As we enter the dialogue, the participants have been discussing pressure felt by companies in the face of sure-winning lawsuits and expensive cleanup costs....
A - Speaking of lawsuits, defense procurement costs are inflated because suppliers have to add on the cost of liability insurance which increases as settlements become more prevalent.
Q - Settlements such as the $180 million spent on awards to those who claimed Agent Orange was responsible for their medical problems?
A - In the Agent Orange instance epidemiologists now are certain there is no connection. But that doesn't undo the damage. Nor can the tens of millions of dollars spent by the Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical company in defending itself from spurious claims that its morning sickness drug caused birth defects be reimbursed.
Q - In 1985 a $5.1 million award was won against Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation on the strength of a single study that tentatively suggested---not proved---spermacides might have something to do with birth defects. A couple years after the verdict the authors of the study maligned their own work saying the study should never have been published since the reservations and qualifications written into published papers are routinely ignored.
A - How about this for an example: whooping cough was responsible for 7,500 deaths in 1934 and the vaccine which was licensed in 1949 was considered unanimously to be a blessing to the entire world.
In 1981 a British study suggested the vaccine's use might account for one instance of brain damage for every 310,000 immunizations. That was all American lawyers needed to hear to launch an avalanche of cases blaming the vaccine for epilepsy and any disease they could possibly relate to the brain.
The litigation threat literally eliminated one major supplier of the vaccine. Further and more exhaustive studies showed no evidence of serious neurological complications or deaths from the vaccine.
Q - For a more recent illustration let's take Prozac. Prozac, an antidepressant, came under a shadow on the observation of six patients who supposedly exhibited increased suicidal tendencies. A study involving hundreds of Prozac users showed no such connection, but again that did not stop trial lawyers.
A - There are little more than rumors that electromagnetic fields from high-tension wires, as well as PCBs (the polychlorinated biphenyls) can cause cancer. The fact that these claims have not yet been scientifically documented should not deter the lawyers.
Q - I read that beets, celery, lettuce, radishes, rhubarb, mustard kale, turnips, cabbage and in fact most vegetables, if subject to tests similar to those used to screen synthetic chemicals would be banned as carcinogens.
A - There is overwhelming evidence that complications during labor and delivery are not responsible for the huge majority of cases of cerebral palsy but lawyers find such litigation very lucrative.
Q - Some commentators refer to clinical ecologists as pseudo-scientists who spend most of their time testifying in courtrooms across the country.
A - Apparently clinical ecologists believe trace chemicals in the environment cause all kinds of maladies. In Sedalia, Missouri in 1985 a couple clinical ecologists claimed to discover "pervasive abnormalities" in the immune systems of every resident tested and convinced a jury that Alcolac, a manufacturer of soap and cosmetics was responsible for the abnormalities. The jury awarded $6.2 million in compensatory damages and another $43 million to punish Alcolac.
Q - Wait a minute. Wasn't that the case where the scientist who developed the tests said the clinical ecologists somehow misused them or something like that?
A - The tests relied on by the ecologists were developed by Schossman's research team at Harvard and he discredited the ecologists' use of his material.
Q - What about asbestos? A man in Iowa was awarded $506,000 even though he suffered no clear ill effects from asbestos and was in fact too busy working as a plumber to attend all but two days of the three-week trial. The award was compensation for "mental anguish and fear concerning his increased risk of cancer."
In Los Angeles in December 1990, a 75 year old retired tire worker was awarded $155,000 on the claim that exposure to asbestos caused shortness of breath. This despite the fact that the 75 year old gentleman who walked five miles a day had been a heavy smoker all his life.
Asbestos is the goose that lays the golden eggs for lawyers and some lucky clients at the expense of American consumers----the ultimate payers. Just remember this whenever anyone suggests the burden be laid on business.
A - The asbestos scare started way back in the 1960s. I'm going to have to get a little technical here---and I do mean "a little technical". When it comes to chemistry, or just about any science, I confess to being the proverbial babe in the woods---but I do read, digest and report---and that's what I intend to do here. Maybe it will save you a little time.
Apparently there are white, red and blue types of asbestos with quite different fibers. Blue and red (crocodolite and amosite) are dangerous and make up only five percent of what is used in this country. White fibers (chrysotile) are relatively benign and make up the other 95 percent. Most experts agree it was a costly blunder to go around ripping asbestos out of the schools. As Dr. Ray said on page 86 of Trashing The Planet:
"School rooms, measured before asbestos removal, reveal that the air usually contains about 0.00009 fibers per cubic centimeter; after removal, that number typically rises to 20 to 40 fibers per cubic centimeter---a 40,000-fold increase----and it may stay at that elevated level for years."
Q - Any fool should be able to see that everyone would be far better off if the material were undisturbed. At most a good coat of paint might have increased the chances of the asbestos fibers staying put.
A - But the powers-that-be have decided that spending $10 billion for removal and replacement in the nation's school rooms would be the better choice. The study found danger to children quite small; death per million was only .0005 to .093 which compares to the danger from whooping cough vaccinations as 1 to 6, drowning 1 to 27 and high-school football 1 to 10. We won't even mention smoking, substance abuse and driving.
Q - I believe you. A 1989 Harvard study concluded that
"Asbestos fears were out of proportion to the existing public health risk and that fiberphobia (one fiber causes cancer theory) were causing administrators to divert badly needed school money to unneeded removal."
A -I love the way Dixy Lee Ray put it:
And what will be used to replace the asbestos? Fiberglass? Rock wool? Both are much more carcinogenic than common chrysotile asbestos. But we can't expect OSHA or the EPA to know that. Our government agencies have to create crises and interfere in our lives to feel needed. (p. 86)
Q - One report that has gotten a lot of publicity was apparently prepared by the asbestos industry and not the EPA.
A - The report was commissioned by the EPA and prepared by the Health Effects Institute and Asbestos Research, a nonprofit organization formed in 1990 to collect data on asbestos in commercial and public buildings.
Q - But if I understand correctly, the Asbestos Research group gets half its budget from asbestos manufactures and the insurance and real estate industries. I know that the unions claim eight of the seventeen panel members that issued the report were also available as expert witnesses for asbestos manufacturers in lawsuits.
A - Did the unions happen to mention the allegiance of the other nine panel members? I'm sure there was an attempt to balance the panel. The report found that removal of asbestos would increase airborne concentrations and that asbestos is not dangerous if left alone.
Q - Nevertheless the EPA decided that asbestos car brakes should be phased out by 1997.
A - Yes, but in 1991 a federal court objected and asked for a reevaluation of those requirements in light of the hazards from unsafe brakes. A spokesman for a trade group of brake-lining manufacturers was quoted in the November 12, 1991 Wall Street Journal:
Do you kill people with asbestos 30 years later, or do you have them wipe out in traffic accidents because the brakes didn't work?
Q - The EPA estimated that by phasing out asbestos-lined brakes 152 lives would be saved over a 13 year period from diseases such as lung cancer.
A - But an engineer from Ford Motor Co. claimed that by switching 18-wheel trucks to non-asbestos brakes there have already been more highway deaths attributed to brake failure than the EPA hopes to save by the transition!
Q - I recently read about a $5.5 million asbestos removal job at Hawaii's Capitol that ballooned into a $64.3 million renovation project. Just rearranging the new modular furniture will cost taxpayers another $50,000 to $100,000.
A - William Reilly, head of the EPA, said on June 12, 1990,
Too often our priorities are set, not by our best judgment about relative levels of risk but by public opinion. Regulators and legislators alike can become absorbed in responding to public perceptions that are driven by the dramatic, the sensational and the well publicized. Asbestos is an excellent example of the clash between real risk and public perception.
Q - I'll bet billions of dollars are being wasted and will continue to be wasted because of the false fears generated by the media.
A - Perhaps the most widely quoted indictment of the media comes form Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post:
To hell with the news! I'm no longer interested in news. I'm interested in causes. We don't print the truth. We don't pretend to print the truth. We print what people tell us. It's up to the public to decide what's true.
Q - I guess that's how Mitch Snyder, former advocate for the homeless, felt when he purposely exaggerated the number of homeless people throughout the country. His avowed goal was to arouse emotions and illicit action on behalf of the homeless and he was not ashamed to use lies to accomplish his purpose.
A - Discovery magazine offered a quote by Steven Schneider, a true believer from Colorado: "We have to offer up some scary scenarios. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Q - "If science doesn't have integrity it isn't much use to people." Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT offered the second quote in response to Mr. Schneider. You just can't say the hell with news, you're only interested in causes. A noble attempt to wake people up and make them aware of possible future problems does not justify those means.
A - Dixy Lee Ray traces "the technique of making unsubstantiated charges, endlessly repeated which has been used so successfully against asbestos, PCBs, dioxin, and of course, Alar" to the probably politically motivated ban on DDT made by then EPA head, William Ruckleshaus in 1972.
Q - I've read that there are poisons and substances officially identified as carcinogens that occur naturally in our bodies. The amount is all important. For instance a human normally has one hundred thousand molecules per cell of arsenic, two million molecules per cell of cadmium and seven hundred thousand molecules per cell of chromium. A few more will hardly cause illness or death as some scare-mongers would have you believe.
A - I learned that a person would have to eat 28,000 pounds of apples every day for 70 years to produce tumors similar to those suffered by mice exposed to megadoses of Alar. Mice fed the equivalent of half that amount---equivalent to a man eating only 14,000 pounds of apples a day for 70 years---suffered no ill effects. That's something Meryl Streep failed to mention in her commercials.
Q - What is Alar?
A - Alar is a growth regulator which keeps apples on the tree longer and allows them to attain a better color and crispness. During the Alar scare the apple industry lost $200 million and many growers were put out of business when the wholesale price of a box of apples dropped below production costs.
Q - What made the EPA decertify Alar if it is safe?
A - It sure wasn't scientific data. There are more carcegenians in a cup of coffee than in the amount of alar on an apple. The difference is coffee beans grow in nature and alar is a synthesis which was created by man.
Q - We are even concerned about what occurs naturally. Cows produce gas without any help from man, yet in January 1991, three researches got $70,000 for each of three years to study the effects of bovine burping (cow belching) on the environment. The theory is that it adds to the gasses which make up the "Greenhouse Effect".
