CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 02, 2011 11:19 PM UTC

Obama Caves on New Smog Rules

  • 66 Comments
  • by: ClubTwitty

(Not only capitulating on smog regulations, but stealing Cory Gardner’s definition of “job creation?” If political messaging were software, Obama would be slapped with a patent suit tomorrow. – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)

After a high level meeting between the Chamber of Commerce and William Daley, the White House has decided to throw its EPA administrator under the bus to hand the GOP another talking point victory and alienate yet more of what should be Obama’s core supporters.

From The Hill:

Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch called Obama’s decision an “abject act of political cowardice.”

The backlash underscores President Obama’s delicate position as he tries to show that he’s seeking to boost jobs in the sour economy, while fending off relentless GOP claims that his environmental agenda is a brake on growth.

Since last year’s disastrous election for Democrats, the president has tried to move to the political center and repair frayed relations with the business community. That effort – epitomized by the selection of William Daley as chief of staff – has already stirred up tension with labor unions, which were among the president’s strongest backers in 2008.

Now, with the business-friendly move on the ozone rules, Obama risks alienating another group of key supporters as he embarks on a grueling reelection campaign.

The president’s capitulation is generating some positive comments, of course, from Eric Cantor, the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Corporations Commerce.  Smelling blood, they all pledge to take their efforts to the next regulation and the next and the next.  

While those who are most united to defeat Obama sing his (temporary) praise, (as they sharpen their knives for the next round) some who were once among his base feel betrayed.

After Obama got elected, however, the new EPA said it basically agreed with the critics and would issue stronger rules by August 2010. At that point, the [American Lung Association] agreed to hold off on its lawsuit. “We said, that sounds reasonable to us,” says Paul Billings, the ALA’s vice-president for policy and advocacy. “We basically trusted their intentions.”

This matters to Colorado.  Ground level ozone has been increasing rapidly in the West’s gas fields:


“Rapid production of wintertime ozone is probably occurring in other regions of the western United States, in Canada, and around the world,” said Russell Schnell, lead author of a paper on the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Geosciences.

Schnell said the wintertime ozone levels in the Wyoming gas fields can quickly reach levels more than twice the 75 parts per billion the Environmental Protection Agency has set as a health threshold, leaping from 30 parts per billion to as high as 160 parts per billion in just four hours. That’s far higher than typical levels in metro Denver on a high-ozone summer day.

“It’s unbelievable,” Schnell said. “It just goes straight up as the sun comes up.”

The NOAA study found that ozone formed in the cold when emissions from gas drilling combined with a temperature inversion that trapped air – and the chemicals – close to the ground. Snow reflected enough sunlight to start the chemical reactions needed to form ozone.

While the study looked at Wyoming, similar increases have been noted in Colorado and Utah, according to the Grand Junction Sentinel (not behind pay wall):

Put together the wide-open spaces, low population and light traffic of a place like Rio Blanco County, and it wouldn’t seem like a recipe for an ozone pollution problem.

But combine ingredients such as snow cover, air-trapping temperature inversions and pollutants from sources including oil and gas development, and the western part of the county including Rangely has been the site this winter of its first-ever high-ozone alert by state health officials.

“I wish it wasn’t my county,” said county Commissioner Ken Parsons. “I live on the western end here, and I very much value having a good environment and clean air to breathe.”

… While high ozone levels in rural areas come as something of a surprise to science, especially because they are occurring in the winter, there is increasing precedence for the problem where drilling occurs in the West.

High readings have beset the western Wyoming gas development region around Pinedale. The same goes for northeastern Utah’s Uinta Basin; in fact, the Environmental Protection Agency thinks the Rangely area’s problems may be related to that basin’s because it basically sits on the basin’s eastern end, said Carl Daly, an air-quality specialist for the agency in Denver.

Early last year, ozone in the basin reached levels considerably above the EPA’s standards. The agency has raised ozone as an issue of concern when the Bureau of Land Management has considered new gas development there. But Daly said the agency can’t say with certainty whether energy development is causing the problem, or possibly something such as pollution from the Salt Lake City area. Utah State University is currently studying possible causes.

Smog, obviously, has been linked to numerous health issues, costing American consumers billions each year, more than the cost of lowering the standards as recommended by scientists. The EPA found that the new standards could have prevented 12,000 premature deaths and over 50,000 asthma attacks a year. Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator, committed to implementing standards that followed the science, as Ezra Klein reports in the Washington Post:

But August 2010 rolled around. Still no rules. The EPA asked for a further extension. Then October. Then December. Still nothing. Then the EPA said it wanted to go back and look at the science again, just to double-check. Sure enough, EPA’s scientific review board said that a standard of 60 to 70 parts per billion was the most cost-effective way to protect public health. And EPA administrator Lisa Jackson announced that the final rules would be in line with the science.

