EPA issues new ozone limits to reduce smog, setting up clash with GOP

The move fulfills a long-delayed campaign promise by President Obama, but sets up a fresh confrontation with Republicans. Environmental and public health groups also were unhappy.

Evan Vucci/AP/File
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Sept. 16, 2015. The Obama administration set a new national ozone standard Thursday, tightening limits on the smog-forming pollution linked to asthma and respiratory illness.

The Obama administration set a new national ozone standard Thursday, tightening limits on the smog-forming pollution linked to asthma and respiratory illness.

The Environmental Protection Agency said the new standard of 70 parts per billion will reduce exposure to dangerous ozone pollution and prevent thousands of asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and even premature deaths.

The new standard is below the current standard of 75 parts per billion but at the high end of a range announced by the EPA last fall.

The move fulfills a long-delayed campaign promise by President Obama, but sets up a fresh confrontation with Republicans already angry about the administration's plans to curb carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants and regulate small streams and wetlands.

Business groups said a new ozone standard is unnecessary and could jeopardize jobs.

Environmental and public health groups also were unhappy. They said the new standard was a step in the right direction but did not go far enough.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said her job is to set science-backed standards that protect the health of the American people.

"Put simply, ozone pollution means it hurts to breathe for those most vulnerable: our kids, our elderly and those suffering from heart and lung ailments," McCarthy said. "Today's action is one of the most important measures we can take for improving public health, reducing the costs of illness and protecting our children's health."

Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said the new standard "simply does not reflect what the science shows is necessary to truly protect public health."

The lung association and other groups have pushed for an ozone limit of 60 parts per billion, saying it would have given Americans much greater health protections.

The updated standards will reduce exposure to dangerous ozone pollution and prevent thousands of asthma attacks, emergency room visits and even premature deaths, Janet McCabe, an acting assistant EPA administrator, said in an interview.

Public health benefits of the new standard are estimated at $2.9 billion to 5.9 billion annually as of 2025, compared with estimated annual costs of $1.4 billion, McCabe said.

Business groups reacted harshly. The National Association of Manufacturers and other groups had lobbied the White House in recent months and spent millions on a TV ad campaign decrying the pending ozone rule as an overreach and a job killer.

"We know that this regulation could have been worse, but it still feels like a punch in the gut," said Tom Riordan, president and CEO of the Wisconsin-based Neenah Enterprises Inc. and task force leader for the manufacturers group.

"Manufacturers are tough and resilient, but when Washington puts politics above job creation, we still pay a price," Riordan said in a statement.

Manufacturers across the country, especially smaller companies, "will be forced to choose between navigating this rule and hiring new workers, between complying with Washington's mandates and giving raises to their employees," he said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.