Talk:United States Environmental Protection Agency

Comments

I removed "as long as it does not interfere with economic interests" from the description of the EPA's mission in the first sentence of the article. No explanation was given by the contributor of this recent addition. In fact, the EPA's mission statement, found on the agency's own "About EPA" webpage, does not contain this qualifier. In addition, neither "economic" nor any other form of the word can be found anywhere on the "About EPA" webpage. See http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm --ChicagoJason 19:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To do:

1. Describe the criteria the EPA uses for banning pollutants.
2. Give examples of pollutants banned by these criteria.
3. Is carbon dioxide a "pollutant"?

Carbon dioxide is not directly regulated by the USEPA, as it is considered benign by the US goverment. However, they do indirectly regulate carbon dioxide emissions through the enforcement of energy efficiency standards, including their voluntary energy star certification program. All their efficiency standards and absolutely everything they are doing in regards to CO2 is in the US Climate Action Report at their webpage. It is worth noting that the California state goverment does plan to regulate CO2 through CARB, although the federal goverment unsuccessfully challenged their authority to do so. --Lack Thereof 03:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at United States Environmental Protection Agency? At least several states have their own EPA's and I'm sure other nations also have their own. --mav 05:10, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with mav - the page should read United States Environmental Protection Agency.

I also agree, there is for instance Queensland EPA to which this would apply. I'm going to move it. Lankiveil 12:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Controversy section needed!

There should be a controversy section to this wiki page. I mean a green agency whose head is installed by Dubya is as efficient in protecting Mother Earth as the FCC would be under the directorate of Goebbels.

• What about the recent controversy regarding allowing testing of pollutants on mentally handicapped children and orphans? It should at least be addressed briefly if it's still an issue. Rōnin 10:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I added a lengthy remark accusing the EPA of following a political and anti-scientific agenda. But perhaps you wanted more about right-wing bias than about left-wing bias? --Wing Nut 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

new article: Timeline

hey EPA editors -- I created a new article quite a while ago, and since then haven't had a chance to follow up: Timeline of major US environmental and occupational health regulation. Please take a look and add/subtract/modify at your pleasure. I would ask that you please read the talk page first for a description of why I chose that name, and what I intended for the article. thanks! bikeable (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DDT Section

A friend of mine at the EPA, when shown the article, called it dishonest and a misrepresentation. I have reworked that section so as to not be inflammatory, and so that it represents DDT's ban as being about ecosystems, not human health. Talk page if you have questions. --\/\/slack (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Balance of coverage

The current version of the article does not do a good job explaining the diversity of programs the EPA has, instead discussing only a select few and leaving the reader to guess that the "related legislation" section means they also have other areas of responsibility. -- Beland 18:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization Plan No. 3

DBrnstn asked in an edit summary, What was the law passed that established the EPA? Should be listed, and perhaps hyperlinked. I created a stub for Reorganization Plan No. 3 and linked it from this article. Feel free to expand on it. bikeable (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references

THe Simpsons Movie centres on the EPA. Whether or not other cultural references to the EPA can be found, one good question emerges: should the article have a Cultural references section? IMHO it should, but I'm not doing anything until we get a bit of consensus. 85.92.173.186 06:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree Wartime2 23:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. The reference to EPA was not particularly meaningful. At most it deserves a sentence, but this article shouldn't become full of random "cultural references". bikeable (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a reference, especially because the DVD includes a message from EPA saying that they are not in fact incompetent. 68.183.182.60 (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

He like to eat leaves in EPA in US.

He like to eat leaves in EPA in US.

