The announcement came up in the context of a decision to stall, for at least 90 days, a regulatory rule designed to protect communities in the industrial Midwest and Northeast whose air is unhealthy. That includes much of Ohio, including the Miami Valley.

The rule is called the "Clean Air Interstate Rule." It was prepared by the Bush administration's own Environmental Protection Agency, an organization hardly known for excessive tree-hugging. After a yearlong process of review and public comment that began in November 2003, all that remained before it could go into effect was a presidential green light. The Bush administration decided to delay implementation while it makes a last-ditch effort to push its controversial "Clear Skies" legislation that's hung up in Congress.

The move makes no sense from the standpoint of environmental policy. The uncertainty it creates represents a setback for cities, such as Dayton, that fail to meet federal clean air standards for greenhouse gases and small airborne particulates.

In addition to public health risks posed by the pollutants, "nonattainment" communities (including 474 counties nationally) have a hard time competing for industrial development because of additional -- and expensive -- anti-pollution steps that must be taken before new plants can come online. The Clean Air Interstate Rule recognizes that local areas can't improve air quality unless standards are set, and enforcement measures put in place, for the much larger regions of the country that contribute to the problem.

Proponents of the "Clear Skies" initiative point out that that legislation includes language that are identical in substance to the proposed rule. They say these provisions would be stronger if made part of a federal statute, rather than a regulatory rule because statutes would not be subject to lengthy court challenges.

All of this is true, but only up to a point. The legislation hasn't moved through Congress because it sidesteps other pressing environmental concerns and would roll back highly effective protections in the Clean Air Act.

For example, it doesn't begin to tackle issues relating to global warming and other problems with carbon fuels. It would do away with procedures that enable local communities to petition the U.S. EPA to bring enforcement actions against "up-wind" polluters in other states.

It also would also decisively kill the "new source" rule, a requirement that power plants and other polluters upgrade pollution control devices when they build new plants or expand old ones.

The Bush administration already has tried to undermine the new source rule, a move that has had a dramatic impact on "ongoing litigation, out-of-court settlements, and new enforcement actions against coal-fired electric plants," according to the EPA's inspector general.

However one feels about these "clear skies" issues, the Clean Air Interstate Rule should move ahead. About that there's no genuine dispute. Rather than being held hostage while the legislation is debated, it should be implemented without delay.