Clearing the air - criticism of Clean Air Bill as unnecessary

National Review, March 5, 1990 by Ed Rubenstein

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Agency reports that emissions of sulphur dioxide-the substance implicated in acid rain-fell 35 per cent between 1978 and 1987. Airborne lead declined 88 per cent during that period; carbon monoxide 32 per cent; dust, soot, and particulate matter 21 per cent; and ground-level ozone, the main constituent of smog, declined 16 per cent.

Why, then, is the environment perceived to be in such bad shape? Environmentalist jargon may be partly responsible. We are told, for example, that 89 million Americans live in "non-attainment areas"cities where air quality does not meet the national ozone standard. "Non-attainment" occurs when the level of volatile organic compounds" (VOCs)-fumes emitted by gasoline, paints, solvents, etc. exceeds 0. 12 parts per million for at least one hour on as few

But a far different picture of air quality emerges when you look at a more representative set of facts: FIVE WORST CITIES BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF TIME OZONE STANDARDS WERE NOT MET

(Percentage of Monitored Hours)

  Above       At or Below
                   0.12 ppm      0.12 ppm
   Los Angeles         2.67         97.33
   Houston             .53          99.47
   Atlantic City       .49          99.51
   New York            .36          99.64
   Providence          .33          99.67

Angelenos obviously live in the area with the poorest air quality, but they breathe air that meets ozone standards 97.3 per cent of the time. Almost all other Knon-attainment" areas actually meet federal ozone standards more than 99.4 per cent of the time.

Unfortunately, federal policy in this area is designed as if the exceptionally bad conditions that may obtain for a few hours over a three-year period were typical. The Administration's Clean Air Bill would tighten tailpipe standards, reduce gasoline volatility, and require automakers to sell by 1997 at least one million cars that run on methanol. Senate amendments would go considerably further, subjecting the entire nation to the same emission standards recently adopted by California. These provisions could cost U.S.industry $34 billion per year on top of the $17 billion already spent to comply with ozone control laws.

Is this overkill? Consider that if we stuck with current laws, most "non-attainment" cities would probably reach attainment within five years. That's because most ozone comes from pre-1983 cars, which make up less than half the current fleet. As these cars are replaced, VOC emissions could fall another 20 per cent by 1995.