The NY Times has an article about air pollution in our national parks. For some parks, it's not so bad, but for others it's worse than ever. Bush's EPA proposes new regulations that supposedly aims to alleviate this problem, however environmental groups are warning that they simply make it easier for power plants to evade responsibility and cost.

As is often the case with these articles, on the one side you have supposed experts proclaiming "X" and on the other side you have experts proclaiming "Y." Although I have to doubt that Bush's side is ever the one with 100% sound science (!), I must admit it can get a bit confusing. However, in this case it appears as if Bush wishes to apply the "pollution credit" solution to national parks. If true, it's just sheer idiocy. Just so I understand, we're better off as a nation if the power plants around the Grand Canyon can continue to spew pollutants into the air, greatly affecting the park's air quality, as long as power plants around Yosemite can offset this spewing by reducing their toxic discharge? One park's air can then be pristine and another's can be dirty, but net net we as a nation gain. C'mon people, do you see how they operate? Scratch the surface a bit and you discover the obfuscated truth.