New Limit for Smog-Causing Emissions Isn’t as Strict as Many Had Expected
The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled a major new regulation on smog-causing emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency set the new national standard for ozone, a smog-causing gas, sunny days when chemical emissions from power plants, 70 parts per billion, tightening the standard of 75 parts per billion set in 2008. Smog has been linked to asthma, heart and lung disease, and premature death.
The new rule is Clean Air Act pollution.
They propose climate change at greenhouse gas pollution. But with the new rule, Obama administrations appears to have tempered environmental ambitions because it would sit better with business. They estimated that the annual cost of economy would be $1.4 billion, economic benefits of $2.9 billion to$5.9 billion to because of fewer premature deaths, missed days of school and work, asthma attacks and emergency room visits.
American Petroleum Institute, have waged an all-fronts campaign to persuade the Obama administration to make the new standard as weak as possible. The groups were joined by dozens of mayors and locals.
The new rule, set at the weakest standard in the range recommended by the E.P.A.’s scientists, suggests that the industry groups were influential.
The new rules will still require the owners of factories and power plants to install costly “scrubber” technology on their smokestacks, designed to clean out the polluting chemicals. Each scrubber can cost tens of millions of dollars.At the time, Mr. Obama said the regulation would impose too severe a burden on industry and local governments at a time of economic distress. Ms. Jackson nearly resigned over the issue.
Questions:
1) Which are gone the be the positive effects of the new regulation, and the negative ones?
2) The owners of factories and other industrial companies will have to change some things for regulation for the environment, give some examples and the reason.
1-The good effects would be that the air is going to be cleaner and better, there would not be a lot of pollution, and contamination in the air would get smaller, the effect on people would be really good because they will be less sick people, less asthma, and all that sickness that the contaminated air produces. But there is also a bad effect, it cost too much to clean and to buy that things to clean the air, I mean it is a really good rule and it should be done but it has it bad side, because it's not fully secured and it's not 100% that it would work.
ReplyDelete2-For example the owners of cars industries would have to change a lot of things, like the gas and smoke the cars produce is not good for the 'new rule'. Also the industries produce too much bad smoke that contaminates, and they would kind of have to change the way they made their products so there can be less smoke so the environment can be truly healthy and better.
1. The good affects could be not as many people having asthma problems and fresher air. People all over the world struggle from asthma and unfortunately, some parts of the world don't have great hospitals like the United States. Without this, this is the death of many. Thats is one of the negatives, as well as, the time it would take to do this and the amount of people it could take.
ReplyDelete2. Factories give out a lot of pollution to the air right? But why is this? Why Can't it be stopped? With this factories will have to find ways to make pollution not as effective as it is currently. An example would be at a metal factory building fences for instance. They make this things the pollution is released into the town/city. There needs to be a way for this to be stopped. This would help majorly health wise.