Quotes on Clean Air Act

"I AM GLAD to approve this legislation which is to be known as the Clean Air Act. It will make possible a national effort to control air pollution, a serious and growing threat to both our health and our safety. Ninety percent of the population of our cities, over 100 million people, already suffer from a degree of air pollution that demands immediate action. ...

Now, under this legislation, we can halt the trend toward greater contamination of our atmosphere. We can seek to control industrial wastes discharged into the air. We can find the ways to eliminate dangerous haze and smog."

President Lyndon B. Johnson
The American Presidency Project
December 17, 1963
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"The air that is the very essence of life has become a carrier for disease and for early death. Between 1930 and 1960 the number of deaths from one respiratory disease alone increased by 800 percent.

But air pollution is also a drain on our resources. In the United States alone it accounts for more than $11 billion in economic damages. This amounts to nearly $30 a year for every man, woman, and child in our Nation. And yet our expenditure on air pollution control is less than 20 cents a year per citizen.

We made a hopeful beginning toward solving this problem with the Clean Air Act of 1963."

Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"The Congress finds—

(1) that the predominant part of the Nation’s population is located in its rapidly expanding metropolitan and other urban areas, which generally cross the boundary lines of local jurisdictions and often extend into two or more States;

(2) that the growth in the amount and complexity of air pollution brought about by urbanization, industrial development, and the increasing use of motor vehicles, has resulted in mounting dangers to the public health and welfare, including injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to and the deterioration of property, and hazards to air and ground transportation;

(3) that air pollution prevention (that is, the reduction or elimination, through any measures, of the amount of pollutants produced or created at the source) and air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments; and

(4) that Federal financial assistance and leadership is essential for the development of cooperative Federal, State, regional, and local programs to prevent and control air pollution."

December 31, 1970
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"If I can summarize briefly, I think that 1970 will be known as the year of the beginning, in which we really began to move on the problems of clean air and clean water and open spaces for the future generations of America.

I think 1971 will be known as the year of action. And as we look at action, I would suggest that this bill is an indication of what action can be, because if this bill is completely enforced, within 4 years it will mean that the emissions from automobiles which pollute the environment will be reduced by 90 percent."

President Richard M. Nixon
The American Presidency Project
1970
31
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"Congress initially responded to the problem of air pollution by offering encouragement and assistance to the States. In 1955, the Surgeon General was authorized to study the problem of air pollution, to support research, training, and demonstration projects, and to provide technical assistance to state and local governments attempting to abate pollution. ... In 1960, Congress directed the Surgeon General to focus his attention on the health hazards resulting from motor vehicle emissions. ... The Clean Air Act of 1963, ... authorized federal authorities to expand their research efforts, to make grants to state air pollution control agencies, and also to intervene directly to abate interstate pollution in limited circumstances. Amendments in 1965 ... and in 1966 ... broadened federal authority to control motor vehicle emissions and to make grants to state pollution control agencies.

The focus shifted somewhat in the Air Quality Act of 1967.... It reiterated the premise of the earlier Clean Air Act 'that the prevention and control of air pollution at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments.' ... Its provisions, however, increased the federal role in the prevention of air pollution by according federal authorities certain powers of supervision and enforcement. But the States generally retained wide latitude to determine both the air quality standards which they would meet and the period of time in which they would do so."

Mr. Justice Rehnquist
U.S. Supreme Court
April 16, 1975
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"The response of the States to these manifestations of increasing congressional concern with air pollution was disappointing. Even by 1970, state planning and implementation under the Air Quality Act of 1967 had made little progress. Congress reacted by taking a stick to the States in the form of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, ... enacted on December 31 of that year. These Amendments sharply increased federal authority and responsibility in the continuing effort to combat air pollution. Nonetheless, the Amendments explicitly preserved the principle: 'Each State shall have the primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the entire geographic area comprising such State. . . .' ... The difference under the Amendments was that the States were no longer given any choice as to whether they would meet this responsibility. For the first time, they were required to attain air quality of specified standards, and to do so within a specified period of time."

Mr. Justice Rehnquist
U.S. Supreme Court
April 16, 1975
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"I am pleased to sign into law H.R. 6161, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. ...

With this legislation, we can continue to protect our national parks and our major national wilderness areas and national monuments from the degradation of air pollution. Other clean air areas of the country will also be protected, at the same time permitting economic growth in an environmentally sound manner.

The act provides us with a new tool to help abate industrial sources of pollution by authorizing use of economic incentives to reduce noncompliance. By directing the Environmental Protection Agency to establish monetary penalties equal to the cost of cleanup, those industries which delay installing abatement equipment will no longer be rewarded in the marketplace."

