11 States Sue EPA Over Delayed Soot Pollution Standards

In other news...China ,India, SE Asia continue to pollute the whole world relentlessly.

I would love to see 50 states sue the federal govt over costs incurred from illegal aliens because the federal govt will not enforce our immigration laws!!!!!

It is the Clean Air and Water Acts as administered through the EPA that we cleaned up the Great Lakes and most of the industrial water ways of this country and helped lower the air polution that our country was dieing under. It was the Super Fund that paid for the clean up of industrial dump sites and waste that companies made but refused to assept responsibility for (because it would eat into their profits, share prices, dividends, and bonuses). Yet, companies and International Corporations continue to fight taking responsibility for the poor health and deaths they have caused.

So, what else is new?

American and Japan CEO'S have found that they can save money in the Orient by not have any epa standards, low min wages and child labor. American people are fighting for this so they ccan have it here in the USA.
Note: China did not take your jobs
The CEO's sent them to China--don't blame china.
The Koch Brothers and other big oil companies now want to destroy the environment in the USA with high levels of acid rain, CO, CO2, nickle and tin acid. The GOP supports this. They are determine to get the XL pipeline and refine hevary asphalt Tar oil in Texas. Just look at the wind. It wiil carry it up the Mississippi valley--through the bread basket of the USA. comtinated corn, soy beans, tomatoes, beef and chicken etc.

How can people even say 'disband the EPA, let businesses regulate themselves.'? What can possibly be construed as bad about protecting the environment, and in turn protecting ourselves, as well as future generations, from harmful pollutants? If there is no EPA, who will regulate these companies? They've already proven to be willing to pollute the environment in pursuit of the almighty dollar, despite the proven negative health effects pollution causes.

If any one seriously thinks that businesses will regulate themselves without the EPA, that person needs to wake up. Corporations aren't people, and don't care about the welfare of American citizens, or protecting the environment for future generations. Pollution is a dangerous reality, and companies need to be held responsible for cleaning up their waste - that's what the EPA is there for, even if it is not a perfect organization.

Seriously, how can anyone be opposed to less pollution and a cleaner world?

EPA don't enforce the woodstove or coal rules on Alaska. We have clean air. We are NOT California and we don't want to be.

more waco B/S

Is this what they mean by taxing the air we breath ?

surely some of the comment contributors are scientifically trained and got more to say other than talking about politics. how about some new inventions or improvements to state of the art technology?

How much clean air do we need ?????
Said G.W. Bush.

California with the worst soot pollution isn't ranked among the worst states for deaths due to particle pollution. More liberal vodoo enviromental science?

In this economy,some States want more companies shut down? If anything the EPA should loosen more restrictions and get people workin.

More leftist gloom and doom. Why won't they just go away?

The EPA has done its job. Regulations are in place to make sure that we never go back to the pollution levels of the seventies. Now we must abolish the EPA and get back to manufacturing the world's finest products.

Additionally, the economic benefits of reducing soot exposure are estimated to be as much as $281 billion every year.

At what cost do we get this savings, this sounds like cash for clunkers saving where we the taxpayer paid $7.83 per dollar saved. DEMOCRAT MATH AT WORK.

Get rid of the EPA as it is the new communist threat.

So now we have a college dtudent writing "news" articles and repeating NGO propaganda as if it is fact.... Funny how she puts a number on the unsourced, anonymously estimated "economic benefits" but does not give a number on the actual yearly cost of these regulations, which is easy to find..... Maybe she figured it would be unfair to the propaganda mills if she were to print ACTUAL NUMBERS when we can look at our rising energy costs everywhere in our nation and figure out the truth for ourselves....

"According to a report ... up to 35,700 premature deaths and 2,350 heart attacks could be avoided each year ..." Is anybody really buying this hyperbol??? Ever seen the fluffy assumptions they use to derive these numbers or the trumped up studies used to there? It ain't science folks, it's make believe.

I drilled down to the study and it looks suspect. The math is questionable and many assumptions are not supported. They seem to be working from a baseline of no mortality if the air is at their baseline. With a possible increase in mortality if the air quality goes down. Someone with some more recent experience with statistics want to take a look? Someone that can work at a Graduate level of Math.

People need to understand that the free market will do nothing to control pollution levels so long as it is free for corporations to pollute.

Of course it isn't actually free. It's just free for the polluters because they get individuals or governments (i.e. you and me) to pay the costs through medical bills, lost productivity (which means you don't get paid because you are home sick with lung problems or cancer) and destruction of natural resources (lakes with no fish due to acidification, mercury in the fish, etc.). Unfortunately, given that we have been footing the bill for so many years, it is going to continue to be hard to convince the polluters to take responsibility for their waste.

Of course, part of the problem is that it is so hard to unequivocally prove that a given disease is caused by a specific pollution source - the Corporations learned from the tobacco companies that you don't have to prove your product (or waste as the case may be) is safe, all that you have to do is to cast doubt on the scientists. But, as is the case with tobacco, just because the proof isn't extreme enough to cast out all doubt, that doesn't mean pollution isn't something about which we need not be concerned.