Several Kansas City-area activists rallied Tuesday outside the regional Environmental Protection Agency office to express their support for proposed rules stiffening the Clean Air Act and reversing rules imposed by Pres. George W. Bush.

“The fundamental principles of health are based on prevention and a healthy lifestyle. We can make conscious decisions about diet and exercise, about how much sun we expose our skin to, and so forth," said Dr. Nicholas Comninellis, a medical doctor and public health scholar at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. "But we cannot make a conscious decision about what type of air we will breathe, which is why it is important for EPA to adopt stronger ozone standards to protect public health.”

“The new smog limits will help Kansas City breathe easier,” Jill DeWitt, environmental representative of the air quality forum of Mid-America Regional Council, said.

The Kansas City metropolitan area has experienced poor air quality related to ozone pollution, which is linked to a variety of public health impacts, said Stephanie Cole, of the Kansas Sierra Club. In Kansas City, automobiles, coal plants, and the annual spring burns of pastures in the Flint Hills, among other sources, are mostly responsible for high ozone levels, she said. The new standards would clear the air, but would promote smarter transportation options and spur clean energy development.

“Kansas City has a skilled workforce ready to complete the jobs we need to improve environmental conditions," said Chad Manspeaker, public affairs director for Laborers’ Local 1290. "These jobs include construction of new wind farms, building smarter transportation infrastructure, and improving energy efficiency of public buildings.”

Under the proposed rule, the "primary limit" for ozone, or smog, would be lowered to between 60 and 70 parts per billion. That's the range that doctors and environmental scientists say is protective of human health.

“EPA is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face, said Lisa Jackson, EPA administration, when the new proposed regulations were issued in January. "Smog in the air we breathe poses a very serious health threat, especially to children and individuals suffering from asthma and lung disease. It dirties our air, clouds our cities, and drives up our health care costs across the country.

“Using the best science to strengthen these standards is a long overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier.”

The EPA said that depending on the level of the final standard, the proposal would yield health benefits between $13 billion and $100 billion. Estimated costs of implementing this proposal range from $19 billion to $90 billion, the EPA said.

In March 2008, the Bush Administration drew harsh criticism from environmental and health experts by ignoring the advice of EPA experts and raising the limit to 75 parts per billion. Several health and environmental groups sued the EPA over the changes.

The Obama Administration pledged to reverse the Bush changes.

Another part of the proposal is to set a "secondary limit" which deals with ozone pollution over seasonal periods.

Some EPA documents show that President Bush prevented the EPA from setting secondary standards, which added to the furor.

Several business groups and trade groups -- such as utility, petroleum and manufacturing -- have fiercely opposed the proposals, saying the changes will cost millions of jobs.

Some rural government officials are also sounding the alarm because if the standards are tightened up, they'll suddenly be forced to deal with them, even though they say that their counties generate little ozone pollution and that it comes from elsewhere.

The EPA will take public comment on the proposed rule until March 22.

For more on the proposed rule: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/D70B9C433C46FAA3852576A40058B1D4.