Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Podcast

How Los Angeles Cleaned Up the World’s Air Pollution

Rob talks with UCLA law professor Ann Carlson about her fascinating new book, Smog and Sunshine.

•
Los Angeles Air Pollution Control.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

We live in a time of unheralded environmental victories. Dolphins and whales swim in New York and San Francisco harbors. Lead has been eliminated globally in gasoline for cars and trucks. And Southern California has cleaned up its air.

That last one is more important than you might think. On today’s episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Ann Carlson, a professor of environmental law at UCLA and the former acting head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. She's also the author of a new book, Smog and Sunshine: The Surprising Story of How Los Angeles Cleaned Up Its Air, which was released last month by the University of California Press.

Ann and Rob discuss why cleaning up LA’s air was so important to cleaning up the world’s air. They chat about why LA initially misdiagnosed the causes of its terrible air pollution, how it got them right, and what we can learn from the city’s eventual inspiring success.

Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.

Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.

You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.

Here is an excerpt from their conversation:

Ann Carlson: We should talk more about the Clean Air Act itself because it’s a pretty extraordinary piece of legislation — hard to imagine something like that passing today.

Robinson Meyer: As you are a professor of environmental law, I can’t think of a better topic to talk about. So one, there’s a few nuances that are important. The first is that California is early to air pollution law, so it’s beginning to explore how to regulate cars by the time that the Clean Air Act passes. But the second is this distinction that you’ve begun to draw in this conversation between technology following versus technology forcing regulation, where California had adopted technology following regulation, and that made it kind of captive to the car companies.

Can you talk a little bit about why the Clean Air Act is different and why it was different? And did people understand maybe how different it was when they were writing it?

Carlson: I think they did understand how different it was. And what they did was, instead of focusing on whether technology was available or what was possible to demand of auto companies based on that technology, they focused on public health. And the basic overarching idea in the Clean Air Act is, we are going to set standards that protect public health. We’re not going to worry about cost. We’re not going to worry about technological availability. We’re going to tell manufacturers, for example, you cut pollutants by 90% by 1975 and 1976, depending on the pollutant. We understand there’s no technology. Go out and invent it. That’s the technology-forcing part of the statute.

Of course, the auto manufacturers say they can’t do it. Lee Iacocca famously says that Ford will stop manufacturing vehicles if the Clean Air Act passes. Ford continues to manufacture vehicles to this day. He, of course, was engaged in hyperbole, but that gives you some sense for just how intense the opposition was and how kind of panicked the manufacturers were. But that technology-forcing statute, again, combined with California’s authority to regulate, set off this arms race to really figure out how do we cut pollutants dramatically.

You can find a full transcript of the episode here.

Mentioned:

Ann Carlson’s new book: Smog and Sunshine: The Surprising Story of How Los Angeles Cleaned Up Its Air

This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...

Heatmap Pro brings all of our research, reporting, and insights down to the local level. The software platform tracks all local opposition to clean energy and data centers, forecasts community sentiment, and guides data-driven engagement campaigns. Book a demo today to see the premier intelligence platform for project permitting and community engagement.

Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.

You’re out of free articles.

Use code: CWNYC30 to save 30%.
Subscribe to access Heatmap’s exclusive polling and expert analysis of energy, climate change, and sustainability, now just $99/year $69.30/year.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Hotspots

A Big Battery Relief in New York

And more of the week’s top news around project fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Suffolk County, New York – Rarely do I get to say battery fire fears can be quelched but we have a very good example brewing in the Empire State.

  • On September 11, New York state regulators did a Friday News Dump: The Department of Environmental Conservation confirmed a large PFAS pollution site in East Hampton was explicitly tied to fighting a battery storage site fire. The investigation began after PFAS chemicals, known as “forever chemicals,” were detected in drinking water wells.
  • Investigators will still have to produce a final report, but in their bulletin confirming the pollution source, the agency said it is now working with state energy and fire officials to avoid a specific chemical fire suppression system identified as a potential culprit known as Novec 1230. “The investigation points to the fire suppression system, not battery storage, as a [PFAS] source,” the bulletin states, adding this system wasn’t used in other recent fires at BESS facilities.This defuses what was poised to be a new PR problem for the battery storage sector in a state where local moratoria and restrictive ordinances have become increasingly common.

2. Loudon County, Virginia – I can’t believe it: Data Center Alley is going to enact a moratorium.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

The Case for a Data Center Dividend

A conversation with Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute’s Sam Lyman.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Sam Lyman, head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. Originally focused on cryptocurrency, Lyman’s organization has expanded to policy and messaging development around data centers, most notably providing research many AI boosters cite to claim foreign influence is driving opposition to new hyperscale projects. Last week, the think tank released a new report calling for a novel solution to the data center permitting bottleneck: direct cash payments from data center projects to individuals involved with building them, as well as residents nearby facilities once they’re operating.

I reached out to BPI and asked for a chat with Lyman about the data center dividend proposal. I also tried to get to the bottom of where this increasingly relevant think tank stands on the general idea of a national data center law. The conversation was immensely informative. So here it is, in a lightly abridged and edited format.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

The Bipartisan Buddies With a Plan to Fix Transmission

With a permitting deal seemingly on the horizon, Republican Gabe Evans and Democrat Scott Peters may be about to see their partnership pay off.

Gabe Evans and Scott Peters.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The fate of permitting reform legislation that could smooth the way to all kinds of new and improved energy infrastructure — including transmission lines and renewables — is currently hostage to opaque discussions between Senate committee chairs. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told a Rhode Island business group earlier this week that “we’re actually in a pretty good place on permitting reform,” and that there was “maybe another week of negotiations.” Whitehouse’s Republican counterpart on the EPW committee, West Virginia Senator Shelly Moore-Capito, told Semafor on Friday that any bill has “got to pop out of here in the next 48 hours.”

If that’s going to happen, it will be because Republicans and Democrats have decided it’s worth it to get along. Any deal will eventually have to be voted on by the House, which has already produced several bills on a bipartisan basis, and even passed one — the SPEED Act — late last year.

Keep reading...Show less
Green