E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
AP
Coal-fired power plants like this one in Thompsons, Texas, emit soot and other pollutants when coal is burned to make electricity.
In another case of environmental rules becoming election fodder, the Obama administration on Friday proposed tighter restrictions on soot, a pollutant caused mainly by smokestacks and diesel engines.
It had been called "the sleeping giant of clean-air issues" by Frank O'Donnell, head of the activist group Clean Air Watch. And while little was made of it until now, Republicans and industry were quick to pounce on it as more red tape in a weak economy.
The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule would set the maximum allowable standard for soot in a range of 12 to 13 micrograms per cubic meter of air. The current annual standard, last revised in 1997, is 15 micrograms per cubic meter.
The EPA had delayed its required review of the Clean Air Act's soot provision, leading New York, California and nine other states to sue. Under a court order, the EPA agreed to unveil its proposal this week.
O'Donnell was not impressed with EPA's pace. "EPA had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do this," O'Donnell told msnbc.com, referring to the lawsuit. The states, along with activists and the American Lung Association, argued that tougher standards will reduce premature deaths and asthma attacks.
"Clean air is not a luxury," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said after a court ordered the EPA to act. "It is a basic public right, and standards that protect it are an absolute necessity."
The proposal follows the World Health Organization's declaration on Tuesday that diesel fumes can cause cancer.
The risk is small, a WHO science panel noted, but raising the status to carcinogen from "probable carcinogen" was an important shift because so many people breathe in the fumes in some way.
"It's on the same order of magnitude" as secondhand smoke, said Kurt Straif, director of the WHO department that evaluates cancer risks. "This could be another big push for countries to clean up exhaust from diesel engines."
That finding, O'Donnell argued, "is all the more reason EPA needs to get tough on particle soot."
Republicans, for their part, in recent months have seized as election fodder the argument that environmental regulations are strangling economic recovery.
House Energy Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., reiterated that in a letter to EPA chief Lisa Jackson last week, saying that "stringent standards" on soot "will likely be costly and have significant regulatory and other implications."
The American Petroleum Institute agreed. "By continuing to implement the existing standards we would avoid the potentially heavy added economic costs of more stringent standards, which our economy and American workers cannot afford," spokesman Howard Feldman told reporters Tuesday.
The EPA countered that soot pollution has already been reduced since the last rule revision in 1997 and that the proposed standard is more of a formality.
All but six counties across the country would meet the proposed standard by 2020 with no additional actions needed beyond compliance with existing and pending rules, the EPA said.
Those counties are San Bernardino and Riverside counties in California; Santa Cruz County, Arizona; Wayne County, Mich.; Jefferson County, Ala. and Lincoln County, Mont. All six face "unique challenges" and will receive individual attention, the EPA added.
Still, Bill Becker, head of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, told msnbc.com that "meeting the standards could be far more challenging" for some counties than others, and he urged the EPA and Congress to provide resources to enforce any new standard.
As for enforcing a new rule, Becker noted that "today’s proposal is an ‘ambient’ standard, not an emission limit on industry." Any state with a county consistently above the standard would be required to draft a strategy to curb emissions, he added, and that could then "trigger additional controls on industry."
After a public comment period, a final rule is expected in December.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Suspected military plane wreck, bones found on Alaska glacier
- 'Bad deal' lump pension payouts for veterans draw new scrutiny
- North Carolina lawmakers move to scale back Racial Justice Act
- Video: 911 call reports kid behind the wheel
- Cops: Parents left 2 kids bound, blindfolded in Wal-Mart lot
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
We get it SOOT BAD.It's the ILLEGALS GOOD part we can't abide[we know not all of his doing,he's just grooming voters]
Another bombshell in obamas war on American energy
Oh, now we have a soot crisis! And Obama is not letting it go to waste is he. Anything to distract from his miserable economy.
Too bad 0bummer isn't as tough on illegals !!!
It is definitely something that has to be dealt with, but is this on the top of his list, along with changing rules for some immigrants, when this country is falling apart. I guess he thinks the economy and jobs will take care of themselves, while he is out campaigning. I can not believe we all feel for the lies from this guy and elected someone with no experience to lead this country. Lets hope we learned a lesson, and make the change in Nov. He is spending his time trying to get re-elected rather than run the country. Again, as others have posted, he will have to hire more Govt workers to check up on us. Soon, we will have no rights left, that is the goal of this administration. He wants to endorse any program to get votes-
Nice guy but he is in over his head. Too much, too soon! It is not working for the average citizen.
He's such a good president. I think we should repeal the law that only lets him serve 2 terms. I want him to be president forever. Windmills and solar for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!! Just in the U.S. though. The rest of the world can keep doing whatever they want.
Al Gore and the current Commander in Chief. Alfred Nobel must be so proud to see what his award has been reduced to.
How much extra fuel does that jet of his use when he flys out to the Tonight Show?
I'm getting off here because I just remembered something....If you don't have something nice to say....my apologies to anyone I may have offended. Republican or Democrat, pray for your leaders. It's Biblical, unlike my attitude the last 45 minutes.
Suddenly, a flurry of proposals from Obama. What do you think is triggering this timing after three years of f&(K-all getting done?
Next maybe he'll think of SOMETHING for the economy besides grandfathering in a bunch of unemployed student illegals.
Germany has much stricter environmental standards than we do and their unemployment is 5.2% and they have around 2 + % annual growth. So the claim that pollution controls damage an economy is not convincing. Yes, stricter environmental standards cost the polluters money, but the companies that make the anti-pollution technology make money and create new jobs too. Also, the health cost of pollution is real. And its a lot: billions of dollars a year + the pain and suffering (and loss of productivity). Somebody has to pay for it. By giving a break to polluters, we simply shift the cost elsewhere. This is what has happened in China. The cost of cleanups and taking care of the health problems is such that it negates much of the economic growth that was created,
I find it interesting --if not telling-- that the EPA's ruling on so-called "particle soot" won't occur until December, Is just over one month after the election is over. Why does the environment has to be such a political football?
Another article on the problems with the EPA's medical experiments.
http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/06/15/epa-bind-over-hazardous-experiments-humans
Think about it. Whether it is healthy or unhealthy the EPA experimented on people. If the EPA says that there was no chance of harm to the people then PM2.5 it isn't dangerous and doesn't need to be regulated. If the EPA says that PM2.5 is dangerous then it is in hot water for doing illegal experiments on people.
I thought government experiments were something that happened decades ago. Not something to happen with Hope and Change.
I guess the EPA was thinking, "we want to change things and we hope we don't get caught."