Hi,
I was discussing environmental issues in another thread and asking what action was being taken in the absence of the Kyoto treaty. One thing I learned is that the "Clean Skies" act (see some of the key details from the whitehouse site) is replacing the existing "Clean Power" act as well as the "Clean Smokestack" act.
When I dug a little deeper I found much complaint as to the new "Clear Skies" act. It seems that some people believe the act will put environmental issues in a worse state than they are now. The last link lists the key criterion on which this is based. Here are the contentious points:
From the "Clear Skies" Act:
As opposed to existing legistlation through the "Clean Power" act:
From these numbers it seems that there is legitimate concern that the "Clear Skies" act will actually be a step backwards! (please see table at bottom of page of my third link for further details). I find it difficult to believe that they could pass a bill that was in every major way a step backwards from the current stance. Can anybody share some more insight/thoughts? Does anyone know if I'm missing something crucial that makes the "Clear Skies" act better and not worse? With numbers like this is it any wonder that many question the US committment to environmental reform and are skeptical concerning the conflict of interests the exists in the administration?
Cheers,
Andy
I was discussing environmental issues in another thread and asking what action was being taken in the absence of the Kyoto treaty. One thing I learned is that the "Clean Skies" act (see some of the key details from the whitehouse site) is replacing the existing "Clean Power" act as well as the "Clean Smokestack" act.
When I dug a little deeper I found much complaint as to the new "Clear Skies" act. It seems that some people believe the act will put environmental issues in a worse state than they are now. The last link lists the key criterion on which this is based. Here are the contentious points:
From the "Clear Skies" Act:
Cuts sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 73 percent, from current emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and 3 million tons in 2018.
Cuts emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 67 percent, from current emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.
Cuts mercury emissions by 69 percent -- the first-ever national cap on mercury emissions. Emissions will be cut from current emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.
As opposed to existing legistlation through the "Clean Power" act:
`(a) IN GENERAL- Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the Administrator shall promulgate regulations to ensure that, during 2009 and each year thereafter, the total annual emissions of covered pollutants from all electricity generating facilities located in all States does not exceed--
`(1) in the case of sulfur dioxide--
`(A) 275,000 tons in the western region; or
`(B) 1,975,000 tons in the nonwestern region;
`(2) in the case of nitrogen oxides, 1,510,000 tons;
`(3) in the case of carbon dioxide, 2,050,000,000 tons; or
`(4) in the case of mercury, 5 tons.
From these numbers it seems that there is legitimate concern that the "Clear Skies" act will actually be a step backwards! (please see table at bottom of page of my third link for further details). I find it difficult to believe that they could pass a bill that was in every major way a step backwards from the current stance. Can anybody share some more insight/thoughts? Does anyone know if I'm missing something crucial that makes the "Clear Skies" act better and not worse? With numbers like this is it any wonder that many question the US committment to environmental reform and are skeptical concerning the conflict of interests the exists in the administration?
Cheers,
Andy