President Jimmy Carter
The American Presidency Project
August 8, 1977
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"The 1970 Clean Air Act got us moving in the right direction with national air quality standards that were strengthened by amendments in 1977. Since 1970, even though we have 55 percent more cars going 50 percent farther, in spite of more utility output and more industrial production, we've still made progress. Lead concentrations in the air we breathe are down 98 percent. Sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide cut by over a third. Particulate matter cut 21 percent; even ozone-causing emissions have been cut by 17 percent. And still, over the last decade, we have not come far enough.

Too many Americans continue to breathe dirty air. And political paralysis has plagued further progress against air pollution. We have to break this logjam by applying more than just Federal leverage. We must take advantage of the innovation, energy, and ingenuity of every American."

President George H. W. Bush
The American Presidency Project
June 12, 1989
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"Today I am very proud on behalf of everyone here to sign this clean air bill -- Clean Air Act of 1990.

This landmark legislation will reduce air pollution each year by 56 billion pounds -- that's 224 pounds for every man, woman, and child in America. It will go after the three main types of air pollution: acid rain, smog, and toxic air pollutants. This bill will cut emissions that cause acid rain in half and permanently cap them at these new levels. It will reduce pollutants that cause smog in our cities by 40 percent, so that by the year 2000, over 100 major American cities with poor air quality will have safer, healthier air. And it will cut dangerous air toxics emissions by over 75 percent, using new technologies. And by the next decade, its alternative fuel provisions will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This bill means cleaner cars, cleaner power plants, cleaner factories, and cleaner fuels; and it means a cleaner America. Virtually every person in every city and every town will enjoy its benefits.

This legislation isn't just the centerpiece of our environmental agenda. It is simply the most significant air pollution legislation in our nation's history, and it restores America's place as the global leader in environmental protection."

President George H. W. Bush
The American Presidency Project
November 15, 1990
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"Again, I say, as with all of our other efforts in the environment over the last three decades, America has proven wrong the skeptics who claim that the cost of fighting pollution would be ruinous. In fact, listen to this, since 1970 the direct benefits of the Clean Air Act—lower health costs and fewer days work lost, for example—have outweighed the cost of the Clean Air Act by more than $1 trillion."

President William J. Clinton
The American Presidency Project
December 21, 1999
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"The Senate directly focused upon the technical feasibility and cost of implementing the [Clean Air] Act’s mandates. And it made clear that it intended the Administrator to develop air quality standards set independently of either. The Senate Report for the 1970 amendments explains:

'In the Committee discussions, considerable concern was expressed regarding the use of the concept of technical feasibility as the basis of ambient air standards. The Committee determined that 1) the health of people is more important than the question of whether the early achievement of ambient air quality standards protective of health is technically feasible; and, 2) the growth of pollution load in many areas, even with application of available technology, would still be deleterious to public health. . . .

'Therefore, the Committee determined that existing sources of pollutants either should meet the standard of the law or be closed down . . . .' ... (emphasis added).

Indeed, this Court, after reviewing the entire legislative history, concluded that the 1970 amendments were 'expressly designed to force regulated sources to develop pollution control devices that might at the time appear to be economically or technologically infeasible.'"

Justice Stephen Breyer
U.S. Supreme Court
February 27, 2001
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"Neither epidemiology nor toxicology supports the idea that exposures to environmental levels of synthetic industrial chemicals are important as a cause of human cancer.... Epidemiological studies have identified several factors that are likely to have a major effect on lowering cancer rates: reduction of smoking, improving diet (e.g., increased consumption of fruits and vegetables), hormonal factors, and control of infections.... Although some epidemiological studies find an association between cancer and low levels of industrial pollutants, the associations are usually weak, the results are usually conflicting, and the studies do not correct for potentially large confounding factors such as diet.... Moreover, exposures to synthetic pollutants are very low and rarely seem toxicologically plausible as a causal factor, particularly when compared to the background of natural chemicals that are rodent carcinogens.... Even assuming that worst-case risk estimates for synthetic pollutants are true risks, the proportion of cancer that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could prevent by regulation would be tiny...."

Thomas H. Sloan
Lois Swirsky Gold
Bruce N. Ames
Human and Environmental Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice
John Wiley & Sons
2002
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"With the landmark Clean Air Act of 1970, our Nation set high goals for air quality. And this administration strongly supports those goals. I believe that by combining the ethic of good stewardship and the spirit of innovation, we will continue to improve the quality of our air and the health of our economy and improve the chance for people to have a good life here in America.

You know, a lot of times I talk about the fact that we can grow our economy and protect our environment. We've shown over the last decades that that is possible. Our economy has grown 164 percent in three decades. According to the EPA report released yesterday, air pollution from six major pollutants is down by 48 percent during that time. It's possible to grow the economy and protect the air. We're proving it here in America."