A - That's a gas all right. Just kidding. Everyone agrees only 4 percent of Greenhouse gases are man-made---there's 96 percent we can do nothing about. At any rate, warming at night has resulted in lavish grain crops and other beneficial effects.
Q - Spokesmen for the internationally acclaimed environmental group Greenpeace, accuse the USA of being selfish and irresponsible in not conceding that global warming is a problem. Scientists on the United Nations Climate Change panel predict that if the carbon dioxide emissions continue unchecked, the gradual warming could cause environmental havoc worldwide.
A - Science does not back up their dire predictions. Of the half a degree warming excelsis over the last 100 years, four-fifths took place before 1940. After that ten 1970 temperatures actually declined, with a tiny increase in the 1980s. Hardly an ominous sign.
Q - You don't seem to understand that without the atmosphere (greenhouse) surrounding our earth, the varying degrees of hot and cold would make life here unbearable.
A - I'm certainly no scientist and have absolutely no expertise in this area, but I don't for one moment underestimate the importance of our atmosphere. But according to the various articles and books I've consulted on the subject, of the incoming solar radiation, about half is used to warm the earth, 30 percent is reflected back into space and about 20 percent is absorbed in the atmosphere.
CO2 and other gases, such as methane and hydrocarbon along with water vapor, absorb the infrared radiation that is a natural by-product of the sun warming the earth. These, known as "greenhouse gases", come from volcanoes, wild fires, decaying vegetation and the respiration of all living organisms on earth as well as being emitted as by-products of man's heating and transportation needs.
Believe it or not, Dixy Lee Ray claims
"the largest source of greenhouse gas may well be termites, whose digestive activities are responsible for about 50 billion tons of CO2 and methane annually. This is ten times more than the present world production of C)2 from burning fossil fuel. Methane may be oxidized in the atmosphere, leading to an estimated one billion tons of carbon monoxide per year." p. 33
Q - You certainly refer to Dr. Ray a lot.
A - I must admit that hers was the last, though not the only book, I read and I urge everyone who is reading this to go on to consult Trashing The Planet. You should be able to find it at your local library. It is written by a highly distinguished well credentialed scientist with the help of journalist Lou Guzzo, which makes for highly readable information slanted towards the layman.
For what it's worth, my husband has been with Lester Brown and Worldwatch from the beginning and we have stacks of "Worldwatch" literature on the shelf over our bed. I have been exposed to various points of view, and I'm giving you my researched opinions. Take them or leave them.
Q - So what proportion of greenhouse gases come from nature and how much is man made?
A - That's what the debate is all about. Co2 is produced pretty evenly; half by nature and half by man. However its presence in the ever present mixture of gases in our atmosphere is increasing, which alarms environmental activists. But we can tell from an analysis of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice and of tree rings and ocean sediment, that the earth has survived much larger concentrations of CO2 in its past.
Q - I heard that the average concentration of CO2 throughout earth's history has ranged between 260 to 280 parts per million whereas today the level is up to 340. In the increases in methane, hydrocarbons and other so-called greenhouse gases, we see concentrates in CO2 as high as 407 parts per million.
A - If that were true we would have a warming of two to four degrees Fahrenheit, which cannot be documented. Instead fluctuations have been recorded which show no net warming over the past fifty years. You've got to understand that the oceans hold 60 times more CO2 than does the atmosphere.
Q - What about the part played by deforestation?
A - There is inadequate data on oxygen production in the tropical rain forests. We do know that forests in the temperate zones remove CO2 from the atmosphere with young trees removing five to seven tons more CO2 per acre annually than old growth trees. Young living things metabolize more quickly than more mature specimens.
Q - Are you suggesting it's OK if we cut down the old growth trees?
A - Of course not. I'm just noting that redressing the balance of CO2 is a fallacious argument often made on behalf of preserving old growth forests. Planting new trees and shrubs will do that particular job better.
(In the USA) he average annual wood growth is now more than three times what it was in 1920, and the growing stock has increased 18 percent from 1952 to 1977. Forests in America continue to increase in size, even while supplying a substantial fraction of the world's timber needs.
Q - I suppose you would go along with those who blame the volcanoes for the pollutants in our atmosphere?
A - I would hardly "blame" an inanimate object like a volcano. I would observe and note its activity.
Q - You mean conduct another study as one more delaying tactic. A study of past ice ages and warm periods yielded no conclusive evidence of cause and effect.
A - Then don't you think it's ludicrous to blame everything on man's activity. The effects of volcanoes are much more dramatic. Eruptions have recently been occurring at a rate of about 100 per year. Krakatoa in Indonesia (1883), Mount Katmai in Alaska (1912) and Hekla in Iceland (1947) emitted more pollutants than man has done since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Q - I've even heard the sun blamed for some of our weather shifts.
A - There is visible data regarding solar flares. Sunspots have been seen to whirl in one direction for eleven years and then whirl in the other direction for another average of eleven years; no one seems to know why. Sun flickers (brightness and dimness) occur over a seventy year span.
Then there are cycles on the moon which trigger changes in ocean currents and temperatures. Remember oceans account for 73 percent of the earth's surface and can hardly be ignored when looking at climatic changes on our planet.
Q - So how is earth affected?
