Reaction to the Ozone Rule

By March 12, 2008Energy

A few quick reactions we spot:

Lots of good perspective and many good questions from a Texan at Question 1: How are small, rural areas supposed to lower their 8hr average ozone readings when they are not contributing any pollution or only trace amounts? How many hundreds of new cities will now fall into “non attainment”?

The predictable outrage from Bernadette Toomey, president and CEO of the American Lung Association.

But let not Clean Air Watch be surpassed in pique. From the group’s news release, quoting the perpetually outraged Frank O’Donnell: “The Bush Administration is compromising public health to save industry money.”

You know, it’s entirely possible the Administration acted in good faith, trying to reach a level that achieved both positive health ends while respecting the value of economic growth. A good faith decision….wrong…but still one that doesn’t warrant impugning motives.

That said, in anticipation of encountering the argument — one you hear mostly from criticized journalists but also from political figures — we reject this claim: Well, both sides are unhappy, so we must be doing something right!

Ah, no. You’ve split the baby and thrown it out with the bathwater. That’s two wrongs.

Leave a Reply