At the bottom of that same Politico article on the suspension of new rule-making at EPA are the results of a national poll on clean air regulations done by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Researched, paid for by the American Lung Association, conducted February 27th to March 4th with a margin of error of 3.5 points either way. The results are not a surprise if you've been following polling on this subject for a while - there are always overwhelming majorities in support of additional efforts to clean up air pollution. But if you live some place like Texas, and/or you've been closely following the GOP presidential nominating contest, you might get the feeling that most people think the air they're breathing is hunky-dory and want the EPA to permanently close-up shop. Nope. 66% of those polled strongly favor or somewhat favor the EPA's updating of air pollution standards with stricter limits vs. 28% who strongly or somewhat opposed that effort. 37% didn't think EPA was strict enough in its regulation of air pollution vs 11% who thought the agency was too strict (14% unsure and 38% "about right"). 78% favored stricter limits on Mercury, 72% favored stricter limits on smog, 70% favored stricter limits on Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and even 60% favored new tailpipe emissions and gasoline standards - knowing that these new rules could directly affect them. 73% think new limits on greenhouse gas emissions will have a positive effect on public health and air quality and even a plurality of 44% believe these standards will have a positive impact on the economy.  No, you're not crazy. You're not the anomaly - your elected officials are.   Read More

A University of Chicago economist estimates that new federal clean air rules cost industry $21 billion a year in lost productivity, but generate over $100 billion in benefits. Chad Syverson and two other researchers compared the productivity in industrial facilities in U.S. "non-attainment" areas from 1972 to 1993 and usually saw a small drop in productivity when regulations for ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. Then they looked at improved health, reduced infant mortality and increased property values from those same regulations and saw large gains. If you were guaranteed four times as much benefit as loss on your investment, you'd think that was a pretty good investment. And it is.  Read More

Twenty-two years ago, Congress deemed 200 kinds of chemical air pollution so toxic as to require strict enforcement and regulation of their release on a strict schedule in a speedy way. That hasn't happened. It hasn't happened in a spectacular, why-don't-we-all-have-jet-packs-yet kind of way. The Center for Public Integrity follows up last week's "Poisoned Places" collaboration with NPR with a great dissection of why the current system of regulating toxic threat is outdated and overwhelmed. It's the best argument for why new chemicals should be required to prove their benign effects up front - BEFORE they get released into the marketplace and we all become lab rats in someone else's experiment.   Read More

Air pollution from coal-fired power plants costs the U.S. more in health damage than those plants contribute to the American economy, according to a new study in a respected economics journal, The American Economic Review. Coal plants produced the largest "gross external damages" -- $53 billion annually -- of any of the industries examined... Something to think about in the PR wars over the closing of ancient Texas lignite coal power plants by the utility formally known as TXU.  Read More

As promised, we're posting the EPA's directive on the new old 75 ppb federal ozone standard. Administrator Jackson referred to the document in testimony on Capitol Hill Thursday and this weekend Region 6 made it available to Downwinders. This is the first outline of how the mechanics of the switch from the current 85 ppb standard to the new 75 ppb one will take place. You can find a pdf of the memo here, at the bottom of our "Safe and Legal Air Project" webpage.  Read More

Tomorrow marks the beginning of the House Republican assault on the Clean Air Act, including gutting rules that would reduce smog, mercury poisoning, and toxic air pollution of all kinds. Every week from now until Thanksgiving, Republicans will be targeting a different EPA policy for destruction, including the 15-years-in-the-making emission rules for cement plants that Downwinders was instrumental in winning in 2008.   Read More

One of the most disturbing and unforgettable images conjured up by the recent TCEQ  inspection report on the Exide lead smelter in downtown Frisco is the revelation that for a number of years it was routine for the town's streets to be paved with highly contaminated lead slag waste from the facility.   Read More

Thanks to Jo Ann Duman with the Arlington Conservation Council for forwarding this Grist analysis of the Obama Administration's decision to junk a science-based and more protective ozone standard for one pulled out of thin air in the last months of Bush Jr's reign. In this scenario, it's Obama's relatively new Chief-of-Staff Bill Daly who is the one to blame, as the author uses a WSJ excerpt to explain:  Read More

We hope our friend Mr. Reaves has been watching the news the past couple of days because there's no better evidence that indeed Luminent Energy is playing high-level inside-the-beltway-chess with its employees than its own words and actions concerning the Air Transport Rule since last Monday's announcement. We expect the company to name a campaign manager any day now.  Read More