Balancing air quality standards with cost and political issues has long been an issue for the US Government. Ground-level ozone - also known as smog - has been a major climate issue for the past few decades. A sharp rise brought about by increasing industrialization and motor vehicles has caused ozone levels in the atmosphere to spike, getting to a point where many scientists have become fearful for the future of the earth if things don’t change.
Despite scientists recommending to lower the acceptable levels of pollution, EPA Administrator Michael Regan has initiated a new statutory review of ozone standards, which is projected to have a resolution after the 2024 election. He wrote in a letter to the EPA advisory panel last month, “I have decided that the best path forward is to initiate a new statutory review of the ozone (standard) and the underlying air quality criteria”.
Many have criticized this decision, and I view this situation as a morals vs. economics/politics debate. Of course everyone wants cleaner air for the public, as this has many health benefits for everyone. However, the elected representatives in government are supposed to theoretically know more than the general public about matters (as discussed in Chapter 1), and in this situation I certainly think they are considering issues such as money and politics in this decision.
This delay of possible new ozone laws doesn’t seem like it would immediately have much of an impact right now, but it would hinder new regulations from being put into place, such as gas car laws or restorative policies. Additionally, there has been speculations that the ozone layer will be restored by 2050 but that was a projection assuming countries continue to reduce harmful carbon emissions, and with the delay of new ozone regulations this will only push back the estimate and allow for more toxins to be pumped into the atmosphere at least from the US.
Ozone layer may be restored in decades, UN report says - BBC News
5 comments:
I agree that this decision to be delayed is due to the political and monetary concerns of the EPA administrator. Having unclean air is detrimental to human health as Ryan said. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Ground-level ozone can cause difficulty breathing deeply, shortness of breath, sore throat, wheezing/coughing, and fatigue. By delaying action to manage the pollution within the air, the lives of newer generations are at risk. Furthermore a recent report by the American Lung Association shows that minorities will be disproportionately affected by a decreased air quality. Overall I believe that this is a mistake by the EPA that will affect generations of people in the future.
I totally agree. Though the effects of environmental issues are obvious through the supported statistics and the clearly visible effects on the environment, many have their decisions clouded by the money taking over their minds. Though ozone proves to have horrible health risks such as increased chances for respiratory infections and higher risk of death from respiratory diseases, it is often not recognized or acted upon. With the small rebates following the purchase of electric vehicles convincing a small audience, there is still only small acknowledgement towards the ozone issues. But, in order to quickly make the earth a cleaner place, much more action has to be taken. Large companies have to recognize and act against the ozone pollution before it becomes too late.
Although you bring up that our elected representatives run our government because they supposedly know more than the general public, in a concerning amount of cases, that is simply not true in multiple regards. The most relevant example of this is the fact that 139 elected officials in our government still refuse to acknowledge the mountains of evidence that prove human-caused climate change (Center for American Progress). If we continue to have members such as these in our government, then no matter how bad our climate situation is, legitimate climate change policy will basically never be enacted. Additionally, oil companies, an industry that leads to negatively affecting our climate, lobby millions upon millions of dollars every year to make sure that certain climate change policies do not pass. On top of the lobbying, our representatives actively buy and sell stock from companies they are related to. Does this seem fair? Does this seem like an equitable economy and society? Not at all. At an ideological level, a concerning amount of our legislators refuse to acknowledge statistics and science, while others have their opinions influenced by large companies. These people do not care about making the best decision for the country, they care about making the best decisions for themselves, and it is disgusting.
i agree with the point that delaying action towards bettering pullution in the air. is going to worsen conditons and effect many people. There has been recently much more support for taking action for this problem, last year mulitple scientist handcuffed themselves to a bank and protested a whole day about taking action. That defiently showed how much pollution and climate chnage has become a problem that now scientitics are physically protesting and showing thier great concern for this. I do think that political parties do have a huge influnce on this, especially the president. President Trump on several times stated that pollution or climate change weren't that severe. Just the beginning of this year, the Biden adminstration cancelled the Willow project, a project that would add tons more fuel to the already mad pollution we have today. Although the Biden administration did this after many people started demading that it be changed, many took it to social media and started doing petitions. So i think that the people that are suppose to take care of the country and the citizens aren't really doing it and are only taking action or responsibilities when people really start ''attacking them."
I agree with your point about the impact of delayed ozone regulations on clean air. Ozone is a contributor to health issues such as skin cancer and lung disease, making it imperative for governments to play an important role in protecting the popuplation's health. In 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, which aimed to improve air quality, including the elimination of ozone-depleting substances and the regulation of motor vehicle air conditioning systems. In today's context, governments should continue to gather data on air pollutants from research and update their policies. Delays in enforcing emissions regulations can lead to worsening air quality and make it even harder to regulate, as industries may continue to weaken air quality without understanding the consequences. It is essential for governments to ensure cleaner air and healthier environment for the population.
Post a Comment