Posted on 11/26/2014 6:53:24 AM PST by reaganaut1
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed lower limits for ground-level ozone, or smog, in the atmosphere, setting in motion the latest in a series of far reaching federal pollution restrictions.
The EPA proposed limiting ozone between 65 and 70 parts per billion in the air and sought comment on a standard as strict as 60 parts per billion, all which is in line with what an independent scientific advisory panel had recommended earlier this year. The current level, established in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration, is set at 75 parts per billion. The agency also said in a fact sheet on its website that it will take comment on keeping the standard at the level it is at now, a move that could give cautious hope to industry groups that had been lobbying for that.
“Bringing ozone pollution standard in line with the latest science is more than just a legal requirement; it empowers the American people,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in an op-ed published in CNNMoney, where the agency announced the proposal.
The proposal is expected to reanimate a battle between businesses and environmental groups that has been dormant for three years. In 2011, the EPA estimated that the proposed standard—set then at the toughest level the agency had yet considered—could cost utilities and other businesses as much as $90 billion a year. President Barack Obama delayed issuing it. It also estimated then that the rule would deliver up to $100 billion a year in public-health benefits.
The EPA’s estimated costs and benefits for Wednesday’s proposal are significantly less than the 2011 plan. Costs range between $3 billion and $15 billion in 2025, and the monetary value of the public health benefits range between $6.4 billion and $19 billion annually in 2025.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Ah yes, the ole 4 branches of gov’t;
Executive
Legislative
Judicial
Regulatory
Parts per BILLION...barely at detectable levels. So what would be the consequences of having say 72 parts per billion rather than 68 parts per billion? The difference between these levels are well within measuring error. Billions in higher costs for what possible benefit?
I seem to recall that being a background level on a hot sunny day in some environments.
If so, it is almost unachievable.
Is that correct?
.
Everyone knows that global warming affects weather and weather causes lightning. Since lightning causes ozone, we have to shut down the coal industry. There.
The EPA site describing the proposed rule and allowing for public comment is
http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html#nov2014 .
Anyone who was alive before the late 70s knows what real smog was like. In most of the US, we don’t have anything resembling smog. Even in the places we do, it is usually caused by local conditions, mountain valleys, etc.
It’s really frustrating to live in an ozone hotbed because it comes off Lake Michigan from naturally occurring processes certain times of the year.
Back when factories belched smoke and cars had no emissions controls, there was significant benefit to these rules, but tightening them at this point has no real benefit.
We’ll be paying billions to make reductions within the level of sampling error.
...and we take 5 parts per billion out while China is belching thousands of times that every day.
Very correct...I work in the industry of air quality monitoring. As the EPA continues to lower the ozone standard the standard gets closer to typical background levels that can be in the 50-60 ppb range. The environment has to be well mixed to achieve this background level. Lowering the standard will make it nearly impossible to make attainment for many areas across the nation.
Probably local cost but worldwide benefit calculation, which is bogus.
Yes it sound like a new gate way for new taxes fees and fines.
This is actually a means of killing economic activity because vegetation, and particularly trees, emit sufficient VOC (volatile organic compounds) to produce enough ozone to exceed the standard.
This is the problem with measuring technology. We’re at zero.
We really have clean air in this country, for various reasons. My city (Pittsburgh) was very dirty decades ago. They cleaned it up due to regulations, and losing industry. the EPA should go to China.
I miss those days.
The stratospheric ozone layer is completely different than surface level ozone pollution...
Actually...my ozone analyzers reliably measure down to single digit ppbs. Once we start talking ppts...that is a different subject.
time to start a bonfire in the back using a cup of kerosene and an old tire to get er going?
I estimate that providing me with a lifetime, tax free income of $750,000 per year would provide the public over 1 trillion dollars in public health benefits over the rest of my lifetime. Where do I go to enact such legislation?
Those benefits would be to the parasites that work for these government agencies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.