16-04-2003 17:56									#1
	Bush, the environmental president. Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...1,3530413.story

From this morning Tribune.

Reading through this article, I can find no mention on how big business will profit from this. So besides possible claims of this just being a smokescreen, maybe Bush isn't as anti-environment as all the liberals here claim.

FULL STORY
*************************************
EPA seeks to reduce pollutants in diesels
Environmentalists laud Bush for bid to clean air

By Michael Kilian
Washington Bureau
Published April 16, 2003

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration announced an initiative Tuesday aimed at reducing pollution from "non-road" diesel engines by 90 percent, saying it could save up to 9,600 lives a year and prevent 360,000 asthma attacks annually.

The move, which would affect machinery used in construction, agriculture and industry, earned the White House rare praise from environmentalists, with a spokesman for one environmental group calling Bush's action "fantastic."

"This is the biggest public health event in a generation," said Rich Kassel, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, a frequent critic of the administration. "It's the biggest health benefit since lead was taken out of gasoline back in the early 1970s."

The announcement by Christie Whitman, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, came as the American Lung Association issued a report indicating that the combination of toxic substances found in diesel exhaust "poses a cancer risk greater than that of any other air pollutant."

John Kirkwood, president of the association, said "cleaning up the harmful pollutants discharged from large diesel equipment and diesel electric generators are among the most important measures that can be taken to help millions of Americans breathe healthier air."

The new rule would require manufacturers to build advanced emission-control systems into equipment used on farms, in construction and in some power generators, among other industrial applications.

After undergoing a period of public comment this summer, it would take effect in 2008 and be fully implemented in 2014.

Whitman had earlier taken steps to reduce diesel pollution from on-the-road trucks and other vehicles, with an emissions-control program scheduled to start in 2007. Another EPA measure requires refitting school buses with more effective pollution-control equipment.

Administration officials portrayed the moves as part of a broad effort to clean the air.

"This action represents a strong commitment from the Bush administration to take the next step to achieve cleaner air and protect the health of all Americans, especially the health of children and the elderly who are more susceptible to diesel pollution," Whitman said.

The Bush administration has found itself at odds with environmentalists more often than not.

Some Bush initiatives have stirred anger, such as withdrawing from an international treaty on global warming, pushing for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, allowing more pollution-prone snowmobiles in national parks and permitting power plants to expand without up-to-date anti-pollution equipment.

In addition, many have noted the Bush administration's ties to the oil industry, where Bush and Vice President **** Cheney have worked.

Some environmentalists suggested that the Bush administration announced the proposed rule on diesel emissions to burnish the president's environmental credentials with an eye toward the 2004 election.

But others noted that Whitman has been a strong supporter of such initiatives since her days as New Jersey governor.

"She was fighting against diesel pollution when she was governor of New Jersey," Kassel said.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the new rule simply makes environmental sense.

"This is a proposal to dramatically reduce emissions from non-road diesel engines used in construction, agricultural and industrial equipment," Fleischer said. "It will require stringent, non-road engine controls and reductions of sulfur in diesel fuel."

According to EPA estimates, it would remove 825,000 tons of nitrogen oxide and 125,000 tons of particulate matter, or soot, from the air.

Because the pollution-control devices called for in the proposal are damaged by sulfur, the program also would require a dramatic reduction in those emissions from currently uncontrolled levels reaching 3,400 parts per million to 500 parts per million, starting in 2007. By 2010, sulfur content would be reduced by 99 percent.

Whitman said non-road diesel engines account for 44 percent of all diesel particulate matter emissions and about 12 percent of all nitrogen oxide emissions. A 175-horsepower bulldozer emits as much of these two pollutants as 26 cars, she said.

Nearly 70 million people live in areas that don't meet air quality standards for particulate matter pollution and 111 million live in areas with unhealthy levels of ground-level ozone, or smog, to which diesel exhaust is a major contributor, the EPA said.

Officials estimated that the proposed rule would annually prevent 9,600 premature deaths, 8,300 hospitalizations, 16,000 heart attacks, 5,700 children's asthma-related hospital emergency room visits, 260,000 respiratory problems in children and nearly 1 million work days lost to illness.

The American Petroleum Institute, the American Trucking Association and other industry groups had no immediate response to the new rule. The Petroleum Institute, however, has been an advocate of a phased-in approach to reducing diesel emissions.

Public comments on the proposal will be accepted by the EPA until Aug. 20.

