The Clean Air Act - Essay Example

The Clean Air Act (1990) Since the World War II, the US economy has continued to grow. This growth can be attributed to increased manufacturing. The large number of industries in the US was a source of pollutants that continued to degrade the environment. Thus, the need to regulate the amount off pollutants that industries could discharge into the air arose. This article discusses the 1990 Clean Air Act. A brief history of the act has been described with highlighting of the major events. Response of the industry to the act is then discussed. Shortcomings of the act that necessitate future amendments have been described followed by expected reactions from industry players. History of the Act Efforts that culminated in the modern Clean Air Act (CAA) can be traced to the 1950s. The Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 was signed into law by President Eisenhower. The initial version of the law authorized the United States Surgeon General to provide assistance to the states on how to implement controls. The “killer smog” in London and New York in the 1960’s created concern about increased air pollution. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) was empowered by the 1963 CAA to act on interstate air pollution. According to Jonathan & Joseph, this act established a national authority that would intervene in air pollution which posed a danger to the health of any person (8). Four years later, President Johnson signed the Air Quality Act of 1967 which was an amendment of the 1963 Act. The 1967 Air Quality Act authorized HEW to set national air quality standards. The Act required states to set ambient air quality standards. These standards were expected to be in line with the criteria set by HEW. Roy notes that the Air Quality Act of 1967 had a shortcoming in that it did not establish enforcement procedures. The Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970. It brought about a shift in the strategy of tackling pollution. The amendments empowered the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These standards are meant to protect the public by setting the levels of air quality that must be maintained. The 1970 Amendments created New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) program. NSPS authorized EPA to set standards that would determine technology requirements for new or modified sources of air pollution. The amendments also brought about the regulation of air pollutants and air toxics. These amendments were controversial and brought about challenges to EPA in the implementation of the NAAQs (Jonathan & Joseph 12-14). Little success in achieving the goals of the 1970 Amendments prompted the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. At the time, only few areas of the country had made progress in meeting the applicable NAAQS. Consequently, the amendments extended the time required for compliance. New pollution control criteria were set for areas that could not attain the standards set by the 1970 Amendments. These amendments aimed at defining the standards that industrial technologies would meet in order to control pollution (Roy, 1970). In 1990, Congress revised the Clean Air Act (The 1990 Amendments). These amendments knocked off some elements of the previous act and added new programs. The act strengthened the ability of EPA to enforce standards. It required that the air pollution control obligations of an individual pollution source be entrenched in a single permit that expired after five years. The states were allocated a three year period to develop permit programs. These permit programs had to be compliant with EPA standards. In summary, The 1990 Amendments set standards that would see a decrease in Ozone depletion, air toxics and motor vehicle pollution among other areas (Jolish 306). Industry Response to the Clean Air Act The 1990 Amendments forced corporations to create necessary budgetary allocations that would cater for equipment, research and product development. Companies started integrating environmental policy into their missions. The response has shifted from wariness to a proactive commitment towards seeking environmental sustainability. In the 1970s, despite their praise for the amendments, companies pleaded with policy makers to tone down the regulations. For example, the automotive industry disputed the expected economic benefits of the amendments. Industries complained of inadequacy of time to develop or apply the required emission-reduction technologies. Through their trade associations, companies pressed for reasonable regulations. Higher operating costs were cited as companies sought to implement technologies and policies that would ensure compliance with the NAAQs (Jonathan & Joseph 57). When the 1977 amendments increased the time limits for compliance, criticism of the Act from the industry reduced. However, competition within the industry in production of environmentally friendly products was growing. This brought about corporate participation in research and development of emission-control strategies. Consequently, there was increased participation from the corporate sector in EPA policy development process in the 1990s (Jonathan & Joseph 58). Opportunities and Challenges According to Nersesian (364-365), one of the business opportunities that arose out of the 1990 Clean Air Act was “cap and trade”. While some industries emit a higher quantity of pollutants than set by EPA, others successfully emit quantities below the EPA guidelines. In order to meet the EPA standards, the companies that emit more are required to purchase credits from those that emit less pollutants. Industries that fail to purchase enough credits to cater for excessive emission are fined. Cap and trade is a means of prodding companies to invest in technologies that result in low emissions. However, this