Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a stricter nationwide health standard for smog-causing pollutants that would bring substantial benefits to millions of Americans. With a final rule expected by the end of this month, some opponents, mainly from industrial and oil-producing states, are pushing back. They say investments required to produce cleaner air are too expensive and not scientifically justified. Lisa Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, needs to stick to her guns. This is only the first of several political tests to come this fall, as she also seeks to tighten rules governing individual pollutants like mercury and global warming gases like carbon dioxide. The health standard she is proposing covers ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog, which is formed when sunlight mixes with pollutants from factories, refineries, power plants and automobiles. Ozone is a major health threat, contributing to heart disease and various respiratory (呼吸道的) problems. Ms. Jackson’s proposal—to reduce the permitted level of smog in the air from the current 75 parts per billion to between 60 parts per billion and 70 parts per billion—is sensible, no matter what industry’s defenders may claim. It had been recommended by the agency’s independent scientific panel but rejected by the Bush administration, which proposed a weaker standard. Industry will have to make investments in cleaner power plants, and new technologies may be required. As it is, about half the counties that monitor ozone levels are not yet in compliance with current standards, let alone the proposed standard. Fears about burdening industry raised by critics like George Voinovich, a Republican of Ohio, and Mary Landrieu, a Democrat of Louisiana, cannot be dismissed out of hand, especially in the middle of a recession (萧条). But the health benefits, E.P.A. says, far outweigh the costs, and the time frame for compliance (服从) is generous. 小题1:Why are some people strongly against a stricter limitation of smog-caused pollutants?
|