Enron Mail

From:cdemuth@aei.org
To:harvey.golub@aexp.com, neill@alcoa.com, jricketts@ameritrade.com,amworks@aol.com, blountwm@aol.com, hertogrz@bernstein.com, bk@caxton.com, hcrow@crowholdings.com, john_snow@csx.com, wsstav@dow.com, henwendt111@earthlink.net, klay@enron.com, mfleisch
Subject:S m o k e a n d S m e a r s
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:15:00 -0700 (PDT)

S m o k e a n d S m e a r s
Christopher DeMuth and Steven Hayward
October 17, 2000

In the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, Vice President Gore is=
=20
returning to the theme that Governor Bush=02=07s Texas has become an abysma=
l place=20
to live. It is a hard case to make=02=05Texas is today the fifth fastest gr=
owing=20
state and fifth in net influx of Americans from other states, and Mr. Bush =
is=20
one of the nation=02=07s most popular governors.
Mr. Gore=02=07s earlier attacks on the governor=02=07s education record we=
re set aside=20
following the July release of a comprehensive RAND study showing that Texas=
=20
has become the nation=02=07s top state in achievement test scores. His subs=
equent=20
assertions about the number of Texans lacking health insurance seem to have=
=20
fizzled as well (it turns out that the number of uninsured has been falling=
=20
in Texas while rising in the nation as a whole). That leaves environmental=
=20
quality, where the Vice President and his ad writers have leveled a fusilla=
de=20
of dramatic allegations about increasing pollution in Texas=02=07s cities a=
nd=20
streams.
Environmental quality presents rich opportunities for misleading data and=
=20
rhetoric. Measuring air and water pollution involves a host of variables: o=
ne=20
can measure pollution by emissions or by the quality of the air and water,=
=20
and measurements of air and water quality depend on the placement of=20
monitors, the use of *peak* versus average levels, and adjustments for=20
population exposure and for the widely differing health and amenity effects=
=20
of different kinds of pollution. Rankings among states are much more=20
problematic than rankings of school performance or health care, because all=
=20
states that are more urbanized and industrialized have higher pollution=20
levels. Texas accounts for 60 percent of the nation=02=07s petrochemical=20
production capacity and 25 percent of oil refining, and it is the only stat=
e=20
with two metropolitan areas (Houston and Dallas-Ft. Worth) among the nation=
=02=07s=20
top ten. Measured by simple gross quantities, Texas, California, and New=20
Jersey will have *more pollution* than most other states under any=20
circumstances; the rest of us can enjoy the products without having to both=
er=20
so much with the pollution-control challenges.
Mr. Gore=02=07s charges exploit these opportunities to the hilt, combining=
=20
misleading statistics with a few outright fabrications to create an=20
impression that bears little relationship to reality. The charges are,=20
however, easy to debunk, and it is surprising that they been reported with=
=20
little scrutiny by a media that has otherwise grown wary of the Vice=20
President=02=07s loose ways with facts.
The Gore campaign=02=07s favorite charge is that Houston has passed Los An=
geles=20
to become *the smog capital of the United States,* *No. 1 in air pollution,=
*=20
and *the dirtiest city in the nation.* (We will ignore Democratic National=
=20
Committee Chairman Joe Andrew=02=07s claim that Houston has become *the dir=
tiest=20
city in the world,* which was evidently uttered in a fit of enthusiasm for=
=20
the latest party line.) The charge is false. According to the U.S.=20
Environmental Protection Agency, air quality in Houston is improving and is=
=20
unambiguously better than in Los Angeles, and is also better than in many=
=20
other cities.
