Michael Leavitt's Baptism- 300 tons of mercury in the atmosphere

[baby_bear]

http://tinyurl.com/y2ve

NYTimes editorial, December 7,2003

<snip>
The White House called the shots when Christie Whitman was running the Environmental Protection Agency, and from the looks of things, the White House is still calling the shots. Michael Leavitt's first major action as E.P.A. administrator last week was to rescind a Clinton-era proposal to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. The reversal came right out of the Karl Rove playbook, a long-promised payoff to President Bush's big contributors in the utility industry. Nobody blamed Mr. Leavitt personally.
...
In December 2000, after meetings with stakeholders, Bill Clinton's E.P.A. announced that it would require companies to install state-of-the-art pollution controls and committed the agency to producing a detailed proposal by this month. The general expectation was that the controls would be in place by late 2007, reducing mercury emissions by as much as 90 percent.

Then George Bush came to office and expectations changed. The coal-burning utilities went to work on the White House, the White House went to work on the E.P.A., and on Thursday came the result — a far weaker plan that seeks a meager 30 percent reduction in mercury emissions in the near term and only a 70 percent reduction by 2018. The net effect is that an estimated 300 tons of mercury that would have been captured by the Clinton strategy will now be allowed to poison the air.

</snip>

If this isn't a political campaign issue in addition to a global human health issue, I don't know what is.

It also appears to be deja vu all over again. Although I think Whitman at least lost a few hours of sleep over some of the improper and at times outrageous meddling in EPA's business by the White House.


s_m

[Kolesar]

1. Are these acid-rain reduction requirements good enough?

The NY Times editorial leaves me wondering.

===excerpt===
Meanwhile, on a happier note, Mr. Leavitt has announced proposals for major reductions in sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, and nitrogen oxides, which contribute to both smog and acid rain. New controls on these pollutants have been in the making since 1997, when the Clinton administration settled on strict new health-based air quality standards for smog and soot.

The proposals could use further tightening. They are welcome nonetheless, especially in the eastern half of the country, which suffers from windblown pollution from other regions. The Adirondack Council, for one, believes that the new reductions will eliminate the acid rain that for years has been devastating lakes and forests throughout the Northeastern United States. The air should also be cleaner and more breathable in Eastern cities. The pity is that the public had to absorb so much bad news with the good.

[baby_bear]

3. The ozone/acid rain thing is a non-rollback issue

That is, it is only news because it is one of few environmental advances put into place, or at least begun, by EPA under the Clinton administration that the Bush administration hasn't rolled back. I think the NYTimes was trying to use psychology by not totally criticizing Leavitt. I mean really, it's pretty sad when you have to congratulate someone on NOT fucking something up.

The mercury thing makes my blood boil. The same people who want to limit abortions also don't give a crap if they cause severe neurological damage to fetuses via mercury. Protect the unborn...unless it costs industry money.

s_m

[hatrack]

2. Yes, but it's a "balanced" approach, SM!

You remember - "en libra" and all of Leavitt's similar Latinate bullshit.

[baby_bear]

4. Yep, he's already pushing Enlibra down our throats

I suspect it will be about 3 more weeks before the common reaction to his Enlibra mass mailings will be :boring: and then in about two months it will be :puke:

s_m

Fair and balanced...just like Faux News!