[snopercod]

You really have to laugh. People are out protesting Bush's "destruction of the environment", while in practice, he is somewhere to the left of John Kerry.

[snopercod]

Pinging a few folks now before the mods pull this for my anti-Bush comments.

[snopercod]

Why didn't the article mention farm tractors?

[dufekin]

Unlike many conservatives, I believe that we haven't done enough to ensure clean air and clean water in this country. But I don't blame Bush; he has taken the initiative to present possible plans to the Congress. The Congress--in no small part because of the Democrats like Kerry--has done nothing.

So it's good that we got these new rules. If only they'd require some of these off-road vehicles to have mufflers!

[!1776!]

You really have to laugh. People are out protesting Bush's "destruction of the environment", while in practice, he is somewhere to the left of John Kerry.

Not trying to pick a fight here, but I am curious as to what about this rule is so negative, and what is liberal about working to improve the environment in an economical way?

[AZLiberty]

You've got it all wrong. This only opens a path for the Democrats to complain that they would have proposed to reduce emissions by 99%, and now Bush will allow 10 times as much pollution.

[Cicero]

I believe conservatives should support rational conservation and antipollution measures. The leftists took over most of the conservation organizations and most of the government conservation agencies, and have done some ridiculous things with them. But the answer isn't to give up. The answer is to take these organizations back from the nitwits who seized them in the 1970s.

Most Americans support sensible conservation and pollution controls, and rightly so. If conservatives paint themselves as anti-conservationists they will be making a huge political mistake.

For whatever reasons, diesel emissions were one of the things that needed tightening up. Whether the new rules are rational or not, I don't know, but I must say the air in NYC, for instance, is a lot easier to breath since the diesel buses were brought under control.

[zeugma]

I for one welcome out new EPA overlords.

It's a darn good thing we have a conservative in the white house, otherwise you might have agencies like this running amok. </sarcasm>

[JesseHousman]

"A stroke of the pen...the law of the land."

The EPA, like the hundreds of other little warrens of bureaucracy needs to be vetted!!!!

[muleskinner]

will cost producers and consumers about $2 billion annually. But the agency says the “enormous” benefits will prevent thousands of premature deaths, including an estimated total of $805 billion in public-health costs over the next 30 years.

IF that is the case, eeexcellent. So now prove it. Studies, scientific data?

I don't believe the ravings of an EPA houseplant.

[snopercod]

Sorry, no generators for you.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[nightdriver]

"But the agency says the “enormous” benefits will prevent thousands of premature deaths, including an estimated total of $805 billion in public-health costs over the next 30 years."

Isn't it interesting how the heavy-handed gubmint can impose strict numbers on the manufacturers, like "...reduce nitrogen-oxide levels in new engines to 0.3 grams per brake-horsepower-hour and particulates to 0.01 g/bhp-hr by 2014." but only say "enormous" benefits will result.

We should make the gubmint either quantify their "enormous benefits" or get the hell out of the manufacturers' hair.

The combustion process that an engine uses is defined by nature. There is very little that can be done to change NO_x emissions. You run the process hot and efficient, you get oxides of nitrogen, you run the process cool and wasteful, you get less oxides of nitrogen.

Pick your operating point, but tell the gubmint to go do something useful like legislate when the leaves fall off the trees!