String of anti-clean air bills irresponsible and dangerous

There's an old Jack Benny routine about a robber who tells his victim, "Your money, or your life." After a pause, the victim replies, "I'm thinking it over."

It's not as funny when you see the same scenario playing out in Congress.

Example: The U.S. House recently passed a bill called the TRAIN Act, which in essence would prevent Americans from reducing the amount of life-threatening pollution in the air we breathe from Asheville to Wilmington – to every corner of the United States.

If this proposal were to become law, research shows, it would result in more than 25,000 premature deaths throughout America in its first year alone. There would be 175,000 more asthma attacks, especially among children. We'd see more heart attacks and other serious health problems because of the unnecessary smog, soot and toxic pollution in our air. Fortunately for those of us who enjoy breathing, the president has already said he would veto this bill, so hopefully it won't become law.

On the other hand, it's mighty disheartening that nearly half of North Carolina's Congressional delegation supported the TRAIN Act – even though it would cost more than 2,400 lives each year in our state alone.

In the middle of this list of supporters is our own U.S. Rep. Mike McIntrye, the only Democrat within the North Carolina delegation to support the legislation. The other members included Republican Reps. Renee Ellmers, Walter B. Jones, Virginia Foxx, Howard Coble, Sue Myrick and Patrick McHenry.

It doesn't end there.

The TRAIN Act is but one in a lengthy string of anti-clean air bills expected in both the U.S. House and Senate this session. Other bills waiting in the wings would similarly handicap us from taking important steps to ensure our air is as clean as possible, whether it be along our New Hanover County coastline or in our already-threatened mountains.

Never mind that these bills could result in premature deaths and health problems for all North Carolinians.

Nearly all supporters of these "dirty air" bills rely on the same argument: The economy is tanking, so we simply cannot afford clean air. In other words, they want you to believe we must choose between our money and our lives. And they seem to believe it's perfectly acceptable to choose money.

It may be hard to believe, but these people actually think Americans are willing to buy this ridiculous and patently false argument. The truth is, we don't have to choose between clean air and a good economy. In fact, analysis shows the economic benefits of our primary anti-pollution law, the Clean Air Act, outweigh the costs 30 to 1.

It must be easy to forget that in October 1948, a thick cloud of air pollution formed above the industrial town of Donora, Pa. It lingered for five days, killing 20 people and causing sickness in 6,000 more of the town's 14,000 residents.

Incidents such as the one in Donora are why the EPA was created in the first place. Must we witness another such disaster to be reminded of the importance of environmental protection legislation?

The Clean Air Act was last updated in 1990. Its opponents used the same absurd arguments they're using today: If they weren't allowed to continue polluting our air, the economy would collapse.

Instead, the economy boomed and job creation increased. We cut pollution ahead of schedule and at a fraction of the estimated cost. We are all safer and healthier today. And unlike the stock or housing markets, there never has existed a clean air bubble to damage our economy.

Today we have newer, better technologies that make the air we breathe cleaner and safer. This can keep us all healthier. So forget the ludicrous notion that Americans simply cannot afford clean air. Don't believe them when they tell you we must choose between a healthy environment and jobs.

In the end, old arguments, just like old jokes, tend to wear out their welcome. For supporters of TRAIN, their tired old way of thinking wore out its welcome a long time ago.

Nina Szlosberg-Landis of Raleigh represents environmental interests on a number of boards and commissions. She currently serves as president of the board of directors of the N.C. League of Conservation Voters.

Read the full article here.