Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Nov. 17, 2003  |  WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than a dozen state attorneys general Monday sought to block the federal government from implementing a rule change they argued would lead to more air pollution from the nation's power plants.

Fourteen states and a number of cities, including New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., are seeking a court injunction to short-circuit a measure by the Environmental Protection Agency before it goes in effect Dec. 26.

They want to block EPA's loosening of Clean Air Act regulations that would allow older power plants, refineries, and factories to modernize without having to install expensive pollution controls.

"If these rules go into effect even temporarily," said New York state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, "utilities will get the green light to spew forth pollution and violate the clear meaning of a statute that has for decades protected the quality of the air that we breathe."

 
Today's Daypass sponsored by AOL 9.0 Optimized

To win an injunction, the states must show they are likely to succeed at a full trial of the issues, and that irreparable harm would be done if the rule change was enacted even for a short period of time.

"Once they begin the pollution, you can never capture that again," Spitzer argued.

The suit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., by the following states: New York, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

The states had filed suit against the EPA last month, but are now seeking a quick court intervention to block the rule change before it can take effect.

A spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a Washington-based group that represents six power-generating companies, predicted the effort would fail.

"This is just another attempt by the attorney general to delay reforms that will improve efficiency and reduce emissions," said the spokesman, Frank Maisano.

EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said the agency had not yet seen Monday's filing, but accused Spitzer of "making charges without having facts."

What a load of politically correct garbage and Bush bashing that article is! Anyone with a little bit of intelligence can see that what they are talking about hurts the environment or does nothing at all! Exactly what I was talking about in some of my previous post about environmental frauds.

First it says, "They want to block EPA's loosening of Clean Air Act regulations that would allow older power plants, refineries, and factories to modernize without having to install expensive pollution controls"

All that regulation is going to do is prevent a bunch of old refineries from becoming more efficient from modernizing. Why would anyone, in there right mind, write regulations that prevent modernization of factories? Why would any manager or power company ever spend that kind of money when all they have to do is repair the dirty factories that they already have, instead of modernizing? Not only do they have to pay for the expensive modernization, but they have to pay for the very expensive pollution equipment at the same time! (a negative reinforcement vs. the "polluting trading" positive reinforcement) As most people know who have tried it, negative reinforcement rarely works and positive reinforcement almost always does!

But wait, there is even more foolishness to the article, then they say "utilities will get the green light to spew forth pollution and violate the clear meaning of a statute that has for decades protected the quality of the air that we breathe."

How has this protected the quality of the air we breath? How do they get the green light exactly? The article clearly states that they do not! Old factories don't have to modernize, and in fact, this prevents them from doing so by making it too costly. This lower efficiency from not modernizing them means that they have to burn more fuel to make the same amount of electricity, thus, more pollution produced per killowatt! On top of that, new factories are bound by higher standards anyway! Thus, there is NO net change except for a very few factories that are so far gone that they must be modernized because they can't be fixed (and that is rare indeed). When you add all the factories that will be prevented from modernizing to the few that must, because they can't be fixed, I am sure you get a net gain in pollution. When faced with huge modernizing bills, people can find very inventive ways to repair what they have. But yes, that article does tie into all the Bush bashing and fraudulent environmental rhetoric quite well!

Don't believe what I am saying? Just go back and reread the article again. They use their own words to shoot themselves in the foot! (assuming you know how to reason)

I hope I got a few people to think about what this article really says, instead of just buying into the rhetoric of the left wing of the Democratic party and the "environmentalists".

Rodney

My God!!!! I can't tell if you're a habitual liar, extremely misled, or just developmentally disabled!!!!!

You forgot to mention how liberal the pope is. You are really ridiculous. Why would major networks (big business) support the party that favors higher taxes on big business?

Oops...why am I bothering? I should know better than to deal with flamers like you.

I don't know why I bother either. This has issue has almost nothing to do with being informed or misiniformed. It has everything to do with being able to read and understand what you are reading!

I make several points and use logic and reasoning to prove them. I ask you to show me where I am wrong, or how this "environmental" bill actually accomplishes something, and instead of giving some facts or arguing logically, you go into the typical tirade of "flamer".

I'll ask it again since you avoided the issue so completely.

How does enforcing a bill, like this one, clean the air when new plants are still under modern, newer, clean air regulations and old plants don't have to modernize, and won't, because it makes it too expensive to do so (they will never recoup their expenses)?

If you were the manager of a large plant, would you modernize it if it only took you 4 or 5 years to recoup your expenses? Would you modernize it if it took you 25-30 years to recoup your expenses? The answer to the first question is maybe, the answer to the second is no.

(Why do you think any plant would ever want to modernize? Only two reasons I can think of. Increased safety for their workers, or less expenses so that they eventually will recover from the additional expenses of modernizing.) How does letting these old plants modernize, without all the added expensive pollution controls, so that they actually will modernize, all of the sudden open the flood gates to making more pollution when they are making it currently? There is absolutely nothing in that bill that forces any plants to produce less polution, all it does is prevents the old ones from modernizing by making it too expensive to do so.

If you don't have any answers to these questions, calling names doesn't make you sound very intelligent or like you have any arguments on your side! There is an old saying about the pot calling the kettle black! Think about it before you respond, if you do respond. I see nothing in my original post that could be described as "flaming" while your entire post could be!

Rodney

You are a fool! And not worth anyone's time.

Same response again? Doesn't surprise me one bit. No argument, no logical reasoning, no facts, just name calling. Again, the typical response one would expect of a brainwashed individual or a child.

Rodney

i agree.