Clean Air Act - Pro PB

Clean Air Act PRO Preston Black – Black/Cotton
Clean Air Act – PRO

Index
GENERAL BENEFITS................................................................................................................2
1. The benefits of reduced health costs for children alone amount to $2 billion......................2
2. Economic benefits outweigh the costs by a margin of four to one, according to a new EPA
study..........................................................................................................................................2
3. Projections from the EPA study show that by 2010 CAA regulations will have averted
23,000 deaths, 1.7 million asthma attacks, 67,000 incidences of bronchitis, 91,000
occurrences of shortness of breath, 4.1 million lost workdays, 31 million days of restricted
activity 22,000 respiratory-related hospital admissions, 42,000 cardiovascular hospital
admissions and 4,800 emergency room visits for asthma........................................................2
4. The economic benefits of CAA regulations are $110 billion, while the costs are just $27
billion – a mere fraction of the benefits....................................................................................3
5. Generic: Regulations addressing pollution represent the most effective means of lifting
countries out of poverty............................................................................................................3
6. Generic: MIT researchers found that the U.S. enjoyed an additional $5.4 trillion in market
consumption between 1975 and 2000 that would not have been available in the absence of
air pollution controls.................................................................................................................3
7. The financial benefits of air regulations sharply contrast with the health effects of
deregulation (i.e. abolishing the CAA is very, very bad – we would lose the economic gains
and suffer severe health effects of pollution)...........................................................................4
8. The economic activity we would lose by ending air regulations 3-4% of the entire U.S.
market consumption over a quarter century – the agriculture sector accounts for just 1%......4
9. Amazing summary: The advantages from CAA regulations (up to $50 trillion) strongly
outweigh the costs ($500 billion).............................................................................................5
10. MIT Study: Benefits from air pollution regulations rose from $50 billion in 1975 to $400
billion in 2000; total benefits were $5.4 trillion.......................................................................5
CONSTITUTIONALITY.............................................................................................................6
1. Professor of Law and legal scholar in constitutional law: The Clean Air Act should not be
held unconstitutional.................................................................................................................6
2. Supreme Court: Congress cannot do its job without the ability to delegate power..............6
3. The U.S. Supreme Court: Congress cannot give legislative authority to anybody, but it
may delegate powers to others that the legislation exercises after giving the legislation (i.e.
Congress can make the legislation, and agencies can regulate according to that legislation)..6
Page 1 of 6
GENERAL BENEFITS
1. The benefits of reduced health costs for children alone amount to $2 billion
Carol Potera [writer for Environmental Health Perspectives (since 1996)], “Less Pollution, Less Earache?” Article Published in
Environmental Health Perspectives [a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news published by the U.S. National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services; mission is to serve as a
forum for the discussion of the interrelationships between the environment and human health by publishing in a balanced and objective manner
the best peer-reviewed research and most current and credible news of the field], December 2009,
http://ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.117-a540a [PB]
“The Clean Air Act revisions of 1990 strengthened the EPA’s enforcement of stringent
regulations aimed at improving air quality to benefit the nation’s health, with the added benefit
of reducing medical costs. In the February 2004 issue of E[nvironmental] H[ealth] P[erspectives], Eva Y. Wong and colleagues
estimated that reductions in air pollution by 2010 as a result of the Clean Air Act could save up
to $2 billion in children’s respiratory health costs alone. If the current findings bear out, the savings could be substantial for otitis media
costs, which may exceed $5 billion annually, according to a report in the June 2000 issue of Pediatrics.
2. Economic benefits outweigh the costs by a margin of four to one, according to a new EPA
study
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “New Report Shows Benefits of 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments Outweigh Costs by Four-
to-One Margin,” November 16, 1999 News Release, Last updated in September 2009, http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/caa90/10.htm
[PB]
“The economic value of the public health and environmental benefits that Americans enjoy from
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 exceed their costs by a margin of four to one, according
to a new EPA study. The report projects that the Clean Air Act Amendments and their associated
programs prevent thousands of premature deaths related to air pollution, and millions of asthma
attacks as well as a wide range of additional human health and ecological effect. ‘This Administration has enacted
the most stringent public health and environmental standards ever while creating unprecedented economic growth,’ said President Bill Clinton. ‘This report further demonstrates that public health
and environmental benefits can be achieved along with economic benefits, and this Administration will continue to work aggressively to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the
land on which we live.’ Using a sophisticated array of computer models and the latest emissions and cost data, the EPA study shows that in the year 2010 the Amendments of 1990 will prevent
23,000 Americans from dying prematurely, and avert over 1,700,000 incidences of asthma attacks and aggravation of chronic asthma. In addition, in 2010, they will prevent 67,000 incidences of
chronic and acute bronchitis, 91,000 occurrences of shortness of breath, 4,100,000 lost work days, and 31,000,000 days in which Americans would have had to restrict activity due to air pollution
related illness. Plus, 22,000 respiratory-related hospital admissions would be averted, as well as 42,000 cardiovascular (heart and blood) hospital admissions, and 4,800 emergency room visits for
The report, the most comprehensive and extensive assessment of the 1990 Clean Air Act
asthma.
Amendments ever conducted, was the subject of extensive peer review during which
independent panels of distinguished economists, scientists, and public health experts provided in-
depth assessment and advice throughout the study’s design, implementation, and
documentation.”
3. Projections from the EPA study show that by 2010 CAA regulations will have averted
23,000 deaths, 1.7 million asthma attacks, 67,000 incidences of bronchitis, 91,000
occurrences of shortness of breath, 4.1 million lost workdays, 31 million days of
restricted activity 22,000 respiratory-related hospital admissions, 42,000
cardiovascular hospital admissions and 4,800 emergency room visits for asthma
[PB]
Page 2 of 6
“Using a sophisticated array of computer models and the latest emissions and cost data, the EPA
study shows that in the year 2010 the Amendments of 1990 will prevent 23,000 Americans from
dying prematurely, and avert over 1,700,000 incidences of asthma attacks and aggravation of
chronic asthma. In addition, in 2010, they will prevent 67,000 incidences of chronic and acute
bronchitis, 91,000 occurrences of shortness of breath, 4,100,000 lost work days, and 31,000,000
days in which Americans would have had to restrict activity due to air pollution related illness.
Plus, 22,000 respiratory-related hospital admissions would be averted, as well as 42,000
cardiovascular (heart and blood) hospital admissions, and 4,800 emergency room visits for
asthma.”
4. The economic benefits of CAA regulations are $110 billion, while the costs are just $27
billion – a mere fraction of the benefits
[PB]
[the] EPA’s best estimate is that in 2010 the

