AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 75the stature of United States senators down to the city planning commissionsstood ready to mobilize it” [parentheses in original] (130).By the 1940s and 1950s, it was clear that the supporters of the “GreaterLos Angeles” project had succeeded in their objective of attracting “thelargest possible number of permanent new residents and businesses to LosAngeles from other parts of the country” (Foster 1971, 22). By 1940, LosAngeles County’s population had grown almost 200 percent to about 3 millionpeople when compared to a population of about 1 million in 1920, andby 1950 the population of Los Angeles County had reached 5.4 million(Krier and Ursin 1977, 44 and 92). This growth in population coincided withthe increasing industrialization of the Los Angeles basin. In addition toexpanded airplane manufacturing, growth in Los Angeles during this periodtook place in such industrial activities as petroleum refining and steel production(Viehe 1981; Boone and Modarres 1999; Hise 2001). As I outlinedin the last chapter, this growing population and industry were served by atransportation network centered almost totally on the automobile. Hence,the number of automobiles registered in the county grew from approximately900,000 in 1930 to 1.2 million in 1940, and by 1950 the total number ofautomobiles was 2 million (Krier and Ursin 1977, 44 and 92).With industrialization and the growing automotive population, air pollutioncame to the Los Angeles area. During the late nineteenth and earlytwentieth centuries, Los Angeles did not have the severe air pollution problemthat plagued urban areas east of the Mississippi in this period because ofits comparatively small industrial base and its access to oil and natural gas assources of energy (Fogelson 1967; Viehe 1981; Williams 1997). By the middlepart of the twentieth century, however, industrialization and automobileuse, combined with the Los Angeles basin’s somewhat unique topography andmeteorology, created an air pollution situation that threatened the futuregrowth prospects of the area, and even the gains already made.“SMOG COMES TO LOS ANGELES”Historian Marvin Brienes (1976) describes in his article “Smog Comes to LosAngeles” when air quality in Los Angeles became a salient issue. He notes that“on a warm July day in 1943 a mysterious malady settled silently over downtownLos Angeles.... [T]he distressing condition worsened daily.” This episode“reached its height” on July 26 “as a thick, smoky cloud, heavier by far than anyexperienced before, descended over the downtown area in the early morninghours and cut visibility to less than three blocks.” According to newspaperreports, workers “found the noxious fumes almost unbearable.” With this airpollution event Brienes concludes that “smog had come to stay” (515–516).Scholars Krier and Ursin (1977) point to September 8, 1943, as a watershedday in forcing smog onto the political agenda in Los Angeles. On this day,
76THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONLos Angeles experienced its “daylight dimout” when dense smog settledover the area. According to one newspaper, “Thousands of eyes smarted,many wept, sneezed and coughed. Throughout the downtown area and intothe foothills the fumes spread their irritation.”Everywhere the smog went that day, it left behind a group of irate citizens,each of whom demanded relief. Public complaints reverberated in thepress. There was an outraged demand for action. Citizens committees wereappointed. Elective officials were petitioned.They go on to write that “concern over the air pollution episodes of fall 1943,especially that of September 8, stimulated response more substantial than themayor’s [earlier] optimistic prediction of an elimination of smog within a matterof months” (53).Brienes (1976) outlines how the response of Los Angeles’s political leadersto the poor air quality enveloping the area in the early 1940s was to framethe issue in a politically expedient manner. The city’s mayor and other cityofficials publicly blamed a butadiene plant as the cause of the noxious air.Brienes notes thatthe fight to tame the butadiene plant had perfectly comprehensible dimensions.It had a beginning, and an end. There was in it an attraction onecould never find in contemplation of massive pollution problems that hadbeen woven, over years, into the fabric of the metropolis. (526)Therefore, by focusing on a single butadiene factory, Los Angeles’s politicalelites were eschewing a more systematic analysis of Los Angeles’s air pollutionsituation—one that might raise politically and economically uncomfortablequestions. Brienes explains that “in the butadiene plant a solitary villainwas isolated.” Hence,in itself this eliminated a number of potential complications: the need forlong, close investigations of thousands of possible offenders; the accumulationof basic scientific data in chemistry and meteorology; planning for permanent,long-range control programs.As a result, air pollution “abatement became a relatively simple matter of fixingsomething up or shutting it down” (526–527).EARLY EFFORTS TO CONTROL AIR POLLUTIONIN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAA comprehensive effort to control air pollution in Los Angeles was notundertaken until the Chandler family and its newspaper, the Los AngelesTimes, took up the area’s air quality matter. The Chandler family throughoutthe twentieth century had been a central political force in Los Angeles, and,
- Page 2:
The Politics of Air Pollution
- Page 7:
ContentsAcknowledgmentsviiONELocal
- Page 12 and 13:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 3tion, such
- Page 14 and 15:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 5how the U.
