wn Y

|

| | [Features
A calendar
| Of toxic
emissions

aeed

1-

Yt

|

Ma By RICHARD LANE
rch 10, 1981 The new U.S. president,
‘ Seah Reagan is told to “stop acid rain”
eae Canadian in Ottawa. The largest
fires pet to demonstrate against a
eS ader, chants: ‘‘Go home acid

ey. AE 1981 Reagan’s new Environ-

an Protection Agency (EPA) re-

peepee no action on acid rain before

J Fesearch is done.
we 20, 1981 The first draft of the new

Ber oe. Clean Air Act proposes a reduc-

ah : Clean air standards and that acid

ae pee be passed to the states. :

8 ae ae Canada and the U.S. begin

result ate an acid rain treaty with no

ue, 1981 The second draft of the
eit b ean Air Act is released. In it law

a y foreigners are to be settled by

j y. Control over toxic air pollution is

Se Weakened.

Acaiber 5, 1981 A U.S. National

Piece, of Sciences report points a

cote at U.S. Power plants as the major

ie € of sulphur dioxide emissions and
wale Tain, contradicting the utilities’ de-

50-70 The report also concludes that

ae cent of acid rain falling in

ed 41s U.S. produced. An emission
Uction of at least 50 per cent would be
needed to significantly change the rate of

Plant and fish kill in eastern Canada and

northwestern USA.

November 6, 1981 No agreement is ar-

Bes at during the second meetings of
anada and the USA on acid rain cur-

tailment.

December 13, 1981 The coalition for
Energy-Environment Balance, a high
Pressure U.S. lobby group for mid-
eg U.S. utility companies,
- Nches a $100,000 advertising blits to
They congressional action on acid rain.
seh Charge Canada is using the acid rain

IS as a ruse to sell the U.S. more
electricity and gas.
poy 24, 1982 The third bilateral
; i Canada meetings on acid rain cur-
al'ment are held. Canada proposes a 50
Pet Cent reduction in sulphur dioxide
€Mlssions on both sides of the border by
- This is claimed to be too expensive
by the USA ($20-40-billion). Instead they
Propose to spend $18-million on acid rain

_ Tesearch in 1982. They also agree to ap-
point a commission of scientists who will
Jointly assess available acid rain data.

h 24, 1982 A third rewrite of the

U.S. Clean Air Act is published. U.S.
Aational commitement to pollution con-
trol is severely weakened. In it, dead-

lines for compliance to the act are ex-
tended to as late as 1993. Most inspection
-fequirements are to be dropped, and ac-

_ Ceptable new car emission levels for car-

_ bon monoxide and nitrous oxide are to be
doubled,

_ June 1982 The USA bluntly rejects the

~ Canadian plan for a 10-year, 50 per cent
Pollution cutback in both countries,
Causing the fourth bilateral meetings on
acid rain control to collapse.

September 27, 1982 More than 50,000
People died in 1980 from illnesses caused

_ by sulphuric pollution suchas acid rain, a

: congressional investigation re-

_ Ports. As many as 2,000 Ontarians and

_ another 2,000 Canadians will have died in

1983 from this type of pollution, the re-

_ port concludes. \

_ December 4, 1982 The Reagan administ-
Tation slashed the research funding of a
U.S. research project designed to mea-
sure the cost and effectiveness of pollu-

_ tion controls which would curb acid rain.

)

_—

A major part of Canada’s acid rain problem is made in USA, although critics
claim Canada’s record leaves much to be desired. Here, Richard Lane gives
a chronological review of manoeuvres by the Reagan regime, and Canada’s
counterpoint, during three years of pollution. Fourth of a series.

This action is seen as further evidence
that the Reaganites are trying to ‘‘sabot-
age’? any move against U.S. sulphur
dioxide emissions.

January 1983 New restrictions on power
plant emissions are not justified, the U.S.
EPA claims, because, 1) the complete
chemical transformation of sulphur
dioxide and nitrous oxide to acid is not
known, 2) a significant reduction in emis-
sions may not produce an improvement
in acid deposition, 3) the long range
transport and distribution of the sulphur
dioxide and nitrous oxide is still not well
enough known to link emitter with
downwind acid rain site, 4) there is no
good measurement of detrimental rain
acidity.

February 22, 1983 The U.S.-Canada
bilateral meetings are again stalled. The

Canadians, backed by a two-and-a-half-_

year study, claim that large areas of On-
tario. Quebec, the Maritimes, New Eng-
land and Appalachia are geting acidified.
Sulphur fallout was found as high as 40
kg/hectaire (the safe level is 20). Cana-
dian sulphur pollution is about 4.5 million
tonnes per year, while the U.S. rate is
about 24 million. The Reagan administra-
tion representative claims more research
is necessary.

February 24, 1983 The two Canadian Na-
tional Film Board films, Acid Rain! —
Requiem or Recovery, and Acid from
Heaven, are required by the U.S. Justice
Department to open with a section say-
ing the films are not approved by the
USA. A list of those who wish to show
the films is also required by the Reagan
administration.

June 8, 1983 The U.S. Government In-
teragency Task Force on Acid Pre-
cipitation reports that emissions from
U.S. power plants, factories and vehicles
are a major source of acid rain. Nonethe-
less, the report concludes that the cause
and effects of acid rain are not fully
known.

