Bush Administration Sued Over Smog Rules
AP GraphicsBank
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.
© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. 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.
Popular in SciTech
- Oops! The five greatest scientific blunders
- Apple's next iPhone may be coming in June
- Zynga demands employees return stock or get fired
- Thousands online proclaim: Jahar Tsarnaev is innocent
- 40 years later: Why the Endangered Species Act still matters
- Beam this up: Creating the sounds of "Star Trek"
- Alternatives to Google Reader
- Google security: you (still) are the weakest link
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
"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.
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
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!!!
Poor George.
Can''t catch a break.
Funnel all pollution to Crawford TX !