Regarding President Obama and the EPA emission regulations

[Tx4obama]

The EPA was going to do ONLY an interim change.

Obama requested the EPA to wait until the normal scheduled review which will take place in 2013.

None of the current regulations are being changed.

So, what's the big deal?


Here's a link below for anyone that might not have heard what President Obama HAS done for our environment so far:

Cleaner Air and a Stronger Economy – A Record of Success
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/02/cleaner-air-and-stronger-economy-record-success

And THREE pages on the link below of Obama's 2008 campaign promises Kept and In the Works regarding the Environment:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/environment/

Edited to add:
The letter on the link posted in comment #1 below should be read by all.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Here's a letter to add to your links.....

http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USEOPWHPO/2011/09/02/file_attachments/56091/Letter.pdf

Kind of puts things in perspective.....

[CreekDog]

7. you think the 1997 standards currently being implemented are fine until 2013?

do you also think that's what the Clean Air Act directs?

have you read the parts of the law to come to that conclusion or does the law itself not figure into your conclusion?

here:

In 2008, during the Bush Administration, U.S. EPA adopted a revised ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb). 73 Fed. Reg. 16,436 (March 28, 2008). The ozone standard was not consistent with CASAC’s recommendation to U.S. EPA to adopt a “primary” standard at a level between 60 and 70 ppb to protect human health and to adopt a separate “secondary” standard to protect public welfare. Petitions for review challenging the 2008 Ozone NAAQS were filed in the D.C. Circuit. Nearly one year later, U.S. EPA asked the D.C. Circuit to hold the cases in abeyance to allow the Obama Administration to review the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. In September 2009, U.S. EPA announced that it would reconsider the ozone standards.

http://eem.jacksonkelly.com/2010/12/us-epa-delays-ozone-naaqs-reconsideration-final-rule-until-summer-2011.html

what does the above mean?:

it means that Bush didn't set the standards the way they should be set, though they still went lower

BUT, Obama has not allowed the Bush standards to be implemented, so what standards are in force? The ones set before that.

The standards aren't 3 years old. They're a decade plus old.

Is that okay with you? Is it okay with the Act?

[lob1]

2. It's changes from Bushes disastrous EPA rules.

Why not change them now? People are dying from the present rules. That may be the big deal.

[Tx4obama]

3. Because changing them now and then changing them again in a year so from now ....

will cause confusion and cost businesses twice the money if they have to make changes two times.

If the government makes businesses upgrade now by the time all the upgrades are done it will be time to turn around redo it all again to upgrade to the permanent changes in the regulations that will be coming out in 2013.

Lots of businesses do not have that kind of money, and it would be putting an unfair 'extra' burden on companies.

Edited to add:
Read the letter on the link in comment #1.

[vaberella]

4. Very logical statement TX4Obama...but the outrage machine is out and won't go away.

This will be snuffed to oblivion. K*R

[CreekDog]

28. Actually, Obama has actually retreated to a weaker standard than Bush proposed

imagine that.

and is that spin? no.

.080ppm is the 1997 standard.
.075ppm is the Bush standard.

Obama is asking to keep the .080ppm standard until 2013.

[Fearless]

35. So what you're saying is that we shouldn't do anything because it will cost businesses...

In reality, the welfare of REAL PEOPLE comes WAY before the welfare of Big Business... Or is that not acceptable in the Democratic Party anymore?

Edit: Sp.

[Tx4obama]

40. The Clean Air Act calls for review/changes to be made every 5 years

NOT every two or three years.
The Act states that frequent changes which cause uncertainty is NOT allowed, that is why the '5 year' stipulation is in there.

[CreekDog]

8. because since they aren't going to revise Bush's .075ppm, we'll be left with .085ppm

Obama set aside Bush's .075ppm standard on the basis that it was flawed, promising a proper review and that would result in something lower than .075ppm.

In the interim, we're left with .080 ppm.

Here's the thing, Bush wanted a weaker standard than was recommended to him, so he chose .075 ppm.

