EPA Ignores Science to Propose Most Expensive Regulation in History

Ozone from China

Even worse, a great deal of ozone in western states actually originates outside the United States altogether. Businesses, individuals and local governments may be forced to pay for pollution from China.

“Across much of the West, the EPA’s proposed ozone standard is roughly equivalent to background levels, which come from natural sources, wildfires, industrial activity in other states, and increasingly, from industrial activity outside the country,” wrote Roger O. McClellan, past chair of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and a member of the National Academy of Medicine.

Researchers from NASA have confirmed that western states are being hit by “transported ozone pollution from Asia.”

Some states have warned that, if the measure comes into effect, they will have to restrict human activity in a way that will not actually impact ozone levels at all. “Local contributions are so minor that Nevada, like other western states, will be required to implement control measures in rural nonattainment areas that have no meaningful impact on ozone concentrations,” warned the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.

New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez warned that “even some of our most pristine areas, such as our national parks, will not be able to satisfy [the proposed regulation].”

The proposed rule becomes almost laughable -- if not inescapably tragic -- when one considers that it is being proposed and would be enforced by the same agency responsible for a $27.7 billion toxic spill a little over one month ago. The EPA is also responsible for multiple scandals involving falsified emails, porn on the job and multiple sexual harassment charges.

The EPA does fulfill some vital functions, but efforts to combat "climate change" -- a theory based on a non-existent "scientific consensus" -- need not also be harmful to businesses and economic freedom. Many companies have adopted public stances to safeguard the environment, and free markets provide more competitive approaches than government regulation.

Public health and stewardship of the environment are both very important goals, but this expensive, impossible ozone rule is not the right way to achieve either.

As Florida Senator Marco Rubio declared at the last GOP presidential debate, “I’m not in favor of any policies that make America a harder place to live, find a job or raise a family.” If only the EPA agreed.