Air Quality Act Amendments of 1997: Cost-Benefit Analysis

This research develops a cost-benefit analysis associated with the introduction by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Summer of 1997 of new ozone and particulate matter air quality standards. The findings of this research are presented in relation to (1) program description and goals, (2) costs and benefits associated with the program, (3) distributional implications of the program and the trade-off between efficiency and equity, (4) appropriate methods for cost quantification, and (5) suggestions for program modification.

Dirty air and dirty water prompted the federal government in the United States to consider legislation to prevent environmental pollution in the 1950s and 1960s. It was not simply that the air and water were polluted. Rather, it was because such pollution was being ever increasingly linked to serious human health problems. Environmental policy concerns both health and ecological aspects. Environmental health policy concerns pollution that either directly affects the health of humans or affects human health through the effects of environmental pollution on the food chain. Environmental pollution policy affects those actions that lead or have the potential to lead to ecological degradation.

Pollution is introduced into the air by both natural and artificial contaminant particulates. Typical natural contaminants include salt particles

. . .
re possible for the beneficiaries to bribe the victims to accept it. It is also important to note, with respect to this approach, that the actual bribing of the victims by the beneficiaries is not required for an acceptance of a specific policy; all that is required by this approach is that such bribing be possible. In essence, the approach is, in theory, applied as a means causing beneficiaries of a specific economic decision to pay for the social capital employed for their private benefit. Benefit-cost analysis is a technique which purports to (1) identify and (2) evaluate the (3) social benefits and (4) social costs of (5) an investment. In the context of environmental protection policy, the term investment is used in a broad context, although it still refers to an expenditure, at some level of real capital goods. Real capital goods, in this instance, refers to social capital, which is the sum total of capital stock possessed by an economy as a whole. Within the concept of social capital, all facets of the environment may be considered to be real capital goods. The term social benefits may be used in two ways. First, social benefits may be considered to be all of the gains in welfare which are derived from a speci
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Program Contemporary, Pollution Act, Valley United, United Canada, Goals Dirty, Program Modification, Equity Compliance, EPA Summer, Cost Quantification, air pollution, air quality, ANALYSIS Introduction, economic decision, environmental protection, specific economic decision, social benefits, specific economic, air quality standards, quality standards, social costs, severe air, severe air pollution, regions severe air, environmental contamination, environmental protection agency,
Approximate Word count = 2650
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page)