Retrieved from: Air Pollution Conflict Article Regulations have helped tremendously however, there has been an issue with the coal burning plants that were exempted from the Clean Air Act laws because they were grandfathered in. Factory plants that were built before the 1970s were exempted from the new Clean Air Act standards because there was an expectation that since they were already old they would retire soon. Unfortunately, this was not the case and many of the plants grandfathered in are the ones continually polluting the air the most with its large amounts of acid rain to the atmosphere without being penalized. The acid rain is the result from sulfur dioxide and nitrogen emissions from fossil fuel burning plants. When these substances leave the earth they return as acid rain and harm water streams, national parks, and human health. Many people argue that these unregulated plants are large contributors to human health issues. “Within the power plant sector, these grandfathered plants generate 52 percent of the country's energy, yet produce 97 percent of the acid rain- and haze-causing sulfur dioxide, 85 percent of the ozone smog-causing nitrogen oxide and 99 percent of toxic mercury pollution from the utility sector”(Birdsong, 2000). After many years the federal government took action and implemented changes to the factories regulations grandfathered in by creating “The New Source Review” in where old factories were considered new sources if they expanded or modified their equipment (Save Clean Air Act, 2005). People believe that if grandfathered plants were ordered to follow the CCA standards as all other plants there would be a much more positive effect on air quality (Birdson, 2000). Many people argue that if EPA c... ... middle of paper ... ... Conflict, 969). Some people may argue that EPA regulations have not made much of a difference because people still are developing respiratory issues and skin cancer because of the stronger sun radiation caused by ozone depletion; however, without these new laws emissions of toxic substances would be out of control. There definitely needs to be more done to continue to target air pollution caused by changes within society. Not everyone agrees with the decisions that EPA makes to diminish air pollutants because they believe that the costs outweigh the benefits produced. But they need to understand that EPA makes decisions not to make their life more difficult and to hurt the economy, but because it is their duty to protect the health, welfare, and the environment of the public. With this in mind regulations set by EPA have definitely been the most cost effective.
...nges that may have once been a regulation, but that still effects the environment. Other larger plants and companies are beginning to change the way that they take care of certain waste products because they have been brought into the public light and some groups have begun to campaign against the larger companies that are dealing with the regulations. The environmental push that is being created is affected by the ‘race to the bottom” even though regulations may be decreased the problem is already out in the public so it seems that since there used to be such stringent laws. The increased competition that can be created by the companies which are similar plays into interest groups. State policies are changing the way that larger companies are dealing with the environment as well as aiding in the improving the environment after there has been major damage done.
The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA is the result of a 1970 executive order by President Richard Nixon for the purpose of protecting the environment of the United States through regulation on business and citizens. Public opinion on the Environmental Protection Agency has been divided fairly evenly across the population of the United States as of recently, as compared to the widespread public concern of the 50’s and 60’s that led to the agency’s creation. Recently the agency has come under scrutiny for its contributions of millions of dollars in grants to researchers in order to hide the potential trade off of its actions in order to further the agency’s agenda. The EPA’s ever-expanding regulation could end up harming more than it actually
The propositions and oppositions of regulating air pollution is extensive. Although this paper does not cover every proposition and opposition it will detail four pros and three oppositions, which will provide insight on the concerns of government regulation. Beginning with the propositions, scholars and analysts agree that the CAA has prevented premature deaths and illnesses, has been a good economic investment, has had a positive impact on the economy, and has helped the U.S. become a global leader in clean air technologies (EPA).
The EPA operates from a number of laws and regulations designed to function as its foundation for protecting the environment and the health of the public. Congress allows the EPA to write regulations in order to support the ideas for implementing these regulations. For that reason they are known as a regulatory agency. These regulations fall under two categories: Laws and Executive Orders (EOs) that influence environmental protection and Laws and EOs that Influence the Regulatory Process.
...n, reserving them the right to shut down a facility or issue a fine if the company refuses to adhere to the regulations of the act. By the 1990s, the act was amended to ensure legal procedures to reduce the chances of acid rain. When Congress first started the Clean Air Act, it was what began the environmental movement, and is now considered one of the landmark pieces of legislation.
