Clean Air Act

Clean Air Act

Kaylem C. Hardy
University of Arkansas at Little Rock,
2801 S. University Ave., Little Rock, AR 72204

Author Note

Clean air act

Table of Contents

Clean air act

Abstract
This paper examines the latest research regarding the regulations, laws, and solutions that
will preserve the quality of our air for the next decades. The air that we breathe is constantly
being pollutes and in this essay, simply covered what the problem is and how to fix it with
solutions to budgets and society structure.
Keywords: clean, air, act, problem, solution.

Clean air act

Clean Air Act
(Jonathan Samet 2011) Since the 1970s, the Clean Air Act has led to reductions in air
pollution. Many implications have been used to reduce air pollution such as unplugging
electrical appliances when not in use, using light-emitting diodes for light sources, low-fuel
emitting vehicles, smoke-free environments, using public transportation. Interestingly, turning
off your vehicle at long fast food lines will reduce pollution as well but this practice is not
common among customers of fast food franchises (New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services). Despite the effort made in the 1970s to reduce air pollution, many
construction companies are struggling to manage air quality today. The problem is that
companies are indirectly dispensing harmful properties into the environment. The increased
expansion of greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide from companies that burn fossil fuels to
generate energy are the center of the problem. Companies do not take into consideration of the
affects their post construction has on the community, nor do they want to take it into
consideration because of labor, innovation, costs, and layoffs. All of these factors can have a
huge impact on a companys internal organization such as employees, revenue, and partnerships.
The early stages of the Clean Air Act have done much for our national environment but it does
not stop there. We as a nation have to continue the fight for a clean and peaceful environment
that does not include a carbon dioxide ridden environment and atmosphere.

In the 1970s, the environmental protection agency became strategic with the planning of
a newly defined system for reducing air pollution from within the individual, which has
prevented many cases of serious health problems among the nation; everyone is responsible for
the quality of our air. All citizens can take initiative to reduce the pollution in the air by voluntary

Clean air act

means of everyday activities. These activities have environmental benefits which promote the
reduction in the use of greenhouse gases to burn fossil fuels to power our vehicles, houses, and
infrastructures. The argument for the individual American to continue to act in such a way to
preserve and increase the quality of air is necessary for an environment that will be sustainable
for the remaining years of our generation. The leading type of preventable death in America is
caused by smoking. Smoking can cause cancer in various parts of the body. Construction
companies should be held accountable for the pollution they cause in the environment, and if
they are not, how can we as concerned civilians do better to keep the air clean? To keep the air
clean we can allow ourselves. The clean air act recognizes and regulates the use of gas and
particles from cars.

The air is constantly polluted every day and all the time through a series of activities.
Clean air act has been devastated in the recent years and it is up to the now generation to fix the
continuous problems of the clean air act of 1970. All of the citizens in the United States of
America are constantly trying to eliminate air pollution in many ways and aother important way
to do that is the PSD program or the Prevention of Significant Deterioration. According to
Deborah Behles, The purpose of the PSD program is to protect public health and welfare from
any actual or potential adverse effect which in [EPAs] judgment may reasonably be anticipate[d]
to occur from air pollution . . . notwithstanding attainment and maintenance of all national
ambient air quality standards. Congress added the PSD provisions as part of the 1977 CAA
amendments, which were intended to strengthen the safeguards that protect the nations air
quality.1As the D.C. Circuit summarized, Congress intended to identify, and focus PSD
regulation on, facilities which, due to their size, are financially able to bear the substantial

Clean air act

regulatory costs imposed by the PSD provisions and which, as a group, are primarily responsible
for emissions of the deleterious pollutants that befoul our nations air.. Large corporations are
becoming aware of the problem and their sources with the help of research tell them that they are
able to identify all control technologies as they should choose from the array of stringy clean air
emissions technology.
Another type of pollution that we as the American people need to focus on minimizing is
the pollution of greenhouse gases. Green house gases can destroy the ozone layer if they are not
controlled properly and disposed of. As a whole, we as the American people need to ensure that
the air quality in attainment areas or areas that are already clean will not be degraded by any
means. According to the Harvard Law Review, Because GHGs are emitted in far greater
quantities than other pollutants, straightforward application of the PSD program to sources based
on their emissions of GHGs would have produced overwhelming permitting burdens for both
the EPA and regulated sources. The EPA therefore tailored its application of the PSD program,
first applying the PSD requirements only to anyway sources and then to sources with the
potential to emit 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. With the expansion of our great
nation we cannot let it go to waste by polluting the atmosphere and environment anymore. We
have to stand up for what we believe in and what we believe in is a great community
environment in which our families can spend time outside in the sun. It is not fair to the people
of the community to have to deal with the ridden atmospheres because of the after affects of
construction companies polluting tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and environment
every year. It is already bad enough that some people have carbon dioxide in their homes. The
least that these people who live in poor conditions need is a carbon dioxide ridden environment.
The permits issued to these construction companies should make them abide by certain laws and

Clean air act

regulations that fall under the revisions of the current Clean Air Act and not just the one that was
amended in 1970.
Landowners should have the right to a fair lawsuit against these large construction
companies that pollute the air without warning. As a citizen of the United States of America, I
stand correct when I say that construction companies are to be held accountable in a court of law
when they pollute such harsh chemicals into the environment no matter what or who is around.
There have been many instances where landowners have tried to sue construction companies to
fix the pollution epidemic and that is just it. Landowners do not need to spend their limited
energy and savings on attorneys and court fees to simply sue a construction company for money
that is nothing to them. Instead, landowners need to sue on the basis of amending new laws and
regulations that will indeed hold construction companies accountable for their wrongdoing by the
action of polluting. This solution will undoubtedly minimize the risk factor of pollution caused
illnesses and the harmful pollution itself. A real life scenario from the Ecology Law Quarterly
says The right to sue under state common law when a polluting facilitys emissions accumulate
on ones property is not a cure-all by any stretch of the imagination. But even for all of its
inadequacies, qualifications, and uncertainties destined to be the subjects of legal battles to come,
the victory of Kristie Bell, Joan Luppe, and their Springdale neighbors in defending the right of
landowners to take polluters to court themselves is a victory for the larger environmental justice
movement.

Clean air act

References
Behles, Deborah. Controlling Ancillary Emissions Under the Clean Air Act: Consideration of
Energy Storage as Best Available Control Technology. Ecology Law Quarterly, 2015.
Web.

Harvard Law Review. Clean Air Act Stationary Source Greenhouse Gas Regulation Utility
Air Regulatory Group v. EPA. Harvard Law Review. Web.

DeBellis, A. Eric.. Bell v. Cheswick and What the Clean Air Act's Savings Clause Means for
Fenceline Communities. Ecology Law Quarterly, 2014. Web.
.

Clean air act