Posted on Mon, Aug. 29, 2005

What Charlotte air
problem?
Doomsayers are wrong. Air
quality here is good and getting better

From environmental scientist Joel Schwartz, a visiting fellow
at the American Enterprise Institute and an adjunct policy analyst
for the Raleigh-based John Locke Foundation:

Some political activists assert that the Charlotte region's air
quality is horrible and likely to get worse without aggressive new
regulations.

In fact, by any reasonable measure, Charlotte's air quality is
good and getting better.

The Charlotte metropolitan area complies with EPA standards for
carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead and airborne
particulates, including tough new particulate standards implemented
last year.

Ozone is Charlotte's only remaining air pollution challenge. Six
of the region's eight monitoring sites violate the stringent ozone
standard EPA implemented last year. Nevertheless, the region has a
good chance of meeting the standard within the next several
years.

There are other air pollutants for which EPA has no specific
standards, but these are declining as well. For example, motor
vehicles are the largest source of benzene and 1,3-butadiene.
However, emissions of these two pollutants declined about 50 percent
during the last decade. Soot emissions from diesel trucks are
declining at a similar rate. Already adopted requirements ensure
that these improvements will continue.

EPA tightened automobile standards in 1994, 2001 and 2004. Most
of the benefits -- the 2004 standards require a 90 percent pollution
reduction compared to the current average vehicle on the road --
won't be fully realized until more than a decade from now, as older
models are progressively retired. On-road measurements show average
auto emissions continue to drop about 10 percent per year, providing
real-world confirmation of the expected improvements. Even in
rapidly growing areas such as Charlotte, automobiles are getting
cleaner far faster than total driving is increasing, and this trend
will continue.

During the last decade, EPA adopted similarly tough standards for
new on- and off-road heavy diesels that will phase in over the next
few years. Federal and state caps on power plant and other factory
pollution have eliminated most industrial emissions and will achieve
large additional reductions over the next two decades. Taken
together, these measures will eliminate the vast majority of
remaining air pollution.

If air quality is so good, why does it seem so bad? A key reason
is that activists, regulators and the news media exaggerate air
pollution levels and health risks and obscure positive trends.

For example, regulators announce "code orange" or "code red" days
when ozone is projected to exceed federal standards. The American
Lung Association hands out failing grades to most of the nation,
including Charlotte, each year in its methodologically useless
"State of the Air" reports. The Observer has helped create this
false impression through stories with headlines like "Traffic is
choking Charlotte's air."

You wouldn't know from these reports that Charlotte meets all air
pollution health standards save for ozone or that EPA's own
scientists have shown that ozone has little health impact at current
and recent levels. For example, according to EPA's estimates
published in the prestigious journal Environmental Health
Perspectives, going from ozone levels in 2002-- the worst among
recent years -- to attainment of EPA's stringent new ozone standard
would reduce respiratory hospital admissions by only 0.07 percent
and asthma emergency room visits by 0.04 percent.

Air pollution affects far fewer people, far less often and with
far less severity than suggested by the air pollution alert system
or the unwarranted alarmism typical of media and activist reports.
And whatever the current harm from air pollution, existing
requirements will mitigate most of it in coming years. In terms of
air pollution's effects on health, it is time to declare
victory.

For The Record offers commentaries from
various sources. The views are the writer's, and not necessarily
those of the Observer editorial board.

© 2005 Charlotte Observer and wire service sources.
All Rights Reserved.
http://www.charlotte.com