A - Cause and effect haven't been established, I'm just suggesting that the idea that man is responsible for the deterioration of our planet is preposterous when so much activity is taking place that we know so little about and is of such a large magnitude.
Q - I heard that Dr. John Eddy of the National Center for Atmospheric Research is working on the correlation between sunspot activity and climate changes on earth.
A- That's right. He has been able to correlate the amount of Carbon-14 found in fossils with variations in sunspot activity. Higher sunspot activity as evidenced by higher concentrations of C-14 correlates with colder periods on earth and lower concentrations of C-14 correlates with warmer periods. According to his hypothesis it is quite possible that the earth is entering one of those ice age which have been occurring every 11,000 or 12,000 years on this planet.
Q - If that's the case global warming will not be the issue facing our descendants. Nevertheless the rest of the industrialized world supports the idea of stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Yet the USA claims that scientific data on the issue is uncertain and the costs of implementing an emission-reduction policy are unpredictable.
A - I'm aware of the criticism. Especially the criticism which came from the October 1991 Conference on Global Warming which was held in Geneva, Switzerland. The attendees decided the Bush administration was not cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions fast enough and in amounts large enough to satisfy them.
Q - What do you think of the April 1991 call by the National Academy of Sciences for the swift development of a new generation of nuclear plants to help fight the greenhouse effect?
A - Oh sure. Government regulators and environmentalists have joined forces to make new construction of nuclear plants for the purpose of generating electricity in this country almost impossible. The licensing process can take as long as twenty years and all the restrictions and requirements have raised building costs to such intolerable levels that many utilities have been forced to abandon plants before they opened.
Q - You're right. The nation's utilities have pretty well given up on nuclear. Long Island Lighting Co. wasted $5.5 billion on its Shoreham facility after local authorities refused to approve an evacuation route in case of accident. New York plans to buy the plant for $1 and dismantle it for $186 million. PSI Energy in Indiana went only half way with its nuclear plant and swallowed $2.7 billion in construction costs before throwing in the towel.
A - Seabrook in New Hampshire cost $6 billion and was kept idle for three years, costing an extra billion dollars, while a second round of public hearings was completed. At least it was finally opened in 1990. One hundred and twenty plants have been abandoned since 1974. No utility that wants to please its stock holders would dare consider nuclear power.
Q - To change this there has to be a credible and agreeable waste disposal system. The public perceives a danger from plutonium in the spent fuel rods which will endure for tens and even hundreds of millenniums.
A - But plenty of credible scientists claim the waste problem can be solved.
Q - How?
A - It has been suggested that the spent fuel rods be buried in steel canisters thousands of feet below the earth's surface.
Q - What about earthquakes?
A - Risks from earthquake have already been considered and experts predict there is a high degree of probability that an intelligently chosen site will remain stable for hundreds or thousands of years. Risk is part of living. We all take a much higher risk of harm occurring every time we cross a street or drive or ride in a car, airplane, bus and so forth.
Q - Well I've got to tell you that is not good enough for the American public. They want ironclad assurances that nuclear waste will never escape its containers. Nothing else will do.
A - That's unrealistic. The truth is the public is far more worried than many scientists. The Audubon Society as well as the Sierra Club and the public in general supported nuclear energy when it was first proposed in the sixties. Ralph Nader in 1973 was the first opponent and most formidable opponent to focus attention on the fuel's short comings. He stirred up the fear that nuclear power plants might leak radioactivity and suggested that there were better ways to produce electricity.
Q - Opponents of nuclear power argue that Americans are being given "wrong" choices, and I agree. We should not have to choose between the risk of worldwide temperature hikes or steel canisters leaking high-level radioactive waste.
A - The nuclear power industry has invested $1 trillion over a thirty year period to make nuclear safer and cheaper. Now its up to government to educate the public and streamline the licensing process. To spread the risk the utilities could joint venture with engineering companies.
Q - Well I can understand where the Europeans were coming from when they made their suggestion in Geneva. In 1990 France was getting 75 percent of its electricity from non-polluting nuclear plants, Germany 33 percent, Japan 27 percent, USA 21 percent, England 20 percent and USSR 12 percent.
A - We could learn a lot from France's experience.
Q - Like what?
A - France has standard reactors enabling any nuclear engineer or plant operator to work on 52 of the nation's 55 plants at a moments notice. In this country each of our 112 nuclear plants was custom built so a specialist has to fix it. The Bush administration would like to have four designs ready for utilities to choose from by 1995 in an effort at cost efficient standardization.
Q - How do the French handle the nuclear-waste storage problem?
A - The French store nuclear waste by converting it into a stable, glassy substance and placing it in concrete bunkers at plant sites while experts study where to dispose of it permanently sometime early next century.
Q - Don't tell me you think delaying tough decisions is such a good idea?
A - As if we weren't doing the same thing on a larger scale! Our existing nuclear plants were only designed to last 40 years and will have to be dismantled and buried. Since 1973 our use of electricity has risen 17 percent and records clearly show that economic growth parallels the use of electricity. Forecasts of only 1.5 to 2 percent increases in electricity consumption in the future are unconscionable.
Q - The NERC (North American Electric Reliability Council) founded in September 1988, agrees the 2 percent projected increases are too small.
A - The problem is the NERC's forecast of the nation's ability to increase electricity sales by 2 percent was postulated on a good many things that are not happening.
