GEORGE A. GONZALEZ - fieldi

82THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONserved as the longtime chairperson of California’s Air Resources Board (Krierand Ursin 1977, chap. 11). Haagen-Smit was a member of the Foundation’stechnical board, and prior to that was on the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce’sscientific committee (Air Pollution Foundation 1961, 52; Brienes1975, 90–92; Krier and Ursin 1977, 79).THE PUBLIC AND CALIFORNIA POLLUTIONABATEMENT POLICIESWriting about pollution control policies in Los Angeles during the 1940s,1950s, and 1960s, Thomas Roberts (1969), in his well documented andresearched honors thesis, explains that during this period “in general the masspublic ... remained politically quiescent with regard to smog control” (46).During this time no mass-based organization came into being that could organizeand mobilize the public on the issue of air pollution (Roberts 1969, chap.3; Krier and Ursin 1977, 272–277). The three citizens’ groups pushing forpollution controls that Roberts identifies all had a small number of members. 3Further, the one that Roberts considers to be “most important” could be saidto represent the economic elite perspective on smog. This economic eliteorganization, known as Stamp Out Smog (SOS), was composed of BeverlyHills housewives (Roberts 1969, 48–52; Dewey 2000, 97–98). Significantly,SOS members did “not seriously consider staging the consumer boycott ofnew autos which many believe[d] ultimately necessary” (Roberts 1969, 51).Instead, it focused its efforts on prompting the automobile industry todevelop and distribute emission control technology (Roberts 1969, 49).The other two groups noted by Roberts were the Group Against SmogPollution (GASP) and the Clean Air Council (CAC). GASP was made upof faculty members from the Claremont Colleges, and CAC was composed of“scientists, engineers and other professionals” (Roberts 1969, 51). GASPtried unsuccessfully to organize a boycott of new automobiles (Roberts 1969,51). CAC “drafted” a voter initiative in the late 1960s that would require“strict, explicit, emissions standards, and in effect forcing off the road any carwhich is not pollution free.” Furthermore, it developed plans “to implementrapid transit” and “alternative propulsion systems to the internal-combustionengine” (Roberts 1969, 51–52).Pluralists (e.g., Dahl 1961; Bryner 1995) and other thinkers (e.g., Rajan1996; Mazmanian 1999), hold that policy development—to one degree oranother—is a product of the relationship between public officials and publicopinion. In this case, they would argue that while the public was, for the mostpart, unorganized and politically immobile on the issue of air pollution in LosAngeles during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, the enactment of air pollutionlegislation and the creation of regulatory bodies during this period werenonetheless in response to the public’s latent opinion on air pollution. Thus,