Clean Air

The Economic effect: clean air actBy:College:Course:Professor:Date:AbstractThis research will give a recap of the evolution of clean air act and the adverse effects it has had on our economy since its formulation. Throughout my undergraduate studies I have analyzed the growth rates and fluctuation trends of our economy, I scrutinized how the environmental laws favor or discriminate against giant companies and gave comprehensive conclusion. I used previous environmental reports from researches carried out by federal environmental agencies and compared them to recent reports after president Donald Trump scrapped out some environmental laws that affected large petroleum and coal mining industries. I also designed questionnaires to the general public, professors, economics elites and workers that are employed in companies that are rated to produce health hazardous products like fertilizers. Every set of people had a unique set of questions to answer. I picked these broad array of respondents so that I could have accurate information and hence a good analysis of the topic. The questionnaires relayed some very interesting statistics and I must acknowledge the participation of every respondent. I decided to dwell on this topic in a bid to sensitize people on the effects of the environmental laws and motivate them to speak out on the sensitive issue. This was after the sad realization that the general public tends to ignore the broad environmental as they perceive it not to affect their daily lives. In my research I have recommendations for the federal environmental agencies, the lawmakers and the general public. The economic effect: Clean Air Act influence on the dollar Every law that is formulated usually has good or detrimental effects on the topic it touches; health laws cause a positive disruption on the health sector, criminal and marital laws have a bearing to the social aspect of humans and so do many other laws. Before the lawmakers pass laws they should first dissect the topic extensively as each law has to stand on another sphere and slightly if not adversely affect it eventually. Expert insights on the topics should be accommodated as experts usually have insights on different variables affecting a constant. Public participation should be encouraged and their opinions on the matter should be prioritized before any other parties' opinions; this is because all laws are usually formulated to shield the general public from certain adversities and discrimination.Failure to collect and include views of the general public to the clean air act was the first and most regrettable mistake the federal government ever did since it was tabled in 1963. The date is not clearly marked as the act became a landmark later in 1970 then later on 1990 when the laws were further studded (starobin-1990). I admire the nobility of the pioneer law makers as they thought the laws will save humanity from early demise but I will show how the laws have rubbed a negative impact on the economy and less impact on the topic it was meant to benefit; health. Over the years the years the federal government has been struggling to sustain if not grow its economy, the question they failed to ask themselves is; what economic impact does the clean air act have on our country? They would be having a precise answer to that eerie question if they would have accommodated views from economists.The clean air act does not stand on its own ground; it falls under environmental laws which encompass other laws like the clean water act. The environmental protection agency (EPA) is the federal body mandated to analyze, implement and review the laws. Under it are numerous specialized agencies that were brought together to boost the efficiency of the whole environmental protection agency. In my report I will be using the common abbreviations to denote these agencies. In the broad umbrella we have the office of technology assessment (OTA) which a body that monitors the use of technology and how it affects the environmental laws. The national acid precipitation assessment program (NAPAP) was created in 1989 to monitor the harmful substances in the rain and the effects it has on people, infrastructure and the agricultural sector. The maximum available control technology (MACT) is the agency under EPA umbrella that designs and assigns technologies to industries that produce harmful substances (e.g sulphuric and nitrogen air. Later on the national ambient air quality standard was introduced to keenly monitor the trends of harmful standards in air (kopp-1989) To set up all these bodies required a lot of money, money which had to be coughed up in hard cash from the national coffers. In the body of paper I will give a brief history of the agencies and the exact funds that were used to set them up, to be relevant I will also tell you the timeline these bodies take to do research and the cost behind them. Further, I will state the time they take to implement their recommendations then enumerate if the implantation has effects to the environment and the economy. For clarity, I will contrast the information with the findings of my research that largely depended on people views backed up financial data from business articles from reputable press companies. This report will give us a better understanding of the dynamics around the clean air act.The economic effectThe state averagely spills over $92 billion annually to ensure that all stakeholders comply to the environmental laws set. The clean air act is serviced by more than more $28 billion and the clean water spends over $29 billion (. The number skyrockets when we talk of other bodies that deal with regulation of hard harmful substance like fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides as they spend over $32 billion annually in running of their functions. We discover that when setting up the institutions to implement the clean air act the federal government had to wait for 10 years for the bodies to make researches and draw conclusions. Here the state spent over $500 million in setting up and equipping the bodies, a further recurrent expenditure of $426 million was used annually to keep the organizations functioning. From 1970 to 1990 a whopping $8.52 billion in setting up and maintenance of the clean air act alone. After the first set of 10 years of research, the clean air act was studded and to comply with regulations; affected companies had to part with $4 billion dollars in a bid to comply with the environmental laws. A research by private companies stated the figure hit over $20 billion annually (denny-1990). The companies were supposed to reduce emission of sulphuric air by 10 million tons and nitrogen air by 2 million tons per year. In 1980 the government launched another program; the national acid precipitation assessment program (NAPAP) and gave it $500 million to carry out its research in a span of 10 years. The program was supposed to study the effects of acidic rain on land and water areas. The findings were good for the health topic but the money pumped in keeping the program running did not return profits. The much awaited findings were; the quantity of harmful substances in rivers and lakes had risen but the rise could not be attributed to rain alone as there were other hard toxic substances