Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules Hit Pernicious Pollution
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/17-6 Published on Monday, December 17, 2012 by In These Times Toxic Train Wreck Exposes Weakness in Federal Chemical Policy by Michelle Chen In late November, while other parts of New Jersey were recovering from the superstorm, the quiet town of Paulsboro was blindsided by a very unnatural disaster. A train derailed while crossing a local bridge, sending freight cars tumbling into the water below and releasing a toxic swirl of the flammable gas known as vinyl chloride, used to make PVC plastics. In the following days, chaos ensued as residents hurriedly evacuated. Authorities struggled to manage the emergency response, leaving people confused and frustrated by a lack of official communication about hazards. Though the derailment came as a shock to residents, this was an accident waiting to happen, environmental advocates say. Paulsboro is just one of the latest in a spate of recent disasters (including others involving vinyl chloride) in industries that handle massive amounts of toxins with minimal oversight. At a recent community meeting about the aftermath of the incident, residents expressed exasperation at the government's disaster-response team, accusing officials of keeping them in the dark about toxic risks, reports the South Jersey Times: "How much is all of our lives worth to you?" Michael Hamilton, a Pine Street resident, asked. "What if somewhere down the line we develop cancer? Who is responsible, and when will you take responsibility?" Community activists and officials are seeking accountability for the chemical fallout as well. There are immediate concerns-that residents were not adequately informed about the exposure risks, or that in the initial emergency response, workers may not have received appropriate protective gear. But in the backdrop looms what many see as a chronic government failure to uphold key aspects of federal environmental safety law. In a joint statement following the incident, Greenpeace, the Virginia-based Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ), and the New Jersey Work Environment Council (WEC) renewed their demand for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revamp chemical safety rules under the Clean Air Act. They want Washington to set new rules to push industrial facilities to implement "inherently safer technologies" or safer chemical processes whenever feasible. The idea, which would parallel in part New Jersey's current regulations, is to move the industry holistically toward safer processes that are intrinsically less hazard-prone. "We've seen over the past decade, disaster after disaster," WEC Chemical Safety Project Coordinator Denise Patel tells In These Times. Noting that stronger safeguards in New Jersey have goaded companies to take measures to reduce environmental and safety risks, she added, "We know there are safer chemicals, we know there are safer technologies that these companies could be using." In a petition recently sent to EPA, a coalition of environmental, labor and community groups, including United Steelworkers and Communications Workers of America, argued that weak federal regulation has left industrial facilities vulnerable to severe threats ranging from transport crashes to terrorist attacks. Moreover, the limited scope of federal safety standards means that some facilities, like gas refineries and water treatment plants, suffer from especially paltry oversight. Broad-based reform of industrial practices, the petition argues, would get ahead of the problem by limiting overall quantities of highly dangerous chemicals, so that "safety is built into the process, not added on, and hazards are reduced or eliminated, not simply controlled." Mike Schade, a CHEJ campaign coordinator, tells In These Times via email, "There are safer available alternatives which if required would reduce the transport of vinyl chloride and other toxic chemicals. Requiring safer chemical processes at chemical plants is the best way to prevent disasters on rail lines, which carry the majority of the most dangerous substances." Meanwhile, the Paulsboro incident falls chiefly under the jurisdiction of federal authorities and is currently under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board, though critics stress the need for more preventive, rather than reactive, safety measures. In addition to guarding against catastrophes like the railway accident, tighter chemical regulation could have a subtler but longer-term impact on the health of workers who deal with occupational exposure everyday. For example, vinyl chloride exposure on the job is associated with cancer and liver disease. It might be perverse serendipity that the Paulsboro wreck took place in New Jersey. Despite a bad rap as a toxic waste haven, the state has established relatively strong chemical safety mandates under its Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act, w
[Biofuel] New EPA Rules Hit Pernicious Pollution
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/12/17-2 Published on Monday, December 17, 2012 by Common Dreams New EPA Rules Hit Pernicious Pollution New standards affecting fine particle pollution bring protection from lethal polluters - Common Dreams staff In a step for improved public health, the EPA has issued updated standards for fine particle pollution, which has been linked to a range of health effects including asthma, heart attacks and strokes, and has killed millions worldwide. "The new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will reduce the amount of soot released from power plants, diesel engines, refineries, and other industries," the Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg reports. The new standards, the EPA says, are based on "an extensive body of scientific evidence that includes thousands of studies - including many large studies which show negative health impacts at lower levels than previously understood." "These standards are fulfilling the promise of the Clean Air Act. We will save lives and reduce the burden of illness in our communities, and families across the country will benefit from the simple fact of being able to breathe cleaner air," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. The NRDC's Frances Beinecke praised the standards, echoing Jackson's comments in writing that they mean "all our family members who are vulnerable to these health problems now have an extra layer of protection from dirty polluters. And it means people living in Los Angeles, Chicago, Cleveland, Atlanta, New York, and the other top 10 metropolitan areas identified by the American Lung Association stand to benefit the most. " 40,000 premature deaths, 32,000 hospital admissions and 4.7 million days of work lost due to illness will be prevented due to the changes affecting diesel emissions alone, the EPA states. The changes come after opposition from industry and climate change-doubting politicians. The Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg writes: The main oil lobby group, the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement: "There is no compelling scientific evidence for the policy decision to develop more stringent standards. The existing standards are working and will continue improving air quality." James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who is the Senate's biggest doubter of climate change, said the new rules were the first wave of "an onslaught of post-election rulemakings that will place considerable burdens on our struggling economy and eventually push us over the 'regulatory cliff'". The lethal impacts of air pollution can be seen worldwide, as John Vidal writes in the Guardian: In 2010, more than 2.1m people in Asia died prematurely from air pollution, mostly from the minute particles of diesel soot and gasses emitted from cars and lorries. Other causes of air pollution include construction and industry. Of these deaths, says the study published in The Lancet, 1.2 million were in east Asia and China, and 712,000 in south Asia, including India. Worldwide, a record 3.2m people died from air pollution in 2010, compared with 800,000 in 2000. It now ranks for the first time in the world's top 10 list of killer diseases, says the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules-digression
