Full citation and linkMcClinktock, Peter M, “Test Emissions Where Cars Pollute: On the Road,” New York Times, September 30, 2015, A31.
What two (or more) quotes capture the message of the article? 1. “What’s really needed is a truly independent emissions-testing systems that measure pollution where it occurs, on the open road, and not just in a laboratory or emissions-testing station.”
This is the main idea of that article as McClinktock calls for using the technology that is already available to measure emissions on the open road instead of just in testing stations.
2. “These are real-world emissions, as opposed to what is measured in vehicle-certification laboratories or at testing stations, where it has become clear that those schedules and scripted tests can be thwarted.”
McClinktock calls into question the idea of simply making laboratory emissions-testing stations more advanced since, as can be seen with Volkswagon, it has been rigged and it can be rigged again. By putting these testing stations on the open road it will measure emissions where we are worried about them.
What is the main point of the article, and how is it supported?
The main point of the article is that emissions testing in a laboratory setting is not reliable and therefore, we should use the available technology for the open road to measure and record emissions data.
1. The already available roadside remote sensing devices in conjunction with a camera can measure emissions, speed, and acceleration and match the license plate number to state vehicle registries for thousands of vehicles a day in free-flowing traffic.
2. In Colorado, vehicles are exempt from vehicle emissions tests if found in compliance with a remote sensing device.
3. Nitrogen oxide emissions from Volkswagen and Audi two-liter diesel vehicles were found to be significantly above regulations in Europe by remote sensing devices in Europe before the full extent of the company’s subterfuge was exposed.
What actors (individuals or organizations) are referred to? (Provide names and short descriptions.) EPA: Environmental Protection Agency which sets greenhouse gas emissions standards for different vehicles on the road.
Volkswagen: Car Company caught for rigging emissions testing to achieve results lower than the actual.
What kind of causation or responsibility is argued or implied in the article? McClinktock directly calls for the EPA to “establish a network of roadside devices that would monitor vehicles more methodically for abnormal emissions”. In this way he is insinuating that they are not doing enough, or rather they are doing too much in the wrong direction (i.e. laboratory emissions testing) for analyzing and enforcing emissions standards.
How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
Although not touched on specifically, there is the underlying idea that due to inefficient emissions testing more greenhouse gases are being released than called for by regulations which in turn is negatively impacting the environment and our health.
What three points, details or references from the article did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the issued and actors described in the article? 1. EPA: Environmental Protection Agency has different standards for different types of vehicles; light-duty vehicles and trucks and motorcycles; heavy-duty engines and vehicles; and non-road engines and vehicles. EPA Standards
2. Air Care Colorado: Roadside testing equipment in Colorado used to analyze vehicle exhaust, known as RapidScreen RapidScreen
Full citation and link
Davenport, Coral, “New Limit for Smog-Causing Emissions Isn’t as Strict as Many Had Expected,” New York Times, October 1, 2015, A21.
What two (or more) quotes capture the message of the article? 1. “The new rule, set at the weakest standard in the range recommended by the E.P.A.’s scientists, suggests that the industry groups were influential.”
Businesses wanted more relaxed standards for ozone emissions while environmentalists wanted stricter so by choosing the most relaxed standards that was still within the EPA recommended range, it appears that businesses and industry were more influential than environmentalists and public health advocates.
2. “Today, the Obama administration finalized a rule that is overly burdensome, costly, and misguided,” said Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. “For months, the administration threatened to impose on manufacturers an even harsher rule, with even more devastating consequences. After an unprecedented level of outreach by manufacturers and other stakeholders, the worst-case scenario was avoided.”
This quote sums up the other side of the debate over the new regulations. Manufacturers and businesses do not want to have to employ the new technologies to reduce ozone production since there is a high initial cost which they argue will negatively impact their economic status. Therefore, they are also annoyed with the new regulations but relieved it is less strict than environmentalists desired.
What is the main point of the article, and how is it supported?
The main point of the article is that the new EPA emissions standards for ozone of 70 ppb from 75 ppb is on the less strict end of the suggested range due, in part, to businesses’ opposition to stricter regulations due to economic concerns. Political maneuvering is a large part of the process.
1. It is estimated that the economic cost of these new regulations will be $1.4 billion, however annual economic benefits due to fewer health concerns is estimated between $2.9 and $5.9 billion.
2. In the past, the EPA had recommended new regulations between 60 to 70 ppb which was changed to 65 to 70 ppb in 2014 although 60 ppb was still up for consideration.
