EPA standards: No benefits -- just costs

Saturday, December 8, 2012
 | 
Chris Woodward (OneNewsNow.com)

An author and commentator says there are "no benefits" to tougher air pollution standards from the Environmental Protection Agency.

The standards, expected later this month, involve small soot, dust and other particulate matter known as PM2.5. According to the EPA, particles vary in size and can be suspended in the air for long periods of time. Exposure can be deadly, with children and adults considered high-risk groups because of their outdoor activities and ages, respectively.

The EPA now wants to ratchet down the Clinton-era EPA standards of 15 micrograms per cubic meter to as few as 12 micrograms per cubic meter.

Milloy, Steve (JunkScience.com)"This is kind of silly, because the national average, first off, is ten," notes author and JunkScience.com publisher Steve Milloy. "So there's really no need, even if there were some places that violate the standard."

Meanwhile, Milloy says the science behind the standards falls apart. As an example, he compares a non-smoker to someone who smokes a half a pack of cigaretts a day for a year.

"They'd have to breathe thousands of years of ambient air to get as much particulate matter as a smoker would in just a year (36.5 million micrograms to 146 million micrograms)," he reports. "So there are no benefits to this rule -- just costs."

Speaking of the costs, the EPA puts that from $2.9 to $69 million per year, while bringing health benefits worth $88 million to $5.9 billion annually.

Still, Milloy says those are merely compliance costs.

"[A cost of] $69 million a year sounds like a lot, but on a national scale for an EPA regulation, it's really not that much," the author asserts. "The real cost is in terms of what the regulations do -- they set air quality levels at levels that states have to turn away industrial opportunities or curb other 'polluting activities,' which means turning away business and turning down tax revenue."

As a result, Milloy concludes that mindlessly ratcheting down these standards means lost opportunity in the tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars.

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

Which major political party most closely aligns with your definition of traditional Christian values?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Next up for GOP presidential candidates: South Carolina
New Hampshire: Proof Trump's bravado is his best asset
Latest: Bush says he won't blame Obama for problems
Seoul: N. Korean leader Kim had his military chief executed
Mom, 2 daughters fatally stabbed at NY hotel; 3rd kid hurt
Carly Fiorina ends her bid for the Republican nomination for president
2 Texas researchers under fire for Planned Parenthood study

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Obama 'recovery'? $16.5T plunge in global equity markets
Divisive president laments on how much he sucked at easing partisan rhetoric
Cruz: Will Fox News give me the coverage Rubio got?
US Army orders hundreds of soldiers back to southern Afghanistan
Wheaton to offer scholarship in name of 'same God' prof.

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day
NEXT STORY
Business 2012: Year in Review

The year 2012 was a busy year, but some of the biggest news was in regards to business and the environment.