Andrew Sullivan and others are falling all over themselves praising David Brooks' supposedly balanced look at Bush's record on the environment. But let's look a little closer, shall we...
The administration's biggest success has been its regulation of diesel fuels. In the face of fierce industry hostility, the Bush crowd decided that the benefits of diesel regulation far outweighed the costs. The Bush initiatives were applauded by even its most ardent critics. An official from the Natural Resources Defense Council called the diesel emissions regulations "the most significant public health proposal in decades."
The Bush administration did work for this regulation, but it most certainly did not originate it. Calling them the "Bush initiatives" is revisionistic history. The NRDC quote was from May 16, 2000 when Clinton was in charge. Bush's record here is much less altruistic than Brooks wants you to believe, including this little matter (click on second link)
The Bush administration intends to regulate pollution from diesel-powered off-road equipment for the first time, but only through industry-favored actions rather than a federal crackdown. In an unusual collaboration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the White House Office of Management and Budget will draft a final rule to be released next year that emphasizes voluntary incentives for manufacturers, including a system that would allow manufacturers to trade emission credits. The administration's plan followed a federal appeals court ruling that upheld a Clinton-era rule requiring a rapid reduction in emissions from diesel-fueled large trucks and buses.
and this one
The Bush Adminstration has made much of the fact that, after some wary examination, it finally supported new Clinton Administration EPA rules that require the trucking industry to switch to cleaner engines that will reduce diesel emissions by 2007.But it's now turning out that it may be the taxpayers, rather than the trucking companies, who foot the bill for much of the cleanup.
Brooks also suggests that Bush's intention with regard to revamping the so-called new-source review, which Brooks labels as a "regulatroy behemoth," replacing it with a cap-and-trade system (his ludicrously named "Clear Skies Initiative"), only needs some fine tuning. He neglects to point out that the new-source review, when allowed to work as intended is both good for the environment and good for business (see the transcript from Dateline's story about the Tampa Electric Company):
Last year, during a visit to one of the nation's largest coal-burning power plants, President Bush announced that New Source Review had been overhauled. The new rule encourages utilities to make improvements to their old plants to increase their efficiency, while relaxing the requirement to add those expensive pollution controls. the change was made in spite of a 2001 memo from former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to Vice President Dick Cheney, warning: "we will pay a terrible political price if we undercut or walk away from the enforcement cases. It will be hard to refute the charge that we are deciding not to enforce the Clean Air Act."While the energy industry applauded the rule change, more than a dozen state attorneys general appealed it, asking the federal courts to reinstate New Source Review as a necessary enforcement tool. Buckheit says it was the hammer that helped him forge that landmark agreement in Tampa. And John Ramil [who has been with the Tampa Electric Company for 27 years. He's now the Chief Operating Officer of its parent company, Teco Energy] agrees.
[Stone] Phillips: “Bruce Buckheit says he saw no suggestion that short of citing the company for violations and the threat of a lawsuit that these changes would have been made. Is that a fair statement?”
Ramil: “The changes at this significant a level this quickly, it's probably a fair assessment.”
Phillips: “Without that federal intervention chances are the air in Tampa would not be as clean as it is today?”
Ramil: “That's probably right.
Brooks then goes on to make it look as if Bush is simply trying to balance things out:
How high should the caps be? Should we reduce emissions by 70 percent, as Bush wants, or by 90 percent?
Again, what he leaves out is the reality of the situation. From a Washington Post editorial:
Although environmental groups and the Environmental Protection Agency hotly dispute the numbers, it is far from clear that the emissions levels of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide would be lower with this legislation than if the EPA simply applied the current law with appropriate vigor. Levels of mercury almost certainly will be higher, or at least will stay higher longer -- an ominous sign in a week in which the EPA, separately, announced that one in 12 American women have mercury levels in their blood high enough to harm an unborn fetus. Local and state pollution regulators also dislike the bill because, they say, it removes regulatory tools they've used in the past, making it more difficult for states to meet air quality standards in particular places.