3. Lisa P. Jackson, the EPA administrator from 2006-2013 suggested a standard of 65 ppb.
4. Businesses and manufacturers lobbied against lowering the standards.
5. Mr. Obama delayed the release of the new smog regulations, originally planned for August 2011, out of fears it would “hurt his re-election chances in 2012”.
What actors (individuals or organizations) are referred to? (Provide names and short descriptions.) EPA: Environmental Protection Agency which set the new national standard for ozone.
Chamber of Commerce: “The world’s largest business organization [whom] represent[s] the interest of more than 3 million businesses” in the United States US Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers: “The largest manufacturing association in the United States” whom represents and advocates for a large percentage of the manufacturing businesses and companies in the US. National Association of Manufacturers
Business Roundtable: An association whom represents large companies in the United States whose primary goal is to “promote sound public policy and a thriving U.S. economy.” Business Roundtable
American Petroleum Institute: A national trade association representing America’s oil and natural gas industry. American Petroleum Institute
A.F.L-C.I.O: Federation of Labor Organizations AFL-CIO
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: Represents workers in fields including utilities, construction, telecommunications, broadcasting, manufacturing, railroads, and government. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
President Obama: Specifically, President Obama’s changes to the Clean Air Act in which he has been making stricter regulations for many greenhouse gases including ozone.
Lisa P. Jackson: EPA administrator from 2006-2013 whom suggested a tightened regulation of 65 ppb for ozone emissions. Lisa P. Jackson
Gina McCarthy: EPA administrator from 2013- now (2015) whom helped decide the new regulation of 70 ppb for ozone emissions.
Gov. Terry McAuliffe: Virginia governor from 2014 to present (2015), chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2001-2005
Jay Timmons: President of the National Association of Manufacturers (see above)
Senator Mitch McConnell: Majority leader (2015) from Kentucky
Frank O’Donnell: President of Clean Air Watch, a national non-profit, non-partisan organization who is known for monitoring clean air and climate policy and spreading news to the public. Clean Air Watch
What kind of causation or responsibility is argued or implied in the article? Politics are firmly called into question, giving the suggestion that businesses’ economic drives are influencing the environmental and health policies. However, the new standards are a step in the right direction even though they are the less strict regulations out of the given range. So although stricter regulations are not directly called for, Davenport seems to side more on the side of the environmentalists than the business owners.
How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
It is specifically written that “smog has been linked to asthma, heart and lung disease, and premature death.” Although never directly stated again, since this was written in the introductory paragraphs, it is successfully placed at the back of your mind for the rest of the article. A larger, more prominent issue in this article is the influence big businesses have over political decisions, even one based on health concerns. It is implied that businesses care more about economics and have the power to keep economic losses at a minimum for themselves.
What three points, details or references from the article did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the issued and actors described in the article 1. Clean Air Act: Originally created in 1970, the Clean Air Act regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources on a federal level. It also established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) which strives to reduce the emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Clean Air Act
2. Negative Impacts on Obama’s re-election campaign from regulating ozone: Congress was split with opposition or approval for EPA’s new regulations standards, which could potentially harm President Obama’s re-election campaign by putting him out of favor of some of his own party, therefore he pushed back the release data of the new ozone emissions standards. EPA Limit on Gases to Pose Risk to Obama and Congress
Full citation and link.
Davenport, Coral, “Judge Blocks Obama Administration Rules on Fracking,” New York Times, October 1, 2015, A23.
What two (or more) quotes capture the message of the article? 1. “A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the Obama administration’s first major regulations on hydraulic fracturing, a technique for oil and gas drilling that has led to a boom in American energy production but has also raised concerns about health and safety risks.” This is the main idea of the article which proceeds to go into detail about why and how the regulations were blocked. Impact of blocking the regulations is mentioned briefly in passing. 2. “The court concluded that the Bureau of Land Management lacked the authority to regulate energy extraction on public lands.” Authority was not granted due to the fact it could interfere with the “states’ sovereign interests” in regards to hydraulic fracturing, of which 90% is regulated by states due to the fact it is on private, not public, lands. 3. “Industry groups cheered the decision, which was a blow to environmental groups that had pushed for more regulation of fracking.” In this way industry prevails and with the limited regulations, is allowed to keep going as is but environmentalists are worried about possible contamination and harm to the environment.
