Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: the end of new source review



Richard Tarara wrote:
Since we keep getting Gordon's choice of articles

We, Kemosabe?

This is phys-l. There is no record of Prof. Aubrecht ever
having posted anything whatsoever to this list.

(fairly one-sided in my opinion), one might want to look at the other
side occasionally. The article below better explains the aims of
relaxing the NSR regulations. I must say, before reading the article
I had EXACTLY the same thoughts that Mr. Adler expresses.

http://www.nationalreview.com/adler/adler200310010939.asp

That's not physics. That's a partisan polemic. It is devoid
of facts and figures, relying instead on a couple of
incompletely-described anecdotes. An elementary lexical
deconstruction how far out in right field it is:
-- democrats are called "democratic partisans"
-- environmentalists are called "environmental alarmists"
-- Mr. Bush is called a "republican leader" (not a
"republican partisan").

When the National Review starts quoting the American
Enterprise Institute, my skepticism meter is pegged.

The NYT Magazine article by Bruce Barcott, in contrast,
contains numerous facts and figures. If these figures
are wrong, please tell us the correct figures.

My opinion is:
-- NSR is complex and hard to understand. Name-calling
will not help us understand it.
-- NSR has had some good consequences over the years, as
intended. Like most things, however, there have been
some unintended not-so-good consequences. It is a bit
of a blunt instrument, and the case could be made for
fiddling with the edges a bit.
-- But letting off the hook big companies that have been
wantonly violating the law for years? It's a scandal.
-- Some people think George Bush is an idiot. I don't.
It's really quite clever how he points to a certain
upgrade and says that it reduces pollution ... which
is (narrowly speaking) true. He just forgets to mention
that an upgrade that complied with the law would have
reduced pollution by a vastly larger factor. It's a
masterpiece of telling the truth dishonestly.




[Original Message] From: Gordon Aubrecht <aubrecht.1@OSU.EDU> To:
<PHYSOC@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> Date: 4/4/2004 8:21:48 AM Subject: the
end of new source review

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/magazine/04BUSH.html

New York Times Magazine, p. 38

April 4, 2004

Changing All the Rules

By Bruce Barcott ---------- Bruce Barcott is a contributing editor
at Outside magazine. This is his first cover article for The Times
Magazine. ----------

President Bush doesn't talk about new-source review very often. In
fact, he has mentioned it in a speech to the public only once, in
remarks he delivered on Sept. 15, 2003, to a cheering crowd of
power-plant workers and executives in Monroe, Mich., about 35 miles
south of Detroit. It was an ideal audience for his chosen subject.
New-source review, or N.S.R., involves an obscure and complex set
of environmental rules and regulations that most Americans have
never heard of, but to people who work in the power industry, few
subjects are more crucial.

The Monroe plant, which is operated by Detroit Edison, is one of
the nation's top polluters. Its coal-fired generators emit more
mercury, a toxic chemical, than any other power plant in the state.
Until recently, power plants like the one in Monroe were governed
by N.S.R. regulations, which required the plant's owners to install
new pollution-control devices if they made any significant
improvements to the plant. Those regulations now exist in name
only; they were effectively eliminated by a series of rule changes
that the Bush administration made out of the public eye in 2002 and
2003. What the president was celebrating in Monroe was the
effective end of new-source review.

"The old regulations," he said, speaking in front of a huge
American flag, "undermined our goals for protecting the environment
and growing the economy." New-source review just didn't work, he
said. It dissuaded power companies from updating old equipment. It
kept power plants from operating at full efficiency. "Now we've
issued new rules that will allow utility companies, like this one
right here, to make routine repairs and upgrades without enormous
costs and endless disputes," the president said. "We simplified the
rules. We made them easy to understand. We trust the people in
this plant to make the right decisions." The audience applauded.