Brooks also accuses opposition to the President's plan of playing politics: "Many Democrats have in the past backed cap-and-trade reforms, but they don't want to allow Bush a victory."
This is so dishonest, Brooks should be sued. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which normally sides with Bush on environmental questions, had this to say about the Clear Skies Initiative's cap-and-trade solution:
Cap and trade is very much in favor in Washington as being more efficient than command and control in reducing emissions. However, critics point out that efficiency means nothing if the end goals are not worthwhile in the first place. This is why Clear Skies is a bad idea.Regardless of how it is done, these new provisions will likely yield negligible public health returns. Both NOx and SOx emissions from power plants and other sources have already been successfully regulated under the Clean Air Act. Ambient concentrations of these two pollutants have declined significantly, and virtually the entire nation is in compliance with federal air quality standards for them. In addition, new measures on the books and scheduled to take effect in the coming years ensure further declines, with or without Clear Skies.
Brooks, Sullivan, et al. can wish all they want that Bush is doing a good job on the environment, but it boils down to so much wishful thinking...his record is deplorable. (And yes, there's more to come on this)
I can see where you're going here, but I think Brooks is actually making good points here.
The nut of the problem is where you set the caps, and how long it takes to get there. My thinking, and the thinking of most environmental groups, is that you don't trust the foxes to guard the henhouse. Therefore, you fight hard for the old way of doing things, which is better than having some laws gutted in exchange for toothless replacements that seem better, which is the Bush approach.
Posted by: asdf | April 20, 2004 at 04:52 PM
Now Eddie where does most of the mercury in the atmosphere come from (an it ain't from US power plants)?
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | April 20, 2004 at 06:59 PM
But it's now turning out that it may be the taxpayers, rather than the trucking companies, who foot the bill for much of the cleanup.
So what is new about that?
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | April 20, 2004 at 07:03 PM
but I think Brooks is actually making good points here.
Which ones?
Posted by: Edward | April 20, 2004 at 07:15 PM
But it's now turning out that it may be the taxpayers, rather than the trucking companies, who foot the bill for much of the cleanup.
So what is new about that?
Timmy, now it's my turn...if you read the article...here, I'll help out...
Philosophically, Bush steps in and stands up for Business. It's as if he doesn't believe in what he's doing environmentally...
...that's who he is...that's fine...just don't try to sell him as "green" though.
Posted by: Edward | April 20, 2004 at 07:24 PM
Guess you've never heard of the win, win scenario.
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | April 20, 2004 at 07:52 PM
Guess you've never heard of the win, win scenario.
quite the contrary...see the Dateline story...it's a perfect example of win-win and what Bush is pushing will undo it.
Posted by: Edward | April 20, 2004 at 07:55 PM
If the financial burden is heavy for industry, the costs are passed along to consumers.
I think you could lop the entire first half of that statement off and have it be just as true.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2004 at 10:32 PM
Edward-
To answer your question, this is good stuff, for instance:
The thrust of Brooks' argument, as I understand it, is that in theory a cap'n trade system is better than a command-and-control scheme like NSR, because of the equimarginal principle.
That's true. And, as Brooks admits, the key is where you set the caps. And he's right when he says that there are solutions to the mercury hotspot problem. It's worth noting that there are hotspots right now.
Like I said before, the key thing that Brooks does not admit is that the Bush administration is entirely untrustworthy when it comes to environmental issues. So the groups are hoping to just freeze them out until a Democratic administration that the groups feel comfortable working with.
Another point is that NSR was hammered out with the industry in the 70s, as a way to allow them to spread their costs over time. They reneged on the deal, and they should suffer the consequences for breaking the law. Settlement money can be used for Supplemental Environmental Projects, the grandfathering would be lifted, and the companies could then decide whether it is more cost-effective for them to buy emissions credits or just shut the plants down.
Posted by: asdf | April 21, 2004 at 10:58 AM
The thrust of Brooks' argument, as I understand it, is that in theory a cap'n trade system is better than a command-and-control scheme like NSR, because of the equimarginal principle.