Q - Such as?
A - They anticipated 90,000 megawatts of new generating capacity by 1996 even though 45 percent of construction to meet the demand had not commenced by 1990.
Q - How long does it take to construct new generating plants?
A - I assume you mean non-nuclear. It takes about ten years to get coal-fired power stations licensed and on line but gas turbines can be installed quickly. The only problem is the high price of the oil or natural gas that it takes to fuel the later. Oil-fired plants generate 6 percent of our electricity and accounts for 3 percent of the uses of oil.
Q - It looks like everyone agrees we will definitely need more power by 2010.
A - Well according to DOE (Department of Defense) that could be accomplished by an additional 250 coal or nuclear plants. We have coal reserves to last many decades. The question is, do we want to bear the cost and effects of burning coal or the risks of nuclear power?
Q - I've heard that in order to wean civilizations away from fossil fuels and to establish nuclear energy as the major power source in the world, we would have to complete two nuclear power plants a day between 1995-2020. Currently one plant is completed worldwide every two weeks.
A - Right now fossil fuel accounts for 87 percent of the world's source of energy and nuclear power accounts for only 6 percent. Non-industrial countries will still burn fossil fuels so whatever we do will be only a drop in the global bucket.
Q - According to Charles Komanoff, who gave expert testimony before a Senate Subcommittee on January 11, 1990, it is better to urge a federal role in planning for conserving energy than to encourage use of nuclear. Energy efficiency is Mr. Komanoff's answer.
A - I assume Mr. Komanoff is a proponent of wind, solar and other natural unpolluting sources of energy, which have unfortunately proved so far to be unreliable and not cost efficient.
Q - Northern California's Pacific Gas & Electricity already gets 14 percent of its power from the sun and wind. In April 1991 Southern California Edison joined with Texas Instruments in a six year $10 million project using low grade silicon to make photovoltaic cells to convert sunlight into electricity.
A - I'm not arguing against these sources. I don't have the knowledge or the credentials to do so effectively. But let me turn Dixy Lee Ray loose on this subject. On page 129 of Trashing The Planet, she gives an unforgettable explanation of the trouble with trying to harness a diffuse energy source like sunlight when concentrated energy is so much more efficient:
There is the same biomass in the body of one elephant as there is in 100 million fleas. Now, if you need to pull a very heavy load, would you rather harness one elephant or 100 million fleas? Provided, of course, that someone builds flea harnesses at a price you can afford to pay, and provided, of course, that you can make all those fleas hop at the same time and in the same direction!
And that explains the trouble with solar power. It is diffuse and, like the fleas, it is difficult and expensive to organize and concentrate.
As for wind power she cites a study done by Lockheed that if everything went perfectly 63,000 windmills having towers over 300 feet high, blades 100 feet across and a steady wind could supply about 19 percent of the nation's power.
Q - What about all the windmills located right near you, at the Altamont Pass, between Oakland and Stockton California?
A - Dr. Ray mentioned those in her book. Apparently the noise from the 7,000 windmills drove the nearest residents crazy so that the operators of the project were forced to buy out the homeowners that sued. Other drawbacks were the birds that were killed by the revolving blades, the problems with maintenance, the unreliability of the wind and the high cost. In this last regard a failed project in California cost $30 million of taxpayer dollars to build and brought only $51,000 when it was auctioned off for salvage.
Q - OK, but what about conservation, pure and simple?
A - No doubt conservation is another alternative. One of its leading proponents is Senator Paul Wellstone, the freshman senator from Minnesota and a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He argued against the Johnston-Wallop energy bill (S 1220) claiming the best and cheapest way to increase our energy is through conservation and efficiency measures and the development of renewable sources of solar, wind power and ethanol.
He wrote the following in a special Policy Briefing # 33 dealing with "Natural Resources" in Roll Call ("The Newspaper Of Capitol Hill"):
Overall, S. 1220 . . . gave far more weight to energy production than to conservation, efficiency and renewables. . . .75 percent of funding in the bill was for production-oriented titles, and less than 25 percent for efficiency and renewables---in fact only 2 percent for renewables! . . . (the construction of) 250 nuclear plants. . .This is a clear example of thinking locked into the past rather than of looking to the efficiency revolution of the future.
I want a national energy policy. . . It must be the kind of policy the American people want, stressing conservation, efficiency and renewable resource.
Q - I think it's safe to say Senator Wellstone didn't vote for S 1220.
A- Very perceptive!
Q - Consolidated Edison spent over $8 million in January and February 1991 on rebates to customers who traded in their old air conditioners and lighting fixtures for more efficient new models. During the eighties we got seven times more savings from conservation than from all the net increases of energy supply.
A - We are 25 percent more energy efficient today than we were in 1975.
A - We have a real need to replace older generating equipment. We should already be constructing 20,000 miles of new high-voltage transmission lines.
Q - Why isn't something being done to avert what sounds like future calamity; not just in terms of air pollution but in terms of energy needed to run the country?
A - Utility managers are trying, but are thwarted by the regulators and the environmentalists. Some people thrive on other people's fear. They use this fear for to promote their own agendas. The agenda of many environmental activists includes stopping industrial progress, or at least slowing it, by redirecting it into uneconomic alternatives.
