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.
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.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of Steven J. Milloy.