| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"NotBush2004" |
| Date: |
26 Dec 2003 01:25:53 PM |
| Object: |
US federal court gives America a Christmas Eve present. |
Published on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 by Reuters
Court Suspends Bush Pollution Rules
by Tom Doggett
WASHINGTON - A federal court on Wednesday halted a Bush administration plan
to allow power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities to
make upgrades to aging plants without installing costly new air pollution
control equipment.
A coalition of environmental groups and states sued to stop the new rules
issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, saying the policy changes
violated the federal Clean Air Act and would result in more emissions being
spewed into the air.
Emissions from coal-fired power plants and refineries can aggravate asthma,
chronic bronchitis and pneumonia.
The U.S. appeals court in Washington, agreed to temporarily set aside the
changes to the EPA's "new source review" rules and said they could not take
effect until the lawsuit challenging their legality was finished.
EPA officials could not immediately be reached for comment on the ruling.
The Bush administration has been criticized by Democrats and green groups
for relaxing several environmental protection rules at the behest of energy
companies. The industry contends the changes simply reflect the
administration's analysis of scientific evidence and costs.
Under the EPA's planned rules, a facility, such as a power plant, could have
replaced equipment without installing pollution controls as long as the cost
of the replacement did not exceed 20 percent of the cost of the plant.
When Congress wrote the new source review provision of the Clean Air Act in
1977, it assumed most of the aging coal-fired plants would be gradually
replaced with new ones. Congress exempted plants operating at the time from
stricter pollution controls, unless they launched a major renovation or
expansion.
Green groups welcomed the court's ruling.
Ann Weeks, an attorney with the Clean Air Task Force, said the ruling means
"no harm can be done until the court has decided whether the rule (change)
is legal, which we strongly believe it is not."
If the EPA had adopted its policy change and the court later ruled against
the agency, Weeks said the damage would have already been done to the
environment.
"The (polluting) emissions are already in the air," she said.
Weeks said companies could have been hurt financially as well, if the court
had ruled against the EPA after the policy change took effect, and firms
would then have to pay for unexpected pollution controls or remove the newly
installed equipment.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1224-12.htm
--
European heatwave caused 35,000 deaths
13:38 10 October 03
At least 35,000 people died as a result of the record heatwave that scorched
Europe in August 2003, says an environmental think tank.
The Earth Policy Institute (EPI), based in Washington DC, warns that such
deaths are likely to increase, as "even more extreme weather events lie
ahead".
The EPI calculated the huge death toll from the eight western European
countries with data available. "Since reports are not yet available for all
European countries, the total heat death toll for the continent is likely to
be substantially larger," it says in a statement.
France suffered the worst losses, with 14,802 people dying from causes
attributable to the blistering heat. This is "more than 19 times the death
toll from the SARS epidemic worldwide", notes the EPI.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994259
.
|
|
| User: "MHirtes" |
|
| Title: Re: US federal court gives America a Christmas Eve present. |
27 Dec 2003 02:39:49 AM |
|
|
Gee, where did all that extra coal go?
Probably right into Bush's stocking, I'll bet.
In article <db2c598f19eee15ed48801bd818d6e65@news.teranews.com>,
"NotBush2004" <notbush@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
Published on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 by Reuters
Court Suspends Bush Pollution Rules
by Tom Doggett
WASHINGTON - A federal court on Wednesday halted a Bush administration plan
to allow power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities to
make upgrades to aging plants without installing costly new air pollution
control equipment.
A coalition of environmental groups and states sued to stop the new rules
issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, saying the policy changes
violated the federal Clean Air Act and would result in more emissions being
spewed into the air.
Emissions from coal-fired power plants and refineries can aggravate asthma,
chronic bronchitis and pneumonia.
The U.S. appeals court in Washington, agreed to temporarily set aside the
changes to the EPA's "new source review" rules and said they could not take
effect until the lawsuit challenging their legality was finished.
EPA officials could not immediately be reached for comment on the ruling.
The Bush administration has been criticized by Democrats and green groups
for relaxing several environmental protection rules at the behest of energy
companies. The industry contends the changes simply reflect the
administration's analysis of scientific evidence and costs.
Under the EPA's planned rules, a facility, such as a power plant, could have
replaced equipment without installing pollution controls as long as the cost
of the replacement did not exceed 20 percent of the cost of the plant.
When Congress wrote the new source review provision of the Clean Air Act in
1977, it assumed most of the aging coal-fired plants would be gradually
replaced with new ones. Congress exempted plants operating at the time from
stricter pollution controls, unless they launched a major renovation or
expansion.
Green groups welcomed the court's ruling.
Ann Weeks, an attorney with the Clean Air Task Force, said the ruling means
"no harm can be done until the court has decided whether the rule (change)
is legal, which we strongly believe it is not."
If the EPA had adopted its policy change and the court later ruled against
the agency, Weeks said the damage would have already been done to the
environment.
"The (polluting) emissions are already in the air," she said.
Weeks said companies could have been hurt financially as well, if the court
had ruled against the EPA after the policy change took effect, and firms
would then have to pay for unexpected pollution controls or remove the newly
installed equipment.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1224-12.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
