Last Thursday evening, Americans were treated to a history lesson – and not just any history lesson. This one, seen by untold millions on an MTV special segment, was delivered by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

With Tabitha Soren moderating, “Newt Raw” featured Gingrich engaged in a round table political spot with around a half-dozen American youths from a variety of backgrounds.

One question after another was followed by Gingrich’s typical blather about Big Government liberalism gone awry and how people need to be “empowered” by having more of their current benefits taken away from them.

In a rare moment of hard probing, however, Soren asked Gingrich whether current federal environmental rules were born out of a reluctance by state governments to get serious about tackling pollution.

“No,” replied Gingrich, sounding almost aghast that the question would even be asked. He went on to remind us that he is “a history professor,” after all, so we needn’t concern ourselves with the truth of statements.

Unfortunately, at least on this score, the Speaker’s sense of U.S. environmental history is completely remiss.

In 1963, as concern was growing about our deteriorating air quality, the U.S. Congress passed the Clean Air Act, which did little more than subsidize anti-pollution research efforts by state governments.

By 1970, it became clear that state governments were simply too concerned about compromising their “industry-friendliness” to enact their own clean air measures. In response, Congress passed a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act, mandating that states come up with plans to meet certain air quality standards as set by the newly-created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

As a consequence, we have far cleaner air in many of our nation’s cities, rural areas and national parks.

This “get-tough” attitude on the part of Congress was fueled by widespread public dismay over environmental decline. It was not the result of a bunch of wild-eyed liberals seeking to wield their will over the populace.

Sadly, Gingrich’s proposals to “devolve” the federal government of its regulatory responsibilities is being matched by equally pernicious cuts in EPA funding. We needn’t worry about this, however, since these cuts will force EPA officials to rely more heavily on state governments.

Never mind that states have consistently sacrificed environmental protection in the name of “competitiveness.” No, there’s absolutely no reason for concern here.

Admittedly, our current regulations could use a healthy dose of innovative retooling. Some policy options – like emissions taxes and regionally sensitive, tradable pollution permit schemes – could serve to cut administrative costs while enhancing air quality. Such policies could even give states much-needed flexibility in meeting air standards.

But absolving states of federal requirements would be a one-way ticket to disaster. History has shown it – even if the Speaker of the House has chosen not to watch.

Aaron Lehmer is a continuing senior in environmental studies from Ames. He is the opinion page editor of the Daily.