>Keith Addison wrote: > > Hello Mike > > > > > >>Keith, > >> BIG SNIP > > See what John Stauber has to say about the big enviro groups. > > http://www.ratical.org/ratville/PRcorrupt.html > > WAR ON TRUTH, The Secret Battle for the American Mind > >You know, > >There is a reason some of us scream "shenanigans" or foul >upon reading some news bites. There is a PR language, >usually somewhat prejorative, that seems to signal 'image >manipulation'. Whenever I see it, It get's my hackles >up, and I start checking what facts I can. You're lucky Chip, most people don't see those signs, no warning bells ring. The repetition part of it lulls them, among other things. Well, it's not just luck. Good for you. Your Y2K survival kit is well-equipped. "PR and advertising are about encapsulating idiotically simple messages in sugared niblets that wedge themselves in your brain like prions." - Misha, SANET Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules-digression
Keith Addison wrote: > Hello Mike > > >>Keith, >> BIG SNIP > See what John Stauber has to say about the big enviro groups. > http://www.ratical.org/ratville/PRcorrupt.html > WAR ON TRUTH, The Secret Battle for the American Mind You know, There is a reason some of us scream "shenanigans" or foul upon reading some news bites. There is a PR language, usually somewhat prejorative, that seems to signal 'image manipulation'. Whenever I see it, It get's my hackles up, and I start checking what facts I can. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Doesn't Detroit have a history of making tradeoffs in auto safety to save money? Ford Pinto, Explorer/Firestone and zGM side-saddle gas tanks? What was the Pinto - a 37.00 difference? Do you think Bhopal was (is) an exception? There are those who present a substantial case for the Bhopal disaster being business-as-usual, it's a symbol of our times, not an exception. There's more in the archives about that too. Union Carbide knowingly and deliberately put the lives of an entire Indian city at risk in order to save $37.68 per day. The Ford Pinto was $10 each, wasn't it? That's all history now? Dream on! Keith Addison wrote: >Hello Mike > > > >>Keith, >> >>Greetings from Houston Texas. >> >> > >Greetings from up in the mountains near Kyoto, where the plum tree's >been saying for a while that it's spring and blossomed to prove it >but nobody else believed it. But the first swallow just arrived five >minutes ago, so that clinches it for the plum tree. I'm really >pleased to see the swallow, it sure got the big hello, swooping in >and out of the front porch, very happy to be here. The frogs will >wake up soon, then the snakes, and then it's summer, and about time >too. > > > >>I respect your opinion and point of view on the topic of >>corporations, but I see >>a little bit different perspective on corporations. But first let me >>agree that >>many large and small corporations do commit criminal acts, many of >>which they get >>away with, which is most unfortunate to say the least. >> >> >> >>Keith Addison wrote: >> >> >> >>>You can't change a corporation's mindset by education, nor by any >>>means other than hurting their bottom line. >>> >>> >>Isn't hurting their bottom line a form of education? >> >> > >No, it's a form of coercion. There's more to education than coercion. > > > >>How about the fear of >>hurting their bottom line or the promise of improving their bottom line? >> >> > >Carrots and sticks, coercion and bribery, and as I said it doesn't >work without the stick. And there's more to humans than just carrots >and sticks. > > > >>>The humans who work for >>>them notwithstanding, corporations are not human and do not have >>>human drives or instincts or inhibitions, their only drive is >>>profit-growth. >>> >>> >>I am one man who has incorporated a one man environmental consulting >>business (I >>help other companies, including corporations "do what I think is the >>right thing >>to do, environmentally". I try and show them how to reduce their >>negative impacts >>on the earth. It is mostly an educational process. I feel like I >>have a made a >>difference educating decision makers in many for-profit and non-profit >>corporations. >> >> > >You can have an effect, I'm sure you do, and it's most important to >do. But alone it will not solve the underlying problem because it >doesn't address the underlying cause. In that sense it's just >amelioration, like sticking a band-aid on a cancer. That's not to say >the cancer might not need sticking a band-aid on it too, as well as >surgery, but the band-aid won't do the surgery. Mike, please read >that carefully, I'm absolutely not knocking what you do, okay? > > > >>Isn't my corporation a reflection of me, and of my humanity? >> >> > >Probably, but it's hardly representative is it? You make a mistake in >extending it to all corporations to show they're all human just like >you are, and then, essentially, explaining away all the corporate >malfeasance and destruction as unfortunate to say the least but after >all to err is human. > >Sorry, it's a noble attempt, but it just doesn't wash. By limiting >the definition this way you might manage to disappear all the trees >but the forest remains. Nicely cloaked under the perfect cover, with >your help - your friendly neighbourhood corporation is just as human >as you are. This is exactly why corporations spend millions >cultivating the image of humanness and hiding behind it. > >If you say they're the same as you, then how many millions is your PR >budget this year Mike? Who are your lobbyists? Given any hidden >funding to an astroturf group lately? > >Your one-man corporation is representative of you, as you say, and >that's all, you can't use it as a representive example of the nature >of the corporate world at large, it just doesn't fit. What do you >have in common with a globally diversified conglomerate? > >The corollary is that if corporate malfeasance and destruction is >indeed all-too-human, then, as alleged, it's just our natural human >nature to be selfish, greedy, short-sighted, violent and apathetic >about the harm we do in the world, no use trying to fight it, and, >one more step, that we're a sort of global cancer the world would do >better without. (So let's wipe out all the poor people who can't >control their breeding.) It's a most convenient thing for obedient >consumers to think this way, since i
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Hello Mike >Keith, > >Greetings from Houston Texas. Greetings from up in the mountains near Kyoto, where the plum tree's been saying for a while that it's spring and blossomed to prove it but nobody else believed it. But the first swallow just arrived five minutes ago, so that clinches it for the plum tree. I'm really pleased to see the swallow, it sure got the big hello, swooping in and out of the front porch, very happy to be here. The frogs will wake up soon, then the snakes, and then it's summer, and about time too. >I respect your opinion and point of view on the topic of >corporations, but I see >a little bit different perspective on corporations. But first let me >agree that >many large and small corporations do commit criminal acts, many of >which they get >away with, which is most unfortunate to say the least. > > > >Keith Addison wrote: > > > You can't change a corporation's mindset by education, nor by any > > means other than hurting their bottom line. > >Isn't hurting their bottom line a form of education? No, it's a form of coercion. There's more to education than coercion. >How about the fear of >hurting their bottom line or the promise of improving their bottom line? Carrots and sticks, coercion and bribery, and as I said it doesn't work without the stick. And there's more to humans than just carrots and sticks. > > The humans who work for > > them notwithstanding, corporations are not human and do not have > > human drives or instincts or inhibitions, their only drive is > > profit-growth. > >I am one man who has incorporated a one man environmental consulting >business (I >help other companies, including corporations "do what I think is the >right thing >to do, environmentally". I try and show them how to reduce their >negative impacts >on the earth. It is mostly an educational process. I feel like I >have a made a >difference educating decision makers in many for-profit and non-profit >corporations. You can have an effect, I'm sure you do, and it's most important to do. But alone it will not solve the underlying problem because it doesn't address the underlying cause. In that sense it's just amelioration, like sticking a band-aid on a cancer. That's not to say the cancer might not need sticking a band-aid on it too, as well as surgery, but the band-aid won't do the surgery. Mike, please read that carefully, I'm absolutely not knocking what you do, okay? >Isn't my corporation a reflection of me, and of my humanity? Probably, but it's hardly representative is it? You make a mistake in extending it to all corporations to show they're all human just like you are, and then, essentially, explaining away all the corporate malfeasance and destruction as unfortunate to say the least