Q - You mean we can look forward to blackouts in our future?
A - Probably not, but the cost of electricity is likely to skyrocket and everything in the economy that is dependent upon it.
Q - And that's almost everything!
A - Remember, there are still individuals capable of looking out for their own interests, or the interests of the companies entrusted to them. These individuals can foresee difficulties ahead just as we can. They will simply move their manufacturing to areas where power shortages will not be a problem. It is quite likely that Americans will be faced with the highest-electricity costs in the world.
Q - Oh that should help our competitiveness all right!
A - Irwin Stelzer, director of regulatory policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute claims it is impossible for America to produce the amount of energy it consumes, and if it could it would be stupid to do so at any rate.
But he reminds us that calls to self-sufficiency have attracted supporters who feel such a policy is necessary for our national security. They believe it is important to minimize our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Mr. Stelzer alleges,
"calls for self-sufficiency are useful to a wide variety of groups, ranging from Texas oil producers to dewy-eyed conservationists who use national security arguments to garner support for subsidizing indigenous energy sources such as solar and wind power."
Q - Alan Reynolds claims no matter how much we try we can't isolate ourselves from global shocks to world trade.
"In both 1980 and 1990, Britain, which is self-sufficient in oil, sank into deep recession; Japan which imports virtually all nonnuclear power, was unscathed."
A - The country you would expect to be the most vulnerable was not.
Q - I think conservationists long for "the good ol days" and go along with the Orwellian thought process that "less is more", that somehow small is beautiful and the growth of modern technology is ugly and even evil.
A - Irwin Stelzer has some interesting things to say along those lines too:
"So why not legislate lanes for bicycles, which involve ennobling human effort and discourage the use of gas-guzzling cars; why not set electric rates so as to discourage use of self-cleaning ovens, and encourage the use of good, old-fashioned elbow grease?
"Such is the stuff of energy policy---battles over hidden agenda about how life should be lived, resources used, regions favored, incomes distributed."
Q - I think he's really hit on something with the thought about income distribution. Many policy makers are afraid to let markets and the price system determine who will use what resources, where and in what quantities. They step in to equalize the unfairness of a system where price has a say and spread subsidies as breaks for the poor and levy penalties on the rich.
A - It always seems to come down to the debate between large or small government, between free marketers and those who favor industrial policy.
Q - I guess that's what all the fuss is about when your philosopher-kings decide whether or not to allow nuclear plants to be built and determine who should be allowed a drilling permit and where drilling can take place or how large a tree can be cut down or what kind of coal can be burned and what kind of equipment must be used and what safety measures, clean up procedures----the micromanagement is endless.
A - Many scientists have tried to reason with the emotional enthusiasm of those who would put the burden of environmental changes solely on man. Again, as Dixy Lee Ray has written,
When we consider all of the complex geophysical phenomena that might affect the weather and climate on earth, from changes in ocean temperatures and currents, volcanic eruptions, solar storms, and cyclic movements of heavenly bodies, it is clear that none of these is under human control or could be influenced by human activity. . . Until the supporters of the man-produced-CO2-caused-global-warming-theory can explain warm and cold episodes in the past, we should remain skeptical.
Q - Then you don't think the amount of man-made pollutants that is spewed into the air matters?
A - No one is suggesting that. I only know I am impressed by scientists who allude to forces in the universe beyond man's control and suggest that they bear some of the responsibility. What man has the power to affect, he should, but on a cost-benefit basis.
Q - What about the depletion of the ozone layer? Ozone is supposed to block ultraviolet light from the sun and ultraviolet light is the suspected culprit in recent increases of fatal skin cancer, eye problems and plant damage.
The Wall Street Journal ran an article at the end of October, 1991 which said,
"The EPA estimates that the thinning of the ozone shield will lead to as many as 12 million more skin cancers and more than 210,000 additional skin-cancer deaths in the U.S. during the next 50 years. Heavy doses of ultraviolet rays also can stunt crop growth."
A - The type of skin cancer which is generally fatal and has been increasing, is unrelated to ultraviolet radiation. And even if a connection could be established somehow in the future, recording instruments set up in 1974 show less ultraviolet light has been penetrating the atmosphere over the ensuing years.
And besides, a thicker ozone layer does not seem to block ultraviolet light at any rate. The thickness of the ozone layer changes periodically. Data shows it was thicker during the 1960s and grew thinner between 1979-1986, putting it about where it was over a thirty year period.
Q - Then why all the fuss recently and the effort to ban CFC (chlorine fluorocarbon compounds) as depleters of the ozone layer?
A - Sometimes things get blown out of proportion through ignorance. In 1975 Mount St. Augustine in Alaska spewed 570 times the chlorine fluorocarbon compounds produced in the entire world during the previous year. At its peak, the world production of CFC was equivalent to 750,000 tons of chlorine which pales when one considers that 300 million tons of chlorine are released into the atmosphere every year just through evaporation of sea water.
Dr. Dixy Lee Ray quoted Robert Watson, head of NASA's upper atmospheric research program in her book. He did not believe changes in the ozone were caused by man-made CFCs but suggested that meteorological processes could bear sole responsibility.
Q - Although direct evidence was not yet available. Right?
