skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Why business wants the Clean Air Act changed

Abstract

New legislation to modify the Clean Air Act is designed to eliminate the cumbersome requirements that constrain economic growth without lowering present air standards. Environmentalists reject the Luken bill, however, in favor of only fine-tuning the existing Clean Air Act. Ignorance of how the complicated Act works has hampered its implementation by industry. The two sides appear irreconcilable as the debate focuses on the tradeoffs of jobs versus air quality. The Luken bill would ease auto emission requirements enough to lower car prices and reduce unemployment. Environmentalists challenge that claim and seek to tighten specific controls that will reduce the effects of acid rain. President Reagan favors the Luken bill, but political considerations will probably keep the battle concentrated in the House committee. Industry leaders are counting on public pressure to improve both the Act and the economy. (DCK)

Authors:
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
5085096
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Nation's Bus.; (United States); Journal Volume: 70:6
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY; 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; AIR QUALITY; ECONOMICS; CLEAN AIR ACT; AMENDMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ADVERSARIES; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; GOVERNMENT POLICIES; LAWS; POLLUTION LAWS 290300* -- Energy Planning & Policy-- Environment, Health, & Safety; 500600 -- Environment, Atmospheric-- Regulations-- (-1989)

Citation Formats

Marth, D. Why business wants the Clean Air Act changed. United States: N. p., 1982. Web.
Marth, D. Why business wants the Clean Air Act changed. United States.
Marth, D. 1982. "Why business wants the Clean Air Act changed". United States. doi:.
@article{osti_5085096,
title = {Why business wants the Clean Air Act changed},
author = {Marth, D.},
abstractNote = {New legislation to modify the Clean Air Act is designed to eliminate the cumbersome requirements that constrain economic growth without lowering present air standards. Environmentalists reject the Luken bill, however, in favor of only fine-tuning the existing Clean Air Act. Ignorance of how the complicated Act works has hampered its implementation by industry. The two sides appear irreconcilable as the debate focuses on the tradeoffs of jobs versus air quality. The Luken bill would ease auto emission requirements enough to lower car prices and reduce unemployment. Environmentalists challenge that claim and seek to tighten specific controls that will reduce the effects of acid rain. President Reagan favors the Luken bill, but political considerations will probably keep the battle concentrated in the House committee. Industry leaders are counting on public pressure to improve both the Act and the economy. (DCK)},
doi = {},
journal = {Nation's Bus.; (United States)},
number = ,
volume = 70:6,
place = {United States},
year = 1982,
month = 6
}
  • The polarization in the press and in legislative debates is rooted in history, wherein lie the debaters on the spectrum of isms. Environmental depictions in the popular press illustrate that public judgment of resources and environmental management is shaped by arguments at the extremes. These arguments, which are not necessarily by experts, often emphasize horror stories or speculation. Stereotypical images are that all environmental proponents are good, that none work for the private sector, and that all large companies are uncaring, if not actually evil. Cartoons still show black, belching smokestacks and the like, which are relics of the past,more » virtually unknown today in the US. Ignored is the fact that quality environmental management and restoration are costly and can be afforded only by large companies and affluent governments. Economic and industrial development, which require environmental management and controls, generate the wealth needed to afford this same management and controls, if there is to be subsequent quality of life. The recent report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, stated emphatically that the greatest pollution is poverty and that environmental quality can be assured only through sustainable economic development.« less
  • The coal industry accepts the basic goals and objectives of the Clean Air Act, but it will argue several points in the debate before Congress. The industry will ask (1) that primary public health standards be credible and defensible, (2) that Federal authority be able to override higher state standards that interfere with important national problems, (3) that states set secondary standards relating to public welfare and have only limited Federal review, and (4) that realistic deadlines be set for resolving environmental, economic, and energy conflicts. Public opinion polls now show that a majority of the people will accept themore » additional risks of expanded coal use. (DCK)« less
  • Opposite views are taken on the question of amending the Clean Air Act even though both parties acknowledge its importance and accomplishments. Speaking in favor of amendment, H.H. Kehrl recommends streamlining air-pollution control to make it simpler to implement and enforce, less costly, and more effective. He points to the achievement in vehicular pollution control in spite of the imbalance in stationary and mobile requirements for cost-effectiveness. Taking a different view, R.E. Ayres points out that acid rain, fine particulates, and other toxic pollutants have not been addressed. Successful pollution control technology, he suggests, should continue to be seen asmore » a goal rather than as a threat to energy independence, economic growth, or the quality of life. (DCK)« less
  • This article discusses the conversion of a 96% completed reactor in Ohio into a coal burning station. Bechtel Power Corporation wanted to pick up the equity and complete the plant as a nuclear station. But, financial problems and regulatory uncertainty has led to the decision to choose conversion of the boiling water reactor to burn coal by 1991.
  • Factors which need to be taken into account when buying fuel for electric utilities include the cost of using it in the boilers, transportation costs, cost as delivered per million Btu and cost of electricity generated at the bus bar. Some utilities are now using outside consultants and financial analysis to assist in their fuel planning and procurement.