This line is is the article. Vandalism? 81.105.245.251 04:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Review of air quality standards POV check. Policymakers that have minimal scientific knowledge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.110.231 (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC) On July 9, 1970, citing rising concerns over environmental protection and conservation, President Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order, creating the EPA as a single, independent agency from a number of smaller arms of different federal agencies. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to comprehensively regulate environmental pollutants.On July 9, 1970, citing rising concerns over environmental protection and conservation, President Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order, creating the EPA as a single, independent agency from a number of smaller arms of different federal agencies. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to comprehensively regulate environmental pollutants.On July 9, 1970, citing rising concerns over environmental protection and conservation, President Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order, creating the EPA as a single, independent agency from a number of smaller arms of different federal agencies. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to comprehensively regulate environmental pollutants.On July 9, 1970, citing rising concerns over environmental protection and conservation, President Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order, creating the EPA as a single, independent agency from a number of smaller arms of different federal agencies. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to comprehensively regulate environmental pollutants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.129.192 (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Redo Air Standards Review Sections

Reference 8 requires a subscription and the summary text is misleading at best. 68.93.134.68 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Related legislation" can be reduced

The newly-created environmental policy of the United States has some significant overlap with this article, and most of the "Related legislation" section could be deleted or greatly reduced. johnpseudo 23:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Company influence of EPA?

EPA fires scientist after request by company. [1] Brian Pearson (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Brian Pearson

Aircraft Drinking Water Rule

This item was deleted from the Water legislation section. A rule is not legislation; it's a regulation issued by EPA. This article does not have a list of EPA regulations, nor do I recommend creating one here (EPA has issued thousands of rules). This drinking water-related proposed rule could be added to the Safe Drinking Water Act article, or a new article could be created. I preserve the deleted text here for such possible uses.

2008 - Aircraft Drinking Water Rule, proposed on March 28, 2008 /ref/ http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/index.php/47/airplane-water/ CleanBeta /ref/

Moreau1 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Add information

I suggest add information about the EPA Office of Environmental Justice and the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program.--Nukeless 14:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are more programs and grant programs in EPA, such as Watershed central. There should at least be a sentence with a general explaination that there are more--Soundthebugle (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

suggested addition to the controversy section

PETA recently sent me a letter claiming the EPA does cruel, useless experiments on animals. Should this be added to the "controversy" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Web wonder (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of a letter from PETA, no. A fundraising/advocacy letter from an advocacy group would not be considered a reliable source. Additionally, it demonstrates a pretty clear bias. "Cruel" and "useless" are fairly loaded terms, and are inherently subjective. If this was something you were interested in, I would suggest looking for information from credible sources. However, I don't think this is something that would pass the notability test.Jbower47 (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Move request

A discussion is underway at Talk:EPA (disambiguation)#Requested move which would move that article to EPA, which currently redirects here.--Aervanath (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Environmental monitoring

I have been trying to fill a gaping hole in Wikipedia by creating and writing most of Environmental monitoring and Freshwater environmental quality parameters‎ (which probably needs to change to Environmental quality control parameters). On the assumption that those watching this page may either be working for the EPA or have an interest in it, I would appreciate other editors contributing knowledge and references. Many thanks  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   11:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

soapbox - Barriers to Enforcing Environmental Justice

If it's notable "Barriers to Enforcing Environmental Justice" could be a topic by itself rather its opinions overwhelming this topic. Tedickey (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS in Washington D.C.

Earlier today I added the following link to the Environmental Protection Agency article in the external links section. NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS in Washington D.C.

I am confused why the link was removed. I think that a link to the National Headquarters for the Environmental Protection Agency Union in Washington D.C. has a rightful home in the external links section of the Environmental Protection Agency's article for many obvious reasons. Please explain why the link was removed.71.90.171.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC). Hereherer (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link that was removed

• NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS in Washington D.C.Hereherer (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a self-promotional site whose purpose isn't really topical here (unless you can find reliable third-party sources which corroborate their statements, to develop a paragraph on the two). Tedickey (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What? I don not understand your reasoning behind calling the NTEU EPA Union National Headquarters site a self promotional site whose purpose isn't really topical on the EPA's article. And what do reliable third-party sources which corroborate their statements to develop a paragraph on the two have to do with it? I do not agree with you this needs to be mitigated properly as to not start a edit war. You did not discus with me or leave any reasoning the first time you deleted my entry. Thank you for responding this time. Please do not start a edit war and be respectful of the wikipedia's purpose.Hereherer (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Its site certainly doesn't promote anyone's interests except for their own. I pointed out that they make statements about themselves (for instance the ones that say in effect that without them, the EPA wouldn't be doing what it was chartered to do), and that unless there's some reliable source, it's nontopical. Do spend the time to look for third-party sources; without that, your edits appear to be advertising Tedickey (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. Please give time to respond to your requests without deleting the entry again like you did the first time without any reasoning. You added a spam link to the end of the entry I made without notice to me. Please do not hurry or rush the discussion of this just because you do not want the link I added on the page. Hereherer (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)01:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with what you have said. Proper discussion and dispute resolution needs to take place before action is taken to delete the entry I made. Please give me time to respond to your requests. 71.90.171.86 (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Proper discussion of the link that I added needs no happen before action is taken like adding spam links to the end of a link that I added. Removed that spam link. This is a article about the EPA and the EPA National Headquarters in Washington D.C. would not exist without the EPA. Not just a link to the EPA Union National Headquarters website is needed at the end of the EPA article. I think it would be better to have a entire section in the article about EPA the EPA Union Headquarters in Washington D.C.. And again please do not rush this discussion and delete the entry that I made without first allowing proper discussion and resolution to take place.Hereherer (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable. See Wikipedia:Notability. Also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. WP is not a directory or collection of random information. Unless the union does something actually worth mentioning in this article like announcing a strike and shutting down the entire EPA, it merits no mention in Wikipedia, like the vast majority of unions. In contrast, the air traffic controllers' union is notable because they actually launched a strike and got themselves fired. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree - promotional claims on the union's webpage can be disregarded unless we find that there's substantial neutral third-party sources. They're sort of questionable since they're preempting EPA's charter by stating in so many words that EPA wouldn't be doing their job because the union did it for them. Tedickey (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Union, National Headquarters Office in Washington D.C. is not random to the Environmental Protection Agency and I think we both can agree on that. You said that if the Union does something worth mentioning then the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Union National Headquarters could be mentioned in this article. A few points come to mind on that as follows:

This article is a encyclopedia article about the United States Environmental Protection Agency and for it to be a complete well rounded informative article it should contain information about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Union National Headquarters in Washington D.C.. It should contain this information regardless if the Union has done something worth mentioning or not.

If the article is to be a fully informed well rounded encyclopedia article about the United States Environmental Protection Agency then article needs to include information about them. The fact that such a EPA organization exists in the first place is enough warrantable justification on it's own to include information about them in this encyclopedia article if the article is to be a fully informed well rounded encyclopedia article

Peoples point of view of the significance of the notability of action taken by them will vary from person to person. Because of the possible variable interpretations of the significance of the notability of actions taken by them it is not a justly argument to decide on weather to exclude or include them in the encyclopedia article about the EPA. For example some people may tend to agree with the actions taken by the EPA Union and they would might be more accepting and willing to include them in the encyclopedia article while those with opposing views would not want to include them.

The encyclopedia article should be unbiased and have the information in a subjective informative manner. Not including a description and information about the EPA Union National Headquarters in Washington D.C. in the EPA article equates to censorship.Hereherer (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the link belongs. External links should be directly relevant to the article. This link is indirectly relevant. The website this links to, discusses an organization that represents people who work for the EPA, it does not discuss the EPA. I see no reason for it to be in the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To expand on what I said above, the pertinent guideline that cover this discussion is Wikipedia:External links. The important point to remember is that links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. We shouldn't be linking to things just because it is available. The links should be adding something to the article. In the links to be avoided section #13 says that links that are only indirectly related to the subject of the article should be avoided. This link does not discuss the EPA at all, it discusses an organization that represents people that work for the EPA. If an article is created about the National Treasury Employees Union then a See also would be appropriate but this link does not belong in the article, it does not add to the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hereherer already tried to create a topic for NTEU/EPA and it was deleted. Tedickey (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I missed that earlier. I think that explains a little more about the push to keep the link in the page. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. (I don't see a useful pattern in the fluoridation edits...) Tedickey (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

