Indur M. Goklany is (was?) a science policy advisor in the United States Department of the Interior.
In 2017, the Trump administration charged him with reviewing climate policy. (In 2020, it was revealed that he had repeatedly tried to insert climate change denial language into DOI’s scientific reports.)
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1999 book, “The air in the United States is much cleaner today than it has been in several decades. Gone are the soot and smoke characteristic of urban areas a century ago… How did this remarkable turnaround come about? What were the forces driving the improvements in air quality during the 20th century? When did these improvements start? Were technology and economic growth the problems, or the solutions, for air pollution? How much credit is due to federal regulations? Would these improvements have occurred in the absence of federal regulations? This book attempts to answer those, and related, questions.” (Pg. 1)
He continues, “Most people credit the federalization of air pollution control accomplished by the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 for the air quality improvements of the past few decades… Despite the apparent success of the existing framework for controlling air pollution in the United States, some analysts have challenged the … rationale for federalization of environmental control. That has provoked a swift counterattack from proponents of federalization… This book attempts to … ‘clear the air’ by bringing empirical data to this long-running debate.” (Pg. 1-2)
He says of the early 20th century, “Regulations do seem to have made a difference for Chicago. The 1907 preconstruction regulation gave the city’s Department of Smoke Abatement the clout to successfully insist upon mechanical stokers for new and reconstructed furnaces… No doubt it also helped that the regulations did not get ahead of what was economically doable. The technological trends accelerated in subsequent decades. Increasing affluence made it possible for individual households and businesses to voluntarily purchase cleaner, new, more efficient technologies because they valued lower fuel bills and cleanliness and convenience for their homes and businesses.” (Pg. 17)
He notes, “The increased use of oil and diesel also facilitated sulfur-in-fuel regulations. It is easier to desulfurize those fuels and to enforce the regulations since authorities need only focus on a few fuel distributors, and even fewer refiners, rather than on millions of consumers. Moreover, desulfurizataion of natural gas is self-enforcing because it is in the supplier’s economic interest: any significant amount of sulfur in the gas creates an obnoxious odor and corrodes appliances as well as the distribution system.” (Pg. 30)
He observes, “One of the beneficial byproducts of the motor vehicle emissions control program was that the auto companies resorted to catalysts to reduce unburnt VOCs and CO. Because catalysts could be ‘poisoned’ by lead-based additives in gasoline, such gasoline was slowly phased out as newer, catalyst-equipped cars came onto the market. Just as reduction of lead in gasoline was incidental to reducing other motor vehicle emissions, lead emissions were reduced from stationary sources as a consequence of the cleanup of TSP sources. When a separate NAAQS for lead was issued in 1978, compliance was relatively painless for most areas of the country because of these associated control efforts.” (Pg. 38)
He summarizes, “The improvements in the proxies for indoor air quality are due to the same factors that improved outdoor air quality in urban areas: technological change and affluence, which allowed households to switch to cleaner fuels. These improvements, which probably constitute the greatest reduction in the general population’s exposure to traditional air pollutants, began decades before the promulgation of federal legislation---proving that where the need is obvious and the cause and effect are determinable with confidence, people will voluntarily take measures to improve their personal environment, with or without the government’s intervention and at some expense to themselves. Remarkably, the costs of such improvements are not included in any accounting of air pollution control costs, even though… they are probably the most effective measures for reducing total human exposure.” (Pg. 46-47)
He states, “CO emissions increased from 1940 to 1971… relative to the 1940 level, and then declined due to the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program and the oil shocks… Through the ‘50s and ‘60s, national CO emissions from stationary sources declined due mainly to continued reduction in the use of wood and coal in households and commercial establishments, and reduced emissions from refineries, carbon black plants, and wildfires. Railroad emissions also continued their decline. However, increased use of motor vehicles more than made up for all the reductions. Then, as noted, California and federal vehicle emissions standards helped turn around nationwide CO emissions in the mid- to late 1960s.” (Pg. 83, 85)
He says, “First, as a nation becomes wealthier and progress is made on the higher-priority and more evident risks to public health and safety … environmental problems automatically rise higher on society’s priority list of unmet needs, even if environmental degradation does not worsen. Second, because of insufficient attention to environmental quality, added economic activity does, in fact, further degrade the environment, and that, by itself, moves environmental quality up on society’s priority list. Thus, environmental quality becomes a more important determinant of the overall quality of life. Society, in effect, places a greater value on environmental quality. Simultaneously, with increasing affluence, society, is more able to afford improvements in its environmental quality. And if cleanup does not come voluntarily of sufficiently rapidly, a democratic society will translate its desire for a less polluted environment into laws… The wealthier such a society, the more affordable---and more demanding---its laws.” (Pg. 88-89)
He argues, “Conventional wisdom is that federalization of air pollution control was necessary because ‘states had failed to act,’ and they ‘could not be trusted to adopt adequate environmental controls’ because of interstate competition for business, and that ‘Congress imposed national regulations to control pollution only after its efforts to prod states to act had failed. Although such perceptions may well have been widely held, they are no supported by the empirical data presented in the previous chapters.” (Pg. 111)
He asserts, “Another rationale for federalization of air pollution control is that in its absence states would relax air pollution requirements, which would reduce net state well-being… As the term is used in this book, a race to the bottom is a race to relax, which also results in a net loss of well-being, consistent with academic articles on this topic.… But the empirical evidence presented in the previous chapters foes not support that allegation that before federalization states were indulging in a race to the bottom In fact, the race, it any, seems to be in the opposite direction.” (Pg. 114-115)
He summarizes, “empirical data on emissions, air quality, and stringency of regulations from the period prior to federalization are at odds with any race-to-the-bottom explanation for the behavior of state and local authorities. In fact, if there is any race at all, it is to the top of the quality of life.” (Pg. 122)
He concludes, “Once prosperity and technology were responsible for air pollution. Today they are necessary for its cleanup. Their transformation---from problems to solutions---began toward the latter part of the last century. The advent of new, clean energy sources and more efficient combustion technologies made it possible to reduce pollution and to prosper in the bargain.” (Pg. 149)
He adds, “Often disdaining economic growth and sometimes rejecting new technologies, many environmentalists hold that lifestyle changes are essential to a cleaner environment. Perhaps---but.. economic growth and new technologies were indispensable to bringing about the various environmental transitions without which air quality (and the quality of life) would have been even poorer than it was a generation ago.” (Pg. 156)
This book will be of some interest to those who are skeptical about the role of government in environmental issues.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
