Air Commands

|

Nine states are challenging the Bush administration's new air pollution rules in federal court, arguing that they will increase pollution by allowing power plants to modernize without installing expensive emissions control equipment. The administration's response, as filtered through The New York Times: Will not! The story omits a crucial point that Gregg Easterbrook noted in The New Republic early last year: The Clean Air Act's "new source" requirements perversely encourage utilities to keep old, dirty plants online rather than switch to cleaner, more efficient equipment. In light of this fact, the burden of proof ought to be on the administration's critics to explain how relaxing these counterproductive rules will mean more pollution rather than less.

NEXT: Genes, Estrogen, and a Roomy Earth

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The enviros think ALL regulations are good. It’s their faith. Nothing bad can ever come of a federal or state environmental regulation. Therefore, they see any loosening of regulations as bad. Since a reg is inherently good, it can’t be bad.

    Anyone following the logic here?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.