NTEU 280 certainly should be mentioned in the EPA article. Treating it like random graffiti is simply absurd. NTEU 280 represents EPA’s researchers, and strives to reduce politically-motivated interface in their scientific work. This is obviously relevant to an article about EPA, particularly since the article includes criticism. The “Barriers to enforcing environmental justice” section is also crucial to understanding that EPA’s failings did not occur in a vacuum, but were the result of a protracted, well-organized assault on EPA’s authority by a succession of administrations determined to promote growth at any cost. The best-known example is Bush II’s administration, which not only gutted EPA but blatantly suppressed its findings to the point of public scandal. The many consequences include EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gases until it was forced to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court (Mass v. EPA, 2007). It is uncertain how quickly and to what degree EPA will recover its previous effectiveness. This recovery is crucial given the stunning urgency of climate change and the large extent to which U.S. policy affects worldwide mitigation efforts. NTEU 280 plays an important role in the struggle to revive EPA, not only by protecting scientists and their work, but by asking the right questions, such as “How can empowering and protecting science and scientists in federal agencies help not just America but the world survive these challenges? How can government institutions employ science in a new and better way that will allow our collective intellect to bring us through to a future worth living instead of a new Dark Age?”[1] I would not have discovered the importance of NTEU 280 were in not for this talk page. Hiding this connection does a great disservice to those Wikipedia users interested in understanding EPA’s strategy for what has already become the greatest environmental crisis humans have ever faced. Victimofleisure (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC) [1] Protecting Federal Sector Scientists; NTEU Speech On Scientific Integrity by J. William Hirzy, Ph.D., July 11, 2008

The point you're making is that this topic should reflect the special interests of NTEU and its members. Perhaps if there's enough reliable sources (aside from primary sources...), a topic could be written for NTEU itself. TEDickey (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually my point is that the NTEU 280’s criticisms of EPA are relevant because they substantiate and contextualize points that are already included in the article. It’s well-known that the results of EPA studies on climate change were watered down or entirely suppressed by the Bush II administration, and possibly by also the Obama administration [1]. This is especially topical since EPA lost Mass vs. EPA and is being forced against its will to regulate greenhouse gasses as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The issue is already mentioned in the EPA article, in the "Controversies" section, under "Global Warming." Until very recently the EPA maintained an official climate change policy of skepticism and foot-dragging despite the vehement public objections of its own scientists. The article presents this scandal as if it occurred in a vacuum, but in fact it flowed predictably from a long-standing conscious decision to favor economic growth over sound science. In Herbert Needleman’s words, "For far too long in the federal sector, science and the policies flowing from it, have been held hostage to the ethos of commerce." [2] NTEU 280 is uniquely qualified to be a primary source for "Barriers to enforcing environmental justice" because its membership includes the very scientists whose research was and continues to be altered and suppressed. [1] Suppressed EPA scientist breaks silence, speaks on Fox News, Washington Examiner, 6/29/09 [2] Needleman HL (2008) The Case of Deborah Rice: Who Is the Environmental Protection Agency Protecting? Victimofleisure (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing your comment, NTEU requires a website to promote its interests, and you feel this is a good place to start. TEDickey (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I said no such thing. The word "summarize" implies some relationship between the summary and the thing summarized. One possible summary might read: The "Barriers to enforcing environmental justice" section contributes valuable criticism of EPA to the article, and since by virtue of its membership NTEU 280 constitutes a crucial primary source for those criticisms, its web site should be linked to the article. Do you disagree with this statement? If so please provide substantive counterarguments instead of merely putting words in my mouth.Victimofleisure (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a lot of words, certainly, and are making no other points than as I noted in my summary TEDickey (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am with TEDickey on this. To make a relevant comparison, the article on the Environment Agency, which describes the English and Welsh body for environmental protection; which has around 13,000 employees so not that much smaller than the EPA; has no mention of union representation because it is not in any way germane to the subject. As a union member I would expect to see an article about my Union - which does indeed exist - but it would be wholly inappropriate to bundle a particular branch and its activities in with the Environment Agency article. I would agree that the EPA could have done a much more environmentally protective job, and I was also agree that the political climate in the USA does seem to be more harmful to the local and world environment than in many other developed countries, and I can further accept that the Union may have pressed this point. Well, I would have expected them to, but it doesn't make them encyclopaedic within this article. I can see no merit in the argument.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In reference to the above comment, it's certainly germane, in the discussion of an organization, to mention that it has a union. That is an aspect of that organization. If you're referencing their page solely to say "EPA has a union" I don't see why that would not be allowable. This is different from expressing the union's viewpoint by directly linking their site.Jbower47 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a Fact that the EPA has a union and that information should be included in the article. Evidently someone has put the EPA Union's website on the Wikipedia blacklist so it can not be added to the article. The website is NTEU280 . org Why the EPA has a union for it's employees and the history of the union should be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.225.39 (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly - if the union itself is notable, there could be a WP:NPOV topic on it, for which a see-also would be useful. The union's website is easily demonstrated to be promotional, very far from NPOV, as evidenced by the comments made by its supporters on this discussion page. As usual, the topic should use mostly third-party sources TEDickey (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this conversation still going on? The EPA union site does not belong on the EPA page per WP:ELNO, period. It is promotional and indirectly related. You don't go to General Motor's Wikipedia entry and see links to the UAW homepage. The fact that the employees of a business are unionized does not make the union notable with regards to the business itself. There must be further criteria for notability or relevance. I am removing the most recent re-addition of the union's external link. Please stop adding it unless some notability criteria can be supplied. Bdc101 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If the EPA union employees cannot provide any further notability criteria, their website will continue to be removed from the external links. This link is not appropriate per Wikipedia's external links policy (WP:EL) unless substantial notability can be proved. Adding the link back in without providing said criteria will be treated as advertising and vandalism. Bdc101 (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Move request

