¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ

AIR POLLUTION is the environmental issue in the political spotlight
in the US. The federal and state governments are considering numerous pieces
of competing legislation that outline maximum concentrations for pollutants,
establish timetables for meeting standards and define penalties for not
complying.

The focus for the debate is the Clean Air Act, which laid down rules
for cleaning up America’s air. Congress passed a major set of amendments
to this in 1977 which established deadlines for reducing air pollutants
by 1987. All the deadlines have now passed, and many states have not complied.

Figures from the government’s Environmental Protection Agency show that
more than 100 million people in the US live in areas where levels of ozone
exceed those set out in the Clean Air Act. Although ozone in the stratosphere
protects life on Earth from excessive ultraviolet radiation, ozone in the
air that people breathe can cause inflammation of the lungs, coughing, chest
pain and throat irritation. The volatile organic compounds needed to create
ozone come from car exhausts and from the evaporation of solvents in, for
example, paint spraying, chemical manufacturing and petrol refineries.

The EPA also says that 29 million people live in areas that have not
met standards for carbon monoxide. About 60 million people live in places
with high concentrations of small particles such as metal in the atmosphere,
and one in a thousand residents in cities may face cancer because of toxic
chemical compounds.

For several years politicians have been aware that individual states
are not meeting all the standards for pollutants set by the Clean Air Act,
but attempts to overhaul the act have faltered. Representatives from coal-producing
states do not want legislation that damages the coal industry. Those from
states with car manufacturers want to protect the motor industry.

The puzzle now facing the lawmakers is to steer through the self-interest
groups to pass legislation that protects people and the environment from
pollutants without damaging the country’s economy. The pollutants that legislation
must deal with are: atmospheric ozone produced when volatile organic compounds
react with nitrogen oxides in sunlight; carbon monoxide; small particles,
such as acid sulphates, metals and dust; sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
which cause acid rain; and toxic chemical compounds that cause cancer.

In June, President Bush entered the fray when he outlined the administration’s
proposals for an amended Clean Air Act. Environmentalists welcomed the proposals,
albeit in a guarded manner. Then in July, Bush fleshed out his plan, presenting
a detailed amendment of the act to Congress. This time the environmentalists
were annoyed. The National Clean Air Coalition, a consortium of environmental
lobby groups, says that the bill is ‘riddled with shopworn industry proposals
that would weaken the current law’.

Until next year, when Congress is due for re-election, Bush’s proposals
will compete with legislation put forward by other prominent politicians
for reducing air pollutants. Industry looks set to cast its lobbying power
behind Bush. The Clean Air Working Group, a Washington-based lobby group
representing 2000 small and large businesses including Du Pont and General
Motors, says that while the Bush bill ’causes us tremendous difficulties’,
it is a strong package that should be the main legislation.

One of industry’s main areas of concern are the provisions in Bush’s
bill for levels of ozone. It says that all parts of the country, except
places such as Los Angeles where the problem is greatest, must meet current
standards for ozone by 2000. Los Angeles would have until 2010 to meet standards,
but in the meantime must reduce ozone levels by at least 3 per cent per
year.

To achieve the ozone standards, Bush proposes that the emissions of
hydrocarbons (which are volatile organic compounds) from exhaust fumes must
decrease from a maximum per car of 0.25 grams per kilometre to an average
for all cars produced by any one manufacturer of 0.15 grams per kilometre.
Bush also calls for the motor industry to have sold 500 000 ‘clean fuel
technology cars’ by 1995. Besides reducing emissions of hydrocarbons, cars
burning clean fuels would emit less carbon monoxide.

Both these proposals are highly contentious. Bill Noack from General
Motors says that the reduction is unnecessary because 83 per cent of emissions
come from cars produced before 1981, even though they account for only 40
per cent of the distances travelled. He says that the normal turnover of
the fleet is 10 per cent per year, and that by 2000 all the cars on the
road will be fitted with technology to control emissions. This would achieve
the aim of reducing hydrocarbon emissions without more stringent standards
.

The current technologies for reducing emissions are catalytic converters
which remove the hydrocarbons from exhaust gases, and engines designed to
produce fewer hydrocarbons in the first place. Noack says that since the
late 1960s, these technologies have reduced overall hydrocarbon emissions
by 96 per cent, and that it is not economic to squeeze an extra couple of
per cent of performance from them.

Environmentalists say that the wording of the bill means that the standards
may not, in fact, be more stringent. Currently, each car has to meet a standard
of 0.25 grams per kilometre for 80 000 kilometres. The result of ensuring
that no car exceeds that ceiling is that the average for the whole fleet
is less than 0.25 grams per kilometre. Bush’s legislation calls for an average
for the fleet of 0.15 grams per kilometre, which means that individual cars
may exceed the average, narrowing the apparent gap between existing and
proposed levels of hydrocarbon emissions.

According to Bill Friedman from the US government’s Office of Technology
Assessment, the debate is made yet more complicated because of disagreement
about whether the current technologies reduce emissions by as much as the
manufacturers say. In particular, there is doubt that cars achieve the standards
after 80 000 kilometres.

The motor industry, though, is perhaps more displeased by the prospect
of introducing cars that burn ‘clean fuel’. It appears that manufacturers
would have to carry the expense, because Bush does not propose any financial
incentives. The cars will have to be produced, and priced so that they sell.

Although the bill defines clean fuel as methanol, ethanol, propanol
or electricity, the generally accepted view in the US is that it means methanol.
As a fuel, methanol is not ideal. Noack says that it is less volatile than
petrol, making it harder to start a car on cold days because the fuel will
not evaporate so that a spark can start combustion. Methanol burns with
an invisible flame, which makes it dangerous in an accident, it has half
the energy content of petrol and when burnt emits its own pollutant – formaldehyde,
which is a carcinogen.

To solve these problems, the manufacturers need an extensive research
and development programme, although a lot of work is already under way.
During the next few years, General Motors, Chrysler and Ford will be testing
cars that run on a mixture of methanol and petrol in California. Of the
problems to be solved, Noack thinks that emissions of formaldehyde could
prove the stumbling block. The EPA, however, believes that catalytic converters
could be developed to remove formaldehyde from exhaust fumes.

The car industry is not the only group that perceives Bush’s proposals
as burdensome. The electricity supply industry must reduce emissions of
sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by adding equipment to clean up its
emissions or by moving to new ways of burning coal that produce fewer pollutants.
Bush’s proposals stipulate that, by the year 2000, sulphur dioxide emissions
should be reduced by 45 per cent, or 10 million tonnes, from 1980 levels.
Environmentalist groups find this part of the bill the most acceptable,
though they are unhappy that it proposes a reduction in nitrogen oxides
of only 2 million tonnes from the level previously projected for the year
2000. They argue that the reduction should be 6 million tonnes.

The Clean Air Working Group says that the cost of achieving the reductions
will increase the cost of electricity, which will affect industries, such
as aluminium smelting, that demand a lot of electricity. As a result, the
price of their goods will go up compared with other countries, making them
less competitive.

William Fay from the group points out that aromas emanating from a bakery
are due to volatile hydrocarbons. The same applies to the smell at the dry
cleaners. To reduce emissions, bakeries will have to add equipment that
burns the hydrocarbons given off during baking. Dry cleaners could install
combined washers and dryers to prevent fumes escaping into the atmosphere.
Consumers, says Fay, will have to pay a higher price for what the utilities
and the small companies are doing to reduce atmospheric pollutants.

Environmentalists argue that industry overestimates the cost of developing
technology to protect the environment. Blake Early from the Sierra Club,
an environmental group in Washington, says that when industry puts its best
minds to the job the cost of pollution-control technology often turns out
to be less than estimated.

While much of industry in the US is struggling to come to terms with
the cost of environmental responsibility, some companies are taking a strong
lead to introduce technology that reduces air pollution. The most noted
of these is Monsanto, which has manufacturing plants around the world. Last
year the company committed itself to cutting the air emission of all hazardous
materials by 90 per cent from all its plants by 1992.

Monsanto’s programme was prompted in part by legislation in the US that
directed companies to report the air emissions they produced. According
to Early, Monsanto was no more of an environmental sinner than other chemical
firms, nevertheless the company followed disclosure of its emissions with
a commitment to reduce them. The law directing companies to disclose their
emissions makes it possible to check whether Monsanto meets its public commitment.

A spokesman for Monsanto says that the company does not yet know what
technology will be needed to meet all the reductions, but that each division
has groups examining manufacturing processes, maintenance and equipment
to identify where reductions can be made. For example, the company has changed
a process for making mothballs from a wet to dry process. Monsanto says
that this change cuts emissions by 340 000 kilograms per year. Most of the
reductions, though, will not come until 1991 or 1992 because the large capital
expenditure involved needs to be planned.

Monsanto may find that the decisions it makes about technology will
be important if Bush’s bill becomes law. The proposals say that industry
must control the emission of cancer-causing chemicals by the ‘maximum achievable
control technology’. If Monsanto meets its goal of cutting air pollutants
by 90 per cent, it may well have the best control technology available.