Safe to say that manufacturers were outnumbered at today’s EPA hearings in Philadelphia and Los Angeles on the proposed, more restrictive ground-level ozone regulations. But it’s the persuasiveness of the science and economics that should carry the day, not the emoting of activists. And on the science and economics, we’re confident of our case.
Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, testified in California. His testimony is here in .pdf form. Jack walks through the case for maintaining the current standards as both environmentally and economically appropriate, and it’s certainly worth reading. But he makes a point about manufacturing’s commitment to cleaner air that we’ve neglected in earlier posts on ozone. Since activists are always impugning the motives of business, it’s worth noting the reality.
I am proud to say the manufacturers I represent are doing their part to make the air cleaner here in California. I would also add that CMTA and our member companies frequently partner with the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the various air districts in California, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District here in Southern California, to find ways to achieve both cleaner air and a healthy economy to serve a population that grows by 500,000 citizens each year.
In just the past year, CMTA member companies have worked with the regulatory agencies I just mentioned to reduce emissions from oil storage tanks, to reduce diesel emissions, to reduce emissions at our ports, to advance fuel cell technology, to reduce freight train emissions and to improve the environmental quality in the San Joaquin Valley.
The NAM’s Bryan Brendle, bumped from his flight west, testified in Philadelphia. His testimony is here. His conclusion:
There is no sound policy justification for changing the current standard. EPA’s current ozone standard continues to improve air quality nationwide and will continue to do so, according to the agency’s own studies. There is disagreement surrounding the methodologies EPA used to draw its justification toward consideration of a more stringent standard, and the EPA concedes that a high degree of uncertainty surrounds the estimated costs and benefits of a more stringent standard. Because there is less doubt that a more stringent standard will further undermine the competitiveness of the nation’s most dynamic and innovative economic sector, the EPA should preserve the existing standard.
The AP has just moved its story on the hearings. Fair snapshot.
Latest posts by NAM (see all)
- Manufacturers Win Several Website Design Awards - June 15, 2011
- China Makes Commitments on Trade, Intellectual Property - December 16, 2010
- ITC Details Widespread Theft of Intellectual Property in China - December 14, 2010