A discussion is underway at Talk:EPA (disambiguation)#Requested move (second nomination) which would move that article to EPA, which currently redirects here. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Resource

GOP freshmen return, resume effort to roll back regulations by Alan Gomez and Fredreka Schouten, USA Today ... excerpt

Other measures teed up for rapid action include efforts to roll back rules on emissions from coal-fired power plants and other environmental regulations that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently slammed as "costly bureaucratic handcuffs … upon business people who want to create jobs." On Friday, President Obama decided not to raise the federal ozone standards for air pollution, saying, "I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover." ... "Everywhere I go, I hear about some kind of regulatory issue," added Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va. He's behind a bipartisan measure that would delay EPA air-pollution rules for thousands of industrial boilers. EPA officials say the new standards will save 2,600 lives a year, avert 4,100 heart attacks and 42,000 asthma attacks. ... Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, called the Republican push "more about partisan ideology than jobs."

64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And related "Do environmental regulations kill jobs?" A Debate Arises on Job Creation and Environment by Motoko Rich and John Broder, published: September 4, 2011 in NYT. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

See related discussion on Talk:Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and potentially on Talk:Tea Party movement # Get the Energy Sector off the Dole 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This might be more generally related: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0916/For-job-creation-is-government-a-help-or-hindrance 141.218.36.50 (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why the GOP Is Going After the EPA

"Republican lawmakers aim to cut back or even abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, even though it pays for itself. " Why the GOP Is Going After the EPA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.46.251 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this related to black carbon? 99.35.15.199 (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry presidential campaign 2012 and Texas air quality

E.P.A. Is Longtime Favorite Target for Perry by John M. Broder and Kate Galbraith in September 29, 2011 NYT, regarding Rick Perry related to the Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012.

• http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/29/us/politics/texas-air-pollution-compared-to-other-states.html?ref=politics Regarding greenhouse gases, Texas has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions, but still releases more than any other state, currently over 600 million tons. Ozone concentrations are down significantly, but the Houston and Dallas areas do not meet federal standards. Texas has focused on reducing its nitrogen oxides emissions, which are a precursor to ozone, during still the highest emitter, at currently over 1.5 million tons.

99.119.128.249 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)