A pristine sky is one of life’s great gifts. But it’s the kind of thing we take for granted. In the booming cities of Asia, thick blankets of smog often blot out the sun, and the ugly haze seeps into the lungs of children and the aged, causing all manner of disease and distress. Not so long ago, American and European cities were plagued by similarly noxious smog. In the rich world, however, air quality has improved dramatically in recent decades, due to a combination of regulation, new technology and the offshoring of the dirtiest kinds of manufacturing.
And now there is a real debate over whether we should keep pushing the envelope, to tighten regulations to make our air cleaner still. This would be a no-brainer if it weren’t for the fact that reducing the amount of ground-level ozone, the key ingredient in smog, is a very expensive proposition. Environmentalists, utilities and labor advocates have been duking it out over whether the benefits outweigh the costs for years, and now the Obama administration has weighed in.
On Friday, the president rejected a proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency to tighten ozone standards, a move that would have forced hundreds of local governments and businesses to invest heavily in pollution control. The weak economy was probably the most important factor in the decision, as was a desire to blunt attacks from Republicans fiercely critical of the EPA. Fortunately, there is a better way forward that both increases economic freedom and gives us cleaner air.
To many environmentalists, the president’s decision was a cowardly one, and part of a long-running morality play in which virtuous regulators are foiled by corporate lobbyists. But there is another part of the ozone story. One big source of ground-level ozone is ethanol, the corn-based fuel that has attracted billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. The EPA has acknowledged on a number of occasions that a heavier reliance on ethanol will increase emissions of nitrogen oxide, which in turn spurs the formation of ground-level ozone. Another way of putting this is that while the federal government is trying to curb ozone levels on the one hand, on the other hand it is actively boosting them by mandating the use of ethanol.
In June, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, led an effort to axe $6 billion in federal ethanol subsidies. He lost by a vote of 59 to 40. Coburn’s anti-ethanol crusade is entirely about his fiscal conservatism. The Oklahoma senator is not beloved by environmentalists, and one gets the impression that the feeling is mutual. It just so happens that killing ethanol would also represent a huge boon for air quality, and one that would actually save taxpayers money.
Another huge driver of ground level ozone is coal-fired power plants, which are rightly loathed by environmentalists for their carbon emissions and their negative impact on human health. Natural gas plants, in contrast, release half as much carbon as coal and it give off only small amounts of the pollutants that contribute to ground-level ozone. But as Robert Bryce recounts in his brilliant book "Power Hungry," the federal government didn’t tip the scales in favor of natural gas. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Congress deliberately crippled natural gas by banning its use for power generation in 1978. Though this insane regulation was reversed in 1987, the damage was done: coal use soared during the intervening years. As Bryce observes, it is very easy to imagine that the U.S. would have much cleaner air and a less carbon-intensive economy if the federal government hadn’t stacked the deck against the natural gas industry.
We can’t travel back in time to undo the damage done by Byrd and his coal cronies. What we can do is start slashing subsidies for ethanol and coal and other fuels that are fouling the atmosphere. Before we layer new regulations on top of old regulations, we need to first clean house. In many states, for example, firms are barred from selling surplus power to anyone other than the local utility, thus pointlessly encouraging waste. A new wave of green deregulation could yield enormous environmental and economic benefits. If President Obama can’t get behind this agenda, Republicans would be wise to claim it as their own, to offer an environmental platform that harnesses the creative potential of the free enterprise system.
There is one big barrier to this kind of environmental sanity. Between now and January, every Republican presidential contender will be kowtowing to Iowa voters, many of whom see ethanol subsidies as manna from heaven. Indeed, Robert Bryce has called for ending Iowa’s privileged status as the first in the nation nominating contest, recognizing that it encourages candidates to support bad energy policy. Keep an eye on which candidates have the guts to tell the truth about ethanol.
And now there is a real debate over whether we should keep pushing the envelope, to tighten regulations to make our air cleaner still. This would be a no-brainer if it weren’t for the fact that reducing the amount of ground-level ozone, the key ingredient in smog, is a very expensive proposition. Environmentalists, utilities and labor advocates have been duking it out over whether the benefits outweigh the costs for years, and now the Obama administration has weighed in.
On Friday, the president rejected a proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency to tighten ozone standards, a move that would have forced hundreds of local governments and businesses to invest heavily in pollution control. The weak economy was probably the most important factor in the decision, as was a desire to blunt attacks from Republicans fiercely critical of the EPA. Fortunately, there is a better way forward that both increases economic freedom and gives us cleaner air.
To many environmentalists, the president’s decision was a cowardly one, and part of a long-running morality play in which virtuous regulators are foiled by corporate lobbyists. But there is another part of the ozone story. One big source of ground-level ozone is ethanol, the corn-based fuel that has attracted billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. The EPA has acknowledged on a number of occasions that a heavier reliance on ethanol will increase emissions of nitrogen oxide, which in turn spurs the formation of ground-level ozone. Another way of putting this is that while the federal government is trying to curb ozone levels on the one hand, on the other hand it is actively boosting them by mandating the use of ethanol.
In June, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, led an effort to axe $6 billion in federal ethanol subsidies. He lost by a vote of 59 to 40. Coburn’s anti-ethanol crusade is entirely about his fiscal conservatism. The Oklahoma senator is not beloved by environmentalists, and one gets the impression that the feeling is mutual. It just so happens that killing ethanol would also represent a huge boon for air quality, and one that would actually save taxpayers money.
Another huge driver of ground level ozone is coal-fired power plants, which are rightly loathed by environmentalists for their carbon emissions and their negative impact on human health. Natural gas plants, in contrast, release half as much carbon as coal and it give off only small amounts of the pollutants that contribute to ground-level ozone. But as Robert Bryce recounts in his brilliant book "Power Hungry," the federal government didn’t tip the scales in favor of natural gas. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Congress deliberately crippled natural gas by banning its use for power generation in 1978. Though this insane regulation was reversed in 1987, the damage was done: coal use soared during the intervening years. As Bryce observes, it is very easy to imagine that the U.S. would have much cleaner air and a less carbon-intensive economy if the federal government hadn’t stacked the deck against the natural gas industry.
We can’t travel back in time to undo the damage done by Byrd and his coal cronies. What we can do is start slashing subsidies for ethanol and coal and other fuels that are fouling the atmosphere. Before we layer new regulations on top of old regulations, we need to first clean house. In many states, for example, firms are barred from selling surplus power to anyone other than the local utility, thus pointlessly encouraging waste. A new wave of green deregulation could yield enormous environmental and economic benefits. If President Obama can’t get behind this agenda, Republicans would be wise to claim it as their own, to offer an environmental platform that harnesses the creative potential of the free enterprise system.
There is one big barrier to this kind of environmental sanity. Between now and January, every Republican presidential contender will be kowtowing to Iowa voters, many of whom see ethanol subsidies as manna from heaven. Indeed, Robert Bryce has called for ending Iowa’s privileged status as the first in the nation nominating contest, recognizing that it encourages candidates to support bad energy policy. Keep an eye on which candidates have the guts to tell the truth about ethanol.
