[Dialogue] Ignoring Science on Clean Air

[Harry Wainwright]

 <http://www.nytimes.com/> The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/> 

January 17, 2006

Editorial

Ignoring Science on Clean Air 

Every five years, the Clean Air Act requires the administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to revise federal air quality standards for
smog and soot. It is a stressful moment. When Carol Browner, President Bill
Clinton's administrator, tightened standards in 1997, industry and its
friends in Congress erupted in protest, and a federal appeals court said the
rules were unconstitutional. The regulations did not actually take effect
until Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in 2001 that Ms. Browner had the right to
issue them and had done so properly.

Now it is the turn of Stephen Johnson at the E.P.A., only this time it is
the scientists and environmentalists who are upset, and not without reason.
Last month, Mr. Johnson proposed new rules governing fine particulate
matter, known as soot. The most dangerous of these are microscopic specks
that can cause significant inflammation and arterial damage in the
bloodstream and the lungs. 

At best, Mr. Johnson's proposed rules represent only a modest tightening of
the Browner rules - despite considerable additional research over the last
few years, some 2,000 studies altogether, expanding the list of adverse
health effects associated with fine particles (especially among children)
and, collectively, pointing to the need for stronger standards. 

Industry has also complained. While the standards do not deliver cleaner air
on their own, they set in motion the regulatory machinery and capital
investments aimed at achieving cleaner air. Industry has a point when it
says it is already spending money on cleaner fuels, engines and power
plants. 

But more can be done. According to E.P.A. estimates, particle pollution
kills about 20,000 people every year and hospitalizes many more. Mr.
Johnson's critics complain that he either ignored or rejected the advice of
not only his staff scientists but also the agency's Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee. The chairwoman of that committee, Rogene Henderson, has
said publicly that she was surprised and disappointed by Mr. Johnson's
decisions, that the battle wasn't over, and that the panel would continue to
press its case. 

Mr. Johnson has conceded that his proposal is based only on studies
completed before 2002 and has said his agency will consider more recent
studies before a final decision in September. This is the least he can do.
Science marches on, and there is no excuse for an agency charged with
protecting public health to be bringing up the rear of the parade.

 

*	Copyright
<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html>  2006The New
York Times Company <http://www.nytco.com/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060117/1346bab6/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1810 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060117/1346bab6/attachment.gif