In a perverse sort of way, it is always gratifying to assert a rule of life and see it applied only a few days later. I stated the rule in Another Pointless Climate Protest.
When push comes to shove, economic concerns will always trump environmental concerns. That's a Rule of Life. Get some small magnets, write it down on a piece of paper, and put it on your refrigerator door. For humankind, environmental concerns are a luxury they can afford when the economy is doing well. And in so far as the economy can not be expected to do well in the foreseeable future, environmental concerns are off the table for many years to come, if not forever.
President Hopey-Changey, "citing the struggling economy, asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Friday (September 3) to withdraw an air-quality rule that Republicans and business groups said would cost millions of jobs."
The surprise move—coming on the same day as a dismal unemployment report—reflected the energy industry's importance as a rare bright spot in adding U.S. jobs. The tighter standards for smog-forming ozone could have forced states and cities to limit some oil-and-gas projects.
In making the move, the White House clearly judged that it had more to lose from industry and Republican criticism than it had to gain from environmental groups who support the rule.
The EPA's January 2010 proposal, to tighten air-quality standards to a level below that adopted under President George W. Bush and even further below what most states now adhere to, has been cited for months by industry groups and lawmakers as "regulatory overreach" that they say is undercutting the economic recovery. Republican presidential candidates have routinely criticized the EPA in stump speeches.
Mr. Obama said in a statement that he remains committed to public health and clean air, but he added, "I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover."
The EPA had proposed that ozone standards be tightened to a range of 60 to 70 parts per billion, down from the 75 parts per billion adopted under President George W. Bush. Ms. Jackson, in choosing to propose a tighter standard, didn't implement the Bush standard, and most states are now adhering to a level set in 1997 of 84 parts per billion.
The White House didn't say whether it would implement the 75-parts-per-billion standard, but people on both sides said it was unlikely given the 2013 review now under way.
Just for the record, from howstuffworks.com—
Ozone is found naturally in small concentrations in the stratosphere, a layer of Earth's upper atmosphere. In this upper atmosphere, ozone is made when ultraviolet light from the sun splits an oxygen molecule (O2), forming two single oxygen atoms . If a freed atom collides with an oxogen molecule, it becomes ozone (O3). Stratospheric ozone has been called "good" ozone because it protects the Earth's surface from dangerous ultraviolet light.
Ozone can also be found in the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere. Tropospheric ozone (often termed "bad" ozone) is man-made, a result of air pollution from internal combustion engines and power plants. Automobile exhaust and industrial emissions release a family of nitrogen oxide gases (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), by-products of burning gasolone and coal. NOx and VOC combine chemically with
oxygen to form ozone during sunny, high-temperature conditions of late spring, summer and early fall. High levels of ozone are usually formed in the heat of the afternoon and early evening, dissipating during the cooler nights.
When you inhale ozone, it travels throughout your respiratory tract. Because ozone is very corrosive, it damages the bronchioles and alveoli in your lungs, air sacs that are important for gas exchange. Repeated exposure to ozone can inflame lung tissues and cause respiratory infections.
In addition to effects on humans, the corrosive nature of ozone can damage plants and trees. High levels of ozone can destroy agricultural crops and forest vegetation [above left, an ozone-damaged plant on the left, compared with a healthy plant right.]
The usual suspects (Republicans, the American Petroleum Institute) opposed the rule, the usual suspects (Democrats, environmental organizations) were disappointed. The President made a political decision according to the Rule I stated above.
I never choose sides in such debates. After all, the Rule is the Rule, so what's the point? I am thus not pro-growth or pro-environment according to some political preference. My view is that protecting the environment is not a political issue at all. It is a Life (the environment) versus Death (endless growth) issue. I am pro-Life (in this sense) and anti-Death.
If we were living in a world where the Rule didn't necessarily apply, protecting the environment would obviously be the only way to go. In this ozone case, the environmental issue is relatively minor and easily remedied, although no actions will be taken as long as our economic prospects remain dismal. (This is tantamount to forever as far as I'm concerned.) In much bigger cases which can not be so easily remedied, such as anthropogenic destruction of the oceans and climate change, the right course of action is eminently clear. Unfortunately, the "economics trumps environment" Rule applies to all environmental problems, big or small.
The argument that destroying our Earthly habitat so a few more Humans can live higher on the hog has limited scope and is thus self-defeating over the long run. Once we've effectively destroyed the environment which nurtured us over millions of years, it's Game Over. This argument applies to the long run. The problem with it is that Humans are short run creatures.
We don't live in that hypothetical world where it is possible to take a pro-Life position in the sense just described. We live in this deeply flawed world made by Humans. There is thus never any reason to get caught up in these bitter political squabbles in so far as they have a pre-determined outcome. I wish the world were otherwise, but it's not.
I myself try not to live in some idealized, hypothetical world where if you wish upon a star, anything your heart desires will come to you. Yet it seems to me that those struggling to save the environment often and unknowingly posit such a world. They are thus condemned to suffer bitter disappointment over and over again. I live in this miserable world. So I don't have an emotional stake in this stuff anymore. George Carlin expressed a similar view (video below).
I would disagree that it is predicated on economic concerns. Whether the economy is low or high, corporate interests will oppose regulations and grease palms for extra profit. There may be lip service paid to environmental concerns when the economy is on the upswing, but true reform never happens. Even if Obama had left this rule in place, you can be sure that its effects would have had minimal impact in the long run. And since when have corporations been worried about cutting jobs? LOL
The result is the same as you describe, but I thought I would add this caveat.
Posted by: Dixonge | 09/04/2011 at 06:47 PM