What is the main point of the article, and how is it supported? The main point of the article is that the federal government, specifically the Interior Department, was ruled unable to pass regulations on hydraulic fracturing on public lands according to the United States Court. 1. The United States District Court for Wyoming issued the preliminary injunction against the Interior Department. 2. The regulations were only focused on federal and tribal lands, however 90% of fracking is done on state and private land which is regulated by state and local governments. 3. Oil and gas industry groups (see below) sued the Interior Department on the grounds that the regulations were unnecessary and duplicated state regulations. 4. It was concluded that the Bureau of Land Management lacked the authority to regulation energy extraction on public lands as it creates an “overlapping federal regime”. 5. Execution of the rules is delayed in every state “until the Wyoming court hears arguments on their legal merits.”
What actors (individuals or organizations) are referred to? (Provide names and short descriptions.) Interior Department: US federal department in charge of conservation of America’s natural resources and federal lands.Department of the Interior United Sates District Court of Wyoming: Federal district court in charge of Wyoming and portions of Yellowstone National Park in Montana and Idaho. United States District Court of Wyoming Bureau of Land Management: Part of the US Department of the Interior, BLM’s mission is to “sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of American’s public lands”. They are also in change of mandating public land resources. Bureau of Land Management Independent Petroleum Association of America: Represents independent oil and natural gas producers and service companies across the United States. Independent Petroleum Association of America Western Energy Alliance: Represents Western United States oil and natural gas companies in regards to policy issues. Western Energy Alliance Judge Scott Skavdahl: The Judge whom ruled in the case and put a hold on the regulations Jessica Kershaw: Interior Department spokeswoman Kathleen Sgamma: Vice president for government and public affairs for the Western Energy Alliance (see above)
What kind of causation or responsibility is argued or implied in the article? This article is arguing, in some ways, both for and against federal regulations of hydraulic fracking. The tone of the article insinuates that Davenport feels the federal government should be able to, and should, create regulations for fracking if only on federal and tribal lands. However, the states’ rights to be able to make their own regulations for fracking on private lands is also discussed. Either way, regulations should be set in some way for hydraulic fracking.
How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report? In the beginning, the first paragraph ends with fracking “has also raised concerns about health and safety risks”. However, these are simply put into your head as you read the article and not directly discussed until at the very end, the possible idea that hydraulic fracking may contaminate water supplies and harm wildlife is briefly mentioned. Mostly, the equity issue over state verses federal rights is discussed. The ruling was that it was redundant to create federal laws when the state laws were already in place. The main issue in play is that hydraulic fracking extends past federal lands onto private lands, in fact most is on private lands, and thus it is still uncertain which branch of government has power to enforce regulations about hydraulic fracking.
1. “What’s really needed is a truly independent emissions-testing systems that measure pollution where it occurs, on the open road, and not just in a laboratory or emissions-testing station.”
This is the main idea of that article as McClinktock calls for using the technology that is already available to measure emissions on the open road instead of just in testing stations.
2. “These are real-world emissions, as opposed to what is measured in vehicle-certification laboratories or at testing stations, where it has become clear that those schedules and scripted tests can be thwarted.”
McClinktock calls into question the idea of simply making laboratory emissions-testing stations more advanced since, as can be seen with Volkswagon, it has been rigged and it can be rigged again. By putting these testing stations on the open road it will measure emissions where we are worried about them.
The main point of the article is that emissions testing in a laboratory setting is not reliable and therefore, we should use the available technology for the open road to measure and record emissions data.
1. The already available roadside remote sensing devices in conjunction with a camera can measure emissions, speed, and acceleration and match the license plate number to state vehicle registries for thousands of vehicles a day in free-flowing traffic.
2. In Colorado, vehicles are exempt from vehicle emissions tests if found in compliance with a remote sensing device.
3. Nitrogen oxide emissions from Volkswagen and Audi two-liter diesel vehicles were found to be significantly above regulations in Europe by remote sensing devices in Europe before the full extent of the company’s subterfuge was exposed.
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency which sets greenhouse gas emissions standards for different vehicles on the road.
Volkswagen: Car Company caught for rigging emissions testing to achieve results lower than the actual.
McClinktock directly calls for the EPA to “establish a network of roadside devices that would monitor vehicles more methodically for abnormal emissions”. In this way he is insinuating that they are not doing enough, or rather they are doing too much in the wrong direction (i.e. laboratory emissions testing) for analyzing and enforcing emissions standards.