Obama's action means that .080 will reign until at least 2013 --does that look higher than even Bush's number?

Yes.

Is it higher?

Yes.

Not sure that will stand a court challenge. The 1997 standards were delayed and there was a lawsuit and that was the end of the delay.

Does Obama's delay have any stronger standing?

[vaberella]

5. Talk about a misunderstanding. I took fault with his decision now I get why I take it back. n/t

[CreekDog]

6. what is the year of the standards that are actually being implemented?

2008 or 1997?

let us know and then answer your own question.

[flpoljunkie]

11. Bush's standard was never put into effect. We have been living with the 1997 standard.

President Obama told the environmental groups and the American Lung Association to hold off suing, as his administration would be revising the ozone standards. They now feel betrayed. And, the American Lung Association said yesterday they will now go proceed with their law suit.

[CreekDog]

13. those groups sued when the 1997 standards were delayed

and guess what happened?

http://epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/reports/o8s_pcd.pdf

CONSENT DECREE
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this Action on November 13, 2002, against
Defendants Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, and United States Environmental Protection Agency (collectively “EPA”);
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' complaint seeks inter alia an order directing EPA, under 42
U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2)(A) and under Pub. L. 105-178, § 6103, 112 Stat. 465 (June 9,
1998), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7407 Note, to promulgate and publish in the Federal Register
attainment status designations referred to in 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(A), for the revised 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard promulgated at 62 Fed. Reg. 38856 (July 18, 1997),
40 C.F.R. § 50.10;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction under the citizen suit
provision of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a);
WHEREAS, the Parties seek to effect a settlement of this Action without expensive and
protracted litigation;2
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to a settlement of this Action without any admission
or adjudication of fact or law;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that this settlement represents a good faith compromise of
disputed claims;
WHEREAS, it is EPA’s intent to conclude a rulemaking on implementation of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS pursuant to the Court’s remand in Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., 531
U.S. 457, 486 (2001), by December 2003;

[Fearless]

36. He had his shot, the gave him the benefit of the doubt...

And yet again he proved himself unworthy of such deference.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. The scientific advisors to the EPA disagree.

This was a trade off between asthma, heart disease, and lung disease caused by the inadequate Bush era ground level ozone regulations, and Obama's aspirations for a second term, aspirations that it seems are best met by pandering to Republicans and "business interests".

"While some senior agency officials expressed disappointment with the decision, they also said they understood that it was their job to offer their best technical advice to the White House and that the ultimate decision rested with the president, who has to stand for re-election and consider other factors."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/science/earth/03air.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

That just about sums it up.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Indeed, it does.

[CreekDog]

14. keep the 1997 standard then?

:shrug:

[Supersedeas]

43. Politics trumps science?

[flpoljunkie]

10. I read if the rule was changed now, it would not be changed again until 2016, not 2013.

[Tx4obama]

30. I believe that is incorrect.

The review is every 5 years.
2008, 2013, 2018, etc.

There is info regarding the next scheduled review and changes in the LETTER found on the link in comment #1.

p.s. Also, I read somewhere yesterday that if the EPA were to change the rule now then it would take a year or two before it would go into effect due to having to go thru the process of how rule changes are enacted - so it would probably be moot when the new changes are made in 2013.

[blueclown]

15. This thread shows you that there are people who will still defend everything the President does.

Despite the overhelming facts that the current level of smog is dangerous, despite the fact that these are the same regulations that were in place in 1997, despite the fact that these were regulations that Lisa Jackson called legally indefensible, we still have people here defending President Obama for a blatant cave-in of a Republican frame about the EPA being a "job-killing machine". Give it a rest.

[Logical]

16. +1000

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Spot on

nt

[William769]

18. +1.

:thumbsup:

[CreekDog]

20. even when he will lose in court on this

when even George W. Bush's administration threw in the towel on a similar action.

[Tx4obama]

31. If you want to call 'posting additional information regarding an issue' - 'defending'

then that is your right to do.
But I do not agree with you.

