AIR POLLUTION
Public Policy Issue: Air Pollution
Since ancient times, man has struggled to find clever ideas to make life easier for the sake of progress. The struggle proved fruitful, leading to the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 17th century and the establishment of industrialized capitals that continue to grow across the globe. Man’s continuous struggle for development is not without consequence. Populations themselves continue to grow, most notably near industrialized areas and highly urbanized areas. In the highly urbanized areas, it is affected by pollutants caused by the by-products of industrialization (outdoor air pollution) and consumer goods that emits pollutants (indoor air pollution). Environmental science suggests many negative second and third order effects of progress unless action is done to improve air quality around the globe. One of the crucial areas that would be affected by air pollution is in the case of public health as it has the capacity to affect everything, from the ecosystem to the health of every living creature.
Air pollution had long been seen as a public health risk since the 1700s when English doctor John Arbuthnot published his study “Concerning the Effects of Air Pollution on the Human Body”, detailing the impact of air pollution to the human body. Gillespie (2006) stated that no one agreed with Arbuthnot’s thesis as records of deaths and disease connected to air pollution were seen to be inconclusive. However, his thesis had been proven correct in the following centuries as the impacts of air pollution had made itself known in areas such as London in 1880, killing 2,200 due to coal smoke from home heating and industry. Similar cases were also reported in 1951 (killing 1,850 people in London), 1930 (killing 63 people in Meuse Valley, Belgium) and 1948 (killing 28 deaths in Donoara, Pennsylvania). The cases had immediately caught the attention of the World Health Organization as it had called for the creation of a safe air quality standard after the 1951 London incident, which encompassed a smog reaching up to 3 kilometers within the capital. Despite the calls for an immediate action from the WHO to counter the health impacts of air pollution, the international community had only recognized its impacts in 1985 through the Helsinki Protocol and the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol, which cited that ‘nitrogen oxide, sulfur, volatile organic compounds, and reduced nitrogen compounds have been associated with adverse effects on human health’ .
Scientists, according to Phalen and Phalen (2012), discovered that the body is immediately exposed to air pollutions through simple breathing. An average person requires at least 23 m3 of air daily as compared to its need of 1.8 liters of water and 1.6 liters of food for the same period. If, in any case, one of these important necessities are contaminated by as little as 1.8 µg of pollutant, a person would then be exposed daily to almost 23 mg of pollutant through breathing alone. Aside from breathing, air pollutants can also enter the body through oral or dermal exposure. Citizens from highly urbanized areas can be exposed to contaminants through indoor air pollution, which is triggered by their current activity using materials that release pollutants like cooking (smoke) and cleaning (using repellents or air fresheners). They can also be exposed to outdoor air pollution which is caused by heavy traffic and heavy combustion from nearby factories or construction . Unless action is done, Gillespie (2006) stated that the WHO’s report in 2000 estimated that almost 1.4 billion urban residents around the globe would be exposed to air environments affected by either indoor or outdoor pollution with a pH level of 1.6 to 2.0, which may already cause lung cancer, hay-fever, and severe cardiovascular diseases. The WHO report and further research pertaining to air pollution also cites that due to the concentration of smog and other air pollutants, a suspended particulate matter (SPM) of 2.5s can already cause complications to any living organism .
In the United States, the clamor for public policy, especially directed to air pollution and its impacts had grew significantly due to high pollution rates and related deaths and mortality throughout the country. Forswall and Higgins (2005) stated that California had been the first state to recognize the dangers of air pollution and create a standard for air quality control, signing the California Air Pollution Control Act (CAPCA) on June 10, 1947. The law had been the first of its kind in the country as it established Air Pollution Control districts, especially in the polluted Los Angeles, to monitor air quality throughout the state. President Dwight Eisenhower was impressed with California’s Governor Earl Warren for the initiative in signing the CAPCA that he appointed Warren the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1953. Warren had ushered the introduction of environmental legislation in the country and introduced a judicial perspective in looking into environmental issues like air pollution.
