The issue of air quality typically tops everyone’s list of things to worry about. But Daren Bakst, legal and regulatory policy analyst for the John Locke Foundation, says North Carolina’s air is cleaner than ever and only getting better. Carolina Journal Radio’s Donna Martinez recently talked with Bakst about what air quality data actually shows. (Go to http://www.carolinajournal.com/cjradio/ to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Martinez: It’s an important subject, Daren. We hear a lot of talk from, not just celebrities, but average citizens being very concerned about some things they hear about, that they believe are threatening the planet. Tell us what’s behind your contention in your Spotlight paper that, actually, North Carolina’s air quality is worth celebrating.
Bakst: Well, actually, my contention is based on objective data. The EPA monitors six common air pollutants, and there is data the EPA has — and also the [N.C.] Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which is a state environmental agency called DENR, has. And simply going through the data and presenting it in an objective fashion shows how in North Carolina specifically, the air is just simply getting better, not worse.
Martinez: Well, let’s talk about some of those areas, Daren, because in your paper, you go through the six items, and I have to say that some of them sound really scary. Things like ground-level ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead. Let’s talk first about this issue of ground-level ozone — I think people would know that more as the primary contributor to smog.
Bakst: That’s right. Unfortunately, sometimes people think of ground-level ozone, or hear ozone referred to generally, and think of the ozone layer. That’s not what we’re talking about when we are referring to ozone as a pollutant. We are referring to ground-level ozone. It’s not necessarily smog, but it’s the primary contributor to smog.
Martinez: So how is North Carolina doing in that area?
Bakst: It’s doing very well. Just three years ago, 20 counties violated the federal standard for ozone. In 2006, only two counties exceeded that standard.
Martinez: Well, that does sound like a very big improvement there.
Bakst: Yes, it’s pretty much across the board on ozone — we’re doing better.
Martinez: Let’s talk about lead. Now that, certainly, is a very serious issue. We hear a lot of stories about the potentially bad ramifications to health that can come from exposure to high levels of lead. What’s happening in North Carolina with lead?
Bakst: Well actually, since 1980, according to the EPA, lead has declined by 96 percent across the entire country. The primary reason is because of unleaded gasoline introduced and brought into the marketplace in the 1980s. There is a drop, a drastic reduction, with the lead problem in the 1980s in particular. According to the EPA data that exists on North Carolina, the lead/air concentration level is 37.5 times less than the federal standard.
Martinez: Lessthan the federal standard.
Bakst: Yeah.
Martinez: Doing incredibly well.
Bakst: Lead is definitely like a non-issue when comparing it to the federal standard.
Martinez: That is very good news for sure. What about sulfur dioxide? As I understand it, Daren, that is a contributor to acid rain. That sounds like pretty serious stuff.
Bakst: It is, and it is a contributor to acid rain. However, there is some good news. The 2005 level of sulfur dioxide is 9.4 times less than the federal standard, in North Carolina. And we have data from 1990 to 2005. That’s the data that EPA makes available. And in 2005, sulfur dioxide was at its lowest level during that entire period.
Martinez: Well, Daren, from what you’ve described, indeed there is very good news about North Carolina’s air quality. And you’ve just gone over three areas; there are three others that you cover specifically in your paper for the John Locke Foundation. It’s interesting, because despite the data that you’ve just helped us understand, we continue to hear and see these doom and gloom stories from some environmental advocates. Why would that be?
Bakst: Well, that’s certainly a good question. Good news doesn’t sell; it doesn’t help to raise money, certainly. So it helps to have some bad news, and it certainly draws more attention to air quality if things sound worse. If everything sounds good, then they are not going to get the money, or they are not going to draw attention to air quality. And just because the air is not necessarily getting better, it doesn’t necessarily diminish the fact that air quality is a very important issue.
Martinez: Absolutely.
Bakst: That’s not really the point. I think, however, when policymakers are making decisions that are critical — and they are usually basing it, a lot of times they are basing it on some type of assumption that air quality is getting worse, not better — they are not going to make good, sound policy decisions if they have that misconception. So, it is important that they understand what the reality really is.
Martinez: Your point with this paper is not to say that we shouldn’t even be talking about this. You just want people to know what the reality is, and then let the discussion begin from there.
Bakst: That’s right.
Martinez: Well that leads us into a very interesting subject, I think. It has to do with the Smoky Mountains. We hear a lot about the Smokies and people wanting to preserve the quality of life in that area. Tell us what you know about that discussion.
Bakst: There are all kinds of scare tactics when it comes to the Smokies. There is a quote from a recent press release that says that in 2004, the ozone levels in the Smokies rivaled those of major cities like Atlanta and Los Angeles. Well, in the [JLF Spotlight] report, it basically shows how ridiculous that statement is. The Smokies, if we compare it to Atlanta, the Smokies were 13.6 times less than Atlanta, in terms of the ozone levels. Compared to LA, it was 59.7 times less.
Martinez: And, again, when you’re talking about ozone here, you are referring, essentially, to what we commonly refer to as smog.
Bakst: That’s right.
Martinez: In fact, if you have ever visited Los Angeles, which I have to say I do on a regular basis — I have some family in Los Angeles — it’s quite, quite, quite different from the air in the Smokies.
Bakst: Let’s just say in North Carolina, for some reason, we want to base all of our environmental policy on what is going on in California. However, California environment is completely different than North Carolina’s environment, especially when it comes to air. And yet we want to adopt the California air policies for North Carolina. I think anybody who has gone to California knows air quality is a lot worse in California than in North Carolina.
Martinez: Daren, as we wind down here, if you were able to try to make sure that policymakers in North Carolina understood just one or two things about this issue of air quality as they debate potential public policies, what would it be?
Bakst: I think it’s important for them to simply ask the question, as [it] relates to a particular pollutant: Is it better today, just objectively, than it was 10 years ago or 20 years ago, 30 years ago? Having that information is critical. Also, be wary of subjective types of rating systems that organizations, like the American Lung Association, might put out, which are simply exactly that — subjective. Just look at the objective numbers —the data — that will show you that the air quality is actually getting better, not worse.