Tell the EPA You Want Clean Air

EARTHKEEPING NEWS
A NEWSLETTER OF THE NORTH AMERICAN COALITION FOR CHRISTIANITY AND ECOLOGY

Volume Six, Number Three
March/April 1997

Call to Action:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting public hearings on proposed stronger air quality standards in response to evidence showing that air which we consider "clean" (meeting current compliance standards) can cause harm to vulnerable populations. The victims of air pollution tend to be the most politically ad economically disempowered in our society.

The proposed regulation would control small particles that can lodge deep in our lungs causing respiratory disease and death.

The opponents of the new air regulations cite the economic costs as the main reason to oppose the rules. Oil, mining and auto industries and the US Chamber of Commerce are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress. They oppose these standards because of the "high" costs.

"These regulations go too far in putting health benefits before considerations of costs." Senator Chaffee (R-RI), quoted in The New York Times, 12/7/96.

Ask your representatives and senators how they make the cost/benefit analysis relating costs of factory remodeling to reduce emissions and benefits of reduced illness and healthier environment.

Also write EPA Administrator, Carol Browner, 401 M St. SW, Washington DC 20460; Attention EPA Dockets A-95-54, A-95-58, A-96-51 and A-95-38. EPA is also accepting comments on a toll-free telephone hotline, 1-888-835-5372 and by e-mail, general.comments@epamail.epa.gov.

TRADABLE POLLUTION CREDITS ö IS THIS THE WAY TO STOP AIR POLLUTION?

Take two electric utilities ö a relatively modern electric utility which has money to invest but already has upgraded to the latest environmental equipment; and an antiquated power plant which has no money to invest and uses the worst technology. Say the goal is for the total toxic emissions from these two plants to be reduced by 10%. In the economists' world of perfect conditions, here is what is supposed to happen:

Both plants have been issued (by government) one credit to produce a certain amount of pollution. Neither plant can reach the 10% emissions reduction with just one credit. However, the cash rich plant can buy (on the Commodities Exchange) the credit from the poor plant and meet its regulatory requirements. The money made by the poor plant from the sale of the credit helps it reduce its emissions by the required amount.

Problems: Focusing on credits distracts from the real issues. The plan avoids the fact that we have to change our energy use patterns. Regularly listing tradable pollution credits as top on the list of solutions is misleading and delays the real debate over what needs be done to have clean air and to stop global warming.

From Ozone Action, 1621 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington DC 20009; 202/265-6738; email: ozone_action@ozone.org