In ohio 10 or so years back, a republican state senator tried to get the law changed so that companies did not have to report their pollution. He argued that if they had to report it, they would be less apt to take action against it because everyone would know about it. Whereas if they could keep it private/unreported, they would clean it right up so no one found out.
The argument was so genius, there was almost no way anyone could respond to it after passing out from trying to apply logic to the argument.
Of course, they give no context whatsoever of what consitutes a ‘toxic emission’. Does anyone have an actual link to the definition of what constitues A) toxic and B) emission (waste disposal? probably not, but is this liquid runoff? atmospheric emission?). I suppose getting some quotes from chemists, industry representatives of EPA officials versus just a couple spokespeople from environmental groups might have been too much like actual journalism, or science reporting…
[li]The amendment would replace EPA’s so-called “once in, always in” policy established in May, 1995. The once in always in policy stated that once a source was subject to a major source standard, it would always be subject, regardless of the source’s subsequent toxic air pollutant emissions.[/li][li]EPA is proposing this change to provide an incentive for industry to reduce emissions below major source threshold.[/ul]Story: [/li]
The report, published since 1993, identifies the worst polluters and ranks jurisdictions according to their emission levels. It generates extensive news media attention and is widely credited with bringing pollution levels down.
“Bringing this information out into the public eye has helped to make companies much more accountable in their chemical uses and releases and has thus resulted in them taking action,” Mr. Chanon said.
Under the new rules, U.S. facilities will not be required to file reports if they release less than 4,100 kilograms of toxic emissions, compared with the previous threshold of 1,100 kg.
It will now be difficult to compare U.S. releases with those in Canada, which has no equivalent threshold. Yet data comparability is a stated goal of the three NAFTA countries, Mr. Chanon said.
“Comparability enables us to look across North America and look at trends.”
Sounds like standard Bush policy to me - media management to help his friends.