by Max Borders Stone Phillips is wrong about air pollution 
Stone Phillips’s Dateline report on coal emissions was misleading. Such is sometimes the price of press freedom. But that’s why we should always take our news with more than just a grain of salt. The story opens with a scary statistic from a retiring EPA director: Stone Phillips: “Among the major sources of air pollution in this country where do coal fired power plants rank?” Bruce Buckheit: “They're number one. By an order of magnitude. There is no one that comes close.” ... Stone narrates: "Buckheit says the nearly 400 coal fired plants scattered across this country, generating more than half of the electricity we use, are dirty old dinosaurs overdue for extinction."
Of course, in the timeless tactics of journalism, we learn that the ex-EPA director (Air Enforcement Division) wants to "speak out" against the current administration's methods. Apparently, the director has retired because the current administration doesn’t want to do things his way: “If we were still enforcing the Clean Air Act the way it should be enforced I would still be there.” But neither Stone Phillips nor Bruce Buckheit tells us why the current administration isn’t enforcing the Clean Air Act in the way Buckheit hopes. In fact, according to Buckheit, “the way it should be enforced” is as follows: - Threaten old coal-burning plants with individual, case-by-case Clean Air Act law suits (400?) that are costly both for taxpayers and the companies - Force electric companies to adopt the technologies recommended by the Clean Air Act (which are, themselves, dinosaurs) - The companies either settle, or could lose in court after costly battles on both sides (but battles that keep EPA officials employed)
Stone gives short shrift to the alternatives, with no elaboration: But are lawsuits really the most effective way to solve the nation's air quality problems? The Bush administration says there's a better way, by setting caps on emissions and creating financial incentives for companies to reduce pollution. And by allowing utilities to upgrade old plants, the administration says it's helping keep the lights on across the country.
This rhetorical question is not even answered in the MSNBC transcript. And, apart from a token appearance by Mike Leavitt (the current EPA administrator), it was certainly not well-treated on Dateline. Instead, the commentators want to convince viewers that Buckheit, a crusader for environmental justice, is giving up because the administration only cares about the interests of polluting utilities. But the evidence suggests otherwise. In fact, the EPA’s own recently-released National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report concludes “since 1970, aggregate emissions of the six principal pollutants have been cut 48 percent.” Recent concerns from the EPA about smog and ozone problems in “31 states” have more to do with automobile emissions in urban centers than smokestacks (nevermind that they just tightened restrictions). But that’s not the way Nightline portrayed things. Old Thinking and New What Stone Phillips fails to explain is that the regulations of Clean Air Act amount to expensive, outdated thinking—never mind that associated litigation can allow polluters the luxury of time to carry on polluting as the lawsuits drag on. NBC's depiction of the Bush administration as “setting caps on emissions and creating financial incentives… to reduce pollution” doesn't do justice to newer, better ways of cleaning the air that the current administration employs (never mind that this type of quote usually escapes the calculations of the average American viewer). So what is the New Way of thinking? It goes something like this: - Determine reasonable pollution standards based on sound science and risk assessment - Require polluters to comply with output-based standards rather than input regulations. Mantra: "results not programs." - Leave polluters to factor costs of compliance into their assessments and discover the best alternatives. - Let companies figure out their own means of reducing emissions (or trading emission credits), whether through adoption of new technology, updating of equipment, or a combination of both. - Leave it to the companies to meet the standard without bureaucratic micromanagement of the means, or the costly lawsuits. Mantra: markets before mandates.
What may be frightening to people is this: if the New Way works, it will not work to the political advantage of those in the mainstream environmental movement or for EPA bureaucrats. The New Way will bypass them both and contribute to environmental improvement, straight away. Why people like Buckheit don’t like “output” methods The reason that Old Way thinkers don't like the New Way should be apparent: they are incentivized to want to keep the Old Way. Bureaucrats all have comfortable government jobs. Understandably, they don't want to lose them. But when one bases environmental standards on results rather than means (e.g. cleaner air v. command-and-control), then there isn't as much use for EPA functionaries anymore. Instead, the air is no longer treated as a "common" (in economics terms), but rather as a fixture of the market. Now the onus of responsibility for improvement is placed on companies who must - themselves - discover innovative ways of complying with the standards. This approach, as simple as it may seem, may very well revolutionize the way people approach environmental problems. And if - God forbid - the economists are right and the activists and bureaucrats are wrong, we will have left a cleaner, safer world for our children. Still, what about the poor people at the EPA who need jobs? Economist Bruce Yandle has suggested we privatize the EPA and turn it into an environmental consulting company designed to help companies meet government output standards. Streamlined. Efficient. Useful. Or, in Stone Phillips's own words: "leaner, meaner, and cleaner." | 
