Another EPA overreach: Ozone standards
The EPA is expected to set out on a new climate crusade by year's end, seeking a sharp reduction in ozone that could be the most expensive, ineffectual environmental regulation in U.S. history, according to a study done for the National Association of Manufacturers.
The Environmental Protection Agency is required to review and — if “necessary” — revise standards for six pollutants, including ground-level ozone, a colorless, odorless gas exacerbated by certain emissions. In 2008, the EPA set an ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb). Now there's talk of dropping that standard to as low as 60 ppb.
Never mind that the existing standard has not been fully implemented, according to The Daily Signal. By the EPA's own accounting, the lower standard would cost up to $90 billion annually to achieve. That explains why, in 2011, with his re-election looming, President Obama backed off this plan.
Among findings in a study by NERA Economic Consulting, the proposed ozone limit would reduce gross domestic product by $270 billion per year on average and impose $2.2 trillion in compliance costs from 2017 to 2040.
And after all's been said (and spent), what's proposed ultimately may prove impossible to achieve — even in rural areas.
Congress should determine whether such far-reaching mandates are warranted, not unelected bureaucrats who set delusional goals.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The silent treatment in Ford City: Forgotten words
- A green-tip assault: ATF’s end run
- Saturday essay: Deer of fools
- Seeds of a new endeavor: Connellsville Area Garden Club’s latest plans
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- SCI Greensburg: A dubious deal
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- U.N. Watch: ISIS lip service
- Union ‘ambush’: Not so fast
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes