Spokane7
65°
September 2, 2011 in Nation/World
Obama halts controversial EPA regulation
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama today scrapped his administration’s controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders.
Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of smog’s main ingredient, in part because of the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy.
The announcement came shortly after a new government report on private sector employment showed that businesses essentially added no new jobs last month — and that the jobless rate remained stuck at a historically high 9.1 percent.
The withdrawal of the proposed regulation marks the latest in a string of retreats by Obama in the face of Republican opposition. Last December, he shelved, at least until the end of 2012, his insistence that Bush-era tax cuts should no longer apply to the wealthy. Earlier this year he avoided a government shutdown by agreeing to Republican demands for budget cuts. And this summer he acceded to more than a $1 trillion in spending reductions, with more to come, as the price for an agreement to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.
A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had muted praise for the White House, saying that withdrawal of the smog regulation was a good first step toward removing obstacles that are blocking business growth.
“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,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.
Major industry groups had lobbied hard for the White House to abandon the smog regulation and applauded today’s decision.
“The president’s decision is good news for the economy and Americans looking for work. EPA’s proposal would have prevented the very job creation that President Obama has identified as his top priority,” said Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.
The withdrawal of the proposed EPA rule comes three days after the White House identified seven such regulations that it said would cost private business at least $1 billion each. The proposed smog standard was estimated to cost anywhere between $19 billion and $90 billion, depending on how strict it would be.
Republican lawmakers have blamed what they see as excessive regulations backed by the Obama administration for some of the country’s economic woes, and House Republicans pledged this week to try to block four environmental regulations, including the one on some pollution standards, when they return after Labor Day.
But perhaps more than some of the other regulations under attack, the ground-level ozone standard is most closely associated with public health — something the president said he wouldn’t compromise in his regulatory review. Ozone is the main ingredient in smog, which is a powerful lung irritant that occasionally forces cancellation of school recesses and causes asthma and other lung ailments.
Criticism from environmentalists, a core Obama constituency, was swift following the White House announcement.
“The Obama administration is caving to big polluters at the expense of protecting the air we breathe,” said Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters. “This is a huge win for corporate polluters and huge loss for public health.”
In his statement, the president said that withdrawing the regulation did not reflect a weakening of his commitment to protecting public health and the environment.
“I will continue to stand with the hardworking men and women at the EPA as they strive every day to hold polluters accountable and protect our families from harmful pollution,” he said.
The decision mirrors one made by Obama’s predecessor, President George W. Bush. EPA scientists had recommended a stricter standard to better protect public health. Bush personally intervened after hearing complaints from electric utilities and other affected industries. His EPA set a standard of 75 parts per billion, stricter than one adopted in 1997, but not as strong as federal scientists said was needed to protect public health.
The EPA under Obama proposed in January 2010 a range for the concentration of ground-level ozone allowed in the air — from 60 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion. That’s about equal to a single tennis ball in an Olympic-size swimming pool full of tennis balls.
Jackson, Obama’s environmental chief, said at the time that “using the best science to strengthen these standards is a long overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier.”
Obama has scheduled a prime-time speech to a joint session of Congress and the nation next Thursday night to outline plans he has made for combating high joblessness and spurring economic growth.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
liberal_in_right_wing_land on September 02 at 9:35 a.m.
Amazing that the tea baggers on here think this guy is actually a democrat. Obama is more a republican than many republicans are.
This is just getting embarrassing by Obama now. Never before has, even when Bush was president, the office of the presidency been so disrespected like what the republicans have done to Obama, yet he allows them to continue to dictate the terms of everything in Washington and working with a group of people who have openly said they have no desire to work with him or help him do anything to fix the country.
Really no sure how I can vote for this guy in 2012, I mean if I want a republican in office I would have voted for McCain and Palin. Obama has proved beyond any doubt that there truly is very little difference between the two political parties today….they all are fighting for the same thing and thats protecting their very very rich campaign donors and giant corporations, as those are the ones truly running this country.
