SIXDemocratic Ethics,Environmental Groups,and Symbolic InclusionTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA is the nation’s leader in the formulation andimplementation of automobile emission standards. Its automobile emissionstandards are the toughest in the United States. These standards were mostrecently tightened in 1998. Additionally, as I explained in chapter 1, California’sstandards have been the driving force behind the nation’s automobileemission standards. Specifically, the strengthening of California’s emissionstandards in 1990, in conjunction with the actions of other states, promptedthe federal government to raise its automobile emission standards with the1990 Clean Air Act. Similarly, events at the state level, led by California,prompted the federal government in 1999 to announce a tightening in emissionstandards (Cone 1998; Perez-Pena 1999).Despite California’s well-developed regulatory framework and its politicalleadership on the issue of automobile emission standards, air pollutionfrom automobiles continues to be a persistent and serious problem in thestate. While carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in California aredown when compared to 1990 levels, these pollutants continue to be emittedin large and hazardous amounts into the state’s air. Additionally, the amountof particular matter in California’s air remain at roughly 1990 levels. Moreover,particulate matter is predicted to increase in the near future. The automobile(including buses and trucks) accounts for at least 80 percent of allthese pollutants in California’s air. Further, automobiles are the primarysource of such airborne toxins as acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3–butadiene,formaldehyde, and diesel particulate matter (known to be a carcinogen)(California Air Resources Board 2004). Largely as a result of automobile89
90THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONusage (California Air Resources Board 2004, 60–61), Los Angeles, and theregion surrounding it, continues to have the most ozone (i.e., smog) pollutedair in the United States (American Lung Association 2004).If California has the most stringent automobile emission standards in thecountry, indeed the world, why does air pollution from the automobile continueto be a persistent problem and a potentially increasing problem in thefuture? The primary reasons are population growth, growing economic activity,and an increase in the number of automobiles (with internal combustionengines) as well as in the average number of miles driven (Kenworthy andLaube 1999; Lange 1999; Patton 1999; California Air Resources Board2004). Sacramento’s population, for example, is expected to grow by 50 percentin 2010 from 1987 levels, and it is expected to have an increase of 76percent in the number of miles driven (Grant 1996, 34). Therefore, the gainsin emission reductions made through the application of technology to theinternal combustion engine are offset by the overall increase in the numberof automobiles on the road and an increase in the average number of milesdriven by motorists (Kamieniecki and Farrell 1991; Warrick 1997; Cone1999; Luger 2000; Purdum 2000). Hence, despite the increasingly onerousregulatory framework placed on the automobile in California, the state, especiallythe Los Angeles basin and the Central Valley area, will continue tohave unhealthful air into the foreseeable future (California Air ResourcesBoard 2004).Given the relationship between growth, automobile usage, and air pollutionin California, is the regulation of growth and automobile usageactively considered in order to reduce and remedy the considerable air pollutionproblem in the state? The answer is no. In his study of California’s automobileand fuel emission standards, Grant (1996) analyzes the “policy community”surrounding this issue area. 1 Borrowing from Rhodes and Marsh(1992), he describes a policy community as “characterized by a limited numberof participants, frequent interaction, continuity, value consensus,resource dependence, positive sum games, and regulation of members”(Grant 1996, 10). In his analysis of the California air pollution policy community,Grant (1996) concludes that issues of land management and masstransit are excluded from it. In contrast, technological solutions are at thecenter of the clean air policy community.With the issue of growth and the number and usage of automobilesexcluded from government’s clean air agenda (Bachrach and Baratz 1962;Lukes 1974), the goal of its automotive emissions regulatory regime can becharacterized as the ecological modernization of the automobile. Moreover,with the mass production and distribution of alternative fuel automobilesbecoming less likely (Borenstein 2000; Pollack 2000; Steele and Heinzel 2001;Roberts 2004), the objective of this regime can in retrospect be termed as theecological modernization of the gasoline-burning internal-combustion engine.
- 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 84 and 85: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 75the
- 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 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