🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7105@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com> roat@rrc.chevron.com writes:
>>
>>We're focusing on the wrong problem people.  We need to work on getting
>>cars off the roads, getting all vehicles rigged with better emission
>>controls, formulate better fuels, make mass transportation feasible, etc.  
>>if we want to have a significant impact on the amount of air pollution.
>>Unfortunately, the lobby to prevent such actions is too well financed.
>>Merely my opinion based on the facts.
>>
>
>Found the actual statistics last night:
>
>According to a study of 5 metropolitan areas (unnamed in report I have) done in
>1989 by an independent group hired by the South Coast Air Quality Management
>District (southern Cal.):
>
>Apparent percentage of cancers due to air pollution:  8%
>[Major contributors are still smoking, excessive drinking]
>Percentage of the 8% of cancers due to vehicle emissions:  65%
>Percentage of the 8% of cancers due to industry:  2.3% (2 point 3, not 23)
>
>According to another study performed in 1990 by an independent research
>organization for entire US:
>Percent of air pollution due to vehicle emissions:	55%
>Percent of air pollution due to industry:		2%
>
>As I said before, we're focusing on the wrong problem.  Reducing emissions
>from industry will have a miniscule effect on total air pollution.  We must
>stop driving our cars.  I personally would love to see Chevron become
>strictly a lubricants company.  We will always have moving parts that need
>lubrication.  Again, just my humble opinion.

I agree that reducing automobile use is important.

However, industrial pollution is more localized. People living near a
factory that causes air pollution will have more respiratory diseases
than other people. (Of course, one way to spread out air pollution
and reduce its local effects is to build a very tall smokestack, such as
the "superstack" at the Inco smelter in Sudbury, Ontario. That doesn't
reduce the total volume of atmospheric pollutants; it just spreads them
out over a wider area.)

Investing in (or finding other ways to promote) measures to reduce air
pollution in neighboring countries may sometimes be more worthwhile than
improving an already more-or-less clean factory's emission levels.
Sweden found it worthwhile to pay to reduce pollution in Poland, partly
to reduce the amount of pollution from Poland that ended up in Sweden
and Swedish waters. The U.S. obviously has an interest in reducing
pollution in Mexico on that basis, and Canada has frequently expressed
its desire to see the U.S. reduce the amount of sulphur it pumps into
the atmosphere that becomes acid rain and acidifies Canadian forests and
lakes.



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80