Update item information
Title Let's Clear the Air
Subject Air--Pollution
Description The Thirty-Sixth Annual Frederick William Reynolds Lecture.
Creator De Nevers, Noel, 1932-
Publisher The Frederick William Reynolds Association
Date 1973-02-20
Date Digital 2008-05-29
Type Text
Format image/jpeg
Digitization Specifications Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner and saved as 400 ppi uncompressed tiff. Display images generated in PhotoshopCS and uploaded into CONTENTdm Aquisition Station.
Resource Identifier,1266
Source TD883 .D45 1973
Language eng
Relation Digital reproduction of "Let's clear the air," J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections
Rights Digital Image Copyright University of Utah
Metadata Cataloger Seungkeol Choe; Ken Rockwell
ARK ark:/87278/s6ht2m87
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320531
Reference URL

Page Metadata

Title Page25
Description "LET'S CLEAR THE AIR" 25 costs) may not be repaid in terms of the damage reduction due to it. However, the "air-quality-standards" approach used by Congress in the Clean Air Act requires that these standards be met everywhere, always. The fact that the location where the violations would occur is inaccessible and seldom visited by people and that the standards would only be exceeded on several days a year are of no concern. Standards to be met everywhere, always, must be met everywhere, always. Thus, in terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA was required to use the best model it had, and then write regulations based on its predictions to guarantee that the standards are met everywhere, always. The Future of Air Pollution Control At the end of this long catalogue of troubles which EPA has had in trying to implement the Clean Air Act of 1970, you may have gained the impression that I think it was a poor act. Let me correct that impression. I think it is a very worthwhile act. In passing it Congress made clear that it was tired of talk but no action on the subject of air pollution. It was clear that if Congress simply told the federal bureaucrats to do something, without telling them what, that nothing would be done. Telling the states to act but not forcing them would be equally futile. So it selected what seemed the best set of actions to take then and took them. Two years later we know a great deal more, and if we could rewrite the act we would do it better, but I think we would keep the same basic approach to the problem. The fact that these difficulties have arisen shows only that it is hard to write a law which does not require study and amplification. The Ten Commandments appear to be clear and simple and have been around for several thousand years, but they seem to require continuous interpretation to deal with situations which were not considered when they were written. I do not place the Clear Air Act of 1970 in the same category as the Ten Commandments, but I think the analogy is valid. This leads me to the final point which I have to share with you. In the whole area of air pollution we are all acting on inadequate information. The true damage costs for various levels of pollution are simply not known; we have some ideas and scattered data, but we are by no means able to say for certain what the true damage costs are. In this situation, the hard-line conservationists say: "If you cannot show that what you are doing is truly harmless, then you should not do it." The promoters of industrial growth and development say: "If you cannot prove that what we plan to do is harmful, or that what we are currently doing is harmful, then you have no valid grounds for preventing us from doing it." In this situation, Congress tried to find a sensible middle ground and
Format image/jpeg
Identifier 027-RNLT-DeNeversN_Page25.jpg
Source Original Manuscript: Let's Clear the Air by Noel de Nevers.
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320527
Reference URL