Obama's Ozone Standards Retreat Angers Environmental Groups, Ignores Science

[Logical]

Story below the break.....

I am specifically asking this question in the GDP because I hope this place may have an answer. Why in the world would Obama do this? The Chamber of Commerce LOVES this Obama EPA decision. That tells me all I need to know.

Is Obama trying to get support from the right for the 2012 election?

I cannot fathom any reason he would make this ruling. And he released it late on a Friday because it is embarrassing.

Looking forward to any possible reasons.


-----------------------------------------------------
Ridiculous." "Illegal." "Dangerous." President Barack Obama's decision to shelve a proposed tightening of ozone standards has prompted a deluge of angry remarks from environment and public health researchers.

"I am outraged. This is a serious mistake for public health," Janice Nolen, assistant vice president of the American Lung Association, told The Huffington Post. "The current standard used was based on the science as of 14 years ago -- before we knew that ozone killed people."

Friday's announcement comes in the wake of four prior delays by the EPA on revising national air quality standards for the main ingredient in smog. The agency's scientific advisers have recommended reducing the ground-level ozone standard to between 60 and 70 parts per billion, from the current 84 parts per billion standard set in 1997. EPA estimates that this would save up to 12,000 American lives, 58,000 asthma attacks and 2.5 million missed days of school or work each year.

<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/obama-ozone-standard-epa-environmental-groups_n_947136.html?ref=mostpopular

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Divernan]

2. Cui bono? When corporations profit, Obama gets campaign funding.

Not to mention future board appointments worth big, big bucks.

[MNBrewer]

3. I want MORE government regulation!

If I wanted less, I'd vote for Republicans.

[Logical]

4. I hope someone responds with a valid reason Obama did this!! I seriously want to hear one.

[Tx4obama]

9. The answer is a simple one ...

The EPA was going to do only an interim change.
Obama requested the EPA to wait until the normal review that will take place in 2013.

[Logical]

12. You act like 2013 is next week! Jesus!

[ClassWarrior]

13. So if I have asthma, I just need to hold my breath for 16 months?

NGU.

[MNBrewer]

14. The answer is a simple one ...

Crass politics

[vaberella]

5. I'm disappointed in this decision and think this is a bad idea.

However I don't see him as a corporate whore because his position on environmental conservation is normally on point--minus off-shore oil drilling.

[Logical]

7. I agree he is usually OK, but why was there ANY REASON to do this? It makes no sense.

[vaberella]

10. Well it would seem he's still okay. I just read the full reasoning. It makes sense.

It seems, people were in an uproar about nothing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=761735&mesg_id=761735

[Logical]

11. That is not a defense at all!! You act like 2013 is next week. This s my proof....

That people like you defend everything he does!!!

[vaberella]

15. "people like you" Talk about being a jerk. Offensive much.

If the plan was for 2013 from the beginning and businesses would be charged twice---since these costs are not cheap---I don't see the reason why charging them twice for the same procedure is necessary. 2013 is not around the corner, but it is close. I see the dilemma and would like it to go ahead. But we're living in a state of emergency when it comes to jobs. There are millions of people who also don't care about this because they need to work for these corporations. This is what happened with the oil thing. Obama was seen as the enemy of Louisiana when he signed the moratorium. We didn't care---because we're liberals. However millions of people were not able to work and the government wasn't providing enough pay to counter balance their losses. I think this is the flip side when these companies hire a good number of people and we have a jobs problem that goes from 9.5 to 12% over this. This affects a good deal of American citizens---even if you may be pushing for their health. They're pushing for their buying power and surviving this economic downfall. Or that's the way I'm thinking about it.

I'm fairly disgusted that I had to explain my thinking on this issue---because you're so quick to judge people like a jackass. It's not a fair assumption and people assume that there are trolls holding Dems apart (not that I'm a Dem----I consider myself a Liberal Independent---because this Dem titling is getting problematic on this board). This isn't trolls---it's you and your issues.

[Harmony Blue]

16. The Democratic party has the habit of turning a progressive victory into a defeat

That just boggles my mind...:crazy:

[woo me with science]

6. Here we go again.

K&R

[Lorien]

8. Saving 12,00 American lives? What's the profit in that?

For me it's :sarcasm: , but don't think for a minute that the people who Obama helps to profit think any differently. I heard a talk by Bill Moyers recently where he read some statements by various billionaire banksters and hedge fund managers. Among one another they pride themselves on being "Hyenas" who take down "Wildebeest" (their name for the sick, poor, young and elderly). They crow that they are doing a service to themselves by looking out for their own self interest, and a service to society by removing the weak from the herd. They KNOW that they are killing thousands of Americans, and they are PROUD of that fact!!

[Enrique]

17. the political benefit seems obvious to me

this appears to be Obama listening to Bill Daley rather than the scientists.

[Igel]

18. Perhaps he made the decision because of the nature of the government.

It's not like we have a panel of scientists that are set up as the arbiters of what we can and can't do. Power still is invested in the people and democratic institutions.

Sometimes the president makes the decisions. Sometimes Congress. Sometimes individuals.

Some people long for oligarchy, as long as they're among the many constituting the rulers, or believe themselves to be.