However, after eight years of the signing of the CAPCA, the public had increased its calls for air pollution policies due to the several air pollution disasters that have been reported throughout the globe and in the country. In 1948, the community of Donoara in Pennsylvania had been hit by a temperature inversion that was caused by a heavy smog, triggering a high concentration of smoke and particulate matter to remain in the community for five days. After five days, almost 20 people have been reported dead, and 6,000 people more were reported ill. Growing concerns in the US had further increased when London experienced the same killer smog in 1952. The first federal law established to counter air pollution was passed on July 14, 1955 under the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955. The APCA aimed to provide a means for research and technical assistance to begin regarding air pollution control. The Act provided the Public Health Service division and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare a funding of $5 million yearly for five years to sustain air pollution research. However, the APCA was still not enough to provide the government legal enforcement capabilities to impose any sanctions to identified polluters. Further challenging the capacity of the APCA was the epidemiological studies done in Los Angeles in 1959, showing that, in August 1955, almost 1,200 deaths have been recorded due to the air inversion that trapped smog and PMs in the area. The APCA had been amended in 1960 and 1962 to add provisions on air pollution’s health impacts.
In 1963, the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution had been established and recognized the dangers of polluted air to public health. The resulting public clamoring and the Senate hearings prompted the creation of the Clean Air Act of 1963. The Act aimed to improve and accelerate programs to prevent and control air pollution, providing almost $95 million in three-years for both state and local governments to promote air quality control. The Act had introduced a federal air quality criteria to address air pollution throughout the country and recognized the dangers of motor vehicle exhaust in encouraging emissions. The Act had been amended in 1965 to include transborder air pollution from its borders in Mexico and Canada, as well as the creation of an emission standard for vehicles. In order to support the drive for environmental protection, the Environmental Protection agency was established under the Nixon Administration, which was tasked to regulate environmental programs and research, identifying further standards to clean water, air, and land. The Clean Air Act had then been amended three more times in 1970, 1977 and 1990 to include sanctions and standards set by the EPA for emissions . At the present time according to McCarthy (2013), the EPA continues to propose stringent policies on greenhouse gas emissions and other policies to protect public health. The 113th Congress remains at close debate as to the further imposition of more stringent policies that may cause problems for both new and old power plants and other facilities that may be affected by the higher requirements .
In terms of the establishment of air pollution policies and other environmental concerns in the country, it is visible that the political environment remained strained due to the conflicting positions of both politicians and the public on the issue. According to Hillstrom (2010) and Reitze (2005), the advent of environmentalism in the 1950s triggered constant debates between the major parties of the government: the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The Republicans and their constituents had opposed strong environmental regulations, including air pollution policies, as they see it as a threat to the economic sector of the country as these sectors would be mostly affected by stronger emissions policy and air quality standard. It was also evident that the Republicans did not see the need for an active environmental position, especially for a progressing country such as the United States.
Throughout the legislative history of air pollution policy; the Republicans have attempted to impose their conservatism stance since the 1970s. When the Congress and Senate discussed the 1990 CAA Amendments, they had to compete with the Republican concerns of President George H.W. Bush pertaining its impacts to business. Bush had managed to sign the Amendments to the Clean Air Act on November 15, 1990; however; it did not include programs on carbon dioxide emissions and its regulation unlike other nations who were already putting a limit on their carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. Ardent opposition from the members of the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment were raised due to the CAA’s position on motor vehicle tailpipe emission standards (as it would have restricted further motor vehicle production) and tried to prevent a stronger CAA to be passed. In the Clinton Administration, the Republicans took over both Houses of Congress and Senate, making it more difficult to pass environmental policies. The Republicans then persisted that federal anti-pollution statutes should be directed to individual states rather than affecting the entire country and once this is done; it would trigger further economic growth and prosperity for its people . The tenure of President George W. Bush was also not as different as the Republican-influenced Clinton administration as he spent most of his time in office relieving industrial corporations from their regulatory responsibilities and expanded further opportunities in the mining, oil and agriculture industries that further triggered severe air pollution and health consequences throughout the country.
