I’m sure you are trying to be reasonable; it just seems to me that your conception of what constitutes reasonable policy-making procedure is far too generous to the administration, and far to dismissive of the needs of the nation as a whole.
As elf has pointed out, we know that these energy companies not only have close ties to members of this administration due to past employment and business dealings, we also know that they contributed large amounts of cash to them during election campaigns. While everyone knows that, for better or worse, large contributions buy you access to politicians, people still generally like to think that said politicians will at least take into account the needs and arguments of other citizens and their representative groups when making policy.
I think there’s a good chance that none of what happened here was illegal. The laws are so lax on issues like this that it’s completely possible that no law was broken. It’s all probably just business as usual. But, contrary to your implication, illegal and unethical are not the same thing. Many people are of the opinion that “listening to one side over the other,” as you put it, is in itself unethical when you only listen to that one side, and when you have so many personal and financial ties to that same side.
What would be your reaction, and, more importantly, what do you think would be the media and the nation’s reaction, if a Democratic administration and/or a Democrat-dominated Congress put forth a wage policy calling for a 25% increase in the minimum wage, with two weeks more holiday every year, and did so after consulting only with labor unions?
Interesting. So instead of hoping for a situation in which the administration might actually make policy with all Americans in mind, we just throw up our hands and say “Hey, we know they’re in bed with the energy companies, but whatareyagonnado?” You make no personal judgement on whether this special relationship is a good thing or not. If you think it is, and that we only benefit when energy companies and politicians are so closely connected, perhaps you’d like to explain why? And if it isn’t a good thing, then what’s wrong with trying to change the situation, or at least expose the possible detrimental effects that it has on the policy-making process.
See, this is where i most seriously disagree with you. This is the same attitude that says that an illegal war is acceptable if the outcome is right, or that violating a suspects right is acceptable as long as you get the confession. Despite all your claims to the contrary, process MATTERS in the policy-setting arena, because we live in a society where our elected representatives are, ideally, responsive to and considerate of the needs of the people. We realize, of course, that no decision is likely to make everyone happy, but we ask that politicians at least make a good faith effort to implement policies that are broadly beneficial.
Given that every policy, no matter how good or how bad, will be criticized by some groups, it behooves politicians to do everything they can to justify their policy decisions. And i don’t just mean rhetorically. They should, when criticized about a particular policy issue (such as the effect of energy policy on the environment, for example) be able honestly to say that they have taken such things into consideration, and they should be able to present evidence as to why certain claims or arguments were rejected or modified.
Finally, your argument fails to take into account that, if a policy such as this is flawed, then one of the reasons for the flaws may be the policy-making process itself. If we find that the current administration’s energy plan is indeed flawed, don’t you think that a cause of that might be the fact that the administration took advice only from those who stood to make a buck off the issue? Take the wage/union hypothetical i gave above. Don’t you think that if such a policy sent America into an inflation spiral and resulted in thousands of layoffs, the reason might be that the government failed to take into account the contributions of business people, economists, other experts? Policy and process, whether you like it or not, are inextricably linked.
Neither have i drawn any conclusion about the policy itself; just making a point.
Quite so. Ego te absolvo, I absolve you (I won’t get into declensions here) “Egotist” is a description often applied to persons quite full of themselves, smug, prideful, etc…
It will no doubt surprise you to hear that such a description has been applied to such paragons of humble modesty as myself! No, really! Hard to believe, I know, but there you have it.
Hence the joke, the egotist absolves you.
There now! Isn’t it a much better joke after a thorough vivisection?
Any guess where most of their political connections are? No-bid contracts for Cheney’s ex-company. :dubious: Gee I wonder who gets these plum no-bid deals?
OK, I have some more time now, and since my comment was ignored, I’m going to be a pain about this.
Please describe for me in detail exactly how the Bush Administration is “rolling back” the CAA without legislative action by Congress. And please describe for me in detail how this has “no analytical basis”.
Please also desribe how it “effectively repeals the CAA” (from your cited source).
