Download: MP3 Audio
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
"If you try to hedge [scientific advice] so that it is politically acceptable, then your advice is of no value" 15
- Rogene Henderson
"This panel [debate] actually shows the same pressures in Washington of how much insistence there is upon taking economics into account in disregard of the law." 10
- John Walke
"The answer to the question of how low is low enough is a policy judgment to be made by an elected or appointed official guided by the best scientific advice available." 15
- Roger McClellan
"It's not a matter of whether I can claim that more jobs are being lost because of the regulation than someone else can claim, or being gained somewhere else in the economy because of the regulation. That's not the economics. The economic question really comes down to kind of the classical definition of prudence. And it's pretty much that, if you pursue one objective without regard to other consequences that your decision might have, you are likely to do something very bad" 7
- W. David Montgomery
With a weak U.S. economy shadowing his presidency, Barack Obama has announced his request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdraw draft air quality standards that would have tightened ozone pollution controls. President Obama cited “the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty” as the economy recovers. Public health experts and environmental advocates howled at the decision, raising concerns about the health impacts of ozone — a major culprit in smog. In contrast, business groups praised the announcement as a means to prevent job losses and protect employment growth; media have reported that the restrictions could have cost up to $90 billion annually. This Forum webcast examined the scientific and economic arguments around this divisive decision. The event is part of the Andelot Series on Current Science Controversies.
Industry has repeatedly claimed that any ozone primary standard in the range of 0.06 to 0.07 ppm, average 4th daily maximum 8-hour average, can't be met because "policy-relevant background' levels occur in that range. Yet the evidence presented mainly consists of high spring-time events observed at high altitudes in the Western U.S. These events are related to stratospheric intrusion and are excluded based on EPA"s exceptional events policy and thus, do not pose a problem for meeting standards in the range of 0.06 to 0.07 ppm. Policy-relevant background ozone levels are low (often below 0.03 ppm for an 8-hour daily maximum value) when man-made ozone levels peak in the warm summer months (June-August). Instead of blocking the health-based standard, why doesn't industry ask Congress to amend the Clean Air Act to allow exclusion/adjustment of ozone levels that are due to natural sources and/or transport from other countries?
FORUM WEB EDITOR
EMAIL RECEIVED FROM Joseph Lyou, President and CEO, Coalition For Clean Air, Governors Appointee, South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board:
Who are the economic losers? What is the economic impact of not adopting new ozone standards? What are the economic costs in terms of public health, petrochemical dependency, international security, green technology development, etc.? In addition, I would be interested in panelist comments on the experience in Los Angeles, where stringent air quality regulations have been well established and evolving for decades and refineries have been profitable in part because these regulations have required regular equipment upgrades and strict maintenance, thereby creating more efficient and reliable operations. [cont'd]
FROM FORUM WEB EDITOR
Hear the answer about refineries, regulations and efficiencies in the video in Chapter 15, starting at :05.
FORUM WEB EDITOR
[cont'd] EMAIL RECEIVED FROM Joseph K. Lyou, Ph.D., President and CEO, Coalition For Clean Air, Governors Appointee, South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board
Im sure many people will point out the false dichotomy of Smog or Jobs? but we should also consider the difference between short-term and long-term costs as well as direct, indirect, and external costs current borne by others.
FORUM WEB EDITOR
We have received a question about whether a transcript of this webcast will be made available. A transcript will be posted on this site in the next few days. Also, we will post a briefing of the policy points made during this event next week.
While the current US President may have a "bully pulpit", the Republicans have MORE of a "bully pulpit" because they are debating each other to determine the front runner going against Barack Obama in the next Presidential election. Because of their contest with each other, these eight candidates have the public ear and eye in ways that Democrats -- and the Presidents -- cannot have.
What prospects are there for widely and publicly recognizing the public health impacts of industry -- and human consumer behaviors -- so that the Republican candidates will discuss these real issues seriously -- even if they propose market-based solutions?
How can the 'regulatory burden' remain effective while reducing ACTUAL compliance COSTS and tedium (or headaches)?
FORUM WEB EDITOR
EMAIL RECEIVED FROM Gregg Thomas, Environmental Assessment and Policy Section Supervisor, Denver Department of Environmental Health
To Drs. Henderson and Dockery:
So why even proceed with a reconsideration in 2009, since the Administration knew that it would be 1-2 years before its decision was final and at a time when the economy was arguably worse than it is now?
FROM FORUM WEB EDITOR
The panelists answer this question in the video in Chapter 15, starting at 1:56.
In response to the MPH student's comment/question, there are multiple health effect categories with evidence of ozone-related health effects. So unless one converts estimated health effects reduced into a common metric, there is not a single health benefits estimate for just meeting the alternative standards. There is a lot of controversy about the conversion of health benefits into dollars. One must also consider the likelihood, or probability for each health effect category or endpoint. The EPA staff and CASAC have taken into consideration the range of health effects observed and the likelihood of these effects in making their assessments and recommendations.
Thank you for sponsoring this forum. I particularly appreciated the clear and thoughtful statements from Dr. Henderson about CASAC's role and its conclusions, as well as the important role of regulation in sparking industry innovation (irrefutable!).
John Walke mentioned this briefly, I think, but one important consequence of the President's decision that I believe your forum missed is its impact on our ability to accurately communicate risk to the public in order to reduce exposure to ozone. The program I lead in Atlanta facilitates a team of air quality, health and communications experts that has developed tools and strategies to increase public attention, particularly of families, schools, childcare centers and athletics programs, to air quality during smog season, and to make simple changes in the time of day and location of physical activity to reduce children's exposure and risk. We have succeeded in significantly increasing the number of schools and childcare centers responding appropriately to "code orange" smog alerts in order to reduce children and youth exposure to ozone.
Because the AQI and therefore smog alerts are based on the 2008 ozone standard decision, the President's decision to further delay a tighter standard means at least another 2-3 smog seasons in which we are inaccurately communicating ozone risk to the public. The impact is significant. In Atlanta this summer we experienced 39 violations of the unofficial 2008 ozone standard of 75 ppb. However, we had 65 violations of 70 ppb (the highest number CASAC recommended), 77 violations of 65 ppb, and 88 violations of 60 ppb. We are communicating an evaluation of risk to the public that we know to be inconsistent with CASAC's unanimous recommendation.