WASHINGTON (AP) — The current federal limit on smog-forming pollution linked to asthma and respiratory illness "is not adequate to protect the public health," a top environmental regulator said Tuesday.
Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said a new, stricter standard is needed to cut dangerous ozone pollution and prevent thousands of asthma attacks, emergency room visits and even premature deaths.
A new ozone standard, combined with greenhouse gas reductions mandated by a rule limiting pollution from coal-fired power plants, "will extend the trajectory of the last 40 years when we've cut air pollution 70 percent — all while our economy has tripled," McCabe said Tuesday at a Senate hearing.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, countered that a new ozone limit would likely have negligible environmental benefits and comes with huge economic costs. Instead of creating a job-killing mandate, the EPA should focus on helping counties across the nation that have not yet met the current standards, he said.
"A new standard at this time is not only irresponsible, but also impractical and economically destructive," Inhofe said.
Facing a court-ordered deadline, the Obama administration is preparing to finalize stricter emissions limits on ozone, a smog-forming pollution linked to asthma and respiratory illness.
The move fulfills a long-delayed campaign promise by President Barack Obama, but sets up a fresh confrontation with Republicans already angry about the administration's plans to curb carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants and to regulate small streams and wetlands.
Business groups panned the EPA's proposed ozone rules as unnecessary when they were announced last all, calling them the costliest regulation in history and warning they could jeopardize a resurgence in American manufacturing.
EPA officials say public health benefits far outweigh the costs, adding that most U.S. counties can meet the tougher standards without doing anything new.
The EPA is expected to meet a Thursday court deadline and set a new ozone limit of 70 parts per billion or less in the atmosphere, down from the existing standard of 75.
McCabe, the EPA's top air regulator, declined to specify what the new limit will be, but assured senators that the standard will be based on the law, a thorough review of the science and the recommendations of independent advisers.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said the EPA's plan could be disastrous for his state.
"We've got a regulation coming at states and consumers that is going to absolutely explode the price of power in our state," Wicker said, calling the EPA plan "unworkable."
Paul Billings, senior vice president of the American Lung Association, said EPA should not consider cost but instead focus on protection of the public's health and safety.
Once a standard is set that protects the public, then cost can be factored in, Billings said. The lung association has played a key role in development of ozone standards through a series of legal actions over the past two decades.
"Less smog means better health for all of us," Billings said.
The National Association of Manufacturers is leading opposition to the new rule and argues in TV ads that the current ozone rule works. The ad features a video clip of Obama saying at the White House last month that the U.S. has largely "solved" the smog problem since the days when thick air pollution in Los Angeles and other big cities made it difficult to breathe.
Obama made the comment — recalling his college days in Los Angeles — as he announced unprecedented carbon dioxide limits on coal-fired power plants, the biggest step taken by the U.S. on climate change.
"The president is right," the ad says. "Manufacturers have made significant progress in lowering emissions, leading the nation to a more than 30 percent reduction in ozone levels since 1980."
With air quality the best it's been in decades, "now is not the time for a new ozone rule," said Jay Timmons, the group's president and CEO.
Cutting ozone emissions to 70 parts per billion would cost industry about $3.9 billion in 2025, the EPA estimated, while a stricter limit of 65 would push the cost up to $15 billion. A price tag that high would exceed that of any previous environmental regulation in U.S. history.
___
Follow Matthew Daly on Twitter: http://twitter.com/MatthewDalyWDC
I think that pollution from some cars is definitely a major problem for today. Smog is destroying our ozone layer and we need to cut down as a nation. To convert everyone to electric cars would be absurd; however, there are so many other ways to reduce the amount of pollution that comes from our vehicles: "Once a standard is set that protects the public, then cost can be factored in, Billings said. The lung association has played a key role in development of ozone standards through a series of legal actions over the past two decades" (WASHINGTON (AP)). Billings brings up some good points, we should fix the problem before we worry about the money.
ReplyDeleteMarie Ong, Period 6
I agree with what you are saying we should be worrying about the people and how it affects there lives than how much it will cost. It will benefit us greatly especially the ones with asthma and lung illnesses. So we should try to fix this problem before it gets worse. We need to think about the generations after us we want to leave this world a better place than when we first started out. So yes i agree when when you say we need to cut down as a nation.
DeleteIt is not good that the current federal limit on smog-forming pollution "is not adequate to protect the public health" (Washington (AP)). This is linked to asthma and respiratory illness which many people suffer from. It is extremely expensive to cut ozone emissions. The air quality now is better than it has been in decades so that is good. I agree with Billings that they need to worry about the health and safety of the public and not the money.
