Rancorous public debate surrounds the Clean Air Act and whether the EPA should have strict authority to regulate the emission of air pollutants. Opponents call the EPA the “job-killing” agency, since it costs power plants significant money to remove pollutants from the air we breathe.
But, it is worth looking back to the origins of the Clean Air Act and to how effective it has been. Rain falling from the unregulated sky often had the acidity of lemon juice—reducing the growth of trees and poisoning lake and stream waters for fish.
With its implementation in 1990, the acidity of rain began to decline. Long-term measurements show a 50% decline in levels of sulfuric acid, so the overall pH, or acidity of rainfall, is now returning to normal.
Vicky Kelly is Manager of the Cary Institute’s Environmental Monitoring Program…
“The Clean Air Act amendments have indeed reduced the amount of acid in the rain, but the precipitation acidity is not where it should be, it’s not “normal,” says Kelly. “So there’s still a ways to go to get it to be what we would consider background, or normal, precipitation pH.”
More recently, the Clean Air Act was strengthened to include nitrogen oxide, or NOx pollutants—a source of ozone in the lower atmosphere. Loud complaint was heard from the business community. But, ozone is known to exacerbate a variety of respiratory ailments, such as asthma and emphysema, and it is associated with a higher incidence of both heart attack and stroke.
In a very real sense, the Clean Air Act allows us to pay for a healthy environment. And a healthy environment is the basis for a healthy economy that is good for all of us.
Photo, taken December 6, 2010 using an HTC Nexus One, courtesy of Cesar Harada via Flickr.