However, while the Republicans remained against stronger policies, public participation had grown significantly to fight against environmental issues like air pollution. The Environmental Justice Movement created in the 1980s is a notable example of public participation directed to call for attention against pollution in the US. The EJM comprises of members from the African American, Latino, Native American and Asian communities in the US, who argue that pollution and other environmental ills mostly affect the minorities and poor communities of the US, which is why there is a need to have stronger environmental policies. The group began in 1980 in North Carolina as local residents complained against the toxic pollutants released by the landfill that was opened in the area. The group’s study in 1992 provided the argument while the richer communities enjoy a pollution-less environment, the minorities and poor communities suffer. The group ushered the creation of other environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Wilderness Society and many others that still exists today. These organizations had also been seen as keys for environmental policy creation on urban pollution, and aided the reduction of its impacts to all communities, both rich and poor in the country. Both legislative houses of the US, as well as the EPA, look up to these groups to identify issues on how air pollution can be stopped .
With the conflicting positions within the political environment of the US in addressing environmental issues such as air pollution, the need for a “desired state of affairs” is crucial to enhance further the existing policies directed to air pollution and its health impacts and establish stronger standards for air quality. In order to attain this “desired state of affairs”, it is important to begin in mobilizing awareness and action within the communities themselves through proper education and action. Proper education pertaining to the nature of air pollution and how certain household materials can produce pollutants despite its benefits would enable the public to understand how they could regulate simple indoor air pollution and reduce its impacts to their families. Education would also enable the community to also understand how they can reduce outdoor air pollution, and trigger a public consensus on how their communities apply anti-air pollution strategies to aid legislation to achieve its target. Once public awareness is opened, their respective leaders could now meet with community leaders to identify the areas wherein air pollution still persist or how legislation can be devised to target specific air quality standards, which would include emissions guidelines and production.
In terms of the economic setbacks perceived by the conservatism groups regarding stronger air pollution policies, an open forum can aid in the creation of a desired state of affairs to ensure that policy would be beneficial for all. On the one hand, there is a possibility these forums would raise skepticism and further debate between parties should the discussions go downward for the businesses and industries that would be affected by the policies to be developed for the reduction of pollution. However, these forums would be able to enable both the public and the government to come up with ways to impose strategies to reduce air pollution and still maintain progressive development for the economy. Recommendations from all sectors can also identify whether or not there is a need to amend present laws on the matter. If the government remained tight-lipped over its policies regarding air pollution, there is a high probability that these policies would not cater to all sectors affected by air pollution and only support a small percentage of the population. Once education, active participation within all sectors of society and understanding of all positions is attained, it is possible to attain a desired state of affairs in ending air pollution’s grip to the country.
Man’s continuous struggle for development and progress cannot easily be stopped, which is why it important to ensure that these changes would not trigger severe consequences to the planet, especially to health. In the case of air pollution and its legislative history in the United States, it is visible that a slight shift in policy for air quality and control would create a significant impact to all sectors of the country. On the one hand, conservatism groups such as the Republicans may create a challenge to active public participation and active environmentalism movements in passing stronger laws because of its impacts to the economy. Regardless of this, with the studies done by scientists regarding the capacity of air pollution to trigger debilitating health complications to the public, as well as the records of air pollution related deaths and diseases, a stronger air pollution policy is required to counter these effects. If the country does not work together in achieving a sustainable air quality policy against air pollution, the future generation may not be able to breath in the same clean air the current generation have taken for granted.
References
Forswall, C., & Higgins, K. (2005). Clean Air Act Implementation in Houston: An Historical Perspective 1970-2005. Houston: Environmental and Energy Systems Institute.
Gillespie, A. (2006). Climate Change, Ozone Depletion and Air Pollution: Legal Commentaries within the context of Science and Policy. Leiden: BRILL.
Hillstrom, K. (2010). U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: A Documentary History. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
McCarthy, J. (2013). Clean Air Issues in the 113th Congress: An Overview. Washington, D.C.: US Congressional Research Service.
Phalen, R. F., & Phalen, R. N. (2012). Introduction to Air Pollution Science. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Reitze, A. (2005). Stationary Source Air Pollution Law. Washington: Environmental Law Institute.