President George W. Bush
The American Presidency Project
September 16, 2003
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"Most of what Americans 'know' about air pollution is false.  Polls show most Americans believe air pollution: 1) has been steady or rising during the last few decades, 2) will worsen in the future and 3) is a serious threat to people's health.  Yet, as a recent NCPA study by air researcher Joel Schwartz shows, air pollution across the United States has been declining for decades - and was declining even before passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act."

H. Sterling Burnett Ph.D.
Brief Analysis, No. 577
National Center for Policy Analysis
January 29, 2007
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"Global warming may be a 'crisis,' even 'the most pressing environmental problem of our time.' Pet. for Cert. 26, 22. Indeed, it may ultimately affect nearly everyone on the planet in some potentially adverse way, and it may be that governments have done too little to address it. It is not a problem, however, that has escaped the attention of policymakers in the Executive and Legislative Branches of our Government, who continue to consider regulatory, legislative, and treaty-based means of addressing global climate change."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts
U.S. Supreme Court
April 2, 2007
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"The most serious claim leveled against air pollution is that even at current levels it kills tens of thousands of Americans each year. The EPA credits federal pollution regulation with preventing hundreds of thousands of premature deaths during the last 35 years, and, as a result, believes the Clean Air Act has delivered tens of trillions of dollars in benefits. But the existence of these benefits depends on whether the comparatively low air pollution of the last few decades is deadly. Controlled human and animal studies suggest that it is not."

Joel M. Schwartz
The American
American Enterprise Institute
2007
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"Still, if air pollution is not the threat most Americans think it is, don’t we have the Clean Air Act and aggressive regulatory authorities to thank? Not really.

Regulators and environmentalists have created the impression that air pollution was on an ever-rising trajectory before the federal government stepped in to protect Americans from unrestrained capitalism. In reality, air pollution had been dropping for decades before the 1970 adoption of the modern Clean Air Act.

Pittsburgh reduced particulate levels by more than 75 percent between the early 1900s and 1970. Chicago, Cincinnati, and New York all have records going back to the 1930s or 1940s showing large reductions in smoke levels. Nationwide monitoring data demonstrate that particulate levels declined nearly 20 percent between 1960 and 1970, while sulfur dioxide declined more than 30 percent. Los Angeles began reducing ozone smog in the 1950s, soon after skyrocketing population and driving created this new form of air pollution. Ozone levels in Los Angeles have been dropping ever since.

Air pollution is not unique in this respect. For decades before the federal government got involved, a range of environmental concerns was being mitigated by a combination of ad hoc local and state regulation, nuisance lawsuits, and market forces that pushed for better efficiency and technology."

Joel M. Schwartz
The American
American Enterprise Institute
2007
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"By the mid- to late-1990s, regulatory economists estimated that the Clean Air Act was costing Americans on the order of 1 to 2 percent of GDP per year—about $1,000 to $2,000 per household. The incremental costs of attaining the tougher ozone and PM2.5 standards that the EPA has adopted since then will likely add an additional $1,000 or so a year to the average household’s outlay, but will provide little or no incremental health benefit in return. ...

Federal air quality regulation suffers from incentives to create requirements that are unnecessarily stringent, intrusive, bureaucratic, and costly. The Clean Air Act charges the EPA with setting air pollution health standards. But this means that federal regulators decide when their own jobs are finished. Not surprisingly, no matter how clean the air, the EPA continues to find unacceptable risks. The EPA is like a company that gets to decide how much of its product customers must buy. Congress also charges the agency with evaluating the costs and benefits of its own programs. Not surprisingly, the EPA finds the benefits to be far in excess of the costs."

Joel M. Schwartz
The American
American Enterprise Institute
2007
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"The Clean Air Act is a model of redundancy. Virtually every type of pollutant is regulated by not one but several overlapping provisions. Terms of art like 'air pollutant' and 'public health' appear throughout the statute, as do a number of non-discretionary duties for EPA. Any finding that carbon dioxide from motor vehicles is a pollutant that endangers public health or welfare would unleash costly regulations for activities throughout the economy."

Ben Lieberman
Webmemo, #1822
The Heritage Foundation
February 21, 2008
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"The Clean Air Act provides the tools necessary for the U.S. to commit to the deep and rapid greenhouse emissions reductions—on the order of 45% or more below 1990 levels by 2020—needed to avert the worst impacts of climate change. National pollution caps for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would provide a scientific benchmark to guide all national climate policy. These national pollution caps also would serve as the basis for development of emissions reduction trajectories to achieve those limits. Those reductions would then be implemented by the states through updates of their existing 'state implementation plans.' Because the existing Clean Air Act not only facilitates but requires such efforts, the Obama administration need not gamble on whether Congress will pass new climate legislation, but rather should move quickly to commit to such reductions in the international climate negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change."

Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"Climate change obviously poses global problems. Yet these problems cannot be solved unless each nation limits its own emissions sufficiently to achieve its share of the reductions necessary to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations below dangerous levels. With the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration and the EPA already have in their grasp a set of uniquely effective tools to reach this goal: existing and robust legal authority to set national pollution limits for greenhouse gases and to facilitate preparation of state implementation plans that will move toward attainment of those limits."

Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"The Clean Air Act is one of the most efficient and successful environmental laws ever devised, and its science and technology-based mechanisms are time-tested and well understood by both industry and state and federal agencies throughout the nation. This comprehensive, yet flexible and cooperative, pollution reduction system is well-suited to combat the greatest environmental crisis the modern world has faced—global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The Obama administration can and must begin using its authority under the Clean Air Act towards this end."

Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"The Clean Air Act is among the most complex regulatory statutes in American law. It creates a wide variety of regulatory schemes targeted at different types and sources of air pollution, grants significant discretion to the EPA in implementing these schemes, and divides regulatory responsibility between federal and state governments. ... The majority of the CAA is devoted to regulation of air pollution from two types of sources: mobile and stationary."

Nathan Richardson
Discussion Paper, 09-50
Resources for the Future
2009
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"Air quality was improving before the passage of the 1970 CAA. Environmentalists should give more credit to innovation and less to top-down regulation. The air quality improvements are attributable to the cost-saving, energy-efficiency gains made by business and industry that go hand-in-hand with environmental improvement."

Nicolas Loris
The Foundry
The Heritage Foundation
September 15, 2010
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"Congress didn’t allow EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Administrator Jackson even agreed with the statement two years ago that the Clean Air Act 'is not specifically designed to address greenhouse gases'.

We also know that EPA’s own analysis shows its actions won’t affect climate change, and the scientific basis of its endangerment finding, which the Administrator confirmed to me is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, is flawed."

Senator James M. Inhofe
Hearing on “H.R. ___, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011”
House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power
February 9, 2011
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"EPA’s actions under the Clean Air Act are part of the cap-and-trade agenda. That agenda wants higher energy prices for consumers, higher taxes for citizens, more regulations on small businesses, more restrictions on choices, and ultimately less freedom. Supporters believe these things will stop global warming. They won’t.

EPA claims the Supreme Court forced it to act. Not so; the Supreme Court ruled that EPA possessed the discretion under the Clean Air Act to decide whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. EPA was given a choice, and it made the wrong choice. The Energy Tax Prevention Act is the right choice for jobs, for consumers, for a growing economy, and for the future of America."

Senator James M. Inhofe
Hearing on “H.R. ___, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011”
House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power
February 9, 2011
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"I respectfully ask the members of this Committee to keep in mind that EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saves millions of American adults and children from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur when smokestacks and tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of harmful pollution into the air that all of us breathe. In 1990 alone, EPA’s implementation of the Act prevented an estimated 18 million child respiratory illnesses, 850,000 asthma attacks, 674,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 205,000 premature deaths. ... If Congress allows EPA to continue implementing the Act, then the benefits of that work are projected to reach $2 trillion in 2020 alone."

Lisa P. Jackson
Hearing on a Draft Bill to Eliminate Portions of the Clean Air Act
Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of Representatives
February 9, 2011
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"As the Committee knows, EPA began regulating GHGs in 2010. EPA has taken the position that its regulation flows from the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), a case that began with a petition to EPA to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. Massachusetts found that GHGs are within what the Court termed the CAA’s 'capacious' definition of 'air pollutant' as any substance or matter emitted to the air.

According to the Court, however, the fact that GHGs are 'air pollutants' does not require EPA to regulate GHG emissions. The Court said that CAA air pollutants may only be regulated if EPA makes an 'endangerment finding' – a finding (in the specific context of the Massachusetts case) that GHGs emitted by new motor vehicles 'cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.' The Court remanded the case to EPA to do one of three things: find endangerment, find no endangerment, or determine that EPA is justified in making neither finding based on factors set forth in the CAA."

Peter Glaser
Hearing on "H.R.___, The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011"
Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Energy and Commerce Committee
February 9, 2011
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"Despite the urgent need to combat climate change and the significant societal and economic benefits flowing from reducing greenhouse gas pollution, the Clean Air Act is under intense assault from polluters and their allies in Congress. Parroting the same disproven assertions used against the Clean Air Act for decades, polluters are aggressively seeking to strip EPA of its authority to reduce greenhouse gas pollution on the grounds that any such regulations would, in the words of Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), 'put the American economy in a straitjacket.'"

Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"There's nothing reasonable or balanced about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to tighten national air-quality standards for ozone emissions at this time. For one thing, it's premature, coming a full two years before the EPA is scheduled to complete its own scientific study of ozone emissions in 2013.

The EPA's new standards are currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget but could end up on the president's desk in the next few days. If implemented, they would reduce the existing 0.075 parts per million (ppm) ozone standard under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program to 0.070 ppm or even 0.60 ppm.

This will mean that up to 85% of the counties currently monitored by the EPA would fall into 'nonattainment' status, exceeding the air-quality ozone standards and triggering a cascade of federal and state controls.

The EPA estimates these new standards could cost business anywhere from $20 billion to $90 billion annually. New or expanding companies would be required to obtain emission offsets and install controls. Existing businesses would face expensive new retrofit requirements just to keep operating as they have for years."

John Engler
The Wall Street Journal
July 26, 2011
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"I want to be clear: My commitment, and the commitment of my administration, to protecting public health and the environment is unwavering. I will continue to stand with the hard-working men and women at the EPA as they strive every day to hold polluters accountable and protect our families from harmful pollution. And my administration will continue to vigorously oppose efforts to weaken EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act or dismantle the progress we have made."

President Barack Obama
The American Presidency Project
September 2, 2011
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"The Clean Air Act was passed in 1963, and was last significantly amended over 20 years ago, in 1990. That should raise the question of why the EPA has only now realized that it needs so many more bureaucrats to administer it. The answer is that the Clean Air Act doesn't apply to the emissions of what we now call greenhouse gases (GHG), especially carbon dioxide (CO2), from power generation.

The notion that the Act would empower the EPA to regulate GHG emissions began only a few years ago, when, at the height of global warming alarmism, a group of blue states, led by Massachusetts, banded together with a gamut of environmental pressure groups to sue the EPA, contending that greenhouse gases were indeed pollutants and that the EPA should regulate them under the Act. In short, the EPA, in its recent filings, is legitimizing a groundless activist lawsuit."

Iain Murray
The American Spectator
Competitive Enterprise Institute
October 3, 2011
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

"...to treat CO2 and other such gasses as if they were particulate air pollution would eventually lead to the enforced deindustrialization of the United States. The expansion of the EPA would be the first step along that road. Yet the agency did not advance the argument that such an interpretation would lead to absurd results clearly not intended by Congress."

Iain Murray
The American Spectator
Competitive Enterprise Institute
2011
03
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act
Library Topic
Library Topic: Clean Air Act

More About This Topic...

Click thumbnails below to view links

Quote Page

Quotes on the Clean Air Act

Commentary or Blog Post

If only one child in a class fails a test, should the teacher assign failing grades to everyone? That's exactly how the American Lung Association (ALA) assigns air quality grades to America's cities and counties in its annual State of the Air report....

"The Clean Air Act is a law with a 40-year track record of cutting dangerous pollution to protect human health and the environment. Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this legislation has prevented more than 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease."

Most of what Americans 'know' about air pollution is false.

The president then handed the cat-skinning job over to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is imposing limits on greenhouse gas emissions by means of regulations under the Clean Air Act.

Enacted in 1970, the Clean Air Act (CAA) is the most complex, comprehensive, and costly environmental statute in existence.

In late March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's 1997 air quality standards.

If the EPA were to administer the Clean Air Act as written with respect to greenhouse gases, then it would need to hire 230,000 more staff and spend $21 billion annually to deal with the deluge of paperwork that would result.

Technology--in the form of cleaner cars, cleaner power plants, cleaner paints, cleaner everything--has won the battle for clean air, even with burgeoning economic activity.

This article reports on a study finding "that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually reduce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide."

"In a step that officials said would save lives, the Obama administration on Friday announced new air quality standards intended to reduce the amount of soot that can be released into the air.

Environmental groups and public health advocates welcomed the move by the Environmental Protection Agency, saying it would protect millions of Americans at risk for soot-related asthma attacks,...

In April 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision against the EPA over its refusal to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from motor vehicles.

Even as public health authorities and environmental activists become more strident in raising health alarms, evidence continues to mount that air pollution at contemporary low levels is causing little or no harm, even in the most polluted areas of the country.

The U.S. economy won a temporary reprieve with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement last week that new ozone standards, which had been slated for this summer, will be delayed.

Environmental Protection Agency officials Wednesday provided power companies and states with new guidance on EPA’s plans to regulate greenhouse gases.

With these facts in mind, let’s examine the outrageous logic of the Environmental Protection Agency when it comes to so-called clean air regulations.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to kill more jobs with another make-believe air-pollution scare.

