Why its environmental proposals have failed to pass muster
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) deadline of April 13, putting a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions on new factories, has fallen flat on its face. As a result, it has been forced to extend the deadline. The emission target was set by the EPA a year back to limit the release of CO2 per unit megawatt hour of electricity for new factories to 1,000 pounds. But the target makes life difficult for factories, especially coal plants, which on an average emit about 1,768 pounds of CO2. Given this reality, it's not surprising that the EPA directive has prompted over two million outraged comments, forcing it to extend the deadline and ponder on the validity of the imposed targets.
This is not the first time that the EPA has been constrained to stretch its deadline. Even before, complainants have moved court, putting the brakes on EPA's plans. Most of these legal manoeuvres have been prompted by economic reasons. But to say that the impasse was created only because of stakeholders wanting to protect their financial interests would be stretching things a bit too far.
Of course the EPA move would affect the economy negatively, at least in the short run. But it also goes to show that policy wonks haven’t got their maths worked out prudently. The EPA model for Tier 3 improvements doesn’t factor in, according to the Environ International Corp, any health betterment for the people. On the contrary, as per the American Petroleum Institute, the gasoline price will be hiked by 6-9 cents per gallon. And that’s an indirect cost on top of the $10 billion direct capital outlay. Clearly, the internally made model of EPA is flawed to its roots. It neither provides a solution to human health improvements nor does it help in mending the economic frailties as they exist.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) deadline of April 13, putting a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions on new factories, has fallen flat on its face. As a result, it has been forced to extend the deadline. The emission target was set by the EPA a year back to limit the release of CO2 per unit megawatt hour of electricity for new factories to 1,000 pounds. But the target makes life difficult for factories, especially coal plants, which on an average emit about 1,768 pounds of CO2. Given this reality, it's not surprising that the EPA directive has prompted over two million outraged comments, forcing it to extend the deadline and ponder on the validity of the imposed targets.
This is not the first time that the EPA has been constrained to stretch its deadline. Even before, complainants have moved court, putting the brakes on EPA's plans. Most of these legal manoeuvres have been prompted by economic reasons. But to say that the impasse was created only because of stakeholders wanting to protect their financial interests would be stretching things a bit too far.
Of course the EPA move would affect the economy negatively, at least in the short run. But it also goes to show that policy wonks haven’t got their maths worked out prudently. The EPA model for Tier 3 improvements doesn’t factor in, according to the Environ International Corp, any health betterment for the people. On the contrary, as per the American Petroleum Institute, the gasoline price will be hiked by 6-9 cents per gallon. And that’s an indirect cost on top of the $10 billion direct capital outlay. Clearly, the internally made model of EPA is flawed to its roots. It neither provides a solution to human health improvements nor does it help in mending the economic frailties as they exist.
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles
