cleaner air 1.... Bush 0

[vidcc]

Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01


A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.

The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.

New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling "a major victory for clean air and public health" and a "rejection of a flawed policy."

"It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants," Spitzer said.

In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: "We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time."

[Tempestv]

that is good, next step is finding something besides coal to make electricity

[MagicNakor]

Like...water?

[Tempestv]

Like...water?

if it is done right, hydroelectic can be very good. currently, I beleve wind is the cheapest energy source.

[vidcc]

Like...water?

Hydroelectricity is certainly good emission-wise but building dams causes damage in other ways.

wind turbines are air friendly but they are a blight on the landscape

Nuclear power comes with its own dangers.

Solar panels where I live would be effective, but not so much to the north.


Until we can find an effective alternative power solution then we need to make sure that the most up to date tech. is used to keep our present polution to the minimum.

[MagicNakor]

I'm not sure what the cheapest is, honestly. Most of the electricity generated here (and sold to various states...California ) is hydroelectric.

[Busyman]

I'd love to get solar panels but not until I do my additions to the house (or Iif I'm even gonna stay here).

I heard they are expensive as well.

[Tempestv]

I'd love to get solar panels but not until I do my additions to the house (or Iif I'm even gonna stay here).

I heard they are expensive as well.

they are. cost/electical output ratio is really bad. in some areas they make a lot of sense (a friend of mine has them because he is off the power grid, but most of his power still comes from a wind turbine) on the grand scale, I beleve a solar furnace is pretty efficent.

[Barbarossa]

In the UK we are experimenting with Tidal Power

Obviously, it's a younger technology that wind or solar panels, but if researched, it would be clearly more dependable than the other two. If there's one thing that's predictable, it's the tides. Unlike the weather

[Busyman]

Very smart.