The Clear Skies bill, currently being discussed in the US Congress, there is a step back or forward in the fight against pollution?
The publication of a further interim report of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST) of the American Academy of Sciences (NAS) seems to have revived the controversy. 2002 presented by President Bush, Clear Skies would replace the existing legislation designed to reduce 70 2018% by emissions of industrial origin of three major pollutants (mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide) .
For this, including plans to establish a system of "pollution rights"; in practice, a company that outperformed the authorized pollution threshold receives credits that it can sell to another company overtaking. According to the work of the BEST of the experts, it is "unlikely that Clear Skies lead to limitation of emissions of stricter individual sources than those obtained with the New Source Review program (NSR)" - a set of rules that oblige since 1977 the power plants to adopt pollution reduction devices during day their facilities launching operations (not maintenance, subjective criterion that gave rise to flexible interpretations). The sentence was reacted most critical vis-à-vis the environmental policy of the government who see the prelude to a weakening of regulations on air quality.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for its part, contends go in the right direction.
As for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council (a group of industrial pressure), he noted that if current laws may seem strict, they often lead to long
legal battles; Overall, the credit trading program should be more effective. For comparison, a similar project of EPA against acid rain worked perfectly there about ten years, but more recently, established in Southern California against the smog has not yielded the expected results.
LAT 14 / 01 / 05 (Bush's 'Clear Skies' plane is a step back, says report)