Committee Democrats: “We can have a strong economy and a clean environment”
(Washington, DC) – Today the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held its third hearing this year examining the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, a primary component of smog.
Democratic Members of the Committee emphasized the strong scientific evidence in support of EPA’s decision to lower the standard to 70 parts per billion, including the thousands of studies used by the Agency in setting the new standard. They also highlighted the fact that a clean and a vibrant economy are not mutually exclusive, noting the U.S. economy has grown substantially since the passage of the Clean Air Act. As it relates to the ozone rule, EPA estimates the benefits to be more than double the costs – that is, benefits of $2.9 to $5.9 billion annually compared to costs of $1.4 billion.
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said in her opening statement, "Some will likely argue that implementing a lower ozone standard will kill jobs and the economy. Some of my colleagues may also suggest that we wait, and not, as they say, 'shift the goal posts' with this new rule because ozone levels have dropped by 33 percent since 1980. In short, they will use our current success as an excuse to stop trying to do better. They will also attempt to raise doubts about the scientific evidence justifying the new standard and will exaggerate the costs of its implementation."
She likened the tactics used by the industries opposed to this new health-based standard to those used earlier by the tobacco industry to raise doubts about the scientific and medical evidence that identified cigarette smoking as hazardous to human health. She said, "In any forum they could, tobacco industry scientists attempted to raise doubts about the science, doubts about the medical harm from cigarettes, and doubts about the scientific models used by government scientists that highlighted the negative health effects of tobacco and second-hand smoke. In addition, tobacco industry executives emphasized concerns about the economic impact of proposed tobacco regulations on their industry and the economy at large."
"This strategy served the tobacco industry well, postponing effective action for years. The profits enabled by these public relations-based attacks on science went to the companies, but the American public paid the price in a lower quality of life, increased medical costs, lost earnings, and shortened lives. This same strategy has been mimicked by the oil and gas industry in its attempt to question the scientific evidence pointing to climate change. Unfortunately, this Committee has become a favorite forum for rolling out these tactics during consideration of federal regulation of harmful chemicals that harm the environment and endanger the public’s health."
Dr. Elena Craft, Senior Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, responded to questions about the cost and technological challenges related to the implementing the ozone standard, "Congress intentionally said [in] the Clean Air Act to not consider costs. I think the reason that they did that is because they wanted the integrity of the science to be maintained. The science is a separate and distinct issue from cost or implementation, and the primary goal of the standard is that it will protect the health of the population with an adequate margin of safety. In past history, cost estimates have been overblown and overestimated. If you were to let costs be considered as you evaluate the science, you may come to different conclusions, conclusions that would be unduly influenced by cost estimates. I think that's why Congress was so explicit on this point."
Next Article Previous Article