There was a concern that industries would not be able to perform as well or meet the requirements demanded by Congress. The fear that the economy would suffer under strict environmental regulations never came to be. Since the introduction of the Clean Air Act of 1970, “aggregate emissions of common air pollutants dropped 68 percent, while the U.S. gross domestic product grew 212 percent. Total private sector jobs increased by 88 percent during the same period” (Clean Air Act and Economy). There is a cornucopia of reasons as to why the U.S. has benefitted from the Clean Air Act: environmental costs are a small percentage of industry revenues, cleaner technologies have made the U.S. a global market leader, more people can work because they are healthier, less money spent on illness, increase in employment and increased revenues… (Clean Air Act and Economy). It is clear that strict pollution laws do not harm the
This case focuses on corporate obstacles to pollution prevention. Pollution prevention can complex especially for large corporations. There are many different forms of pollution prevention including emissions control devices and incremental changes in existing technology. The author reviews the impact of emissions controlled devices, however the focus of the case study is on incremental changes in existing technology. Incremental changes include substituting one or two steps in a production process or relationship changes between production steps. One example of incremental changes that was provided by the author was eliminating chlorofluorocarbons and saving energy by replacing a refrigeration process with a heath exchanger that can exploit waste cooling from another part of the process. There are three critical decision-making stages for incremental changes; identifying a pollution prevention opportunity, finding a solution appropriate to that opportunity, and implementing that solution. The author discusses the three aspects of an organization (culture, ability to process information, and its politics) and how they impact the decision-making stages.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, which established nationwide standards for air quality, is one such “unfounded mandate.” Although it is a federal law, states must pay the cost of implementation and enforcement.
The Clean Air Act was passed by Congress in 1970, and was revised in 1977 and by 1990 to enlarge time limits, however, has specified new methodologies for cleaning the air. By enforcing new laws, the government will guarantee that the air ought to be cleaner and therefore make public health a framework. It has been indicated that the toxic lead emissions have dropped by 98% and the figure dioxide has dropped by 35%, even the carbon monoxide dropped by 32% (2010). One ought to begin by saying that the Clean Air Act is one of the few authoritative activities planned to diminish the vicinity of brown haze, carbon dioxide, and whatever viable environmental pollution by and large. The US Clear Air Act was passed by the United States Congress in 1963 and afterward would make various different acts to help the Clear Air Act: Clean Air Act Amendment of 1966, Clean Air Extension of 1970; Clean Air Act Amendment of 1977 and Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990.
Air pollution is not something new; in fact, air pollution has been even documented as far back as the 16th century. During the industrial revolution the sights of smoke coming out from factory were a sign of prosperity. This might have been prosperity in the economic point of view, but as we can see now, in the environmental point of view it was not prosperous at all.
The question of whether 1970s-era environmental laws are suited to today's problems is gaining urgency as the Obama administration moves to tackle climate change through its powers under the Act. Likens, Butler and Buso come to the conclusion that “short-term records can be quite misleading; thus, it may be too early to assess critically the effectiveness of the 1990 CAA” (Likens et al, 2001, p.9). Business groups and critics in Congress say that the measure was not designed to address global warming, and that the law's provisions will lead to regulations that wind up stifling growth and killing jobs. The Obama administration says the effects of greenhouse gases compel action, as does a 2007 Supreme Court decision. The court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions if the agency determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Moreover, administration officials say, the EPA has the authority to tweak the thresholds, so as to regulate only big emitters, such as power plants and refineries, and minimize the economic costs. The EPA has not said how much it expects new controls on greenhouse-gas emissions would cost the
Air pollution is caused by many things such as car fumes, burning of fossil fuels,
The world’s greatest powers have shown a lack of interest in the way that they are destroying the environment around them. The rise of the climate through the years has been altering how different organisms have had to survive. The world’s use of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions is at an all-time high. The countries with the highest CO2 emissions are same countries with the largest economies. The United States, China, India, Japan, and Russia are the top five leaders in CO2 emissions. All together they account for around 60% of the total carbon emissions worldwide. In order to cut down on the amount of CO2 emissions counties need start regulating their larger industries that create the highest amount of carbon emissions.
I believe that pollution has escalated to far that is affecting us, the Earth, and the animals because of us or natural causes that have happened over years. I think that decreasing the pollution by its source it would be an excellent idea because we would have cleaner environments and cleaner drinking water. Although, not everybody will agree about my opinion like the people who would fling their trash in the environment almost everyday. I want to represent the idea that people should quit their habit of flinging trash in the environment and start the habit of fling their trash into a trash can. I am just concerned of the escalation of pollution and what it could do to us, other things that live in Earth, and what it could do to Earth.
Efforts to improve the standard of living for humans--through the control of nature and the development of new products--have also resulted in the pollution, or contamination, of the environment. Much of the world's air, water, and land is now partially poisoned by chemical wastes. Some places have become uninhabitable. This pollution exposes people all around the globe to new risks from disease. Many species of plants and animals have become endangered or are now extinct. As a result of these developments, governments have passed laws to limit or reverse the threat of environmental pollution.