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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
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?