CE Week #7: “EPA orders slash in diesel emissions”
Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post
March 15, 2008
WASHINGTON – Diesel-powered locomotives, ships, ferries and tugboats will have to eliminate 90 percent of the soot and 80 percent of the nitrogen oxides in their exhaust by 2030 under tougher air-pollution standards issued Friday by the Environmental Protection Agency.
“Today EPA is fitting another important piece into the clean diesel puzzle by cleaning emissions from our trains and boats,” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said, adding that the nation’s “diesel rule has reached its final stop on its journey to deliver cleaner air to all Americans.”
Over the past decade, pollution from diesel-powered cars, sports-utilities, trucks and off-road vehicles has been cut by a series of rules that curb emissions of fine particles and smog-causing chemicals.
Environmental groups, which had criticized the EPA this week for setting new limits on smog-causing ozone at a level higher than recommended by the agency’s independent scientific advisers, applauded Friday’s action.
“Our children, and our children’s children, will grow up in an era where diesel engines are no longer associated with these noxious black plumes of smoke,” said Janea Scott, a staff lawyer with the group Environmental Defense. She added that the reductions ordered by the EPA “are challenging but achievable.”
The new standards will yield $8.4 billion to $12 billion in health benefits and prevent 1,400 premature deaths annually by the time they are in full effect in 2030, Johnson said. He estimated that they will cost industry $740 million to implement.
The EPA accelerated its original proposed deadline for cutting nitrogen oxides by two years; the rules will take effect in 2014 for vessels and in 2015 for locomotives.
I think this shows some good initiative in the part of the EPA. It is a good step to help the quality of our air. I think it’s a really good idea too. Have you ever been driving with your windows down on a nice sunny day, then there is a diesel truck or some diesel automobile in front of you and they start going and you get that nasty stinky black cloud and it makes you want to puke. Well wouldn’t it be nice if it wasn’t there. I think that would be really good. It seems this policy that has been put into action by the Environmental Protection Agency will reduce this and it will have major health benefits for the future which is really needed. This program seems to have a lot of public support which is really good. With this type of support it is assured that it will get done and have positive results. From what I have learned in class it seems the people actually have a lot of influence which turns out to be really good in this situation. This also helps public support for the EPA which was kind of low because people felt they were not being strict enough with the restriction that they were imposing.
It is great to hear that this is happening. My question is, so what happens if the emissions do not decrease, if the industry does not listen to the EPA? In the last unit we had discussed ways in which rules get carried out, either by rewarding the companies, industries, and businesses that follow the rules, or severely punish the ones that do not comply. In the case of the EPA I am not sure which one is in play. Personally I think the only way they will succeed is if they punish the industries if they do no comply because they’re probably not to keen on losing $740 million in order to meet these new standards. Hopefully the EPA succeeds. Who doesn’t want a cleaner world?
Ninety percent, and let me please first say that I am not a scientist, but still, ninety percent seems like a lot to me. Seems like a whole lot. Ninety percent of soot (soot seems a strange term; it always reminds me of 101 dalmations.) and eighty percent of nitrogen—Wow. I’m wondering, as a man is wont to wonder, if this actually is an achievable goal. I mean, I know that Janea Scott (a woman) says it is: “challenging but achievable?” Also, I’m wondering if 2030 is the only benchmark with requirements, or if there are variable requirements at various times along the way. But, as they say, “if you don’t make a connection Kautzman will not give you credit,” so… The EPA is an independent regulatory committee, which independently regulates things, including commerce, which, (because of the precedent set in Gibbons V. Ogden) we know includes not only the buying and selling of goods, but also smog and soot released, nitrogen levels, and the licenses of ferryboats. The question, “should the federal government be able to regulate this?” The answer: “Yes. See, The Commerce Clause.” Bam.
So take that conservatives, government deregulators, and Ron Paul. Private industry can’t do everything. It definitely can’t regulate its smog down. No no no.
So by the time I’m 30 years old …(a scary thought to be sure) we should have cleaner air because the EPA said so. Well…good for the EPA. But in my opinion I think we need to start working on a healthier transportation plan altogether. If we can figure out how to do that, we’re gold…I remember for instance reading an earlier article about doing a universal ‘green house gas reduction’ policy. Haha. But I don’t remember the exact name of it, a pity.
Smog is a disgusting substance. But not only cars produce ’smog.’ Have you ever driven past a factory in the valley? That stuff is …rancid, to say the very very least.
I think this is a great idea because most people don’t really take the initiatives the government makes seriously because we usual make the minimum standards when our government makes a decision to implement and new future standard. So when they decided to go above and beyond what they needed to do is good. So the American people will feel more confident in the EPA and then its just good for our health and our environment. In the last few years that the government raised the “SIN tax” on diesel gas in what seems an effort to cut back its consumption and to encourage people to buy more efficient diesel vehicles. Currently diesel gas is closely approaching $4.50 a gallon, were as regular gas is around $3.30 a gallon and is suppose to increase nearly a dollar per gallon by summer of this year. So that would theoretically put diesel and close to $6 dollars a gallon if it increases and a similar rate. In a way which I’m very hesitant to say considering I totally hate paying for gas but in a way it might be a good thing that gas is getting way more expensive. I only say this because out country could kind of turn in to Europe in that respect. There gas is so expensive so there people and government put a huge emphasis on public transportation and very fuel efficient cars. I think that could be good for our country, even though I really really really hate the high gas prices.