A - OK but,
"data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show 60,000 ozone molecules created for every one destroyed by chlorine from a CFC molecule."
This, Dr. Ray says, may actually mean that ozone is increasing in our atmosphere and that depletion of the ozone level is one more example of "crying wolf".
Q - If there is no conclusive evidence, and there is even evidence to the contrary, how in the world can officials dream up programs to reduce, or even ban, CFCs? That's like trying to solve a problem that may not even be a problem. I can't believe it!
A - It's the politically correct thing to do. You must realize by now that economics has little or no part to play in politically popular decisions.
Q - The Wall Street Journal article I alluded to earlier said that Du Pont Co., apparently a leading producer of CFCs, was planning to accelerate an already planned phase-out of CFC sales to other countries by two years.
It also said it would eliminate one of its CFC substitutes, HCFC-22, more quickly than would be required under federal law because it still is detrimental to the ozone layer.
A - I saw the same article you've been quoting (WSJ 10-23-91) and I'm amazed that a large company like Du Pont would fall all over itself in an attempt to look good and comply with inconclusive speculations. If you will remember the article also said,
But so far, experiments in Antarctica---where a continental-sized "hole" in the ozone layer opens most springs because of CFC chemistry--have found hardly any damage to plant life in the sea. . . .
The report attributed the thinning of the ozone world-wide to the spread of ozone-poor air from the poles and chemical reactions involving CFCs and sulfur particles from volcanoes. But the scientist acknowledged they didn't fully understand these mechanisms and suggested other factors may be at work.
So what if the cost to the economy could approach $150 billion, with the possibly needless changeover of equipment such as air conditioners, refrigerators, supermarket display cases, and oh yes, the nation's trucks and automobiles. Why not give up all the work that went into HCFC-22? Why shouldn't the private sector defer to bureaucrats and pseudo-scientists? CFCs are "in" one day and "out" the next.
But that's OK, play their little games because if business people refuse to question and fight back when these regulations are arbitrarily and prematurely slapped on, the country is finished anyway.
Q - It's true that Robert Watson did say "eliminating CFCs probably wouldn't affect global warming". Also I've heard other proposed substitutes may be flammable or toxic.
A - That's why none are yet in production.
I'm reminded of something I read in the October 14, 1991 issue of Forbes, written by Alan Reynolds, a man of great common sense:
Bootleggers and Baptists both want to ban liquor sales on Sundays. Similarly, there is a lot of money to be made from whipping up phony energy and environmental scares and then passing a law requiring the public to buy snake oil as the official cure.
Q - Didn't Dr. Ray suggest irradiation as a substitute for refrigeration?
A - Like nuclear energy, although irradiating food is the norm in many industrial nations, we have let the scare mongers rule the day in this country. Dr. Ray said in her book,
If the proponents of banning CFC are so anxious to reduce its use, why aren't they out campaigning for irradiating food as a substitute for refrigeration? Food irradiation is an available technology used by all our astronauts and in hospitals for patients that require a sterile environment.
Q - What did you think about the film discrediting the Greenhouse effect which the British showed in August, 1991 and which was not carried here?
A - Naturally I didn't see it, but from what I heard, the British science documentary called "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" showed global warming has no scientific sustainable basis. It purportedly documented the following weaknesses in the theory:
There is a new proposal by the Bush administration to provide $500 million to study the global warming problem as they did the acid rain problem. Let's make sure this study gets publicized.
Q - You mean they studied acid rain and kept the results quiet?
A - Rather the study was ignored. It was amazing to me that The National Acids Precipitation Assets Program Report was hardly mentioned in the media although it cost the government (taxpayers) $537 million over a ten year period.
Can you believe it? 700 scientists studied the acid rain situation for ten years and concluded acid rain was not a serious problem. They found no evidence of widespread forest damage attributable to acid rain and further concluded it is not causing any reduction in crop-yields. Lakes were found to have the same acidity as in pre-industrial times.
They suggested, in order to achieve any desired deacidification, that limestone might be spread around an affected area. That would cost, at most, a few million dollars a year.
Q - So what happened?
A - I heard that neither the President nor the Congress bothered to read the study.
Q - That is unbelievable! Especially when the acid rain program calls for cutting SO2 emissions in this great country by ten million tons a year from their current level of 22 million tons. The goal is to be reached by 1999 at an estimated cost of $7 billion a year.
A - I understand that since passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970, sulfur dioxide, produced by factories and utilities, has been reduced by over forty percent already. From here on we are likely to get diminished returns for our dollars, as we discussed earlier.
Q - On the subject of denial or just plain ignoring facts, it was rumored that EPA Administrator, William Reilly, just before final passage of the Clean Air Act, went into hiding to avoid being confronted with new evidence concerning the acid rain issue.
A - No matter. In the end, the Bush Administration didn't let a few facts stand in the way of passage of the Clean Air Act of 1990.
Q - That's too bad because the only portion of the bill that pleased environmentalists was the cap on acid rain and proposal for clean fuels.
A - We talked a little bit about this earlier also. How for years, when Senator Robert Byrd was Majority Leader, Senator Byrd who represents West Virginia, a coal mining state, clean air legislation had been blocked. When George Mitchell took over, clean air legislation was very much on his mind. House Energy and Commerce Chairman, John Dingell, agreed to sponsor the legislation but tried to dilute the clean fuels provision. Not surprisingly, Dingell is from the auto makers state, Michigan.
