Rendering 10

The article published on the website of the newspaper ‘’The New York Times” on August 21, 2012  is headlined “CourtBlocks E.P.A. Rule on Cross-State Pollution”. The article takes a critical view of the fact that a federal appeals court overturned a federal rule that laid out how much air pollution states would have to clean up to avoid incurring violations in downwind states. It  leads to the argument over how to mesh a system of state-by-state regulation with the problem of industrial smokestacks pumping pollutants into a single atmosphere.

Speaking of this situation it is interesting to note that the agency was trying to address a problem that has vexed the air pollution control system for at least three decades: how to deal with states whose own air meets standards but whose power plants, refineries and other industrial plants emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollutants that — wind-aided — prevent neighboring states from attaining the level of cleanliness required under federal law.

Moreover, there are also signs that the rule thrown out on Tuesday, called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, was the agency’s attempt to fix an earlier version, the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule, which in 2008 a court ordered the E.P.A to make changes in. Analysts suggested that it would take several years to rewrite the rule rejected on Tuesday. The appeals court said the E.P.A. had been authorized to set rules that would require upwind states “to bear responsibility for their fair share of the mess in downwind states.

Analyzing the situation it’s necessary to emphasize that rather than apportion the reductions according to the amount of pollution that each upwind state was contributing, the E.P.A. was seeking to require cleanup according to the cost of the reductions, so that the work would get done in the places where the cost of capturing a ton of sulfur or nitrogen oxides was the lowest. The agency was seeking to create a trading system in which the states could buy and sell pollution credits, with the actual work being done in the places where it was easiest to do it.

There indications that the court said that under this scheme, the agency had improperly required states “to reduce their emissions by more than their own significant contribution to a downwind state’s nonattainment,” according to the opinion, written by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and joined by Judge Thomas B. Griffith.

All in all, the author of the article doesn't express his own opinion - he just plainly describes the fact and opinions of different politicians. For example, Judge Judith W. Rogers dissented from the ruling. She said that the states had filed their challenge late and that the court had no authority to consider it. She said the court should “give deference to E.P.A.’s permissible interpretations” where the Clean Air Act was “silent or ambiguous.” But Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, an electric utility group, pointed out that the ruling leaves the previous Clean Air Interstate Rule in place. That, he said, along with other provisions of the Clean Air Act, “ensures adequate protections remain in place to handle interstate air pollution.” The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan, said in a statement, “This is a win for American families, who, because of this rule, faced the threat of higher power bills, less reliable electricity and job losses.”

As for me, I think that If we are unable to learn to use the environment carefully and protect it from damage caused by man’s activities, very soon we’ll have no world to live in. The Earth is our home but much of it is dirty and dying. Rapid industrial development caused a lot of ecological problems. They are: air pollution, water pollution, growth of population and shortage of mineral resources. Air becomes polluted in many ways. Cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, factories and plants send burnt gases into the air. The production of electricity causes not only air pollution but acid rains and global warming. Because of acid rains the Earth looses twenty million acres of tropical rainforests every year. Seventy percent of the Earth is covered by oceans. Oceans are vital for the life on Earth. They provide homes for millions of plants and animals, provide people with food and help regulate the climate. But now they are a big dumping ground for tons of toxic waste. Most big cities pour their waste into seas and rivers. For a long time people did not realize the danger. We need clean air to breathe and pure water to drink. We need also food that is safe to eat and housing to shelter us. We can't get all these things by ourselves. 

We live in community so we can solve our problems only working together. Russia is co-operating in the field of environmental protection with the USA, Canada, Norway, Finland and other countries. A lot of public organizations have been established. One of them is Green Peace which was formed in 1971 with its Head-quarters in Amsterdam. The area of operation is 25 countries world-wide. Its objectives are to protect wild life and atmosphere, to prevent disposal of toxic waste and nuclear tests.