Debatable Science Behind Expensive New Changes
Simplistic solutions to complicated problems can make things worse, the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Kathleen Hartnett White says.
One such solution - new, tighter ozone standards imposed last month by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - isn't supported by science, but it will still cost East Texas taxpayers.
In fact, many scientists doubt whether the new standard of 75 parts-per-billion (down from the relatively new 85 ppb) will actually yield any health benefits at all.
Nevertheless, the East Texas counties of Smith, Gregg and Harrison suddenly find themselves out of compliance and facing a whole host of new restrictions, requirements and regulations.
"As a longtime observer of EPA's determination of air quality standards, I am struck by the extent of scientific objection to this dramatic change," Ms. White says. "Many credentialed experts sharply question whether the lower standard will provide additional health benefits beyond today's standard. "
There's a curious aspect to the debate; the cost of the new standard can't be factored into any decisions, according to a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Instead, the EPA must base its standards on "the latest scientific knowledge."
But there's no consensus on that standard. And the "latest scientific knowledge" contradicts the EPA's claims.
"Many prominent scientists and physicians question whether any new science exists since the EPA promulgated the 85-ppb standard in 1997," Ms. White says. "The author of the single, new, peer-reviewed study of 2006, Dr. William Adams of the University of California at Davis, concluded that there was no significant statistical correlation between lung function and ozone exposures at levels below the current standard. EPA staff reinterpreted Dr. Adams' study and reached the opposite conclusion. Although Dr. Adams and a member of the EPA's Scientific Advisory Committee challenged the staff's manipulation, its conclusion remained."
The decision to lower the standard was clearly political.
"Dr. Roger McClellan, former Scientific Advisory Committee chairman, testified that so lowering the standard 'is a policy judgment based on a flawed and inaccurate presentation of the science that should inform policy decisions.' Dr. McClellan and other scientists found serious flaws with EPA's reliance on epidemiological studies with vague correlations - and no demonstrated causation - between monitored ozone levels and adverse health effects."
And the decision didn't take into account environmental factors, such as the trees in East Texas that serve to trap smog. And no degree of action can be taken to "overcome Texas' climate and topography" that causes naturally occurring ozone, Ms. White adds.
But East Texans will have to pay the cost of "nonattainment."
"Financial cost may not be part of EPA's decision, but the magnitude of cost demands empirical data demonstrating health effects, not vague correlations," she says. "However expensive such studies might be, they pale in comparison to the EPA's estimated implementation cost of $7 billion to $14 billion per year."
Some argue that public health is worth the price. But it's more complicated than that.
"Massive unnecessary costs matter and matter for health," Ms. White says. "The state, local governments and businesses have spent billions reducing ozone. Health and longevity are positively affected by income and economic growth. The most effective way to reduce ozone in the area is the purchase of new vehicles with cleaner burning engines, which requires a healthy economy."
Local officials should join with Congressman Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, and other conservatives to work toward repeal of the new standards.
