Would EPA's chief rather redefine "healthy" smog levels than listen to his scientists?

both

Smog blankets Los Angeles in this 2009 photo.

When Scott Pruitt was trying to get confirmed as chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, he conceded that “ground-level ozone is a dangerous pollutant that can cause respiratory and cardiovascular harm.” The EPA, he told senators, should focus on helping polluted areas “meet that standard.”

Except now that Pruitt is in office, it turns out his meaning might have been far more Orwellian, and dangerous, than anyone imagined. Meanwhile, a new court decision allowing Pruitt an opportunity to argue his case has added fresh urgency to the ozone matter.

25 million Americans at risk

The ground-level ozone Pruitt was talking about is better known as smog and causes serious health problems.

Smog increases asthma attacks in kids and literally kills people, especially the elderly. In fact, it is estimated more than 25 million Americans have asthma and are at risk for health problems or premature death because of this kind of air pollution.

In response to growing scientific evidence of harm, the EPA tightened its health standards for smog. The change, announced in October 2015, would lower the allowable amount of smog particles in our air from 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb.

This still isn’t as low as many science and health advisors recommended, however. They want something closer to 60ppb – but it was an important step in the right direction.

This is also important to remember as we try to understand where Pruitt may be taking us next.

To Pruitt, science is irrelevant

During his confirmation hearings, Pruitt sounded very concerned about this air pollution problem. He cited it as one of the areas that the EPA should be focused on, rather than being distracted by issues like carbon pollution.

(Pause for a moment to reflect on the fact that an EPA administrator considers global climate change, an urgent threat to our health and safety that will cost our economy trillions, a distraction.)

But it turns out that Pruitt’s solution to the fact that more than half of all Americans live in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution might be to – well, redefine what’s healthy.

Court just granted EPA’s “review” of smog limits

Pruitt’s recent actions suggest he may simply declare that the pollution levels his agency’s independent science advisors have said are unhealthy – 70 parts per billion – are now acceptable. It’s like the diet which lets you eat ice cream by saying it only counts as 50 calories. Or a plan to improve education by changing all the C’s to A’s.

Responding to a request from Pruitt for more time to “fully review” the issues, a federal court on April 11, 2017, postponed oral arguments on the smog limits.

Many observers consider this a prelude to potentially weakening the standards.

Given Pruitt’s close political and financial ties to companies that would benefit from looser pollution rules – and his recent decision to ignore science and refuse to ban a pesticide that causes developmental problems in children – it’s hardly a leap to imagine he’ll continue to disregard public health.

Keith Gaby

Keith Gaby

Explores the intersection of politics and climate change.

Get new posts by email

We'll deliver a daily digest to your inbox.


RSS RSS feed

Comments

This is our lives you are playing with as you change rules and ignoring science. But it will effect the lives of people you love as well. Have you no heart as well as no clear thinking ability with your brain? Do you think this will not effect you?

I cannot decide if you are deluded into thinking it will not be a problem in your life. Money will not save you from your actions. Work for a clean environment and we all will win. Fossil fuels have a limited time remaining. If you don't know that, just google Peak Oil.

I've been studying ground level ozone for over 10 years and high ozone events are controlled by the weather. During the few, high ozone events, a combination of transported biogenic and anthropogenic sources are transported into local sources to create these episodes. For San Antonio and many other cities, local sources during a high ozone day are just 30% of the total. At the current standard, even some National Parks have ozone levels that would throw them out of attainment if they were cities. Mobile emissions are getting less and less per year, and soon, they will be second to point sources. It's not fair that any city should be penalized or put into non-attainment anymore...I support taking the eight hour standard back to at least 80 ppb.

Hi Mark and thank you for following our blog!

Even with declining car emissions, scientists clearly think we need stronger ozone standards. Keith writes: "In response to growing scientific evidence of harm, the EPA tightened its health standards for smog. The change, announced in October 2015, would lower the allowable amount of smog particles in our air from 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb. This still isn’t as low as many science and health advisors recommended, however. They want something closer to 60 ppb – but it was an important step in the right direction."

Also note that the United States still lags behind other developed nations such as Canada and the European Union, where the standards call for 63 ppb and 60 ppb, respectively. These regulations are there for a reason.

Karin Rives, EDF Voices editor