The Center for Cooperative Research
U:     P:    
Not registered yet? Register here
 
Search
 
Current timeline only
Advanced Search


Main Menu
Home 
History Engine Sub-Menu
Timelines 
Entities 
Forum 
Miscellaneous Sub-Menu
Donate 
Links 
End of Main Menu

Volunteers Needed!
Submit a timeline entry
Donate: If you think this site is important, please help us out financially. We need your help!
Email updates
 



  View mode (info):
  Ordering (info):
  Time period (info):

General Topic Areas

National Parks (8)
Public land use (12)
Air pollution (28)
Water pollution (24)
Public health (10)
Wetlands (6)
Wildlife protection (12)
Corruption (8)
Forest policy (10)
Global warming (6)
Corporate welfare (3)
Shorelines and oceans (5)
Appointments and resignations (5)
Endangered species (9)
Toxic waste (3)
Environmental enforcement (8)
Outsourcing and privatization (5)
Politicization and deception (11)
Superfund sites and clean-up (4)

Corporate Interests

Energy industry (16)
Oil and gas industry (8)
Automobile industry (2)
Mining industry (4)
Timber industry (19)
Agribusiness (9)
Cattle Industry (5)
Snowmobile Industry (3)
Coal Industry (2)
Factory farms (4)

Specific Pollutants

Mercury (3)
MTBE (1)
Methyl Bromide (3)
Formaldehyde (5)
Lead (1)
Atrazine (1)

Specific Issues and Cases

Snowmobile regulation (5)
Roadless Rule (6)
Mountaintop Mining (2)
Klamath Basin Fish Kill (4)
Mining in the Cabinet Mountains (1)
Formaldehyde Rule (7)
Outsourcing CAT (7)
New Source Review (3)
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (1)
Round Up power plant (1)
Clear Skies
Click here to join: Suggest changes to existing data, add new data to the website, or compile your own timeline. More Info >>

 

The Bush administration's environmental record

 
  

Project: The Bush administration's environmental record

Export to XML Printer Friendly View Email to a Friend Increase Text Size Decrease Text Size


(2003-July 2003)

       EPA staffers are instructed by higher-ups not to analyze any mercury or carbon dioxide reduction proposals that conflict with the president's “Clear Skies” bill or, if they do, to keep the results under wraps. For example, an alternative proposal sponsored by Senators Thomas R. Carper and Lincoln Chaffee is analyzed by the EPA but its conclusions—showing that the Carper-Chaffee plan has some advantages over Clear Skies—are not released. According to one EPA staffer later interviewed by the New York Times, Jeffrey Holmstead, the assistant administrator for air programs, wondered out loud during a May 2 meeting, “How can we justify Clear Skies if this gets out?” And in June, EPA administrator Christie Whitman sends a letter to Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, informing them that the EPA will not do economic analysis on their alternative plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as they requested. Senator McCain later tells the New York Times that he did “not feel it was normal procedure to refuse to analyze a bill that is under the agency's jurisdiction.” [League of Conservation Voters, n.d.; New York Times, 7/14/2003]
People and organizations involved: John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, Jeffrey Holmstead, Lincoln Chaffee, Bush administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Thomas R. Carper
          

June 5, 2003

       A White House aide tells Congress that the administration overestimated the expected reduction in mercury emissions that would result from the implementation of its “Clear Skies” plan. [League of Conservation Voters, n.d.; The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 6/6/2003] The EPA is under court orders to finalize a mercury reduction plan, which would update the Clean Air Act, by December 15, 2003. The current version of the Clean Air Act has no provisions covering mercury, a byproduct of coal-burning power plants. [New York Times, 7/14/2003] The administration's “Clear Skies” plan had predicted that if sulfur and nitrogen compound emissions were reduced by 70 percent in 2010 as the plan proposes, there would be a concomitant reduction in mercury pollution from coal power plants to about 26 tons a year nationally. But a revised estimate put the expected reduction between 2 and 14 tons. Since Congress' current draft of the Clean Air Act had set a reduction target of 22 tons by 2010 based on the plan's previous figures, energy industry lobbyists and some pro-industry senators are now arguing that the mercury reduction goal should likewise be set to a smaller amount. [League of Conservation Voters, n.d.; The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 6/6/2003]
People and organizations involved: Bush administration, US Congress
          

November 26, 2003

       EPA officials complete a draft proposal outlining plans to revise the conclusion of a court-ordered December 2000 EPA study which had determined that mercury emissions “pose significant hazards to public health and must be reduced.” As a result of the 2000 study, the agency had been ordered to propose a “maximum achievable control technology” (MACT) standard for all coal-burning power plants by December 15, 2003. [EPA, 12/14/2000; The Washington Post, 12/3/2003; Associated Press, 12/2/2003 Sources: Mercury White Paper] But instead of complying with this mandate, the EPA's current draft proposal on the regulation of mercury emissions attempts to modify the December 2000 conclusion claiming that it had been based on a misreading of the Clean Air Act. Citing a different provision in the Clean Air Act, the draft proposal recommends a flexible regulatory approach that is more acceptable to industry. It suggests a market-based mandatory “cap and trade” program permitting utility companies to purchase emissions “credits” from cleaner-operating utilities to meet an industry-wide standard. It is estimated that their plan would reduce mercury emissions to 34 tons a year by 2010, or about 30 percent below current levels. But this is a much higher cap than the 26-ton limit initially specified in the White House's “Clear Skies” initiative (see June 5, 2003). The White House claims that by 2018 their “cap and trade” plan would result in a mercury emissions reduction of 70 percent, which is significantly less than the 90 percent reduction that would otherwise be achieved within 3 or 4 years, if the EPA were to keep to the original December 2000 ruling. [The Washington Post, 12/3/2003; Associated Press, 12/2/2003; League of Conservation Voters, n.d.]
People and organizations involved: Environmental Protection Agency, Bush administration
          


Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under the Creative Commons License below:

Creative Commons License Home |  About this Site |  Development |  Donate |  Contact Us
Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use