The Clean Air Debate: The Other Side For The Citizens' Clean Air Project

In the debate over the strengthening of The Clean Air Act, much has been neglected. Representative Gene Green's recent Chronicle article "Tougher air standards will do more harm than good" begs many questions and rehashes arguments as old as the Clean Air Act. There are several serious misconceptions about how the Environmental Protection Agency must proceed in preparing new standards.

The EPA is required by The Clean Air Act to review their standards every five years and if the best available science indicates that current standards are too low to provide reasonable public health protections, they must take action. According to the American Lung Association (A.L.A.), the public health information is so serious that it sued the EPA in 1991 to force it to adopt tighter standards on ozone and fine particulate matter.

Points to consider: ´Toxic Release Inventory data for Houston reveals that we have the highest levels of toxic chemicals released into the air in the country.´ Air toxics cause respiratory inflammation and aggravate asthma. ´ Forty - seven days this year health alerts were issued for ozone levels in the Houston area and several times levels exceeded ground-level ozone concentrations anywhere in the country. ´ Houston area health care costs total more than $75 million spent annually treating 160,000 children and adults who suffer solely from asthma.

During hearings, we would ask to look at the credentials of those questioning the science to see who their backers were. If industry is providing funding, does anyone really think those giving testimony would say anything but that the science is inadequate? Do they have "sound" science to back up their assertions? The answer to both these questions is a resounding no!

The EPA used over 240 peer reviewed studies before they proposed the new standards on ozone and fine particulates, and a scientific review of these studies would show that the evidence is excellent. This is why groups as diverse as the Sierra Club, A.L.A., Gray Panthers, HABA and all of our co-signers have launched the Citizens Clean Air Project; the science is real and compelling.

A major point to remember is that the EPA is not allowed to consider costs when proposing the new standards. This was decided by statute and in the courts and implementation costs are an entirely separate issue. Many say that the cost for complying with these new clean air standards would be great and that local businesses and economies would be hurt. There is also the fear and not so subtle threat that industry may move out of non-compliance areas. These have been the same arguments used since the inception of the Clean Air Act and other public safety acts. The same arguments were used when DDT was banned: Our agriculture was going to be destroyed and food prices would rise dramatically. When CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons) were banned: Automobiles and air conditioning systems would be priced out of existence because of the cost of replacement; reformulated gas, auto emissions testing, and auto emissions control systems were going to drive automobile prices and gas prices so high that no one would be able to afford a car or to drive one. The Clean Air Act was going to bankrupt industry and run all of our jobs out of the country in 1970. As history has shown, none of these dire predictions has come true and our people and economy are healthier and prospering.

Houston has been a non-attainment area for ozone since the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. There are ways of cleaning up the air without the negative impacts that the opposition envisions. Industry and municipalities have consistently under-estimated their own abilities to deal with environmental problems but history shows that they can deal with these new challenges in efficient, cost-effective ways when they must.

The problems of high ozone and fine particulate levels must be addressed without delay. The science supporting the new levels is excellent and should be listened to carefully. Is not our childrens' and our elderly population's health worth the investment to protect their health and stop their suffering? How in the world can making people healthier be considered doing more harm than good?