Q - This may sound ignorant, but exactly what is acid rain anyway?
A - Sulfur and nitrogen compounds make up the "acid" in acid rain. Dr. Dixy Lee Ray says that many experts postulate
"nature contributes more than 90 percent of global nitrogen. Considering the additional sulfur that emanates from volcanoes, fumaroles, hot springs, ocean spray, and the nitrogen fixed by lightning, the generally accepted contribution from the natural sources may be underestimated."
In her book Dr. Ray asks in regard to acid rain, "Is enough understood about acid precipitation to warrant spending billions in public funds on supposed corrective measures?" She answers, "Certainly not."
Of course the problem is not confined to the United States or to this time period. Early references to acid rain were found in Sweden in 1848, Germany in 1868 and England in 1872. More recently acid rain has been blamed for the decline of forests in Germany.
Q - I thought sulfur dioxide emissions declined beginning in the mid-1970s when nuclear energy was largely substituted for coal burning in the production of electricity in Germany.
A - In the 1990s not many people blame the continuing destruction of German forests to acid rain. Ozone seems to be a more likely culprit. Ozone concentration in Germany's forests has increased by more than 30 percent over the last two decades.
Q - What started the recent flurry of excitement over the problem?
A - G.E. Likens published a series of articles of questionable scholarship during the 1970s.
Q - So why did anyone pay attention?
A - In 1985 Vaclav Smil who wrote Acid Rain: A Critical Review of Monitoring Baselines and Analyses answered that question:
The history of science is replete with episodes where cases of dubious veracity were publicized as irreproachable truths. . . . It may be irrational, but even in science those who make the first and often sensational claim get much wider attention and are credited with more credibility than those who come later with calm facts.
Results from samples from ice frozen in the geological past and from remote regions of the earth, suggest there may be little relationship between acidity and the industrial production of sulfur dioxide emissions.
As we discussed, there is reason to believe that volcanic eruptions have a greater effect on acid rain than does industrial pollution.
Also there is evidence that the natural acidity of rain may be neutralized by suspended alkaline particles from the dust characteristic of unpaved roads, parched fields, wildfires left to burn themselves out (alkaline ash) and other occurrences that are more readily found in many non-industrial areas on the planet. For instance, the soil in the Northeastern United States has always been extremely acidic as are all soils in areas that have been glaciated.
Q - What about the deterioration of fishing in lakes during the lifetime of those still living today to tell about it?
A - On our East Coast there are numerous naturally acidic lakes, by-products of glacier activity. People who claim that fishing is not possible in many of the Adriondack lakes where once "big ones" were regularly caught were probably oblivious to the annual stocking by the Fish and Game Commission which was discontinued around 1940.
Q - You're right. Of the 219 lakes declared too acidic for fish, 206 are in the Adirondacks.
A - Amazingly these acidic lakes account for only four percent of the lake surface in the entire state of New York. It is quite possible that these lakes have always been acid or that if man has had a hand here it is interesting to note that many lakes in Scandinavia showed evidence of being far more acid 800 years ago, long before the onslaught of the industrial revolution.
Q - I read an interesting article in Business Week. It seems that Sherwood Idso, adjunct professor of botany and geography at Arizona State University, told the California Energy Commission that "essentially everything that plants do, they do better with more carbon dioxide in the air."
A - Things go better with coke!
Q - Professor Idso told Business Week that if the government
"is going to assess penalties against (coal burning utilities) for the detriment they may or may not cause to the environment, justice demands they be given credit for the proven benefit."
A - That sounds like an educated opinion with which to counter those who claim burning coal is the cause of acid rain which kills trees.
Q - When confronted by another point of view (planting trees to offset coal plant production) James MacKenzie of the Union of Concerned Scientists ridiculed the idea, claiming that if the trees were destroyed by disease or fire for instance, we would still have the coal mining pollution without the offset. His idea is to tighten belts and get set for a reduction in living standards. "The world doesn't need more energy, just use what we've got more wisely."
A - Deferring once more to my favorite authority, Dixy Lee Ray suggests federal funds be spent on research
"not on boondoggles to satisfy the mindless cries to 'to do something' from those who would substitute passion for science.
To intimate that if SO2 is eliminated then acid rain will disappear is not only simplistic and unscientific, it is grossly misleading as well. Yet that is what the federal government has done. Urged on by his image-conscious staff and reports on acid rain problems in south-eastern Canada, and apparently motivated more by politics than by scientific evidence, the President would have us believe that if enough money were spent to devise ways to reduce SO2 in the effluent from the stacks of midwestern coal-burning utilities, the acid rain problems would go away. They won't." (Trashing The Planet p. 66 )
Q - States are not allowing utilities to decide for themselves how to clean up their pollution. Even if it seems more economic to switch to cleaner out-of-state low-sulfur coal, some states in the midwest are insisting the utilities install government subsidized scrubbers in order to keep jobs at home.
A - Ohio is even offering a $1 tax credit for each ton of Ohio coal burned at utilities that use at least 80 percent of Ohio coal.