Although not touched on specifically, there is the underlying idea that due to inefficient emissions testing more greenhouse gases are being released than called for by regulations which in turn is negatively impacting the environment and our health.
1. EPA: Environmental Protection Agency has different standards for different types of vehicles; light-duty vehicles and trucks and motorcycles; heavy-duty engines and vehicles; and non-road engines and vehicles. EPA Standards
2. Air Care Colorado: Roadside testing equipment in Colorado used to analyze vehicle exhaust, known as RapidScreen RapidScreen
New Limit for Smog-Causing Emissions Isn’t as Strict as Many Had Expected
Davenport, Coral, “New Limit for Smog-Causing Emissions Isn’t as Strict as Many Had Expected,” New York Times, October 1, 2015, A21.
1. “The new rule, set at the weakest standard in the range recommended by the E.P.A.’s scientists, suggests that the industry groups were influential.”
Businesses wanted more relaxed standards for ozone emissions while environmentalists wanted stricter so by choosing the most relaxed standards that was still within the EPA recommended range, it appears that businesses and industry were more influential than environmentalists and public health advocates.
2. “Today, the Obama administration finalized a rule that is overly burdensome, costly, and misguided,” said Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. “For months, the administration threatened to impose on manufacturers an even harsher rule, with even more devastating consequences. After an unprecedented level of outreach by manufacturers and other stakeholders, the worst-case scenario was avoided.”
This quote sums up the other side of the debate over the new regulations. Manufacturers and businesses do not want to have to employ the new technologies to reduce ozone production since there is a high initial cost which they argue will negatively impact their economic status. Therefore, they are also annoyed with the new regulations but relieved it is less strict than environmentalists desired.
The main point of the article is that the new EPA emissions standards for ozone of 70 ppb from 75 ppb is on the less strict end of the suggested range due, in part, to businesses’ opposition to stricter regulations due to economic concerns. Political maneuvering is a large part of the process.
1. It is estimated that the economic cost of these new regulations will be $1.4 billion, however annual economic benefits due to fewer health concerns is estimated between $2.9 and $5.9 billion.
2. In the past, the EPA had recommended new regulations between 60 to 70 ppb which was changed to 65 to 70 ppb in 2014 although 60 ppb was still up for consideration.
3. Lisa P. Jackson, the EPA administrator from 2006-2013 suggested a standard of 65 ppb.
4. Businesses and manufacturers lobbied against lowering the standards.
5. Mr. Obama delayed the release of the new smog regulations, originally planned for August 2011, out of fears it would “hurt his re-election chances in 2012”.
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency which set the new national standard for ozone.
Chamber of Commerce: “The world’s largest business organization [whom] represent[s] the interest of more than 3 million businesses” in the United States US Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers: “The largest manufacturing association in the United States” whom represents and advocates for a large percentage of the manufacturing businesses and companies in the US. National Association of Manufacturers
Business Roundtable: An association whom represents large companies in the United States whose primary goal is to “promote sound public policy and a thriving U.S. economy.” Business Roundtable
American Petroleum Institute: A national trade association representing America’s oil and natural gas industry. American Petroleum Institute
A.F.L-C.I.O: Federation of Labor Organizations AFL-CIO
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: Represents workers in fields including utilities, construction, telecommunications, broadcasting, manufacturing, railroads, and government. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
President Obama: Specifically, President Obama’s changes to the Clean Air Act in which he has been making stricter regulations for many greenhouse gases including ozone.
Lisa P. Jackson: EPA administrator from 2006-2013 whom suggested a tightened regulation of 65 ppb for ozone emissions. Lisa P. Jackson
Gina McCarthy: EPA administrator from 2013- now (2015) whom helped decide the new regulation of 70 ppb for ozone emissions.
Gov. Terry McAuliffe: Virginia governor from 2014 to present (2015), chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2001-2005
Jay Timmons: President of the National Association of Manufacturers (see above)
Senator Mitch McConnell: Majority leader (2015) from Kentucky
Frank O’Donnell: President of Clean Air Watch, a national non-profit, non-partisan organization who is known for monitoring clean air and climate policy and spreading news to the public. Clean Air Watch
Politics are firmly called into question, giving the suggestion that businesses’ economic drives are influencing the environmental and health policies. However, the new standards are a step in the right direction even though they are the less strict regulations out of the given range. So although stricter regulations are not directly called for, Davenport seems to side more on the side of the environmentalists than the business owners.