“For those health and ecological benefits which could be quantified and converted to dollar values,
benefits of Clean Air Act programs will total about $110 billion. This estimate represents the
value of avoiding increases in illness and premature death which would have prevailed without
the clean air standards and provisions required by the Amendments. By contrast, the detailed cost
analysis conducted for this new study indicates that the costs of achieving these health and
ecological benefits are likely to be only about $27 billion, a fraction of the economic value of the
benefits.”
5. Generic: Regulations addressing pollution represent the most effective means of lifting
countries out of poverty
Tim Lougheed [a writer and editor specializing in science, medicine and education], “Economics: The Clear Advantage of
Clean Air,” Article Published by Environmental Health Perspectives [a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and
news published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human
Services; mission is to serve as a forum for the discussion of the interrelationships between the environment and human health by publishing in a
balanced and objective manner the best peer-reviewed research and most current and credible news of the field], March 2006,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392269/ [PB]
“Regulations addressing environmental problems such as air pollution might be dismissed as a

luxury for rich countries that can afford it, but members of the UN Environment Program insist
that such measures actually represent the most effective means of lifting countries out of poverty.
At a major gathering of environment ministers in the United Arab Emirates in February 2006, UNEP executive director Klaus Töpfer cited the increasing cost and demand for fossil fuels as key
reasons why many rapidly developing countries were taking a closer look at environmental degradation, which can have profound consequences. ‘That is now the bottleneck to future economic
development,’ he said.”
6. Generic: MIT researchers found that the U.S. enjoyed an additional $5.4 trillion in
market consumption between 1975 and 2000 that would not have been available in
the absence of air pollution controls
Page 3 of 6
researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

