skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

John H. Adams’s Blog

The Clean Air Act at 40: Still Vulnerable to Polluters' Falsehoods

John H. Adams

Posted September 14, 2010 in Curbing Pollution, Health and the Environment

Tags:
, , , , ,
Share | | |

Forty years ago, Congress passed the Clean Air Act of 1970. That same year, with a group of colleagues we founded NRDC, and we spent the next four decades using the Clean Air Act to improve the health of millions of Americans.

After 40 years of pushing the EPA to carry out Clean Air Act, going to court to enforce the law when necessary, and returning to Congress to defend and strengthen it, I have noticed a clear and obvious pattern.

Nearly every Clean Air Act program that we now take for granted—removing lead from gasoline, curbing acid rain, cutting pollution from cars and trucks—was bitterly opposed by industry. Each time, businesses claimed they would be shuttered by the effort to make our air safer, yet the costs of complying were almost always less than they maintained.

That same pattern holds true today. Power companies still generating power from dirty coal-fired plants say that using the Clean Air Act to curb global warming pollution will run them into the ground.

But we have 40-years worth of experience with the Clean Air Act that proves we can cut pollution and save lives, and still enjoy economic growth. Indeed, since Congress passed the law, we have prevented hundreds of thousands of premature deaths AND the economy has grown by 70 percent.

They say those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. I have come to realize that unless we recognize polluters’ patterns, every generation will be destined to fight the same environmental battles over and over. We will be forced to defend the Clean Air Act time and again from self-interested assaults and overblown predictions of demise.

We have faced these attacks many times before. I remember back in the late 1980s when NRDC was pushing Congress to reduce the pollution that causes acid rain. Scientists had documented the devastating effect acid rain had on forests, lakes, fish, and human health, but coal-fired power plant operators painted the science as unsettled and the remedies as too costly.

One industry group wrote, “In light of the evolving science, uncertainties, and staggering costs, can we justify acid rain controls now? We think not.”

But according to an MIT study, the true cost for implementing the acid rain program was about 80 percent lower than originally predicted. Costs came down because the new rule triggered innovation. Industry started making more effective scrubbers that made the job of capturing pollution easier and more affordable.

Meanwhile, the acid rain program dramatically reduced fine particulate levels, preventing about 19,000 premature deaths every year. EPA analysis found that the benefits of the program outweigh the costs 40 to 1.

That same pattern unfolded when the EPA proposed phasing out ozone-depleting CFCs. Manufacturers claimed they did not have the technology to keep machines running and that the industry would come to a screeching halt.

One refrigeration company representative forecast: “We will see shutdowns of chiller machines, which cool our large office building, our hotels and hospitals.”

In fact, the sky did not fall. Chemical companies developed alternatives to CFCs and were able to meet the EPA’s standards four to six years early and at 30 percent less cost than expected.

The health benefits of phasing out CFCs are enormous. The phase-out will avoid almost 300 million cases of skin cancer between 1989 and 2075.

The successes of the Clean Air Act have transformed how we view pollution. Back in 1970, when the law debated in Congress, one Representative quoted the mayor of a small town who said, “If you want this town to grow, it has got to stink.” There was a prevailing view that economic growth depended on foul, malodorous pollution.

Now we know better. From hybrid cars to organic foods, clean tech to energy efficiency, environmental safeguards and economic prosperity go hand in hand. The numbers back it up: Green jobs are growing 2.5 times as fast as traditional jobs, and California's clean energy economy has attracted more than $6.5 billion in venture capital in the past three years.

Yet despite this reality, polluters will still try to convince lawmakers that the next set of standards will cause the sky to fall. I have heard the same industry complaints time and again—and I hear them today regarding efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But I have also seen how sound science, hard-nosed advocacy, and public concern can rise above the racket. That’s how we got lead out of gasoline, phased out CFCs, and cut acid rain.

We can do the same with global warming pollution, as long as Americans see through industry falsehoods and make their own voices heard. Click here to tell Congress not to weaken the Clean Air Act.

 

 

 

Share | | |

Comments

Gordon ChamberlainSep 14 2010 11:04 PM

Another perspective is to promote the idea of human , economic, and scientific accounting fraud being use. If the evidence being promoted can not stand up to crediable evaluation those oposing the clean air act are using financial accounting fraud to justify their negligent business practices. Just like the fraudulent accounting the financial corporations used in the subprime scam. Human, economic and scientific accounting fraud must be subject to criminal prosecution or we are not going to be successful in dealing with global climate destabilisation

Ann JurgensenSep 14 2010 11:07 PM

I'm all for cap and trade, public transportation, and reduction or elimination of subsidies to oil companies. RENEWABLE ENERGY ROCKS! To keep our earth healthy, we may need to make some sacrifices, but when we consider the alternative (a toxic and dying earth), those sacrifices are well worth it in my opinion.

Jim Bullis, Miastrada CompanySep 19 2010 09:59 PM

There is good reason to applaud past efforts in curbing pollution, but there is something different about the issue with CO2.

Yes, that is something going into the atmosphere that we do not want, but unless we are willing to go to nuclear power, there is something big standing in the way of cutting CO2.

The issue here is that the part of the world we know as the developed world, and rather appreciate its benefits, is largely a result of the industrial revolution; and that is largely a result of cheap energy that fuels the industry thereof.

The currently expressed plans of the EPA seem to not include recognition of the economics involved. In particular, the report issued last month accepted a cost of up to $95 per ton of CO2 for simply capturing CO2; not even transporting it and forcing it into underground formations. Noting that this $95 represents only 12/44 of a ton of actual elemental carbon, we can work out the burden this places on the use of coal from the Powder River Basin to be around $180 per ton of that coal. Adding this to the present cost of buying and transporting such coal of around $20, we can see an increase in fuel cost of a factor of ten.

There has to be a better answer, but until it is found, the EPA needs to be reigned back on this one.

NRDC has usually taken a reasoned approach to environmental issues, and here is a place where it is particulaly important, given that our economy is in serious trouble. We might be wise to consider that without our economy in a functional condition, there will be little possibility for enlightened environmental action.

Something much more forward thinking is needed, and with that as an intention, I discussed a water and forest based solution to the CO2 capture problem, probably similar to some degree to the solution announced by Pres. Hu of China. (Please see comment to Francis Beinecke.)

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: John H. Adams’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In