The American Spectator : EPA Sniffs Smog

Text Size

EPA Sniffs Smog

By Iain Murray & Roger Abbott on 1.14.10 @ 6:06AM

The latest example of Obama environmentalism run amok -- but who needs economic recovery anyway?

On Thursday, January 7, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to tighten regulations on ground-level ozone (smog) beyond the already strict levels set by the Bush administration in March 2008. This misguided proposal is yet another example of environmentalism run amok. If implemented, it will hamper America's economic recovery by increasing energy costs for businesses, without creating any offsetting health benefits.

The EPA proposes setting the primary standard of smog between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million (ppm), below the current level of 0.075 ppm. This would force thousands of American power plants to install expensive smog-reducing equipment, such as scrubbers. The agency optimistically estimates that the plan will cost between $19 billion and $90 billion -- costs that will be passed on to American businesses and consumers, and result in even more job losses. Hardly the tonic our flagging economy needs.

The EPA and the American Lung Association both assert that smog at current levels causes heart and lung problems, indirectly claims thousands of lives, and costs the country billions in health care costs. According to EPA chief Lisa P. Jackson, "Smog in the air we breathe poses a very serious health threat, especially to children." So isn't the plan worth implementing, for the children?

The problem is that even the most marginal improvements in air quality are not free. They impose huge costs, often without any mitigating benefit. Resources are scarce, and the resources devoted to making insignificant improvements in air quality would be better spent on reducing the national debt, or leaving taxpayers with more money to spend on health care or other needs. Furthermore, the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked. Reducing smog to the levels demanded is far more expensive than smog reduction has been to date.

Moreover, levels of air pollution in America have been declining rapidly since the 1950s despite increases in energy consumption and automobile use. According to air quality expert Joel Schwartz, "Even the worst areas have far better air quality than was typical of American cities during the 1950s, '60s, or '70s." Further improvements in air quality are bound to happen anyhow, as technology develops and as vehicles and power plants become cleaner.

Moreover, the evidence used by the EPA to justify tightening regulations is dubious. The vast majority of the studies the agency relies on have been shown to be methodologically flawed. Their results are belied by the fact that incidence of asthma has nearly doubled in America this past quarter century; even as air pollution of all kinds has dropped. Despite all these studies, there is no new scientific evidence put forward by EPA to justify this new rule. Nor is there any evidence that the current laws are not working.

Why, then, has the EPA proposed this rule? Because the Obama administration wants to increase the cost of energy. The President's flagship global warming policy, "cap and trade," remains stalled in the Senate, with Senators of both parties all too aware of the damage it will do to their states. The President, however, promised in his election campaign that energy rates would "necessarily skyrocket," and the smog rule is another way to achieve that end without having to bother with the messy business of gaining Congressional approval.

As it stands, the latest regulation proposed by the EPA is typical of the Obama administration: a false threat is raised; the Bush administration is accused of failing to address it; and action is taken through the bureaucracy in order to circumvent Congress. Americans should not be fooled. Far from hitting "big business," the EPA's new proposed smog standards amount to yet another indirect tax on consumers, at all income levels.

topics:
Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa P. Jackson

About the Author

Iain Murray heads the Center for Economic Freedom at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and is the author of Stealing You Blind: How Government Fatcats Are Getting Rich Off of You, new from Regnery.

About the Author

Roger Abbott is a research associate at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (12) | Leave a comment

FTM| 1.14.10 @ 6:09AM

EPA is just another rogue federal agency creating a reason for it's own existance.

Don't get me wrong, nobody wants dirty air, dirty or a dirty environment but how clean is clean?

CB| 1.14.10 @ 8:08AM

The last paragraph of your article should be sent to every journalist in the country. The Obama three-step....false threat, blame Bush, enact legislation circumventing Congress...is standard operating procedure for these dunces. Why nobody gets it is beyond me.

Paul from SA| 1.14.10 @ 2:34PM

The EPA has been after San Antonio's air for years. This new standard will force the people of South Texas to have their vehicles' emissions tested. Many people here believe the new standards are being set to deliberately include San Antonio, just barely.

Emissions testing is a fraud and will cost us millions.

Why is the Obama administration bent on harmnig people and businesses?

Al Adab| 1.14.10 @ 2:53PM

Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps the Left is taking advantage of the recession to impose all their regressive policies knowing that while it will delay recovery, that recovery will eventually happen and they get the credit not the blame for the newly imposed costs? It's a long question but...

We can only hope they are not really that devious and Machiavelian. Are they?

Great Grandma| 1.14.10 @ 4:46PM

I've been watching the Dems for many, many years and yes, they are that devious and Mchiavelian. They're worse than that, I believe they want to take our country down so they can pretend to save it and get the credit.

Marc Jeric| 1.14.10 @ 3:32PM

Environmentalism is a cult of death; our eco-nazis consider the "sustainable" world population is one billion, not the actual 6.5 billion - and they are hell-bent to kill us. For example:
1) outlawing DDT - the entirely inoffensive chemical that eliminate malaria. Since its outlawing some 500 million people died unnecessarily. DDT in the meantime has been shown a) to be biodegradable; and b) that it never hurt a single fish, bird, or human being.
2) "Wetland" preservation; that is the eco-nazi name for swamps. These are breeders of moquitos that carry malaria, they emit monstrous amounts of methane that is 100 times more warming than carbone dioxide.
There are dozens of other examples of communist "science" such as the above. For example freons that were outlawed; they fall to ground and are greedely eaten up by soil microbes and NEVER climb to the stratosphere where, according to eco-nazis, they destroy the protective ozone layer.

greg| 1.14.10 @ 10:33PM

Wow, you're article really brought out the nut jobs and wackos! Reading the comments posted here makes me weap for the future!

Ray| 1.15.10 @ 12:40PM

Weep away, if it makes you feel better.

Personally, I don't "weep for the future" because I know that mankind is a very adaptable creature who is able to thrive in such diverse "climates" as tropical Rain forests to deserts to cold, dry mountain areas to even the Great White North.

Contrary to the "climate change" nut jobs, mankind will not only survive a changing climate, they will thrive in a changing climate because we EVOLVED to adapt to changing environments. Without that change, we will stagnate and, eventually, become extinct.

So, weep away because of a changing climate, if you must. I, for one, celebrate that change for change is what stimulates the advance of Civilization itself.

Larry| 1.17.10 @ 11:26PM

Paul from SA - don't feel like you're being picked on. There are a lot of metropolitan areas in the US that are going to be adversely affected by this ridiculous attempt to reduce the ozone standard, especially smaller cities and regional areas. The fact is that the background levels of ozone in many parts of the US are already at 55 ppm (largely because plants, among other natural sources, produce a lot of volatile organic compounds), so this is going to have a massive negative impact nationally. It is a matter of spending a lot of money to do little in the way of improvement to the environment - actually very much a part of the madness that has become the Federal Government these days. I hope people pay attention to this as it goes along; the Democrats need to pay dearly for this nonsense.

By the way, wasn't it Jefferson who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that when government "becomes destructive of its own ends" the people have a right to rebel? Here is a good example of that.