A policy stance on ground-level ozone (smog) standard under the Obama administration

Web address: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/science/earth/08smog.html


Broder, J. M. (2010, January 8). E.P.A. seeks tighter rules to cut down air pollution: Agency says health benefits will outweigh costs to industry and governments. The New York Times, A1; A3.


The Environment Protection Agency (hereafter “EPA”) under the Obama administration proposed a stricter standard for diminishing air pollution last month, especially focusing on the extent of emissions of “ozone” or “smog” as greenhouse gas. Historically, the policy stance on ground-level ozone standards at the federal level, according to the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/history.html), has oriented toward establishing standards for the amount of ground-level ozone allowable and gradually strengthened these standards, from 0.08 ppm (parts per million) in 1971, to 0.075 ppm under the Bush administration. However, the ground-level ozone standards have not always consistently strengthened; instead, there has been repeated relief and strengthening of allowable ground-level ozone standards, revising the 1-hour standard to 0.12 ppm in 1979 from the 1971 standard (0.08 ppm) or 0.084 ppm in 1997 under the Clinton administration (see article). Based on the logic that “ground-level ozone triggers a variety of health problems even at very low levels and may cause permanent lung damage after long-exposure” (EPA Web site), the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (hereafter “NAAQS”) and let the EPA control the extent of ground-level ozone by counties. The Obama administration’s proposal sets a primary standard for ground-level ozone of no more than 0.060 to 0.070 ppm, which would replace the standard of 0.075 ppm, imposed by the Bush administration. According to this article, “the EPA will take public comment on the proposal for 60 days” and “the new rules would be phased in between 2014 and 2031, with deadlines depending on how dirty the air is in a given region.”

The Obama administration’s stance on ground-level ozone orients toward stronger pro-environmentalism than the Bush administration which focused on the economic impact of environmental policy with more emphasis on economic development than environmental protection (Vig, Ch. 4; Kraft & Vig, Ch. 1). The Bush administration’s rule on ground-level ozone was based on the recommendations of the EPA’s own experts, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which brought about many criticisms and objection from pro-environmental groups and several states and finally filed suit from states challenging the 2008 EPA standard (see article; Mikalonis, 2010). Challenging “all of the Bush-Cheney policies” (Vig, p. 91) on environmental policy and related decisions, the Obama administration firstly (1) let the EPA review a wide variety of policy decisions (including regulations of ground-level ozone standard) made by the Bush administration, (2) made an alternative proposal of ground-level ozone (or smog) standard, and (3) will issue a final rule by this year. According to Mikalonis (2010), the Obama administration’s proposal intends to change the NAAQS under the Clean Air Act, especially focusing on establishing air quality standards based on scientific information that “defines clean and safe versus dirty and unsafe air quality.”

I think the Obama administration’s proposal on a ground-level ozone standard based on tighter rules than the existing standard is a reflection of his governing philosophies towards pro-environmentalism. As this article mentioned, the new standard under the Obama administration brings about several benefits to the citizens, such as diminishing serious “heart or lung diseases” from air pollution, “along with thousands of cases of bronchitis, asthma and nonfatal heart attacks.” Many public interest groups and advocacy groups, such as the National Association of Clean Air Agencies and Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch, welcomed the proposal, saying that “this will ultimately mean cleaner air all across America.”

I read some readers’ feedback from this article in the New York Times’ Web site, and many readers show various opinions about tighter rules for the EPA’s smog reduction. Of 219 total reactions, many people (almost 60-70 % of readers) agree with the federal (EPA) action to cut down air pollution because this effort can improve people’s health status. However, some critics of the EPA’s action frequently tend to mention procedural and constitutional legitimization. In other words, those criticizing the EPA’s tighter rule feel suspicious about whether or not unelected bureaucrats like EPA officials can relevantly reflect people’s true voices and thoughts in the public decision-making process; one of the debates on the Web site is whether or not it is related to “unconstitutional action” which allows for bureaucrats to voluntarily interpret the American constitution. Another debate on the new rule is over increasing the economic burden of industry. Pro-environmental groups and the EPA argue that the implementation of the new rule “will cost $19 billion to $90 billion a year by 2020, to be largely borne by manufacturers, oil refiners and utilities” but “those costs would be offset by the benefits to human health, which it valued at $13 billion to $100 billion a year in the same period” (see article). On the other hand, the industry and related interest groups worry about “unnecessary energy cost increases, job losses, and less domestic oil and natural gas development and energy security.” I think there is no best answer on establishing the new rule. Whether or not this new rule can be set depends on several factors, such as socio-economic, political contexts, and situational factors and public opinions. Although I am not sure whether or not it is possible, more sophisticated and objective resources and calculations on the impact of the new rule, economic burden on industry, and making causal relations among ground-level ozone and health problems should be required for making consensus among policy actors. This can be a way for the new proposal under the Obama administration to overcome criticism of opposition groups, most of which are located in industry and related interest or lobby groups.

Reference
Mikalonis, S. (2010, January 13). EPA revisits Bush-era smog rule. “Green Blawg: Laws, regulations, court decisions and policies pertaining to environmental issues” under Mlive.com (http://blog.mlive.com/green-blawg/2010/01/post_7.html).