Houston Chronicle 1 May 1999 example essay topic

In Bill Dawson's December 9th article in the Houston Chronicle, he discusses several possible solutions to the smog problem here in Houston. One solution under consideration by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) is a driving restriction calling for a 25% reduction in "vehicle miles traveled". Although a specific method has not yet been adopted, a possible interpretation could mean a ban on vehicle use every fourth day. While this possible solution is ethically good, it is completely impractical. A 25% reduction in on-road vehicle use would eliminate 48.75 tons of smog-producing nitrogen oxides daily, which is only 15.65% of the 763 tons that need to be eliminated daily by 2007 in order to comply with the Clean Air Act of 1990.

Combined with other solutions, a reduction in vehicle use could prove to be very useful in smog reduction, if only it could be enforced. Take, for example, a similar situation in Mexico City in 1988: In one of the largest and most polluted cities in the world, local government limited and enforced car use through a complex system of license plate identification numbers and colors. For the first few months, the measures seemed to be effective, until people began to purchase additional vehicles with differently numbered and colored license plates. Those who could afford them bought new cars, while the poorer families bought older, more polluting vehicles. Today, after 11 years of this system, the pollution and traffic congestion in Mexico City is worse than ever. Ironically, just as state officials were discussing driving restrictions, a group of air quality experts from California were recommending against such "lifestyle" restrictions to combat air pollution.

James Lentz, the former director of the Los Angeles area's South Coast Air Quality Management District, said, "We haven't done a very good job with anything involving lifestyles. We got cleaner air with technology". Ralph Marquez, one of 3 commissioners of the TNRCC adds, "We can write all the regulations we want, but if people are unwilling to change their lifestyles, we can't put them in jail". So regardless of how environmentally friendly a driving restriction would be, forcibly changing the lifestyles of drivers isn't really an option. Technology, however, could prove to be much more useful.

A Chronicle subscriber writes, "I spent 21 years in the auto industry and recall the mandates in the late '60's for a fuel-efficient, clean-burning automobile". He goes on to say that auto manufacturers. ".. spent millions eliminating the downdraft carburetor system and replacing it with a fuel-injection system, coupled with a catalytic converter to scrub the exhaust... ". The technological advancements of the 1960's produced the cleanest-burning and most fuel-efficient automobiles up to that point in history. Now, in 2000, technology may be a better answer to the smog problem than driving restrictions. For example, on May 1, President Clinton proposed a major reduction in the allowable levels of smog-boosting sulfur in gasoline.

Sulfur build-up can damage pollution control devices, such as the catalytic converter, rendering them ineffective in removing smog-forming nitrogen oxides, fine particulate matter, and other air pollutants from engine exhaust. The proposed 90% reduction in gasoline sulfur would be "the environmental equivalent of taking 54 million vehicles off the road overnight", says Bill Becker, director of two national organizations representing state and local air quality officials. However, the refining industry warns that a dramatic lowering of sulfur could increase the price of gasoline by as much as 10 cents per gallon, although EPA officials say that new technology could eventually lower the price of a major sulfur reduction to 1 or 2 cents per gallon. Currently, the most-often-used method of removing sulfur from gasoline is the addition of hydrogen, which might require the installation of hydrogen facilities at refineries. Another problem refineries would have to confront is the resulting removal of octane due to the lowering of the sulfur content. While there are certainly pros and cons to the idea of lowering sulfur in gasoline, the idea itself is much more feasible than modifying drivers' lifestyles.

Air pollution is regional and multi-source in nature. Environmental regulators increasingly believe that region-wide strategies are needed because air pollutants can drift great distances, and no single source can cause or fix the entire problem. Besides automobiles, other sources, such as the Ship Channel plants and Baytown-area refineries, are major contributors to the brown haze settling on our city and must be held to strict emissions-control standards. Certainly no one is arguing that protecting the environment is ethically bad. As one Chronicle subscriber puts it, "Who would knowingly exchange good health for the unrestricted right to emit poisons into this region's air?" Regardless how ethically sound the issue is, (in this case, sacrificing the personal right to drive a car for the greater good of protecting our environment) the fact remains that the solution of restricted driving isn't able to be implemented and enforced. A 25% reduction in "vehicle miles traveled" is a wonderful idea in theory, but the TNRCC itself has no idea how to begin to achieve it.

Forcing individuals to change their lifestyles will not work because the average individual only has a passing concern for the environment. We all agree that it is important, but other social issues, like crime, healthcare, and taxes will always take precedence because they hit much closer to home, so to speak. A single mother of two on welfare will be much more concerned with what will help her particular situation than with how the refinery where she is applying for a job affects the air she breathes. As imperative as it is to control and improve our environmental pollution, changing individuals' lifestyles will not work. Albin, Enrique. Viewpoints.

Houston Chronicle 18 Dec. 1999, 3 STAR: A 47 Cody, Jim. Viewpoints. Houston Chronicle 27 Dec. 99, 3 STAR: A 35 Dawson, Bill. "Cleaner air could be painful...

". Houston Chronicle 20 Dec. 1999, 3 STAR: A 1 Dawson, Bill. "Ladies and gentlemen... ". Houston Chronicle 9 Dec. 1999, 3 STAR: A 37 Dawson, Bill and Michael Davis. "Pollution cut sought...

". Houston Chronicle 1 May 1999, 3 STAR: A 1 Hoffheiser, Chuck. Viewpoints. Houston Chronicle 13 Dec. 1999, 3 STAR A 25 Wood, Joe L. Viewpoints.

Houston Chronicle 18 Dec. 1999, 3 STAR: A 47.