If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

President Obama Should Do Better Than EPA Standard That Fails to Protect Americans From Harmful Smog Levels

walke-john-nrdcBy this Thursday, President Obama has to decide whether to set safe health standards for smog pollution that will safeguard all Americans — or whether he will settle for a weaker, unprotective standard, one that will leave children, the elderly and asthmatics especially vulnerable. The president’s decision will determine whether he leaves behind a positive and fully protective legacy on health standards safeguarding Americans against unsafe smog levels. Whatever he decides on is likely to remain the standard for many years to come, raising the stakes even further.

Widespread reports indicate EPA plans to adopt the worst of the options it proposed for updated smog (ground-level ozone) health standards, 70 parts per billion (ppb). (The agency took comments on a proposed range of 65-70 ppb.) EPA already showed an unwillingness to provide full protection when it decided not even to take comment on a smog standard of 60-64 ppb, even though that was part of the range its independent science advisors have unanimously and consistently recommended since 2006. Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson did propose the more protective 60-64 ppb range in 2011 when she put forward the full range from 60-70 ppb. But then EPA unaccountably dropped those greater protections from the agency’s 2014 proposal, proposing just 65-70.

It’s easy to get lost in the numbers, but the effect is easy to understand. The higher the number, the more smog Americans will have to continue to breathe.

As the charts below show in stark relief, any decision by the Obama administration to settle for EPA’s worst health option, 70 ppb, would result in thousands more preventable deaths, and hundreds of thousands more avoidable asthma attacks every year, versus setting the health standard at the more protective 65 or even 67 ppb.

There are hopeful reports that some in the White House want to do better than EPA’s worst proposal, instead setting a safer health standard at 67 or 68 ppb. The question is whether President Obama will side with these public health proponents who want to do better, or an EPA that appears to be shying away from a fully protective standard. The president has the opportunity this week to make up for the single worst health and environmental decision of his first term, when he personally blocked safe health standards for smog pollution in 2011. The New York Times editorial board rightly called it “A Bad Call on Ozone” and observed “there is still no excuse for compromising on public health and allowing politics to trump science.”

John Walke
John Walke is senior attorney and the director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Clean Air Program. His work focuses on reducing smog, soot and toxic air pollution from power plants, factories, vehicles and other sources. He joined NRDC in 2000 from EPA's Office of General Counsel in Washington DC, where he worked as a clean air attorney for over three years.
How the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) Can Improve Your Business Operations
Sponsored By: Digital Lumens

EHS & Sustainability Journey Infographic
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

Merging Industrial Air and Water Pollution Solutions Provides Better Results, Lower Cost
Sponsored By: Anguil Environmental Systems

Six Steps to Navigating EHS & Compliance
Sponsored By: UL EHS Sustainability


One thought on “President Obama Should Do Better Than EPA Standard That Fails to Protect Americans From Harmful Smog Levels

  1. This may seem cold but protection of health isn’t the only issue to consider when creating air pollution standards as even the Supreme Court has ruled that the economic impact must be considered before the EPA can create a new or upgrade an existing pollution standard. Besides, state and local governments also have the right to create standards of their own as the EPA is in the end all and be all of environmental protection in this country.

Leave a Comment

Translate »