in the water. The finding authenticated the claim that acidic rain degrades infrastructure but they said the rate of degrade was very slow and could be matched up by apt maintenance. Another astonishing finding was that acid rain had no effect on agricultural products and production. Car manufacturing industries were also devastated by the laws as the cars had to be fitted with technological sieves to reduce carbon emission after fuel had been burned. This had to be done immediately as the state did not want to take more time as the research had taken more years. In effect the car manufacturing companies had to add an extra $120 to $450 per car depending on the type of fuel the car used and its customizations (. Truck and plane manufacturers were also slapped with the new regulations and they realize a slash in their annual profits. When President George Bush administration came into office it had to oversee a further $3 billion annually being channeled into car, truck and plane manufacturers.Methods of researchAnalysis of credible economic articles from the internet 1963to 2017Analysis of the report written the environmental program agency Analysis of the annual national budget and its revenue streamQuestionnaires responded to by students, professors, workers and the general public.FindingsSince the clean act was passed the state has spent more than $40 trillion in establishing of the environmental bodies. This money was used in assembling the infrastructure, buying the equipment and payment of workers.The target set by the numerous agencies since 1970 are still a long way to be met as the only 5 out of the 20 harmful substances in air have been managed.Most people are unaware of the laws existence and even after researching about it they claim that they feel the laws don't improve the standard of their lives.Over 311 giant companies retrenched over a half of their workforce between 1980 and 1990, this indicates that 190,000 people were left jobless hence the state's capital stock lost over $37 billion annually throughout the yearsQuality of air in urban areas increased to 98%. The sulphur and nitrogen substance level in air has reduced drastically over time but other harmful elements like benzene are still in abundance (EPA-2000). This change was noticed in cities, I bet it is from the implantation of the gas fitters in cars that the change was noticed.When the maximum available technology control agency was formed, it oversaw companies part with $4 million each to fit the technology sieves on their chimnies. Mortality rates remained stagnant and worsened to former workers of companies that went out of business when the environmental laws were passed.ConclusionsThe state should prioritize the economic part as it is through it that it will get funds to run all other vital activities, it is only by a strong financial background that other institutions can stand. Since the formulation of the laws a lot of money that would have been used in the building of economy has been spilled on the assembling of different agencies within the environmental program agency. The money did not have any beneficial return as the findings that later came from numerous state funded research did not meet the expectations or prove the notions that; more regulations will lead to less emissions of harmful substances thus improve the quality and lower the mortality rate of humans.In a bid to enforce the laws more funds were used in aiding some companies abide by the rules but this did not save the companies from retrenching employees and later closure due to either non compliance or lack of profits. As years went by and the laws became less conducive, more companies shut down and with them more jobs. As all this was happening the mortality rates remained high as the prevention policies barely worked or if they did the effect was insignificant. The state focused on creating the laws and did not work on technological or medicinal mechanisms to reverse the effect of health hazards on employees that worked in petroleum, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and insecticide companies. The more they died the more the laws looked inefficient.Years went by and the states spending on the regulations increased with no positive visible effects. More companies went out of business and in extend the states revenue collection decreased. This meant that important projects stalled and people's livelihoods were lowered if not completely shattered.RecommendationsThe state should consider inclusivity of all stake holders. Things would be a little better if the government had considered taking profession views from economic experts; our economy could much better. The situation can still be salvaged and the professionals be allowed to make their reviews. Then it will be easier to amend the laws. Here I recommend the state to welcome economic experts on the round table and let their opinions matter. Company owners should also be left to add voice to the topic as the laws affect their enterprises directly; the more they are left out of the topic the more they will be kicked out of business. Non inclusivity leads to hostility and this will scare away investors. The general public should be allowed to cap the topic too as they are the direct beneficiaries of whatever the law dictates. The review timeline should be lowered from 10 years to round 2 years, development can be hastened and reversed if the effects are devastating by shortening the span. This span should be capped by short term policies that are to be met in it. It may seem that the shorter the lifespan, the more the expense because of the numerous activities; that is not the case the amount spent will be the same. In a span of 10 years you will hire a large lot of experts to carry out the research but if you break it down to two years you will have small sustainable number of employees that will have gained experience hence bring on board accurate data.The clean air act should be made flexible depending on the geographical setting of the company is and the importance of products it produces. If the laws on petroleum mining were not so stringent we could be having more oil to export and this will lower the unemployment rate in the state.Harmful substance research should be refined and be more specific. They should know the precise number of industries and population in a geographical area then deduce the effects. Most researches are carried out in urban areas but the laws that are passed from the specific researches are applied all over the country. The researchers should accept that different geographical areas have different quantities of harmful substances. It is only by perfection in research that the laws can be made flexible.Insurance laws should be studded just like the clean air laws to keep the health hazard companies that hire people in check. 0 They should state that upon discovery that the worker's health has been negatively affected in the line of duty that the compensation should twice as high the estimated value of the effectReference;Numerous reports done in 1979, 1989 and 1999 by EPA,The environmental program agencyResearch done in 1989 by Krupnick and koppThey worked for OTA, office of technology assessment.Book; Social cost of environmental quality regulations by Michael Hazilla