but after all to err is human. Sorry, it's a noble attempt, but it just doesn't wash. By limiting the definition this way you might manage to disappear all the trees but the forest remains. Nicely cloaked under the perfect cover, with your help - your friendly neighbourhood corporation is just as human as you are. This is exactly why corporations spend millions cultivating the image of humanness and hiding behind it. If you say they're the same as you, then how many millions is your PR budget this year Mike? Who are your lobbyists? Given any hidden funding to an astroturf group lately? Your one-man corporation is representative of you, as you say, and that's all, you can't use it as a representive example of the nature of the corporate world at large, it just doesn't fit. What do you have in common with a globally diversified conglomerate? The corollary is that if corporate malfeasance and destruction is indeed all-too-human, then, as alleged, it's just our natural human nature to be selfish, greedy, short-sighted, violent and apathetic about the harm we do in the world, no use trying to fight it, and, one more step, that we're a sort of global cancer the world would do better without. (So let's wipe out all the poor people who can't control their breeding.) It's a most convenient thing for obedient consumers to think this way, since it means they therefore need wise leaders and rulers to guide them, they're just too dumb and misbegotten to be trusted to think for themselves. (Which is what Edward Bernays said, the "Father of PR".) Of course I'm not accusing you of thinking that way, not at all, but that's the direction that insisting that corporations are human just like you and me leads us in, it's part of that framework. However, the less moulded by consumerism a society is, and the less re-engineered its opinions and what it will consent to, in other words the smaller the per capita propaganda budget, the less you encounter this idea that we're just a bunch of sociopaths at heart and a scourge of the biosphere, AND, the smaller gets the grotesquely oversized eco-footprint until, hey, it fits, and fits with room to spare. And the people have ple
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Keith, Greetings from Houston Texas. I respect your opinion and point of view on the topic of corporations, but I see a little bit different perspective on corporations. But first let me agree that many large and small corporations do commit criminal acts, many of which they get away with, which is most unfortunate to say the least. Keith Addison wrote: > > You can't change a corporation's mindset by education, nor by any > means other than hurting their bottom line. Isn't hurting their bottom line a form of education? How about the fear of hurting their bottom line or the promise of improving their bottom line? > The humans who work for > them notwithstanding, corporations are not human and do not have > human drives or instincts or inhibitions, their only drive is > profit-growth. I am one man who has incorporated a one man environmental consulting business (I help other companies, including corporations "do what I think is the right thing to do, environmentally". I try and show them how to reduce their negative impacts on the earth. It is mostly an educational process. I feel like I have a made a difference educating decision makers in many for-profit and non-profit corporations. Isn't my corporation a reflection of me, and of my humanity? If I were a criminal running a one man corporation wouldn't my corporation be a reflection of me, or more specifically of my inhumanity? Also what about non-profit corporations, non-profit incorporated foundations and environmental organizations that are corporations? That said, part of my point is that corporations are a reflection of those humans making the big decisions at the top of the corporation. Not counting those corporate leaders who are just out and out criminals, if they make bad decisions it is the human(s) corporate leaders, the decision makers who made those decisions who are partly to blame. The rest of the blame goes to a poor education of those decision makers, and to the imperfections of uncontrolled capitalism and free markets as well as imperfect governments and imperfect regulations and laws which all leads back to us, humans, those who create and run the corporations, governments, laws, regulations.and so on! Isn't it really people who are to blame? People can be just as in inhuman as a corporation. I once had an environmental cartoon on my desk, years ago. This guy was looking in the mirror and the caption at the bottom said, I have meet the enemy! > Their PR budgets help people to think they're > oh-so-human, but the money's only spent because it helps the bottom > line. You can educate them like Pavlov educated his dogs, via shocks > that hurt their bottom line and rewards that improve it. Unlike dogs, > it doesn't work without the shocks. Yes, PR budgets are all about boosting or protecting the bottom line. However, sometimes corporations (or more specifically their CEO's) go out and actively look for new directions to take their corporations in, with out being forced with a sledge hammer. Some of them have found adopting environmental policies and sustainable economic policies to be in their best interests. I see this as more of a self education process than a forced shock process at work in this example. Yes, it still gets back to the bottom line, but some are learning that there are better ways to do business and some are just looking for better ways to do business (economically sustainable). Of course a bit of a reality shock from somewhere can help heard more of them in the right direction. So as I see it, it depends on the people at the top of the management team as to whether they learn by shock and awe, or by opening their eyes and seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. I don't see all corporations as evil, non-human entities, but I will agree there are too many of them out there that are evil, non-humane, criminal beasts that are out of control. Best, Mike McGinness > > > Best > > Keith > > > > Some are driven only by regulation and some are also being driven by > > > fear of litigation. I am already hearing rumblings in the legal circles > > > of new class action lawsuits in the works, here in the USA, suing the > > > large CO2 sources and their fuel suppliers for causing global warming > > > and the resulting damage and financial losses it is causing. Large > > > corporations would rather no spend money fighting such lawsuits and are > > > starting to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of > > > avoiding future lawsuits. > > > > But class action lawsuits are now more difficult to file, thanks to a > >bill Mr. Bush signed into law last year. He called them "junk lawsuits." > > > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4504703 > > > > It seems that there's a concerted effort on the part of this > >administration to undermine environmental protections that have been > >historically championed by conservatives in the United States. I find
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Keith, Doug, Can you tell me a little about GB and spare me the time to research him myself? I never heard of him. MikeKeith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >As Gregory Bateson put it in "Steps to an Ecology of Mind" (1972),>a business corporation is not a group of people, but a group of parts of>people; i.e. Economic Man #1, Economic Man #2, Economic Man #3, etc.>>Doug Woodard>St. Catharines, Ontario, CanadaThankyou Doug, indeed so. A collective is not necessarily just the sum of its parts and may not even be like them at all.http://journeytoforever.org/fyi_previous5.html#creedThanks too for the reminder of Gregory Bateson, one doesn't hear enough about him these days, IMHO. I lost that book some years ago, damn.BestKeith>On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Keith Addison wrote:>> > You can't change a corporation's mindset by education, nor by any> > means other than hurting their bottom line. The humans who work for> > them notwithstanding, corporations are not human and do not have> > human drives or instincts or inhibitions, their only drive is> > profit-growth. Their PR budgets help people to think they're> > oh-so-human, but the money's only spent because it helps the bottom> > line. You can educate them like Pavlov educated his dogs, via shocks> > that hurt their bottom line and rewards that improve it. Unlike dogs,> > it doesn't work without the shocks.___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
