EPA Punts on Clean Air
This week, the EPA decided to delay new standards that would have placed tougher limits on smog pollution.
Take it from Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. A contest between data-backed expert recommendations and politics is like a contest between a pee wee youth football team and the New England Patriots.
At a speech at the National Press Club late last month, Energy Secretary Steven Chu impishly commented that “data is maybe a new concept here in Washington.”
No, Mr. Secretary, it’s not new. The sad reality is that data often stands little chance against political agendas.
As we are now seeing with EPA head Lisa Jackson’s decision to ask a scientific advisory committee to indulge her in “further interpretation” of studies that the panel used to recommend toughening the federal standard for low-lying ozone smog – which is linked to an assortment of respiratory ailments and to premature mortality.
In 2006, the committee – which includes physicians, engineers, atmospheric scientists, and biologists - unanimously recommended tightening the standard from 80 parts per billion (ppb) to no greater than 70 ppb.
EPA, however, set the standard at 75 ppb in 2008. The reason might have been compliance costs, but the Clean Air Act specifies that health-based standards must be based solely on … health.
When Jackson took over the following year, she re-opened the matter, proposed a new level between 60 and 70 ppb last January, and promised a decision by the end of this year.
Oil and chemical companies howled. Congressmen with a sharp ear for oil and chemical company needs and desires joined the chorus of howling.
Hence, Jackson’s re-convening of the advisory committee for “further interpretation,” and putting off a decision on revising the standard until late next July.
Just in time for the summer heat waves when tailpipe and smokestack exhaust are brewed into noxious mixtures that send people to sickbeds, hospitals, and to early graves.
Literally and figuratively, it’s enough to take your breath away.