|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads | |
JANUARY 31, 2005
Edited by Mike McNamee Why The Clean Air Fight Is Likely To Be A Draw As activists see it, the nation's basic environmental laws are lined up like old-growth trees before a GOP chain saw. Key regulations -- from clean-air rules to the Endangered Species Act -- are coming under attack by staunchly pro-industry Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. "We've got a lineup [of lawmakers] never really seen before in history," worries Frank O'Donnell, head of Clean Air Watch. "There is a great deal of potential for bad things to happen." But rolling back enviro regulation may be tougher than the GOP expects. Not all Republicans are signing on. In some cases, environmental activists are able to use industry's favorite weapon, the cost-benefit analysis, to boost regs rather than block them. And the need to fight global warming -- which is finding growing acceptance even in Corporate America -- will undercut hard-liners like James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chair of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, who has argued that it's all a hoax. The probable result: stalemate. "2005 is likely to resemble the middle of World War I: five steps forward, then back into the trench," says Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. Take the coming fight over clean air. After the election, the Bush Administration postponed its so-called clean air interstate rule (CAIR) requiring cuts in power-plant emissions. The reason: to give Congress a chance to pass a more sweeping overhaul of the Clean Air Act. For enviros, that was a setback. Although they consider CAIR's limits too weak, they like its general approach -- and would rather have rules than a legislative rewrite that could reopen and undermine existing protections. But the activists' nightmare scenario now seems unlikely. While Inhofe has vowed to move legislation from his Senate committee by early February, he may not have the muscle. The GOP has only a two-vote edge on the panel -- and one vote belongs to Senator Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.), who says he won't support new clean-air laws unless they limit carbon dioxide emissions, blamed for climate change. Inhofe so far has refused to do that. Campaign Promise In the legislative trenches, activists are also turning the GOP's insistence on "sound science" and cost-benefit analysis back on industry. When the Environmental Protection Agency set standards for levels of fine particles in the air, in 1997, business and its Republican allies attacked the rules as based on bad science and too costly for the benefits. But since then, studies have shown that reducing such pollutants by cutting power-plant emissions would save lives at a relatively modest cost. So in an ironic reversal, it's the enviros who are now talking up cost-benefit analysis -- not the foes of regulation. Given the hurdles, clean-air experts say there's little chance that the Senate can pass a bill before the mid-March deadline for the Administration's CAIR provisions. Although the White House may delay CAIR further to boost the legislation's chances, it risks being accused of reneging on George W. Bush's campaign promise to reduce air pollution. GOP leaders, flush with bigger majorities in both the House and Senate, won't stop their efforts to roll back regs. And the fights will be intense. But when the smog of warfare finally clears, clean air rules and other key environmental protections probably will still be standing. By John Carey CAPITAL WRAPUP The Short List To Head The FCC Even this early in President George W. Bush's second Administration, telecom watchers are placing bets on the White House pick for the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Current boss Michael K. Powell is widely expected to depart this year. On the most-mentioned list: former top Texas utilities regulator Rebecca A. Klein; FCC Commissioner Kevin J. Martin; Assistant Commerce Secretary Michael D. Gallagher; and Washington attorney Earl Comstock, a former Hill aide to new Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). The new FCC chief would face a full agenda since Stevens is preparing to rewrite the 1996 Telecommunications Act.   CAPITAL WRAPUP Can A "Code" Keep Euro Arms Sales Safe? What's the difference between an arms embargo and "code of conduct"? Not much, according to Europe. The Euros want to lift the 15-year-old post-Tiananmen embargo on China later this year so Beijing won't be treated as a pariah like Sudan and Burma. But Washington fears that arms sold to China could be used against the U.S. in future conflicts, if, say, America came to the aid of Taiwan. The Europeans' solution: a tough code of conduct for weapons exports, which they insist would block sales without the stigma of an embargo. Some countries, such as Germany, already have stiff laws in place. Europeans hope the scheme will head off a brewing clash with the Administration over ending the embargo. But the compromise may not satisfy the Bush team, which is skeptical of other nations' exports curbs -- and a European arms industry that is always hunting for new markets.
| | |
 Copyright 2005, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version
