Op-Ed Articles

Acid Rain: A Solution to the Crisis
December 8, 1983 | The Baltimore Sun

By Henry A. Waxman

In recent months a new maxim has come to charm many political commentators: The federal government will only pay attention to problems that have matured into crises.

If that´s true a solution to America´s acid rain problem may be at hand.

Rainfall as acidic as vinegar is falling in Maryland, as it is in virtually every other state, corrupting our natural resources — lakes, farmlands, and forests — and eating away at our buildings, automobiles, and monuments.

Even worse, scientists now suspect a direct threat to our health from acid rain, which is formed when sulfuric and nitrogen oxides are emitted into the atmosphere and are converted into sulfuric and nitric acids. These acids descend upon us in the form of rain, fog or snow, adding poisonous metals to our drinking water with unknown results. Some studies even suggest that acid rain may be linked to Alzheimer´s disease, a form of dementia caused by the degeneration of the brain cells.

With the entire nation having a stake in correcting this devastating problem, why has the federal government been unable to adopt legislation to deal with it?

To begin with, for the past three years the Reagan administration has refused to face up to the problem, refusing even to admit that it exists. When Ann Gorsuch Burford was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and James Watt was secretary of the Interior, the administration urged further study despite the overwhelming evidence pointing to the need for pollution controls.

Now that further studies have been completed and the scientific debate about the cause of acid rain is closed, the Reagan administration continues to drag its feet by claiming that control measures are too costly and regionally divisive.

It is clear the only hope for acid rain legislation is if Congress initiates, develops and forces the administration to accept a responsible and comprehensive control program.

Congress´ job undoubtedly will dominate the questions of how much control and which form of control.

These disagreements are due to the expense of controlling power-plant pollutants, whether by using "scrubber" technologies that remove pollutants or by prohibiting the use of high-sulfur coal as fuel. Opponents have made much of the economic argument that controls will cause an unacceptable number of lost jobs or equally unacceptable utility rate increases.

To deal with these arguments, Representative Gerry Sikorski (D., Minn.) and I devised an approach that would meet the national goal of reducing acid rain without causing widespread unemployment or large rate increases. The result is out National Acid Deposition Control Act, which proposes that sulfur dioxide emissions be reduced by 10 million tons and nitrogen oxide emissions by 4 million tons. These reductions would virtually eliminate the problem.

To reach this goal, the 50 largest emissions sources among coal-burning power plants would be required to install scrubber technology by 1990. This would reduce sulfur dioxide levels by 7 million tons. At the same time, it would preserve the jobs of 80,000 coal miners in the East and Midwest and the jobs of an additional 200,000 workers in related industries. In addition, thousands of jobs will be created in states such as Maryland where the pollution control industry is located.

The states in need of additional control would be required to pursue the remaining 3-million-ton goal for sulfur dioxide reduction in proportion to the amount of emissions from plants within their borders. These reductions would be required by 1993 and could be met by scrubbing, fuel switching or other methods. States would not be required to obtain costly and possibly unavailable offsets for growth. New factories and power plants would still be required to meet tight control standards.

The 4-million-ton reduction in nitrogen oxide would be accomplished by strict controls on emissions from new trucks and from power plants.

As for financing, a small fee would be imposed on most electrical generation nationwide during the next decade. This would cost the average residential household about 50 cents to $1 a month. The fee would help finance the cost of installing scrubbers on power plants, thus preventing huge rate hikes in any one region. But the areas that pollute the most would still bear the principal cost burden of clean-up.

In taking a national approach, this bill is the only proposal to curb acid rain that has a real chance of passage.

We can expect the Reagan administration to oppose the legislation every step of the way. Those in the administration most against acid rain control will join with the utilities and some mining interests in an attempt to divide the country along regional lines and to persuade people that they should not have to help pay for controlling acid rain.

There is, of course, nothing new about spreading the cost of alleviating a localized problem, whether it is pollution control, highway construction, harbor projects or bailing out a troubled industry.

And despite the administration's strong opposition, the bill already has attracted over 100 co-sponsors in the House, from all regions of the country. Even William Rucklehaus, the new head of the EPA, has said that acid rain is a national problem requiring a national fund to help pay for the clean-up. The bipartisan effort to control acid rain will march on with or without President Reagan.

Acid rain is a national problem. We simply cannot wait any longer to enact a comprehensive control strategy.