Fund.
Compared with the EPA's initial proposal, the final rule will give snowmobile
makers two additional years, until 2012, to achieve the reduction targets. It
also gives them more flexibility in how much of each pollutant they reduce.
EPA spokesman Joe Martyak said the changes were made after hearing from
snowmobile makers that "it would have been difficult for them to achieve those
reductions in some of their engines in that time frame."
The only other change made in the rule was to the emissions standard for
all-terrain vehicles. They will be allowed to emit 50% more pollution under the
final rule than they would have been under the proposal.
Environmentalists were particularly concerned about the rules for snowmobiles,
which are responsible for a large percentage of the air pollution in some
national parks and forests. The Bush administration already rejected a Clinton
administration policy to ban them in Yellowstone and Grand Tetons national
parks. The Bush administration does plan to limit the use of snowmobiles in
those parks, and that policy is expected to be completed this fall.
A group that represents enthusiasts of snowmobiles and other recreational
vehicles cheered the administration's new standards.
"EPA has been responsive to industries' concerns about the standards being
reasonable and achievable," said Bill Dart, public lands director of the Blue
Ribbon Coalition, a national group of motorized recreational enthusiasts.
Snowmobilers praised the administration for setting emissions standards without
telling the industry what kind of technology to use. The manufacturers and
snowmobilers are eager to keep the popular two-stroke engines, which power most
snow machines.
"We're pleased they are talking about using standards rather than dictating
technologies," Dart said.
Environmentalists were appalled that such engines will be legal for many years
even though cleaner-burning four-stroke engines, which require more piston
strokes per fuel cycle, already are made by all four major manufacturers. They
said the new regulations defy the 1990 Clean Air Act, which commanded the EPA to
set standards that result in "the greatest degree of emissions reduction
achievable," taking cost into consideration.
"Dirty, noisy two-strokes are the most polluting engines on the planet, so
frankly, we're shocked that the Bush administration plans to allow them in new
snowmobiles for at least another decade," said Russell Long, executive director
of Bluewater Network, a national environmental group. California regulates some
of the vehicles targeted by these new standards but has been prevented by law
from regulating others. EPA officials said their new standards will be tougher
than the state's rules.
State officials did not have time to analyze the new rules. But California
air-quality officials were pleased that the EPA had produced the standards,
which were ordered by Congress 12 years ago.
"We have been urging the federal government to set emissions [standards] for
what we cannot control," said Jerry Martin, spokesman of the California Air
Resources Board.
The EPA engaged in an extensive cost-benefit analysis after its initial proposal
was criticized by John Graham, the White House Office of Management and Budget's
chief regulatory official. He took aim at the proposal for failing to measure
the benefits of the engines now available.
"A mediocre proposal has been made even weaker by John Graham's influence," said
Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, a bipartisan group
that fights to reduce air pollution. "Unfortunately, it may send a chilling
signal to the staff at EPA for future rules."
Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times
- - - - -
scrape at mindspring dot com
wrote:
You skipped English class a lot, didn't you?
Russ
I didn't studder, you liberal scum bags that live in the city and yet spew your
crap on the internet about how you care about the wildlife and yet have no clue
about the environment or wildlife are the joke of the day.
You are right about the fact that I don't give a d--m about people like you but
I do care about the wildlife and the environment and snowmobiles don't hurt
anything and if you had half a clue you would understand that since the wildlife
follows snowmobile trails and it makes life easier for them to survive when it
comes to getting away from "WOLVES" by running on top of the snow due to
snowmobile trails you would understand that you are nothing but an idiot that
spews crap without any understanding of the environment or wildlife at all..
Have a good day moron.!!!!!
flyfish
Starting next year (I believe) in Maine all new boats sold in Maine must
have the lower pollution 4 stroke motors.
I think this sort of thing should be managed and implemented at the State
level, the Feds never get anything right anyway.
Flyfish
Jerry
> Jerry:
> I didn't studder, you liberal scum bags that live in the city and yet spew
your
> crap on the internet about how you care about the wildlife and yet have no
clue
> about the environment or wildlife are the joke of the day.
Yes, I do live in a city; however, you surely don't have to live in the
wilderness to know about the environment.
> You are right about the fact that I don't give a d--m about people like
you but
> I do care about the wildlife and the environment and snowmobiles don't
hurt
> anything and if you had half a clue you would understand that since the
wildlife
> follows snowmobile trails and it makes life easier for them to survive
when it
> comes to getting away from "WOLVES" by running on top of the snow due to
> snowmobile trails you would understand that you are nothing but an idiot
that
> spews crap without any understanding of the environment or wildlife at
all..
> Have a good day moron.!!!!!
Actually, more than one study (thanks to Bush) has been done on that subject
and both studies came to the same conclusion concerning Yellowstone and the
snowmobiles. Try to read up on the results of those studies and maybe
you'll learn something. And as far as the wildlife getting away from the
wolves by running on the trails the snowmobiles leave behind, what's
stopping the wolves from following along on the same trails??
Jerry