For many cities across the Great Lakes region, ozone pollution was a problem once again this summer. Ozone pollution is particularly dangerous when it mixes with other chemicals to form smog. Aside fromthe health risks they create, many of the chemicals involved can also move great distances, causing problems far from where they were produced. That’s why the U.S. and Canada are now completing talks aimed at reducing those pollutants on both sides of the border. The final meetings are scheduled for this week, and an agreement is expected. But a major concern remains. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Transcript
For many cities across the Great Lakes region, ozone pollution was a problem
once again this summer. That type of ozone is particularly dangerous when it
mixes with other chemicals to form smog. Aside from the health risks they create, many
of the chemicals involved can also move great distances, causing problems far from
where they were produced. That’s why the U-S and Canada are now completing talks
aimed at reducing those pollutants on both sides of the border. The final meetings
are scheduled for this week, and an agreement is expected. But a major
concern remains. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports.
Smog has been linked to a host of health problems.
It can inflame the throat, cause shortness of breath and coughing.
It can also lead to premature death.
The Canadian government estimates 2 thousand people in
the province of Ontario die prematurely from smog
exposure each year.
And both the U.S. and Canada agree about 50 percent of
that smog-causing pollution is coming from the
American Midwest.
Steve Hart is the director of the transboundary air
issues branch for Environment Canada.
He says nitrogen oxides travel in a plume from
Midwestern power plants and cities and settle over
Ontario.
Hart says the chemicals interact with ozone, volatile
organic compounds and sunlight to create a major smog
problem.
“We’re very, very interested that our U.S.
counterparts control their pollution. That doesn’t
mean to say we don’t do our own job here because there
is some of our pollution that goes south of the border
into New York State.”
Hart says both countries have plans to reduce nitrogen
oxides and volatile organic compound emissions.
They’re meeting this week in Washington, D.C.
And they hope to create an ozone annex, which will
become part of the U.S-Canada Air Quality Agreement.
But some Americans are concerned that even if a deal
is hammered out, Canada won’t be able to enforce it.
In the U.S., the Clean Air Act sets mandatory federal
air quality standards.
And if the states don’t enforce those standards, the
federal government can step in.
But that’s not the way things work in Canada.
Here, pollution laws are mainly controlled by the
provinces, not the Canadian government.
The federal government Can unilaterally create new
regulations.
But in the ten years since Canada passed its
Environmental Protection Act, that’s never happened.
Hart says that’s because Canadians prefer to rule by
consensus.
“The two governments have a different style, a
different approach to things. In Canada, we tend to be
less litigious. We tend to do more by commitments which
are measurable. But we usually have as good or better
results than the U.S.”
But that may not be enough for the American
negotiators.
John Bachmann is the associate director for science
policy in the EPA’s office of air quality, planning
and standards.
He says they’re looking for a commitment from the
Canadians that they’ll give their national agreement
some teeth.
“The U.S. is looking very hard at what the
Canadians put forth to make sure it looks, given the
different federal system there, that it least looks
like there’s movement towards something that is a lot
like what we have in effect.”
But the Canadians argue their voluntary agreement will
be more effective at reducing pollution than the
American laws.
That’s because the Canadians have agreed to an ozone
limit about 20 percent lower than what the American
Clean Air Act allows.
But those Canadian promises aren’t written into law.
And that makes John Paul uncomfortable.
He’s the vice president for the Center for Energy and
Economic Development.
His group represents coal producers, railroads and
utilities – industries that could be affected by this
deal.
And he says those industries want a fair agreement.
“We want to make sure that whatever we’re
agreeing to do that the Canadians agree to a
commensurate reduction and that there be some
mechanism to ensure they can enforce it.”
Observers to the negotiations say these concerns have
been raised.
Patricio Silva of the Natural Resources Defense
Council has sat in on many of the meetings between the
two countries.
And he’s confident they’ll uphold their end of the
deal.
“We believe, in large part, both nations will be
able to honor nearly all the substantive commitments
and achieve the reductions that they’ve outlined.”
American negotiator John Bachmann says he’ll push the
Canadians to put their pollution agreement into law.
But Canadian representative Steve Hart argues that’s
not only unnecessary, it’s not the Canadian way.
That’s an issue that will undoubtedly be on the table
when the two sides meet this week.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly
in Ottawa, Ontario.