- Page 16 and 17:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 7growth (Ta
- Page 18 and 19:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 9In this pe
- Page 20 and 21:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 11ity tend
- Page 22 and 23:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 13In the ar
- Page 24 and 25:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 15who reduc
- Page 26 and 27:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 17cally mod
- Page 28 and 29:
TWOPolitical Economy and thePolicym
- Page 30 and 31:
THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 21moves to
- Page 32 and 33:
THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 23eral gov
- Page 34 and 35: THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 25groups
- Page 36 and 37: THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 27Given in
- Page 38 and 39: THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 29tions, t
- Page 40 and 41: THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 31the Conf
- Page 42: THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 33lars 199
- Page 45 and 46: 36THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONCOAL
- Page 47 and 48: 38THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONa go
- Page 49 and 50: 40THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONrush
- Page 51 and 52: 42THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONattr
- Page 53 and 54: 44THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONScot
- Page 55 and 56: 46THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONthe
- Page 57 and 58: 48THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONcrit
- Page 59 and 60: 50THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONwhen
- Page 61 and 62: 52THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONin t
- Page 63 and 64: 54THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONThe
- Page 65 and 66: 56THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONfirm
- Page 67 and 68: 58THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONinno
- Page 69 and 70: 60THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONThe
- Page 71 and 72: 62THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONFHA
- Page 73 and 74: 64THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONgone
- Page 75 and 76: 66THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONPres
- Page 78 and 79: FIVEThe Establishment ofAutomobile
- Page 80 and 81: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 71ext
- Page 82 and 83: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 73Ano
- Page 86 and 87: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 77thr
- Page 88 and 89: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 79was
- Page 90 and 91: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 81exp
- Page 92 and 93: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 83acc
- Page 94 and 95: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 85Thu
- Page 96 and 97: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 87A n
- Page 98 and 99: SIXDemocratic Ethics,Environmental
- Page 100 and 101: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 91At the core of
- Page 102 and 103: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 93senior attorney
- Page 104 and 105: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 95ments mount cha
- Page 106 and 107: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 97frameworks, as
- Page 108 and 109: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 99mobiles and gas
- Page 110 and 111: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 101the ecological
- Page 112 and 113: CONCLUSIONPolitical Power andGlobal
- Page 114 and 115: CONCLUSION 105quality became manife
- Page 116: CONCLUSION 107lation, the U.S. econ
- Page 119 and 120: 110THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONCHA
- Page 121 and 122: 112THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTION6.
- Page 123 and 124: 114THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTION4.
- Page 126 and 127: BibliographyAcher, Robin. 2001. “
- Page 128 and 129: BIBLIOGRAPHY 119Brienes, Marvin. 19
- Page 130 and 131: BIBLIOGRAPHY 121Cole, Luke W., and
- Page 132 and 133: BIBLIOGRAPHY 123——— . 2002. W
- Page 134 and 135:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 125——— . 1975.
- Page 136 and 137:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 127Hayward, Clarissa R
- Page 138 and 139:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 129——— . 2001. E
- Page 140 and 141:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 131——— . 1988.
- Page 142 and 143:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 133Perez-Pena, Richard
- Page 144 and 145:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 135Runte, Alfred. 1997
- Page 146 and 147:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 137Tarr, Joel A. 1996.
- Page 148:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 139Wiewel, Wim, and Jo
- Page 151 and 152:
142THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONChi
- Page 153:
144THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONTuc