EPA. (2023, July 25). Biden-Harris Administration proposes to improve air pollution emissions data. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-proposes-improve-air-pollution-emissions-data
The EPA proposes updating its requirements for businesses to report their emissions. Currently, reporting of harmful emissions is not consistent nationwide. This proposal, if passed, “would require nearly 130,000 facilities to report air toxics emissions directly to EPA.” This data will be used to identify places where people are exposed to harmful air pollution. With it, the EPA “develops and reviews regulations, conducts air quality modeling, and conducts risk assessments to understand how air pollution may affect the health of communities across the country.” With better knowledge, it will be easier to find solutions.
It’s essential to better understand what toxins are being released into the air and by what quantity. Especially specifically requiring facilities to report them. But to me, the progress with air-quality-related rules and regulations being passed seems far too slow. Even though this is a step in the right direction, it is possible to do more, like putting regulations on the actual pollutants being released into the air. Why are these regulations being held back, yet others being proposed? It is more important to stop emissions as soon as possible, given that the damage it is doing to us as people can not be reversed.
I do think we could be doing more to make progress at cutting do emissions, but I think that requiring facilities to report their emissions is smart because it allows for further regulations on how much emissions can be released to be put in place as well as understand what facilities are pollution the most. These regulations are a step in the right direction and a great stepping block for further development. Are you proposing that facilities need immediately cut all emissions? What would the regulations you proposed be based on without a baseline of what emissions and how much are being released?
Hi, thanks for commenting. No, I’m not proposing that facilities cut all of their emissions – that doesn’t seem plausible at this point in time. However, it is possible to make the switch to cleaner energy (over a point of time), though it is expensive, which is the problem here. Perhaps focusing more on long-lasting solutions for the future is what I’d like to see from the EPA.
I think this is a great first step however is insufficient in the long run. Simply reporting our emissions can give the EPA helpful information regarding what specifically is being emitted into our environment. However, we have many indicators that whatever is being emitted is already harmful. Taking a more environmentally aggressive approach, I suggest we come up with a universal number that represents what a given factory emmits on a daily or monthly basis. Then we can pose restrictions on that number directly. That is just an initial idea but what do you think could be a more aggressive approach knowing that our planet is in dire need of help?
Thanks for your reply! This is a good starting approach because factories can be directly targeted for excessive pollution. I was thinking of an approach requiring a certain amount of energy that the factories need to acquire brought through clean energy. This could then lead to that number growing higher until all or nearly all energy is clean.