Given our country’s reliance on fossil fuels for power production and the increase in vehicle use, it is perhaps not surprising that many people believe that air quality in the United States has declined in recent years.

President Obama decided Friday not to raise federal ozone standards for air pollution, causing a rift with environmentalists but winning praise from industry groups and congressional Republicans.

There is general agreement that we must control pollution of our air, water, and land, but there is considerable dispute over how controls should be designed and how much control is enough.

In this article I show how our air is in fact safe to breathe.

This month, I will document the evidence that even air pollution levels far higher than any we experience in the United States are perfectly safe, and that the nation's air does not cause adverse health effects.

This article will try to answer these questions by looking at air quality and demographic data from California, a state with a diverse population and with a significant amount of air pollution regulation.

This article questions the wisdom of regulating fuel standards, and the logic that increased fuel efficiency translates into reduced demand for oil. It may sound strange, but it's an interesting thought.

Yesterday marked the 40th birthday of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Air Act (CAA), and environmentalists celebrated by reminding us how beneficial the regulation has been at improving air quality in the U.S.

The gas crunch of 2000 differs from those in the past in one key respect: Clean Air Act regulations have now emerged as a substantial contributor to motor-fuel prices.

This paper urges significant reforms of the CAA to restrict the EPA's power to establish costly standards with few environmental benefits.

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a dramatic tightening of air-quality standards in an attempt to reduce deaths and illness from air pollution. The regulations already have ignited public controversy.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that her bureaucracy would begin to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases deemed to be warming the planet.

The EPA’s endangerment finding, which took effect January 14, gives the EPA authority under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs).

There's nothing reasonable or balanced about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to tighten national air-quality standards for ozone emissions at this time.

With Earth Day about a month away, Americans tell Gallup they worry the most about several water-related risks and issues among nine major environmental issues. They worry least about global warming and loss of open spaces.

Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation discusses the negative economic effects of new EPA regulations.

Ben Lieberman
Senior Policy Analyst, Energy & Environment
Heritage Foundation
July 28, 2008

Discussion about proposed EPA regulations on auto emissions,...

Chart or Graph

Emissions were substantially lower by 1990 under the control scenario than under the no-control scenario, as shown in Figure ES-2.

Air pollution has been declining for decades across the United States. The chart ... [above] tells the story.

At least three in four Americans surveyed in Gallup's 2011 Environment poll say they worry a great deal or a fair amount about contamination of soil and water by toxic waste....

Exhibit 1. Primary Central Estimates of direct benefits and direct costs for the 2000, 2010, and 2020 study target years. (In billions of 2006 dollars). The graph shows the extent to which benefits exceed costs throughout the study period.

Table 2 depicts how population pollution exposure has changed as the spatial distribution of pollution changed between 1980 and 1998.

This chart, from the World Resources Institute, shows the most common regulated air pollutants as well as their effects on health and the environment.

Figure 1 shows the average number of days per year exceeding the federal eight-hour ozone standard in the six California counties with the highest ozone levels, and in the other forty-nine states plus the District of Columbia.

This chart, provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, shows the original requirements of the Clean Air Act and how they have changed over the years.

The table shows the reductions in risk of various air pollution‐related health effects achieved by 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment programs....

Chart of the current National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Primary standards are set to protect public health, while secondary standards protect the public welfare.

The figure accompanying this article compares average PM2.5 levels and power plant SO2 emissions for the eastern half of the United States since 1994.

The difference in height between the orange and blue bars for each pollutant shows the estimated reduction in that pollutant achieved by 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment programs.

Figure ES-1 summarizes the historical data on Clean Air Act compliance costs by year, adjusted both for inflation and for the value of long-term investments in equipment.

Analysis Report White Paper

"The prospects for a Congressional climate change bill have lessened since the Copenhagen summit. If the legislative process fails, EPA may have a number of options available under the existing Clean Air Act to create a cap-and-trade program...."

This comprehensive almanac details the state of many environmental concerns, including air pollution, water pollution, climate change, and energy.

"The incentives in air pollution health research encourage risk exaggeration, because information purveyors depend on public fear to maintain their funding and influence."

This work, which discusses many aspects of air pollution, includes information on types of air pollutants and how countries have been working to cut the levels of these pollutants.

Air Quality in America shows in detail how activists have distorted the record on air pollution and offers an alternative analysis of air pollution levels, trends, and prospects in metropolitan areas across the United States.

"Journalists and environmentalists erroneously claim more than half the country has 'some of the worst air pollution,' when in fact the worst areas of California stand head and shoulders above all others."

"In this spirit, we propose to sift a decade's experience generated by one of the countless experiments in administrative lawmaking written into the Clean Air Amendments of 1970."