“The extent of the economic implications of this bottleneck is being outlined by
(MIT), who have expanded a well-established economic model to put some numbers to the
economic disadvantages created by unregulated air pollution. Those numbers are quite big, as it
turns out. In a July 2004 report titled Economic Benefits of Air Pollution Regulation in the USA:
An Integrated Approach, they calculated that the United States enjoyed an additional $5.4 trillion
in market consumption between 1975 and 2000 that would not have been available without the
implementation of air pollution controls.”
7. The financial benefits of air regulations sharply contrast with the health effects of
deregulation (i.e. abolishing the CAA is very, very bad – we would lose the economic
gains and suffer severe health effects of pollution)
“For coauthor John Reilly, associate director of research with MIT’s Joint Program on the
Science and Policy of Global Change and the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, [the
benefits of air regulations] dwarf the less than $1 trillion that the EPA estimates the controls cost.
More importantly, this financial benefit contrasts sharply with the widespread health effects of
leaving remaining air pollution unregulated. ‘It’s causing your workers to be ill, and your
children not to be able to advance,’ he argues. ‘It’s going to slow the economy.’”
8. The economic activity we would lose by ending air regulations 3-4% of the entire U.S.
market consumption over a quarter century – the agriculture sector accounts for
just 1%
“Using the Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, which has already been
used to estimate the costs of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, Reilly and his colleagues
incorporated measures of human health in order to consider the benefits. Rather than employing
only basic multipliers for illness, lost lives, or medical expenditures, the algorithms were
broadened with published health data on the occurrence of specific diseases that could be linked
to air pollution, such as asthma. By including pollutant exposures, ability to work, and health
effects on different age groups over time, the model compared actual economic performance
with what would have happened in the absence of regulations. The tally wound up representing
3-4% of the entire U.S. market consumption over a quarter of a century. By comparison, the
entire agricultural sector accounts for just 1%.”
Page 4 of 6
9. Amazing summary: The advantages from CAA regulations (up to $50 trillion) strongly
outweigh the costs ($500 billion)
Jonathan D. Hierl [assistant vice president at the Deutsche Bank], “Topic Area: Air Pollution,”
2003 Review of the Clean Air Act, http://www.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/airpoll.htm [PB]
“Many costs were associated with implementation of the CAA and its amendments. The most significant costs
associated with the CAA were requirements for installation, operation, and maintenance of new capital equipment needed to reach the new standards. There were also numerous costs to design
In the EPA’s 1997 report to the US

and implement regulations, regularly record and report compliance, and investments for related research and development.
Congress, the total value of direct expenditures from 1970 to 1990 that were consequences of the
CAA were estimated to be $523 billion in 1990 dollars (‘Benefits...’ 10). Non-attainment counties faced more costs than the attainment
counties following enactment of the 1970 regulations. The attainment counties were in compliance with the federal standards and violating contributors were not evaluated as closely as those in
the non-attainment areas (Greenstone 1213). This put firms in the non-attainment counties at a greater competitive disadvantage that those in the attainment areas. Michael Greenstone evaluated
evidence of this imbalance in a study in 2002. Greenstone found that from 1972-1987, relative to the attainment areas, non-attainment counties lost approximately 590,000 jobs, $37 billion in
The direct benefits of the regulations are reflected in the

capital stock, and $75 billion of output in polluting industries (p1213).
emission reductions observed following 1970. SO2 levels decreased 40% by 1990, mostly
attributed to utilities installing scrubbers or switching to lower-sulfur fuel. Nitrogen Oxide levels
decreased by 30%, mostly achieved through installation of catalytic converters to highway
vehicles. Volatile Organic Compounds lowered by 45% and [Carbon Monoxide] levels lowered
by 50%, mostly attributed to other vehicle controls. The reductions in use of lead in gasoline
reduced [lead] emissions from approximately 237,000 tons to 3,000 tons by 1990, about an
incredible 99% reduction. A number of other hazardous pollutant emissions were reduced over
the 1970 to 1990 period as well. The EPA estimated the benefits of reductions in these pollutants.
Estimates of the benefits included the prevention of over 45,000 annual deaths, 13,000 heart
attacks, and 7,000 strokes (Sunstein 307) in addition to many other health benefits associated
with pollution reduction. In their major report to Congress, the benefits of the new regulations
were valued monetarily using a process of economic valuation, and were estimated to range
between $5.6 and $49.4 trillion. Relative to the approximate $0.5 trillion estimated in costs, the
net benefit found by the EPA strongly outweighs the costs.”
10. MIT Study: Benefits from air pollution regulations rose from $50 billion in 1975 to $400
billion in 2000; total benefits were $5.4 trillion
Sergey Paltsev et al. [Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Colorado (2001); Research Scientist in Economics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2002-present)], Trent Yang [Director of Entrepreneurship and Business Development at the Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Institute], Kira Matus [Ph.D. in Public Policy from Harvard University (2005-2009); Master’s of Science Degree in
Technology and Policy from MIT (2005); Senior Policy Analyst at Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering at Yale] & John Reilly
[Senior Lecturer in Applied Economics at the Center for Environmental Policy Research], “Economic Benefits of Air Pollution Regulation in the
USA: An Integrated Approach,” Report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and
Policy of Global Change [an organization for research, independent policy analysis, and public education in global environmental
change], January 2005, http://www.sehn.org/tccpdf/regulation%20benefits%20air%20pollution%20MIT.pdf [PB]
“We found that the benefits [from air pollution regulations] rose steadily from 1975 to 2000 from
$50 billion (1997 USD) to $400 billion (1997 USD) (from 2.1% to 7.6% of market consumption). The total benefits realized over the
period equaled $5.4 trillion, a large benefit but much less than the U.S. EPA estimate of $27.6 trillion.”
Page 5 of 6
CONSTITUTIONALITY
1. Professor of Law and legal scholar in constitutional law: The Clean Air Act should not be
held unconstitutional
Professor Cass R. Sunstein [Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, American legal scholar in the fields of constitutional
law, environmental law, and other forms of law (administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics); current
Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; with a Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law School
(1978)], “Is the Clean Air Act Unconstitutional?” Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 3, The University of Chicago Law
School, Last revised November 30, 2003, http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=177688 [PB]
“In this Article I have argued that EPA (and other agencies involved in similar tasks) should offer a detailed ‘benefits analysis.’ The central goal of this approach would be to
create a kind of federal common law of environmental protection, generated in the first instance by administrative agencies, and designed to promote consistency and rationality in the protection
defended a form of democracy-promoting minimalism for administrative law –

