THE AIR UP THERE
I used to work at the top floor of a ten story building. It was my second home for nine years, and for nine years I've watched Cebu's changing skyline through countless sunsets. As the metropolis boomed, as highrises began to jut out of the flat cityscape, the color of these sunsets deepened from pale blinding yellows to smouldering flame-orange. Romantic my ass, it's the smog and haze of pollution. And more than half of this air pollution comes from smoke belching vehicles.
The other day I consulted our pollution control officer about launching an anti-smoke belching campaign. He replied, "Oh good, we're finally doing something about obnoxious gases." My reaction and that of another chemist was to laugh because we thought he was referring to the natural gas our own bodies emit. But he really meant "noxious" which is defined as "harmful especially to health."
Yes, vehicle emissions -- the pollution caused by smoke belching -- are indeed harmful to public health. In one instance, as reported by this newspaper's "Ear" section, it was literally noxious to one driver who was beaten up by three bystanders when his tailpipe emitted and engulfed the men with the thick black smoke of his diesel-fueled jeepney.
Although the Clean Air Act is still pending and undergoing revisions at the House of Representatives, the City of Cebu, through the CITOM, has been after smoke belchers sporadically in the last couple of years. In September this year the LTO here has also been requiring emission tests on PUJs during the renewal of registration. Long before anti-smoke belching campaigns have become a trend, we already have a presidential decree on vehicle emissions, signed by former Pres. Ferdinand Marcos himself.
There is cause for alarm. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes that vehicles are a major source of pollution in the United States as emissions from millions of vehicles on the road add up. In a fact sheet last updated on July 20, 1998, the agency cited that "vehicle emissions contribute to health and environmental problems such as urban smog, air toxics, and global warming." It identified three sources of polluting emissions from vehicles, namely, through the exhaust, evaporation and refueling.
Exhaust pollutants are hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. "Hydrocarbon emissions," according to the EPA, "result when fuel molecules in the engine do not burn or burn only partially. Hydrocarbons react in the presence of NOx and sunlight to form ground-level ozone, a major component of smog." The report adds, "ozone irritates the eyes, damages the lungs, and aggravates respiratory problems. It is our most widespread and intractable urban air pollution problem. A number of exhaust hydrocarbons are also toxic, with the potential to cause cancer."
Air toxics are air pollutants that cause adverse health effects. In the United States, cars, trucks and buses account for about half of all cancers attributed to outdoor sources of air toxics. EPA classifies most of these as known or probable carcinogens or cancer-causing pollutants --. benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and diesel particulate matter.
There is greater concern over pollution by diesel fueled vehicles. The "Sacramento Bee" published a story on Oct. 18, 1997 wherein county officials expressed alarm over the smog-forming emissions of nitrogen oxides from the big diesel-powered trucks. "An estimated 37 percent of the NOx pollution in Sacramento County comes from the big diesel rigs," the paper quoted. Sacramento, California has been identified among the most polluted cities.
The picture is bleaker for Asian metro-cities where more vehicles are older, run on leaded fuel, are poorly maintained, and where traffic is congested in densely populated areas. Take Hong Kong. Asiaweek called it a "choke city" in the Oct. 18, 1998 issue. "Temporarily, at least, Bangkok has lost its reputation as the most polluted place in East Asia," the newsmagazine starts its article. Two years ago the magazine did a full-length article on the same subject. The Apr. 26, 1996 issue reported a three-year study by the territory's Environmental Protection Department that found vehicle emissions accounted for 98% of Hong Kong's air pollution; the worst offenders are taxis, mini-buses and trucks that run on diesel fuel.
"Experiences elsewhere show that communities become more environmentally conscious when they reach a certain level of prosperity," Asiaweek observed. But is the region suffocating itself on the drive toward prosperity? "Beijing has become one of the world's most polluted capitals, with air 35 times dirtier than London's and 16 times more contaminated than in Tokyo. Air pollution is expected to more than triple in Seoul and Bangkok between 1991 and 2000, and more than double in Taipei, Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur."
Asiaweek continue, "regulations in the large urban centers, when they exist, are usually not enforced. That's why local standards, which are even lower than international norms, are hardly ever met. Acute respiratory diseases are already the most common forms of illness in urban areas. Many pollutants exist at sufficient levels to cause premature death or to have been linked to cancer."
What now Cebu? Each year one out of five vehicles on the road was not there in the previous year. Let's not kid ourselves -- our children are choking on noxious gases because of our obnoxious illusions that Cebu is not heading in that direction.
October 15, 1998