Environment

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Environment Archives page.

Up In The Air: Pollution Regulations May Change Soon

Environmentalists are frustrated. They convinced the Bush administration to stop and think before altering the Clean Air Act, but it looks as though the EPA is going to sign off on the changes anyway.

The new regulations will benefit industry, which has been complaining that Clean Air Act provisions are too harsh and too vague. Both industry lobbyists and environmental lobbyists have squeezed Bush, but it looks like industry is winning. [To read about the standoff between industry and environment, click here.]

The history

Congress passed laws to promote clean air in the 1960s, but when people refer to “The Clean Air Act," they are probably talking about The Clean Air Act of 1970, which provides a federal legal basis for air pollution control.

The Clean Air Act was last amended in 1990, during the Bush Sr. administration. The 1990 amendment shifted more responsibility to states by requiring them to meet national air quality standards and deadlines. In addition to a philosophy of state power over federal standards, there is the obvious point that polluted air, like all air, blows from west to east. Whose voters are where?

The Clean Air Act requires industrial plants to install pollution-control devices when making improvements to facilities. In other words, old plants can’t grow and improve without making pollution control part of that growth and improvement.

Plant owners complain about the high cost of pollution control devices and believe that they should be able to develop their facilities without investing in these devices.

The battle

Environmentalists do not agree. They complain that older plants (particularly coal-fired plants) are still pumping out toxins that have been proven harmful to the earth, animals and human beings. They say that these old-fashioned plants must install air-pollution controls if we want the quality of the air to improve.

The plan

In order to appease industry, the Bush administration has proposed a new rule. As reported by the New York Times on August 22, 2003, the new rule allows plants to spend up to tens of millions of dollars on improvements without installing anti-pollution devices. Specifically, they can spend up to 20% of the cost of essential equipment (boilers, generators, etc.); this equipment can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, even a billion dollars, so the new rule gives industry a lot more leeway to make improvements to industrial plants and not to air quality.

The politics

Bush has appointed a new person to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) --Governor Michael Leavitt of Utah. Since Leavitt is already a contentious nomination, the Bush administration does not want to tie him to this controversial new rule.

Therefore, the temporary EPA administrator, Marianne Horinko, is likely to sign the rule before Leavitt is sworn in. This way, Leavitt will not appear responsible for the new regulations. Governor Leavitt has not made public statements that directly support or criticize the new rule.

The EPA

How is it that environmental regulations can be changed without Congress’ consent? The EPA has the power to develop and enforce environmental regulations. Further, the President has the power to appoint the administrator of the EPA, who is the chief executive of the agency. So the Executive Branch has considerable power over the head of the EPA and, thus, environmental issues.

To learn more about these issues, [click here]. To discuss these issues with other WomenMatter readers, [click here]. To contact your representatives, including President Bush, [click here].

Posted on: 8/28/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top