Industry groups, obviously, weren’t pleased with this. They noted that complying with a stricter standard could cost them anywhere from $19 billion to $90 billion per year by 2020. (The EPA did, however, note that a tougher standard would yield benefits of $13 billion to $100 billion, and that the benefits would outweigh the costs.)

Because when it comes down to it, protecting private profits is more important than public health, and imposing standards that actually reflect what the science is indicating would, well, hamper those private profits.  The American Petroleum Institute doesn’t like that, so out go the standards! As E&E reports:

The revised health standard, if finalized later this year, could cause petroleum-rich sections of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah to become so-called “nonattainment areas” for ozone, forcing state governments to revise or adopt new federally approved plans to reduce ozone precursor pollutants in the affected counties.

Better to pretend there is no problem and simply let industry regulate itself.

Tweet
Share

Comments

66 thoughts on “Obama Caves on New Smog Rules”

  1. Obama has to get off the ropes and punch the fuck back. Excellent but sad post.

    ATTENTION WHITE HOUSE: You will not win a SINGLE vote with this. Anybody who is happy you are backing off of air quality protections will NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA ANYWAY in a million years. And this hurts him with many who would. Find a better Sistah Souljah than the fucking air we breathe, ok?

    He has to do better, and soon.

        1. Second, let them protest away. Big deal.

          I’m not a Romney fan. But if he’s the nominee, I will gladly put his bumper sticker on my SUV

          🙂

  3. the president has tried to move to the political center

    Shit, if that’s the case, I’d expect a quick hard left turn sometime real soon.  (Maybe Obama’s waiting for a letter from Boehner telling giving him permission to be a Democratic at least a couple of hours every week?)

    (As of right now, it’s starting to look like I’ll be writing-in yet another vote for Daffy Duck for President this next cycle . . .)

  4. House Speaker John Boehner called the move a “good first step.”

    “But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stopping Washington Democrats’ agenda of tax hikes, more government ‘stimulus’ spending, and increased regulations — which are all making it harder to create more American jobs,” he said.

    Aw, you thought they would be nice to you after this, didn’t you Mr. President? Too bad.

              1. Probably hard to follow, but response comments are often under the one to which they are responding, usually indented.

                Just a tip for the impaired.

                But let me repost-

                How long does a rule-making take?

                What are those statutory requirements you note?  What do they require?

                And, finally, please show that Obama (executive branch, yes–rule makings) and Pelosi (legislative branch, no rule-makings, they pass things call laws…) ‘recklessly implemented policy making’ and went on a ‘frenzied rule making pitch’?  Yes, I want to see the work, the cites, and an indication that the pace of federal rule-making has reached some sort of ‘frenzied pitch’ unknown (or unusual) to previous administrations.

                1. 1. Varies on departmental basis, statute, etc…

                  2. and 3. You’ll have to read the bills to note the specifics. You understand right, you’ll have to read the law after it passes to know what’s in it.

                  Obama-Pelosi

                  ‘recklessly implemented policy making’ and went on a ‘frenzied rule making pitch”

                  Instances:

                  1. Obamacare

                  2. That abortion of a finance bill Dodd-Frank

                  3. EPA, big law making failed, but not the rule making, there full bore ahead killing jobs

                  1. 1: Rule makings are seldom complete in 4 months–Fail on original point (F)

                    2,3: Need to note requirements of APA, fundamental law governing federal rulemakings–(C-)

                    4… : No comparison with other administration on rate of rulemaking (D+)

                    No sources or cites or evidence of your work, but thanks for playing.  Extra points for effort,  D+ overall.

                    1. Sounds like you have extensive history in federal rule making, what are you a lobbyist or lawyer or both?

    2. Despite welcome moves to corral environmental zealots, the Obama administration remains committed to regulation in general.

      The new efforts are important, though.

      On Aug. 26, the Department of State issued a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Keystone XL pipeline connecting the oil sands region of Alberta with Gulf Coast refineries. In June, the Environmental Protection Agency had recommended changes to a supplemental EIS that easily could have delayed issuance of the final document for many months.

      The stiff-arm to EPA suggests State will approve the project.

      Now the White House is jerking EPA’s reins on ozone. The agency wanted to toughen standards in ways that might have cost US businesses $90 billion/year.

      EPA toughened ozone standards in 2008, and clean-air laws don’t call for reconsideration until 2013. EPA reconsidered, anyway, forcing businesses to worry about new costs now and in a couple of years.

      Because ozone pollution is abating and unemployment is a larger and more immediate problem, especially in the run-up to an election year, the White House told EPA to stand down.

