Last week, President Bush proposed lifting environmental controls set for industries by the Clinton Administration, saying that it would benefit these large companies, and ultimately benefit the American economy.

This sounded just perfect for a debate here, so...
What are everyone's opinions on the proposal?

All i've heard of Bush's environmental policies is the wildfire proposal and I didn't take that as a good sign. It doesn't look like this president is too interested in protecting the environment.

This item is not as simple as one might think. The controls that were lifted were for old plants only. The problem was that they are inefficient and do cause pollution. But if they want to improve just one small thing or one large thing for that matter...anything... in order to be more efficient or less polluting the rules that were in effect said they must change the ENTIRE plant. Now that just isn't reasonable. It is not going to happen. So no improvements were being made. One needs to really study this to get the entire understanding. As I said, it is not as simple as one might think.

MOUSE, you seem to know something about this so perhaps you (or anyone knowledgeable, of course) can help me.

It is my understanding that what is at issue is the repeal of the "New Source Review" clause of the Clean Air act of 1977. I could not find the full text of that clause, but I found an interpretation of it at The Heritage Foundation. I know, the Heritage Foundation; but lefties, hear me out on this one before you throw the tomatoes.

The Heritage Foundation claims: The also add

My confusion lies in the fact that I don't know if the Bush administration ordered the repeal of the entire clause or just the Clinton modifications of 1997.

I am bothered by the idea of the repeal either way, I suppose. The power companies in question had anywhere from 5 to 25 years to plan and prepare for these changes. It's a bit irresponsible for them to act like they didn't know it was coming.

This is where the democrats really show their weakness. According to CNN, "Electric companies and their employees contributed at least $11 million to the GOP in the 2001-02 election cycle" with coal companies contributing, "at least $1.9 million in political contributions in that period." I'm really surprised the left hasn't picked this one up and run with it.

It could be so easy for the democrats to spin that the power companies are getting a little quid pro quo for their election campaign donations. Yet, they haven't; wonder what gives?

I have searched, searched and searched some more. What I have come up with is a bit obtuse, but points to the lifting of the bans put on the plants by The Clinton Administration.
It is obvious that the demand for power is still as great as ever. If it is going to be so difficult and expensive to make any changes even though they cause a more efficient, less polluting effect, it simply won't be done. People are not in business to give away money. Their stock holders would desert them in droves. Well before that they would fire the Execs. It just isn't common sense. Some of the improvements needing to be made are small indeed, but to do this the entire plant must be, for all practical purposes, rebuilt. It will not happen. Also, no new ones are being built. We are headed for trouble in this area. People on this site complain about oil. We'll see what happens down the road. Remember this also, what is spent to improve, upgrade or not spent to improve upgrade(therefore being less efficient) the cost will be passed to you, the consumer. If allowed to become more efficient the cost passed on will be far less.
You haven't heard about the money, Jamie, because (According to The Washington Post) among others) though the majority of the money went to Republicans, Senator Robert Byrd was among the top 5 recipients of campaign contributions from the coal industry. (watch his votes on clean air) The top Congressional recipient of nuclear industry contributions was Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Dem NM. ( that is the same Jeff Bingaman who will be taking over the Energy and natural Resources Com.
I love this statement by TWP. More than a change of parties will be needed to shift policy on the environment. Citizens will have to monitor Democrats and Republicans alike Environmental groups could do.

OFF-TOPIC ASIDE ALERT!!!

Jaime:


Just as an aside, this is a great example for the "is the media liberal" threads. In fact, many progressive journalists HAVE addressed this, and quite extensively at that. It is only in the mainstream news that it gets ignored...

Im not concerned that we dont have enough energy. I would just like to see the whole world make the switch to Hydrogen... lol:
Hydrogen Technology making a difference (HOPEFULLY)