Obama waives Pollution rules

[Woody]

California has requested to be exempt from Federal Environomental pollution rules for years. Good old George W. Bush always denied their request.

Enter ... Barack H. Obama. He is now waiving the rules for California.

GWB has set aside more public protected areas than any other president.

Surely ... GWB will be known as the environmental President.

Barack H. Obama for sure ... is not doing as well as our past president in that regard.

[Bravus]

More spin, Woodie? You have to know that California has by far the strictest state pollution rules in the country, and sets the standards for things like car manufacture for the whole country because of it. It wants exemption from the federal rules because they are too lax, especially under Bush, not because they are too tight. The exemption is to allow California to enact and enforce *better* laws against pollution that the Federal laws allow.

[Woody]

That is not what I understand to be happening. But nice spin.

The reason Obama gave was that California is so large and needs more time to conform to the Federal rules.

[Neil D]

New skipper changes course

It didn't take long for the Obama administration to start changing federal environmental policy. The White House is expected to announce today that it is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider letting California and other states, including Maryland, set stricter auto emissions rules to reduce climate-warming pollution.

California, which has a history of adopting some of the strictest environmental rules in the country, adopted standards that would force automakers to produce cars and trucks for sale in that state that were far more fuel-efficient than required under federal rules. As reported in The Baltimore Sun today, so-called California cars would have to get at least 3 miles more to the gallon by 2015 and 7 miles more by 2020.

Maryland followed California's lead in 2007, enacting legislation that state officials say could eventually reduce greenhouse gas emission in the state by 7.8 million tons a year - the equivalent of closing a 1,200-megawatt coal-burning power plant.

But with automakers lobbying hard against states setting tougher fuel-efficiency standrads, the Bush administration EPA denied California's request for a waiver from federal clean-air rules - effectively blocking Maryland and other states from following suit.

Now, it appears the Obama administration has reversed course. It didn't take long to go from talking about change to actually doing it, in this case.

Bay advocates are hoping the same is true of the Obama EPA's role in cleaning up the Chesapeake. New EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has signaled she'll step up the federal role. In a memo last Friday to agency employees, she specifically mentioned the bay in vowing to intensify EPA's efforts to restore and protect water quality.

"The Agency will make robust use of our authority to restore threatened treasures such as the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay," Jackson wrote, "to address our neglected urban rivers, to strengthen drinking-water safety programs and to reduce pollution from non-point and industrial dischargers." You can read the rest of the memo here.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation President Will Baker called Jackson's memo "very encouraging." It reinforced remarks she made at her Senate confirmation hearing when questioned by Sen. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, as reported by CBF's Tom Pelton in his blog. Jackson committed to following the science and "raising the bar" of federal commitment to restoring the bay.

The Annapolis-based environmental group has sued EPA alleging that it has shirked its legal responsibilities by not doing more to clean up the bay. Baker said that while there have been some "staff-level" discussions between CBF and EPA over the lawsuit, there have been no talks yet about settling the legal dispute.

[Bravus]

Heh.

[Woody]

Okay. Either Fox News reported it wrong or I heard it wrong. At least when I listened to it on ABC News ... they had a different story. Not sure what to learn from this.

[Woody]

Okay. Either Fox News reported it wrong or I heard it wrong. At least when I listened to it on ABC News ... they had a different story. Not sure what to learn from this.

I know ... I know ... Never listen to ABC News again. It only makes one look stupid.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Okay. Either Fox News reported it wrong or I heard it wrong. At least when I listened to it on ABC News ... they had a different story. Not sure what to learn from this.

I know ... I know ... Never listen to ABC News again. It only makes one look stupid.

I keep telling you, but you will not listen....FauxNews creates the sensational stuff that you latch onto...then it prints the retraction when other networks show that it is NOT true. Fair and balanced???? Not fair, and definately not balanced. You have had first hand experience and you still deny the obvious...What's that process when the Holy Spirit trys to convince someone of God's truth and they continually refuse to listen to that? What do we call it...? Um, isn't it some sort of continual rejection of the truth? What do we call that??????

[Woody]

NPR ?

[Woody]

Okay. Look here Nei. I have to believe that it was MY fault if you must know. I just refuse to believe that Fox would be at fault.

[Woody]

Or else ... Fox had a unique and exclusive perspective that no one else was able to find.

[Neil D]

Or else ... Fox had a unique and exclusive perspective that no one else was able to find.

"unique and excludsive perspective that no one else was able to find"...I believe history shows Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer promoting that "unique and exclusive perspecctive that no one else is able to find" ....I think they called it "Yellow Journalism"

Yellow journalism is a type of journalism that downplays legitimate news in favor of eye-catching headlines that sell more newspapers. It may feature exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, sensationalism, or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or journalists. Campbell (2001) defines Yellow Press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion. The term was extensively used to describe certain major New York City newspapers about 1900 as they battled for circulation. By extension the term is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion, such as systematic political bias.

Mott (1941) defines Yellow Journalism in terms of five characteristics:[1]

-scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news

-lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings

-use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudo-science, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts

-emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips (which is now normal in the U.S.)

-dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.