TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review


 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

More EPA diktats: How low will it go?

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

Thursday, May 29, 2014, 8:55 p.m.
 

Whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tightens a national air-pollution standard for ozone will be an indication of its true intent: protecting health or re-engineering society.

Colorless, odorless ozone forms when sunlight reacts with volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides emitted by both natural and man-made sources. The EPA is considering lowering the ozone standard to between 60 and 70 parts per billion (ppb) from 75 ppb — a level that the EPA and a federal court agreed on in 2008 as protecting public health.

It's doing so even though “overwhelming ... scientific evidence indicates lowering the current ozone standard will not provide added health benefits,” Julie E. Goodman of the Harvard School of Public Health and air-pollution consultant Sonia Sax write in The Wall Street Journal.

They say the EPA makes unrealistic “worst-case” assumptions and hasn't consistently evaluated ozone studies' strengths and weaknesses, interpreting some “to indicate that ozone is more harmful than it likely is.” EPA models even show that reducing man-made ozone could increase natural ozone in some areas, and they also note that the proposed lower standard is close to some areas' natural ozone levels.

All this, plus the EPA's estimate that the lower standard could cost businesses up to $90 billion annually, begs the question: When is too much too much? When a tighter, costly pollutant rule won't enhance health but is imposed anyway — for no discernible reason but radical anti-growth politics.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Editorials

  1. The Kane ruling: Get on with it
  2. The Thursday wrap
  3. Orphan sinkhole
  4. ‘Canary in a coal mine’: The SSDI dilemma
  5. Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
  6. Steel Valley change of heart
  7. Saturday essay: Anatomy of a backache
  8. Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
  9. Greensburg Tuesday takes
  10. Work’s the thing