MotherJones: Sin of Emission

"The sky may not be falling, but it sure is dirty. That was the conclusion of a number of government reports released this week, offering disturbing new data on everything from air pollutants to toxic emissions. So what can we expect in response? Will a barrage of bleak facts cause the administration to reconsider its failed environmental policies? Not likely. Confronted with the findings, EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt could only mutter, "This is a very good news story."
On Tuesday, the EPA put out its latest air pollution assessment, indicating that a staggering ninety-nine million Americans are currently breathing much-too-dirty air, the sort that can cause respiratory problems and premature death.
The report raised serious questions about the pace of the EPA's pollution-control plan. As John Balbus, the director of Environmental Defense's health program, warned, "the solutions are not being implemented until the next generation." Presently, the EPA is calling for a 40 percent reduction in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide by 2010. Many environmentalists believe that a 90 percent reduction is a more appropriate goal, and the new pollution report certainly lends that view added credibility. . . .
The EPA tried to explain away the increase by pointing to a copper-smelting facility in Arizona that had shut down and consequently dumped most of its waste. But environmental groups shot down this sleight-of-hand. The president of the National Environmental Trust, Phil Clapp said it well:

The growth in emissions is too big to be explained away by pointing at a smelter here or a factory there. This is an across-the-board increase in pollution.

. . . Faulty environmental data seems to be a common theme these days. On March 16, the LA Times reported that EPA staffers were ordered not to conduct routine scientific and economic analyses for regulations governing mercury emissions. Little wonder, then, that few pay heed anymore to the numbers and figures tossed out by the administration.
In the face of all this news, someone ought to take the blame, and on Thursday, the LA Times pointed its editorial finger squarely in the Bush administration's direction:

Some of the most microscopic particles in the air are of the greatest concern to health because they easily find their way to the deep recesses of our lungs….

. . .Indeed, the case for pessimism is overwhelming. As Mother Jones has reported, Bush's environmental team is stacked with industry insiders and former lobbyists. Don't expect this bunch to be swayed by a few pesky reports on dirty air and toxic waste. Reality has rarely played a part in the administration's environmental policy."