I agree, but . . .

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:06 pm

The Bush administration yesterday approved a major rollback of clean air enforcement rules for the nation's oldest and dirtiest power plants in a move hailed by industry leaders but bitterly criticized by environmentalists and some lawmakers. [WP]*This writer thinks it's a "rollback." I think it's a rollback. So do environmental groups. But not everyone would describe the action as a rollback.*

gullyj · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:50 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
*... But not everyone would describe the action as a rollback.*<hr></blockquote>And they would be wrong.
I'm sure those that will benefit from the weakened regulations consider it "an affirmation of America's industrial prowess" but that is little consolation to those of us up here who get half our smog from the coal-burning power plants of the Ohio Valley.
Considering the number of people who die each year from smog-related respiratory illnesses, I wouldn't call it a rollback. I'd call it a death sentence.

ToddJBehme · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:25 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by canuck:
And they would be wrong.
I'm sure those that will benefit from the weakened regulations consider it "an affirmation of America's industrial prowess" but that is little consolation to those of us up here who get half our smog from the coal-burning power plants of the Ohio Valley.
Considering the number of people who die each year from smog-related respiratory illnesses, I wouldn't call it a rollback. I'd call it a death sentence.<hr></blockquote>But ADK has a good point. I'm also leery of the word "reform." Whether something is a reform can be a matter of opinion.

nstockdale · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:56 pm

Excellent point. I'd never really considered the true meaning of reform till you prompted me to look it up just now.

jmcg · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:26 pm

"Reform" is indeed a loaded word best to be avoided. But the word at issue here is
"rollback." The Bushies have declared that a central, albeit rarely enforced, provision of the 1977 Clean Air Act no longer applies. So rollback, an otherwise clunky word, is absolutely on the mark. Environmental law has been "rolled back," to, oh, 1976.[ August 28, 2003: Message edited by: jmcg ]

ToddJBehme · **Posted:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:02 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jmcg:
"Reform" is indeed a loaded word best to be avoided. But the word at issue here is
"rollback." The Bushies have declared that a central, albeit rarely enforced, provision of the 1977 Clean Air Act no longer applies. So rollback, an otherwise clunky word, is absolutely on the mark. Environmental law has been "rolled back," to, oh, 1976.[ August 28, 2003: Message edited by: jmcg ]<hr></blockquote>I see your point, and I'm not an apologist for the Bush administration on this one, but "rollback" has a negative connotation, even if it's accurate in this case.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:08 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jmcg:
[QBThe Bushies have declared that a central, albeit rarely enforced, provision of the 1977 Clean Air Act no longer applies. So rollback, an otherwise clunky word, is absolutely on the mark. Environmental law has been "rolled back," to, oh, 1976.[ August 28, 2003: Message edited by: jmcg ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>I don't think the term "rollback" applies unless we know for certain that the changes will lead to more pollution. Whether they do or not is in dispute.

KfitzR · **Posted:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:08 am

Rollback applies to what happened to the law. It is accurate. Pollution is another question. The rollback relaxes regulations. Whether polluters take advantage of it is another question. Sources of pollution can be cleaned up, or new processes developed and so on. Even if pollution vanished entirely [not holding my breath on this], the law would still have been rolled back.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:27 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by KfitzR:
Rollback applies to what happened to the law. It is accurate. Pollution is another question. The rollback relaxes regulations. Whether polluters take advantage of it is another question. Sources of pollution can be cleaned up, or new processes developed and so on. Even if pollution vanished entirely [not holding my breath on this], the law would still have been rolled back.<hr></blockquote>I disagree. The regulations (not the law, but that's immaterial here) were changed; they were not repealed. To call the change a rollback is to impose a judgment. You say it would be a rollback even if the change eliminates pollution. Since the regulations are intended to control pollution, how could a change that eliminates pollution be construed as a rollback?

KfitzR · **Posted:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 3:20 pm

If something, say a regulation, was at one point (A), then was changed to a tougher point (B), and subsequently moved back to (A), it has been rolled back. No value judgement at all.
The pollution levels are a separate measure. I did not suggest the change would eliminate pollution. Not for a nanosecond.
In fact the odds are greatly against it.
I just say that returning something to a previous level can fairly be called rolling it back without worrying if all ones nits are in a row.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 4:44 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by KfitzR:
If something, say a regulation, was at one point (A), then was changed to a tougher point (B), and subsequently moved back to (A), it has been rolled back. No value judgement at all.
The pollution levels are a separate measure. <hr></blockquote>Still not buying your argument. You assume what is in dispute, namely that the regulation was "rolled back" from tough to less tough. Why even talk in terms of toughness? What matters is how effective the regs are in limiting pollution. If the new regs do not lead to increased pollution, it makes no sense to call this a rollback. What is being rolled back? The EPA is not returning to old regulations; it is rewriting the existing regs. I'm starting to sound like a shill for the administration, and that bothers me, but the reporter in me says "rollback" is a loaded word.[ August 29, 2003: Message edited by: ADKbrown ]

jmcg · **Posted:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:32 pm

Give it up, Adk.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:24 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jmcg:
Give it up, Adk.<hr></blockquote>OK, but you know I'm right.[ August 30, 2003: Message edited by: ADKbrown ]

Bakelite · **Posted:** Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:21 am

[ August 31, 2003: Message edited by: Dean Betz ]

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:01 am

Gentlemen .....

Testy Copy Editors

I agree, but . . .

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links