Public hearings will be held in New York on June 10, Chicago on June 12 and Los Angeles on June 17.


Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune

	16-04-2003 18:19									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Yeah, Kyoto

	16-04-2003 18:23									#3
	Support Apolyton

Is he using the Blair tactic of drawing the citizens to almost riotous levels then throwing them a bone to throw them off?

	16-04-2003 18:28									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Sorry, Rah, gotta do it:

1/10.

	16-04-2003 18:29									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Yeah, Kyoto

Hell, I consider myself pro-environment, and I considered Kyoto flawed. So maybe it just has to be a sensible plan before it's supported.

	16-04-2003 18:29									#6
	Get a bigger avatar today!

First , kyoto is really not what we need right now. Kyoto is adressed mostly to big companies and oil refineries. It's goal is to reduce the pollution emitted by those companies by 70% atleast....but how is this supposed to help or case when WE, the people, produce over 72% of the overall pollution. It is we that the kyoto has to aim. What we should change first is how cars burn petrolium, how we waste water, how we dispose of garbage and so on. Kyoto has nothing to do with that...So IMO, kyoto is aiming at the wrong dear.
Secondly, although I am glad that this decision has been taken, I am sure that it is just a way of getting back the peoples votes or hearts....if bush can make more mistakes and try to fix them up this way, hey, keep on screewing up baby!


Spec.

	16-04-2003 18:31									#7
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Sorry, Rah, gotta do it: 1/10.

How can you say that. (well maybe the title )
But this is a ground breaking environmental concept that could cost big business considerable dollars.

	16-04-2003 18:36									#8
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by rah But this is a ground breaking environmental concept that could cost big business considerable dollars.

Yea, but we'll have to do it someday, why not do it now. If we wait, it'll cost more than it will now.
Do you know that here in Quebec, we produce only 7 tonnes of pollution in the air per year and that we receive over 14 tonnes of pollution from the U.S. by air!! We receive over 200% more than what we produce our selfs from you guys....I think it's about time your country did something. It's unfair really, we bust our asses to keep it clean but you guys dont follow...maybe that will change finally.

SPec.

	16-04-2003 18:38									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Yes, maybe if future plans are well thought out and make sense, they'll be supported. Bush seems willing.

RAH

	16-04-2003 18:49									#10
	Inflate your Upload Space

Considering Bush shot down a bill that would force chemical companies to tightern security systems... citing, "On 9-11, the airline industry was used against us, not the chemical industry (www.mpr.org); no I wouldn't score this a significant victory for the environment. Bush also shot down the mandatory increases in fuel efficiency standards in 2001.

I wouldn't consider this article a troll, but I would the thread title

	16-04-2003 18:50									#11
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by rah Yes, maybe if future plans are well thought out and make sense, they'll be supported. Bush seems willing. RAH

Don't you mean if future plans hold pork-barrel provision to grease some palms?

	16-04-2003 18:54									#12
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Sava Don't you mean if future plans hold pork-barrel provision to grease some palms?

Let me know when you find the one attached to this one.

	16-04-2003 19:07									#13
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by rah Let me know when you find the one attached to this one.

Trust me. And this crosses all party lines. There's always somebody getting some pork in every bill.

	16-04-2003 19:42									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Who pays? - not the oil industry. The people who buy the diesel will pay for the cost of taking the sulphur out and they won't get the bill (and pass it on to the voters) before GWB asks the US electorate to put him back in the White House.

This is simply an easy one for the administration to accept. Anyone who has walked past a construction site and seen a diesel generator kick out a cloud of black fumes can identify this as a "good idea" so Bush and can't lose, only gain.

	16-04-2003 19:48									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by rah Hell, I consider myself pro-environment

You drive an SUV don't you?. You about as pro-environment as the couch potato who claims to be pro-exercise. He knows it sounds good and you know it make sense, but its all a bit too much effort to enact.

I'm not preaching btw, I'm no better. The environment seldom features in my plans. If the council didn't send around 'binmen' to collect our glass, paper, metal, plastic etc each week I wouldn't be such a great recycler.

	16-04-2003 19:50									#16
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

When bush does something significant, like close the mileage loopholes for SUVs, which would save three times as much oil as in ANWR. Or close the safety and emissions loopholes, which would save a lot more lives than this, I might start buying the "environmental" president rap.

