US President Barack Obama has scrapped proposals to tighten rules on air pollution.

He ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to shelve plans to reduce concentrations of ozone - one of the main contributors to smog.

Mr Obama said he was pulling the measure as part of a government effort to reduce regulatory burdens and uncertainty as the economy struggles.

Business groups and Republican politicians welcomed the decision.

But environmentalists condemned the move.

The BBC's Marcus George in Washington says that, coming after new figures showing zero employment growth over the last month, the measure underscored just how sensitive the president has become about America's decimated economy.

'Decision on merits'

Mr Obama asked EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the draft rules, saying in a statement on Friday: "I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover."

The EPA estimated a new smog standard would cost up to $90bn (£55bn) a year - opponents said it would cost more.

The rules could also have saved as much as $100bn in health costs, and helped prevent as many as 12,000 premature deaths from heart and lung complications, according to the EPA.

Ozone is a lung irritant, connected with asthma and other respiratory conditions.

The administration defended its decision to reporters on Friday as a decision on the merits, not the result of industry pressure.

House Speaker John Boehner's office praised Mr Obama's decision as a boost to business growth, but added that the single proposed regulation had been "the tip of the iceberg".

The move angered environmentalists.

"This is a new low for President Obama," said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, said: "The Obama administration is caving to big polluters at the expense of protecting the air we breathe.

"This is a huge win for corporate polluters and a huge loss for public health."

The White House said a new standard would be issued in 2013, after the science behind the levels has been updated.

But our correspondent says campaigners are already talking of a legal challenge that could force the administration to reconsider.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14771354

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Not sure if it is big news but it sounds for me a bit like   $$$$$ are more important than the  Health of the population.  

Maybe great idea for an discussion?  What is more important you think?   The financial health of a country or the health of its citizens?

yes...lets ignore real problems and push forwards on the global warming myth.

I maybe missed it but the article doesn't mention anything about Global warming and even my questions don't mention it. This thread article is rather about how it is okay to increase pollution for more money while it clearly affects the health of the population;..

and im criticizing the overall approach to the environment. the focus on political points to win votes rather than actual environmental issues.

This is one move I don't get.

I mean, on the one hand it completely pisses off an extreme left that was already kinda beat up and angry at him...

While, it does appeal to moderates, the Republicans can always use the fact that he was "for it before he was against it" to hurt him and also just point to it as proof that the EPA costs jobs since "even the president was willing to admit they're bad job killing regulations when he was forced to."


Seems like a no win situation, based soley on the fact that Obama needs to get job numbers up and believes this will do so and there isn't any margin for appearances anymore.

Either that or it's a poorly crafted "gift" to republicans right before he tries to pass his jobs bill hoping i will give him the votes, or at least the high ground to say "Hey i gave you something!" in the press.

The next 12 months should be interesting ...

Going into the 2012 election Obama "owns" the economy and, in its current state, this could lead to Obama losing the 2012 election. This leaves him with 2 approaches, either he can do everything in his power to "fix" the economy (primarily focusing on creating jobs) or he can try to make the Republicans at fault for the condition of the economy; and I suspect he is doing both at the same time.

Personally, I predict that the jobs bill that is released later this week will be primarily focused on politically popular but unrealistic proposals and full of "poison pills" to ensure that the Republicans won't support it. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a trillion dollar stimulus focused on building infastructure and financing "Green Jobs" with no consideration for the deficit or debt levels.

Not only is he destroying our way of life but also our environment too!!
God this guy is a real garbage of a human being

Idiocy. Pandering to big polluters for something that is pretty unequivocally bad, even from the blind nuts that refuse to accept global warming: this wasn't about greenhouse gas, it was about smog.

Anyone who thinks this is a good move, go to Beijing right now and try to breathe, then come back and tell me this is a good idea. You absolutely cannot be in favor of this unless you have breathed the air in Beijing

If it wouldn't be politically disastrous, i'd stump for a candidate to the left of Obama, as this pandering for no good reason to right-wingers who are just going to take advantage of it and demand more has got to stop. These people need to be shut out from the national dialogue in every possible way, not conceded to

you are a bigot... just thought youd like to know, in case you werent aware. 

Disregarding our different views on on global warming and climate change; this article doesn't mention either. It focuses on pollution, and which ever way you look at it, IS a real issue.