incidentally, it would apear houston has a history with the epa, which might explain deborah's skepticism about federal intervention. (lame michael pugliese impersonation to follow:)
1998: http://www.chron.com/cgi-bin/auth/story.mpl/content/chronicle/aol-metropolit an/98/02/27/epa.2-0.html
Dec., 2000: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory/765655 "Rejection by the EPA -- widely considered to be a far-fetched scenario if Bush becomes president -- could trigger economic sanctions and bring an even tougher, federally designed smog plan for Houston. [ . . .] TNRCC officials calculate the plan must eliminate about 70 percent of the region's emissions of nitrogen oxide, its main target, to reach that goal. The rules adopted Wednesday add up to about a 64 percent cut."
otoh, today's npr report suggests the epa might be serious about cutting highway funds. here's the link to the report. only in realplayer, unfortunately. scroll down to get it: http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=09/10/2001&PrgID=3
j
> From: "Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM at umkc.edu>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 12:10:01 -0500
> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Subject: RE: global warming as political science
>
> From: jfisher at igc.org [mailto:jfisher at igc.org]
>
>> nitrous oxide emissions from refineries east of houston cause huge
> bursts in ozone.
>
> yeah, but nitrous oxide emissions billowing out of smokestacks could
> also have the effect making it so people don't really mind all that
> much!