Why climate activists oppose Arizona Sen. Frank Carroll’s proposal to confront poor air quality

A proposed state law that its sponsor says could improve Arizona’s air quality has met an unlikely foe: climate activists.

Senate Bill 1128 would allow Arizona’s attorney general to pursue lawsuits against people who live outside of the state “whose emissions result in damages to the air quality of Arizona.” The bill lists economic impact, transportation emissions and solar radiation as grounds to file a lawsuit but leaves a glaring omission in regard to one of the largest factors that impacts air quality.

While air quality across the country has worsened due to a variety of factors—like more cars on the road—the increasing frequency of natural disasters like wildfires as a result of widespread and aggressive climate change is the leading cause of unhealthy air.

“It’s sort of just putting blame on someone else when we know that the government in Arizona, the state legislature, has the power to respond and reduce pollution,” said Ashton Dolce, coordinator for Sunrise Movement Phoenix. “Clean air is a right everyone should have.”

Confusion over COVID-era emissions

Sen. Frank Carroll, R-Sun City West, the prime sponsor of the bill, harkened to 2020, when the reduction of traffic—and, in turn, automobile emissions as a result of the COVID pandemic—and how ozone levels in the state didn’t lessen in any noticeable manner.

“No matter what we do in Arizona to reduce our contribution to the cause, it’s not going to put a dent in it,” Carroll said, referring to emissions across the state. “The sun was still shining, and the ozone levels never decreased.”

However, a June 2020 study conducted by Making Action Possible for Southern Arizona counters Carroll’s statements, revealing that emissions lessened significantly during the COVID lockdown period.

Additionally, air quality is not getting worse solely because of pollution and emissions coming from areas inside and outside the state; rather, the air quality is worsening due to rampant climate change.

Can states sue over air quality?

This piece of legislation would work in accordance with the Clean Air Act of 1963, which was federally introduced to limit emissions at both national and statewide levels, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The act has been broken down repeatedly in recent years by the US Supreme Court, and the past and present Trump administration has made decisive moves against climate protections.

Since its implementation, the Clean Air Act has been amended three times—in 1970, 1977, and 1990. The 1970 amendment primarily aimed to expand the reach of the legislation and limit emissions, which is in alignment with SB 1128 in the sense that it will attempt to uphold national air quality standards that were established by the CAA.

But whether or not states can sue outside entities—or what the fallout would be—is another matter.

Carroll referred to the surrounding regions that could be pushing transportation emissions into Arizona airways—California, Oregon, Washington, and Mexico—in a senate committee meeting on Jan. 28. Carroll has also said the bill could be used to sue oversea nations like China, but was unclear whether the bill allows lawsuits to be filed against individuals, businesses, or governments.

Carroll’s added emphasis on outside nations as a contributing region—and potential defendant—introduces a possible conflict between the proposed state law and the US Constitution, as regions outside the country do not have “a right of access to US federal courts.” Diplomatic ties could also be strained should Arizona attempt to sue an allied nation instead of working through federal channels.

Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, expressed opposition to the bill, and pointed to Arizona’s contribution to ozone pollution in other states. She believes the nature of this bill will create a snowball effect of lawsuits, which might not be the best way to lessen emissions pollution in the state.

“If we’re going to get into suing outside of Arizona, I think we would be opening ourselves up to being sued by other states,” she added.

Climate activists skeptical

Dolce echoed Bahr’s sentiment, and said that the thousands of dollars in campaign contributions Carroll has received donations from auto dealership political action committees and major oil companies like Koch Industries—and that he hasn’t supported other legislation that promotes sustainability—puts the authenticity of his concern for air quality into question.

“Pointing fingers isn’t going to do anything,” Dolce said.

Bahr also criticized the bill’s emphasis on economic impact instead of the health of Arizona communities.

“One of the goals of the Clean Air Act is to set and achieve national ambient air quality standards, and in order to address and to establish those to address public health welfare, especially the risks posed by certain air pollutants,” Bahr said.

“The bottom line is the focus has to be on public health. That’s in the Clean Air Act,” she said. “The administration has changed, the Clean Air Act has not.”