of health and safety. I have also
the particular form of minimalism that is embodied in the remand, often (and increasingly)
unaccompanied by invalidation. The Clean Air Act should not be held unconstitutional, and EPA
should not be required, on pain of constitutional invalidation, to come up with a ‘generic unit of
harm’ to encompass population affected, severity, and probability. The new non-delegation
doctrine is a large mistake. On the other hand, ordinary judicial review should require any national ambient air quality standard to be accompanied by an adequate
explanation of why that level, rather than one more or less stringent, has been selected. By itself, this requirement calls (to the extent feasible) for a high degree of quantification from EPA; it also
bears on the performance of other regulatory agencies entrusted with the task of promoting health, safety and the environment. It also calls for invalidation, and not merely remand, where the
agency is unable to offer an explanation of its choice of one level of regulation rather than another. A requirement of this kind would mark a key moment in the shift from the rigidity and
simplicity of 1970s environmentalism toward a new and more promising approach – one that places a high premium on assessing the magnitude of problems, ensuring consistency across
regulations, limiting interest-group power, acquiring better information, and authorizing democratic control of regulatory choices.”
2. Supreme Court: Congress cannot do its job without the ability to delegate power
Professor David Schoenbrod [expert on the delegation of executive powers, federal regulation, injunctions, air pollution, and institutional
reform litigation; Professor of Law at the New York Law School] & Jerry Taylor [Researcher in Environmental Policy with a Bachelor’s of
Arts Degree in Political Science from the University of Iowa], “Delegation of Legislative Powers: Separation of Powers: The Bulwark of
Liberty,” the CATO Handbook for Congress, the CATO Institute, 2002 (date inferred from latest “suggest readings” source date),
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-4.html [PB]
the Supreme Court

“Perhaps the most widely accepted justification for some degree of delegation is the complex and technical nature of the world we live in today. As
argued in 1989, ‘Our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our
increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress
simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives.’”
3. The U.S. Supreme Court: Congress cannot give legislative authority to anybody, but it
may delegate powers to others that the legislation exercises after giving the
legislation (i.e. Congress can make the legislation, and agencies can regulate
according to that legislation)
The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Wayward v. Southard, March 15, 1824,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=23&invol=1 [PB]
“It will not be contended that Congress can delegate to the Courts, or to any other tribunals,
powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative. But Congress may certainly delegate to
others, powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself. Without going farther for examples, we will take that, the
legality of which the counsel for the defendants admit. The 17th section of the Judiciary Act, and the 7th section of the additional act, empower the Courts respectively to regulate their practice. It
certainly will not be contended, that this might not be done by Congress. The Courts, for example, may make rules, directing the returning of writs and processes, the filing of declarations and
other pleadings, and other things of the same description. It will not be contended, that these things might not be done by the legislature, without the intervention of the Courts; yet it is not
alleged that the power may not be conferred on the judicial department.”
Page 6 of 6

Clean Air Act - Pro PB

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Clean Air Act - Pro PB

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Clean Air Act PRO Preston Black – Black/Cotton

Clean Air Act – PRO

[the] EPA’s best estimate is that in 2010 the

“Regulations addressing environmental problems such as air pollution might be dismissed as a

researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In the EPA’s 1997 report to the US

The direct benefits of the regulations are reflected in the

defended a form of democracy-promoting minimalism for administrative law –

the Supreme Court

Вам также может понравиться