美國環保署1日發表評估報告指出，空氣清淨法（Clean Air Act）1990年版修正案在2010年所削減的細懸浮微粒與臭氧污染，預防16萬人免於因污染而過早死亡。（譯註：「細懸浮微粒」即為PM2.5及更小的顆粒。）
該報告檢視空氣清淨法修正案在1990年至2020年之間對經濟、公共健康與環境的影響。
報告並推斷，到了2020年，修正案遏止細懸浮微粒與地面臭氧污染所獲得的效益，將到達約2兆美元，單在2020年便可挽救23萬民眾死亡。削減大氣懸浮微粒後，相關的過早死亡案例因而減少，此所獲得的效益約佔2兆美元中的85%。
環保署的這份報告經過廣泛的審查，也納入空氣清淨分析委員會（Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis）之成果，此委員會是由經濟學家、科學家與公衛專家組成的獨立小組，由國會於1991年成立。
「空氣清淨法施行數十年以來的成功經驗，協助數百萬美國人活的更加健康、安全，也更具有生產力。」環保署長傑克森說：「這份報告能約略說明，這項我國最富改革性的環境法律之一讓國民健康與經濟效益上有著良好表現，展現出兩黨合作能保護美國人民的健康，免於受到環境汙染的影響。」
南方環境法律中心則評論：「環保署新報告的研究成果恰恰和工業界遊說人士與其政界陣營數十年來的陳腔老調大相逕庭，他們總是稱保護公共健康與環境的規定將所費不眥，效益很小，還會把商業都逼到海外，把工人逼去排隊領麵包。」
在美國最高法院2007年一份裁決的要求下，環保署將二氧化碳與其他溫室氣體視為構成美國公共健康的明顯威脅，另在2011年1月2日開始對發電廠與其他大型設施所排放的溫室氣體進行管制。
然而密西根州的共和黨眾議員厄普頓（Fred Upton）與繁榮美國人協會（Americans for Prosperity）的理事長菲利浦斯（Tim Phillips）於2010年12月28日刊登在華爾街日報上的投書，聲稱環保署對溫室氣體管制為一種「奪權」：「削減碳排放意味電價會大幅提高。我們認為美國消費者不會喜歡被歐巴馬的環保署剝皮。」
厄普頓另於1月24日的一份聲明中說：「環保署有過紀錄，當規範太多、太快，會忽略潛在破壞性的經濟後果。」這份聲明是因應環保署在2月提出的規定，其要求工業鍋爐與部分焚化設備應適用最大可達成控制技術（maximum-achievable control technology，簡稱MACT），而環保署的動作也是出自法院要求。
厄普頓說道：「鍋爐的技術規定便是一個很好的例子，可以看到當環保署將資源與注意力從核心權責移開，轉而執意推動缺乏國會支持且具有爭議的管制計畫（例如其溫室氣體計畫）時，會有何後果。」
南方環境法律中心說明，部分反對環保署新排放法規的人士正發起對整個空氣清淨法的攻擊行動，將環保法規塑造成健康與就業兩方面的選項。
共和黨籍肯塔基州參議員懷特菲爾德（Ed Whitfield）便在1月18日對每日國家新聞報表示：「這個議題遠比美國人民的健康、肺部與肺氣腫還要更大；我們怎麼能夠把這個規範擺進全球就業市場中，還能取得平衡。」
但環保署的新報告「1990至2020年空氣清淨法之損益」中顯示，因為防止過早死亡、預防心臟病發與哮喘發作、減少員工病假天數，所帶來的效益遠超過實施空氣保護規範的花費。
環保署結論指出，這些益處可塑造更高生產力的勞動力，使消費者與商人減少醫療花費─這些都有助於強化經濟。
點擊此處，可閱讀報告摘要版與更多詳細的資訊。
Last year, the reductions in fine particle and ozone pollution from the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments prevented more than 160,000 cases of premature death, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates released Tuesday.
The agency's report examined the effects of the Clean Air Act amendments on the economy, public health and the environment between 1990 and 2020.
By 2020, the benefits of reducing fine particle and ground level ozone pollution under the amendments will reach approximately $2 trillion while saving 230,000 people from early death in that year alone, the report concludes.
About 85 percent of the $2 trillion in economic benefits are attributable to reductions in premature mortality associated with reductions in ambient particulate matter, the report finds.
The EPA report received extensive review and input from the Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, an independent panel of economists, scientists and public health experts established by Congress in 1991.
"The Clean Air Act's decades-long track record of success has helped millions of Americans live healthier, safer and more productive lives," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. "This report outlines the extraordinary health and economic benefits of one of our nation's most transformative environmental laws and demonstrates the power of bipartisan approaches to protecting the health of the American people from pollution in our environment."
The Southern Environmental Law Center comments, "The findings of EPA's new report stand in stark contrast to the decades-old mantra of industry lobbyists and their political allies that regulations to protect public health and the environment will cost too much, have little benefit, and drive businesses overseas and workers to the bread lines."
Compelled by a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, EPA has concluded that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a clear danger to public health in America and began regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other major facilities on January 2, 2011.
Calling the EPA's greenhouse gas regulations a "power grab" in a letter published in the "Wall Street Journal" December 28, 2010, House Republican Congressman Fred Upton of Michigan and Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, wrote, "Cuts in carbon emissions would mean significantly higher electricity prices. We think the American consumer would prefer not to be skinned by Obama's EPA."
"This EPA has a track record of regulating too much too fast while ignoring potentially devastating economic consequences," Upton said on January 24, in a statement about the maximum-achievable control technology, MACT, rules for industrial boilers and some incinerators issued by the EPA in February - also in response to a court order.
"The Boiler MACT rules are a perfect example of what happens when the EPA diverts its resources and attention away from its core responsibilities in order to pursue controversial regulatory schemes - such as its greenhouse gas regime - that lack support in Congress," said Upton.
Some opponents of EPA's new emissions regulations are launching an attack on the entire Clean Air Act, portraying environmental regulation as a choice between health and jobs, says the Southern Environmental Law Center.
"This is a much broader issue than the health of the American people and lungs and emphysema; it's how can we balance that in the global marketplace for jobs," Congressman Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican, told the "National Journal Daily" on January 18, 2011.
Yet the new EPA report, "The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020," shows that the benefits of avoiding early death, preventing heart attacks and asthma attacks, and reducing the number of sick days for employees far exceed costs of implementing clean air protections.
These benefits lead to a more productive workforce, and enable consumers and businesses to spend less on health care - all of which help strengthen the economy, the agency concludes.
Click here for more information and a copy of the summary report.
全文及圖片詳見：ENS報導
作者
In my healing journey and learning to attain the breath awareness, I become aware of the reality that all the creatures of the world are breathing the same breath. Take action, here and now. From my physical being to the every corner of this out of balance's planet.
