Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Smog struggle

A view behind the scenes at the EPA and the White House

Posted by Frank O'Donnell (Guest Contributor) at 3:45 PM on 14 Feb 2008

It is now less than four weeks until the EPA announces its decision on whether to change current national standards for ozone or smog. And things are getting very interesting behind the scenes.

Officially, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget website, the EPA has not yet transmitted its plan to the White House for review. The truth is, the EPA is obviously being picked at by the OMB already.

The Bush administration is just trying to keep the details of this matter as secret as possible. (Some business lobbyists have heard that the EPA is pushing a tougher new standard, though weaker than that recommended by their science advisers.)

Despite the efforts at secrecy, some information is creeping out as EPA puts information in its official regulatory docket. (You can see this for yourself here by searching for docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172. )

In one fascinating email, an OMB staffer named Heidi R. King sought information to support a miniscule change in the current, outmoded smog standard. In other words, the OMB is fishing around for information that would support basically making no change in the current standard.

The EPA docket, by the way, is starting to include some other pretty interesting material. For example, Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) writes to the EPA and appears to endorse the views of the state branch of the odious National Association of Manufacturers. (Shame on you, Herb! This is one of the naughtiest things you've done since you fronted for the Briggs & Stratton lawn-mower-engine people when they were fighting against pollution standards.)

Also, the Department of Agriculture doesn't want the EPA to change the current standard, in part because of the smog problems caused by biofuels (which the Department of Agriculture promotes because its mission is to increase money for farmers.)

Of possible interest, also, is the list of staffers within the Bush administration who have been tasked with reviewing the EPA plan. Our favorite reviewer is one Indur Goklany, who has worked in the past for various polluter-funded alleged think tanks. In fact, just last week the Cato Institute was touting a new report he authored that appears to oppose efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Goklany has also been known to say a kind word or two about the banned chemical DDT.

Finally (for now), there is an interesting list of people who met personally with EPA Administrator Steve Johnson on the smog issue right before Christmas (as Johnson was preparing his recommendation to share with the White House). One meeting included such heavyweights as Tom Kuhn of the Edison Electric Institute, "Governor" John Engler of the National Association of Manufacturers, Dave McCurdy of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and Jack Gerard of the American Chemistry Council. All, presumably, were arguing against tougher standards, as were agricultural interests noted at a separate meeting. These included the Renewable Fuels Association, the Corn Refiners Association, and the National Corn Growers.

So...

...does the fact they're fishin' for info. seem to indicate that the EPA will toughen standards or not?  Also, even if the scientists recommend to go with tougher standards, can the prez or Johnson override the rules?  Do the rules haveta be approved by Congress on this issue?

Lol

Why would ethanol companies be worried about harsher smog standards?

http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol3
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol5

Hey Frank, good job...

...clearly you're well aware of how this process works.  

Tasermons -- EPA scientists make recommendations.  The EPA Administrator officially makes the decisions.  To put it more clearly -- Steven Johnson doesn't override -- he decides.  With a little input from some folks just down Pennsylvania Ave, at the pleasure of whom he willingly serves. :-)

Congress gets a short review, but it'll be perfunctory.  They're not likely to mess with the ozone applecart (nor should they).

So in other words...

...with Johnson at the head, they won't ask for stricter standards.

Frackin'-bloody-tastic.

Why do they even bother tryin' to compile data when they know it'll just be ignored?

Well, I didn't exactly say that...

I was just describing the process.  I don't want to suggest how it's likely to come out.

But it isn't...

...very likely, that is.  I'm always hopeful, but let's face it, under the current circumstances and current EPA admin. and current D.C. figureheads, we aren't likely to get much passed in the way of large signature legislation or restrictions...at least 'til we get a new administration goin'.

smog standards

"Smog" is not a scientific term but EPA is proposing a change whether to lower the ozone standard from 85 ppb to maybe 75 ppb. Not a big deal, since by itself ozone is a transient irritant and not a killer like particulate matter (PM-2.5 micron). The PM-2.5 standard was revised in 2006 and the long-term standard of 15 µg/cubic meter were retained from the 1997 standards (the short-term daily standard was revised lower).

The issue with ozone is a double-edged sword.  If you are concerned about climate change, ozone does seem to play as adding a small increment to warming potential and should probably be reduced. However, lowering ozone precursors such as oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbon causes less efficiency because the control devices require more and more power, so the net effect might be to INCREASE CO2 emissions.  

I don't think this is as big of a deal as how and why EPA denied the California fuel economy standards for motor vehicles.
-sammie

Onward through the fog

The Smoglympics

I recently read this blog post about the "Smoglympics", as he calls it.
http://sattlerclothing.com/blog/2008/01/30/welcome-to-the ...


Health Effects of Ozone

Ozone is more than just a transient irritant.  Several studies indicate that ozone can cause premature mortality, nonfatal heart attacks, and chronic bronchitis.

For more information on OMB's involvement in the science, see http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3944

For more information on the science, see http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2 ...


You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks