If the market price is lower than the loan rate or target price, or if the farmer’s actual production rate is below the farmer’s base acreage rate, the government’s only RECOURSEfor reco
Trang 1announced a monumental agreement with the Soviet Union whereby the Soviet Union would purchase virtually all surplus grain produced in the United States U.S grain and food prices escalated rapidly owing to this new demand, causing great public skepticism about the deal, except in the rural United States, where farm values and incomes escalated
Another method used by the government to subsidize agricultural products is the combina-tion of target prices, deficiency payments, and mandatory acreage reduction This approach is used primarily for corn and wheat, the main U.S grain crops Under this method, the government sets an ideal price, or target price, for aCOMMODITY If the market price falls below that target price, the government pays the farmer the difference—that is, makes a
deficien-cy payment to the farmer This prevents the farmer from being forced to sell the product at a price the government deems unfairly low, and supports the farmer’s income during difficult economic periods Programs using this method are not mandatory, so the farmer must enlist in one to be involved In return for a guaranteed minimum income and price stability, the farmer normally is required to take a specified portion
of land out of production—that is, make a mandatory acreage reduction—at least for pro-gram commodities
In any given year, it is impossible to predict how expensive the deficiency payment programs will be, because weather conditions and uncon-trolled market forces often greatly affect prices
These types of agriculture subsidies often have been quite expensive, especially during years when market prices are low owing to high production and low exports To reduce the government’s cash payments to farmers during one particularly disastrous market swing, the Reagan administration implemented the Pay-ment in Kind (PIK) Program in 1983 Under the PIK Program, instead of paying farmers with cash, the government paid them with certificates good for federal surplus grain Farmers could then exchange the certificates for actual grain or trade them like stock certificates PIK, combined with a drought in 1983, succeeded in reducing the cash cost of the deficiency payment programs and the excessive grain surplus
In the dairy industry, the government sub-sidizes milk production by agreeing to purchase milk from processors at a predetermined price
Dairy farmers receive no direct deficiency pay-ments; rather, they receive from their processor a milk check that includes the federal money The international community often attacks the U.S dairy subsidy programs as predatory, although similar and even greater subsidies are given to many dairy farmers in European countries U.S dairy producers claim that until the other producing nations drop their subsi-dies, it would be economic SUICIDE for the United States to lower subsidies
The government also subsidizes agriculture through nonrecourse loans With this type of subsidy, the government loans money to farmers using the farmers’ future harvest as collateral The government sets a per-bushel loan rate at which farmers can borrow money prior to harvest, so that they can hold their crops for later sale when the market price rises The government determines how much a farmer can borrow by multiplying the loan rate (which is usually equal to the government target price for the crop) by the farmer’s base acreage (which is determined by calculating the number of acres the farmer planted of a target crop over several years, and multiplying that total by the farmer’s average yield) The crop is the collateral for the loan, and the farmer can either repay the loan in cash and sell the crop, or default andFORFEITthe crop to the government If the market price is lower than the loan rate or target price, or if the farmer’s actual production rate is below the farmer’s base acreage rate, the government’s only
RECOURSEfor recouping part of its loan is to take the collateral crop This subsidy is used primarily for corn and wheat, with a modified form of the program applying to soybeans, rice, and cotton The government still enforces restrictive tariffs to subsidize certain domestic crops, especially sugar, for which the U.S tariff virtually eliminates all foreign imports The tariff protects U.S sugar producers and costs the government little, but opponents argue that the cost of this domesticMONOPOLYis passed on to consumers, who are forced to pay sugar prices almost four times higher than the world market rates, to the benefit of a few large sugar manufacturers For peanuts and TOBACCO, the government allows legal monopolies for a few government-licensed growers and imposes large tariffs on imports of these products Cigarette companies are allowed to help determine the price of tobacco and the volume of foreign imports,
188 AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES
Trang 2creating a dual-monopoly relationship between
tobacco growers and the cigarette industry
Supporters of subsidies attribute the
rela-tively low cost of food and the stability of food
production to the assistance of the federal
government They argue that if agriculture
subsidies did not exist, food prices would vary
wildly from year to year, and that many farmers
would be unable to support themselves through
market lows and weather catastrophes
Suppor-ters often state that government support for
family farms keeps farm monopolies from
dominating production and raising prices They
also cite the great advances in PER CAPITA
production since the New Deal revisions in
farm policy as evidence of the success of
agriculture subsidies
In addition, supporters point out that the
government has encouraged soil conservation
through subsidies They point to laws such as
the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act of 1936, 7 U.S.C.A § 608-1 et seq., 16 U.S
C.A § 590 et seq., which required that farmers
who received income subsidies plant
conserving crops like legumes rather than
soil-depleting crops such as corn, and that farmers
use contour crop-stripping methods to hinder
soil erosion resulting from water runoff
Opponents of agriculture subsidies say the
farm economy is overly dependent on
govern-ment, and that market forces would be a more
efficient and inexpensive method of regulating
production and market price They contend
that in the 1970s and 1980s, up to 30 percent of
farmers’ incomes were made up of government
payments, primarily during years when
guaran-teed deficiency payments ballooned, and that
farm programs have become the third largest
federal program expense, behindSOCIAL SECURITY
andMEDICARE
Another primary criticism of farm
commod-ity programs, especially corn and wheat
pro-grams, is that they encourage farmers to expand
their operation in order to acquire more base
acres and higher guaranteed government
pay-ments Opponents believe that this leads to a
concentration of production in the hands of
fewer and fewer farmCORPORATIONS, and actually
undermines the concept of family farms
Oppo-nents also state that although a primary goal of
agriculture subsidies always has been to control
production, most programs have had little
success in doing so because farmers who are paid
to keep part of their land out of production tend
to remove the least productive acres
The Republican Congress of 1994–95 pro-posed large cuts in farm subsidies as a means to reduce the federal DEFICIT In March 1996 Congress passed the Federal Agriculture Im-provement and Reform Act, which came to be known as the Freedom to Farm Act (Pub.L
104–127, Apr 4, 1996, 110 Stat 888) This act threatened to spell the end of agriculture subsidies, as it set out a plan to phase out subsidies by 2003 The six-year period, however, contradicted the avowed purpose of the 1996 act The law sought to soften the blow to farmers by increasing subsidies through the use
of market transition payments These payments differed from traditional subsidies because they were not tied to commodity prices, so even if the market prices rose, the farmers would receive payments In addition, the payment schedules were almost three times higher than the amounts paid out in previous farm bills
Advocates of a free market without subsidies were angered as Congress started to back away from the basic concept of the Freedom to Farm Act As farm incomes started to fall in 1998, members of both political parties agreed to authorize additional funds for farm subsidies
This process continued through 2001 as farmers cited bad weather, natural disasters, and other forces for a decline in farm income
In addition, the 1996 law authorized a dairy
“compact” for six New England states This provision sets a minimum farm price for milk consumed in the six New England states When federally regulated milk prices drop below the compact price, processors are required to pay farmers the difference Midwest dairy farmers have argued this is unfair because the compact erects a trade barrier and encourages New England farmers to overproduce milk
The Farm Security and RuralINVESTMENTAct
of 2002 (Farm Bill 2002), Pub L 107–171, May
13, 2002, 116 Stat 134, set agriculture policy through 2008 Some in Congress lamented the retreat from the Freedom to Farm Act, but others faced the political reality that agribusiness and family farmers are a potent LOBBYING force that few congressional representatives want to frus-trate The 2002 Farm Bill made clear that subsidies would not wither away In fact, the law outlined an increase in subsidy payments by
74 percent over a ten-year period In addition, the
AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES 189
Trang 3law added new crops to be included in the subsidies, and it established a new price-guaran-tee scheme called the “counter-cyclical” pro-gram Under this program, farmers with an eligible historical production of covered com-modities (wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, soybeans, oilseeds, dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas) and peanuts, are able
to enroll annually to receive payments from the federal government when the commodity’s effective price is lower than the target price The effective price of a commodity is the direct payment rate, plus the higher of either the national commodity loan rate or the national average farm price for that year The purpose of the counter-cyclical payments is to support and stabilize farm income in the years when market prices fall
In 2008 Congress enacted law the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (2008 Farm Act)
The act governs the majority of federal agricul-ture and agriculagricul-ture-related programs through
2012 Many of the commodity programs that were introduced in previous farm legislation were continued in this act, as well as the implementation of a new average crop revenue election program In addition, the 2008 Farm Act introduced a permanent disaster-assistance program Another major change in the act, which reflected the changes and trends of the United States in the move towards buying organic products, was the establishment of new programs to support agricultural producers who were transitioning to organic agriculture
The act, also provided funding to increase research into organic agriculture
Not only did the 2008 Farm Act implement new programs, but it also improved some of the existing programs For example, in 2007 a congressional committee hearing disclosed that billions of dollars of waste,FRAUD, and abuse were prevalent in the then-existing Federal CROP INSURANCE Program Specifically, the TESTIMONY
at the hearing revealed that over 40 percent of the program’s funding, more than $10 billion, never reached the farmers whom it was intended to assist Additionally, billions of dollars in excess subsidies for the private insurers that adminis-tered the program were also disclosed The changes in the 2008 Farm Act included substan-tial reforms to the Crop Insurance Program that significantly reduced excessive subsidies for insurance and provided new funding for the
enforcement of that program as well as other programs that had significant waste and abuse by farmers and insurers The changes were
estimat-ed to save over $3.4 billion over ten years Many environmentalists oppose farm subsi-dies, such as corn and wheat programs, for different reasons These groups claim that the base acreage and deficiency-payment system encourage farmers to produce soil-depleting and erosion-prone crops such as corn year after year, even if the market offers a better price for
a different crop Soil depletion and the need to increase average yields lead to heavy use of chemical fertilizers, which in turn add to soil and WATER POLLUTION, they argue Others who oppose farm subsidies argue that the subsidies redistribute wealth by transferring the tax-payer’s money to a small group of well-off farm businesses and landowners Another argument against farm subsidies is that it DAMAGES the economy by causing overproduction, overuse of marginal farmland, and price inflation Other opponents contend that the subsidies not only damage the United States’ trade relations, but also that agriculture in the United States would still thrive without the subsidies
FURTHER READINGS Cochrane, Willard, and Mary Ryan 1976 American Farm Policy, 1948–1973 Minneapolis: Univ of Minnesota Press.
“Congress Passes Farm Legislation Cutting Crop Insurance Waste by $3.4 Billion.” Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Available online at http://oversight house.gov/story.asp?ID=2231; website home page: http:// oversight.house.gov (accessed September 16, 2009) Edwards, Chris Agricultural Subsidies Downsizing the Federal Government Available online at http://www downsizinggovernment.org/print/agriculture/subsidies; website home page: http://www.downsizinggovern-ment.org (accessed September 15, 2009).
“Farm and Commodity Policy: Program Provisions: Counter-Cyclical Payments ” United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Briefing Rooms Available online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/ Briefing/FarmPolicy/countercyclicalpay.htm;website home page: http://www.ers.usda.gov(accessed September 18, 2009).
Helmberger, Peter G 1991 Economic Analysis of Farm Programs New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rapp, David 1988 How the United States Got into Agriculture: And Why It Can’t Get Out Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Rehka, Mehra 1989 “Winners and Losers in the U.S Sugar Program ” Resources 94 (winter).
“2008 Farm Bill Side-by-Side.” United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Available online
at http://www.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/Overview.htm;
190 AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES
Trang 4website home page: http://www.ers.usda.gov (accessed
September 16, 2009).
U.S Department of Agriculture Available online at www
.usda.gov (accessed May 29, 2003).
Wuerthner, George, and Mollie Matteson, eds 2002 Welfare
Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American
West Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
CROSS REFERENCES
Agricultural Law; Agriculture Department; General
Agree-ment on Tariffs and Trade.
AID AND ABET
To assist another in the commission of a crime by
words or conduct
The person who aids and abets participates in
the commission of a crime by performing some
OVERT ACTor by giving advice or encouragement
He or she must share the criminal intent of the
person who actually commits the crime, but it is
not necessary for the aider and abettor to be
physically present at the scene of the crime
An aider and abettor is a party to a crime and
may be criminally liable as a principal, an accessory
before the fact, or an accessory after the fact
AID AND COMFORT
To render assistance or counsel Any act that
deliberately strengthens or tends to strengthen
enemies of the United States, or that weakens or
tends to weaken the power of the United States to
resist and attack such enemies is characterized as
aid and comfort
Article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the U.S
Constitution specifies that the giving ofAID AND
COMFORT to the enemy is an element in the
crime ofTREASON Aid and comfort may consist
of substantial assistance or the mere attempt to
provide some support; actual help or the success
of the enterprise is not relevant
In the wake of the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks, there was a great deal of concern
expressed about terrorist “sleeper cells” in the
United States Sleeper cells can be individual
terrorists or groups of terrorists who blend in
with society at large; they remain inactive, even
for years, until they receive orders to carry out
their mission Some of the perpetrators of the
September 11 attacks belonged to such sleeper cells
Widespread concern over terrorist sleeper
cells fueled suspicion that some U.S citizens
were knowingly providing aid and comfort to
terrorist cells located in the United States Aid
and comfort was allegedly provided by shielding
the identities of terrorists from U.S authorities, and providing funds, transportation, and other forms of assistance to terrorists who plotted against U.S interests
In the subsequent U.S military action against the Taliban government in Afghanistan and members of the al Qaeda terrorist organization located there, which started in October 2001, U.S
forces captured John Walker Lindh, a 20-year-old American citizen who was trained by and was fighting for the Taliban against the U.S govern-ment The Walker Lindh case garnered enor-mous coverage in the press, with many claiming that Walker Lindh’s role as a combatant for the Taliban was tantamount to treason as it gave aid and comfort to enemies of the United States
AIDING THE ENEMY ACTS The outbreak of war normally ends all forms of normal relations between belligerent states In support of the war effortMUNICIPALlaws may be implemented to prevent citizens and other persons within a belligerent state’s jurisdiction from assisting an enemy state through trade or other forms of contact In the United States, for example, the Trading with the Enemy Act (40 Stat 411 as amended [1917]) suspends all forms of trade or communication with persons in enemy TERRITORY The statutory or executive restrictions imposed under the Trading with the Enemy Act are limited to formal periods of war, although other authority exists permitting the president to impose restrictions on trade or communications with a country without a
DECLARATIONof war
Because the Trading with the Enemy Act and similar statutes apply specifically to other nations in times of war, their provisions do not apply easily to dealings between citizens of the United States and members of terrorist organi-zations After the SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKSwere perpetrated by terrorist organizations against the United States, Congress enacted the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Ap-propriate Tools Required to Intercept and ObstructTERRORISM(USA PATRIOT Act) (Pub
L No 107-56, 115 Stat 277) in order to strengthen the ability of the United States to protect itself from terrorist activities The USA PATRIOT Act amended the existing statutory provisions permitting the president to restrict transactions and other transfers with foreign countries, organizations, and persons in order
AIDING THE ENEMY ACTS 191
Trang 5to respond to unusual and extraordinary threats against the United States
The current statutory provisions allowing the president to impose economic sanctions against a nation that the president deems to be a threat against the United States are provided by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Pub L No 95-223, 91 Stat 1626 (50 U.S.C.A §§ 1701–1702) Under this act, the president may, with respect to any person or property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, investigate, regulate, or prohibit transactions in foreign exchange; transfers of credit or payments by or to any banking institute; or importation or exportation of
SECURITIES or currency The president and the federal government may also confiscate property owned by certain foreign countries, organiza-tions, or nationals
Violation of an EXECUTIVE ORDER issued pursuant to the IEEPA prohibiting trade with a foreign nation or organization may result in criminal sanctions During the Gulf War in 1991, PresidentGEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSHissued an executive order prohibiting citizens of the United States from traveling to or dealing with the government of Iraq Arch Trading Company, Inc., a corporation based in Virginia, violated this
DECREEby completing a contract with Iraq The U.S government brought criminal charges against the company for conspiring to commit
an offense against the United States in violation of
18 U.S.C.A § 371 (2000) Despite arguments by the company that violation of the order was not
an“offense” under federal law, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the company could be properly charged (United States v Arch Trading Co., 987 F.2d 1087 [4th Cir
1993])
FURTHER READINGS Bordwell, Percy 2008 The Law of War between Belligerents:
A Commentary (1908) Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.
Green, Leslie C 1999 Essays on the Modern Law of War 2d
ed Ardsley, NY: Transnational.
Williams, Nathan 2001 “How Has the Onset of War Coincided with Limitations on Press Freedom Throughout Our Nation ’s History?” George Mason Univ.’s History News Network Web site Available online
at http://hnn.us/articles/392.html; website home page:
http://hnn.us (accessed August 29, 2009).
CROSS REFERENCES Rules of War; War.
AIDS SeeACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME
AIR POLLUTION Air pollution has plagued communities since before the Industrial Revolution Airborne pollutants, such as gases, chemicals, smoke particles, and other substances, reduce the value
of, and ability to enjoy, affected property and cause significant health and environmental problems Despite the long history and signifi-cant consequences of this problem, effective legal remedies only began to appear in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Though some U.S cities adopted air quality laws as early as 1815, airPOLLUTIONat that time was seen as a problem best handled by local laws and ordinances Only as cities continued to grow, and pollution and health concerns with them, did federal standards and a nationwide approach to air quality begin to emerge The earliest cases involving air pollution were likely to be brought because of a noxious smell, such as from a slaughterhouse, animal herd, or factory, that interfered with neighbor-ing landowners’ ability to enjoy their property These disputes were handled through the application of the nuisance doctrine, which provides that possessors of land have a duty to make a reasonable use of their property in a manner that does not harm other individuals in the area A person who polluted the air and caused harm to others was liable for breaching this duty and was required to pay DAMAGES or was enjoined (stopped through an INJUNCTION
issued by a court) from engaging in the activities that created the pollution In determining whether to enjoin an alleged polluter, courts balanced the damage to the PLAINTIFF land-owner’s property against the hardship the
DEFENDANT polluter would incur in trying to eliminate, or abate, the pollution Courts often denied injunctions because the economic dam-age suffered by the defendant—and, by exten-sion, the surrounding community if the defen-dant was essential to the local economy—in trying to eliminate the pollution often out-weighed the damage suffered by the plaintiff Thus, in many cases, the plaintiff was left only with the remedy of money damages—a cash payment equal to the estimated monetary value
of the damage caused by the pollution—and the polluting activities were allowed to continue
192 AIDS
Trang 6Using a nuisance action to control
wide-spread air pollution proved inadequate in other
ways as well AtCOMMON LAW, only the attorney
general or localPROSECUTORcould sue to abate a
public nuisance (one that damages a large
number of persons) unless a private individual
could show “special” damage that was distinct
from, and more severe than, that suffered by the
general public The private plaintiff withSPECIAL
DAMAGES had the necessary standing (legally
protected interest) to seek injunctive relief In
some states, the problem of standing has been
corrected through laws that allow a private
citizen to sue to abate public nuisances such as
air pollution, though these laws are by no means
the norm Moreover, with the nuisance doctrine
the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the
harm he or she has experienced was caused by a
particular defendant However, because
pollu-tants can derive from many sources, it can be
difficult, if not impossible, to prove that a
particular polluter is responsible for a particular
problem Last, nuisance law was useful only to
combat particular polluters; it did not provide
an ongoing and systematic mechanism for the
regulation and control of pollution
Early in the nineteenth century, a few U.S
cities recognized the shortcomings of common
law remedies and enacted local laws that
attempted to address the problem of air
pollution Pittsburgh, in 1815, was one of the
first to institute air-quality laws Others, such as
Chicago and Cincinnati, passed smoke-control
ordinances in 1881, and by 1912, 23 U.S cities
with populations of more than 200,000 had
passed smoke-abatement laws
Though the early court cases usually
addressed polluted air as an interference with
the enjoyment of property, scientists quickly
discovered that air pollution also poses significant
health and environmental risks It is believed to
contribute to the incidence of chronic diseases
such as emphysema, bronchitis, and other
respi-ratory illnesses and has been linked to higher
mortality rates from other diseases, including
cancer and heart disease
The shortcomings associated with the
com-mon law remedies to control air pollution and
increasing alarm over the problem’s long-range
effects finally resulted in the development of
state and federal legislation The first significant
legislation concerning air quality was the Air
Pollution Control Act, enacted in 1955 (42 U.S
C.A § 7401 et seq [1955]) Also known as the
CLEAN AIR ACT, it gave the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare the power to undertake and recommend research programs for air-pollution control Amendments passed during the 1960s authorized federal agencies to inter-vene to help abate interstate pollution in limited circumstances, to control emissions from new motor vehicles, and to provide some supervi-sion and enforcement powers to states trying to control pollution By the end of the 1960s, when
it became clear that states had made little progress in combating air pollution, Congress toughened the Clean Air Act through a series of new laws, which were known as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (Pub L No 91-604,
84 Stat 1676[Dec 31, 1970])
The 1970 amendments greatly increased federal authority and responsibility for addres-sing the problem of air pollution They
provid-ed for, among other things, uniform national emissions standards for the hazardous air pollutants most likely to cause an increase in mortality or serious illness Under the amend-ments, each state retained some regulatory authority, having “primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the entire geographic area comprising such state.” Thus, states could not “opt out” of air pollution regulation and, for the first time, were required to attain certain air-quality standards within a specified period
of time In addition, the amendments directed the administrator of theENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC-TION AGENCY (EPA), which was also established
in 1970, to institute national standards regard-ing ambient air quality for air pollutants
Drivers in downtown Phoenix are advised
to utilize public transportation in order to help reduce the area’s high levels
of air pollution.