ReplyDeleteThe pollution of cars and coal-fired power plants are two of the main reasons for pollution. Smog is not only dangerous to the ozone layer, but also to people with asthma and respiratory illnesses. With the air quality we have on some days in August-September, most practices for sports should be cancelled due to air quality. And on top of the health issues, there is also the damage to cars from smog in the air. They may be putting new laws in place, however "cutting ozone emissions to 70 parts per billion would cost industry about $3.9 billion in 2025, the EPA estimated, while a stricter limit of 65 would push the cost up to $15 billion" (Washington (AP)). They do indeed need to worry more about the health of people, before worrying if it costs too much to make new laws.
ReplyDeleteEmily Bobrowsky- Period 6
Bailey Wetzel/ 4th
DeleteI agree with the idea that we as a nation need to focus on the health of the people before we worry about the cost. I think the first steps to doing this is to add more fast-charging stations at gas stations. That way, we can solve three problems in one. The problem of smog concerning health, the problem of the ozone layer, and the problem of the declining fossil fuels.
People alot of the time look at gasoline cars and that electric is the way to go. I believe I am going to be depressed because i wont be able to drive old muscle cars but, back to the point electric is not the way to go if your wanting to be eco-friendly. According to CNBC electric cars generate 3.6 more smog than gas just because of making these cars. When these Batteries go bad where are these batteries going are they gonna go into a hole in Nevada? What about car accidents whats going to happen when battery acid goes flying everywhere from crazy accidents? There has to be something better than electricity.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Anthony. When these batteries are dead, they need to be disposed correctly. I also think that hybrid cars have the same problem as electric cars because those hybrid cars have batteries and when the battery is not being used, its the gas component of the car that is hard at work. But the battery will turn on at one point or another. Even though the batteries in the hybrid cars might last longer, they still need to be distributed in the correct way.
DeleteCameron Stone -- P6
ReplyDeletePollution and global warming have been hot topics over the past few years. Today, two main causes of pollution are cars and coal-fired power plants. The Ozone is slowly decaying, and will not last forever. As responsible citizens, we must work to greatly reduce the pollution we create by using energy efficient products such as LED light bulbs and electric cars. The president said, "manufacturers have made significant progress in lowering emissions, leading the nation to a more than 30 percent reduction in ozone levels since 1980." We have done a good job of this so far, but we can always do better. Americans must work together to create standards across the country, and eventually the world, to help reduce pollution even more.
Although I do agree with the press when they say that pollution is a major concept in our enviroment and does cause asthma, I feel that it is not one of America's most concerning problems. In the article titled "EPA: Current Smog Limit Inadequate To Protect Public Health" the Associated Press state "Cutting ozone emissions to 70 parts per billion would cost industry about $3.9 billion in 2025, the EPA estimated, while a stricter limit of 65 would push the cost up to $15 billion" (Associated Press pg 21). America has more complicated problems going on then pollution which will cost citizens so much to prevent because it is so expensive. I do agree that Americans should do everything we can to cut down pollution levels but we should not spend 15 billion dollars to fix the problem.
ReplyDeleteFaith Rosenberry
Humans are very high-maintenance. We tend to be selfish at times, putting ourselves in front of Earth, using machines that slowly kill the environment. We humans need to work on improving the environment and to be more responsible. But say the human race goes Eco-friendly in everything. There will still be wildfires, volcano eruptions, etc. that are terrible concerning respiratory issues and environment quality. Humans can only prevent so much pollution. Us humans can certainly limit pollution levels, but we cannot get rid of pollution completely.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe the U.S. should adopt the new ozone standard. Climate change has been a pretty big problem in the world the last few years, and by cutting pollution, and green house gases, we can help to make our Earth a cleaner and better place to live in. Also, the air would be safer for people, and could even save someone's life. With these benefits, I think any amount of money should be paid to better our ozone, and clean our air. I agree with what Paul Billings, senior vice president of the American Lung Association, says, "EPA should not consider cost but instead focus on protection of the public's health and safety. Once a standard is set that protects the public, then cost can be factored in"(Daly).
ReplyDeleteRenee Gibson- Period 2
I believe that we have a serious problem in the US with pollution and it is a major concept in our environment. America has way more complicated problems than we think. And we have expensive problems too and us as citizens try to prevent problems like this and we cant because it is way too expensive. All this smog is destroying our ozone layer and i fell that we need to reduce that. i fell that there are so many ways to just reduce the amount of pollution that we have.
