In December 1970, President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act into law, setting forth federal guidelines for power plants and other industrial facilities in order to control air pollution. This December marks the 35th anniversary of the law -- and an opportunity to reflect on its successes and failures.

Without a doubt, the Clean Air Act has made America a cleaner, healthier place. Despite 35 years of rapid economic expansion, levels of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead and other pollutants have decreased, showing growth and environmental protections aren't mutually exclusive.

Under the auspices of this historic legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency has been able to set tailpipe emission standards for cars and trucks, as well as reformulation standards for gasoline and diesel fuel. A 1990 amendment to the act made provisions for monitoring greenhouse gas emissions and their possible contribution to global warming.

In other ways, the Clean Air Act has proven shortsighted, most clearly in the area of renewable energy. The act makes no distinction between the sources of energy, only their cost in terms of pollution, giving industry little incentive to switch from coal to one of the emerging sources of renewable energy such as wind or solar power -- technologies which currently cause about as much pollution as traditional sources but don't depend on limited resources.

And like any legislation, the act isn't immune to the tinkering of politicians. During the 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush announced his "Clear Skies" initiative, which promised some reductions in particulate pollution but also created a loophole exempting power plants from the Clean Air Act's New Source Review standards and excused them from installing improved cleanup technology.

Last week, however, the EPA ignited controversy by proposing stricter daily limits for how many microscopic particles of air pollution, or soot, are safe. It will stir debate and resistance since the proposed limits could require industries to spend billions of dollars to clean up coal-burning power plants, diesel-powered equipment, trucks and industrial boilers. Nevertheless, the proposal is less than recommended by a scientific advisory committee. Critics argue the new limits are too soft and show EPA catered to intense lobbying from electric utilities, rather than satisfy the health and environmental groups who had sued the agency for the change.

Finally, as any visitor to Los Angeles or Dallas or Atlanta knows, smog remains a daily reality in many American cities. Indeed Baton Rouge, even before Katrina washed up thousands more south Louisianans and their vehicles onto its highways, was laboring under restrictions because of air quality violations. Caddo, Bossier and Webster parishes have voluntarily entered into an ozone flex plan to head off similar sanctions, even though much of the air quality problem drifts in from Texas sources.

Despite the shortcomings of the Clean Air Act, it's important to count the bill's successes as well as its failures. Under varying administrations, it at least forces attention on air quality. Hopefully, the next 35 years will see expanded protections of the nation's air quality without compromising economic growth.

Source: Shreveporttimes.com