>As Gregory Bateson put it in "Steps to an Ecology of Mind" (1972), >a business corporation is not a group of people, but a group of parts of >people; i.e. Economic Man #1, Economic Man #2, Economic Man #3, etc. > >Doug Woodard >St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada Thankyou Doug, indeed so. A collective is not necessarily just the sum of its parts and may not even be like them at all. http://journeytoforever.org/fyi_previous5.html#creed Thanks too for the reminder of Gregory Bateson, one doesn't hear enough about him these days, IMHO. I lost that book some years ago, damn. Best Keith >On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Keith Addison wrote: > > > You can't change a corporation's mindset by education, nor by any > > means other than hurting their bottom line. The humans who work for > > them notwithstanding, corporations are not human and do not have > > human drives or instincts or inhibitions, their only drive is > > profit-growth. Their PR budgets help people to think they're > > oh-so-human, but the money's only spent because it helps the bottom > > line. You can educate them like Pavlov educated his dogs, via shocks > > that hurt their bottom line and rewards that improve it. Unlike dogs, > > it doesn't work without the shocks. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
As Gregory Bateson put it in "Steps to an Ecology of Mind" (1972), a business corporation is not a group of people, but a group of parts of people; i.e. Economic Man #1, Economic Man #2, Economic Man #3, etc. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Keith Addison wrote: > You can't change a corporation's mindset by education, nor by any > means other than hurting their bottom line. The humans who work for > them notwithstanding, corporations are not human and do not have > human drives or instincts or inhibitions, their only drive is > profit-growth. Their PR budgets help people to think they're > oh-so-human, but the money's only spent because it helps the bottom > line. You can educate them like Pavlov educated his dogs, via shocks > that hurt their bottom line and rewards that improve it. Unlike dogs, > it doesn't work without the shocks. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Michael Redler wrote: > I agree that corporations by themselves have all the attributes of mindless > machines. > great big snip. > Mike Very succinct summary Mike. Thanks so much for taking the time to write it up and post it. Very well said. I wholeheartedly agree. (and with Keith's post as well) --chipper ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
I agree that corporations by themselves have all the attributes of mindless machines. In my opinion, they also have some peculiarities which speak volumes about those who run them. If we stick to the machine analogy for a moment, we can make some observations: Corporations are machines with one primary objective - to make a profit. The scheme by which companies profit can be reduced to simplest terms (IMO) where one realizes that both the labor used to make a product and the labor performed to earn wages to buy the product come from the same people (or class of people). It is the only machine that indiscriminately builds or destroys anything and everything (including itself) to satisfy it's primary objective. A company's biggest liability and opportunity for raising profits (without being especially innovative or aware of the consequences) is to control it's labor (consumers). One can logically conclude that: Many who run corporations are determined to have more than those around them (and have issues that only their therapist can address) that goes far beyond providing for the survival of themselves and their family. Greed (a common motivation for running a corporation) causes those same people to become desperate and willing to cause the suffering of others to achieve their goals. It also makes them ignorant to the fact that taking advantage of labor to increase profit also takes money from the pockets of consumers - the sources of their profit. The cycle continues until the only consumers left are others who run corporations and don't see that their behavior is unsustainable. The one thing that sustains an economy is it's labor. The one thing that corporations fail to do in it's own interest is preserve labor by sharing it's wealth. I strongly agree that you can't change the mindset of a corporation by education. It requires the education of an entire culture to understand a fault in the system and prevent people who don't see that fault from hurting others. Mike Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You can't change a corporation's mindset by education, nor by any means other than hurting their bottom line. The humans who work for them notwithstanding, corporations are not human and do not have human drives or instincts or inhibitions, their only drive is profit-growth. Their PR budgets help people to think they're oh-so-human, but the money's only spent because it helps the bottom line. You can educate them like Pavlov educated his dogs, via shocks that hurt their bottom line and rewards that improve it. Unlike dogs, it doesn't work without the shocks.BestKeith___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
>Mike McGinness wrote: > > > >(The threat of legislation) > > > Yes, many would not spend money on environmental protection without some > > kind of fear or threat. However, many large US companies have recently > > made large voluntary financial commitments to environmental protection > > and stewardship as a new generation has begun taken over the reins of > > the board of directors. Some of them are beginning to move briskly into > > sustainable economic practices as they see it to be necessary to ensure > > their long term survival. > > Naturally I would applaud this kind of behavior. It seems, however, >that the long term trend has been to do as little environmental >remediation as possible, and to justify continued pollution for the >sake of an increased profit margin. If we can change this mind set >through the education you've talked about, then we will be making >progress. You can't change a corporation's mindset by education, nor by any means other than hurting their bottom line. The humans who work for them notwithstanding, corporations are not human and do not have human drives or instincts or inhibitions, their only drive is profit-growth. Their PR budgets help people to think they're oh-so-human, but the money's only spent because it helps the bottom line. You can educate them like Pavlov educated his dogs, via shocks that hurt their bottom line and rewards that improve it. Unlike dogs, it doesn't work without the shocks. Best Keith > > Some are driven only by regulation and some are also being driven by > > fear of litigation. I am already hearing rumblings in the legal circles > > of new class action lawsuits in the works, here in the USA, suing the > > large CO2 sources and their fuel suppliers for causing global warming > > and the resulting damage and financial losses it is causing. Large > > corporations would rather no spend money fighting such lawsuits and are > > starting to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of > > avoiding future lawsuits. > > But class action lawsuits are now more difficult to file, thanks to a >bill Mr. Bush signed into law last year. He called them "junk lawsuits." > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4504703 > > It seems that there's a concerted effort on the part of this >administration to undermine environmental protections that have been >historically championed by conservatives in the United States. I find >it very difficult to trust ANYTHING coming out of the Bush administration. > > > > The real argument is, or should be, how best to motivate businesses and > > people (individuals) to reduce consumption and pollution rates. I know > > this, it all starts with education > > Education is an important tool. But there is no more effective >education than a good example. > > > Then we need to make it easier for people > > and businesses to do the right thing, and harder for them to do the > > wrong thing. This is where massaging the regulations to make it easier, > > less costly, and less time consuming for people and businesses to figure > > what to do, why, and how best to reduce pollution, consumption and to > > get them to properly recycleetc. > > We've been discussing this sort of thing around here for a long time. > The process begins with local people, local control, local resources >and a commitment to community. > > > > > I know from experience (mine and others) that the old regulatory method > > (regulating each industry, each pollutant, and then trying to police > > them all, everywhere) is very time consuming and costly to government > > and industry, and therefore to each of us. There is a point of > > diminishing returns using such methods and efforts. That does not mean > > we should not have some of this kind of regulation, inspections and > > enforcement. It is definitely still needed to handle the environmental > > criminals at the least. I see the need for both the old and the new > > style of regulation. > > There is certainly a role for regulation. It's becoming >progressively more difficult, however, to trust the federal government >to regulate in the best interest of the people. The proposed EPA >rules really smell like a license to pollute. > > > > What they are doing, or trying to do with some of the changes in these > > regulations is to get the largest reductions in pollution for the least > > amount of money, thereby maximizing the reductions in pollution for a > > fix amount of available money. In a way that has always been the case, > > but in the past they would decide ahead of time who would be required to > > do exactly what to meet the reduction goals and then they would pass > > industry based limits to meet those goals. Then new technologies would > > come along, but they could not be used because the environmental regs > > did not allow them to make changes. > > Yes, that's bone headed. In Califo