Maybe someday we will actually get some politicians that work for we the people, instead of just for the corporations and rich people.
mikeln on September 02 at 10:10 a.m.
These people are sitting on record profits and yet they will not employ people to build and maintain pollution control devices. So…..crappy air for us $$$$ for them, how nice. I hope obama has something up his sleave, if not, he’s just a republican
valleyman on September 02 at 10:17 a.m.
I’m too busy laughing to write anything else… sorry…
idahocity on September 02 at 10:23 a.m.
how about these agencies just enforce, and not selectively, the laws that congress passes not an arbitrary figure derived by the law enforcement officer/president.
norpass on September 02 at 10:25 a.m.
Obama. Lemme see here, bails out Wall Street, big banks, could NOT create a job to save his sorry arse, loves war any war, despises the US Constitution, and now he’s all for crappy air.
Yeah, the Crats must be spinning on poles about now. Or polls. Get it? Polls as in ‘polling’?
Election 2012 will be a banner year for anyone that isn’t Barack Hussein Obama.
pjc on September 02 at 11:14 a.m.
So liberal, you sayin’ you didn’t buy into that hope & change stuff? I guess you aren’t keeping that Shepard Fairey poster anymore? How about the Obama bumper stickers?
Tis a pity he’s not Gore.
Squid on September 02 at 11:14 a.m.
Everybody is a Republican, except the Republicans. They are Tea Baggers. Everyone gets a promotion! I see why Libs are called Progressives now.
misjustice on September 02 at 11:17 a.m.
Oh, and the TeaOCons still hates on ‘em!
; )
misjustice on September 02 at 11:19 a.m.
*****they all are fighting for the same thing and thats protecting their very very rich campaign donors and giant corporations****
Never thought I’d agree with liberal, but this is so true! Problem is Obama has never stopped campaigning or started to lead. He has been too busy vacationing, playing golf, and campaigning, campaigning, campaigning. We all know where his priorities are & it’s not with the American public.
Quote (unknown author): If you want to conquer a country, first breakdown their economy.
Well, BO is doing his job there!!
RedCedar on September 02 at 3:19 p.m.
I’d write the headline, “Obama Slashes Environmental Protection”. After all, that’s how it would have been written if Bush (Jr or Sr) had done the same thing.
Now, if they would just get rid of that stupid light bulb ban.
ManleyPointer on September 02 at 4:13 p.m.
“TeaOCons”? What does that have to do with gay sexual practices?
selkirks on September 02 at 4:31 p.m.
Another win for the radically-right Tea Party and GOP. When will the compromising end, Mr. Obama? STAND YOUR GROUND!
ManleyPointer on September 02 at 4:59 p.m.
I thought we LIKED compromise?
Traveler on September 02 at 5:00 p.m.
RedCedar, it’s not a ban, it’s a mandated upgrade in efficiency, requiring that light bulbs be 30 percent more efficient than today’s 100-watt bulb, thus saving about $12.5 billion in energy costs each year. There will still be plenty of incandescent light bulbs for sale five years from now; they’ll just cost more and use less energy.
And here’s a big surprise: The major bulb manufacturers have already re-tooled to meet the new standards. In fact, they oppose repealing the so-called BULB Act (signed into law by GW Bush, btw). Here’s an excerpt from Froma Harrop’s “Confessions of a Recovering Light Bulb Hoarder” column back in July (it’s a great column; I highly recommend reading the whole thing):
“Republicans fancy themselves business’s protector from changing regulations. Well, the big bulb manufacturers have already retooled their factories to meet the law’s requirements, and now Republicans want to pull the rug out.
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association has issued a statement complaining that repeal of the standards “would strand millions of dollars in investments, provide a marketplace advantage to companies who have not made similar investments, create regulatory uncertainty, and increase energy consumption in the United States.” (http://www.creators.com/opinion/froma-harrop/confessions-of-a-recovering-light-bulb-hoarder.html)
RedCedar on September 02 at 6:34 p.m.