ª JACK KURTZ/ZUMA/ CORBIS.
AIR POLLUTION 193
Trang 7endangering public health or welfare, in partic-ular sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and photochemical oxidants in the atmosphere
The EPA was also granted the authority to require levels of harmful pollutants to be brought within set standards before further industrial expansion would be permitted
Despite the ambitious scope of the 1970 legislation, many of its goals were never attained
As a result, the Clean Air Act was extensively revised again in 1977 (Pub L No 95-95, 91 Stat
685[Aug 7, 1977]) One significant component
of the 1977 amendments was the formulation of programs designed to inspect, control, and monitor vehicle emissions The 1977 revisions also sought to regulate parking on the street, discourage automobile use in crowded areas, promote the use of bicycle lanes, and encourage employer-sponsored carpooling Unlike the goals of several of the 1970 amendments, many
of the 1977 reforms were achieved Many states, with the help of federal funding, developed programs that requireAUTOMOBILES to be tested regularly for emissions problems before they could be licensed and registered The 1977
amendments also directed the EPA to issue regulations to reduce “haze” in national parks and other wilderness areas Under these regula-tions the agency sought to improve air quality in
a number of areas, including the Grand Canyon
in Arizona
During the 1980s and 1990s, several environ-mental issues, including acid rain, global climate change, and the depletion of the ozone layer, gave rise to further federal regulation Acid rain, which has caused significant damage to U.S and Canadian lakes, is created when the sulfur from fossil fuels, such as coal, combines with oxygen in the air to create sulfur dioxide, a pollutant The sulfur dioxide then combines with oxygen to form sulfate, which, when washed out of the air
by fog, clouds, mist, or rain, becomes acid rain, with potentially catastrophic effects on vegeta-tion and ground water Amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990 (Pub L No 101-549, 104 Stat 2399[Nov 15, 1990]) sought to address the challenges posed by acid rain by commissioning
a number of federally sponsored studies, includ-ing an analysis of Canada’s approach to dealinclud-ing with acid rain and an investigation of the use of
National Air Pollutant Emissions, 1970 to 2008
154.2
110.2
0
50
100
150
200
250
204.0
163.2
1970
188.4
153.5
1975
185.4
143.8
1980
176.8
134.2
126.8
83.9
1995
114.5
68.1
2000
96.6
48.2
2005
77.7
38.9
2008
Year
SOURCE: Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data,” available online at
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/trends/ (accessed on August 14, 2009).
Total emissions Highway vehicle
ILLUSTRATION BY GGS
CREATIVE RESOURCES.
REPRODUCED BY
PERMISSION OF GALE,
A PART OF CENGAGE
LEARNING.
194 AIR POLLUTION
Trang 8buffering and neutralizing agents to restore lakes
and streams The 1990 laws also directed the EPA
to prepare a report on the feasibility of developing
standards related to acid rain that would“protect
sensitive and critically sensitive aquatic and
terrestrial resources.” In addition, the
amend-ments provided for a controversial system of
“marketable allowances,” which authorize
in-dustries to emit certain amounts of sulfate and
which can be transferred to other entities or
“banked” for future use
The problem of global climate change is linked
to the accumulation of gases, including carbon
dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere The
1990 amendments implemented a number of
strategies to address changes in the global climate,
including the commissioning of studies on
options for controlling the emission of methane
The amendments also contained provisions to
deal with the depletion of the ozone layer, which
shields the earth from the harmful effects of the
sun’s radiation Though the long-term
conse-quences were hard to determine in the early 2000s,
damage had already been seen in the form of a
“hole” in the ozone layer over Antarctica The
destruction of the ozone layer was believed to be
caused by the release into the atmosphere of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other similar
substances The 1990 laws included a ban on
“nonessential uses” of ozone-depleting chemicals,
and the placement of conspicuous warning labels
on certain substances, indicating that their use
harms public health and the environment by
destroying the ozone in the upper atmosphere
Regulatory interpretation of the Clean Air
Act shifted between the late 1990s and early
2000s Under President WILLIAM J CLINTON, the
Environmental Protection Agency sought to
close loopholes in the law’s enforcement through
the New Source Review (NSR) program
Essen-tially, these rules used an industrial facility’s age
to determine when higher pollution emissions
would require the facility to go through a
permitting process and install pollution-control
equipment The agency sued some 50 companies
