Via the New York Times and brought to our attention by Helpful Reader Eric, "Study Ranks Bush Plan to Cut Air Pollution as Weakest of 3":
A research firm that the Bush administration commissioned to analyze its plan to lower emissions from coal-fired power plants compared the plan with two competing legislative proposals and concluded in a report released Wednesday that the administration's plan was the weakest.At the invitation of the environmental coalition Clear the Air, the international research firm Abt Associates, which often conducts studies for the Environmental Protection Agency, used the same methodology in assessing all three. It found that the administration's plan, called the Clear Skies Act, would save as many as 14,000 lives but that the other bills would save more - 16,000 in one case and 22,000 in the other.
The findings, included in a report, "Dirty Air, Dirty Power," were immediately attacked by industry groups as a "repackaged" argument that focused on only one source of emissions. The administration's chief environmental policy adviser echoed the criticism, saying that the administration plan provided benefits as part of an overall strategy to meet air quality standards that were more stringent than ever.
"You can't just look at power plants alone to understand the program," said James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "You could say Clear Skies doesn't go as far as the other bills, but Clear Skies combined with our new standards on diesel goes further than both."
But officials from Clear the Air said the report provided evidence that the administration's approach to curbing emissions from power plants did not do enough soon enough, and in the process, saved power companies from spending huge sums on technologies that would reduce emissions.
They predicted that the analysis could become part of the presidential campaign. The report said that under current policies, nearly 24,000 people died each year as a result of power plant emissions, with the largest numbers in three closely contested states, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards are trying to drive a wedge between the "wealthy" (over 200,000 income) and the rest of the population. There simply aren't enough tax payers making 200,000 or more to make up the amount he needs to fund all of his new programs. Don't complain when your taxes go up. They will start the tax increse at the new wealthy level (50,000 or less). By the way, have you looked at the wealth level of these two candidates. Double by the way, why won't Mrs Kerry release her tax returns - they live in a community property state.
Posted by: bill on July 10, 2004 04:47 AM