The Houston charge is based on 1999 city data on ambient levels of ozone=
=02=05one=20
of six *criteria* air pollutants regulated under the national Clean Air Act=
=02=05
as measured by numbers of days of *exceedences*of the EPA=02=07s national=
=20
standard. Ozone levels are highly sensitive to weather conditions, especial=
ly=20
temperature. They have been essentially flat in Houston in recent years (an=
d=20
other southern cities such as Atlanta), but they fell sharply in Los Angele=
s=20
in 1999 due to unusually cool summer weather. As a result, Houston topped L=
os=20
Angeles (and all other cities) in ozone exceedences=02=05but its air qualit=
y was=20
nevertheless better than LA=02=07s. Houston=02=07s ozone level was 10 perce=
nt higher=20
than in Los Angeles, but its particulates level was 20 percent lower=20
(particulates are the other major component of *smog,* and according to the=
=20
EPA a far more serious health risk than ozone; there is no separate measure=
=20
of *smog*). Houston did vastly better than LA for three of the four other=
=20
Clean Air Act pollutants: 63% lower for nitrogen oxides, 64% lower for carb=
on=20
monoxide, and 78% lower for lead (the cities=02=07 sulphur dioxide levels w=
ere=20
identical). While Houston was out of compliance with EPA=02=07s national st=
andard=20
for only one pollutant, ozone, LA was out of compliance for three: ozone,=
=20
particulates, and carbon monoxide.
We hasten to add that we are comparing Houston with Los Angeles only to=20
demonstrate the falsity of Mr. Gore=02=07s allegation. If Houston is not nu=
mber=20
one in air pollution, neither is it number two or even number six (Houston =
is=20
the nation=02=07s sixth largest metropolitan area). According to the EPA A=
ir=20
Quality Index, which aggregates levels of all six air pollutants and weight=
s=20
them according to the health risks of each, air quality in Houston is bette=
r=20
than in ten other metropolitan areas. Houston also bests ten other cities o=
n=20
a separate EPA index of ozone alone. (These data are for 1998, the most=20
recent year available; rankings for 1999 and 2000 will probably be similar.=
)
A related charge, and particularly egregious falsehood, is Vice President=
=20
Gore=02=07s assertion that Governor Bush *made key air pollution rules in T=
exas=20
voluntary.* In 1999, Governor Bush signed two laws concerned with=20
*grandfathered* sources of air pollution. Under the Clean Air Act and almos=
t=20
all state air pollution programs, old power plants and industrial facilitie=
s=20
are subject to much more lenient emissions standards than new ones. It is a=
=20
serious loophole that has been bad for the economy as well as the environme=
nt=02=05
inducing firms to maintain old facilities (both less efficient and more=20
polluting than new ones) for longer then they otherwise would, and leading =
to=20
protracted litigation over the difference between renovating an old facilit=
y=20
and building a new one. Under the 1999 legislation, Texas became one of the=
=20
first three states to begin closing the loophole through tighter standards=
=20
for old facilities. The step was praised by environmental groups and helped=
=20
coax Mr. Gore, who had not previously confronted the problem as a legislato=
r=20
or Vice President, to propose a national program of his own for old power=
=20
plants. (Mr. Bush has also advanced a national proposal.)
But there was a wrinkle in the Texas initiative: the law covering utilitie=
s=20
enacted mandatory standards (which will result in huge reductions in power=
=20
plant emissions over the next three years), but the law covering industrial=
=20
facilities enacted a *voluntary* compliance schedule coupled with increased=
=20
fees for noncompliance. There is legitimate disagreement over just how=20
effective the fee-incentive program will turn out to be; there have been so=
me=20
initial reductions in the first year, apparently of about 25,000 tons of ai=
r=20
pollution, but the program is too recent to estimate likely future=20
reductions. What is not in dispute is that both the *mandatory* and=20
*voluntary* prongs of the Texas program constitute an extension and=20
tightening of air pollution controls=02=05and an innovation that powerful b=
usiness=20
opposition has thwarted at the national level and in most states. Nor is it=
=20
disputed that the use of economic incentives rather than regulatory mandate=
s=20
may significantly improve the effectiveness of our environmental laws and a=
re=20
worth a try; indeed, that is precisely the approach of the Vice President=
=02=07s=20
national proposal for old utilities, which consists not of mandatory=20
standards but *voluntary* tax incentives.
For Mr. Gore=02=05a self-described environmentalist and reformer=02=05now =
to turn on=20
the Texas reforms and describe them as having weakened existing pollution=
=20
standards (*Bush made key air pollution rules voluntary*) is an act of=20
striking mendacity. His latest campaign ad adds a particularly ruthless=20
twist: it couples the *made voluntary* fabrication with the Houston air=20
quality fabrication to produce a triple falsehood=02=05that air pollution g=
ot=20
worse in Houston because Governor Bush weakened air pollution standards.