in an effort to hold them to the highest
pollution-control standards But the EPA shifted direction
under PresidentGEORGE W.BUSH, who favored less
stringent regulations Under its so-called Clear
Skies initiative, the Bush administration
pro-posed issuing individual utilities pollution
cred-its, which would allow the utility to lawfully
generate a fixed amount of pollution, and if
unused, any remaining credits could be sold to
other utilities exceeding their permitted limit (“cap and trade system”) Environmentalists criticized the proposals for gutting protections, while industry embraced them as flexible cost-savings measures
Greenhouse Gases
Meanwhile, in 1999, various environmental groups filed an administrative “rule-making”
PETITIONasking the EPA to establish standards for motor vehicle“greenhouse gas” emissions (pri-marily carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases) The EPA announced a review of the Clinton-era policy, then issued proposed rule changes in December 2002 that would relax requirements governing pollution levels and mandatory equipment upgrades The EPA stated that it lacked authority to regulate such gases It argued, in part, that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were naturally occurring sub-stances in the atmosphere and therefore did not constitute“air pollutants” within the meaning of the Clean Air Act
In Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 549 U.S 497 (2007), the U.S
Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the EPA had the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and if so, whether EPA’s stated reasons for declining to act were consistent with the statute The Court narrowly decided, in a 5–4 landmark decision, that gases that cause global warming were pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act The Court further held that EPA did indeed have the statutory authority to regulate them, and that it had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to exercise that authority
The long-winded controversy centered on Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, specifically,
42 USC §7521(a)(1), which states in relevant part:
The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission
of any air pollutant from any class or classes
of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare The Act defines air pollut-ants to include “any air pollution agent including any physical, chemical sub-stance emitted into the ambient air.”
[§7602(g)]
AIR POLLUTION 195
Trang 9Tobacco Smoke
Although the trend has been toward adoption of smoking bans, advocates and opponents have fought pitched battles Advocates point to successes such as stringent statewide bans in New York, California, and Delaware, along with
an estimated 400 bans in cities such as Boston and Dallas, according to the American Non-smokers’ Rights Foundation They also cited evidence presented at the American College of Cardiology’s annual meeting in 2002 showing that the city of Helena, Montana, enjoyed dramatically reduced heart attack rates the year following enactment of its ban Ironically, enforcement was subsequently halted while a court battle was waged over the ban By 2008 a clear majority of states (more than 30) had implemented state-wide smoking bans in public places, but legal challenges at the local level continued across the country
Opposition to indoor smoking bans has come from the bar, restaurant, and TOBACCO
industries Commercial groups argue that bans result in revenue loss, burdensome COMPLIANCE
regulation, and even a diminished labor force
They have achieved some success Some city councils rejected proposed ordinances after heavy LOBBYING, such as in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and the city of Pueblo, Colorado, was forced to suspend its ordinances following a successful public signature drive calling for a publicREFERENDUMin 2003
FURTHER READINGS Findley, Roger W., and Daniel A Farber 2008 Environ-mental Law in a Nutshell 7th ed St Paul, Minn.:
Thomson/West.
Jackson, Ted 2003 “Activists Fret President’s Plan Hurts Effort on FPL Emissions ” Palm Beach Post (February 28).
Kaiser Family Foundation 2008 “Public Place Smoking Bans-Kaiser State Health Facts ” February 2008 Text available online at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/
comparetable.jsp?ind=86&cat=2 (accessed August 25, 2009).
Menell, Peter S., ed 2002 Environmental Law Aldershot, England; Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate/Dartmouth Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 2008 “Solving Global Warming: Your Guide to Legislation ” January
2008 Text available online at http://www.nrdc.org/
legislation/factsheets/leg_07032601a.pdf; website home page: http://www.nrdc.org/policy (accessed August 5, 2009).
Rodgers, William H., Jr 1986 Environmental Law: Air and Water Vol 2 St Paul, Minn.: West.
Stagg, Michael K 2001 “The EPA’s New Source Review Enforcement Actions: Will They Proceed? ” Trends 33 (November-December).
