So Who Influenced the President’s Ozone Decision?

, former deputy director, Center for Science & Democracy | September 9, 2011, 11:08 am EDT
Bookmark and Share

On my previous post on ozone, reader Jeff asked:

1) What is the current standard for ground ozone?
2) Which businesses, specifically, are trying – I mean succeeding – in blocking the new standards?

Jeff, I felt that the answers to your questions were complex enough to warrant another post (and probably even a book!). Here they are in brief.

The Current Ozone Standard

The current ground-level ozone standard is 84 parts per billion (ppb), which was set in 1997.* Or, the current ground-level ozone standard is 75 ppb, which was set in 2008. Sound confusing? It is. In essence, the 2008 standard was considered final, but the EPA has maintained that:

(b) The 1997 standard—and the implementation rules for that standard—will remain in place for implementation purposes as EPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone standard.

(c) EPA is in the process of reconsidering these standards (set in March 2008).

In other words, the implementation of the 2008 standard was postponed after the Obama administration decided to revisit it. The American Lung Association has demanded at a minimum that the EPA enforce the flawed 75ppm standard that the Bush administration put forward, because even that was an improvement.

Air pollution statistics cartoon

This cartoon is featured in the 2011 UCS cartoon calendar.

It’s important to note that the science on ozone has progressed considerably since 1997. The EPA’s independent Clean Air Science Advisory Committee—made up of seven of the country’s most knowledgeable air pollution experts—and EPA staff scientists reviewed more than 1700 studies and in 2007 determined that a standard between 60 and 70 would provide sufficient public health protection.

Even the Bush administration recognized that the 84 ppb standard was too high, and set the final standard at 75 ppb. This was challenged by public health advocates, however, because the Clean Air Act did not allow the Bush administration to set the standard at a level that was inconsistent with the science. The 75 ppb standard was suspended by the Obama administration, which claimed to want to revisit the flawed standard to bring it in line with the science, which the public health advocates took in good faith.

One of the arguments the White House made for postponing a decision was that a new scientific review was underway that might yield different results. But in fact, ground-level ozone since the 2007 assessment has shown even bigger health consequences of high levels of exposure, meaning that it is highly likely that for the next assessment, scientists will recommend an even stronger standard. So there’s no justification for inaction.

So Which Businesses Influenced the President’s Decision?

It’s a little difficult to figure out which specific companies are behind all of the pressure on the White House, mainly because their trade associations do all of the dirty work. For example, on July 15, 2011, representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable and other industry groups met with senior EPA leadership to discuss their opposition to strengthening the standard.

Concurrently, they were taking their case directly to the White House, appealing all the way up to White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley to stop the EPA from doing its job.

The Importance of Visitor Logs

Ironically, and to the administration’s credit, one of the reasons we know about meetings like these is that the White House is releasing its visitor logs, and the EPA makes the calendars of its top leadership available to the public. That allows reporters, watchdog groups, and concerned citizens to better investigate who is influencing decisions that are supposed to be made on science.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with stakeholders meeting with White House and federal agency officials. In fact, UCS and other public interest organizations do it all the time, on ozone and scores of other public health and environmental issues. But the public can hold its government more accountable when we know who’s at the table.

We think that the practice of releasing visitor logs should be extended throughout the government, because as this case illustrates, lobbyist influence is too strong. We have asked federal agencies to follow the lead of the White House and commit to releasing their visitor logs as they develop agency-specific scientific integrity policies.

And certainly, with the increased ability of corporations to spend money on elections, and with business groups stating openly that an ozone decision based on science would hurt the president’s reelection chances, pressure on the president to undermine the Clean Air Act again will only increase. Especially when even Stephen Colbert can create a Super PAC to support or oppose candidates for public office with little accountability.


*To make it even more confusing: The 1997 standard is actually 0.08 parts per million because the technology was not advanced enough to measure to the individual part per billion. Now, we have that capability, but for the purposes of compliance with the standard, a measurement of 84 ppb is rounded down to 80 ppb, making 84 ppb the effective upper limit.

Posted in: Global Warming, Scientific Integrity Tags: , , , , ,

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • Michael Halpern

    Hi Clarence,

    Thanks for your comments. I’ll refer you back to my previous post, where I referenced the difference between setting the standard and implementing the standard. This distinction gets lost too often, so it bears repeating:

    The Clean Air Act requires that the standard be set solely on the best available science. This makes sense. We need to know, from a purely scientific perspective, what levels of ozone pollution are dangerous to human health. And then we should strive to eliminate that danger. So here, an “all or nothing” approach is appropriate. You’re either consistent with the science–and the law–or you’re not.

    Then, there’s enormous discretion when it comes to actually implementing the standard. States and localities have a lot of flexibility when it comes to implementation–and this is the appropriate place for economic and other compliance concerns.

    In regard to the influence of industry: It’s right there in the newspaper articles that are linked in the post above. “Daley met with the heads of several business groups more than two weeks before Obama withdrew the regulation — an unusual level of senior White House involvement in the regulatory process,” write Kevin Bogardus and Ben Geman in The Hill.

    As to visitor logs and leadership schedules, they help us understand who’s at the table. They don’t tell us what was discussed. Rather, they give us one more data point to understand who is influencing the decisions that are made.


  • Clarence D.

    Thank you for clarifying your statements, Michael.

    You indicate the original 2007 proposal of 75 ppb was, in fact, toppled by “public health advocates” who apparently struck an ‘all or nothing’ stance, thereby forfeiting the significant improvement 75 represents over 84.

    You point out that lobbyists of all persuasions march in and out of EPA and White House offices more or less constantly and you reveal visitors logs are available to verify whether, or not industry enjoys privileged access to EPA. If a scandalous situation such as you described in your first article were documented by the visitors logs we assume you would have that data summarized for our edification. Without that documentation your charges of industry tampering amount to baseless hyperbole, of course.

    Let us maintain at least the appearance of scientific integrity and decorum as biased opinions are promulgated by UCS propagandists, shall we?