"Much of what Americans think they know about air pollution is false."

The White House apparently is willing to give the green light to ideological environmental groups and Carol Browner's EPA even when their activities might increase pollution.

This report is a briefing on the major components of the Clean Air Act and the major government programs it requires. It emphasizes the changes required by the 1990 amendments.

"This report will seek to examine the current clean air debate in more detail."

"The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments included a provision instructing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prepare periodic analyses of the costs and benefits of federal air-pollution policy."

"An ongoing debate in the United States concerns the costs environmental regulations impose on industry. In this paper, we explore some of the costs associated with air quality regulation."

This study analyzes the effectiveness of the 1990 market-based amendments to the CAA and finds the cap-and-trade programs effectively protect the environment at a significant cost savings over the traditional command-and-control approach.

"This paper investigates the effects of air quality regulation on firm decisions concerning plant locations, births and survivals, sizes, and investment patterns in major polluting industries."

This study investigates whether firms that adopt abatement techniques under market-based regulations experience greater cost savings versus firms under command-and-control regulations.

"...EPA greatly overestimated the net benefits of the Clean Air Act amendments. The agency deliberately neglected the cost of complying with a well-known, and expensive requirement of the act and ignored its own scientific advisory board’s advice...."

"The EPA is likely to face a legal problem on the path to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA)."

"There is no convincing evidence that synthetic chemical pollutants are important as a cause of human cancer."

This essay, written by the current Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, discusses Whitman v. ATA and its consequences for regulatory agencies.

"The efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act have pitted the EPA and some environmental groups against other environmental groups."

This report discusses the consequences of the Whitman v. ATA decision, focusing on the two main debates about environmental regulation: the cost-benefit dispute and the argument over delegation.

"We answered the EPA’s request in a filing on June 23, 2009.... This article details some of the most relevant findings in our response."

A report on the Whitman decision that includes analyses of the decision by members of the EPA Administrative Law Reporter's Board of Advisors.

"The Clean Air Act works. For four decades, the Clean Air Act has delivered cleaner air while providing economic benefits that have exceeded costs by at least 30 times."

The purpose of this PERC Policy Series paper is to show, by examining specific cases in American and English history, that strong legal traditions enabled ordinary citizens to protect their air, land, and water, often against politically potent parties.

The EPA's CAA study actually represents a milestone in bureaucratic propaganda. "Like junk science in a courtroom, the study seemingly attempts to obtain the largest possible benefit figure rather than to come as close as possible to the truth."

"On November 27, 1996, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Carol Browner announced a plan to impose new national air quality standards."

"This paper presents new evidence on the effects of these regulatory interventions by using the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments' division of counties into 'high' and 'low' regulation categories."

"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has claimed the authority under the Clean Air Act to combat global warming by regulating carbon dioxide (CO2)."

"Congress should amend the Clean Air Act to allow states to adopt remote-sensing programs in place of the unpopular and less effective programs currently required by the act."

"Policy makers have hoped that vehicle inspection and maintenance programs would generate air quality improvements at low cost."

Video/Podcast/Media

Discussion about proposed EPA regulations on auto emissions, emissions standards state to state, and the pros and cons of regulating and taxing to further environmental goals.

This podcast discusses how mass transportation such as buses and light rail trains actually emit more pollution per passenger than an automobile does.

Moller presents what Massachusetts v. EPA means for the country and for those in favor of limited government.

MPR: A Discussion on President Obama's New Course for the Environment

Discussion about proposed EPA regulations on auto emissions, emissions standards state to state, and the pros and cons of regulating and taxing to further environmental goals.  Skip to the nine minute mark.

Guests:...

This podcast by a scholar at the Cato Institute advocates repealing the CAFE standards. Taylor says that there is no good economic argument to have the CAFE standards and that they substitute political judgment for economic judgments made by consumers. He also states that since the CAFE standards only deal with fuel efficiency, they discount the amount of pollutant...

"Witnesses testified about a proposed emission rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rule, known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for utilities would set new emission standards for coal and oil-fired electricity generation plants. They focused on the probable impact of the rule on the economy, businesses, and job growth."

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lisa Jackson tells Bill Maher on HBO that literally trillions of dollars have been saved due to the EPA.

"This video exposes yet another of Obama's radical leftist appointments, EPA head Lisa Jackson. From indoctrination of our youth through the Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America, to fear mongering in a speech to LULAC, to playing the race card in front of BIG (Blacks in Government), Jackson covers all the Environmental Justice bases."

"In economic activity, there are sometimes 'externalities' or spillover effects to other people not involved in the original exchange. Positive externalities result in beneficial outcomes for others, but negative externalities impose costs on others. Prof. Sean Mullholland at Stonehill College addresses a classic example of a negative externality, pollution, and describes three possible...

