John Walke's Blog
What explains the Bush administration's air pollution agenda for power plants?
August 15, 2008
Posted by John Walke
Does President Bush, powerfully astride a proverbial aircraft carrier rocking on the ocean's perspiring surface undulating like waves, survey the nation’s hoary horizon of power plants erect like smokestacks, not misunderestimating the dirty deed he did for these dischargers, and does he (flush with satisfaction) boast, “Emissions accomplished"?
Are we to believe that the Bush administration pursued a cynical agenda over the past eight years to delay and avoid air pollution reductions by utility companies, ending up with no significant, mandated reductions in smog, soot, toxic and global warming air pollution from power plants? Or was that just the outcome based on some combination of intentional risk-taking, negligence, unintended consequences and/or bad luck? What explains the Bush administration’s air pollution agenda for power plants?
We interrupt this previously scheduled post for an important announcement: NRDC bloggers are participating during the upcoming week in the inaugural NRDC Bulwer-Lytton © Environmental Blogging Competition to select the worst opening sentence of a post on Switchboard. The competition follows the deliciously dreadful example of the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, a literary parody contest that San Jose State University sponsors each year. This year’s awesomely awful winner in the actual contest can be read here.
NRDC’s competition will follow the same model, with the difference being that the opening sentence of a Switchboard post must address an environmental or energy or public health topic that an NRDC blogger otherwise would cover. Plus, the blogger must go on to complete a post that otherwise would stand on its own on Switchboard.
The competition will run for a week, starting today, and the winner will be announced at the end of the week after next, following voting by Switchboard’s bloggers. Switchboard readers are encouraged to cast their votes by commenting on individual posts, and those votes will be factored heavily into the final tally.
Let the contest begin!
I’m taking the liberty of not responding to my own questions above for now, in order to kick off the contest for my fellow Switchboard bloggers. I will explore the questions above and related issues in a more focused post later. Stay tuned.
And in the meantime, read more of the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest entries here.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
- John Walke
- Clean Air Director/ Senior Attorney
- Washington, D.C.
- As a senior attorney and the Director of NRDC's Clean Air Program, I work on...
- more→
Comments
Hank Roberts — Aug 16 2008 02:03 PM
> What explains the Bush administration’s air
> pollution agenda for power plants?
30-year contracts. I read recently about the little town of Oberlin Ohio, where their old coalfired electric power plant needs to be replaced soon. The coal vendor sent a slick team of attorneys and experts to the city council meeting to push for a new old-type coal plant and a new longterm commitment to coal.
The college folks showed up to argue for alternatives, but their report was most notable for the description of the powerhouse industry push.
I am sure every little coal purchaser is mapped and scheduled for regular coal company visits with special focus on contract renewal and physical plant replacement dates and meetings.
If only the biologists had a lobby.
"If Trees Had Standing" was such a great idea, and such a sad loss.