‘Poetry and Smog’
I don’t believe it! A study by the Air Resources Board was released that implicated NOx as a major contributor to smog, and it was billed as a new theory. Why do you suppose that we are required to have a catalytic converter on our automobiles? We were further informed that the reason that NOx originally was not deemed a critical factor was because a two-day study conducted for the Western Oil and Gas Assn. showed that nitric oxide (NO2) “eats” ozone. Nuts!
Way back in 1951, a Caltech scientist named A.J. Haagen-Smit described the origin of photochemical smog. He explained that hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) react in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. He also explained that the reaction was circular, feeding upon its own byproducts to produce more and more ozone as long as the sun was shining. Oxides of nitrogen make the air yellow, ozone irritates the lungs, and one of the other byproducts, peroxyacetyl acid (PAN), irritates the eyes. All of this is trapped by a frequent inversion layer and surrounding mountains, which makes the Los Angeles Basin one of the smoggiest places in the world.
Smog comes from mobile sources such as automobiles and trucks, as well as stationary sources such as power plants and refineries. The automobile was deemed the most important source. Autos were fitted with positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) devices to recycle hydrocarbons, gasoline pumps were fitted with vapor recovery nozzles, and automobile gas tanks were fitted with tightly fitting gas caps.
All this time, for economic reasons, refineries, power plants and trucks remained virtually exempt. For years, environmentalists pointed to these discrepancies with dismay. Why, for simple economic reasons, should any source be deemed exempt? Air pollution is a matter of health, not economics. A particular discrepancy that seemed to defy logic was that diesel trucks were exempt when they produce proportionately more NOx than do gasoline engines.
There is hardly anything new in this report. It should not be touted as a revelation. The bottom line is that if Los Angeles expects to meet the national Clean Air Act standard, stationary sources and trucks will have to be saddled with the same pollution control devices that stifle our automobiles.
If we really expect to reduce pollution we will have to face the reality that we cannot afford to add more industry, automobiles and trucks to the Los Angeles airshed. If we are serious, we will discourage further growth, direct all traffic not destined for Los Angeles around the basin, and reduce the total number of automobiles on our highways. The latter could be accomplished by accelerating construction of a rapid transit system.
Government subsidies could be shifted from highways to rapid transit. The transit system could be supported by the government so it is cheaper to use the system than it is to drive. Suppose trains were free and freeways were toll roads? Suppose tolls were cheaper for small cars and cars with several passengers? It wouldn’t take long to reduce the number of automobiles that travel the roads each day. Our present system, where we attempt to reduce emissions from each automobile while allowing the total number of automobiles to increase, will never solve the smog problem.
ALLAN SCHOENHERR
Fullerton
Schoenherr is a professor of environmental science at Fullerton College.
