Greg Easterbrook, writing for The New Republic,” examines the two options being considered by the Bush administration to address problems with the “new source” standard of the Clean Air Act. “The rule essentially exempts from regulation some refineries and a large group of antiquated, high-pollution power plants in the Midwest, as long as they don’t undertake any significant improvements,” Easterbrook notes. “If they do, they must immediately abide by stricter anti-pollution standards. The incentive is perverse: Keep your ancient pollution-pumping equipment as is, and you’re fine. Upgrade anything–even in an effort to reduce pollution!–and you’re in trouble with the Feds.”

Of the two options for change under consideration,

[…]one, being pushed by Vice President Dick Cheney, would essentially let the Midwestern plants off the hook — allowing them to upgrade without having to meet Clean Air Act rules…[while the] alternative, being pushed by Christie Todd Whitman at the Environmental Protection Agency, would actually strengthen regulatory standards and rapidly cut Midwestern pollution, while simplifying rules and reducing costs.

Easterbrook notes that, “It’s not clear which position — Whitman’s progressive reform or Cheney’s let-them-eat-soot stance — will ultimately win the president’s favor. What is clear, sadly, is that neither the Democrats, nor the environmentalists, nor the media seem interested in distinguishing between the two.” [emphasis added]

In fact, Easterbrook suggests, so-called environmentally friendly groups appear to be going out of their way to actually subvert Whitman’s plan,

a simplified system for refinery and power-plant regulation, one based on the highly successful acid rain reduction program. Industry would be given national ‘caps’ that rolled all Clean Air Act requirements into a single standard, and then allowed to trade emission permits in order to achieve the cheapest or fastest means of reduction. Regulators, lawyers, and politicians would no longer have to figure out what constituted a ‘modification’ of a facility, or dictate specific upgrades that plants must (or must not) take…[T]he cap system would require that refinery and power-plant emissions steadily decline. But so long as standards were met, industry would be free to work out the details without government meddling.

“The idea is eminently sensible,” Easterbrook notes, “and so, naturally, Democrats and environmental lobbyists have worked to discredit it from its inception”:

The most common tactic has been to malign Whitman’s plan as a ‘rollback,’ emphasizing that existing regulations would be cast aside — which is true — without adding that they would be replaced with improved standards that result in less pollution. ‘We fully expect [Whitman] to announce an initiative that will have the effect of relaxing antipollution regulations,’ said John Walke, an official of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a typically myopic statement.

But why on earth would environmentalists, enviro-friendly Dems, and greenly-tinted media types go out of their way to misrepresent Whitman’s proposal — a proposal that accomplishes precisely what the enviro-lobby wants to accomplish (with the added bonus of easing some of the regulatory burden on industry)? Simple: Politics — specifically, a calculated allegiance to maintaining political “wedge” issues. As Easterbrook points out,

Because the standard line is that W. is anti-environment (though, so far, he has upheld most Clinton-era green initiatives), everyone misses the fact that there is a significant faction within the Bush EPA and on the White House domestic policy staff that wants to accelerate environmental progress. And as a result, pro-environmental proposals like Whitman’s, which has been under discussion for months and is expected to become public soon, are largely ignored. And what little recognition the Bush pro-environment faction receives is usually spun negatively […]

[…] In a rational political climate, the president would have a clear incentive to do the right thing and choose Whitman’s plan, which represents the best kind of compromise: Industry gets simplified rules; the public gets cleaner air. Unfortunately, in today’s climate, the press and the Democratic Party–its eyes on 2002 ‘wedge’ issues–seem determined to ignore the difference between bad environmental ideas and good ones.

Earlier this week, U.S. News and World Report’s Michael Barone wrote a piece examining the murky trend in some major media outlets to cater coverage on environmental issues to the wishes of enviro-lobbies. Cynthia glossed this column — and several related columns — here.

—–