Air Quality Experts Decry New Bush Policy

President Bush is being criticized in this article for his policy in regards to allowable levels of air quality over national parks and wilderness areas. The policy his administration is advocating is allowing the state of North Dakota to choose the year it wants as the baseline year. This baseline year will be used to see whether pollution increased more than the minimum amount allowed under the Clean Air Act. Average emissions will be used throughout the year rather than periods of peak emissions so it is obvious that the state would pick the year that exhibits the lowest amount of pollution. The pollution levels at the baseline will be used in determining the amount of pollution that will be deemed acceptable in future years. The Environmental Protection Agency is completely dissatisfied with Bush’s policy and believes that it is a manipulation of science. Those analyzing programs by the Bush administration say that data from agencies dealing with science is adjusted in scientific analysis to meet Bush’s political agenda (Shogren, 2004).

This article clearly highlights the role of the president in dealing with agency funding and rules. It shows that the President can go against the desires of an agency to create policy that he thinks will be best effective for his political goals. The EPA has looked at pollution rates in North Dakota and has seen in increase in these rates since the last baseline year 1977. They require the state to make reductions in pollutions before more power plants can be built. The state has plenty of coal and wants to open more plants to export energy to other states (Shogren, 2004). Bush’s administration is focused on energy and has a reputation of ignoring environmental concerns.

What worries the EPA the most is that the state would be able to build more power plants without first making existing facilitates comply with pollution controls (Shogren, 2004). The state of Nevada should have to prove how it would lower pollution before it is given permission to build more power plants.

The author failed to give specifics on whether the Nevada State Legislature has their own Clean Air Act. The author should have included information about other states that have national parks and whether most states in general have higher pollution rates than in the past. If so, it should be noted whether the EPA is enforcing their rules and how. It would be nice to have in the article whether EPA rules are tied to highway money that the federal government withholds from states that fail to comply. A quote from a legislator or a park staff member in Nevada would have been helpful as well (EPA, 2004).

According to the EPA Website, the Clean Air Act was passed in 1990 in which states do most of the work. State air pollution agencies hold hearings on applications of power plants and the EPA feels that this federal act should be implemented at the state level because state legislators would be more familiar about special pollution problems and whether they affect certain geographical areas. States are required to involve the public in this process and to produce state implementation plans (SIPs) explaining how it will do its job in creating regulations to clean up polluted areas. The EPA must approve of the SIP or the EPA has the authority to take over in enforcing the Clean Air Act in that state (EPA 2004). One of the important components to this act is how air pollution is defined as being, “a power plant, factory, or anything else that releases pollutants into the air. Cars, trucks, and other motor vehicles are sources, and consumer products and machines used in industry can be sources too” (EPA, 1, 2004).

Our federal government would be much more effective if federal agencies were given more leeway in helping craft legislation as well as being involved in the process of enforcing such legislation.