The power of one
The 35th birthday of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) passed last December 2 with little fanfare. EPA
Administrator Stephen L. Johnson noted at the time that, "Over the
last three and a half decades, through the use of innovative and
collaborative approaches to environmental protection and a commitment
to responsible stewardship, we have made remarkable progress in our
ongoing effort to make the air cleaner, water purer, and the land
better protected."
He is surely correct. It's safe to say that no
government agency has played a more pivotal role in our collective
health and welfare—and that of our children—than the EPA, so credit is
due. We are all better off for it. That's not to say the progress
hasn't been slowed by controversy—some deserved, but most the natural
consequence of balancing emerging science with politics.
The bad old days
Most Americans aren't old enough to remember how bad
air, water, and pesticide pollution were in the 1960s. Rachel Carson's
Silent Spring, published in 1962, attacked the indiscriminate use of
pesticides and began a revolution in public opinion—especially when
she noted that "the common salad bowl may easily present a combination
of organic phosphate insecticides" that could interact with lethal
consequences. Seemingly for the first time, people were aghast at the
destruction of nature and began to band together to demand that the
government take action to protect their health.
When the world's environmental problems began to draw
international attention, the blame game began. In May 1969, United
Nations Secretary-General U Thant gave the planet only 10 years to
avert environmental disaster and blamed the lion's share of the
pending planetary catastrophe on the U.S. That same year, Under
Secretary of the Interior Russell E. Train noted, "If environmental
deterioration is permitted to continue and increase at present rates,
[man] wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell [of surviving]."
As environmental consciousness became one of the
defining issues of the era, President Nixon signed the National
Environmental Policy Act on New Year's Day 1970 and named Train (a
future EPA administrator) chairman of the first Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ). By December of that year, the CEQ had
become the EPA, and the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 had become the law
of the land. That it took less than a year from formation of the CEQ
to passage of the CAA showed how quickly government could respond to a
grass-roots idea whose time had come.
Three and counting
Speaking of anniversaries, three years have passed
since President Bush sent his Clear Skies initiative to Congress,
where it has fallen victim to dueling experts and agendas. One camp
contends that any forward-looking air-pollution law should also target
power plants' CO2 emissions because of their purported link
to climate change. On the other side are folks like Bruce Josten,
executive VP for government affairs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Josten says his organization opposes regulating
greenhouse gas emissions because doing so would impose crippling costs
on USA Inc. He says U.S. private-sector expenditures on technologies
to reduce climate change already top those of all other countries
combined. "Rather than tank the entire American economy and kill off
millions of jobs, our concern is how to . . . balance [environmental
protection and] economic growth," Josten said. "That's what we're
trying to figure out."
Competing cost-benefit analyses
Adding to the Clear Skies controversy is a recent
Congressional Research Service (CRS) report underscoring EPA findings
that alternative bills could produce benefits "far outweighing" costs.
CRS is a branch of the Library of Congress. The CRS report, "Cost and
Benefits of Clear Skies: EPA's Analysis of Multi-Pollutant Clean Air
Bills," reexamined data touted by the EPA in October as the most
thorough on legislation aimed at reducing air pollution from fossil
fuel–fired power generation.
In addition to the Clear Skies bill as amended, the
EPA analysis looked at two Senate bills more ambitious than Clear
Skies. The CRS said its "reanalysis" indicates that Clear Skies would
have "negligible incremental costs and add benefits of $6 billion in
2010 and $3 billion in 2020." So far, so good. The two competing bills
sponsored by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.)
require steeper cuts and shorter deadlines. According to the EPA,
Carper's bill would produce annual benefits five to eight times larger
than those of Clear Skies at a yearly cost between $3 billion and $4.2
billion. Jeffords' more-restrictive alternative would produce benefits
10 and 16 times greater, imposing costs between $18.1 billion and
$23.6 billion.
Faint praise
But the CRS concluded that the EPA's analysis isn't
all that useful. The CRS says it penalizes short-term pollution
reduction schedules for mercury found in the alternatives to Clear
Skies and fails to consider how natural gas price volatility might
impact the costs of plant air-pollution control. "The result is an
analysis that some will argue is no longer sufficiently up to date to
contribute substantively to congressional debate," the CRS report
said. Ouch: That's going to leave a mark.
So the Clear Skies bill remains stalled in the Senate,
with the bill's co-sponsors—Senators James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and George
V. Voinovich (R-Ohio)—"still waiting for a workable solution to be
offered by the [Democrats]." Situation normal.
Where is a Rachel Carson when you need one?
—Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
Editor-in-Chief
Copyright © 2005 - Platts
Please visit:
www.platts.com
Their coverage of energy matters is extensive!!.
|