Bush Administration Sued Over Smog Rules

Case Argues EPA Ignored Scientists' Findings About Minimum Safe Air Quality Standards

(AP)  Health and environmental organizations filed a lawsuit Tuesday arguing that the Bush administration failed to protect public health and the environment when it issued new smog requirements.

The lawsuit maintains that the Environmental Protection Agency ignored the recommendation of a key advisory panel of scientists who had recommended more stringent smog standards.

The suit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by Earthjustice on behalf of a number of environmental and conservation groups and the American Lung Association.

Eleven states filed a parallel suit against the EPA in an effort to overturn what Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called weak ozone standards. The states were Connecticut, California, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. Other plaintiffs were the District of Columbia, the city of New York and Pennsylvania's department of environmental protection.

The EPA in March issued tougher health standards for ozone, commonly known as smog, requiring that airborne concentrations be lowered from a maximum 84 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion.

But an EPA science advisory board - and most health experts - had recommended a limit of 60 to 70 parts per billion to adequately protect the elderly, people with respiratory problems and children.

The EPA also did not go as far as the science panel had recommended in setting a separate standard to protect the environment, especially plants, forests and wildlife, from smog. The EPA lowered the standard equal to the primary standard safeguarding public health, but it rejected a more beneficial "seasonal standard" urged by conservationists.

EPA and White House officials have acknowledged that the seasonal standard had been opposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, which oversees government regulation. The issue was settled after President Bush intervened directly on behalf of the White House staff only hours before the rule was announced.

David Baron, an attorney for Earthjustice, said the Clean Air Act "requires EPA to adopt standards strong enough to protect our lungs and our environment" and that the EPA standard fails to do so.

"The EPA's decision to disregard the overwhelming evidence and the advice of respected experts is a decision that we cannot allow go unchallenged," said Bernadette Toomey, president of the American Lung Association.

Other health and environmental organizations involved in the lawsuit were the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, National Parks and Conservation Association and the Appalachian Mountain Club.

Johnson, appearing last week at a House hearing, defended his decision, calling the new rules the most protective smog requirements ever issued by the agency and significantly tougher than the standard they replaced, which was issued in 1997.

Johnson has said that he took into account recommendations by the advisory panel of scientists, but simply disagreed with them. The business community had been lobbying hard to keep the old smog standard of 84 parts per billion.

This is only the latest of a number of recent high-profile lawsuits against the EPA in connection with air pollution and climate-related rules.

Environmentalists and a number of states also have challenged in court the EPA's refusal to allow California to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars; its rules regulating mercury from power plants; and its drawn-out deliberations over whether to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.

[kansas1946]

Um, folks. Here''''s a clue: Repent6''''s post has got to be a joke. I strongly suspect it is a snarky satire of ''''Ditto Heads'''' who actually say similarly inane babblings. Ditto Heads? You know! Those clonal minded people who voted in this ship of fools.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by derekcurrie at 08:43 PM : May 29, 2008
***************************

Yes, I agree. Got to be a joke. No one could really be that dumb. :o)

[zunipus]

"My Lord these liberals are so dumb. They are all about greed and money, which is why this stupid STUPID STUPID lawsuit has been filed.

"Global warming propagandist fanatics are in for a rude awakening when God judges this world."

Posted by Repent6 at 06:05 PM : May 28, 2008

Um, folks. Here''s a clue: Repent6''s post has got to be a joke. I strongly suspect it is a snarky satire of ''Ditto Heads'' who actually say similarly inane babblings. Ditto Heads? You know! Those clonal minded people who voted in this ship of fools.

[zunipus]

What I want to know is when Bush and Cheney are going to be locked in handcuffs and hauled away to jail for treason. Hopefully this lawsuit is the start of the deluge.

Why is it so out of vogue to believe in and support the Constitution of the United State of America? Why don''t politicians have a clue about being elected ''representatives'' of citizens as opposed to their own selfish desires?

:-P

[usbrit-2009]

This whole thing is stupid. What does Bush have to do with any of this? This is an EPA issue. We have much more important things to worry about. I''''m more worried about the economy right now.

Posted by mcharlton4

"The issue was settled after President Bush intervened directly on behalf of the White House staff only hours before the rule was announced."

I''d say it does have something to do with him!!!

[mcharlton]

This whole thing is stupid. What does Bush have to do with any of this? This is an EPA issue. We have much more important things to worry about. I''m more worried about the economy right now.

[lochlan-2009]

So, when the Bush Admin. lose, who pays the settlement?

[bigsk8fan]

doesn''t george w bush believe that there is no credible science proving the existence of smog?

[feelfree4u]

Poor George.

Can''t catch a break.

[jimfinster]

solution:

Funnel all pollution to Crawford TX !

[firststate]

The EPA rule was about money, not the lawsuit. The EPA failed to follow scientific recommendations after intense lobbying by the business community. The lawsuit is about getting the EPA to follow the science not the money. Money, especially big money is at the core of the DickNBush administration. No law or regulation is too important to ignore if the money is right.

[rf35]

My Lord these liberals are so dumb. They are all about greed and money, which is why this stupid STUPID STUPID lawsuit has been filed.

Global warming propagandist fanatics are in for a rude awakening when God judges this world.

Posted by Repent6 at 06:05 PM : May 28, 2008

First off, the lawsuit is to overturn the standard in favor of tougher requirements; it has nothing to do with money in the sense that the plaintiffs will be getting rich off of it. They are, in fact, non-profits.

Second, smog and global warming are not the same thing. While ozone is a greenhouse gas, the complaint is about its danger to humans and the environment as a poison, not its contribution to climate change (if you fall for such silliness).

[ricknuber]

"They are all about greed and money, which is why this stupid STUPID STUPID lawsuit has been filed."
Posted by Repent6 at 06:05 PM : May 28, 2008

Your post was so horribly dumb, my mind needed an extra second to take it all in.

The article does not say whether the plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages or simply to force the EPA to do their jobs, which is far more likely.

How is this lawsuit about money? Seriously, please explain. Can you cite sources for your claims that this is in any way about money?

You really are stunningly stupid.

[rf35]

It seems these days that expecting a federal agency to do its job is like expecting a monkey to fix the economy. FEMA, the FDA, the EPA; is everything with %u201Cagency%u201D tacked onto its name doomed to be a grand waste of effort?It seems these days that expecting a federal agency to do its job is like expecting a monkey to fix the economy. FEMA, the FDA, the EPA; is everything with %u201Cagency%u201D tacked onto its name doomed to be a grand waste of effort? Most of these federal fools are bloated lummoxes that bend to the will of the wealthiest lobbyists and kowtow to Great Emperor Bush II. They completely ignore their science advisors when their advice is inconvenient. They spend much of their time crying about their budgets being insufficient while not even trying to do what they can with what they have. The FDA is a joke, FEMA is a disaster, and the EPA is downright crooked. And those are just the first three that popped into my head.

[ricknuber]

"Global warming propagandist fanatics are in for a rude awakening when God judges this world."
Posted by Repent6 at 06:05 PM : May 28, 2008

What a moronic sentiment. So, those who are trying to be good stewards of God''s Earth, as is directed in he Bible, are going to be judged harshly by God for doing so?

You, sir, are a troll, and a rather inept one at that. If you''re going to use God as a boogeyman to scare people into believing your partisan drool, you might want to get it right.

Drop dead.