Page 1 of 3 GEN – Air Quality – Good Caleb Profitt

GEN – Air Quality – Good

Contents
Contents.......................................................................................................................................................1

Note: .......................................................................................................................................................1
Air Quality ..............................................................................................................................................1
The market...............................................................................................................................................2
Federal Regulation...................................................................................................................................2

Note:
This brief can be used as AFF or NEG. It essentially argues that air quality has improved greatly to the
point that it is no longer a problem and that air quality improvements will continues. Furthermore, federal
regulations are not to thank for this success, but rather market forces create clean air. Indeed, federal
regulation is truly not necessary to improve air quality, and actually have hidden costs.

Air Quality
Air quality in the U.S. has been improving for decades

Joel Schwartz (a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies the science, policy,
and politics of air pollution, climate change, and other environmental concerns, holds s master’s degree
in planetary science) and Steven Hayward (the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics at the
American Enterprise Institute, he holds a Ph.D. in American Studies), “Air Quality in America, The AEI
Press, © 2007, http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080317_AirQuality.pdf

Figure I-1 on the following page compares trends in air pollutants with trends in motor-vehicle
transportation, energy production, and economic activity from 1980 to 2005. Note that despite large
increases in driving, energy production, and economic activity in general, the nation nevertheless
achieved large declines in air pollution levels. These reductions in ambient air pollution levels resulted in
large increases in compliance with Clean Air Act air quality standards. Virtually the entire nation (more
than 99 percent of monitoring locations) now meets federal air quality standards for carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. Levels of all of these pollutants continue to decline. Ozone and
fine particulates (PM2.5; see “A Guide to Different Types of Air Pollution” on page 6) also continue to
drop, but exceedance of standards for these pollutants is more widespread. As of the end of 2006, 15
percent of the nation’s monitoring sites violate the 8-hour ozone standard and 14 percent violate PM2.5
standards.2 Still, this is far better than 1980, when about 75 percent of monitors violated the 8-hour ozone
standard, and 90 percent violated PM2.5 standards. These ozone and PM violation rates pertain to the
tougher standards adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1997.3 Only about a third as
many monitoring locations violate EPA’s earlier ozone and PM standards (the 1-hour ozone and the PM10
standards). These air quality improvements represent a long-term trend that predates the 1970 Clean Air
Act by several decades.
Page 2 of 3 GEN – Air Quality – Good Caleb Profitt

Air quality has improved and will continue to improve

Joel Schwartz (a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies the science, policy,
and politics of air pollution, climate change, and other environmental concerns, holds s master’s degree
in planetary science) and Steven Hayward (the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics at the
American Enterprise Institute, he holds a Ph.D. in American Studies), “Air Quality in America, The AEI
Press, © 2007, http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080317_AirQuality.pdf

Compared to peak levels in the 1960s and ’70s, the vast majority of air pollution emissions have already
been eliminated. Already-adopted requirements will eliminate most remaining emissions during the next
two decades. Air pollution has thus already been solved as a long-term problem. Remaining pollution is a
near-term problem that will progressively disappear as existing requirements come to fruition over the
next several years.

The market
Historically, market forces, without prompting from regulation, have reduced pollution

Joel Schwartz (a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies the science, policy,
and politics of air pollution, climate change, and other environmental concerns, holds s master’s degree
in planetary science) and Steven Hayward (the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics at the
American Enterprise Institute, he holds a Ph.D. in American Studies), “Air Quality in America, The AEI
Press, © 2007, http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080317_AirQuality.pdf

Regardless of whether the Clean Air Act has caused continued reductions in air pollution since 1970, the
pre-CAA record shows that the “race to the bottom” justification for the federal takeover of air pollution
regulation was false. Through a combination of common-law nuisance suits and local regulation,
Americans had been addressing air pollution issues, as they were understood at the time, for several
decades before the act was passed. Furthermore, throughout the twentieth century, market forces
promoting greater efficiency and technological advancement often had the salutary side effect of reducing
the pollution emitted per unit of economic activity, thereby moderating the air quality impacts of ongoing
economic development. For example, growing affluence allowed households to switch from coal to
cleaner, more efficient natural gas for home heating and cooking. Railroads switched from coal-fired
steam locomotives to diesel. The adoption of alternating current and improvements in transformer
technology allowed power plants to be located near coal mines rather than in cities, because electricity
could now be efficiently transported via long-distance power lines. The market forces that caused these
transformations were not driven by air quality concerns, but they nevertheless caused large declines in air
pollution levels.

Federal Regulation
Federal regulation is not necessary to improve air quality

Joel Schwartz (a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies the science, policy,
and politics of air pollution, climate change, and other environmental concerns, holds s master’s degree
in planetary science) and Steven Hayward (the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics at the
American Enterprise Institute, he holds a Ph.D. in American Studies), “Air Quality in America, The AEI
Press, © 2007, http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080317_AirQuality.pdf
Page 3 of 3 GEN – Air Quality – Good Caleb Profitt

Federal regulation has been responsible for most air quality improvement since 1970 not because it was
necessary, but because the federal government seized control of air pollution policy from states, cities,
common-law courts, and market actors who were addressing air pollution for decades before the federal
government got involved.

Regulations have unintended effects that ultimately harm environmental quality more than help

Joel Schwartz (a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies the science, policy,
and politics of air pollution, climate change, and other environmental concerns, holds s master’s degree
in planetary science) and Steven Hayward (the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics at the
American Enterprise Institute, he holds a Ph.D. in American Studies), “Air Quality in America, The AEI
Press, © 2007, http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080317_AirQuality.pdf

But reducing air pollution is costly. Attaining the federal 8-hour ozone and annual PM standards will cost
tens to hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The 8-hour ozone standard might not be attainable at all in
some areas of the country. These costs are ultimately paid by people in the form of higher prices, lower
wages, and reduced choices. We all have many needs and aspirations, and insufficient resources with
which to fulfill them. Spending more on air quality means spending less on other things that improve our
health, safety, and quality of life. Higher incomes are associated with improved health, because people
spend a portion of each additional dollar of income on things that directly or indirectly improve health
and safety, such as better medical care, more crashworthy cars, and more nutritious food. People made
poorer by the costs of regulations do fewer of these things and are less healthy as a result. Risk
researchers estimate that every $17 million in regulatory costs induces one additional statistical death.
Thus, regulations are not pure risk reduction measures, but instead inevitably impose tradeoffs between
the health benefits of the regulation and the harm from the regulation’s income-reducing costs.