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.
1