      It should do likewise with a dozen or so other issues at EPA but probably will not. Its environmentalist supporters are furious over Keystone XL and ozone.

      http://www.ogj.com/articles/20…

      1. a “corral [of] environmental zealots” — just in time for the Labor Day rodeos.

        Not sure exactly how this event works, but apparently it involves “jerking…reins” and “stiff-arms” — sounds like an interesting event, can you shed any light?

        (Who is the frustrated rodeo clown writing for the O&G Journal, anyway?)

        1. Are a substitute for sports metaphors employed by either the snooty or those whose teams are losing.

          Under normal conditions the article would have said Obama moved to “shut out” environmentalists or perhaps “did an end zone run” around them, and maybe he’d have thrown a spitball to the EPA or called time out on EPA regulators or something.

          That’s my best guess anyway. However, it does especially rankle that the cowboy metaphors got hauled in here — we have the least smog-creating vehicles out there, and their fuel grows abundantly.

      2. re: ClubTwitty… “Despite welcome moves to corral environmental Zealots,

        the Obama administration remains committed to regulation in general”

        IN GENERAL?

        That’s like saying that Obama is committed (In General)

        to Stopping U.S.Torture Law Violations, or Prosecuting War Crimes…In General!

        Like saying he gives a damn about Federal Law, Treaties or Constitution

        While he Protects Bush, Cheney and their Crooked Torture Lawyers.  

        If Liberals and Progressives fail to find an Obama Challenger, They will continue to suffer under the inept rule of

        the Democrat’s Hoover,

        moderate Republican Barack Obama.

        And while Obama and his robotic supporters continue to mock and ignore committed liberals and progressives who are hard working party activists, they will

        continue to lose faith in Obama and the Democratic Party.

  5. … reposted from the Friday thread since this diary was posted while I was looking up a reference (Since I prefer to support my claims about the real world with real evidence. Silly me.) …

    What ever industry groups claim to be the potential costs of compliance with environmental/safety/health regulations are overblown by at least 2 orders of magnitude.

    Interested persons can start with

    US GAO. (1999) Environmental Protection: Assessing the Impacts of EPA’s Regulations Through Retrospective Studies 5.

    Harrington, W. et al (1999) On the Accuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimates.

    Goodstein & Hodges (1997) Polluted Data: Overestimating Environmental Costs. Am. Prospect (Nov/Dec issue).

    There are many more such studies. Not only are the potential costs ridiculously over-estimated by industry groups, but good stiff regulations are best at stimulating innovation that dramatically reduces costs of compliance.

    Until the L-tads, ArapGOBs, MarkGs, Tiptons, Cantors and other T-wingers of the world can come up with actual data to support their “job-killing” meme, it is wise to assume that they haven’t a clue what they are talking about.

    Caving in to this false-meme enthralled caucus is to admit one’s own ignorance of what is good for real people. FWIW, corporations are NOT real people.

    Dammit. This whole week has pissed me off.

    2. With the U.S. creating zero jobs in August, economic scare tactics are bound to register. And America’s big emitters – the coal, oil and chemical industries – are masters of the art. They have been fighting hard to prevent the EPA from tightening a raft of emissions rules. Dow Chemical, for instance, has claimed that updated smog rules alone would cost as much as $90 billion. The Edison Electric Institute, speaking for electricity generators, warns that the EPA’s full slate of proposals could compel the industry to spend $129 billion on upgrades, force the closure of a fifth of coal generators, and lead to blackouts.

      But dire predictions from affected industries in the past have proved wildly exaggerated – or just plain wrong. During the Clean Air Act debate 20 years ago, the EEI warned that tightened standards would lift electricity prices by up to 13 percent by around 2009. In fact they fell by some 20 percent as of 2006.

      And in 1997 the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry group, warned that smog rules would wreak economic havoc. Yet regions that might have been affected actually had slightly better job creation rates on average than the nation as a whole in following years, according to a study by the Center for American Progress. Dropping the new rule also undermines generators that have tried to clean up ahead of time, including Exelon and GenOn Energy.

      Then there are the benefits that would have come with stricter standards, primarily in terms of health. The EPA reckons new emissions regulations could save as much as $100 billion in healthcare costs.

      http://blogs.reuters.com/colum…

    1. Things are really snowballing. The completely avoidable fiasco with the up-coming speech, the zero jobs report, now this kick in the solar plexus to rank and file Dems, not just the unreasonable “Professional Left”, either.  

      All this in the wake of being forced to give in to GO(TP) blackmail over the debt ceiling. Think this administration has hit bottom yet?  Any chance he’ll come up with anything inspiring in his jobs speech? Maybe he’ll suggest putting children back to work in mines to help families out.  And loosening onerous mine safety regulations. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Or maybe he’ll just say he wishes he could do something but those big tough Rs are threatening us again.

