The Clean Air Act and the Theory of “If One then All”

A Brief History of the Clean Air Act

A little under two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending a lecture and discussion given by Professor Ann E. Carlson, a lecturer of environmental law at the UCLA School of Law, which was entitled What Can the Green New Deal Learn from Environmental Law. Departing from the name however, it seemed that the Green New Deal had just one law to learn from, the Clean Air Act, which I paraphrase Professor Carlson in asserting as the single greatest piece of legislation (environmental or otherwise) passed in the history of the United States.

For those unaware, the Clean Air Act was passed in reaction to the deteriorating breathable air quality in major cities and rural towns alike. Los Angeles especially, was hit with waves of pollution that had been unprecedented for the time. However, unlike previous spikes in pollution in cities like Chicago and New york, Los Angeles' problem was not due to manufacturing. Rather, it was the automobiles at fault, and a growing body of evidence was starting to pin the majority of the city's health crises on one of the most popular modes of transportation in the world (and LA especially). Professor Carlson mentioned how when the finger began to point more fixedly on the automobile manufacturers to reduce the carbon footprint of their vehicles, many were slow to act, although the solution had existed for some time now: catalytic converters were standard equipment on most modern imported cars from Europe.

So why were the American automobile manufacturers so slow to react? Well, because there was no cost effective measure at the time to implement catalytic converters at the scale of the automobile industry in the United States. However, Professor Carlson concluded in stating that once the regulatory policies of the Clean Air Act were passed and enforced, the automotive companies suddenly found the most efficient way of adapting their designs in record time. You can read a lot more about the Clean Air Act in Professor Carlson's upcoming book, Lessons from the Clean Air Act: Building Durability and Flexibility into U.S. Climate and Energy Policy, but I wanted to begin with a history lesson before jumping into how we can change the future.

The Theory of "If One then All"

The second part of this article's title actually comes from a meme that I had seen on Facebook, which was calling on laundry detergent companies to switch to recycled, non-plastic packaging, since Seventh Generation had recently come out with its Free&Clear detergent line with these exact qualities. The meme went something along the lines of: 

If ONE company can do it, then ALL companies can do it.

This image struck me, because it seemed to so accurately describe the situation presented not only by Professor Carlson in her talk, but also that of my past articles regarding ALDI and Testa Produce. Clearly the inaction of companies to promote and enact the kind of sustainable initiatives that will assuredly guarantee their, and our earth's, continued livelihood comes not as a result of lack of funding, but rather lack of priorities. This issue is pervasive not only in capitalist spheres, but in all economic systems where growth and cost minimizing are weighted above sustainability and longevity. This is also the result of extending the classical accounting assumption of a going-concern into facets that can cause immense environmental and social externalities.  

In that regard, if companies want to avoid the kind of federal regulation enforced by the Clean Air Act and posed by the Green New Deal, it might be best to realize that if one of their competitors could have executed and implemented an idea once thought impossible, perhaps its best to invest in some R&D and try it out themselves. The future of the environmental free market may soon be a race to the bottom of emissions rather than an attempt to zero-out costs.