arrangement is viewed in some quarters as a right to pollute. Nevertheless, the arrangement has a positive impact on industries that are committed to reducing pollution. This is because they are allowed to make money by selling their excess emission allowances. The excess emission allowances are sold per ton. The business has been booming with prices peaking at $1,600 at the start of 2006. The economic recession brought about a reduction in the price. Subscription to this program faced challenges. First, the prices of the allowances per ton were low. This meant that it was cheaper to buy the allowances than invest in emission-reduction technologies. For example, a ton went for as low as $69 in 1996. Again the conversion factor for calculating the number of allowances to be awarded was low. This discouraged participation in the program. Electric companies which contributed to a sizeable amount of emissions were preoccupied with more pressing matters such as restructuring and retail competition. These matters had more potential reward than the emission allowances they would receive (David, Elizabeth, & Jeffrey 3). The design of emission-reducing technologies also became a booming industry. For example, the motor vehicle industry saw the advent of catalytic converters and diesel filters. This industry designed technologies to facilitate lead removal from gasoline and desulfurization of diesel fuel. The market exported catalytic and filter technologies valued at $250 million from the US. This market had created over 2000 jobs by the year 2000. Johnson Matthey is the largest supplier of catalyst technologies in the US. Allied Signal and Engelhard hold about a fifth of the market share. This market is facing competition from foreign firms and also ready-made products imported into the country. For example, most cars imported into the US come with built-in emission control technologies (US Congress Office of Technology Assessment 133-134). The Clean Air Act Today The impact of the Clean Air Act is being touted as positive according to the First Prospective Study by EPA. The study claims that the environmental and public health benefits accrued from the Act exceed the cost of implementation by a margin of one to four. The report claims that the act has prevented thousands of premature deaths and medical complications. The report shows that reduced pollution has led to longer lifespan, reduced prevalence of heart and asthma attacks and reduced number of sick days. These benefits far exceed the implementation costs of the clean air protections. The benefits have resulted in a productive and healthy workforce thus reducing expenses on health care (Dave). The 1990 Clean Air Act should be amended to accommodate renewable energy sources, reduce the allowable pollution levels from industries and develop new trading schemes. Title IV acid rain program needs to be harnessed in order to push market forces to address pollution. This can be done by tightening the existing caps for pollutant gases such as Sulfur (IV) Oxide. New trading programs that will prompt for even further reduction in pollution need to be developed. Global warming is raising a lot of debate and the Act should be amended to cover this. The advent and increased utilization of renewable sources of energy in the past decade has resulted for a call to Congress to amend the bill. Producers and consumers of green energy argue that it is the future of the planet and therefore require amendments that will promote green energy. Nation wide caps and trade programs for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) should also be pursued. In addition, a multi-pollutant trading scheme should be devised and implemented (David, Elizabeth & Jeffrey). Current pollution levels are quite high. Cost of implementing emission-reduction technologies is quite low to the US manufacturer. Consequently, amendments to the law may be welcome. Since there are technologies can further reduce prevailing pollution levels, US manufacturers will save even more if they adopt the new technologies. Setting of new standards will increase popularity of US goods in environment conscious economies (Jonathan & Joseph). Conclusion The Clean Air Act was established in order to curb pollution. The Act has undergone several amendments since 1950. Each amendment has built on previous amendments to create a stringent mechanism for addressing air pollution in the US. The Act has brought about new opportunities in manufacturing of emission-reduction technologies. Cap trading is also a source of revenue to industries whose pollutant levels are below that allowable by EPA. While Congress has made strides in tackling air pollution, new amendments need to be put in place to address arising issues such as global warming and renewable energy. Works Cited Dave Ryan, First Prospective Study – Press Release. EPA. Nov. 16 1999. Web. Feb 18 2012. http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/r-140.html David, R. Wooley., Elizabeth, M. Morrs., & Jeffrey, M. Fang., The clean air act and renewable energy: Opportunities, barriers & options. Conference Paper 620-29654. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. February 2001. 1-20. Jolish, Taly L., “Negotiating the smog away”. Virginia Environmental Law Journal. 18. (1999) 306-307. Jonathan, M. Davidson & Joseph, M. Loberk. An interactive history of the clean air act: Scientific and policy perspectives. London: Elsevier, 2011. Print. Nersesian, Roy L., Energy for the 21st century: a comprehensive guide to conventional and alternative sources. New York: M. E Sharpe, 2010. Print. Roy, S. Belden., Clean Air Act. Chicago: ABA Publishing, 2001. Print. US Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Industry, Technology and the Environment: Competitive challenges & business opportunities. Pennsylvania: DIANE, 2004. Print. Read More