• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bush intervened in EPA smog rule


Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
White House precipitated smog rule

The Environmental Protection Agency agreed to weaken an important part of its new smog requirements after being told at the last minute that President Bush preferred a less stringent approach, according to government documents.

They show tense exchanges between the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget in the days before the smog air quality standard was announced Wednesday.

The memos and documents indicate that EPA officials had wanted to make the public welfare standard more stringent than the health standard, although still not as protective as some scientists had recommended.

"Never before has a president personally intervened at the 11th hour, exercising political power at the expense of the law and science, to force EPA to accept weaker air quality standards than the agency chief's expert scientific judgment had led him to adopt," said John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private advocacy group.

Environmentalists and ecologists have argued that the standard should be more stringent than the human health ozone standard.

Last year the EPA staff and a scientific advisory panel on clean air concluded that protection of forests, agricultural lands and the ecosystem requires a "substantially different" ozone standard from the one for protecting human health.
So much for "voluntary regulation". Lol.

He exempted the primary source of mercury pollution (power plants) from his "tough mercury pollution" reform. I could go on, but the list is too long. Everyone remember the "cut down the forest to prevent forest fires" thing?


Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
We don't need no stinkin' science when we have Jeebus and fat paydays coming in 9 months from corporate speaking engagements.


Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
It is about consistency. You can count on Cheney/Bush to be on the wrong side of every issue.