13 states believe greenhouse gases to be non-toxic, 13 states need meds adjusted

Eric Hill

Opinion Editor

I look forward everyday to the belching fart smell of the heavy machinery on Boulevard as street crews repair the puckered roads. I revel in the blanket smog of a clogged highway. The joy I get from paper factories, coal plants and chemical treatment facilities all inspire me to breathe in deeply. Oh wait! I don’t enjoy headaches, nausea, vomiting and carcinogens in my lungs.

To those who think stupidity has something to do with the water, I would suggest you more closely examine the air. Last December the Environmental Protection Agency issued a ruling that greenhouse cases pose a health hazard, constitute a form of environmental pollution and are thus subject to the Clean Air Act, which allows the EPA to regulate their emission levels.

This is a big step for environmentalists as the EPA will be able to set emissions standards without an act of Congress, avoiding political jockeying by fiscal conservatives who claim the cost to protect the environment is too great for the economy. Naturally, the aforementioned fiscal conservatives that still hold high office in their respective states decided to lead a charge against the EPA’s ruling. Guess who led that charge? If you answered Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, you win a balloon full of carbon monoxide!

As virtually all of our electric power here in Virginia comes from coal fired plants, the costs associated with the higher emissions standards due to be set by the EPA would most likely be passed onto consumers. Naturally though, these costs could be alleviated in the long run by investing in alternative wind and solar power, not to mention updating the nuclear power facility at Lake Anna and building more nuclear power plants. This is unlikely to happen though, because there is a strong coal lobby in Virginia.

As McDonnell so bluntly put it in the Republican response to the 2010 State of the Union address, “We must use all of our resources.” In the last days of the Bush regime the EPA loosened restrictions for coal mining projects that involved “mountain top removal,” giving more easy access to the remaining coal in Virginia. The costs of slicing away forest and rock, polluting streams and watersheds in the process, require less investment than building wind turbines and solar panels. So logically, the economy comes first and any sort of regulation that limits the burning of these easily acquired resources is a roadblock in the way of “progress.” By “progress” I mean technology that has been around for 150 years.

Environmentalists strongly support the EPA’s ruling, as it would eliminate the need for a “cap and trade” bill which would use all sorts of tricky math to create carbon credits and futures that corporations could trade in order to burn carbon. I was never a supporter of cap and trade because it is far too difficult to regulate effectively, would most likely stifle small business competition and would certainly drive up costs exponentially by creating carbon credit investment bubbles through rampant speculation. If there is to be any regulation it should come from ecosystem scientists who understand climatology, geology and forestry—not a bunch of abstract economists who work at investment firms.

The EPA could really set us on a fast track to a new energy economy by pressuring states to work harder at reducing emissions. The gains clearly outweigh the costs within ten years. In a decade’s time we could have at least one new nuclear plant, a host of wind turbines in the Appalachian Mountains, solar paneled housing and offshore tide generators and wind turbines. Smartly put together in a modern power grid, these technologies would save the environment from further contamination and would be far preferable to the obtrusive coal mining option.

According to the Virginia Attorney General’s office, Nebraska, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah have all decided to join Virginia in rejecting the EPA’s ruling. Quite a few of these states rely on coal-powered plants, or have high energy costs for other reasons. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported last week that talks between this association of states and the EPA could begin this winter, stalling any action until after congressional elections when Republicans hope to capture enough seats in the House of Representatives to act against popular liberal policies.

Naturally all of this is secondary politics when one looks at the actual purpose of the ruling: to protect people’s health. If greenhouse gases truly are toxic to people and the environment, the economy is no better a justification to permit them than it is to permit arsenic in our water. Perhaps people have confused the economy with the planet, believing that it is the upward swing of GPD that sustains us rather than our ecology.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I think I’ll take higher taxes and costs for a few years over breathing fouler air for the rest of my life. Perhaps cleaner air might produce clearer thinking.