Conference turris::womannotes-v2

679.0. "George says 'cleaner air' '" by ROLL::MINER () Fri Jun 30 1989 19:27

Georgie has received some deserved bashing in the note about flag
burning.  He surely should not be wasting time on that non-issue.  The
good news is that other things are being done.  I didn't hear it on the
radio, but the June 19 issue of Chemical And Engineering News (magazine
for chemists and the chemical industry) has an article on "Bush's
three-pronged plan for clearing the air".  It sounds agressive to me --
and a WELCOME change from side-stepping of a serious issue.  I'll quote
some of the article here.  The omissions are for brevity; I did not
attempt to change the tone of the article.

"President Bush has offered sweeping but costly programs to abate acid
rain, clear up urban smog, and control cancer-causing emissions
from industrial plans and mobile sources. . . .  House Energy & Commerce
Committee chairman John D. Dingell (D.-Mich) jabs the Reagan
Administrations' inaction while applauding Bush for proposing the first
comprehensive Clean Air Act revision in this decade."  

"Briefly, Bush's clean air proposals would cut coal-fired electric
utility emissions . . . nearly 50% a year by the year 2000.  They would
bring two thirds of about 80 smog-choked cities into compliance with the
health-based ozone and carbon monoxide standards by 1995.  And they
would cut cancer-causing air emissions from factories and plants 75 to
90%.  EPA Administrator, William K. Reilly (****noter's aside Bush
appointed him from the World Wildlife Foundation, I think*******)
estimates that these programs could cost as much as $18 billion a year
when they're fully implementd around the turn of the century."

        *************THE THREE-PRONGED PLAN******************
ACID RAIN
  Affected sources: 107 coal-fired power plants in 18 states.  Goals:
reduce SO2 emissions 10 million tons annually, and nitrogen oxides 2
million tons annually by year 2000.

AIR TOXICS
  Affected sources:  motor vehicles and about 30 industrial categories,
including chemical plants.  Goals:  regulate within 10 years 187 toxic
air pollutants from 30 source categores. "Drastically" cut the 2.7
billion tons of toxic emitted annually.  

URBAN SMOG
   Affected sources:  motor vehicles, small sources such as dry cleaners
and consumer solvents, and large sources such as petroleum refineries
and refueling stations.  Goals:  attain ozone standard in all but 3 of
the most seriously polluted cities by year 2000 by tightening
hydrocarbon emission tailpipe standards for automobiles and light duty
trucks. 
                ******************************

"Affected plants and factories will be required to use so-called maximum
available control technology to cut toxic emissions."

"The most novel part of Bush's legislative package calls for the use of
vehicles able to operate on such clean fuels as methanol, ehtanol, and
natural gas.  His plan requires a phase-in of such vehicles . . .  Oil
and auto industry officials are unhappy with this package."


Barbi  (there are several other Barbara's here; =wn= is a friendly
        place, so I'll use my family name as a signature)

    two words:
    
    who pays?
    
    
    -Jody
    

    re .1

    How about "anybody that wants to breathe"?

    
    Really?
    
    The Canadians are potentially major beneficiaries of the US stopping
    polluting the atmosphere (actually long term we all are I guess).
    
    Are they going to contribute to the cost of this clean up?
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    
      I don't see any reason why the Canadians should be required to
    help pay the cost. They aren't causing the problem. (I'm talking
    about pollution originated within the borders of the U.S. Any
    polution originating in Canada is Canada's responsibility.)
      Of course, from a pragmatic point of view, if Canada feels it
    would be in their best interest to freely contribute to the 
    cleanup cost, it's o.k. with me.
      

    I think the implication of Jody's question is:  taxpayers via the
    government or the polluting companies' stockholders?  The latter is the
    only responsible way, but I'd be willing to bet a good lunch that
    Bush's proposal is for the former (as in the S&L bailout).
    
    						=maggie

   Specific legislation has not yet been proposed, but the article mentions no
"Superfund" type of government spending.  It did state that utility customers 
of affected plants can expect to see rate increases of more than 2%.  Probably
cars with more pollution control will cost more . . .

   But these costs are just transferred -- driving a car costs XX dollars + 
YY damage to the environment; hopefully we can DECREASE YY by increasing XX.

   If we TRULY value clean air, we must pay for it.  Money is replaceable.


Barbi

    RE: last few
    
    Of course, <*coff, coff*> we can always <*choke*> argue about
    who pays until <*gack*> *nobody* can breathe!
    
    Am I being cynical if I think that's precisely what'll happen?
    
    Maybe I'm just getting old...
    
    --DE