      It’s like he’s two Obamas.  One for foreign policy slaying Bin Laden, making all the right moves from the Arab spring through the toppling of Khadaffi (pick a spelling) and the other one, the skinny kid on the beach getting sand kicked in his face, for domestic policy.

      The biggest joke is, this is the guy the right wants us to believe is a dangerous, fire breathing, leftie radical out to destroy freedom and capitalism?  Seriously?  

  8. The environmentalists may have been the last to know, but not by much; an administration official told POLITICO that the White House didn’t notify the EPA of the decision until Thursday – and that EPA officials were not involved in the decision-making process.

    The EPA was “completely blindsided by this,” said John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

    As recently as last month, EPA lawyers were asking a federal appellate court in Washington to delay litigation over the Bush-era ozone standard because a new Obama ozone rule was just around the corner.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…

  9. The White House quickly deflected suggestions that the president had caved into Republican pressure with the 2012 election looming. “This has nothing to do with politics, nothing at all,” one White House official told reporters Friday on a conference call.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…

    1. He’s caving in to the banksters and Wall St. as well per my diary “Too big to fail – too big to be held accountable” last week.

      Maybe we need a candidate who will stand  against the economic royalists.

      “They are unanimous in their hatred for me, and I welcome their hatred !”

      FDR – 1936 election

      That man, who could not stand on his own, stood up for the working men and woman of this country.  

      1. Our choice will be Obama or whatever the GO(T)P puts up.  It will be a least bad option election.  If it weren’t for the fact that I don’t see Ruth Bader Ginsberg going through 2016 and maybe not slightly swingy Kennedy either, I might be willing to send a message with a third candidate myself even though I know how stupid that is. Well I wouldn’t really do that.  I’m old enought to know better.  But it would be tempting.

        You know the saddest part?  The fact that it only took a little over two and a half years to go from inauguration day to 2010 to this.  

        1. Do not misunderstand me there.   But Obama will need his base engaged, not just as reluctant voters.  I see little enthusiasm and strong headwinds.  This is bad policy. And bad politics.  

        2. decided to enter the race — wonder what the dynamics would be.  The GO(T)P’ers on the right trying to outdo each other, Obama floating somewhere in the middle, and a strong voice for sanity and middle class on the left.  

          2. which major party candidate would lose more votes to a competing third party candidate.  The end result would still be one of the two major party candidates as prez.  

  12. This would be a good time for you to come up with one of your happy talk,sunny, Obama can do no wrong and everything he does is either super or not his fault comments. Please half full this if you can.  

  15. “Somehow we need to get back the president we thought we elected in 2008.”

    BILL MCKIBBEN, an environmental activist, reacting after President Obama abandoned a plan for stricter air pollution guidelines.  

  16. President Obama seems to think his reelection depends on making Republicans and Republican-leaning independents happy while alienating Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. It’s an odd strategy.

    The man continues to be a huge disappointment on domestic policy.

  17. Airplanes have no smog controls and are the largest source of carbon emissions,fact.

    Tractors and other heavy equiptment have no smog controls and dump soot everywhere,fact.

    Stop picking on personal travel, the auto.

    You can’t even kill yourself with tailpipe emissions anymore.

      1. that Mark G also thinks that commercial airliners are hired by the government to produce chem trails.

        See George Noory or old Art Bell episodes for discussions of chem trails, chemicals put into the atmosphere at the behest of the evil government.

    2. MarkG cut and pasted the following:

      Airplanes have no smog controls and are the largest source of carbon emissions,fact.

      Additionally, he failed to cite a source despite demanding that others ought to.

      So, in just under 5 seconds I found the following (h/t to American citizens who support factual based information):

      )

      Given that combustion of coal for electricity generation produces more carbon dioxide emissions than the entire transportation sector, it makes it kind of hard for the above quoted “fact” to be true.

      Other factual-based information found on this very same webpage:

      Transportation: The transportation sector is the second largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S. Almost all of the energy consumed in the transportation sector is petroleum based, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Automobiles and light-duty trucks account for almost two-thirds of emissions from the transportation sector and emissions have steadily grown since 1990. Other sources of transportation emissions are freight trucks, aircraft, trains and boats.

      But then, no one really is surprised that MarkyG doesn’t know what the word fact means.

      Or maybe (?) MarkG meant to claim that

      Airplanes … are the largest source of carbon emissions from the combustion of jet fuel,fact.

  18. I can’t vote for Obama in 2012. Truly. I am sick of continually being bullied into voting for the “less of two evils.” Ralph Nader anyone?

    The only way Obama stops this nonsense and gets a spine is if we tell him and Boehner no. Republicans bully Obama… and in return, he bullies us. No more.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

120 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!