Fortifying America's Clean Air Act
Editorial
Copyright 1999 Tampa Tribune
January 7, 1999
The Clean Air Act has been amazingly successful. When it was adopted in 1970,
many cities were
routinely shrouded in a stifling smog of automobile and industrial emissions.
Now most Americans
can count on seeing the skies above, whether cloudy or blue.
The law deserves credit. According to
a recent Environmental Protection Agency report, from 1970
to 1997, emissions of the six major pollutants - carbon monoxide, nitrogen
oxides, hydrocarbons (or
volatile organic compounds), soot, sulfur dioxide and lead - decreased 31
percent.
In the past 10 years, carbon monoxide levels have dropped 38 percent, sulfur
dioxide levels
dropped 39 percent and lead levels were cut by two-thirds. Smog levels around
cities dropped 16
percent between 1988 and 1997.
In West Central
Florida, air quality has dramatically improved, despite enormous population
growth. Both Hillsborough and Pinellas counties developed effective programs to
cut back
smog-generating ozone levels - because of the Clean Air Act.
Only an anti-government fanatic could quibble with such results. The Clean Air
Act has
resulted
in healthier air and saved thousands, perhaps, millions, of lives. It
undoubtedly has made life
more pleasant for most Americans.
Yet EPA officials say this is not enough. Nitrogen oxide emissions, mainly from
power plants,
are on the increase. Smog remains a
problem - last year 5,000 smog alerts were issued for American
cities. Already the EPA has come up with new restrictions for nitrogen oxide -
a key ingredient in
smog - that will ultimately cost the power industry $ 1.7 billion. The agency
also is preparing new
air
pollution standards for cars which will reduce sulfur in gasoline, tighten
emission standards
and remove a provision that allows sports utility vehicles to avoid such
standards.
Affected industries vigorously oppose new regulations. They argue additional
restrictions will
be inordinately expensive and could cripple the economy. They are
pushing for Congress to armlock
EPA regulators.
You can expect a lot of claims and counterclaims about both the threat of air
pollution and the
high costs of cleaning it up.
People should be cautious about listening to the extremists on either side.
Special interests
also claimed the original Clean
Air Act would be an economy buster. It was not.
Yet economists also know that laws become more complicated and expensive as
they progress from
cleaning up obvious pollution sources - smokestacks - to more subtle and
challenging ones, such as
chemical compounds.
Given the Clean Air Act's sparkling accomplishments and its small
impact on the economy, we tend
to favor continued advancements. But regulations shouldn't be adopted blindly.
First there should
be some cost-benefit analysis. And the benefits to Americans should be
reasonably concrete, not
simply hazy safeguards against
global warming - a nebulous unproven threat.
Further, rather than simple
mandates, market forces should be used whenever possible. The
current law already allows the trading of pollution credits. Companies whose
emissions are below
the established air pollution standards can sell the remainder of their
"credit" to a utility that
cannot meet the criteria. Or it may bank the remaining credit for
future use. Thus, plants have a
financial incentive to clean up. Those that don't do so take a financial hit.
Such strategies
should be a major part of new rules.
Too, we fear the EPA's desire to reduce the power and emissions of sport
utility vehicles will
hurt consumers who depend on
SUVs' off-road versatility. That's a small minority of SUV owners, of
course, but as Tribune outdoors editor Frank Sargeant points out, many owners
of such vehicles use
them for towing boats or driving on muddy forest roads. Reducing their power
might render them
useless
for those purposes.
We agree with capable EPA Administrator Carol Browner, who says,
"Too many of our citizens still
breathe unhealthy air."
But as the nation moves to fortify its admirable efforts to clean the air,
perhaps all sides
should take a deep breath to ensure we make clear-headed
choices that are based on hard science and
economic reality.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of Steven J. Milloy.
Copyright © 1998 Steven
J. Milloy. All rights reserved on original material. No claim is made on material copyrighted by others. Material copyrighted by others is used either with permission or under a claim of "fair use." Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.