Working Around Partisan Divides: the Clean Air Act of 1970

The New York Times article Obama Builds Environmental Legacy with 1970 Law, elaborates on how the Clean Air Act is being used to create and enforce EPA regulations. Because of heavy opposition from the Republican party, the Obama administration was forced to rely on the Clean Air Act in order to regulate carbon emissions. The EPA now requires automotive manufacturers to comply with certain fuel-efficiency standards, which should reduce carbon emissions significantly. What I liked about the article was that it was written clearly, and it was easy to understand. It was also quite long, and became a little repetitive at times, in the introduction especially. Another aspect that I enjoyed was the historical background that was given, because it put the current partisan divide in perspective. Whereas in the past, the parties were able to agree on broad environmental legislation, nowadays it is much more difficult to find common ground.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/us/without-passing-a-single-law-obama-crafts-bold-enviornmental-policy.html?emc=edit_th_20141127&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=28747981&_r=4

Advertisements

About beawink

Graphic designer, illustrator, avid reader, and typography enthusiast.

2 Responses to “Working Around Partisan Divides: the Clean Air Act of 1970”

  1. I think an interesting comment you made on the article is that it is long and repetitive. Do you think that this serves a purpose? I think that in today’s political climate, it is as if a journalist must make something excruciatingly clear if they do not want their work to be manipulated in ways that do not want it to be. I think that this article may have taken that approach. It is very clear, but also very long and oriented in telling the entire story. I think this could be because topics on bipartisanism can always be misinterpreted and misused if not made very clear.

  2. Kayla- cymone Nwokeji Reply February 12, 2015 at 11:29 am

    I think at times that it is necessary to be repetitive especially in journalism and written news in order for you to get your point across and keep the audiences attention on the topic. At times it is also necessary to assure that you yourself as the writer stay on topic and clear with your ideas. Also, the way that this article talks about “rules” puts emphasis, in my opinion, on the clean air act being something the republicans do not want happening. No one likes rules, so the usage of this term helps to explain why the clean air act is opposed by the republican party.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s