	16-04-2003 19:58									#17
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Sava Trust me. And this crosses all party lines. There's always somebody getting some pork in every bill.

I think Sava has you on that one Rah.

	16-04-2003 20:02									#18
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch You drive an SUV don't you?. You about as pro-environment as the couch potato who claims to be pro-exercise.

I do drive an SUV but not a large one. (honda passport) that gets good highway miles. But, I spent a lot of money for a smaller house near work. As a result I put less than 7,000 miles a year on my SUV, using less gas than my neighbor with his more fuel efficient car that comutes 70 miles a day into the city. Which one of us is helping the environment more? We recycle almost all of our disposables. I don't water my grass very often, unlike some of my neighbors. I've replaced EVERY appliance in our house with more fuel efficient models.


So saying I'm anti-environment just because I own an SUV is just plain ignorant. But i've come to expect that from people that generalize instead of thinking things through and looking at the big picture.

	16-04-2003 20:03									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV I think Sava has you on that one Rah.

Yep, that one i'll concede. But it's hard to place those at the foot of the president.

	16-04-2003 20:14									#20
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by rah I do drive an SUV but not a large one. (honda passport) that gets good highway miles. But, I spent a lot of money for a smaller house near work. As a result I put less than 7,000 miles a year on my SUV, using less gas than my neighbor with his more fuel efficient car that comutes 70 miles a day into the city. Which one of us is helping the environment more? We recycle almost all of our disposables. I don't water my grass very often, unlike some of my neighbors. I've replaced EVERY appliance in our house with more fuel efficient models.

You've told me that before, and you'll tell me that again - next time I troll you over your SUV.

	16-04-2003 20:17									#21
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yep

	16-04-2003 20:37									#22
	Tired of ads?

I'm sure the administration will back-peddle at some point and make the program "voluntary" instead of mandatory. Just like they've done with almost every other environmental issue.

This administration is great at bait-and-switch.

	16-04-2003 21:53									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by rah Yep, that one i'll concede. But it's hard to place those at the foot of the president.

I know, but it's so fun to do.

	16-04-2003 22:16									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spec First , kyoto is really not what we need right now. Kyoto is adressed mostly to big companies and oil refineries. It's goal is to reduce the pollution emitted by those companies by 70% atleast....but how is this supposed to help or case when WE, the people, produce over 72% of the overall pollution. It is we that the kyoto has to aim. What we should change first is how cars burn petrolium, how we waste water, how we dispose of garbage and so on. Kyoto has nothing to do with that...So IMO, kyoto is aiming at the wrong dear. Secondly, although I am glad that this decision has been taken, I am sure that it is just a way of getting back the peoples votes or hearts....if bush can make more mistakes and try to fix them up this way, hey, keep on screewing up baby! Spec.

Spot on Spec!!!

Anything meaningful to environmental causes requires changes at the consumer level moreso than at the supplier level.

	16-04-2003 22:20									#25
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I agree spec. As a first step, you should give away your cars to less fortunate, backward people. I will gladly accept your cap, Spec.

	16-04-2003 22:21									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Wouldn't Kyoto effect the choices consumers may have by pushing for research in environmentally friendly products like cars, washer machines, air conditioners, etc... Consumers only have the choices that are given to them, for any real change they have to be given economically competitive environmentally friendly products. The pressure has to be on industry.

	16-04-2003 22:43									#27
	Suffering from ads?

Consumers can assist as in any quasi free market.
The demand for hybrid cars is starting to have an impact. There are a lot of car companies that are starting to make agreements with other companies so they're not left out in the cold.

Forcing changes on industries without considering the consumers could leave a company with products that no one wants. Think old Soviet Union.

	16-04-2003 23:43									#28
	Inflate your Upload Space

Old Soviet Union comparison is not even close. These are changes that we know are necessary and we know industry doesn't want to accept. There is a very comfortable middle ground between complete laissez faire and complete goverment control.

	16-04-2003 23:54									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

People follow money whether they're big industry or individual consumers. A minority of people will buy the more expensive environmentally correct products but not enough to make a subtantial difference.

The assumption that targetting business and industry doesn't effect the consumer is wrong. Whatever costs are taken on by business will be passed on to the consumer. Its trickle down economics people!

	16-04-2003 23:57									#30
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Azazel I agree spec. As a first step, you should give away your cars to less fortunate, backward people. I will gladly accept your cap, Spec.

Ummmmm, no.