A Bowlful of Cherries

Celebrating Matty and Noah

New Source Review

I was all set to write something about the cover story of the New York Times magazine on Sunday, but Kevin Drum beat me to it. Kevin mentions that

the results are pretty easy to understand: if the current law were enforced properly, air pollution would go down x%. If Bush’s proposals are enacted, air pollution will go down about half that much, meaning that they leave a lot more pollution in the air than if we just left things alone and enforced the laws we have now.

Gregg Easterbrook has more. He claims that the

cover and article give the impression that air pollution is getting worse when in fact it’s in significant decline.

He also mentions that the worst-case scenario for Bush’s rule is that it will slow the future rate of pollution decline, which, to me, doesn’t seem like a good thing. Why shouldn’t we press power companies to spend more of their insane profits on environmental protection?


Written by Michael

07 Apr 2004 at 405pm

Posted in Misc.

%d bloggers like this: