On March 8, 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency announced what it called "the most stringent 8-hour standard ever for ozone". It was the first time the EPA had acted to strengthen the national air quality standard for ozone in more than a decade. But the new EPA standard is facing strong legal challenges from environmental and public health advocacy groups. So what is ozone and how does it effect public health and the environment?Ozone is a gas that is found in two places in the earth's atmosphere, the stratosphere and the troposphere. The ozone found in the the stratosphere helps to make life on earth possible. "The stratosphere or "good" ozone layer extends upward from about 6 to 30 miles and protects life on Earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays," according to the EPA.
This is the "ozone layer" that is threatened by ozone depletion. The international community has made great progress in its efforts to phase out the use of man-made ozone depleting substances once used widely in aerosol sprays, fire extinguishers, solvents, pesticides, and other goods. But ozone depletion remains a very real problem today, albeit one that it not as prominent on the public radar as it once was.
Ground level ozone, found in the troposphere, is harmful to human health and to the environment. "Ozone attacks lung tissue by reacting chemically with it, called 'oxidizing," notes a fact sheet on ozone issued by the American Lung Association. "Some compare this to getting a 'sunburn' on the lungs." Symptoms of exposure to ground level ozone include shortness of breath, chest pain, coughing and wheezing, and increased risk of asthma attacks.
Those most at risk include children, the elderly, people who work or exercise outdoors, and individuals who suffer from pulmonary problems like asthma and COPD. During the summer months, when ozone levels can be particularly high, warnings are often issued telling susceptible populations to avoid outdoor activities or over exertion.
Ground level ozone also damages vegetation, threatening crops and the environment. The EPA notes that, "In the United States alone, ground-level ozone is responsible for an estimated $500 million in reduced crop production each year." It is also a major ingredient in smog.
Where does ground level ozone come from? "Ground-level or "bad" ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight," according to the EPA. NOx and VOC emissions result from the burning of fossil fuels like gasoline and coal, as well as from the evaporation of substances that contain fossil fuel, such as paint.

NOx and VOC pollution are produced by all the usual suspects. "NOx is emitted from power plants, motor vehicles and other sources of high-heat combustion. VOCs are emitted from motor vehicles, chemical plants, refineries, factories, gas stations, paint and other sources," according to a fact sheet issued by the American Lung Association. Wind blows ozone produced in one region into other regions.
Both the EPA and its critics agree that a more stringent national standard for ground level ozone was necessary. Where they differ is on how stringent that new standard should be. The previous 8 hour standard was set at .0884 parts per million (ppm). The new standard is set at .075 ppm. EPA officials hailed the news standard as evidence of the agency's commitment to respect the Clean Air Act.
"The Clean Air Act is not a relic to be displayed in the Smithsonian, but a living document that must be modernized to continue realizing results. So while the standards I signed today may be strict, we have a responsibility to overhaul and enhance the Clean Air Act to ensure it translates from paper promises into cleaner air," said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson in a press release announcing the new standard.
Critics of the new standard want more. The American Lung Association is calling for the adoption of an ozone standard of .060 ppm. The EPA's own scientific advisors support implementing the same standard, according to the group. The ALA also noted that 16 ublic health and medical organization support the .060 ppm standard - including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Heart Association, the American Public Health Association, and the American Thoracic Society.
The American Lung Association is being joined by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Appalachian Mountain Club in a lawsuit against the EPA.
"EPA officials ignored the advice of their own scientists when they chose these deficient standards, but they can't ignore the law," said attorney David Baron of the law firm Earth Justice, which is handling the case. "The Clean Air Act requires EPA to adopt standards strong enough to protect our lungs and our environment. We're fighting to make sure that happens. Stronger standards could save thousands of lives, by some estimates."
They aren't the only ones taking legal action against the EPA on this issue. A number of states have also challenged the EPA's new standard for ground level oxygen. These include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Oregon, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Rhode Island.
Ground level ozone threatens our health and our environment. Few, if any, are safe from its impact. High ozone level warnings do help some people escape exposure to unsafe levels of ground level ozone. But many Americans cannot avoid exposure. Many Americans have jobs that require that they work outside. Construction workers, farmers, and those working in the landscaping industry can't just take a day off from breathing any more than they can take a day off from work just because a high ozone level warning has been issued.
Every American has the right to breath clean air. The EPA needs to step up and institute a new standard for ground level ozone that will protect public health and the environment.
Sources:
Ozone - Good Up High Bad Nearby. EPA Website.
EPA Strengthens Smog Standards to Better Protect Human Health and the Environment. EPA Press Release.
Health, Environmental Groups Enforce the Clean Air Act to Protect Americans from Smog. AMC Press Release.
New Jersey Joins Multi-State Challenge to EPA Ozone Standards Federal Lawsuit Alleges Violation of the Clean Air Act. NJ Office of the Attorney General Press Release.
Facts About Ozone. American Lung Association.
Green America is a new weekly column about environmental politics by Gather political correspondent David Anderson. You can find current and past editions of the column at the group Green America.


Comments: 28
If we just CONSERVED, we could cut our energy usage, probably in half! Think about that! We don't have to even work on alternate sources...just conserving gets us a long way down the path to energy independence, and escape from petro-bankruptcy.
Why don't people see that? Why don't our leaders see that? My god, it is so frigging obvious!
Good article but you didn't mention that the problem with the ozone in the places we need it is that ozone is a very unstable form of Oxygen and tends to flux and deteriorate from time to time while Ozone at ground level has increased greatly over the years.
In what way is the EPA "sabotaging" the efforts of the states? California has had no problem with tighter standards than the federal for many years.
James C - Good point. The problem is that we have too little ozone in the stratosphere and too much in the troposphere. From what I have read it is human activity that has caused the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere, as it is human activity that is producing the abundance of ozone in the troposphere.
I do know that the state of California was not allowed by the EPA to do that, and that is wrong.
As a colorado resident, who has already experienced an ozone alert day this year (and expects at least one more this week), this is an area I can attest affects us all.
Sure, David, local action should be accompanied by a universal commitment to reduce emissions, where necessary backed up by sanctions against non-compliant areas. But there's no lack of willingness at state and local levels to reduce locally-produced ozone. Instead, the problem is that the Bush administration uses the EPA to sabotage state initiatives that would reduce emissions.
An interesting question is what to do about different ozone levels within one area. Obviously, ozone levels will be higher close to a freeway. The Natural Resources Defense Council has approached the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to demand comprehensive monitoring of air quality along freeways. Federal policy prohibits local air regulators from using measurements near a known large pollution source, in this case a truck-clogged freeway that serves the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, to calculate regional air pollution amounts.
Incidentally, Canadians are also upset about these new "stringent" standards.
In what way does the fed "not allow" California to enforce it's emission laws? Idaho certainly does in the localities that have been effected sufficiently to create inspections. If your car doesn't pass you must spend at least $200 trying to get it to pass.
It has been my understanding that California does enforce it's emission laws. Vehicles made for California users get cars with emissions not found in any of the other 49 states and the fed is not objecting to that. That is clearly an enforcement of their own specific laws that exceed those of the federal government.
It is the federal government that has caused Ada County in Idaho to adopt emissions laws and the inspect to ensure they are being met. It was not the City of Boise or any other town in Idaho. That was based on the federal testing of air quality, and finding that it exceeded federal standards during the winter.
Frankly, I don't believe that many local jurisdictions are attempting to set more strict standards than the federal, and to enforce them. I'm afraid that in laying the blame at the doorstep of the EPA you are denigrating the wrong people. They are attempting to bet a certain level of standards established and complied with and they aren't having great luck. It does need to be a nationwide program so they are on the correct track.
In Idaho, Ada County/Boise has the questionable air quality so they passed emission laws. Half the people in Nampa and Caldwell work in Boise and virtually all shop there, and Canyon county has no standards or inspections. The winds prevail from Canyon County directly into Ada County and although Canyon doesn't have the problem with air quality, they seriously impact Ada County. This is why uniform enforcement should be the way to go.
If the federal is managed correctly, there is no reason for the states to start trying to out green the federal efforts.
The Bush administration has used the EPA for many years to sabotage efforts by states to reduce emissions. On 2 January 2008, a lawsuit was filed in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse such a EPA decision.
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2008/jan/jan02a_08.html
http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/motorvehicle.php
In response, the EPA on 29 February 2008 filed its justification in the Federal Register.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/03/01/news/na-epa1
On 21 May, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved California's emission standards, despite EPA's refusal to allow California to set standards stricter than EPA standards, but Barabara Boxer said that she wasn't sure whether to push for a full Senate vote on the bill, given that President Bush would veto it.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1397287/senate_panel_approves_california_waiver_on_emissions/index.html
There also has been a probe by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into the situation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902337.html
Are there any recent developments that I overlooked, James?
Sure, there should be a wide commitment to reach targets. But there are different ways to reduce emissions and conditions differ from area to area. In one area, certain ways may work well, but in another area other ways may make more sense. As long as an area reaches targets, why intervene?
When the EPA is used as an instrument to sabotage efforts by states to reduce emissions, e.g. in a plot to enrich revenues of certain companies, then the integrity of the EPA is perverted. Moreover, if the Bush administration uses the EPA to fool people into believing that there was an environmental problem with California's policy, then can you find a single reason why such deception shouldn't result in Bush's impeachment?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The links you posted failed, in my opinion, to show that the EPA was trying to "sabotage" the states efforts, but rather that the EPA was trying to do the job vested in them. The word sabotage signifies a surreptitious and clandestine undermining of something. This was certainly not that as the EPA's decisions are documents, published and explained, whether you agree with their actions or not.
I'd have to be out of my mind to call for Bush's impeachment based on this supposed deception. While he is no friend to environmentalists, there are other, more reasonable, reasons for impeachment and they are still insufficient to get a conviction in the Senate. That is why it has not happened. Your reaching out of emotionalism here, Sam. And you badly overestimate the power of the president in this republic.
"Certainly"? How can you be so certain, James? How can you 'agree to disagree', while at the same time seeking to give your view the status of certainty? The position of California is summed up in a link I posted above, where Jerry Brown used the term "sabotaging" to describe the EPA's conduct. Jerry Brown, as you may know, is the current Attorney General and former governor for the state of California. As to my personal view, I am convinced that FeeBates work better than standards.
James: "I'd have to be out of my mind to call for Bush's impeachment based on this supposed deception. While he is no friend to environmentalists, there are other, more reasonable, reasons for impeachment and they are still insufficient to get a conviction in the Senate. That is why it has not happened."
If the court decision is - as I expect - that the EPA has not done its 'job', then what other reasons can there be for the EPA's conduct, other than manipulation by the Bush administration?
James: "Your reaching out of emotionalism here, Sam. And you badly overestimate the power of the president in this republic."
You shouldn't try and wave away an issue as important as this one by using terms like 'emotionalism', James. I too would like to think that the powers of the president are limited. If so, then conduct that amounts to deception of the people (as to what constitutes 'environmental protection'), DOES add substantial cause to existing calls for Bush's impeachment. If, on the other hand, this kind of conduct would be within the powers of the president, then presidential powers should be redefined, preferably in the Constitution.
Even if a court decides that the federal government has not done all it should have in this instance, that does not mean the only other option is that GWB was guilty of "deception." That is not a valid route to debate as it assumes only two possibilities are available and there may well be many others.
That this president has taken unprecedented liberties with the constitution is beyond debate, however, until one has all facts in a particular instance, to condemn him for that instance may be very premature. One can steal from another 300 times and the 301st time it was another thief. The facts must be in and they are not, or at least I've not seen evidence that they were.
I'd say if you wanted to impeach him for violation of the constitution, the usage of the Patriot act, the use of signing statements stating which parts of legislation he will abide and similar things are more realistic than proving intentional and deliberate deception. on this one issue.
You use the phrase "conduct that amounts to deception" which is not a concrete standard. What determines "amounts to" in your opinion? And is your opinion universal? I doubt it.
I understand your strong feelings on this but I'm afraid I just don't necessarily agree, therefore it's back to agreeing to disagree. As long as you give up on outlawing beef I tend to agree with most of what you write and admire your visionary zeal. Feebates don't worry me as they are dead in the water before arrival. The federal government has an obligation, in my opinion, to regulate, not tax, that which will bring harm to the populace.
You asked a valid question in "what other reasons" above. For starts, it is a valid reason that the managers of the EPA read the legislation and come to differing standards than you. Totally irrespective of what the president would decide. That is only one possibility and it is understandable. They might well feel that a hodge podge of regulations by states could be confusing to the citizenry and business and could be detrimental to the nation. In fact, such a hodge podge could lend less respect to the EPA regulations and encourage avoidance and evasion.
Please recognize that there are other, valid, views of most things than just one's own. And it's hard to articulate a convincing reasoning for change of ones ideas when presented with arguments not taking such variances into consideration.
Government has a number of political instruments at its hands, including standards, taxes, subsidies and more. I'm convinced that a framework of greenhouse gas FeeBates is the most effective way to reduce emissions. At the same time, I suggest that areas can each decide on this, as long as they do reach targets.
James: ".. a hodge podge of regulations by states could be confusing to the citizenry and business and could be detrimental to the nation. In fact, such a hodge podge could lend less respect to the EPA regulations and encourage avoidance and evasion."
That's not a valid reason. The EPA's task is to protect the environment, not to avoid "hodge podge". I fail to see how avoiding "hodge podge" was in any way beneficial to the environment. I maintain that, in the absence of a valid reason, the EPA's decision must have been manipulated by the Bush administration, implying that Bush committed an act of sabotage that amounts to deceiving the people. That is cause for impeachment, adding to other calls for impeachment.
Moreover, twelve other States, reflecting 40% of the vehicles purchased in a year in the country, have also adopted California's regulations. So, there's clearly no risk of ending up with "hodge podge".
On the other hand, as said, if it was within Bush's power to manipulate the EPA into perverting its integrity and giving "avoiding hodge podge" a higher priority than protecting the environment, then presidential powers should be redefined, preferably in the Constitution.
Title: Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 6/10/2008) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 6/11/2008 House floor actions. Status: On motion to refer the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 251 - 166 (Roll No. 401).
The bill is discussed at Gather at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977371022
ARTICLE XXXII.--MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERMINING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Bush Intervened For Weaker Smog Rule - March 14, 2008
Bush Administration Sued Over Smog Rules - May 28, 2008
Bush Refuses To Release EPA Documents - June 21, 2008