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Mike McGinness wrote: (The threat of legislation) > Yes, many would not spend money on environmental protection without some > kind of fear or threat. However, many large US companies have recently > made large voluntary financial commitments to environmental protection > and stewardship as a new generation has begun taken over the reins of > the board of directors. Some of them are beginning to move briskly into > sustainable economic practices as they see it to be necessary to ensure > their long term survival. Naturally I would applaud this kind of behavior. It seems, however, that the long term trend has been to do as little environmental remediation as possible, and to justify continued pollution for the sake of an increased profit margin. If we can change this mind set through the education you've talked about, then we will be making progress. > Some are driven only by regulation and some are also being driven by > fear of litigation. I am already hearing rumblings in the legal circles > of new class action lawsuits in the works, here in the USA, suing the > large CO2 sources and their fuel suppliers for causing global warming > and the resulting damage and financial losses it is causing. Large > corporations would rather no spend money fighting such lawsuits and are > starting to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of > avoiding future lawsuits. But class action lawsuits are now more difficult to file, thanks to a bill Mr. Bush signed into law last year. He called them "junk lawsuits." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4504703 It seems that there's a concerted effort on the part of this administration to undermine environmental protections that have been historically championed by conservatives in the United States. I find it very difficult to trust ANYTHING coming out of the Bush administration. > The real argument is, or should be, how best to motivate businesses and > people (individuals) to reduce consumption and pollution rates. I know > this, it all starts with education Education is an important tool. But there is no more effective education than a good example. > Then we need to make it easier for people > and businesses to do the right thing, and harder for them to do the > wrong thing. This is where massaging the regulations to make it easier, > less costly, and less time consuming for people and businesses to figure > what to do, why, and how best to reduce pollution, consumption and to > get them to properly recycleetc. We've been discussing this sort of thing around here for a long time. The process begins with local people, local control, local resources and a commitment to community. > > I know from experience (mine and others) that the old regulatory method > (regulating each industry, each pollutant, and then trying to police > them all, everywhere) is very time consuming and costly to government > and industry, and therefore to each of us. There is a point of > diminishing returns using such methods and efforts. That does not mean > we should not have some of this kind of regulation, inspections and > enforcement. It is definitely still needed to handle the environmental > criminals at the least. I see the need for both the old and the new > style of regulation. There is certainly a role for regulation. It's becoming progressively more difficult, however, to trust the federal government to regulate in the best interest of the people. The proposed EPA rules really smell like a license to pollute. > What they are doing, or trying to do with some of the changes in these > regulations is to get the largest reductions in pollution for the least > amount of money, thereby maximizing the reductions in pollution for a > fix amount of available money. In a way that has always been the case, > but in the past they would decide ahead of time who would be required to > do exactly what to meet the reduction goals and then they would pass > industry based limits to meet those goals. Then new technologies would > come along, but they could not be used because the environmental regs > did not allow them to make changes. Yes, that's bone headed. In California, I can't tamper with an automobile's emissions equipment, even if the changes I do make the vehicle CLEANER than it was. > One example is say Exxon wants to build a new plant but they can not get > the permit for the air emissions even if they use BACT, MACT technology > because of other pollutants from existing neighbors already in the local > area are already too high (they are already at established health > limits). If Exxon can somehow reduce the pollution from those other > nearby sources by say 100 tons per year (this is where the emissions > trading program came in) by permanently removing those emissions, then > Exxon could
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Robert, My replies are below but first, let me say I see nothing wrong with raising the alarms about these kinds of changes in the regulations as you and others have done. They do need to watched closely and when such changes are made the results need to be measured to determine if they worked: robert luis rabello wrote: Mike McGinness wrote: > Robert, > The idea was that these facilities were avoiding making any changes > because they would trigger NSR and thus trigger forced, federally > mandated, MAJOR costly upgrade costs site wide based on MACT, BACT > requirements. The new rule allowed them to make voluntary changes that > reduced total emissions without triggering NSR permitting. Those > refineries that did not voluntarily enter the program and reduce > emissions were promised that new laws would be passed in a few years > eliminating the grandfather clause entirely thus forcing them into > buying BACT, MACT hardware site wide. Many joined the program > voluntarily and made major changes that reduced emissions substantially. But would they have joined the voluntary program without the threat of legislation compelling them to do so? I've seen the same sort of dynamic at play in California with respect to auto makers and emissions controls. Yes, many would not spend money on environmental protection without some kind of fear or threat. However, many large US companies have recently made large voluntary financial commitments to environmental protection and stewardship as a new generation has begun taken over the reins of the board of directors. Some of them are beginning to move briskly into sustainable economic practices as they see it to be necessary to ensure their long term survival. Some are driven only by regulation and some are also being driven by fear of litigation. I am already hearing rumblings in the legal circles of new class action lawsuits in the works, here in the USA, suing the large CO2 sources and their fuel suppliers for causing global warming and the resulting damage and financial losses it is causing. Large corporations would rather no spend money fighting such lawsuits and are starting to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of avoiding future lawsuits. Many cities and states here have given up on Bush and the Feds for now and they have taken many steps and initiatives already to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by going greener with their own energy purchases (heating, cooling, transportation fuels, and electricity) plus they have worked hard on reducing energy and fuel consumption practices under their control (local