 The Relief Report ® A newsletter covering regulatory reform efforts in Washington and across America, published by The National Center for Public Policy Research, 501 Capitol Court, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/543-4110, Fax 202/543-5975, E-mail [email protected] Web http://www.nationalcenter.org |
The EPA's proposed new standards for particulate matter (soot)
and ground level ozone (smog) may place children and minorities
at greater risk. The EPA has suggested that some 250,000 cases
of serious respiratory problems in children could be prevented
each year by imposing more stringent air quality standards. But
pollution is only one of many "triggers" to asthma attacks.
The most common triggers include pollen, mold, animal dander,
certain medicines such as aspirin, cold air, exercise and common
dust mites. In fact, some evidence suggests that outdoor air quality
has little to do with rising respiratory health problems. According
to the European Federation of Asthma and Allergy Associations
the worldwide increase in asthma is probably linked to changes
in western lifestyle which involve greater time indoors. Unfortunately,
the EPA's higher particulate matter and ground level ozone standards
may have the perverse effect of placing children, particularly
African-American children, at greater risk. "The hospitalization
rate for asthma among African-American children is twice that
of whites, but socioeconomic status is a more significant risk
factor than ethnicity or race," said Floyd Malveaux, Dean
of Howard University Medical School. The lower socioeconomic status
of African-American children means that they frequently lack access
to health care and live in poor conditions, with higher exposures
to dust mites and cockroach allergens. Unfortunately, the tremendous
costs of the EPA proposal will translate into job losses and this
will translate into a loss of socio-economic status for many black
urban dwellers. The bottom line is that mom and dad need their
jobs to ensure that their children have access to health care
and good living conditions.
Speakers at a February 3-4 closed-door meeting of the Environmental
Grantmakers Association (EGA), a group composed of foundation
and corporate backers of the environmental movement, called on
environmental groups to use children's health concerns as a tactic
for promoting their regulatory agenda. Participants in the meeting
were shown a commercial featuring a dramatization of a parent
taking an asthma-stricken child to an emergency room. The voice-over
said, "The cost of dirty air is children who literally cannot
breathe." EPA Administrator Carol Browner underscored the
message of the commercial by noting that reports of childhood
asthma are rising. Perhaps even more illuminating, speakers at
the meeting seemed to suggest that the environmental movement
is losing ground to free market environmentalism. For example,
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) suggested that pollution taxes
be advanced as a way to deal with pollution not only because they
would raise revenues, but because they could be sold as a "market
mechanism." Another speaker suggested that the environmental
movement must learn to talk about "local control" or
they will lose the debate. Devolution of regulatory authority
has long been advocated by free market environmentalists. The
most surprising revelation of the meeting, however, was who environmentalists
consider to be friends and foes. On the foe list was Senator John
Chafee (R-RI). On the friend list: Speaker Newt Gingrich (particularly
on the Endangered Species Act), John Kasich (R-OH) and Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS). For more information about
the Environmental Grantmakers Association, contact the Rockefeller
Family Fund at (212)373-4252.
Given that Republicans were accused of conspiring with big industry
to roll back 25 years of environmental progress during the 104th
Congress, one would think that they would be more sensitive to
the needs of mom and pop operations. Unfortunately, Senator Dirk
Kempthorne (R-ID) will soon introduce an Endangered Species Act
reform bill which addresses the needs of industry at the expense
of small landowners. For example, the bill would expand the role
of habitat conservation plans (HCPs). HCPs are of concern not
only because they in effect establish federal land use planning,
but because they grant industry enormous advantages over mom and
pop operations. Since only very large land owners have the resources
to develop and negotiate the terms of HCPs, they tend to reflect
he interests of industry, often at the expense of small landowners.
For a copy of The National Center for Public Policy Research's
comments on the Kempthorne bill contact Chad Cowan at (202) 543-4110.
All editorial correspondence to The Relief Report
should be directed to: The National Center for Public Policy Research
* 501 Capitol Court, N.E. * Washington, D.C. 20002 *
Tel 202/543-4110 * Fax 202/543-5975 * E-mail [email protected]
* Web http://www.nationalcenter.org.
Copyright 1998, The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Coverage of meetings, activities or statements in the Relief Report
does not imply endorsement by The National Center for Public Policy
Research. Reprints of material in the Relief Report permitted
provided source is credited. To receive all National Center newsletters
free by e-mail, visit http://www.nationalcenter.org
or send a message to [email protected].###