Advocacy Project: Issue Overview

Introduction

When it comes to vehicle emissions, a countless number of studies show the relationship between these harmful emissions and chronic diseases such as lung cancer or heart disease.  In the article entitled "Unsafe Air" written in 2005 and published in the Journal of College Science Teaching, researchers found a direct correlation between tailpipe emissions and overall mortality rates in certain communities.  The also stated that even though there has been more restriction on tailpipe emissions, more people are driving farther and the health risks are only increasing from poor air quality.

One of the Healthy People 2010 goals was to "Improve the Nation's air quality by increasing the use of cleaner alternative fuels."  By using cleaner alternative fuels, we can significantly reduce the amount of pollutants in the air and thus increase the Nation's air quality.  The bill related to this issue is S.1408 New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions.  This bill aims to increase the amount of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicle use.


Who is affected by the issue?

Those who are affected the most by this issue are people who live in communities or neighborhoods with heavy traffic flow.  These people are greatly impacted because they are constantly exposed to toxic emissions and thus at a greater risk of obtaining health problems.  If this bill were to pass, these people would benefit because air quality would improve.  Those on the losing end would be the fuel companies and car manufacturers that do not set alternative fuel standards.  If this bill passed, they would either lose business, or have to spend money to find new ways to provide cleaner alternative fuels and cars that run on them.

What are the consequences of the issue?

The biggest consequence of this issue involves the people who are exposed to large amounts of tailpipe emissions everyday.  These individuals and communities are exposed to harmful emissions and are at a severe risk for chronic diseases.  In the article, "Unsafe Air," the research found that health effects caused by pollution are two to three times more than originally believed.  They stated that for only 10 micro-grams per cubic meter increase in air pollution, health risks increased by 25-39%.  People's families are also greatly impacted because they have to deal with not only the costs of health care for their loved ones, but also the stress and grief of caring for someone with a chronic disease.  Without the implementation of cleaner alternative fuels, early death rates will continue to rise in our society.


What is the economic impact of the issue?

The economic costs of this issue include the costs of researching, manufacturing, and using cleaner alternative fuels.  However, they also include the costs of medical care for individuals who are suffering from chronic diseases at younger and younger ages.  As earlier death rates increase, so do the medical costs that are associated.

The main cost however, involves the production of cleaner burning gases and cars.  Most manufacturers already have cars that run and cars that people will buy, so it would cost money to research how to make cars that run on these fuels and how to make fuels that run in their cars.  This might be a financial hit to most companies at first, but in the long term it might bring a financial gain.  Being hard to predict, it is easy to see why people are hesitant to pass bills on cleaner alternative fuels.  If we had more use of alternative fuels, combined with alternative modes of transportation, the economic costs would increase in the short term but it would essentially benefit society and our economy in the long term.


What is the social impact of the issue?

Socially, we all bear the costs of this issue.  Even if we are not directly impacted by large amount of air pollution in our lives, we all live in this country and have to deal with the individuals who do become ill do to air pollution.  If people are ill, it creates less productivity at work, an increased turnaround of employees, and increased health care costs.  We can all benefit socially if we learn how to cut back our own emissions and realize the roll of cleaner alternative fuels in this reduction.  Essentially, we want to increase the quality of life for everyone, so this would help to do just that.

What are the barriers?

Some of the barriers include the economic costs of the issue.  More specifically, there is not a great deal of technology out there yet to mass produce cleaner alternative fuels.  We also cannot just pump this stuff into all of our vehicles and call it a day.  We have to use vehicles that can support alternative forms of fuel and that is a huge change and expense for most people.  Nationally, we also have to think about building pipelines and transporting these fuels.  All of these are barriers to the use and production of cleaner burning fuels.  In order to overcome these barriers, we need to advocate for the health of individuals and show how making this change will have many benefits.  It is necessary to show not only how vehicle emissions effect the health of individuals, but how they contribute to global warming, and how the economy can benefit from making the transition.  In using our voices, we can overcome these barriers.

What are the resources?

Some resources include government grants for research and production of the fuels.  Vehicle manufacturers such as Ford and Chrysler are producing "flex fuel" cars which can support alternative fuels.  With the use of their technology, the market could be expanded.  The research is out there, it is just finding the resources to further the research and implement it in our communities.  We can also turn to our political representatives and urge them to take notice of the issue and vote for cleaner alternative fuels.  We need to look to ourselves as individuals and find out how we can cut back our own emissions.  For some, it might be as simple as riding the bus or riding a bike.  For others, it might include investing in a hybrid vehicle that runs on cleaner burning fuels that produce less emissions.  Companies and manufacturers can also do their part by searching and applying for grants to further their research and increase production.

What is the history of the issue?

Although it seems that cleaner alternative fuels are an emerging issue, alternative forms of fuel have been around for quite some time.  In earlier times, wood was a main source for heating and cooking.  Then, coal became the alternative fuel.  This was a great way to cut back on deforestation and was even better for the environment.  So now, here we are with another example, and yet, it is much more complicated.  Overt time, the goal has been to move toward renewable resources and reduce harmful emissions.  With increased research about the potential risks of these emissions, more and more companies decided to start looking for ways to reduce automobile emissions.  From these breakthroughs came the invention of hybrid and battery-powered cars.  We also now have emission standards in the U.S. which are monitored by the EPA.  These standards must be met by all new vehicles.  All of that being said, there is still work to do.  The biggest obstacle for the future is making these vehicles and fuels more mainstream and marketable.  We need to be able to make a profit on a much larger scale in order for this to be realistic.

In 2007, it was a National goal for us to produce 36 billion gallons of ethanol and advanced fuels per year by 2022.  From this goal, we increased our production.  As a nation, we currently produce 12 billion gallons and are struggling to triple this number.  In February of 2010, Obama urged that we increase our production of cleaner burning fuels as we are still in pursuit of this goal.  He plans to expand our energy sources.  If we were able to reach the 36 billion gallons per year, the EPA says that we would reduce the use of conventional oil by 328 million barrels per year.


Allies & Opponents:

Those in support of this would be people who have been effected by air pollution or who have loved ones who have taken ill due in part to emissions.  Others in support may include those who are concerned about global warming as emissions also contribute to climate change.  Farmers, ranchers, and foresters would also support this because it would allow them to convert waste products into fuel and would create more jobs.

Those who would oppose this issue would be oil companies and politicians who are backed by these oil companies.  Conventional oil use would drop and that would be a huge hit to the companies.  This would force politicians to vote against the use of cleaner alternative fuels because they might lose some of their support.

In order to have allies and opponents join forces to tackle this issue, it would be important to show how even the oil companies could benefit.  If we were able to produce more fuels on our own soil, we would not have to drill oil in other countries which would save a lot of money in transportation alone.  It would be wise to show that the people who work at the oil companies would also be negatively effected by emissions and show them realistic ways to produce better fuels.  This might help ease more people into the idea of cleaner burning fuels and vehicles.

My Recommendation:

Vote YES! for the use of alternative fuels and transportation.


Some links for more information...

Pros and Cons
MN Incentives and Laws for Natural Gas
Unsafe Air