and state governments). The real argument is, or should be, how best to motivate businesses and people (individuals) to reduce consumption and pollution rates. I know this, it all starts with education Then we need research to find out and know what is bad and what is good (in areas where we don't already have all the facts). Then we need to make it easier for people and businesses to do the right thing, and harder for them to do the wrong thing. This is where massaging the regulations to make it easier, less costly, and less time consuming for people and businesses to figure what to do, why, and how best to reduce pollution, consumption and to get them to properly recycleetc. I know from experience (mine and others) that the old regulatory method (regulating each industry, each pollutant, and then trying to police them all, everywhere) is very time consuming and costly to government and industry, and therefore to each of us. There is a point of diminishing returns using such methods and efforts. That does not mean we should not have some of this kind of regulation, inspections and enforcement. It is definitely still needed to handle the environmental criminals at the least. I see the need for both the old and the new style of regulation. What they are doing, or trying to do with some of the changes in these regulations is to get the largest reductions in pollution for the least amount of money, thereby maximizing the reductions in pollution for a fix amount of available money. In a way that has always been the case, but in the past they would decide ahead of time who would be required to do exactly what to meet the reduction goals and then they would pass industry based limits to meet those goals. Then new technologies would come along, but they could not be used because the environmental regs did not allow them to make changes. One example is say Exxon wants to build a new plant but they can not get the permit for the air emissions even if they use BACT, MACT technology because of other pollutants from existing neighbors already in the local area are already too high (they are already at established health limits). If Exxon can somehow reduce the pollution from those other nearby sources by say 100 tons per year (this is where the emissions trading program came in) by permanently removing those emissions, then Exxon could
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
E.P.A. - Environmental Pretention Agency Keith Addison wrote: >Hi Robert > > > >>It looks more like the "Endangering Permission Agency" . . . >> >> > >It's the Environment Prevention Agency, they're there to enforce the >protections accorded to industry in terms of the Endangered Polluters >Act. New-age Monopoly in the rock'n'rollback era, do not stop at Go, >do not go to Jail, please collect your two hundred thousand dollars >at the Revolving Door and your gasmask at Reception. Please drive a >Ford Pinto. > >Keith > > > > >>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5321132 >> >> A leaked document from the Environmental Protection Agency suggests >>that the agency is considering a significant change in air-pollution >>rules. It would give chemical factories, refineries and manufacturing >>plants new leeway to increase emissions of pollutants that cause >>cancer and birth defects. >> >>John Walke, who heads the clean-air program for the environmental >>group Natural Resources Defense Council, says he received the document >> >> >>from sources at the EPA who wanted the public to become aware of this > > >>"backward step." >> >>Currently, any factory that emits more than 25 tons of toxic chemicals >>into the air each year must reduce its pollution as much as it >>feasibly can. Walke says the draft proposal would give a break to >>companies that own those plants. After they clean up, their only >>requirement would be to keep their pollution below 25 tons a year. >> >>"Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air >>pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today >>will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA >>proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five >>tons to 25 tons." >> >>But Lorraine Gershman of the American Chemistry Council says there are >>no incentives to increase emissions under the new rules. >> >>Gershman says her industry has been pushing EPA to make the changes >>described in the draft rule. Under the current rules, even after the >>factory cleans up, it's still considered a major polluter and is >>required to keep monitoring its pollution and reporting what it learns >>to the government. Under the draft proposal, these requirements would >>disappear. >> >>"We believe it's EPA recognizing a lot of these major sources have >>made in reducing their emissions and realizing that there should be >>some sort of benefit of that, and that is reducing the administrative >>burdens," Gershman says. >> >>Lobbyist Scott Segal, who represents refineries, says the proposal >>will give big polluters the incentive to reduce pollution below that >>25-ton-a-year cap. >> >>But EPA officials charged with running the air toxics programs outside >>of Washington apparently disagree. In December, the regional officials >>sent a letter to EPA headquarters warning that the draft rule would be >>"detrimental to the environment and undermine the intent of the program." >> >>The letter criticizes EPA's draft rule for failing to analyze how many >>companies might be encouraged to cut pollution and how many might >>relax their pollution controls because they're already under the >>threshold. >> >>In the draft rule, the EPA asserts that plants will not use the rule >>to increase pollution because they'll want to "avoid negative >>publicity and maintain their appearance as responsible businesses." >> >>But EPA's regional air toxic chiefs in their letter call that >>statement unfounded and overly optimistic. >> >>EPA spokesperson Lisa Lybbert released a statement saying that >>"commenting on the draft at this point in the process is like asking >>us how a cake tastes when we haven't even put the batter in the oven." >> >> >>robert luis rabello >>"The Edge of Justice" >>Adventure for Your Mind >>http://www.newadventure.ca >> >>Ranger Supercharger Project Page >>http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ >> >> > > >___ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > > > > ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Mike McGinness wrote: > Robert, > > The quotation below reported to be from "John Walke" contains some > inaccurate information. > Perhaps it was just a bad example, but here in Texas most (if not all) > of the refineries were (and still are) exempt from the CAA and were > protected under a grandfather clause from enforcement as long as they > made no significant process changes or upgrades (Called new source > review, NSR). They were / are exempt if they were built before the CAA > was passed into law. Many had emissions well over 1000 tons per year, > and I think some still do! Texas passed a similar law (to the topics > proposed law) a few years ago that gave grandfathered sources in Texas > such as refineries an opportunity to voluntarily make major > modifications to reduce emissions without going through formal BACT and > MACT (Best Available Control Technology, Maximum Achievable Control > Technology) permitting as long as the net result was reduced emissions. I have heard of this, and what you've pointed out makes sense. In fact, I've heard some people complaining that the Clean Air Act provisions have actually limited investment in refining capacity, resulting in gasoline supply bottlenecks that serve to increase prices at the pump. Those "pesky environmentalists" make everything so expensive for the rest of us! > The idea was that these facilities were avoiding making any changes > because they would trigger NSR and thus trigger forced, federally > mandated, MAJOR costly upgrade costs site wide based on MACT, BACT > requirements. The new rule allowed them to make voluntary changes that > reduced total emissions without triggering NSR permitting. Those > refineries that did not voluntarily enter the program and reduce > emissions were promised that new laws would be passed in a few years > eliminating the grandfather clause entirely thus forcing them into > buying BACT, MACT hardware site wide. Many joined the program > voluntarily and made major changes that reduced emissions substantially. But would they have joined the voluntary program without the threat of legislation compelling them to do so? I've seen the same sort of dynamic at play in California with respect to auto makers and emissions controls. On one hand, I can understand the very reasonable point you're making: It's better to get