Air Quality in America shows in detail how activists have distorted the record on air pollution and offers an alternative analysis of air pollution levels, trends, and prospects in metropolitan areas across the United States. Schwartz and Hayward examine key air pollution issues, including inflated accounts of pollution-related health risks and the negative effects of inaccurate emission inventories on policy choices.

Introduction

Americans are sensitive about air pollution, and no wonder—the air we breathe is perhaps the most elemental aspect of environmental quality. Opinion polls routinely find that a majority of Americans believe air quality has deteriorated and will worsen in the future, and that most people face serious risks from air pollution.

Public and elite perception of air pollution levels, trends, and health risks, however, is virtually the opposite of reality. America reduced air pollution dramatically throughout the twentieth century to only a fraction of past levels, and the country now enjoys relatively good air quality. Even the worst areas have far better air quality than was typical of American cities during the 1950s, ’60s, or ’70s.

A wide array of data attests to our success in getting rid of most air pollution and to the continuing decline in emissions from motor vehicles and industry. Already-adopted measures ensure the elimination of most remaining emissions during the next two decades. Furthermore, Americans were improving air quality in their communities for decades before the federal government nationalized air regulation with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. These improvements resulted from a combination of market forces that encouraged technological advancement and increased energy efficiency, common-law nuisance suits, and local and state regulation.

Several factors account for public and media misperceptions about air quality. Air pollution comes in many forms, from many sources, and varies over time and location, even within a given metropolitan area. Regulatory standards and requirements are complex and arcane. Progressive tightening of standards for some pollutants can make pollution seem to be increasing even when it is declining. These intricacies can make the topic a difficult one for the layperson to follow.

However, the most important factor in public misperception is the role of environmental groups and regulatory agencies, which exaggerate air pollution levels and health risks and often obscure positive trends, and news media that report these misleading representations with little or no critical review. Even health scientists often misrepresent the results and weight of the evidence from air pollution health studies, creating an appearance of much greater risk than the research actually suggests.

As a result, public fears are out of all proportion to the, at worst, minor health risks posed by current, historically low air pollution levels, and there is widespread but unwarranted pessimism about the nation’s prospects for further improvement.

Once might ask why it matters if Americans’ pessimism and fears about air pollution are groundless. After all, regardless of the size of the risks, doesn’t every reduction in pollution make people better off?

This would be true if air pollution were the only risk we faced, and if reducing it were free. But the question isn’t whether we would prefer less air pollution. All else equal, of course we would. In the real world, we can’t keep all else equal. We face many threats to our health and safety and have limited resources with which to address them. If we devote excessive resources to one exaggerated risk, we are less able to counter other, genuinely more serious risks, or to spend our resources on other important needs and desires, such as health care, education, vacations, and housing.

Highlighting small risks diverts public attention from potentially more serious problems, and unwarranted alarmism causes unnecessary fear.

Indifference to public misperceptions about air pollution would also be reasonable if the Clean Air Act (CAA), which created our current system of federal control of air pollution policy, were a resounding success. Such a view is mistaken. Air quality has indeed improved since the 1970 passage of the CAA. But it was improving at about the same pace for decades before the act was passed, and without the unnecessary collateral damage caused by our modern regulatory system.

While air quality has greatly improved over the last few decades, we’ve paid far more than necessary to get there. A few emission-reduction requirements—mainly for motor vehicles and power plants—account for the vast majority of improvements since passage of the Clean Air Act. Yet most regulatory activity is unrelated actually to reducing emissions and instead involves creating and complying with administrative and other process requirements.

Furthermore, our regulatory system often devotes great resources toward small, expensive, slow, and ineffective pollution-reduction measures, while ignoring opportunities for large, cheap, and rapid improvements. And as the potential health and other benefits of each increment of pollution reduction have become ever smaller, the incremental costs have continued to grow. ...

Visit Air Quality in America AEI Website

A Dose of Reality on Air Pollution Levels, Trends, and Health Risks
By Joel M. Schwartz, Steven F. Hayward

© 2007 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

Download Air Quality in America

PDF format, 1.7MB, 300Pages.

About the Authors:

Joel M. Schwartz is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies the science, policy, and politics of air pollution, climate change, and other environmental concerns. He is the author of the AEI study No Way Back: Why Air Pollution Will Continue to Decline, as well as dozens of other studies and articles on environmental policy.

Before coming to AEI, Mr. Schwartz directed the Reason Public Policy Institute’s Air Quality Project. He also served as Executive Officer of the California Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee, a government agency charged with evaluating California’s vehicle emissions inspection program and making recommendations to the legislature and governor on program improvements. He has also worked at the RAND Corporation, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Coalition for Clean Air.

Mr. Schwartz holds a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Cornell University and a master’s degree in planetary science from the California Institute of Technology. He was a German Marshall Fund fellow in 1993, during which he studied European approaches to transportation and air quality policy.

Steven F. Hayward, is the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. He holds a Ph.D in American Studies and an M.A. in Government from Claremont Graduate School.

He is the author of four books on American and British politics, and writes frequently on a wide range of current topics, including environmentalism, law, economics, and public policy for publications including National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The American Spectator, The Claremont Review of Books, and Policy Review.

His newspaper articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other daily newspapers. He co-authors AEI’s Environmental Policy Outlook, and is the principal author of the annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, published each year on Earth Day.

Comments (3)

Show/Hide comments

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Add Comment