It is specifically written that “smog has been linked to asthma, heart and lung disease, and premature death.” Although never directly stated again, since this was written in the introductory paragraphs, it is successfully placed at the back of your mind for the rest of the article. A larger, more prominent issue in this article is the influence big businesses have over political decisions, even one based on health concerns. It is implied that businesses care more about economics and have the power to keep economic losses at a minimum for themselves.
1. Clean Air Act: Originally created in 1970, the Clean Air Act regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources on a federal level. It also established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) which strives to reduce the emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Clean Air Act
2. Negative Impacts on Obama’s re-election campaign from regulating ozone: Congress was split with opposition or approval for EPA’s new regulations standards, which could potentially harm President Obama’s re-election campaign by putting him out of favor of some of his own party, therefore he pushed back the release data of the new ozone emissions standards. EPA Limit on Gases to Pose Risk to Obama and Congress
Judge Blocks Obama Administration Rules on Fracking
Davenport, Coral, “Judge Blocks Obama Administration Rules on Fracking,” New York Times, October 1, 2015, A23.
1. “A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the Obama administration’s first major regulations on hydraulic fracturing, a technique for oil and gas drilling that has led to a boom in American energy production but has also raised concerns about health and safety risks.”
This is the main idea of the article which proceeds to go into detail about why and how the regulations were blocked. Impact of blocking the regulations is mentioned briefly in passing.
2. “The court concluded that the Bureau of Land Management lacked the authority to regulate energy extraction on public lands.”
Authority was not granted due to the fact it could interfere with the “states’ sovereign interests” in regards to hydraulic fracturing, of which 90% is regulated by states due to the fact it is on private, not public, lands.
3. “Industry groups cheered the decision, which was a blow to environmental groups that had pushed for more regulation of fracking.”
In this way industry prevails and with the limited regulations, is allowed to keep going as is but environmentalists are worried about possible contamination and harm to the environment.
The main point of the article is that the federal government, specifically the Interior Department, was ruled unable to pass regulations on hydraulic fracturing on public lands according to the United States Court.
1. The United States District Court for Wyoming issued the preliminary injunction against the Interior Department.
2. The regulations were only focused on federal and tribal lands, however 90% of fracking is done on state and private land which is regulated by state and local governments.
3. Oil and gas industry groups (see below) sued the Interior Department on the grounds that the regulations were unnecessary and duplicated state regulations.
4. It was concluded that the Bureau of Land Management lacked the authority to regulation energy extraction on public lands as it creates an “overlapping federal regime”.
5. Execution of the rules is delayed in every state “until the Wyoming court hears arguments on their legal merits.”
Interior Department: US federal department in charge of conservation of America’s natural resources and federal lands. Department of the Interior
United Sates District Court of Wyoming: Federal district court in charge of Wyoming and portions of Yellowstone National Park in Montana and Idaho. United States District Court of Wyoming
Bureau of Land Management: Part of the US Department of the Interior, BLM’s mission is to “sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of American’s public lands”. They are also in change of mandating public land resources. Bureau of Land Management
Independent Petroleum Association of America: Represents independent oil and natural gas producers and service companies across the United States. Independent Petroleum Association of America
Western Energy Alliance: Represents Western United States oil and natural gas companies in regards to policy issues. Western Energy Alliance
Judge Scott Skavdahl: The Judge whom ruled in the case and put a hold on the regulations
Jessica Kershaw: Interior Department spokeswoman
Kathleen Sgamma: Vice president for government and public affairs for the Western Energy Alliance (see above)
This article is arguing, in some ways, both for and against federal regulations of hydraulic fracking. The tone of the article insinuates that Davenport feels the federal government should be able to, and should, create regulations for fracking if only on federal and tribal lands. However, the states’ rights to be able to make their own regulations for fracking on private lands is also discussed. Either way, regulations should be set in some way for hydraulic fracking.
In the beginning, the first paragraph ends with fracking “has also raised concerns about health and safety risks”. However, these are simply put into your head as you read the article and not directly discussed until at the very end, the possible idea that hydraulic fracking may contaminate water supplies and harm wildlife is briefly mentioned. Mostly, the equity issue over state verses federal rights is discussed. The ruling was that it was redundant to create federal laws when the state laws were already in place. The main issue in play is that hydraulic fracking extends past federal lands onto private lands, in fact most is on private lands, and thus it is still uncertain which branch of government has power to enforce regulations about hydraulic fracking.