President-elect Joe Biden’s robust agenda will address threats ignored by President Trump. This includes Biden’s commitment to tackle climate change, which he warned is an “existential threat to humanity.”
Much of Biden’s climate plan can be implemented via executive orders or regulations that don’t require Congressional action. But other major elements — such as establishing an enforcement mechanism for emissions reductions — require Congressional approval. Unfortunately, the contentious climate debate continues in Congress. Elements of successful enactment of air quality safeguards over the past 50 years could provide a road map for overcoming the climate change roadblock.
The Clean Air Acts of 1970 and 1990 both recently hit important milestones. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (CAA ’70) turns 50 on December 31. It set the first national vehicle pollution limits. It also established the first national air quality health standards. This law passed unanimously.
Last month was the 30th anniversary of the Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA ’90). This law required huge pollution cuts from cars, power plants, and large factories. The laws slashed emissions of six major air pollutants by nearly four-fifths. Unhealthy air quality days fell by 75 percent, which “means better health, longevity, and quality of life.” EPA calculated that Clean Air Act benefits between 1990 and 2020 outweigh the costs by 30 to 1, particularly due to fewer premature deaths. This progress occurred while the economy grew almost three times larger.
Several factors made passage of clean air legislation possible. The following lessons provide a map to prompt Congressional climate action.
Health impacts focus essential
The dispute over climate change science resembles the acid rain debate from the 1980s. Like climate change, scientists warned that power plant pollution was responsible for acid rain, damaging American and Canadian rivers, lakes and forests. Nonetheless, many public officials dismissed acid rain science and opposed action.
Congressional leaders surmounted this problem by focusing the debate on alleviating premature deaths and other health threats posed by acid rain. Physicians warned that it exacerbated respiratory problems — sometimes fatally. One physician testified that “acid rain is probably third after active smoking and passive smoking as a cause of lung disease.” The focus on human health increased public pressure to act, while the debate about acid rain science faded away.
Innovation can reduce opposition
Innovation helped smooth the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1990. President Bush’s acid rain proposal included a relatively new “cap and trade” system for more affordable pollution reductions. Coal-fired power plants that could cheaply decrease their emissions could sell extra cuts to utilities with more costly reductions.
The acid rain cap and trade model succeeded. The National Academy of Sciences determined that the program “cost one-third of the federal government’s 1990 estimate.”
Bipartisanship
The Clean Air Act of 1970 became law with the support of President Richard Nixon, and many Republican senators.
Bipartisanship bloomed again when President George H. W. Bush addressed acid rain. He collaborated with Congressional leaders from both parties to expand air quality health safeguards. The final bill passed with overwhelming support.
Looming action led to compromises
A decade-long dispute between Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) over auto pollution standards blocked House passage of clean air legislation. President Bush’s determination to adopt an acid rain program made action inevitable. Dingell compromised with Waxman to prevent adoption of even more stringent tailpipe standards in the expected legislation.
Debunk claims about higher prices or fewer jobs
Opponents of environmental safeguards frequently assert that pollution limits would increase prices and reduce jobs. The reality is different. Utility officials’ claims that acid rain reductions would lead to higher electricity rates were discredited. Electricity rates were lower after implementation of the program.
Similarly, coal mining job loss predictions were exaggerated. An EPA analysis determined that the “Acid Rain Program had a limited impact on coal employment.” Nearly all of the job losses were “due to productivity gains.”
There were real job losses in some coal-dependent regions. To assist these miners, CAA ’90 had a $250 million program for worker retraining. Only 6,400 workers enrolled in it, using only one-third of this fund.
Have we finished providing cleaner, safer air? No. Expanding stronger public health safeguards requires more protective science-based health standards, combined with additional pollution limits. And the air laws gave short shrift to environmental justice. They don’t provide enough additional protection for low income and minority families living adjacent to polluting facilities.
These lessons from Clean Air Acts’ enactments could assist efforts to persuade Congress to address climate change. They could help President Biden, Domestic Climate Coordinator Gina McCarthy, and EPA Administrator Michael Regan convert Biden’s unprecedented climate plan into reality.
Dan Weiss is a clean energy and climate consultant. He was an environmental organization lobbyist who advocated for stronger health protections in the Clean Air Act of 1990.
changing america copyright.
