A bad but unrealistic editorial

I suppose there are lots of reasons to write a newspaper editorial, not the least of which is that you run a daily newspaper and have to fill space 365 days per year.
But still, I am puzzling over the editorial from today's Minneapolis Star Tribune, "A bad but realistic decision on EPA."  It addresses the decision earlier this month by the Obama Administration to postpone until 2013 the EPA's new rules for ozone pollution from coal-fired power plants, refineries and other sources.

The Star Tribune writes,

"Obama's decision to back down from the ozone standards, however unfortunate, needs to be understood in the context of the current economic and political climate."

The paper then goes on to discuss the recent dismal jobs report and the President's new American Jobs Act initiative.  However, I think that the paper missed a chance to provide a larger public service to its readers and put this decision in a much broader, and more helpful context.

A little over a year ago, the Star Tribune's rival paper, the St. Paul Pioneer Press published an interesting, front-page article on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the landmark 1970 Clean Air Act ("A Not-So-Dirty Secret in the Air," August 1, 2010).  The Pioneer Press noted that pollution had dropped by more than half in the past 40 years, despite population growth, economic growth, and the proliferation of electronic gizmos and appliances.  Pollution reductions have continued in more recent years, with the Pioneer Press specifically noting that "Ozone dropped 9 percent from 1990 to 2006", nationwide. 

The Star Tribune makes only a passing reference to the other EPA initiatives underway.  The EPA is engaged in rulemaking efforts to regulate carbon, mercury, SOx, NOx, particulates, and other issues, even with ozone on the shelf.  The well-regarded consultancy, The Brattle Group, estimates that these collective efforts may idle up to 20 percent of America's coal power, with compliance costs of up to $180 billion for the surviving fleet, a figure much higher than the claimed "health benefits" cited by the paper.  And the harm may come much sooner than expected, the New York Times reporting that yet another EPA effort, the "cross-state air pollution" rule (still on track) could result in rolling blackouts in Texas as early as January.

The gains in environmental quality and the harm to economic interests  go unacknowledged in the Star Tribune's editorial or anywhere else in their paper.  Instead, to curry favor with their left-of-center readership, the Star Tribune fills the space with the usual pantheon of bogeypersons:  George Bush, "big polluters," Republicans, Michelle Bachmann, "big industry," etc.  The editorial board missed a chance to educate their readers on a great modern success story and to introduce the cost/benefit concept to a readership otherwise angered over the "betrayal" by Obama of the environmental cause.