:: UCLA TODAY Home

©2004
The Regents of the University of California
 

Are we losing the war against smog?

BY MARY NICHOLS

The Environmental Protection Agency recently told hundreds of counties, including all in the Los Angeles region, that they need to submit new cleanup plans — while at the same time extending the deadline for clean air attainment to 2021. This left many wondering where we are in the war against smog. The Bush administration’s approach to the Clean Air Act is, in fact, confusing.

The EPA’s April 15 announcement came in response to a court-ordered deadline in a lawsuit brought by the American Lung Association and several environmental groups. The Bush administration had delayed publishing a list of counties whose air fails to meet a new federal smog standard. This “new,” stricter standard for ozone (the odorless, colorless gas commonly known as smog) was actually adopted in 1997. EPA’s science advisers recommended a change in focus based on new findings. Rather than zeroing in on the acute effects of relatively short (one hour) exposure to higher levels of ozone, air experts now believe that vulnerable population groups — especially younger children and those with asthma — suffer more from prolonged exposures at relatively lower levels. Kids playing outdoors in summer in smoggy areas are more likely to suffer coughing and wheezing, asthma attacks and permanent loss of lung function than previously understood.

Immediately after President Clinton announced the revised eight-hour ozone standard (along with a brand-new standard for fine particles), a coalition of industry and government organizations filed suit to overturn the decision. The standards were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. But although the Bush administration defended the EPA in the lawsuit, it did nothing to enforce the new standards.

Now, seven years after the EPA declared that children were suffering from current levels of smog, we are told we have another 17 years to clean up. Yet the EPA has eliminated an important backstop by throwing out the old one-hour standard before the new one takes effect. This wipes out the legal basis for California’s current clean air controls. Local air regulators and environmentalists fear that this may be a preview of the Bush administration’s intention to postpone any new requirements for cleaner cars and fuels.

The EPA approach throws away some important tools in the Clean Air Act that force EPA and the states to regulate politically powerful industries. Most seriously, the April 15 rulemaking eliminates the requirement for refineries and power plants to install state-of-the-art pollution controls whenever they expand or upgrade their plants. Industry had argued for decades that this creates an incentive to keep old, dirty facilities operating longer. But the evidence shows that decisions to invest in new capacity are made on economic grounds that have little or nothing to do with clean air requirements.

Most depressing is that the Bush administration’s announcement was a low-key, almost defensive apology for giving bad news to so many counties across the country. EPA should take the high ground, stressing the health and economic benefits of a more aggressive approach to cleaning up smog.

The failure to do so suggests that this administration is more concerned about offending the industries that may be asked to do more than it is about leading the nation to cleaner skies.

Nichols shaped clean air policy as U.S. EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation and as chair of the California Air Resource Board. She is the new director of the UCLA Institute of the Environment.