|
|
| HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN ENOUGH? September 12, 1997 |
|---|
Questions asked in this forum:
When will Govt. agencies be inspected for environmental compliance? Will diesel fuel ever be banned? Should the U.S. instigate a fee-based system to control pollution? What explains the increasing number of asthma cases? Will stricter standards in the U.S. increase pollution from Mexico? Who controls pollution better: the states or the federal government? Where does a breath of fresh air fit into a cost-benefit analysis? Additional comments...
NewsHour Backgrounders
June 25, 1997:
Margaret Warner leads a discussion of the tougher clean air standards.
June 25, 1997:
Read our Online Forum: U.S.Representatives Julia Carson (D-IN) and Jim Gibbons (R-NV) debated the effectiveness of the EPA.
November 27, 1996:
The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to reduce smog levels by a third.
December 21, 1995:
Spencer Michels reports on the changing role of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Browse the Online NewsHour's coverage of the environment.
External Links:
Environmental Protection Agency
Citizens for a Sound Economy advocates market-based solutions to public policy problems.
Air Quality Resources on the Internet.
Clean Air Act Information Network
A question from Tom Viviano of Tampa, FL: I believe it is better to lean toward a more stringent set of rules. Isn't industry making enough money to handle these costs? Maybe the science isn't 100% conclusive but it wasn't conclusive about cigarettes 40 years ago either. And now we know. The medical savings would probably more than compensate for the added cost. What lessons can we learn from the recent public health battle with the cigarette industry?
Carol Browner of the Environmental Protection Agency responds:
In the Clean Air Act, which establishes the basis for deciding how protective our public health standards should be, Congress specified that the standards are to be based upon the scientific evidence of air pollution's effect on public health and the environment, not on the cost of meeting such standards. Setting standards based on cost would likely lead to inequitable standards, where some people in some parts of the country would be better protected simply because it could be accomplished at relatively low cost, whereas other people in other areas would not receive equal protection simply because the mix of pollutants and sources is such that relatively higher costs would be required to accomplish appropriate protection of public health and the environment. Further, the costs of meeting standards change with time, as new technological advances bring down the cost of controls. Thus, the scientific evidence of adverse effects and public health policy judgments about the significance of such effects, informed by expert advice and the views of the public, is the basis for deciding how stringent these national standards should be.
In the case of the ozone and particulate matter standards, the science was sufficiently conclusive to determine that the standards needed to be strengthened. A wide range of adverse effects, including the shortening of life and increased hospital admissions for those with heart and lung disease and impaired breathing and aggravation of asthma for our children, have been associated with exposures to these pollutants below the levels allowed by the previous standards. Uncertainties in our understanding of these effects still remain, especially as to whether these effects continue down through relatively lower levels of exposure, such that the most stringent standards that had been advocated by some could not be justified based on our current scientific knowledge.
Yes, the medical cost savings associated with the new standards are substantial. Cleaner air leads to fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits, improved health, and lives saved. The estimated health benefits associated with the new standards, ranged in the tens of billions of dollars annually, far exceeding the total estimated costs of the standards.
The process of finalizing stronger air quality standards reflect lessons that we have learned from the public health debate over the effects of cigarette smoking. In that case, as in the current case of the particulate matter standards for example, it was important to act to protect public health in the face of strong scientific evidence of effects, even though uncertainties remained about exactly how cigarette smoking was causing the serious health effects that were being observed. Scientific research has continued to increase our understanding of the links between cigarette smoking and serious health effects, and emphasized the need for addressing this public health concern, particularly with regard to directing efforts toward keeping our children from ever starting to smoke. Similarly, while we know that particulate matter results in significant health problems, we don't know the exact biological mechanism by which it triggers these problems. Research will continue on the health effects of particulate matter and other air pollutants to increase our understanding, so that we will be able to direct future air quality control programs toward the most important aspects of this public health concern.
Paul Beckner of "Citizens for a Sound Economy" responds:
The EPA's standard mantra about the economic impact of its regulations is to tell us, "Don't worry, only industry will pay." This disingenuous view ignores the fact that corporations, like governments, don't have their own money; they only have money that we consumers and taxpayers give them when we pay for products or when we pay our taxes. Simply stated, there really is no such thing as a free lunch. Government can impose all kinds of regulations and standards, but ultimately individuals pick up the tab through higher prices and/or higher taxes.
In an attempt to allay very real fears over the pervasive impact of its new standards on fine particulate matter and ground level ozone, the EPA made a number of promises to specific constituencies (farmers, for instance) that they would not be adversely affected. Instead, the EPA wants us to believe it will be the utilities that bear the greatest burden. Of course, any product or service that is manufactured with electricity (and that's just about everything) will cost more.
America's air has gotten cleaner in the past 20 years because the most obvious and easiest challenges have been met. It has largely been through the efforts of industry that we now breathe easier. Remaining challenges, though, will be increasingly difficult to conquer because they are more dispersed and affect greater numbers of people. This is especially evident in California, where more than 3,000 existing consumer products (everything ranging from car wax to hand soap to hair sprays) are being reformulated because, collectively, they produce twice the amount of hydrocarbons as do California's gas stations and oil refineries. And the pollution control authority in the San Joaquin Valley is now asking residents to cut down on the use of aerosol sprays, certain paints, barbecue grills, lawn care equipment and even recreational vehicles like boats in at attempt to meet existing federal air standards.
Stricter regulations will in fact cost all of us, while the promised benefits are not guaranteed. The truth is that we will have fewer choices as consumers, pay higher prices for many products and services, and be forced to change the way we live. Beware any government regulator who claims otherwise.
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
