As Reps. Waxman and Markey unveiled federal legislation today to combat carbon emissions by creating a national cap-and-trade program, states continue to pass more stringent air pollution standards. Now that the EPA and Congress have placed GHG regulation in front of other types of pollutants, states are stepping in.
On March 23rd, the New Mexico Legislature unanimously passed a bill allowing the regulating state agency to adopt ozone standards more stringent than federal standards. New Mexico, a major oil and gas producing state, has suffered from high ozone levels particularly around Bloomfield, the heart of the San Juan Basin. The bill thus gives the agency added authority to reduce emissions in those areas notorious for nonattainment. As I posted earlier, the most recent research on ozone shows high or prolonged exposure leads to increased mortality rates. Clearly, these are public health issues that now enjoy bipartisan support.
Additionally, parents of northern Indiana kids have filed a class action suit in state court against 11 companies they claim have fouled the region's air. Their suit relies on studies recently released indicating that the air pollution in East Chicago neighborhoods is among the worst in the country. (Kurth v. ArcelorMittal USA Inc., Ind. Cir. Ct., No. 450040903CT00093, 3/25/09) The question the claimants need to address is how much could the CAA preempt any tort suit. I plan to post on that question later.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Long-term ozone exposure increases mortality rate
The New England Journal of Medicine recently published an article by Californian researchers which shows ozone has its own, independent (of particulate matter) health effects on mortality. The study followed 450,000 people from 1982 to 2000 and found that controlling ozone would decrease mortality rates, thus providing a clear argument for emissions control as preventative medicine. It's important to remember that climate change is not the only air pollution problem we still have in the U.S.
Carbon Tax to fund FasTracks
It's no longer news that vehicular emissions are major contributors to global warming. The EPA announced yesterday that the agency would now track GHG emissions from a variety of industries, including the requirement that automakers disclose the anticipated GHG emissions from vehicles in their fleets.
Basking in this new political enlightenment, I'm surprised at how flickle the Front Range mayors here in Colorado have become over FasTracks funding. Clearly, the Front Range is in desparate need of a train system. But we cannot let sagging tax revenues bury this crucial project. Even New Mexico, under Gov. Bill Richardson's persistence, pushed through a passenger rail system from Albuquerque to Santa Fe. The so-called Rail Runner recently added another train to serve its rising demand.
Seemingly unrelated, the Boulder City Council decided to review its carbon tax this week - the first municipal tax on carbon in the U.S. - over concerns it is not doing enough. The website Boulder Carbon Tax Tracker is soliciting fairly balanced opinions from journalists and experts as to the effects of the tax.
Regardless of how Boulder decides to proceed, Hickenlooper and his fellow Front Range mayors should take a moment to step back and see the bigger picture. A carbon tax in the Front Range could help accomplish two goals: 1) provide the needed revenue to meet the FasTracks budget shortfall; and 2) create incentives for the public to use public transportation. By forcing those who drive the most to pay for lightrail lines to Golden, Broomfield, Boulder, and DIA, the Front Range would have correctly internalized the costs of driving. In the end, the tax will increase demand for FasTracks, thereby making the project itself more successful.
With public understanding of the externalized costs of cars arguably at its highest ever, now is definitely the time to think creatively and exploit that awareness of inter-connectivity. Raising taxes is never popular, especially in tough times. But if those mayors are willing to raise the FasTracks tax, it shows some political will exists to do the right thing.
Basking in this new political enlightenment, I'm surprised at how flickle the Front Range mayors here in Colorado have become over FasTracks funding. Clearly, the Front Range is in desparate need of a train system. But we cannot let sagging tax revenues bury this crucial project. Even New Mexico, under Gov. Bill Richardson's persistence, pushed through a passenger rail system from Albuquerque to Santa Fe. The so-called Rail Runner recently added another train to serve its rising demand.
Seemingly unrelated, the Boulder City Council decided to review its carbon tax this week - the first municipal tax on carbon in the U.S. - over concerns it is not doing enough. The website Boulder Carbon Tax Tracker is soliciting fairly balanced opinions from journalists and experts as to the effects of the tax.
Regardless of how Boulder decides to proceed, Hickenlooper and his fellow Front Range mayors should take a moment to step back and see the bigger picture. A carbon tax in the Front Range could help accomplish two goals: 1) provide the needed revenue to meet the FasTracks budget shortfall; and 2) create incentives for the public to use public transportation. By forcing those who drive the most to pay for lightrail lines to Golden, Broomfield, Boulder, and DIA, the Front Range would have correctly internalized the costs of driving. In the end, the tax will increase demand for FasTracks, thereby making the project itself more successful.
With public understanding of the externalized costs of cars arguably at its highest ever, now is definitely the time to think creatively and exploit that awareness of inter-connectivity. Raising taxes is never popular, especially in tough times. But if those mayors are willing to raise the FasTracks tax, it shows some political will exists to do the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
