ground level ozone regulations
What: In 1997 the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)established new ozone standards. The EPA also placed specialrestrictions on twenty-two states in the Ohio Valley and Midwestregions to prevent emissions from coal-burning power plants frombeing carried into the New England States by wind currents. (Tennessee is one of these twenty-two states.) Both of theserulings were recently either struck down or placed on hold by Why: The regulations put into place in 1997 by the EPA weremore restrictive than the 1990 standards. The regulations limitthe amount of ground level ozone and fine particle pollutionpermitted. Ground level ozone is produced by nitrogen oxide(NOx)which is created by burning fossil fuels. Since gasoline anddiesel are both fossil fuels, then NOx is a major component ofautomobile emissions. Several members of the trucking and fossilfuel industries, as well as members of the twenty-two stateregion, have challenged the regulations in Federal Court and havebeen successful in blocking the implementation of the new rules. In the past two months, two separate Federal Court Of Appealspanels have ruled that the EPA’s authority to establish clean ai
This would of course have an adverse affect on theeconomy. Smog, according to aneditorial by the Chattanooga Times’ Harry Austin on May 20,1999,in turn affects not only our health, but also crop andforest loss, acid rain and fog production, and increases regionalhaze. If the issue gets a newlife in Congress then obviously the lobbyist will be more active. rstandards is not properly delegated by Congress under the CleanAir Act. Considering that theliberals are generally supportive of environmental issues this isnot surprising, but what about the conservatives? Republicansare usually more protective of business interest. The holein the Earth’s ozone layer makes the evening news. Several interest groups are closely watching the case. Ground levelozone contributes significantly to smog. TheEPA also assessed almost $93 million dollars in criminal finesand another $92 million in civil penalties. The ozone surrounding the Earth blocks out radiation fromthe sun. Not included in this estimate would be the legalexpenses incurred or the advertising and marketing costs requiredto mend a damaged pubic relations image. The plaintiffs inthe case also argued that the amount of pollution a person cantolerate has not been established and until it is the EPA shouldnot make the current regulations more restrictive. Do the states in the twenty-two state region have anotherreason to argue against the standards? According to SeanCavanagh’s article in the April 4, 1999 edition of theChattanooga Times/Free Press, Atlanta lost $700 million infederal roads money as a result of failing to come up with apollution containment plan. Thepowerful industrial and truckers lobby groups are supporting theplaintiffs, while several environmental lobby groups and healthassociations, such as the American Lung Association, aresupporting the EPA’s efforts.
Common topics in this essay:
Joe Lockhart,
Harry Austin,
Department Justice,
Supreme Court,
Air Act,
Appeals Courts,
Press Atlanta,
Federal Courts,
Trucking Associations,
Lung Association,
clean air,
ground level,
ground level ozone,
level ozone,
clean air act,
air act,
establish clean air,
establish clean,
standards strict,
public health,
american trucking associations,
supreme court,
properly delegated congress,
trucking associations,
american trucking,
|
Acceptance Essays
