Ozone emissions affect us all; they have been shown to cause serious health issues including asthma attacks, heart attacks and premature deaths. Given the dangers associated with the pollutant, the Environmental Protection Agency was given the task of regulating the level of ozone emissions.
This week, the EPA announced a revision to its regulations on the amount of ozone pollution that is considered safe. According to The New York Times, the regulations would “lower the current threshold for ozone pollution to a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, from 75 parts per billion.”
Unfortunately for the EPA, the revised regulations have met opposition from both environmental activists and manufacturers who are responsible for a large portion of ozone pollution. Clearly neither side is happy with the new regulations, but the fact that no one is thrilled by the regulations is a likely indicator that the regulations are a good compromise.
Environmental activists have complained that the newly drafted regulations don’t go far enough and give into industry pressure to reduce implementation costs. Green groups have been advocating for a regulation that would set the acceptable level of ozone pollution at 60 parts per billion. They claim that the EPA has a responsibility to set the level of emissions to reflect scientific research about a safe level of ozone pollution.
In a move not commonly seen by environmental groups, they have turned to an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia in a case about whether the EPA should take into account the cost of implementing the regulation in which Scalia says, “Nowhere are the costs of achieving such a standard made part of that initial calculation.” The EPA has a responsibility to set the ozone emission standards based on what is a safe level of ozone for people to breath, not based on what it will cost to implement.
While environmental groups have complained that the regulations don’t go far enough, industry groups have complained that the regulations will be expensive to implement and will cost a struggling U.S. economy jobs. In a Politico article about the proposed regulations, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, is quoted as saying the revised ozone regulations “will lower our nation’s economic competitiveness and stifle job creation for decades.” Compliance with the new regulations won’t be cheap, but in this situation, there’s a human cost that also must be evaluated.
At this point, the regulations can be boiled down to a battle between the potential health benefits of few ozone emissions and the cost for manufacturers to implement the new standards. The EPA admits that industry will be burdened by significant costs of roughly “$3.9 billion in 2025,” simply to implement a 70 parts per billion limit – with higher costs for a stricter rule. It contends, however, that the health benefits would be significant enough to offset the costs for industry to implement the regulations. The EPA’s internal estimate “calculates the benefits at $6.4 billion to $13 billion annually in 2025 for a standard of 70 parts per billion.”
Industry officials are right to be upset about the prospect of stricter regulations. After all, they have a responsibility to their shareholders, and it would be fiscally irresponsible of them to accept the new regulations lying down; however, at some point they will have to accept the new regulations and move forward with the implementation process.
While the out-of-pocket cost may be high, manufacturers and other polluters will eventually see a return on their investment in the form of increased worker efficiency. For environmental groups, the proposed regulations should be seen as a step in the process.
According to the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to re-evaluate regulations every five years to determine if they should be changed. If in five years the level of ozone emissions is still considered dangerously high, they can be lowered further at that point. But in the meantime, polluters will be forced to make strides in the right direction. The U.S. was built on compromises and these regulations are a perfect example that compromise, now matter how small, can still be achieved despite the hostile political environment.
Reach the columnist at zjosephs@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @zachjosephson
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