If folks were to stop posting additional information, facts, etc, regarding issues
then there would be even more uninformed folks in America than there are now ;)

Yes it is a FACT that the current level of smog is dangerous, but knowing the REASONS WHY President Obama made the decision he made is also important.

[Raine1967]

33. +1

and this is why I am very grateful for this thread.

[Vanje]

41. Amazing.

Truly

[ClassWarrior]

19. So if I have asthma, I just need to hold my breath for 16 months?

NGU.

[Raine1967]

21. Thanks you and the other people in this thread for trying to explain this.

I have been very confused about this decision and this helps to clear things up.

[ClassWarrior]

22. How do we explain it to children with asthma?

NGU.

[Raine1967]

23. I'm not interested in Strawman.

I'm interested in trying to understand. Can you not see that?
This OP appears, to me, to be an explanation.

Understanding goes a long way when forming an opinion.

Edit to add: I don't like Red Herring either.

[Jakes Progress]

25. Just wait. The perennial administration solution. Wait.

They don't live here, so why worry?

Wait you can hope for. Now there's a campaign slogan.

[CreekDog]

24. Pretty obvious you don't care about getting your statement on this air quality decision right

you haven't been back.

you've been corrected here and in a PM.

i get the impression that you don't care about being right, you just care about convincing people that what Obama did here is the right thing --even if in fact, your explanation is wrong.

the good news for your plan is that people seem to be buying your explanation.

the bad thing is, well, your explanation is wrong. but if the goal is getting people to support Obama's decision regardless whether it's right or not, then why bother being accurate when you can be convincing without being accurate. and in fact, it's actually easier to convince people without actually reading the air quality laws and regulations and all those pesky footnotes.

congratulations.

[Jakes Progress]

26. Exactly. And just look at the bobbling heads above

chiming in to congratulate the OP for being all that they need to know about it. Uh huh. Uh, huh.

It's such a good decision we know because the republicans are falling all over themselves to tell Obama how smart he finally got. Our wing-nut mayor was beside herself that Obama did such a sensible thing. Why, that nasty old EPS was gonna hurt bidness, uh, I mean lose jobs. Yeah. That's it. Cost jobs. Sure that's what the memo said.

It is a typical reagan democrat move.

[CreekDog]

27. i'll only add to your great post that Obama has set this action as the liberal position now

and this move now won't be seen as a Republican move, it won't even be seen by the masses as the centrist thing, instead between this and the nutcase Republican plans for environmental protection and this move will be seen as the reasonable compromise.

thanks a lot Barack.

[Jakes Progress]

38. Yep. Because to too many politics is about a man

instead of principles. Even on DU, we have too many using the equation: Obama is a Democrat. Democrats are liberal. Obama does it so it is liberal.

[Tx4obama]

29. Though it really is not anyones business, I just now logged onto my computer at 3:30pm

Considering I went to bed sometime after 3am and my computer was turned off for around 12 hours - your assumption that I don't care is way off base.

A good thing for folks to remember regarding the internet is that not everyone is online at the same time.

Edited to add:
The message in my inbox from you says: Date: Sep-03-11 04:31 AM

When sending messages in the middle of the night, folks shouldn't expect a quick reply ;)

[AlinPA]

32. Headline in todays' paper: "Obama Scraps EPA Rules". That's the big deal, it pisses off

a lot of people.

[Fearless]

34. Textbook Obama apologism. No dice.

Add another stupid decision to his bucket of failures.

[Union Scribe]

37. Always a fucking excuse.

And it always takes a few days to decide on one, it seems, yet it's never very good. "Don't look here, look over there, this isn't a big deal" is not very convincing anymore.

[Tx4obama]

39. I am sorry if FACTS offend you. n/t

[CreekDog]

42. you didn't post facts, you posted your opinion which you mistake for facts

And you aren't interested in learning though all the laws and regulations are linked or pm'ed so that you can understand.