June 27, 1967
Page 17418
AIR AND WATER POLLUTION – A NEW MORAL PROBLEM
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as an example of the increasing public awareness of the necessity of improving our environment, I invite the attention of the Senate to a recent sermon delivered by the Reverend Michael Hamilton, cathedral canon of the Washington Cathedral. Entitled "Air and Water Pollution – A New Moral Problem," Canon Hamilton's sermon is an excellent statement outlining the problems and urging enlightened citizen action to help to correct them. As he points out, political decisions affecting man and his natural environment "include elements of moral responsibility as well as technical choices." We must not lose sight of this fact.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this fine sermon be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the sermon was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AIR AND WATER POLLUTION – A NEW MORAL PROBLEM
(Sermon preached by Canon Michael Hamilton)
"Air pollution interferes with, and sometimes imperils transportation in the air and on the highway. It soils, corrodes or otherwise damages material goods of all varieties, from skyscrapers to nylon hose, from the guttering on a house to the suspension bridge linking two cities. The damage is not limited to cities and towns. Air pollution affects forests and farm lands alike; it causes hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to agricultural crops each year; it contributes to the burden of ugliness in all regions of the countrv. The diverse economic damages of air pollution on property are measured in billions of dollars annually.
"If the problem threatened us in no other way than these, we would have reason enough to increase our efforts to control it. We have, however, an even more compelling reason: air pollution threatens our health." Dr. William H. Stewart, Surgeon General, Public Health Services (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare), quoted from their pamphlet entitled "Air Pollution – Time for Action".
"And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination." Jeremiah, Chapter 2, verse 7.
"For the past four years the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has been developing and enacting laws designed to make possible more effective control and improvement of our environment. We have focused on the authorization of air and water pollution control programs which include enforcement authority, grants for construction of abatement facilities, grants and contracts for research and development, grants for state, interstate and local control programs and the creation of regional plans and programs to implement various parts of these programs." Senator Edmund S. Muskie of Maine, chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. Quoted from the speech he gave on 14 April 1967 to the Texas Chemical Society, Villa Capri, at Austin, Texas.
When Jeremiah inveighed against the Israelites for defiling the land of Palestine into which they had come, he did so because many of them had turned from the worship of Jahweh to the worship of Baal, the God of the Canaaanites. This idolatry was described as a defilement of the land. There was an immediate connection in the minds of the Jews between man and his environment, a relationship of responsibility between man, God, and the natural world which God had created for man's welfare. To sin spiritually had the effect of defiling the good earth. To misuse the land was an offense against God. Pollution, of course, was an ancient problem.
Before the Israelites lived in their tents and developed a meticulous sanitation code for both religious and health reasons, prehistoric man had smoke problems when he lit bonfires in his cave. In the Middle Ages in London, there were restrictions on the burning of some kinds of fuel and in 1306 a coal merchant was hung for violating them. In our century it has been the poor, living "on the other side of the tracks", who were exposed to pollution and the suffering it causes. Today it is an issue for all of us.
Now why should one presume to preach on pollution? It is not the Gospel message, for it is about the salvation of our bodies, not of our souls. A lecture could be delivered on this subject by a Jew, a Moslem or a twentieth century Humanist which would include most of the material I will be using. The Church has no answers to the technical questions involved, and no priest is given scientific wisdom on this matter because of his ordination. These arguments to my mind are strong and I have no wish to discount them. However, there are compelling reasons which, I believe, occasionally justify a minister speaking from a Cathedral pulpit on this kind of topic.
Firstly, because decisions which include elements of moral responsibility as well as technical choices have to be made. Secondly, because God is concerned about the health of man, as Christ clearly showed in his healing ministry on earth, and we as churchmen should share that concern in relation to the hazards of pollution. Lastly, when we preach the Gospel, we should also teach the attitude toward Nature which is reflected in that Gospel. Jesus himself was a good Jew, and it is from the Judeo-Christian tradition that I shall be speaking.
If these arguments are persuasive, then pollution rightly claims our attention. And if we are to be involved, we must also be informed. Because it is a relatively new problem it is not wise to take this knowledge for granted, so bear with me as I outline the essential aspects of a disaster that may come upon us.
The primary causes of air pollution are industrial smoke and gases, automobile and heating furnace exhausts. These urban phenomenon are often aggravated by a climatic condition, as in Los Angeles, which keeps the warm soiled air on the ground level rather than permitting it to rise up or be blown away. Unless curbed these sources of pollution are going to increase. The need for electric power in America for example, will at least double in the next decade. In addition to these major origins of pollution there are a host of less important sources such as cement factories, paper mills, dry cleaning plants, restaurants, and the uncontrolled burning of refuse in dumps. This last pollutant happens to be a major, not a minor, source in Washington, D.C.
Finally, there are such natural sources as pollen, soil dust, volcanos and forest fires.
