|
|
| 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? What lessons can environmentalists learn from the fight against the cigarette industry? 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
Did you have trouble breathing this summer? Overall, would you say that the air is getting cleaner or more dirty? Public opinion polls show most Americans believe the air they breath is gradually getting cleaner.
At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency says tougher clean air standards could prevent 15,000 premature deaths a year, reduce asthma episodes by more than a quarter million a year, and save billions of dollars in medical expenses.
Arrayed against the EPA is a broad group of opponents: the industrial Midwest, business groups, and other federal agencies concerned about jobs and economic development. These groups argue that the new standards would harm the economy and force major lifestyle changes on millions of people.
The new regulations would require cutting currently acceptable levels of smog or ozone, the chemical soup of gases emitted by heavy industry, utilities, and autos that makes the air dangerous to breathe on hot days. Also
targeted by the standards is soot, tiny airborne particles scientists call particulate matter. Past regulations have not addressed these minuscule particles, which can be as small as 1/28th the width of a human hair.
Our guests take opposing views of the standards.
According to EPA Administrator Carol Browner :
"What has changed is the science. Science is always coming up with better ways to measure the quality of the air we breath, as well as how people are affected by polluted air and at what levels."
But Paul Beckner of the organization "Citizens for a Sound Economy" disputes the EPA's science and says that hasty regulations will impede industry and hurt consumers by increasing the prices of many items.
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? What lessons can environmentalists learn from the fight against the cigarette industry? 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...
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.
