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) .
To this end, it provides for a system of "rights to pollute"; in practice, an undertaking which has done better than the authorized pollution threshold receives credits that it can sell to another company in excess. According to the work of the BEST experts, it is "unlikely that Clear Skies would result in stricter individual emission limitations than those obtained with the New Source Review (NSR) program - a set of rules that require 1977 (and not maintenance, a subjective criterion that has given rise to flexible interpretations). The sentence has caused the most critical reaction to the government's environmental policy, which is the prelude to a weakening of the 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)