Environmental Groups Hope Obama Will Rebuild EPA After Bush Years
There are also a whole host of air and water policies, ranging from mercury levels to smog standards, that environmentalists would like to see the EPA strengthen. In its waning days, in fact, the Bush administration's EPA is attempting to publish more rules that, if finalized, will likely lead to large increases in lead, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions from factories and power plants. The Obama administration could issue new rules to overturn the changes.
That process could be lengthy. But it doesn't have to be, since in many cases proposals for more stringent rules already exist—they've simply been cast aside. "There is already a whole base of knowledge out there, so this doesn't have to take forever" Steinzor says. "The most important thing for [Obama transition cochairman] John Podesta and the transition team is to make sure they have people in place, sitting at their desks."
Reader Comments
dioxin reassessment
Why is the dioxin reassessment having to be done again. It should be finalized. Since 1977 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has stated that dioxin is a "Human Carcinogen".
Interested in science? Check this out...
For just one example, check out the latest report from the Department of Interior's Office of the Inspector General regarding "The Endangered Species Act and the Conflict Between Science and Policy" at http://www.doioig.gov/. Or read a Washington Post article here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/12/report_interior_office_meddled.html?nav=rss_blog
The Inspector General found extensive improper influence from FWS officials in ESA decisions contrary to scientific evidence.
It truly is time for a change! I hope President-elect Obama's latest choices for Energy and Environment posts will renew a much-needed respect for science in our government.
Is less reduction cutting?
I thought a lot of the complaints about the Bush administration was it reduced the amounts of cuts, but not that he increased the amount going into the Air. It is a game when you say someone is increasing the mercury levels by 50% because they plan to cut 20% rather than 30%.
I do think the idea that we should tax meat (check out the proposed tax on cows, pigs and chickens for global warming impacts) out is a bad idea and this is what I fear on environmental regulation. Not sound science or good policy decision, but rather a feel good environmental wacko agenda led by ALF and PETA.
advertisement
