The tightening of diesel emissions was based upon an EPA study which linked small particulate emissions to athsma. I believe that study has proven to be junk science, which has unfortunately not stopped the new regulations. Maybe I'm wrong.
Report Linking Deaths To Small Particulate In The Air Flawed By Computer Glitch!
A person can't have too many.
Thanks for the link - I vaguely remember that discussion when it surfaced, though the details are missing from at least my mind. One thing to note in that article is that the focus appears to be on particulate matter less than 10 microns in size. The rule at the center of our discussion is more focused on particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (which is also the basis of the EPA's most recent revisions to the particulate matter health standards - not to mention ozone, but that is a standard EPA head fake in my opinion).
Apparently, and I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV, the smaller particulate has an increased effect on health since it can be respired more deeply, and more easily become lodged in the lungs.
That aside, the thing that impresses me the most about this rule is actually found from the effected businesses perspective:
National Petrochemical & Refiners Associaiton:
“NPRA worked closely with EPA and all stakeholders as it finalized the non-road diesel rule. Although the rule is stringent and costly, we support its major aspects. We appreciate EPA’s cooperative approach in developing the two-step program and the designate and track compliance program. These will provide the U.S. refining industry much needed flexibility, especially coming on the heels of the implementation of the demanding highway diesel sulfur rule effective in 2006. We remain concerned, however, that this rule and its additional expenditures will place further burdens on the already strained supply situation. We will continue to work with all stakeholders to handle any downstream implementation issues that may arise in an attempt to minimize any adverse impacts on total supply.
Even the environmentalists are, for once, at least partially at a loss for words...
“It’s remarkable that these strong rules come from the same administration that has otherwise turned back the clock on 30 years of environmental progress,” said Emily Figdor of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a grass-roots environmental advocacy group.
Though they can't handle it without getting a jab in there...
My opinion, which ain't worth much, is that this is one of those no-brainer issues. Small particulate matter has a health effect, a software glith may change the numbers a bit, but the case is pretty strong. Improvements can be made effectively, efficiently, and responsibly by working hand in hand with the business affected, which it appears is how this worked. Excitement on the part of the regulatees, probably not (who would), but there doesn't seem to be much of a fight at hand which, to me, implies that it is a workable solution to a real problem.
It may have crappy parts, but overall it must have merit or else there would be litigation already (or soon to) be on file - and the businesses most affected don't seem to be posturing that way.
In general, I think conservatives need to stand by responsibility in all aspects, even environmental. I know it is hard, "environmentalism" has played conservatives like a violin for so long, that they own the discussion - and it is costing everyone, not only in wasted money and resources for nonsense programs, but also in not establishing responsible solutions where necessary.
Remove the environuts from the equation, sit down with those that will be footing the bill come up with real workable solutions. The current EPA head calls his appoach enlibra (worth looking up). It appears this rule was polished that way. I'll bet that with the businesses buy-off the cost will be less and the results will be greater than the old command and control system.
Once command and control, which punished responsiiblity with fines and beauracracy, is replaced with free market incentives and genuine responsibility, environmentalism will finally get its seat at the table of irrelevance while real conservation efforts fix the problems.
My thoughts...