The good news is that there are means of controlling nearly all of these problems. Controlling in relation to this subject means not eliminating pollution completely, but making significant reductions which will negate the present dangers. We can trap the smoke so that the particulates are not dispersed into the atmosphere. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is an excellent example of a city that cleaned itself this way. The fire at the Kenilworth refuse dump in Washington, could and should be put out, and the refuse transported elsewhere for land fill, or disposed of in a modern incinerator. One can also neutralize the ill effects of most of the chemical gases. It is technically possible to remove a good part of the poisonous sulfur from coal, but so far it has not been deemed economically feasible. The solution of building high smoke stacks so that the sulfur is dispersed by the air currents over a wide geographical area only distributes the health hazard to one's neighbors, and can hardly be considered a friendly solution.
Industry as a whole, in spite of the exhortations of some of its leaders, has only spent a tiny fraction of its income on research and control machinery, and has resisted State and Federal moves to develop legislation that would enforce standards of control. On the other hand, when legislation has come into being many firms like Kaiser's Steel Foundry in Fontana, California, have done an excellent and effective job of control.
There is a need for legislation as more and more citizens are beginning to realize in quite personal terms. The damage to agricultural crops, to farm animals and wildlife, to buildings and indeed to everything that is exposed to smog, is extensive and increasing. It is estimated, in a 1966 report of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, that air pollution does material damage of over 12 billion dollars a year. But this figure hardly reveals the personal suffering involved. The discomfort of city smogs is the experience of us all, but do you know that the rate of death by emphysema in the United States has increased ten times since 1950? This disease involves the gradual destruction of the hairlike tissues on the walls of the lungs, and the medical evidence that this is caused by air pollution is overwhelming. If you live in an urban area you are twice as likely to contract it than if you live in a rural region. Information is accumulating that other kinds of diseases which affect the respiratory system, bronchitis, cancer and asthma, are also related to pollution. When air pollution reaches a high concentration level, the old and weak are quickly affected. In 1948 in Donora, Pennsylvania, there was a six day calamity in that small community which caused 20 deaths. In 1952 it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra deaths in a smog period in London, and in 1953 in New York, an unexpected 200 deaths during a similar episode were discovered afterwards by statistical research. This situation is getting worse as the cities grow bigger, and our responsibility to take preventative measures becomes much greater when we realize that our children's lives, even more than our own, depends upon what we do.
Let me turn now to the subject of controls and the factors that bear on the development of legal instruments to achieve them. Bear in mind that the technology of control, with the exceptions of diesel engine exhausts and of the sulfur content of coal, are largely available. Why are they not used?
Because it costs money. Industries do not wish to invest the capital because it raises the price of their product. If one company does apply controls and a rival does not, the company that has shown civic responsibility loses out in competition. And if a whole national industry cleans itself. it may be at a disadvantage in international sales. The only answer to this unfair domestic situation is for legislation to apply to all companies in an industry. But what about a company that has deliberately built its new plant in a relatively low populated area where its emissions would be absorbed into the atmosphere without severe damage to the immediate region, should it also have to hold to the same legislative standards as applied to a competitor in an urban area?
What about the company with old equipment, should it be obliged to invest in new and expensive control machinery? There are no easy answers to these questions, but in spite of the difficulties, it is clear from increasingly painful experience that control must be applied. It is also becoming obvious that, without major citizen support, municipal and even State governments are not strong enough to write legislation which would coerce industry. What local elected body would dare threaten the income of its inhabitants by passing laws which would cause the town industry to lose money, or possibly close up and move away? State laws by themselves are also inadequate because air pollution pays no attention to State boundaries or differing State standards. Lastly, as was evidenced in auto-exhaust controls, industries would prefer to adjust their production to one Federal law than to fifty different State requirements. So, while local legislation is useful to supplement a basic Federal standard, the case for Federal controls is clear on a number of pragmatic grounds. Since Public Law 159 was passed in 1955, and the Clean Air Acts of 1963 on, it has been Federal money that has supported the major research, and through hearings begun to alert the public to the dangers. As a result of the 1966 amendments to the Clean Air Act, all 1968 model cars will have to conform to standards affecting crank case and exhaust emissions.
The major legislative step required now is the establishment of National standards which define minimum clean air, or provide fixed limits to pollutants emerging from each industrial process. I believe the American citizen is willing to pay an estimated $20.00 a year extra in order to gain healthy air and fresh water. If this is so, neither industry nor Congress has a moral right to block such a legitimate request. Their responsibility is to find the best means of implementing it.