CROSS REFERENCES Automobiles; Environmental Law; Environmental Protec-tion Agency; PolluProtec-tion; Surgeon General; Tobacco. AIRLINES
In 1978 the airline industry, which had been heavily regulated and controlled, was liberated from government oversight and released to the vagaries of the marketplace As a result, the industry underwent significant change during the 1980s and 1990s At the same time, several major air disasters took place, including the
1996 Valujet and TWA 800 aircraft crashes In response to the post-accident events, Congress passed the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act (ADFAA) the same year The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, wrought further change on the airline industry Just weeks after the attacks, PresidentGEORGE W.BUSHsigned the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabiliza-tion Act (ATSSSA) According to a statement released by President Bush on September 22,
2001, the act was intended to ensure passenger safety and to“assure the safety and immediate stability of the nation’s commercial airline system.” It also created financial turmoil for nearly all the major carriers What followed was
a period of evolution and metamorphosis that changed the nature of flying considerably
Deregulation
When the first commercial airlines appeared afterWORLD WAR I, fewer than 6,000 passengers per year traveled by air By the 1930s the Big Four—Eastern Air Lines, United Air Lines, American Airlines, and Trans World Airlines (TWA)—dominated commercial air transport These companies had garnered exclusive rights from the federal government to fly domestic airmail routes, and Pan American (Pan Am) held the rights to international routes The hold of these four airlines on their lucrative
CONTRACTS went virtually unchallenged until deregulation in 1978 Even after the formation
of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) in 1938, formed to license new airlines, grant new routes, approve mergers, and investigate acci-dents, the Big Four and Pan Am continued to be guaranteed permanent rights to these routes In fact, no new major scheduled airline was licensed for the next four decades
In October 1978 Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act (49 U.S.C.A § 334 et seq.), ending the virtual MONOPOLY held by the Big
196 AIRLINES
Trang 10Four and Pan Am The government’s goal was
to promote competition within the industry
The act gave airlines essentially unrestricted
rights to enter new routes without CAB
approval The companies could also exit any
market and raise and lower fares at will
The immediate effect of deregulation was a
drop in fares and an increase in passengers New
cut-rate, no-frills airlines, such as People
Express Airlines and New York Air, offered
travelers the lowest fares ever seen in the
industry Forced to compete to fill their planes,
the larger companies lowered their prices as
well Then the oil-producing countries in the
Middle East formed a cartel and raised the price
of jet fuel 88 percent in 1979 and an additional
23 percent in 1980 Combined with tumbling
fares and increased passenger loads, the higher
cost of jet fuel caused airline profits to drop
Labor strife also affected the industry in the
early days following deregulation In 1981, after
years of working under stressful conditions
made worse by deregulation, the Professional
Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO)
called a strike, demanding shorter working
hours and higher pay The union expected
support and cooperation from the Reagan
administration because of a sympathetic letter
that President RONALD REAGAN had sent to
PATCO when he was campaigning for the
presidency In the letter, he pledged to do
whatever was necessary to meet PATCO’s needs
and to ensure the public’s safety But Reagan
ordered the strikers to return to work within
three days or be fired Most did not return The
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) ordered
all carriers to temporarily reduce their number
of flights by one-third Newer and smaller
carriers found themselves increasingly unable to
gain access to lucrative routes Rebuilding the
air traffic controller force took years, during
which landing slots at the largest airports
remained restricted, and small carriers, unable
to compete, simply abandoned their attempts to
break into the larger markets
To some extent, competitive pricing actually
had the opposite effect of what the deregulators
intended When the small“upstart” companies
offered extremely low fares, the larger companies
responded aggressively For example, in 1983,
People Express announced a $99 round-trip fare
between Newark, New Jersey, and Minneapolis–
St Paul Northwest Airlines, which had always
dominated the Twin Cities market, undercut People by instituting a $95 fare for the same destination and scheduling extra departures As a result, People decided it could not compete and withdrew from the market Passengers enjoyed the benefit of lower fares, but only for a short time before the competitive effect faded and high fares returned
When deregulation brought competitive pricing, the large carriers began to realize that it was not profitable for them to do business the way they had in the past The first major change they made was to abandon the practice of criss-crossing the continent with nonstop flights to many different cities Instead, the major airlines scheduled most of their flights into and out of a central point, or“hub,” where passengers might need to change to a different flight to complete their journey One airline controlled most of the reservation desks and gates at a particular hub—
for example, United in Chicago, Northwest in Minneapolis–St Paul, American in Dallas–Fort Worth, and Delta in Atlanta For this reason, and because passengers tend to dislike changing carriers in the middle of a trip, the dominant company in a hub had a tremendous advantage over the competition in influencing what carrier
a passenger would choose By 1990 two-thirds of
Passengers preparing
to board an airplane must discard all liquids weighing more than 3 ounces, a limit enacted by the U.S Transportation Security Adminis-tration in 2006 after
an alleged liquid bomb plot was exposed in the United Kingdom.
GEORGE RIZER-POOL/ GETTY IMAGES
AIRLINES 197