In this video clip, Senator Rand Paul describes how air pollution has actually declined in recent years despite reports to the contrary. Paul believes America can have a clean atmosphere without implementing more government environmental regulation.

Discussion about proposed EPA regulations on auto emissions, emissions standards state to state, and the pros and cons of regulating and taxing to further environmental goals.

Primary Document

The question of how well the 1990 Amendments have succeeded in protecting public health and the environment from air pollution is very important.

In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U. S. 497, this Court held that the Clean Air Act authorizes federal regulation of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases....

My administration, under the leadership of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, has taken some of the strongest actions since the enactment of the Clean Air Act four decades ago to protect our environment and the health of our families from air pollution.

This retrospective analysis evaluates the benefits and costs of emissions controls imposed by the Clean Air Act and associated regulations.

In March 2011, EPA issued the Second Prospective Report which looked at the results of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020.

In the last 30 years, we have reduced air pollution in the United States by nearly a third, even as our economic output has more than doubled.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 impose certain requirements on States that have not achieved the national air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)....

The Clean Air Act is the law that defines EPA's responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation's air quality and the stratospheric ozone layer.

This web page summarizes the major changes incorporated into the CAA by the 1990 Amendments.

Democrats and leading organizations have united to oppose efforts to dismantle the Clean Air Act.

A Bill To amend the Clean Air Act.

I want to call upon all of you to join me in enacting into law a new Clean Air Act this year. But first, we should remember how far we've come and recognize what works.

Well, as we used to say in the Navy: Mission defined, mission accomplished. Today I am very proud on behalf of everyone here to sign this clean air bill -- Clean Air Act of 1990.

The Clear Skies legislation will continue the great progress we have made against air pollution. Over the past three decades, we've reduced the Nation's air pollution by half.

The legal authority for federal programs regarding air pollution control is based on the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (1990 CAAA).

I am pleased to sign into law H.R. 6161, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.

This is the third occasion on which this court has been asked to review Environmental Protection Agency ... regulations promulgated under authority of the Clean Air Act

This report examines the CAA provisions that have figured in this debate to see whether this alleged cascade of legal consequences likely would occur.

We have now reached the point where our factories and our automobiles, our furnaces and our municipal dumps are spewing more than 150 million tons of pollutants annually into the air that we breathe-almost one-half million tons a day.

I AM GLAD to approve this legislation which is to be known as the Clean Air Act. It will make possible a national effort to control air pollution, a serious and growing threat to both our health and our safety.

Here the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency must develop automobile carbon dioxide (C02) emissions standards because the relationships of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to global warming pose "a risk..."

This information from the EPA seeks to: Identify the main provisions for the Clean Air Acts and their Amendments from 1963 to the present day.

The Clean Air Act identifies two types of national ambient air quality standards.

The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful environmental laws in American history and provides an illustrative example of this point.

Thank you for inviting me to testify about Chairman Upton’s draft bill to eliminate portions of the Clean Air Act, the landmark law that all American children and adults rely on to protect them from harmful air pollution.

Through this Petition, the Center for Biological Diversity and 350.org request that the EPA do what the science dictates and the law requires: take necessary regulatory action to control greenhouse gas emissions.

On the last day of the year 1970, I think it would be appropriate to make a very few remarks with regard to this piece of legislation that I will now be signing, the clean air act of 1970.

The draft bill, sponsored by me, Rep. Upton, and Rep. Whitfield, would repeal EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Since day one, under President Obama’s leadership, EPA has worked to ensure health protections for the American people, and has made tremendous progress to ensure that Clean Air Act standards protect all Americans....

I am here today to discuss litigation the State of Texas has filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ('EPA') and explain why the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases ('GHGs') violates the Clean Air Act.

This testimony describes the impact of regulating CO2 emissions as a pollutant on all buildings deemed "major" emitters.

Congress should amend the CAA so that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not authorized to regulate GHGs for climate change purposes. Concerns about GHG emissions and climate change should be addressed through a different path.

This first prospective study also finds that the benefits of the programs and standards required by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments significantly exceed costs.

What is the Clean Air Act? The EPA has put together a helpful guide that outlines the programs and regulations found in the CAA.

Under the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 ... the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to set 'ambient air' quality standards which, in the EPA's judgment, are 'requisite to protect the public health....

The EPA found that implementing the Clean Air Act’s public health protections 'creates American jobs and bolsters the global competitiveness of American industry...

Syllabus of Whitman v. American Trucking Association, a case which dealt with the EPA's ability to set clean air standards.

Books

Link

Related Content