Groups Sue After E.P.A. Fails to Shift Ozone Rules, Article Review Example

Broder, John. “Groups Sue After E.P.A. Fails to Shift Ozone Rules”. New York Times, 12 Oct. 2011, p15.

The article, “Groups Sue after E.P.A. Fails to Shift Ozone Rules” by Broder (2011), talks about five environmental and health groups suing the administration of United States President, Obama. The group’s had allegations that the presidents administration had failed by rejecting stricter proposed new standards for pollution of ozone. The groups claimed that the decision to reject the proposal had vested political interests rather than concerns for the public health.

The rejection by Obama’s administration to adopt the stricter rules brings negative impacts to the society. According to the writer of the article, the decision ignores concerns for the public health (Broder 2011). If the standard had been adopted by the Obama administration, many counties could be out of compliance in terms of regulations of air quality imposing qualities of between $ 19 billion and $ 25 billion. However, the health benefits outweigh, these costs.

According to the article, business did not support the proposed stricter standard on air quality. “Business leaders said that the ozone rule was one of the most onerous of the administration’s proposed environmental regulations” (Broder 2011). This is not a case of market failure but one of administration. Political leadership is not willing to adopt standards that advocate for improved health claiming that it would bring harm to economic gains.

Government plays a key role in this case. The government is the final in determining proposals by agencies. The proposal by E.P.A. ends in the hands of Obama, the president and leader of the government of the United States. The rejection by President Obama to adopt the strict standard shows clearly that government has a big hand on the matter. This is a case of government failure. But, we ought to question the fact that president Obama promising to reconsider the Bush standard and later not implementing his promise. Political influence seems to have swayed Obama and thus the rejection of a move that would hinder economic gains but bring good health to the larger society.

There is a need of policy change to address the problem. Some of the policy changes needed include empowering agencies to have a big say in determining the way things run. Allowing government’s hand to override in the running of the state’s affairs proves a nuisance to sound proposals. The issue at hand shows how bad governance can influence the welfare of the society. It makes leaders value monetary gains only to spend more in alleviating resultant consequences of the course taken.

The core issue is the rejection of a strict standard on air quality attracting all these interest group politics. The pro limits groups included five health groups: the American Lung Associatio, Earth Justice, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and Appalachian Mountain Club. The groups lobbying against the limits include business leaders and industrialists. Industry capture refers to failure of government, which can encourage large enterprises, and firms continue producing negative impacts to the society. The groups are public interest groups. The Obama administration rule by rejecting the proposal claiming that adopting the proposal will be costly and imposing a lot of regulations on industry. It is evident that long-term interests are more important than short term interests from the fact that there are more health gains than economic gains.

Works Cited

Broder, John. “Groups Sue After E.P.A. Fails to Shift Ozone Rules”. New York Times, 12 Oct. 2011, p15.