ReplyDeleteAdrianne Mahlman Period 6
The current federal limit on smog-forming pollution linked to asthma and respiratory illness "is not adequate to protect the public health," a top environmental regulator said Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteJanet McCabe, acting assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection pollution is already a horible problem and taking this away could help people and our planet. "Agency, said a new, stricter standard is needed to cut dangerous ozone pollution and prevent thousands of asthma attacks, emergency room visits and even premature deaths." this is horrible that this is all linked to smogs that we have people with asthma and respiratory illness stopping this could help many others not have this problem in there life. i believe that if we take away smogs or just reduce the usage could help many people and our planet.
The United States has a huge problem with pollution and it needs to be managed better. I think that we should adopt the ozone standard because of the recent climate changes, and by reducing pollution, we could help make Earth an easier and better place to live in. The current federal limit on smog-forming pollution "is not adequate to protect the public health" (Washington (AP)). This leads to respiratory problems and asthma related issues. Reducing smog and pollution would be helpful to the planet and everyone living in it.
ReplyDeletePollution in the United states, especially big city states, has become a huge problem over the past decade. It causes sickness and effectively damages the respiratory system. The problem of smog and bad air quality is way overlooked in my opinion because our ozone layer is being destroyed and it could keep getting worse. We as a country need to find out a better smog controlling strategy than we have now. Electric cars and trains are a start but we need to build off of these inventions.
ReplyDelete-Rhys Kennedy Per. 6
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that paying attention to the problems pollution brings is really important for the future generations health. Smog and pollution are beginning to hurt the health of people in polluted areas, raising asthma and other breathing disorders. "A new, stricter standard is needed to cut dangerous ozone pollution and prevent thousands of asthma attacks, emergency room visits and even premature deaths" (Daly) is a very important thing to focus on. Smog and other greenhouse gas prevention is about to become a top priority if the human race is to depend on the health of future generations.
ReplyDeleteLasse Nordahl
Period 6
I agree with Lasse. We should be paying more attention to the pollution problems presenting themselves that have to do with the future generation’s health. I think that it is important to enforce "stricter emission limits on ozone, which is a smog-forming pollution linked to both asthma and respiratory illness (Daly).” This can help decrease the problems that smog causes. In addition, it can help prevent “thousands of asthma attacks, emergency room visits and even premature deaths.” I think that putting stricter emission limits on ozone is a good idea.
DeleteAssistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Janet McCabe said in the article that "stricter standard is needed to cut dangerous ozone pollution and prevent thousands of asthma attacks,
ReplyDeleteemergency room visits and even premature deaths." (Janet McCabe) I agree with her because it is a very important issue to talk about especially if it affects the people's health. Another quote from this article which I want to talk about is "the Obama administration is preparing to finalize stricter emissions limits on ozone, a smog-forming pollution linked to asthma and respiratory illness." ( EPA: Current Smog Limit Inadequate To Protect Public Health (Associated Press) ). I just hope they find a good solution to help lessen pollution or find an affective prevention of smog. Billings said " Less smog means better health for all of us," (Billings).
I think that the pollution in our country is bad because of the ozone layer. Lots of people are getting infected with lung diseases because of smog and bad pollution. The EPA needs to create a better ozone layer so that the environment is safe for people to live in. Reducing smog and pollution would make Earth a safer and cleaner place to live in if we had the money to reduce it.
ReplyDeleteCars and power plants are huge contributors to smog that is slowly destroying our Ozone Layer. Reducing the use of these two things is hard because cars are used for very important things and power plants produce power for our everyday uses. It is good that we have created hybrid cars and other environmental friendly things that reduce smog in the air. It will help us out a lot in the future.
ReplyDeleteAfghanistan's approach needs to be cautious yet aggressive. They need to be cautious when dealing with civilian lives, but more aggressive while fighting the Taliban. Showing any weakness to a terrorist organization is the worst thing you can do. If they keep this in mind and also get help from other countries, they can push back the Taliban and retake their city.
ReplyDeleteThese cars that cause pollution are slowly killing our ozone layer and only causing more harm in the air for future generations. Reducing the amount of smog and pollution coming from cars is a tough thing to do. That is why they have made electric, or hybrid cars. Billings declared, "Less smog means better health for all of us" (Associated Press). This is absolutely true when it comes to how the air we breathes affects us human beings.
ReplyDelete"A new standard at this time is not only irresponsible, but also impractical and economically destructive"
ReplyDeleteThis is just unbelievable. This mans more concerned about money, than the health of billions of people. Humans need to start learning that moneys not going to get you anything in life if everyone else around you is sick and dying. The new ozone standard should start up as soon as possible. As someone with really bad asthma, I can definitely say that not being able to breathe well huge issue and should not be taken as something simple. We really need to step up our game and learn to think about the human race as a whole, before we think about money.
-Becky Carmickle period 4
I think that the U.S. should go by the new ozone standard. The pollution from cars is a huge problem these days that lots of people ignore. Ignoring it won't help, the bad air quality won't magically get cleaner unless we do something about it. I believe that any amount of money should be paid to help clean our air. It is already a major health concern to people with asthma and other respiratory issues, as well as the people who dont have those issues. Its all in our power to choose if we want to try and save our already ruined air for the generations to come. We should leave nature how we found it.
ReplyDeleteHannah Miller, period 2
If what we are doing is not good enough then we should try to do more. What we are doing now "is not adequate to protect the public health" ( Washington AP). We are not even helping people with lung conditions so what are we doing? We should be doing more to try to limit our smog edmited. Companies like VW are not helping that by cheering the smog test. For starters we need to follow the guidelines if we want anything to get better. We can't just expect them to get better on there own. That's crazy.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Koopman, period 1
I believe that it is absolutely ridiculous that some individuals think that no regulations need to be made towards smog limitations. Our planet that we live on is only going to last us a certain amount of years and we all as a community and government should be working towards protecting it as best we can. The article states that " Once a standard is set that protects the public, then cost can be factored in,"(Washington AP). There should not be a problem with cost when it comes to health and protecting the heath of our country. If we do not work harder to make sacrifices in order to help the environment then we will be shortening the lifespan of not only ourself but the future generations to come.
ReplyDelete"Less smog means better health for all of us" (Washington (AP)). We as a country should work on cutting down our pollution in a way that is convenient and safe for everyone. Something obviously needs to be done and soon for the health and well being of everyone in the country so people aren't having as many respiratory problems caused from this. Also, we need to do this for the environment so that animals can have safe and clean air to breath in as well.
ReplyDeleteAlena Romero Per 5
As a society we need to treat the environment better. Although the article has people who are against the law of economical issues, it is better to deal with economical issues now and make the air better while we can rather than trying to do something in 20 years when its too late. "Less smog means better health for all of us"(EPA: Current Smog Limit). Society needs to control pollution today because tomorrow might be too late.
ReplyDeleteAmar Dhillon period 2
I agree that we need to lower the level of smog. It is terrible to breathe in everyday, especially those that live in cities. The action to lower the level of smog in the air, should be immediate, not in a few years or months. If there are rises of cases of asthma and respiratory illnesses, this could be a reason why. The air quality is at a low, and needs to be brought up significantly.
ReplyDeleteHailey Powers Per. 1
I never thought smog was so harmful. Smog needs to be cut down. If smog isn't cut down then the amount of lung injuries and so on will increase. That isn't good for anyone, especially for the kids that are living in those places.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government needs to take it's citizens into consideration more than itself. If the government values money more than the health of the people living in the US, than something needs to change. The article says, "Cutting ozone emissions to 70 parts per billion would cost industry about $3.9 billion in 2025, the EPA estimated, while a stricter limit of 65 would push the cost up to $15 billion. A price tag that high would exceed that of any previous environmental regulation in U.S. history."( EPA: Current Smog Limit Inadequate To Protect Public Health (Associated Press) ). Showing that the government clearly values money more than the health of it's citizens. -Hayden Lampe
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that, that amount of smog needs to be cut down. I don't know why anyone would say not to get rid of that level of smog. If there is a dangerous threat, why not get rid of it?
ReplyDeleteI think that smog in the US is bad for the citizens and pollutes our environment. There are a lot of people out there who have asthma, lung disease, or have a difficult time breathing. I think that the US should adopt new ozone standards because I think that we should put the heath of people and the heath of our enviorment first - before the cost of the new ozone standards.
ReplyDeleteWith this horrible smog in our environment, it affects many things like asthma attacks, lung disease, and lots of more horrible things. I think it should be stopped because it is ruining our natural environment. Its killing plants, and animals. It is making a hole in our atmosphere, "Stricter standard is needed to cut dangerous ozone pollution and prevent thousands of asthma attacks, emergency room visits and even premature deaths."
ReplyDelete