EVENTS

Date:	Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Time:	10:45 AM -- 1:00 PM
Location:	Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

February 2008

Where To Next for Air Pollution Policy?

 

Polls routinely find that most Americans believe air pollution has been getting worse, will worsen in the future, and is still a serious threat to health. The reality is just the opposite: air pollution has been dropping for decades, will continue to do so, and has become a minor factor in people's health.  In Air Quality in America: A Dose of Reality on Air Pollution Levels, Trends, and Health Risks (AEI Press, January 2008), AEI scholars Joel M. Schwartz and Steven F. Hayward show that this disconnect between public perception and reality results from misinformation by environmental groups, regulatory agencies, and even scientists--all of whom have an interest in exaggerating risks and obscuring positive trends. Misperceptions about air quality trends and conditions contribute to squandering resources and misaligning environmental priorities. The authors particularly advocate the reform of U.S. air pollution policy and propose an accurate reporting of environmental issues based on realism and public welfare benefits, rather than fear.

On February 13, 2008, Dallas Burtraw of Resources for the Future and Indur Goklany joined Schwartz and Hayward at AEI to discuss the current state of America's air quality and regulation and where we should go from here.

Joel M. Schwartz
AEI

Because activists, regulators, journalists, and some health scientists exaggerate air pollution levels, two-thirds of Americans do not know that air quality in the United States has improved. The media report false assertions without critically questioning or reviewing them, which creates the impression that air pollution is worsening. Air pollution has actually decreased since 1980. The numbers of counties exceeding both the one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards have dramatically declined. Motor vehicle emissions have declined 50 to 70 percent in the past nine years, and the existing air quality standards will eliminate the remaining emissions. This includes the standards for new cars, which will eliminate more than 80 percent of nitrogen oxides, soot, and volatile organic compounds. 

Air pollution has a minor effect on public health. Many journalists, scientists, and regulators exaggerate the health effects of air pollution. In fact, asthma is most prevalent in Western countries with low air pollution, and cases of asthma increase as pollution decreases.

Before the Clean Air Act, air quality was already improving. The act is process-focused rather than results-focused, and it allows federal and state environmental bureaucracies to expand their power. Regulators fund the health research used to justify the need for more regulation. In order to improve regulatory policy, the delegation of lawmaking authority to administrative agencies must be prevented; elected legislators should be required to impose regulations. Environmental decisions should be made by state and local governments, and common law principles should govern environmental regulation.

Indur Goklany

Environmental trends have been positive for the last thirty to forty years. Even before the Clean Air Act, there was significant reduction in air pollution. The burning of biomass measured from ice cores in Greenland shows that emissions from North America have declined since 1908, which means that improvements in air pollution occurred and would have continued with or without the Clean Air Act. 

Regulatory agencies recognize that emissions will continue to decrease, but this is not universally known outside of these agencies. Despite efforts to clean the ambient air, people still spend most of their time indoors, and the air breathed indoors has a significantly lower amount of pollution. After thirty-five years, it is obvious that the Clean Air Act is flawed, but there is no real progress on changing it.

Dallas Burtraw
Resources for the Future

Policymakers should have as great a sense of urgency today to reduce air pollution as they have had before. Looking at environmental regulation as an economist, it is advantageous to use the damage function approach. This approach examines emissions, concentration, exposure, effect, and damage. As Air Quality in America argues, emissions are declining, but the role of the federal government in regulating emissions must be defined. Without government programs in the United States, the levels of nitrogen oxide emissions would have followed the European model. When examining concentrations, it is possible that the wrong types of emissions are being regulated. But without improved monitoring, nothing is absolute. Although the increasing amount of time people spend indoors reduces contact with outdoor pollutants, exposure to concentrations of indoor pollutants has not been studied.

The air pollution examined in the prospective cohort studies suggests that its effects are dangerous to health. Studies show a link between ozone and mortality. Overall, society's willingness to pay for the damage of the health effects must be examined. Marginal and total net benefits from pollution control may be greater than recognized previously by scientists, economists, policymakers, or the public. Policies addressing air pollution need to be reformed to capture the greatest net benefits. These include tighter and faster regulations for precursors of fine particles, better resolution in speciation monitoring, and research on outdoor ambient concentrations regarding personal exposure. There cannot be any more stove-pipe regulation of pollutants, and the susceptibility of subpopulations and incentive-based approaches must be recognized.

AEI intern Lauren Jones prepared this summary.