Container Top
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Search

Events Calendar

EVENT SEARCH:

In This Section


Most Read Stories


Blogs:


Pets:
Not 101 Dalmations…but close!

The Heldenfiles:
Friday Notebook

Patrick McManamon:
For your perusal

Akron Zips:
The morning after

Tribe Matters:
Tribe makes roster moves

Cleveland Browns:
Lewis doesn't like boycott

Kent State Sports:
Kent State falls to Akron, 20-28

Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs at Knicks

Buckeye Blogging:
Weekly ‘B’ Deck Report – New Mexico St.

Varsity Letters:
Wrestling, bowling teams prepare for season

All Da King's Men:
If It Looks Like Islamic Terrorism…

Blog of Mass Destruction:
Dems Message To Women: Don't Enjoy The Sex

Akron Law Café:
Health Care Financing Reform: (62) The Stupak Amendment

See Jane Style:
Muffle Your Muffler

Car Chase:
Perfect Weather for an Autumn Drive

Let's Talk Real Estate:
RUMORS: Downtown Restaurant Explosion

Ohio Travels with Betty:
Jack is looking for a trip to Southern Ohio the week of November 16.

Sound Check:
The Black Keys to perform benefit concert at Musica on November 27

HRLite House:
Personal Rant – Why People Do Not Live in Northeast Ohio

Akron Gamer:
New 'Call of Duty' could set entertainment record

Smoggy day

A federal appeals court says the Bush White House is too green.
Now Congress must ensure states have the tools to curb air pollution

Chris Korleski, the director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, appears today before a U.S. Senate subcommittee to discuss the state's challenge in meeting federal requirements to reduce air pollution. A federal appeals court recently made compliance substantially more difficult. The panel rejected the Clean Air Interstate Rule, a set of regulations long in the making, the product of an intelligent compromise pushed by the Bush administration and embraced by environmental groups.

The hope is that Korleski will argue strongly that the federal EPA revamp the regulations to meet court approval, or that Congress act to clear the way for implementation of the rule.

For years, the many players, from the White House and power companies to states and environmentalists, tangled over the question of how to curb air pollution when emissions travel across state boundaries. In 2005, the federal EPA unveiled its answer, reflecting the varied input and political struggles. The Clean Air Interstate Rule covered Ohio and 27 other states in the eastern half of the country. It called for a roughly 70 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions (leading contributors to smog) by the 2020s. The EPA estimated that the rule would generate almost $100 billion in annual health benefits, preventing 17,000 premature deaths nationwide (1,743 in Ohio).

A projected yearly benefit of $2 billion would be achieved for national parks in the East, including the Great Smoky Mountains and the Shenandoah.

To achieve these advances, the Clean Air Interstate Rule established a ''cap and trade'' arrangement, the EPA setting emission limits, polluting companies buying and selling allowances, leaving room for market incentives and flexibility in meeting the goal. Companies challenged the rule in court largely because of their unhappiness with the way the allowances would be distributed.

Unfortunately, the appeals court traveled far beyond that argument, siding with the contention that Congress hadn't given the EPA sufficient authority to assert itself as it did. Actually, the Clean Air Act invites aggressive action to meet its defining objective — protecting public health.

More dismaying: The rule is the product of what is expected of the political world, checks and balances in motion, the interested parties giving and taking, all leading to a beneficial result. The president has more environmental achievements than his critics suggest (curbing diesel pollution, for instance). At the same time, this isn't a green White House. Hard to believe the administration would so exceed its authority in setting environmental regulations.

Of the things the president would like to achieve before his tenure ends in five months, a replacement for the Clear Air Interstate Rule should reside near the top of the list. Best of all, the objective is realistic. Those with a stake already have agreed on the merits. Now it is a matter of getting past the courts.

Chris Korleski, the director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, appears today before a U.S. Senate subcommittee to discuss the state's challenge in meeting federal requirements to reduce air pollution. A federal appeals court recently made compliance substantially more difficult. The panel rejected the Clean Air Interstate Rule, a set of regulations long in the making, the product of an intelligent compromise pushed by the Bush administration and embraced by environmental groups.

The hope is that Korleski will argue strongly that the federal EPA revamp the regulations to meet court approval, or that Congress act to clear the way for implementation of the rule.

For years, the many players, from the White House and power companies to states and environmentalists, tangled over the question of how to curb air pollution when emissions travel across state boundaries. In 2005, the federal EPA unveiled its answer, reflecting the varied input and political struggles. The Clean Air Interstate Rule covered Ohio and 27 other states in the eastern half of the country. It called for a roughly 70 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions (leading contributors to smog) by the 2020s. The EPA estimated that the rule would generate almost $100 billion in annual health benefits, preventing 17,000 premature deaths nationwide (1,743 in Ohio).

A projected yearly benefit of $2 billion would be achieved for national parks in the East, including the Great Smoky Mountains and the Shenandoah.

To achieve these advances, the Clean Air Interstate Rule established a ''cap and trade'' arrangement, the EPA setting emission limits, polluting companies buying and selling allowances, leaving room for market incentives and flexibility in meeting the goal. Companies challenged the rule in court largely because of their unhappiness with the way the allowances would be distributed.

Unfortunately, the appeals court traveled far beyond that argument, siding with the contention that Congress hadn't given the EPA sufficient authority to assert itself as it did. Actually, the Clean Air Act invites aggressive action to meet its defining objective — protecting public health.

More dismaying: The rule is the product of what is expected of the political world, checks and balances in motion, the interested parties giving and taking, all leading to a beneficial result. The president has more environmental achievements than his critics suggest (curbing diesel pollution, for instance). At the same time, this isn't a green White House. Hard to believe the administration would so exceed its authority in setting environmental regulations.

Of the things the president would like to achieve before his tenure ends in five months, a replacement for the Clear Air Interstate Rule should reside near the top of the list. Best of all, the objective is realistic. Those with a stake already have agreed on the merits. Now it is a matter of getting past the courts.



Story tools

Email  Email   Print  Print   Save  Save   Reprint  Reprint   Popular  Most Popular   Reprint  Subscribe

Share this story

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
















Most Commented Stories