The Vice President=02=07s most plenary change is that, under Governor Bush=
, Texas=20
has become *last among all states in air quality,* *No. 1 in industrial air=
=20
pollution,* and *No. 3 in water pollution.* Although the Gore campaign has=
=20
occasionally relied on newspaper articles and rankings produced by=20
environmental groups, its primary and only official source for these claims=
=20
is an EPA compilation called the Toxics Release Inventory. The TRI, however=
,=20
is not a useful measure of air or water pollution and is not a measure of=
=20
environmental quality at all. Instead, it measures *releases* of certain=20
substances that the EPA classifies as toxic=02=05and *releases* includes no=
t only=20
those that pollute the air and water but also those that are properly=20
disposed of through EPA-approved hazardous waste management and water=20
treatment practices. The agency=02=07s annual TRI reports warn that its est=
imates=20
*reflect releases and other waste management activities of chemicals, not=
=20
exposures of the public to those chemicals,* and that they are not sufficie=
nt=20
to determine exposure or harm to the environment or public health.
So the TRI numbers cannot possibly support Mr. Gore=02=07s assertions. But=
even=20
in their own terms, they tell a story that is the opposite of what the Vice=
=20
President would like voters to believe. Texas has always been near the top =
of=20
the various TRI ratings, reflecting the state=02=07s huge share of national=
=20
petrochemical and refining capacity. But it did not become No. 1 in the=20
overall ranking under Governor Bush, as the Gore campaign insinuates. Rathe=
r,=20
Texas was No. 1 under Mr. Bush=02=07s predecessor, Democratic Governor Ann=
=20
Richards, and it has improved significantly since he took office. The EPA=
=02=07s=20
1999 release of TRI data through 1997 noted that *Texas, the state with the=
=20
largest production-related waste managed in 1997, was also the state=20
projecting the largest absolute reduction . . . over the next two years.* T=
he=20
data for 1998, released earlier this year, shows Texas leading the nation i=
n=20
reduction of toxic releases=02=05with 43 million pounds eliminated between =
1995=20
(the first year of Mr. Bush=02=07s governorship) and 1998. The new report a=
lso=20
finds Texas leading all other states in energy recovery and waste treatment=
,=20
and second in on-site recycling. Due in part to these improvements, Texas h=
as=20
now dropped from first to fifth place in the TRI composite index.
Environmental quality in Texas has improved under Governor Bush according =
to=20
virtually every useful measure. Here are a few selected statistics of our=
=20
own: According to the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission,=20
industrial air emissions in Texas fell 11% from 1994 through 1998. Accordin=
g=20
to the EPA, ambient air quality in Texas improved for five of the six=20
national air pollutants for the same period, all Texas cities but one now=
=20
meet the national standards for four or more of the six pollutants (the=20
exception, El Paso, due to cross-border pollution from Mexico), and half of=
=20
Texas=02=07s cities are now below the national average for all six pollutan=
ts.=20
According to the EPA, Texas=02=07s proportion of rivers and streams classif=
ied as=20
*impaired* is better than the national average. And according to=20
Environmental Defense, which prepares a comprehensive index of water qualit=
y=20
aggregating 15 Clean Water Act pollution measures, Texas is not *No. 3 in=
=20
water pollution* but No. 37=02=05its overall water quality is better than i=
n 36=20
other states.
Governor Bush does not get all of the credit for this record; it is also d=
ue=20
to the progressive tightening of national environmental standards and,=20
perhaps even more, to progressive improvements in production technologies.=
=20
But he gets a share of it, due to his own decisions and those of his=20
appointees. And in several critical areas of environmental policy, he has=
=20
been a national leader=02=05closing the old plants loophole, redeveloping=
=20
*brownfields* laid waste by the perverse incentives of the Superfund progra=
m,=20
providing positive incentives to businesses for *pollution prevention* and =
to=20
private landowners for conservation and species protection, and improving t=
he=20
financing of public parks and recreation areas. *Texas-style environmental=
=20
regulation,* which the Gore campaign invites us to fear, is, like Texas-sty=
le=20
school reform, something Americans can look forward to.
_____________________
Mr. DeMuth is president of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington,=
=20
D.C. and Mr. Hayward is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute i=
n=20
San Francisco. Both are policy advisers to Texas Governor George W. Bush.
- Enviro.wpd