Doesn't cap n trade also rely on the ability to punish those who don't comply? In other words, isn't it just another, looser, form of command and control? Can't we expect similar noncompliance by the industry?
Besides, as the CEI notes, "Both NOx and SOx emissions from power plants and other sources have already been successfully regulated under the Clean Air Act." The cap n trade scenario is a handout to those companies that didn't comply with NSR. Bush is rewarding them for bad behavior. Why on earth would they expect to be punished going forward?
Posted by: Edward | April 21, 2004 at 11:30 AM
Excellent post, Edward. I admittedly don't know squat-all about this sort of thing, so I can't say whether you've got a decent point or not, but it all holds together well.
It'd be nice to know which companies are involved in this:
The cap n trade scenario is a handout to those companies that didn't comply with NSR. Bush is rewarding them for bad behavior.
And for what reasons. Any ideas? On the surface of it, the can 'n' trade concept seems like it ought to be restricted to gases like NOx and not to things that can form localized problems that require Superfund to get them cleaned up.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 21, 2004 at 11:45 AM
It'd be nice to know which companies are involved in this:,
A notorious one is the Detroit Edison power plant in Monroe, Michigan. Bush chose it as the location to announce the end of NSR...how's that for a clear indication of how he feels about the environment?
For a list of NSR violaters see this pdf file
On the surface of it, the can 'n' trade concept seems like it ought to be restricted to gases like NOx and not to things that can form localized problems that require Superfund to get them cleaned up.
I read, but now can't find, that this is the exact thinking behind opposition to Clear Skies.
Overall, the way I look at it is the power plants have been skirting, if not breaking, a very considerate law (and there's a good argument to be made that lots of "maintenance" done since NSR was enacted has really been criminally miscategorized, so I'll go with "breaking the law"), and at just the time in the chronology of things when they'd have to start complying, their knight in shining armor comes to the rescue and says "Don't you worry about it, I'll take care of that pesky old NSR you've been cheating your way around."
In his speech announcing he'd trashed NSR, Bush had the gall to say "The old regluations undermined our goals for protecting the environment."
WRONG! The industry systematically and criminally undermined our goals for protecting the enviornment. And now Bush is rewarding them for it.
Posted by: Edward | April 21, 2004 at 12:10 PM
Edward, "command and control" refers to an old-school approach whereby the EPA dictates specific approved technologies, and power plants have to install them.
The problem with this approach is that it provides little incentive for utilities to innovate, because as soon as a superior control technology comes out, they know that the EPA will ratchet down the standards and force everyone to buy the new stuff.
Another issue is that if, say, the EPA requires utilities to all reduce their emissions by 50%, it will be costly to do so for some than for others.
The advantage of cap and trade is that it gives utilities the ultimate flexibility.
It says, here is the goal--an overall annual tonnage for a region, which is less than the current amount of emissions. Then you allocate the initial distribution, via fiat or auction, of emissions credits.
Then utilities can trade with each other so that each can reduce by an amount commensurate with its marginal cost of control.
Another nice feature here is that utilities can donate credits to non-profits, and thus permanently retire them in exchange for a tax break.
The total overall cost to industry of the reduction will be lower as a result, which is why for the same total dollar amount, you can take more bad stuff out of the air.
Hence, it's better.
For example.
Say that there are two plants in the US, A and B. The EPA wants to reduce overall emissions by 50%. A currently emits 100 tons of NOx each year, and B currently emits 150 tons. So the EPA would like to see the overall level reduced from 250 tons to 125 tons. Under command and control, each plant would have to cut emissions in half. So A now emits 50 tons and B emits 75 tons.
But what if it costs A $10,000 per ton to control, but B has to spend $20,000 per ton?
Under c-n-c, the total cost of reducing pollution by 50% would be $500,000 + $1.5 million = $2 million.
But you can see that B could just buy some of A's credits at a negotiated price (which I could figure out if I weren't so lazy), and the total cost of control would be lower.
