Barack Obama’s speech*** on race in America inspired and impressed me as much as the next Democrat and you know I’ve always got one eye on the primary controversy since I’m a Florida voter. But as crucial as these hot issues are, they’re sure not leaving much room on the political sites for environmental discussion, are they?
While I certainly can’t compete with the larger sites, let’s talk about air quality and asthma on my little blog today.
Last week’s post on the EPA’s new ozone pollution standards is only one part of the story. The other part, of course, being, just why did EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson choose the more modest restriction when medical and health groups and its own advisory board recommended the stricter one? Especially since almost one in 13 U.S. children have asthma, and smog can make asthma worse, increase flares and severity of flares, and even cause death for people with lung problems.
John Walke, attorney and director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Clean Air Program, recently directed me to his behind-the-scenes post about the decision.
This is good stuff, guys, full of last-minute political wrangling and Walke’s legal insight. Some key points:
On Tuesday, March 11th, the President personally flexed his expert scientific muscles, and overruled the public welfare standard for ozone selected according to the scientific judgment of the EPA Administrator. Instead, the President ordered adoption of an ozone standard preferred by White House economists, a standard that EPA recognized to “lack scientific support.” And in doing so, the President relied upon the very cost considerations that the Supreme Court had ruled illegal in 2001.
Yep, you read that right. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the EPA cannot consider the cost of implementation when setting national ambient air quality standards. In other words, health comes before money. And yet our President forced the less-strict smog standard.
Because of cost.
And here’s what Walke has to say about the White House’s press briefing after the ruling:
Meanwhile, over at the White House on Friday, White House spokesperson Tony Fratto all but declared that cost considerations had been the President’s driving motivation for overruling EPA’s public welfare standard. At that morning’s press briefing, Fratto responded to a question asking why the President had intervened in EPA’s smog decision. Fratto responded that the President’s involvement was driven by a concern over “how federal regulations impact communities.”
Cost over public welfare? Especially when “public welfare” means the health of my child and yours and possibly your own if you have asthma or something similar? As I commented over on Walke’s blog, November can’t come soon enough.
***If you’ve somehow missed Obama’s history-making “A More Perfect Union” speech this week, check it out here:
I love this post. And what kills me is the complete and total absence of checks and balances. Isn’t the reason for the separate but equal branches of government supposed to ensure that legislation and federal regulation comply with national law and adhere to the United States Constitution?
If the reasons for deferring to a meaningless standard based solely on cost was blatantly trumpeted out at a press conference, and no one in Congress or the Supreme Court is calling foul, then our system is completely broken. And/or the people who are supposed to be controlling these matters are asleep at the wheel.
I don’t see this administration considering ‘cost to communities’ as soaring commodities prices driven by the cost of fuel for transport among other things eat consumers wallets into nothing. Then they wonder how this ‘consumer-led’ recession is upon us? Short sighted and hypocritical.
Sorry about the soap box. I’ll say it for you:
“The opinions expressed on Asthma Mom’s comments do not represent the opinions of the Asthma Mom herself”
LOL! Thanks for the great entry.
No, no….please feel free to get on your soap box, always (and welcome back).
You brought up a good point, too—I don’t see this administration exercising restraint in, say, the cost (in dollars AND lives) of the war in Iraq.
Thanks for your comment!
I don’t see this administration excersing any restraints.
And as much as they attempt to publically tout their interest in my well being, the debt from a questionalbe war, the falling of the american dollar, the drastic increase in gas and other energy as well as cost for food, the decline in clean air regs speak more loudly than GW at a microphone that he does not have my best interests at heart.
I realize that this isn’t a political blog, and I do not know who I will vote for in November, but I’m eternally grateful that this country will not have to face another 4 years of this regime.
Oh, I don’t know. I see some pretty severe restraint any time they pull up to the table for international environmental treaties.
Oh, wait. That’s not the good kind.
Yeah, 4 more years of this would be downright scary.