To: "homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org" <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: [Homestead] Debate corrections
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:31:34 -0700
For The Record
Few Factual Errors, but Truth Got Stretched at Times
By Glenn Kessler and Walter PincusWashington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 1, 2004; Page A10
President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry made few major factual errors in last
night's debate, though on occasion they stretched the truth or left out
inconvenient facts -- or may have confused viewers as they spoke in policy
shorthand.
Bush, for instance, hailed the coming presidential election in Afghanistan,
saying that the fact that 10 million people had registered to vote was a
"phenomenal statistic." But Human Rights Watch this week said that figure
was inaccurate because of the multiple registrations of many voters. In a
lengthy report, the respected organization also documented how human rights
abuses are fueling a pervasive atmosphere of repression and fear in many
parts of the country, with voters in those areas having little faith in the
secrecy of the balloting and often facing threats and bribes from militia
factions.
From tvoivozd AT infionline.net Fri Oct 1 12:36:29 2004
Return-Path: <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>
X-Original-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net
[207.69.200.243])
by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8A120046
for <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:36:28 -0400
(EDT)
Received: from sdn-ap-022dcwashp0435.dialsprint.net ([63.191.161.181]
helo=[127.0.0.1])
by maynard.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 1CDQOR-000211-00
for homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:36:27 -0400
Message-ID: <415DB5D4.9040002 AT infionline.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:53:56 -0700
From: Tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Homestead] Inspector General says Bush killed pollution control
X-BeenThere: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
Reply-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
List-Id: homestead.lists.ibiblio.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead>,
<mailto:homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead>
List-Post: <mailto:homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead>,
<mailto:homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:36:29 -0000
Well, sure---that is what he intended to do, remember an "honest"
president is one who when bought, stays bought.
The New York Times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1, 2004
Inspector General Says E.P.A. Rule Aids Polluters
*By MICHAEL JANOFSKY*
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - In a rebuke of the Bush administration, the
inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency said on
Thursday that legal actions against major polluters had stalled because
of the agency's decision to revise rules governing emissions at older
coal-fired power plants.
The inspector general, Nikki L. Tinsley, took direct aim at the
administration's revision of the New Source Review rule, one of the
administration's most prominent - and vilified - environmental
initiatives, saying that it makes it easier for power-plant operators to
postpone or avoid adding technologies that reduce polluting emissions.
The revised rule, made final last year, has not been put in effect yet
because of legal challenges. But the report concludes that just by
issuing the rule, which scuttled the enforcement approach of the Clinton
administration, the agency has "seriously hampered" its ability to
settle cases and pursue new ones.
Ms. Tinsley's report serves as a sharp challenge to Jeffrey R.
Holmstead, an assistant E.P.A. administrator who has been the agency's
leading proponent of the new rule. Ms. Tinsley said in the report that
her investigators found little basis for the new rule and suggested,
"This is an excellent opportunity for E.P.A. to fully consider - in an
open, public, and transparent manner - the environmental impact of
proposed N.S.R. changes at varying levels."
Appearing before a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Public
Works Committees in 2002, Mr. Holmstead said, "We do not believe these
changes will have a negative impact on the enforcement cases."
While the language of the report is critical, the inspector general
cannot force the agency to do anything.
The report also showcased a split in the agency between political
officials in the air quality office, which Mr. Holmstead leads, and
lawyers charged with enforcement, including some who have left the
agency in frustration. Responding to Ms. Tinley's questions about the
reasonableness of the relaxed new rule, the air quality office defended
it, saying it allowed utilities to improve efficiency, safety and
reliability; enforcement officials said the rule would most likely
eviscerate the air enforcement program.
The E.P.A., which was expecting a critical review, released a statement
that largely echoed its original response to a draft of Ms. Tinsley's
report. The statement said, "The report misses the mark, misleads rather
than enlightens the public and portrays a superficial and inaccurate
characterization of agency policies."
Industry groups like the National Association of Manufacturers and the
Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which strongly support the
new rule, sounded similar tones.
Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a trade
organization, said in a statement, "It is frustrating that E.P.A.'s own
inspector general could so completely misconstrue the purpose of the New
Source Review requirements and, simultaneously, shortchange the agency's
own success in improving air quality."
But the report was applauded by environmental groups like the Sierra
Club and Physicians for Social Responsibility, as well as lawmakers
opposed to efforts to roll back the rules of the Clinton administration.
Before the revision of the rule, the E.P.A. had reached settlements with
several industrial companies that agreed to spend hundreds of millions
of dollars installing modern pollution controls to reduce emissions, and
many other companies were in settlement talks with the enforcement
branch of agency. Once the agency set the new rules, those companies
were no longer under pressure to agree to similar settlements.
"This report is further evidence that the Bush administration has been
trying to gut the enforcement of the Clean Air Act since coming into
office," said Senator James M. Jeffords, a Vermont independent who was
one of several senators to ask the inspector general to review the
proposed New Source Review rules.
John Walke, director of the Clean Air Project at the Natural Resources
Defense Council, said the report "confirms that top political officials
at the agency charged with protecting public health had to have known
that they were letting power plants off the hook for pollution that
shortens lives and triggers asthma attacks."
Before President Bush
<http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington/campaign2004/candidates/georgewbush/index.html?inline=nyt-per-pol>
took office, the E.P.A. and the Justice Department went after dirty
plant operators on a case-by-case basis when investigators determined
that "significant" upgrades had been made without adding required
cleanup technologies. Under the Bush proposal, the requirement would not
be triggered until plant upgrades reached a cost of 20 percent of the
value of the plant - even though agency enforcement officials
recommended that the trigger be set no higher than three-quarters of one
percent.
Ms. Tinsley, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, said in the
report that under the prior case-by-case standard, legal action over a
10-year period resulted in 650,000 tons of reduced emissions of nitrogen
oxide and sulfur dioxide. She said current enforcement actions could
lead to another 2.3 million tons of reductions but that the likelihood
of looser restrictions had caused plant operators to put off making
upgrades.