It's not a perfect or completely realistic example (the marginal cost of control isn't constant), but I hope this makes sense.
Posted by: asdf | April 21, 2004 at 03:14 PM
It makes sense asdf...thanks for taking the time to do that. The example is particularly illuminating and helpful (it's hard to wade through all this stuff without examples). I'm still unclear why this is better than NSR, which I assume would improve many more plants in the next decade if adhered to than cap-n-trade.
I get the flexibility thing. In fact Clinton and Gore's plan called for an end to dictated technology, but, if B buys A's credits, assumedly for less than they'd spend to make renovations (any renovations), where's the motivation for them to ever upgrade? And who's looking out for B's community? This plan means essentially, the air near Cheney's ranch in Wyoming gets better while the air near the school in New Jersey never does, no?
Posted by: Edward | April 21, 2004 at 03:44 PM
Edward, good points.
Remember that the problematic plants where NSR is concerned are coal-fired plants in the Midwest that were "grandfathered" in the 70s. The deal was that compliance with the Clean Air Act would be prohibitively expensive, so the compromise was "OK, just next time you upgrade to a certain extent, throw on the scrubbers."
Obviously, industry broke the bargain, and the Clinton administration decided to sue. Clearly, the Clinton approach would have worked, because the utilities would have been forced to install the controls.
So the dilemma is, do you go ahead and punish these guys, or do you forget about the past and just throw them in the pool with everyone else and see what happens?
The Bush administration decided to do the latter, only they did a couple things. One was that they gutted NSR to the point where it was meaningless, and made that retroactive so as to let the utilities off the hook. That's clearly bad.
The second is that they came up with Clear Skies, which weakens the 1990 revisions to the Clean Air Act as well as the Clinton EPA proposed rule change from 2001. The 1990 revisions are cap and trade for ozone, but they retain the old compromise - the grandfather clause and new source review.
As I understand it, Clear Skies doesn't put the old plants into the system. Plus, the EPA is lying through its teeth about it, because it compares Clear Skies to current emissions, rather than to projected emissions, which would continue to decrease under the Clean Air Act. An imaginary scenario with no basis in reality. And then it basically delays implementation until 2018, when it's likely that new technology would have come along anyway.
[I]f B buys A's credits, assumedly for less than they'd spend to make renovations (any renovations), where's the motivation for them to ever upgrade? And who's looking out for B's community? This plan means essentially, the air near Cheney's ranch in Wyoming gets better while the air near the school in New Jersey never does, no?
B upgrades when technology comes along that makes it cheaper for them to control than to buy credits.
The EPA and outside groups would continually monitor B's community to make sure there are no hotspots. As far as I know, the 1990 CAA didn't cause any hotspots to develop. Additionally, you can set some regional caps based on health.
But here's the kicker. Clear Skies set one national cap, rather than state caps, as the 1990 regs did. So under Clear Skies, it's actually much more likely that hotspots will develop.
This is complicated stuff, and I may have made some mistakes here, but I think that about covers it.
Posted by: asdf | April 21, 2004 at 05:24 PM
where do you know all this from asdf...professional or personal interest?
again, many thanks for taking the time.
To summarize, though, cap-n-trade credits cost X dollars. New scrubbers cost XX dollars...but will eventually, hopefully cost less than X dollars, meaning eventually power plant B will choose new scrubbers over more credits, no?
And built in to help the people living near power plant B are safeguards that do what to prevent hot spots?
All in all, this strikes me as more faith-based regluation, requiring faith in the technology getting cheaper (with no dates set), faith in the diligence of the EPA (and with all its best people quitting that seems unlikely), and faith in the hot spots not killing people before something is done about them.
Bush expects a good grade for this?
Posted by: Edward | April 21, 2004 at 05:40 PM
Bush expects a good grade for this?
Nah, Bush expects a pass from people like Easterbrook, support from industry, and a compliant press that throws its hands up and refuses to arbitrate between the NRDC and the EPA.
Posted by: asdf | April 22, 2004 at 12:16 AM