The Clean Air Act Has Saved Millions Of Lives—But Gaps Remain
Nov 6, 2024
auto_awesome
Susan Scott Peterson, a climate reporter from Pittsburgh, explores the transformative impact of the Clean Air Act since its inception. She highlights the significant reduction in air pollutants and the law's role in saving millions of lives. However, Peterson raises critical questions about its effectiveness today, especially in vulnerable communities facing industrial emissions. The discussion also delves into the Clean Air Act's shortcomings regarding wildfire pollution and the urgent need for updated regulations to meet modern environmental challenges.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 has significantly reduced common pollutant emissions by about 80%, saving millions of lives in the process.
Despite its successes, the Clean Air Act faces criticism for gaps in regulation, particularly concerning hazardous pollutants affecting marginalized communities.
Deep dives
The Legacy of the Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act, signed in 1970, stands as a landmark piece of environmental legislation that has drastically reduced air pollution in the United States. It has been an enormous success, with common pollutant emissions declining by around 80 percent since its implementation, saving millions of lives. In Pittsburgh, for instance, the dramatic transformation in air quality is evidenced by historical comparisons, where pollution levels dramatically decreased, attributed largely to the Act’s regulatory framework. The grassroots efforts in cities like Pittsburgh laid the groundwork for the scientific and regulatory practices that would inform the Clean Air Act.
Ongoing Challenges and Disparities
Despite the successes of the Clean Air Act, challenges remain, particularly concerning hazardous air pollutants that disproportionately affect marginalized communities. In areas like Cancer Alley in Louisiana, where numerous chemical plants emit toxic pollutants, studies indicate significantly higher cancer rates linked to industrial pollution. The regulatory framework for hazardous air pollutants is less stringent and lacks the continuous monitoring found in the regulation of common pollutants, thus allowing harmful industrial practices to persist. This gap underscores the need for a reevaluation of current regulations to address the dangers faced by vulnerable populations living near industrial sites.
New Threats from Climate Change
Climate change presents new challenges for air quality, especially due to increased wildfires that release dangerous particulate matter (PM2.5) into the atmosphere. The Clean Air Act does not fully address the impact of wildfire smoke, as it allows states to declare these events as exceptional and thus not count against compliance measures. This loophole can misrepresent air quality data and undermine efforts to confront pollution. As climate-related air quality issues become more prominent, the existing legal framework may require significant adaptations to adequately protect public health.
In the 1960s, the urban air pollution crisis in America had reached a fever pitch: Cities were shrouded in smog, union steelworkers were demanding protections for their health, and the Department of Justice was mounting an antitrust lawsuit against the Detroit automakers for conspiracy to pollute.
But all that changed when Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act of 1970. The law set national limits for six major pollutants, established stringent emissions standards for vehicles, and required the latest pollution-limiting technology for industrial facilities. It was widely recognized as innovative, landmark legislation because it was evidence-based, future-proofed, and it had teeth.
Since the Clean Air Act took effect, emissions of the most common pollutants have fallen by around 80%. The law has saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars. An EPA analysis showed that the Clean Air Act’s benefits outweigh its costs by a factor of 30. Thanks to this policy, the United States enjoys some of the cleanest air in the world.
But five decades on, has the Clean Air Act protected everyone? And can a policy designed for the problems of urban, mid-century cities protect our health in the face of climate change?