The emissions associated with oil and gas production and use, as well as burning coal, are the primary counterweight to the fossil fuels’ relative abundance and low-cost means of providing light, heat and transportation around the world. The greenhouse gases these fuels create have lasting effects on the global climate. Air quality in regions heavy with fossil-fuel production and use, as well as industrial production, is compromised. Public health is affected.
Ground-level ozone, a prime smog culprit, is among the pollutants that cause ill effects in areas where the gas is highly concentrated, and the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a more stringent limit on ozone levels. It is a long-anticipated move that will both protect public health and give ozone-producing industries ample time to comply. It is also much needed.
Not surprisingly, the proposed rule is being met with loud complaints from the energy and manufacturing industries, which claim that rolling back ozone emissions will cost billions if not trillions to consumers, producers and the U.S. economy in general. The National Association of Manufacturers, for example, asserts that the proposed rule change would cost $270 billion to $360 billion annually for compliance, while also eliminating millions of jobs and costing the economy up to $3.4 trillion in output.
The EPA sees it quite a bit differently. According to the agency’s cost-benefit analysis, its plan to reduce ground-level ozone limits from 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb would cost $16.6 billion in 2025, while saving $21.2 billion to $42.5 billion in health- and pollution-related expenses. Plus, the agency would give states until 2020 to begin the reductions, and until 2037 to comply – plenty of time to make critical changes. The numbers are widely in the EPA’s favor, and therefore that of residents living in areas with high ozone levels.
The industry does not consider that wider picture, though. Smog-producing ozone is linked to higher incidences of cardiovascular and respiratory problems, including increased asthma levels. Those health effects are costly human externalities that compromise productivity, school attendance, quality of life and, at their worst, lifespan. While it is certainly true that producers and consumers of energy and goods that require it appreciate low-cost fuels, public health must be a factor in the equation. The EPA is compelled to protect it and place the burden of doing so on the actors whose industry causes the problem.
The EPA’s proposed rule is very much relevant to Southwest Colorado and Northwest New Mexico. La Plata and Montezuma counties and San Juan County, N.M., would exceed the proposed 70 ppb standard. That tracks with high asthma levels in those areas, and speaks to the need for corrective action. It may be costly to industry – and perhaps consumers – but doing nothing is costlier still.
The Clean Air Act compels the EPA to review its various pollution standards every five years, and the agency’s proposed rollback recognizes that many U.S. counties would be out of compliance with the new standard. Given ozone’s documented health risks and their prevalence in smog-heavy areas, there is a need to reduce its levels. The current standard of 75 ppb is clearly not adequately protecting public health. The EPA is following its charge in proposing a reduction and has the numbers to support its recommendation. It is a rule that should be adopted swiftly.