Furthermore, your next comment indicates that you believe a cover up is occuring on this specific issue, since it’s in your same post.
Yet, you show no evidence whatsoever of an actual cover up on this issue of maintenance upgrades to existing pre-1977 vintage power plants (which is the actual issue, if one actually reads the cites and knows the background). In fact, all the GAO report says is that further data was needed (in its opinion). It does not allege a cover up on this issue, nor is there mention of “secrecy” with repsect to the meetings concerning this specific rule. Your second cite does not concern the rulings on maintenance upgrades and repairs to existing plants at all.
Nor does your cite give evidence as the exactly why the GAO feels that the information collected is incomplete, lacking, incorrect, biased, or otherwise not valuable.
So…what’s the truth here? Why did you feel like calling this issue out?
Here’s another example of an environmental lobbyist relying on the technical ignorance of the populace to try to stir up more hatred for the Bush Administration’s policies on energy and the environment:
This is grossly misleading for the following reasons:
“Accounting gimmick”? No, that’s not inflammatory at all.
Nothing eliminates the possibility of future regulatory or policy changes.
The statement “pollution controls” ignores such things as the forthcoming mercury regulations, which will not exempt these units.
This does not impact State, regional, and city emissions limits, which quite a large number of these facilities are subject to.
It’s a “total disaster”? Really? The emissions limits for these plants have not changed. Let’s get that through people’s heads first, since people are so busy dripping with hatred over Bush that they don’t want to hear the facts. And the fact is that the limits have not changed. The plants have only been allowed to do maintenance which may, repeat, may increase the generating capacity of the unit. That is, the output. And in a multitude of cases (ones I work on nearly every fucking week), it reduces the pollution of the unit on a per-MW basis. This also conveniently brushes under the rug the simple scientific fact that most plants have serious limiting factors in their design that only allow for minor increases in their output, without essentially tearing the boiler down and re-building it. But hey, when the average person is looking at a VCR flashing “12:00”, it’s OK to brush facts aside, since it’s not likely the vast populace will call them on it.
And if someone like me does, one can brush me aside as a “tool of the industry” and refer to my “sleaze”. Bravo. :rolleyes:
It’s an effective “repeal” of the “clean air program”? This really, combined with the rest, should be called “libel” if it was directed at anyone else, as it’s a complete and total lie.
“Illegal administrative means”? Really? The CAA, like nearly ALL legislation of its type, relies on the Executive Branch to determine the way to enforce the legislation. I suppose the Clinton Administration’s action on “low-NOx burners” and its interpretations of gun control legislation was also illegal then? Because, come on, let’s be fair here.
Unless the goal is really to just Hate Bush, and damn the facts.
Jesus Fuck, there are very legitimate reasons to be concerned about and to flame the Bush Administration over energy and the environment. This isn’t one of them. It’s been discussed at-length here before, and seeing it come up again with the same sort of cited lies as last time is just disgusting and disheartening.
For instance? No, seriously. If anybody is in a position to know where the bodies are buried, an unholy queen of the undead must be in a prime position. I am intriqued. What, in your estimation, is the worst example, and why?
There has been no “rollback” of the Clean Air Act. This was explained.
I don’t think it’s anything different that what others have posted ad nauseum.
CAFE. I feel that not increasing CAFE for light trucks and SUVs, as well as for automobiles, is a big deal. I don’t think that this makes the current Administration worse than Clinton’s, but certainly no better, and they’re missing a prime opportunity. Probably, CAFE and not increasing it (and being opposed to further increases) will have the largest negative impact.
I feel that drilling in the ANWR is a stupid-assed thing to push, due to the relatively low benefit. However, I do think feel as well that the alarmist statements made about environmental “armageddon” should drilling be done there are silly and ignorant.
CO2: I think the Administration should work to meet Kyoto-level accords, and not walk away from them as they have, but also think that they should do this contingent on the developing nations being restricted to the same level of emissions as developed nations.