SOME movement forward in cleaning up big polluters than leaving current provisions in place that allow them to indefinately spew waste into the air without regulation. But then, isn't the whole point of having the EPA in operation supposed to be about environmental protection? Why should the EPA be interested in such a broad based loosening of clean air regulations? Haven't the very same companies that own polluting refineries made BILLIONS in profits over the last year or so? Shouldn't some of those profits go into cleaning up the mess they're making of our air resource? > I am not saying this proposed new rule should not be scrutinized for > unwarranted loopholes, but there are two sides to this story. Of course! And I appreciate you making that point. robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Hi Robert >It looks more like the "Endangering Permission Agency" . . . It's the Environment Prevention Agency, they're there to enforce the protections accorded to industry in terms of the Endangered Polluters Act. New-age Monopoly in the rock'n'rollback era, do not stop at Go, do not go to Jail, please collect your two hundred thousand dollars at the Revolving Door and your gasmask at Reception. Please drive a Ford Pinto. Keith >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5321132 > > A leaked document from the Environmental Protection Agency suggests >that the agency is considering a significant change in air-pollution >rules. It would give chemical factories, refineries and manufacturing >plants new leeway to increase emissions of pollutants that cause >cancer and birth defects. > >John Walke, who heads the clean-air program for the environmental >group Natural Resources Defense Council, says he received the document >from sources at the EPA who wanted the public to become aware of this >"backward step." > >Currently, any factory that emits more than 25 tons of toxic chemicals >into the air each year must reduce its pollution as much as it >feasibly can. Walke says the draft proposal would give a break to >companies that own those plants. After they clean up, their only >requirement would be to keep their pollution below 25 tons a year. > >"Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air >pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today >will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA >proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five >tons to 25 tons." > >But Lorraine Gershman of the American Chemistry Council says there are >no incentives to increase emissions under the new rules. > >Gershman says her industry has been pushing EPA to make the changes >described in the draft rule. Under the current rules, even after the >factory cleans up, it's still considered a major polluter and is >required to keep monitoring its pollution and reporting what it learns >to the government. Under the draft proposal, these requirements would >disappear. > >"We believe it's EPA recognizing a lot of these major sources have >made in reducing their emissions and realizing that there should be >some sort of benefit of that, and that is reducing the administrative >burdens," Gershman says. > >Lobbyist Scott Segal, who represents refineries, says the proposal >will give big polluters the incentive to reduce pollution below that >25-ton-a-year cap. > >But EPA officials charged with running the air toxics programs outside >of Washington apparently disagree. In December, the regional officials >sent a letter to EPA headquarters warning that the draft rule would be >"detrimental to the environment and undermine the intent of the program." > >The letter criticizes EPA's draft rule for failing to analyze how many >companies might be encouraged to cut pollution and how many might >relax their pollution controls because they're already under the >threshold. > >In the draft rule, the EPA asserts that plants will not use the rule >to increase pollution because they'll want to "avoid negative >publicity and maintain their appearance as responsible businesses." > >But EPA's regional air toxic chiefs in their letter call that >statement unfounded and overly optimistic. > >EPA spokesperson Lisa Lybbert released a statement saying that >"commenting on the draft at this point in the process is like asking >us how a cake tastes when we haven't even put the batter in the oven." > > >robert luis rabello >"The Edge of Justice" >Adventure for Your Mind >http://www.newadventure.ca > >Ranger Supercharger Project Page >http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Robert, The quotation below reported to be from "John Walke" contains some inaccurate information. Specifically the statement says: "Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five tons to 25 tons." Perhaps it was just a bad example, but here in Texas most (if not all) of the refineries were (and still are) exempt from the CAA and were protected under a grandfather clause from enforcement as long as they made no significant process changes or upgrades (Called new source review, NSR). They were / are exempt if they were built before the CAA was passed into law. Many had emissions well over 1000 tons per year, and I think some still do! Texas passed a similar law (to the topics proposed law) a few years ago that gave grandfathered sources in Texas such as refineries an opportunity to voluntarily make major modifications to reduce emissions without going through formal BACT and MACT (Best Available Control Technology, Maximum Achievable Control Technology) permitting as long as the net result was reduced emissions. The idea was that these facilities were avoiding making any changes because they would trigger NSR and thus trigger forced, federally mandated, MAJOR costly upgrade costs site wide based on MACT, BACT requirements. The new rule allowed them to make voluntary changes that reduced total emissions without triggering NSR permitting. Those refineries that did not voluntarily enter the program and reduce emissions were promised that new laws would be passed in a few years eliminating the grandfather clause entirely thus forcing them into buying BACT, MACT hardware site wide. Many joined the program voluntarily and made major changes that reduced emissions substantially. The idea was to encourage these facilities to implement low to medium cost changes that would immediately make major reductions in their emissions and substantially reduce local air pollution. Some of those changes actually paid for themselves, some actually had an RTO, but none of these companies were making any of these changes in the last 40 years before the new law was passed for fear of triggering NSR. It was an experiment in Texas environmental policy that worked. I am not saying this proposed new rule should not be scrutinized for unwarranted loopholes, but there are two sides to this story. Best, Mike McGinness robert luis rabello wrote: It looks more like the "Endangering Permission Agency" . . . http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5321132 A leaked document from the Environmental Protection Agency suggests that the agency is considering a significant change in air-pollution rules. It would give chemical factories, refineries and manufacturing plants new leeway to increase emissions of pollutants that cause cancer and birth defects. John Walke, who heads the clean-air program for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, says he received the document from sources at the EPA who wanted the public to become aware of this "backward step." Currently, any factory that emits more than 25 tons of toxic chemicals into the air each year must reduce its pollution as much as it feasibly can. Walke says the draft proposal would give a break to companies that own those plants. After they clean up, their only requirement would be to keep their pollution below 25 tons a year. "Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five tons to 25 tons." ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Ooops. My bad. I didn't realize that we were talking about faith based pollution... On 4/4/06, robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Zeke Yewdall wrote: > > > What is the logic in a 25 ton cap? Are all chemical factories the > > same size? 25 tons for large factory might actually very low, > > compared to the total throughput of chemicals, but for a small factory > > (say a homebrew biodiesel setup), a 25 ton allowance might be more > > than it could possibly produce in a year if it used the dirtiest setup > > possible. > > Can't you see the logic in the Brave New World of the Clear Skies > Initiative? That factory that's spewing out tons of pollution can buy > pollution credits from your homebrew biodiesel operation. Zeke, you > could become a biodiesel entrepreneur! The big polluters would PAY > you for the right to wreck everyone else's air, and you wouldn't > actually need to work for your money, nor make an actual product. > > Ain't it great? > > > And a ton of dioxin is not equal to a ton of NOx. How can you > > regulate it just by weight, even if all chemical plants were the same > > size? > > Don't confuse the NeoCons with facts. It's all about faith based > initiatives, remember? > > robert luis rabello > "The Edge of Justice" > Adventure for Your Mind > http://www.newadventure.ca > > Ranger Supercharger Project Page > http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ > > > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Zeke Yewdall wrote: > What is the logic in a 25 ton cap? Are all chemical factories the > same size? 25 tons for large factory might actually very low, > compared to the total throughput of chemicals, but for a small factory > (say a homebrew biodiesel setup), a 25 ton allowance might be more > than it could possibly produce in a year if it used the dirtiest setup > possible. Can't you see the logic in the Brave New World of the Clear Skies Initiative? That factory that's spewing out tons of pollution can buy pollution credits from your homebrew biodiesel operation. Zeke, you could become a biodiesel entrepreneur! The big polluters would PAY you for the right to wreck everyone else's air, and you wouldn't actually need to work for your money, nor make an actual product. Ain't it great? > And a ton of dioxin is not equal to a ton of NOx. How can you > regulate it just by weight, even if all chemical plants were the same > size? Don't confuse the NeoCons with facts. It's all about faith based initiatives, remember? robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
What is the logic in a 25 ton cap? Are all chemical factories the same size? 25 tons for large factory might actually very low, compared to the total throughput of chemicals, but for a small factory (say a homebrew biodiesel setup), a 25 ton allowance might be more than it could possibly produce in a year if it used the dirtiest setup possible. And a ton of dioxin is not equal to a ton of NOx. How can you regulate it just by weight, even if all chemical plants were the same size? On 4/4/06, robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It looks more like the "Endangering Permission Agency" . . . > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5321132 > >A leaked document from the Environmental Protection Agency suggests > that the agency is considering a significant change in air-pollution > rules. It would give chemical factories, refineries and manufacturing > plants new leeway to increase emissions of pollutants that cause > cancer and birth defects. > > John Walke, who heads the clean-air program for the environmental > group Natural Resources Defense Council, says he received the document > from sources at the EPA who wanted the public to become aware of this > "backward step." > > Currently, any factory that emits more than 25 tons of toxic chemicals > into the air each year must reduce its pollution as much as it > feasibly can. Walke says the draft proposal would give a break to > companies that own those plants. After they clean up, their only > requirement would be to keep their pollution below 25 tons a year. > > "Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air > pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today > will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA > proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five > tons to 25 tons." > > But Lorraine Gershman of the American Chemistry Council says there are > no incentives to increase emissions under the new rules. > > Gershman says her industry has been pushing EPA to make the changes > described in the draft rule. Under the current rules, even after the > factory cleans up, it's still considered a major polluter and is > required to keep monitoring its pollution and reporting what it learns > to the government. Under the draft proposal, these requirements would > disappear. > > "We believe it's EPA recognizing a lot of these major sources have > made in reducing their emissions and realizing that there should be > some sort of benefit of that, and that is reducing the administrative > burdens," Gershman says. > > Lobbyist Scott Segal, who represents refineries, says the proposal > will give big polluters the incentive to reduce pollution below that > 25-ton-a-year cap. > > But EPA officials charged with running the air toxics programs outside > of Washington apparently disagree. In December, the regional officials > sent a letter to EPA headquarters warning that the draft rule would be > "detrimental to the environment and undermine the intent of the program." > > The letter criticizes EPA's draft rule for failing to analyze how many > companies might be encouraged to cut pollution and how many might > relax their pollution controls because they're already under the > threshold. > > In the draft rule, the EPA asserts that plants will not use the rule > to increase pollution because they'll want to "avoid negative > publicity and maintain their appearance as responsible businesses." > > But EPA's regional air toxic chiefs in their letter call that > statement unfounded and overly optimistic. > > EPA spokesperson Lisa Lybbert released a statement saying that > "commenting on the draft at this point in the process is like asking > us how a cake tastes when we haven't even put the batter in the oven." > > > robert luis rabello > "The Edge of Justice" > Adventure for Your Mind > http://www.newadventure.ca > > Ranger Supercharger Project Page > http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ > > > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] New EPA Rules
It looks more like the "Endangering Permission Agency" . . . http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5321132 A leaked document from the Environmental Protection Agency suggests that the agency is considering a significant change in air-pollution rules. It would give chemical factories, refineries and manufacturing plants new leeway to increase emissions of pollutants that cause cancer and birth defects. John Walke, who heads the clean-air program for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, says he received the document from sources at the EPA who wanted the public to become aware of this "backward step." Currently, any factory that emits more than 25 tons of toxic chemicals into the air each year must reduce its pollution as much as it feasibly can. Walke says the draft proposal would give a break to companies that own those plants. After they clean up, their only requirement would be to keep their pollution below 25 tons a year. "Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five tons to 25 tons." But Lorraine Gershman of the American Chemistry Council says there are no incentives to increase emissions under the new rules. Gershman says her industry has been pushing EPA to make the changes described in the draft rule. Under the current rules, even after the factory cleans up, it's still considered a major polluter and is required to keep monitoring its pollution and reporting what it learns to the government. Under the draft proposal, these requirements would disappear. "We believe it's EPA recognizing a lot of these major sources have made in reducing their emissions and realizing that there should be some sort of benefit of that, and that is reducing the administrative burdens," Gershman says. Lobbyist Scott Segal, who represents refineries, says the proposal will give big polluters the incentive to reduce pollution below that 25-ton-a-year cap. But EPA officials charged with running the air toxics programs outside of Washington apparently disagree. In December, the regional officials sent a letter to EPA headquarters warning that the draft rule would be "detrimental to the environment and undermine the intent of the program." The letter criticizes EPA's draft rule for failing to analyze how many companies might be encouraged to cut pollution and how many might relax their pollution controls because they're already under the threshold. In the draft rule, the EPA asserts that plants will not use the rule to increase pollution because they'll want to "avoid negative publicity and maintain their appearance as responsible businesses." But EPA's regional air toxic chiefs in their letter call that statement unfounded and overly optimistic. EPA spokesperson Lisa Lybbert released a statement saying that "commenting on the draft at this point in the process is like asking us how a cake tastes when we haven't even put the batter in the oven." robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
