Issue link: https://bluemagazine.uberflip.com/i/25044
that of children and people with respiratory illnesses-and that regulations must be strengthened. For the most part, the EPA's adversaries, from lobbyists· to White turning their attention to pollution coverage. But the US has to battle against the very credo of American culture-the right to private property-to regulate public air. In a nation of pull-yourself-up by-the-bootstraps individualism, the question remains: How do we legislate the use of a resource that is fundamentally communal? Historical ly, US environmental policies have been pretty mild. Preservationists have suc cessfully cordoned off token national parks, named some species endangered and regulated pesticides and emissions-to an extent. Even so, an estimated 121 million Americans live in areas that do not meet existing air standards. Each year air pollution, caused by ozone and particulates, kills about 50,000 people in the US. Ozone is a colorless, unstable gas formed when oxygen is acted upon by ultraviolet light or electrical discharges-especially · nitrogen oxides from combustion, and gasoline and solvent vapors. Repeatedly, studies have shown that the gas, though crucial in the stratospheric ozone layer, can be pernicious in the lower atmosphere. A Consumer Reports article states that "[w]hen healthy volun teers exercise in ozone concentrations like those routinely found outdoors in urban areas, their lung function deteriorates ... and their airways become inflamed ... [and in nine major cities] daily mortality rates increase along with ozone, even if the ozone is below current legal limits." Particulate matter such as soot, much tinier than ordinary dust, can be inhaled into the deep recesses of the lungs and lodge there indefi nitely. Emission of the most damaging particles the microscopic ones that are usually the byprod ucts of combustion-is not yet fully regulated by existing air standards. The most salient evidence of harmful par ticulates comes from Harvard and Brigham Young researchers' Six City Study. For 15 years they fol lowed more than 8,000 adults, comparing their health status with local fine-particle counts. In the end, residents of cities with the most small-particle pollution had mortality rates as much as 25 percent higher than those who lived in the cleanest cities. Prompted by a lawsuit filed by the National Lung Foundation in October 1994, the EPA reviewed 186 studies on ozone and 86 reports on particulate matter; many compared deaths and hospital admissions with air-pollution · measure ments made by pollution-control agencies. The EPA confirmed that air standards are not ade quately protecting the public's health-especially House economists, are convinced that industries will have to pay a severe eco nomic toll as a result of the amendments-under which most will be considered legally non-compliant. In fact, the American Trucking Association has already launched a lawsuit against the EPA, charging that the agency is failing to comply with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The National Association of Manufacturers, Citizens for a Sound Economy and other industry groups have launched a million-dollar ad campaign designed to stave off public responsibility and jostle the paranoia of the average citizen. Newspaper ads in rural areas are saying that farm dust will be regulated. Exxon has sent notices to credit-card customers threatening that gas prices will increase if they don't oppose the EPA. Many conservative mayors are spuming sensationally about bans on outdoor barbecues, lawn mowers and fireplaces. Clinton, ever diplomatic, wants to be simultaneously health-conscious and industry-conscious. In a national statement, he urged critics of the amend ments to "Work with us. We will find a way to do this in a way that grows the American economy." The long-standing rivalry between the environment and free enterprise contin ues. The ecologists make concessions to blue-chip barons because, well, the lifeblood of America is green cash-not green wilderness. In the case of the Clean Air Act, the EPA had to showcase the economic benefits-the reduction of medical costs-to justify cleaning up the environment. Carol Browner's ignominy among conservatives suggests that the American individualist cannot comprehend what environmentalists call external ities: the larger, communal impact of one's personal habits on the natural world. Joseph Goffman, senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, speculates that Clinton's support for the amendments make for "great environ mental theater" and is more symbolic than substantive. He warns that it could be a politically strategic promise designed to allay tensions on both sides of the debate. Whether the standards are enacted will be determined by a series of decisions that could span a decade or more. Presently, Congress wants to pass a bill that inhibits Browner's amend ments; the hope is that Clinton will stick to his word and exercise his veto power. So how, ultimately, can we get a nation of individuali�ts to comply with the regulation of resources that are fundamentally public? Legal reform on a fed eral and state level is critical, but national ethos could be the answer. The rela tionship between public and private does not need to be adversarial, neither does the relationship between nature and commerce. "Wilderness has always been an obstacle to capitalism," says Roderick Nash, author of Wilderness and the American Mind. "But when you think of it, it was the wildness of the New World that made all that capitalism possible. " II