Originally posted by: Lucky
Sadly doesn't provide any arguments backed by fact, just rhetoric.
According to the MSNBC article, this link is misleading. The only factual claims they can make are based on this:
"Once enacted, the new policies announced today would broadly exempt these old, high-polluting industrial sources from the requirement to modernize their pollution controls, even when they significantly increase air pollution in surrounding neighborhoods and communities."
According to the MSNBC article, its quite the opposite:
"facilities would get ?greater flexibility? to modernize their operations without a New Resource Review as long as they don?t increase pollution "
Again, just rhetoric. No facts or explanations to support their claims.
A subsequent comment period drew comments from 130,000 concerned citizens opposing any move to weaken clean air rules
You mean folks misled by statements by the organization above? More rhetoric, no facts.
The proposed regulation changes would allow utilities to upgrade and even replace their dirtiest plants and increase emissions without installing pollution control equipment
Again, this directly contradicts with the EPA and the MSNBC article.
I'm starting to see a pattern here.........
sheesh, me too. A bunch of organizations and idiots parroting each other making outrageous claims without backing anything up.
BTW, even though I refer to that MSNBC article its terribly biased in my opinion. They devote twice as much space to oppenents of the changes than to those in favor of them, fail to mention these changes were proposed 6 years ago, and that crappy interactive graphic on the "state of our air" is laughable. Like every single one of those illnesses are directly caused by dirty air? How are diseases frequently associated with smokers relevant to how clean the overall air is?
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
My post starts here:
Let me respond one article at a time:
American Lung Association: Here's a quote from this.
We can plainly see that allowing polluters to rely on such gimmicks as "predicted future actual emissions" and "emissions baselines" from ten years ago that public health will be threatened, not enhanced by these weakening changes.
While this might seem like rhetoric to the uninformed, I'll show you later why it is not.
As far as the Environmental Defense Organization, the only misleading is on part of the Administration. But I'll need the next example to prove it.
Natural Resources Defense Council:
Lets take a look at the MSNBC quote of yours.
Under the new rules, which do not require congressional approval, facilities would get ?greater flexibility? to modernize their operations without a New Resource Review as long as they don?t increase pollution and agree to emission caps that will be worked out in the future.
Ahh, yes. So as long as they don't increase pollution, we're okay. But how are they calculating the increase or decrease? This is where the article stops, and the NRDC begins. I don't believe you looked at the link at the bottom of the page of that site, so I'll give it to you know.
Link. I hope this has enough "fact" for you. Here you see why these new rules are a crock of sh!t. Here is a quote:
To determine whether pollution increases, a company must compare its pollution before the change, known as its pollution "baseline," with pollution levels after the change. The administration's plan would allow a facility to pick a fictional pollution baseline that is worse than its actual pollution levels, essentially allowing the facility to pollute more and pretend it is not. This ruse would allow the facility to avoid cleaning up substantial pollution increases
Whoops, pretty damn clear to me. Basically, it allows the companies to not exactly lie, but to just not tell the truth. How convenient.
Next is the UPIRG: Once again, look above and you will see why its not a bunch of rhetoric.
Next is McGreevey. You say he contradicts MSNBC. He doesn't. MSNBC just doesn't tell the whole story. Look above once again to see the whole story. MSNBC makes a reference when it says:
The new rules also: Calculate emissions on a plant-wide basis rather than for individual pieces of equipment. Exempt a facility from updating pollution controls if there has already been a government review of existing ones within the past 10 years.
But MSNBC stops there. Why I don't know, but they do. As far as contradicting the EPA, well duh. Who runs the EPA?
As far as the other links, I don't whether they had too much fact, or that you already had your mind up that nothing new would come out of them. Anyways, I hope the explaination of the "emissions baseline" opens you to the possibility of foul play.
Facebook
Twitter