Obama's vision for environment is lost in smog

http://www.projo.com/news/efitzpatrick/edward_fitzpatrick_8_09-08-11_JUQ6JJ2_v20.7567d.html

 

Obama's vision for environment is lost in smog

01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, September 8, 2011

Perhaps President Obama's next move will be to declare that evolution is a theory with some gaps in it. Perhaps he's going to run to the right of Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Now, my theory might have some gaps in it. But it seemed plausible as Mr. Obama did an about-face on Friday, scrapping plans to tighten regulations to reduce health-threatening smog.

He caved in to criticism from congressional Republicans and business groups, cutting the legs out from under Environmental Protection Agency director Lisa P. Jackson and the EPA's scientific advisers, who had proposed lowering the ozone standard of 75 parts per billion, set under George W. Bush, to a stricter standard of 60 to 70 parts per billion.

With his approval ratings plunging to a record low and headlines reporting zero job growth, Mr. Obama became just the latest politician to buy into the false choice between the economy and the environment. He became just the latest candidate to put politics first and science second.

Maybe he thinks this decision will result in a warm tea party embrace or a big hug from the American Petroleum Institute. He shouldn't hold his breath. (Or perhaps he should, given smog levels.)

"I'm deeply disappointed in the Obama White House's decision to defer acting on ozone pollution, a decision that will directly harm Rhode Island," said U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee. "Only national enforcement will protect us here in Rhode Island from the 'bad air' days we experience due to ozone caused by out-of-state power plants."

Many Midwestern power plants have inadequate pollution controls and use tall smokestacks to belch pollution into prevailing winds, which bring the pollution to Rhode Island, he said.

Jonathan Stone, executive director of the state's largest environmental organization, Save The Bay, said it's "very disappointing" that Mr. Obama scrapped regulations "based on years and years of research and science." The cost of the regulations would have been far less than the pollution's cost to public health, he said, citing breathing difficulties that often afflict the very young and old.

"The president has an array of challenges, and we understand that," he said. "But there's such compelling evidence and benefits, that it seems really misguided to forgo those benefits for short-term political considerations."

Stone fears the political climate will result in rollbacks of environmental laws that have produced a cleaner Narragansett Bay. The country has seen significant economic growth since those laws were enacted in the 1970s, he said, so "it's very disingenuous to say you can either have jobs or a clean environment. It's so clearly a false choice. It's baloney."

It's baloney that fiscal conservatives who never questioned the $800-billion Iraq war now say we cannot afford cleaner air. It's baloney that fearless leaders and knee-jerk anti-environmentalists now want to wage war on environmental regulations, quaking and raving at clear-and-present dangers such as compact fluorescent bulbs. And it's baloney that the president would waver on the smog regulations while declaring (with a straight face) that his commitment to the EPA's work is "unwavering."

efitzpat@projo.com