August 24, 1983 U.S. Ambassador to
Canada, Paul Robinson, acknowledges
that at least one-half of acid rain falling in
Canada is generated in the USA.
September 22, 1983 Bernhard Ulrich a
biochemist at Gottingen University,
finds that acid rain leaches out nutrients
from soil. Acid rain also can increase the
solubility of elements like aluminum and
manganese, which can be toxic to plants.
October 1, 1983 Reagan’s cabinet ‘‘sav-
ages’’ EPA head Ruckelshaus’ ‘‘option
3’ proposal for spending $1.5-2.5-billion
a year to reduce acid rain. The plan
would have cut back emission by 25 per
cent, mainly in Ohio, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania and New York. They
claimed the plan would be too expensive

in money, and jobs for the expected re-

sults (environmentalists agreed, but
claimed the job will require twice as

much money).

October 3, 1983 Canadian environment
ministers agree to‘a complex, incomplete

- strategy to cut Canadian acid rain pollu-

tion at a secret meeting: One-half of
Canadian acid rain emissions come from

Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba mining
companies (with Inco and Noranda pro-
ducing the lion’s share). Ten major
power stations produce most of the rest.
(Ontario Hydro is the largest polluter by
far in this category.) It is also leaked that
no action will be taken until the U.S.
agrees to participate.

' Mid-October 1983 U.S EPA head Ruc-

kelshaus, at a meeting with Canada’s
Environment Minister Charles Caccia,
says a U.S. plan may be announced by
November. He continues, acid rain is
‘* |. a very big, very controversial is-
sue’’, which. will require ‘‘further
analysis’’. He suggests that ‘‘30,000 to
150,000 Americans involved in high sul-
phur coal mining might be thrown out of
work if the U.S. took up Canada’s
suggested 50 per cent cut. The Canadian
government claims that in the case of
acid rain, ‘‘proof is no longer necessary
... we want to avoid the European ex-
perience at all costs’.

October 27, 1983.German scientists. re-
port that more than one-third of German
trees have been damaged by acid rain.
The worst hit are firs and spruce, while
other varieties, beech and oak, have also
been damanged.

November 3, 1983 A tracer gas, released
into the atmosphere at Sudbury, iden-
tified over New York State and over the
Atlantic. Similar gas, released at Dayton,
Ohio, headed east into the atmosphere
over neighboring states and was tracked
on two swings over Ontario. This exper-
iment confirmed the long debated theory
that pollution which produces acid rain is
blown, from source areas, over long dis-
tances. ’
November 18, 1983 In a hard hitting
speech in Indianapolis, Charles Caccia
claimed that acid rain was ‘‘costing the
USA an estimated $5-billion a year in
damage to buildings and structures,
forests and agriculture’. (More than the
cost of a source clean up program.) Cac-
cia went on to correctly claim that ‘‘One
nuclear submarine less a year could clean
up acid emissions!”’

December 21, 1983 The Coalition on Acid

Rain calls for aclean up of Inco’s smelter |

emissions which cause acid rain. They
suggest that $500,000,000 will be re-
quired and that the taxpayer should help
Inco pay for modernizing the polluting
smelter. The Steelworkers Union which
represents Inco workers, and the United
Church, support this action. Some critics
still demand that the polluter should pay
all and agree with the idea of a fine if Inco
does not meet set targets of pollution
control. Inco has bamboozled the On-
tario Government for years on a similar
program.
January 9, 1984 If Walter Mondale, the
leading Democratic Party candidate, is
elected next president of the USA, he
promises to reduce by one-half emissions
which cause acid rain.
January 12, 1984 Canada’s greatest
profiteer for 100 years, Inco, claims it
can’t afford the cost of, cutting sulphur
emissions. Instead of testing the ‘‘pollu-
ter pays’ principle, some environ-
mentalists and unionists are calling for
the tax payer to help Inco out. Others
propose a loan with interest would be a
better path. Then Inco, which stands to
get a modern, non-polluting, more profit-
able smelter out of the deal, would even-
tually pay the whole price for pollution
abatement. A small price to pay for 100
years of ravaging Canadian workers, re-
sources and environment.
January 25, 1984 Ronald Reagan in his
State of the Union address ruled out a
sulphur dioxide emission reduction pro-
gram for the USA. As window dressing
he marginally increased money allotment
for acid rain research. Charles Caccia
was “‘deeply disappointed’’ and said
Reagan’s decision is a ‘‘serious setback
to Canada’’.
February 8, 1984 Governor John Sununu
of New Hampshire, although supporting
Canada’s demand for agreement on sul-
phur emissions control, claims Canada
has done a “‘terrible job of reducing
domestic acid rain’’. (Although Canada’s
per capita rate is higher than in the USA,
the U.S. produces five times as much
acid rain-causing emissions as Canada.)
Sources: Globe and Mail, Nature, New
Scientist, Science, Time, Toronto Star,
Alternatives.

Richard Lane is the pseudonym of a work-
ing scientist.

DUHS-*T eo

THOSE CANADIANS
AMeytT 4010 Raia,
Looms To HE LI
VACTIAS oF SUON-CTMoKE

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MAY 30, 1984 e 5