Data-driven when it suits him

President Obama loves to invoke his reverence for science and prides himself on relying on facts and figures rather than ideology to make policy – the inference being that his opponents offer platitudes or fabricated data to fit their world view. But lately, with regard to proposed standards for ozone levels in the air, it is the assertions of the administration and its environmental allies that are not holding up. 

Just weeks after the mid-term elections last November, the administration unveiled a new standard for ground-level ozone. The new standard, as proposed, would require every county in the country to meet a ground level ozone standard likely set at 65 parts per billion of ozone.  It is an ambitious demand, to say the least – and apparently costly. Even many rural areas are in excess of that standard, in part from naturally occurring ozone or from man-made ozone from sources far away.

{mosads}A report by the National Association of Manufacturers conducted in partnership with NERA Economic Consulting found the rule would be “the most expensive of all time,” costing an estimated $140 billion per year as companies pulled back from plant expansion, construction and other investments. Some 1.4 million jobs would likely be lost and families with fixed or limited incomes would be forced to pay higher energy costs and thereby limit consumption of other items, thus creating an additional drag on economic growth. This regulation is a job killer and a major blow to a still struggling economy.

The administration plays down such dire warnings, suggesting a little more innovation and a little less “whining” from business is what is needed. The Natural Resources Defense Council has also been piling on, illogically suggesting that NAM’s assertion that steady success in complying with the existing rules was an admission that the more stringent rules are affordable and desirable. That was a distortion. NAM has correctly pointed out that very costly regulations imposed in recent years have not been able to achieve their desired impact, and thus, it would be hasty and unnecessarily costly to double down and impose even tougher regulations.

And now the American Lung Association has added its voice to the debate. It a recent air quality report, it uses a standard of 59 ppb or lower to evaluate public policies related to ozone. However, according to analysis by the EPA, any air with a lower ppb than 65 has no direct impact on health or environmental benefit. In essence, the ALA has created a pre-industrial age standard to make the case that air quality is actually worse than it is and, presumably, to justify even tougher standards – or to buttress the Administration’s push for the aggressive ones it has proposed. In addition, how does the ALA reconcile their  claim that there has been an increase in asthma incidence is due to poor air quality with the fact that air quality has improved over the last 35 years, with ozone levels down by at least a third?

Let’s take a step back and look at some facts. First, we cannot even measure the success the administration is so confident will result as soon as the new standards are in place. Right now, only 675 of the nation’s 3,000 counties have ozone monitors in place. The administration will rely on computer models – glorified guess work –  rather than actual on-the-ground measurements to determine progress. What’s more, states are simply not ready to implement the regulations to comply with the new standards. The funding – and make no mistake, navigating the red tape created by a new ozone standard is a herculean, multi-year undertaking – is not there. In addition, the administration assumes compliance will be possible with the advent of technologies that do not yet exist but will likely be developed as businesses pour money into R&D and race to be clean-air technology innovation leaders. If the technology does not materialize, would the administration allow manufacturers to create their own computer models and guess work to match the regulators’ guesswork?

Second, the sweeping ambition of the proposed ozone standards makes the warnings from business groups seem modest. The new rules would leave nearly the country in or near non-attainment, even a host of national parks. Getting Yellowstone to the new standard will be difficult since the main ozone creator in the area is Mother Nature. The challenge of attaining in urban and metropolitan areas is even greater, and cannot even be approached without sharply curtailing manufacturing, construction, holding off on economic activity and infrastructure improvements and generating less electrical power for homes and businesses. When you consider this, it is hard to dismiss warnings from business groups as simply the latest installment of wolf-crying.

So the administration is insisting that manufacturers and other businesses meet new ozone standards that cannot even be measured by using technology that does not exist, and suggesting that they can do so without creating any negative consequences. That is the triumph of faith over data and the audacity of hope.

O’Keefe is the chief executive officer of the George Marshall Institute.