I feel that fusion and renewables research is highly, woefully underfunded, and will continue to be so for some time.
I see a bunch of missed opportunities or trend to conduct “business as usual” as the greatest problems.
Well, why don’t you tell me what your take is on it. Everything I’ve read about it indicates a loosening of restrictions regarding new installations of equipment in regulated plants.
OK, let’s talk “rollback”, shall we? This should be fun…and please, I am a bit sarcastic in this, GaWd, but it’s not directed towards you or any Doper here, so please forgive the tone.
The root source for this alleged “rollback” is what is contained in *ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 [FRL-7414-6; RIN 2060-AK28; Electronic Docket OAR-2002-0068; Legacy Docket A-2002-04]
“Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-attainment New Source Review (NSR): Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion”*
Now, since I’m not only the only person here who has read that entire document, but am likely the only person here who ever will, I’ll provide a link to a summary of “myth versus fact” from the EPA itself.
(self-serving Bush Admin propaganda sentence removed from the end, and bolding added for emphasis)
(once again, bolding added)
OK, so what drove the Bush Administration to do this? Well, let me throw out a reason that doesn’t involve Konspiracies of Evil Oilmen and Evil Republicans wanting to stomp their jackboots on the neck of the poor and downtrodden.
Those of us in the industry (the same “experts” who are sneered at and called “sleaze”) have been watching this quaint little case go through the courts for some time. It is regarding
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4, IN THE MATTER OF
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
DOCKET NO. CAA-2000-04-0008
ORDER [42 U.S.C. §§7413 and 7477]
Wherein the EPA issued an order claiming that maintenance improvements at the Paradise, Colbert, Widows Creek, Allen, Cumberland, Bull Run, and John Sevier coal power plants were subject to New Source Review under the CAA and its Amendments. TVA naturally didn’t care for that, and took the EPA to court.
This thing has been winding through the court for some time, and a lot of people have been waiting to see what the result would be (in a similar manner to the coal tailing hazardous waste issue in the Appalachian mountain region). In anticipation of the result, and the in an effort to clear up the legal mess this has turned into, the EPA has been developing its revision of their Rules on NSR and upgrades since last year. However, this has recently come to a head in the mainstream press which the cow-like masses read due to the following action.
On June 24, 2003, the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled on the case.
Here is the cite:
What was the result of this? The three judges ruled unanimously in favour of TVA. Note the following key points in their decision process.
(emphasis added, abbreviation explained)
Note that little word that people like to brush under the rug – unconstitutional. The Clinton Administration EPA engaged, according to the court, in an unconstitutional act against TVA. Why this isn’t being universally decried is beyond me.
Note also from Page 8 of their ruling:
The Scenarios put forth by the court on pp10-12 are somewhat scary as well.
Note this gem of a finding:
It’s pretty clear they didn’t like the way the Clinton Administration EPA handled themselves. But let’s skip forward to Page 50: VI: Conclusion
(emphasis added)
Funny how not a single source I could find in the mass media online – not even the Atlanta Journal Constitution – chose to report that juicy little tidbit.
Given this ruling showing clear problems in the way in which ACOs were being applied to anything that could be considered an NSR issue, it was pretty clear that clarification of the NSR and upgrade issue was a good thing.
I can easily talk for hours about the difference between maintenance upgrades and New Source creations under the law. That’s really the next bit, and, it’s important to note, the 11th Circuit did not rule on the applicability nor the constitutionality of the application of NSR to maintenance upgrades.
The real debate between that can be found in the [FRL-7414-6; RIN 2060-AK28; Electronic Docket OAR-2002-0068; Legacy Docket A-2002-04], “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-attainment New Source Review (NSR): Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion” text.
It’s a 176-page text (and I’ve read the whole thing until my eyes bled), so I’ll point out Section III, subpart B for clarity (Page 25)
I’d be happy to go through that in detail. But perhaps I’ve jabbered enough at this point.
(Note to Moderators: I have checked that all sources quoted are in fact in the public domain - Una)