Here’s the problem with the light bulb ban, 56traveller. Yes, I know it’s a mandatory efficiency rule, not a ban, per se, but ordinary incandescents can’t meet the efficiency so it’s a de-facto ban on them. The thing is that people are really pretty smart when it comes to saving money. Spiral fluorescents are such money-savers that even without regulations, it’s a no-brainer for people to switch to them in the applications where they make sense. That means indoors in dry environments. Even so, there are a lot of complaints about them failing far short of their advertised life. On the average, they still save money, but only in benign environments. In harsh environments they simply don’t last. I’m involved with a mine tour where we have about 100 bulbs on light strings underground. I would love to switch to fluorescents, because it would save $90/mo in electricity costs, but they simply do not hold up. The dampness gets into the electronics in the base and they fail faster than incandescents. In a regulated industrial or commercial environment, the mercury in them is a big deal. A friend of mine manages a large industrial operation and he tells me that he will not use them because if someone drops one and breaks it they have to do an expensive haz-mat cleanup.
I realize that LED lights don’t have the mercury issues and may (or may not) be more reliable than spiral fluorescents but they are at least 10X the cost for only 10% or so better efficiency. The Achilles heel of LED bulbs is heat dissipation. They have a terrible time getting rid of the waste heat, which if not gotten rid of shortens the life tremendously (the rule of them is the failure rate doubles for every 10 degrees centigrade increase in component temperature). That’s why a lot of them have fancy black aluminum heat sinks on the back of them.
In short, people are smart enough to choose the most efficient bulb for their particular application without requiring a government mandate, but the mandate will require that people use the modern bulbs in places where the high failure rate makes them LESS efficient in terms of money and overall lifetime carbon footprint than incandescents. By the way, I have also had a spiral fluorescent bulb actually catch fire, which is something an incandescent will never do. I use a lot of bulbs of all kinds in my buildings, and I use fluorescents wherever they will be reliable. I’m even willing to accept a certain fraction of early failures due to faulty components, but they are simply no good under extreme environmental conditions, especially anything that causes condensation on them. No doubt the designs will gradually be improved, both for fluorescents and LEDs and eventually those types will be suitable for harsh environments and won’t involve haz-mat expenses, but we’re not there yet and I don’t see the government mandate making it happen any faster.
Liberty_Bell on September 02 at 6:58 p.m.
Mankind is considered (by the radical environmentalists) the lowest and the meanest of all species and is blamed for everything.
Dixie Lee Ray
jddavis on September 02 at 7:01 p.m.
Obama must be a racist! Doesn’t he know about climate change?
misjustice on September 02 at 8:14 p.m.
Hey, I just got a big ol’ box of those mercury filled fluorescent light bulbs for FREE! It was from AVISTA! Mailed right to my door step! I didn’t ask for them, sign up for them, or order them, or anything…
What’s up with that?
10 spiral fluorescent bulbs with the “new soft white” light…FREE???? Well, I’ll be danged!
Thanks AVISTA! I think…I mean, at first when I saw the box on my porch I was afraid to pick it up; since I hadn’t ordered anything. I read the return address on the box before I touched it, in case it was a bomb or something. So for a few minutes I was kinda on alert…just in case. But I’m sure that AVISTA had no way of knowing that a box of free stuff could give someone pause…
At any rate, if those bulbs last as long as the box says they do, I’m good until the year 2020! At least!
As long as I don’t accidently drop one and it breaks…
DickAdams on September 02 at 8:44 p.m.
Being there ain`t no free lunch, I`m told AVISTA received funding to send out the so called “FREE” carton of fluorescent bulbs by none other than the Obama green gang. I`m counting on 90 MPG of gasoline very soon now..
Squid on September 03 at 3:04 p.m.
The weird part about those Avista bulbs is that they were sent Priority Mail. Was it that important to pay double the shipping price to get them there faster? How much did it cost to have them shipped to Avista? How much did Avista pay to have them repackaged? Another waste of our money. Not sure if it was our tax payer money, or our Avista bill money. I’d much rather buy my own bulbs, so I know how much I paid for those bulbs.