It is not feasible in this sermon to do more than mention some other important problems of pollution, both of them originating in contemporary technology. I am referring to the disposal of radioactive wastes from atomic power plants, and the pollution of the outer atmosphere by man's rockets and space craft. They will become of increasing importance and deserve careful and imaginative attention. Atomic plants have an obvious advantage over coal and oil burning furnaces – as far as we know they do not cause major air pollution. However, the production of uranium for use in power plants is a hazardous enterprise. Preliminary news stories and medical reports suggest the high incidence of lung cancer among our uranium miners is caused by excessive radiation. If this is true, then the state of safety regulations, or their lack of enforcement, is a national disgrace and should be remedied immediately. Afflicted miners and their families must be given at least monetary compensation.
There is of course one other major pollution problem – the contamination of our waterways, lakes and the sea around us. Everyone living in cities is aware of the lack of clean air, the existence of polluted water is less widely recognized, though the situation is in some ways more serious. The air can be rendered fresh again in a relatively short period of time – it just takes money and the will to effect it. However, many of our lakes and rivers have accumulated refuse on their beds which cannot be removed, and the fish and vegetation that have been destroyed cannot be revived as a fresh wind brings new air. We have a backlog of damage estimated at about 20 billion dollars – if such matters can have a meaningful price tag.
The long standing causes of water pollution are human sewage and industrial wastes. There are no technical difficulties involved in the treatment of sewage so that the obnoxious elements are separated and disposed of in a sanitary fashion, and yet today large quantities of sewage are dumped directly into the rivers and lakes from towns and individual residences. Many more municipalities give only primary and inadequate treatment to their sewage, simply because it is less expensive. By the same token, there are means available for the processing of industrial wastes of all kinds which, if taken, would insure that our waterways are kept clean. Some factories who draw on rivers for cooling purposes return the water at such a high temperature that it kills animal life in the vicinity. It is estimated that at least 50 million game fish were destroyed between 1961 and 1964 because of this exposure to hot water.
The business, legal, financial and technological factors which surrounded the issue of air pollution are also present in relation to water contamination. Civic groups like the Isaac Walton League have been of great benefit in coordinating political pressure to achieve legislative standards. The Water Quality Act of 1965 provided for a system of surveillance of inland waters and funded the research to ascertain quality controls. Later amendments gave grants of up to 55% of the cost of improving or constructing sewage treatment plants which were to be over the next few years. This promise of financial aid has in effect just been broken by the Administration's proposal to cut appropriations for these grants. Goodness knows what confusion this is costing local authorities whose budget plans included substantial Federal aid.
Having attempted to give an outline of the problems involved, let me also share with you illustrations of some bizarre and complex aspects of the subject. Consolidated Edison of New York is the major power company that provides electricity for that city. It uses soft coal with a high sulfur content which it imports from Venezuela. In spite of production improvements its plants are still major contributors to New York air pollution. If it were to raise its consumer rates and buy better quality coal, trade with Venezuela would decrease, and that country's economy would be endangered. The stability of the government of Venezuela, which is presently friendly to the United States, would then be affected. Incidentally, all the power companies could not switch to good quality coal even if they wished – there isn't enough available in the world.
When the 1968 cars come out with control devices, city air will improve. However, this gain will be lost in a few years unless much more effective devices are invented. The reason is that the increase in the number of cars will outweigh the decrease in individual car emissions! If electric battery operated cars replace the present internal combustion types, that would sound like a solution. Can you guess what the catch is? It is because each car would have to be plugged into an electric outlet at night to be recharged, and we are back again to the problem of controlling the pollution from the electric power plants!
A petroleum refining plant in Southern California refused to introduce local air pollution controls. An indignant citizens group organized the return of thousands of that company's gasoline credit cards. The company invested in new control machinery within a few weeks I
Finally, there is a river in Toledo, Ohio called the Maumee which is so contaminated that in 1962 there was a fire on it!
I shall close by making some recommendations, things we can do to redeem this tragic situation, acts of civic responsibility which also have religious dimensions.
1. We must change our way of looking at the world around us. Air and water are in limited supply. We live on a small planet and our survival depends upon our willingness to adapt our community life to the reality of those limitations.
2. Since pollution can no longer be considered a nuisance to be endured, but is rather a deadly evil, we must understand the problem, be willing to spend money to combat it, and join civic organizations which lobby for the necessary coercive legislation.
3. Men like Senator Edmund S. Muskie from Maine, and Representative John A. Blatnik from Minnesota, who have done so much for the cause of combating pollution on the Federal level, must be given national recognition and political support. If equally farsighted state and local elected officers and legislators bring in needed reforms, their leadership must not also cause them to lose their jobs.
4. We must address ourselves to the problems related to pollution. If all the technical, financial and political aspects of pollution were resolved, and the disastrous growth in world population not also reversed, we still will have failed.
In conclusion, I believe the attitudes which undergird our most profound understanding of these issues come from the Judeo-Christian heritage which enjoins us to be unselfishly concerned for the welfare of our neighbor, and to avoid defiling the good land which God has given us.