The Economics Of The Clean Air Act

The Economics of The Clean Air Act

Air is a part of all of our lives. Without clean air, nothing we know of can

exist. The debate over clean air, it\'s regulations, their teammates and

opposition, and the economic factors coming into play into this ever-more

recognizable problem is a widespread and ever more controversial one. Like a

long countdown to eventual disaster, the pollution effecting our world has no

doubt made increasingly more impact on our daily lives, and has increased the

intensity on Washington and other countries to solve the problem. The Clean Air

act is a step in the right direction, but with every answer their comes two

questions and likewise more and more people taking sides. There have been long

debates not over the effectiveness of such regulations, but the lack of

opportunity such regulations and deregulations provide for other companies.

Global warming has increased the tension over the economics of cleaner air, but

with little the government can do to limit the use of cars, the production of

necessary coal-fired power plants and other such human resources, the topic just

turns into another fog for debate and argument over stricter regulations and the

impeached right these sources have to operate. The continual power struggle of

such economic and social issues and the debate over the effectiveness of

stricter, present or more lenient regulations has turned into a smorgasboard of

prectical solutions, with opponents quickly changing minds and becoming

supporters and vice-versa.

The expenditure of about 20 billion on the part of companies since 1990 to

clean up such hazardous pollutants as cars, factories, and thousands of other

measures have reaped about 400 billion in saved hospital costs, lost workdays,

reduced productivity, and other conditions while at the same time theoretically

helping to reduce smog and pollution. The findings of a report on experiments

done for the Clean Air act was passed into law in 1970. The Enviornmental

Protection Agency has recently come under attack by critics however, and

Washington has threatened to cut the agencies\' budget citing high costs of

enviornmental legislation, even while their is solid proof that the agencies\'

measures are paying off. Congress is skeptical of reports that the whole system

is reaping more benefits on the environment

than the whole operation actually

costs.

Economically, the Clean Air Act is definitely

sound and good for the economy.

For example, American fishermen average $24 billion a year in expenditures and

ultimately generate $69 billion yearly for the economy. Moreover, the average

American worker receives

$20 in value in reduced risks of death, illness, and

other adverse effects for every dollar spent to control air pollution. All in

all, the country spent roughly $436 billion enforcing clean air regulations, and

gained about $6.8 trillion in benefits in 1990. The amounts of harmful

chemicals and pollutants in the air has also found to be dramatically reduced

since 1970. 40 percent of sulfer dioxide in the air has been reduced, as well

as 30 percent of nitrous oxide, and 50 percent of carbon monoxide.

As well as air, the EPA has produced results in protecting our nation\'s

waterways. For example, the Clean Water Act, which passed in 1972, has since

given states grants of $66 million to help install water sewage treatment plants.

They also found that the act has required the industry to install tens of

billions of dollars of anti-polltion technology. The effect on the liquid

industry has been enormous. Boating sales generate $14 billion alone while

fishermen produce $3 million, and the nation spends an estimated $35 million

anually for fish.

The economics of the Clean Air Act and the regulations pioneered by the EPA

have set new standards for the production of companies. Under the current

regulations, there is a set amount of pollution that can be produced in the U.S.

each year. The units of pollution, or credits, are distributed evenly among

production companies, mining factories, and other producers of such

externalities based on size, output and strength in the industry. Companies are

allowed to sell their credits if they want, which enables companies whose

pollution rates exceeds their limit in a particular area to still operate in a

particular area to still operate efficiently while not exceeding their maximum

level of pollution output.

There are many arguments for and against this method of regulation. The