By Richard Reeve
Considered the most significant environmental case in years, clean-air standards were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 22 based on two studies done by a BYU professor.
Arden Pope, a BYU professor of economics and an internationally recognized air-pollution researcher, and researchers from the Harvard Medical School and the American Cancer Society, conducted studies that showed a strong correlation between mortality rates and different levels of air-pollution.
One of the studies looked at more than 500,000 people in 151 cities and found 17 percent more deaths in the most polluted cities than the least polluted, Pope said.
The Environmental Protection Agency used the findings to support new standards to limit the amount of fine particles that industries can emit into the atmosphere, Pope said.
The standards and research that supported them came under attack by industry groups that said they believe the researchers” methodologies were flawed and their findings inaccurate.
“Even though our studies were highly criticized by industries it”s still exciting to see them being held up under intense and professional scrutiny,” Pope said.
Another reason industries sued the EPA is because they said they believe the EPA over-stepped their authority by regulating industry standards, Pope said.
After many struggles between industry groups and the EPA, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA used power that they did not have in adopting new air-pollution standards, said Edward Warren, a lawyer for industry groups.
Lawyers argued that the EPA was setting standards without clear criteria and without considering the financial costs of complying with them, Warren said.
However, the EPA appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected industry”s argument that the government must weigh financial costs against health benefits.
The court further ruled that the federal Clean Air Act, enacted in 1970 and the country”s premier environmental law, gives the EPA the authority to set air quality standards based on sound science and regardless of cost, to protect public health without regard to their cost to conduct business, Warren said.
Pope called the high court”s ruling “good news” for the Clean Air Act and for human health.
“Will it help health? The answer is clearly ”Yes”. This will provide more incentive and reason to clean up our urban air to reasonable levels,” Pope said
The court”s ruling was not a complete victory for the EPA. One ruling said the agency”s policy for implementing the new 8-hour standard for ozone pollution was “unreasonable” and therefore, “unlawful.” The court ordered the EPA to reconsider how to enforce the ozone standard, Pope said.
The standard that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court states it is a violation if an industry averages more than 65 micrograms per cubic meter over a 24-hour period, Pope said.
The EPA estimates that the new air-quality standards will save 15,000 lives per year, mainly elderly people, infants and people with respiratory problems, Pope said.
“Hopefully this ruling will allow the EPA and industry to work together to improve air quality in the U.S.,” Pope said.
Air-quality standards focus on the effects of tiny particles that come from industrial processes, like burning coal, or combustion, that enter deep into an individual”s lungs, Pope said.
Pope has spent the last 14 years conducting studies on health effects of air pollution. Pope is currently researching the correlation between air pollution and heart problems.
