Charles Dickens wrote about the dirty conditions of London, England by saying, "Smoke lowering down from chimney pots, making a soft black drizzle, with flakes of soot in it as big as full-grown snowflakes – gone into mourning, one might imagine, for the death of the sun . . . Fog everywhere . . . fog down the river, where it rolls defiled among the tiers of shipping, and the waterside pollutions of a great (and dirty) city" (Qtd. Langone 28). The problem with the air back in Dickens’ day was all of the coal that was burned for heat and power. Today, we do not often use coal in our individual homes or businesses, but we still have a big problem with our air. Automobiles are our main problem today. In almost every large metropolitan area in the world, the effects of the pollution released from the cars can be seen, smelt and felt by the average person. When science and technology step in and actually measure the amounts of pollution present, the effects become even more shocking.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) measures the amount of pollution in our air on a scale they call the Pollution Standards Index or the PSI. This scale measures several different pollutants including: carbon monoxide, ground-level ozone, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide (EPA 2). Automobiles contribute to four of the six pollutants measured on the scale: Carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide (Patterson 6). The scale also explains at what levels the pollutants become unhealthy and what we should do to protect ourselves. At the Good and Moderate levels of the scale, there are no serious health effects found. At the Unhealthful level, people with heart or respiratory problems are advised to reduce physical exertion, and the general population should avoid vigorous outdoor activity. The Very Unhealthful level advises people to avoid outdoor activity and people with heart and lung problems should stay indoors and avoid all activity. At this level, there are widespread irritation symptoms among the healthy population. The last level, Hazardous, can cause many serious health problems, including the early onset of disease. It advises that everyone should stay indoors with all doors and windows shut and avoid physical activity of any kind. This level can also cause premature death in the ill and elderly (EPA 4).

The negative effects of automobile emissions pollution were recognized long ago. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare estimated in the late 1950’s that nationwide, cars contribute 48 percent of the carbon monoxide, 4 percent of the sulfur dioxide, 32 percent of the nitrogen oxides, 59 percent of hydrocarbons and 8 percent of the particulate matter in our atmosphere. With all of these figures together, it meant that the automobile was by far the nations largest polluter, being responsible for 43 percent of all air pollution (Patterson 6). These numbers were staggering and brought many people to the opinion that something had to be done.

The effects of this pollution were seen and felt most heavily in large cities. By 1960, the air in and around Los Angeles was so bad that the state government was forced to take action. The main problem for LA was the photochemical smog, which is a product of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides reacting with sunlight. Smog causes rubber to crack, eye and throat irritation, bad odor, plant damage and low visibility (Patterson 16). By 1961, through state regulations and mandates, hydrocarbons had been reduced by 113 gallons per day per vehicle. By 1966, California had reduced their exhaust emissions by 70 percent, the rest of the nation followed by 1968. By 1970, carbon monoxide release was reduced by 70 percent and by 1971, overall hydrocarbon release was reduced by 85 percent compared to the 1960 vehicle (Patterson 15).

These changes might have done the job they were intended to if the number of cars on the road had remained the same, but that was not the case. In 1945, the end of WWII, the US population was about 133 million people and about 25 million passenger cars were registered. By 1970, there were 89 million cars registered. And by 1992, the population had risen to 256 million and there were 144 million cars registered here. Between 1945 and 1992, the US population had grown by 92 percent while the automobile population had grown by 476 percent (Levy 205). Worldwide, there was an estimated 400 million cars on the road in 1992. This number is estimated to grow to over 700 million over the next two decades (Langone 29).

In an effort to curb the nationwide air quality problem, the federal government passed the Clean Air Act of 1970. But, as I just discussed, the number or automobiles kept increasing by the millions, so many of the automobile regulations set out in the Act no longer were effective. To try to improve the problem again, The Clean Air Act Amendments were put into action in 1990. They included many new requirements for car emissions and state fleets.

The only way that many of these strict guidelines could be met was by using some kind of reformulated gasoline or alternative fuel. The Acts did not specifically state that alternative fueled vehicles were to be used, but the strict emissions guidelines were designed to encourage the use of these kind of vehicles (Lorenzetti 207). Since 1995, the use of reformulated and oxygenated gasolines have been required within the nations worst ozone areas, including: Baltimore, Chicago, Hartford, Houston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia and San Diego. These cities consume nearly 25 percent of the nations fuel supply (Lorenzetti 210). Starting this year, all new cars are required to have pollution control devices that will last for at least ten years. This equipment will help clean up the tail-pipe emissions that contain the majority of the pollution (Langone 35).

Some of the larger requirements of the CAAA deal with state fleets. Fleets include vehicles such as city busses, school busses, utility vehicles and so on. The Act requires metropolitan areas of 250,000 or more people to purchase alternative fuel vehicles at a set rate. In 1996, 10 percent of the new vehicles purchased were required to run on alternative fuels, 15 percent for 1997, 25 percent for 1998 and 75 percent for 2000 and all future years (Lorenzetti 213). In 1993, the state of Arizona had set aside 4.9 million dollars to meet the new vehicle requirements. The state also allowed individual citizens to deduct from their state income taxes if they purchased an alternative fuel vehicle or converted a conventional car to run on cleaner fuel (Lorenzetti 238). The federal government had similar requirements placed on their automotive purchases. By the end of the decade, there should by nearly 160,000 US government alternative fuel vehicles on the road (Lorenzetti 213).

But are these changes and regulations enough? We are nearly to the point of meeting all of these requirements set out by the CAAA, and still, we have an automobile pollution problem. The EPA shows that in the last year alone, the Phoenix valley reached a Hazardous pollution level at least three times. This problem will continue to worsen, as it has in the past, as the number of automobiles on the road continues to climb. I propose that the only way to solve this never-ending problem is to restructure the source of the problem – the automobile itself. Modifications on our current automobile have been tried, and they failed. Something drastic must be changed in our individual mode of transportation if we ever hope to have clean and healthy air within our cities. By phasing out our current model of automobile and moving to an alternative fueled vehicle we can accomplish this goal. However, the only was this will ever happen is through government mandates placed on auto-manufacturers, fuel producers and on individual citizens.

This kind of drastic mandate has been used before. Lead is a good example of the government stepping in and forcing change. Airborne lead contributed to mental retardation and developmental problems in young children. The primary source of airborne lead was leaded gasoline. Automobile manufactures were required to market only cars that ran on unleaded fuel. As a result, we have lowered the lead emissions from nearly 200 thousand tons in 1970 to almost zero in 1990 (Levy 262).

That kind of change in air pollution policy has always been hard to make happen. Congress will usually find themselves in gridlock over the policy for many years before anything is actually changed. Kraft discusses how the gridlock is perpetuated. The industries that the policies effect will generally oppose the change and pursuade members of congress to be sympathetic with their cause. These congress members provide enough votes to block any progress (Kraft 107). Public support is also hard to create. Even if public support is very strong, it is hard to translate public support into legislative action (Kraft 108). This kind of problem occurred with both of the Clean Air Acts. In fact, the big push to amend the Clean Air Act of 1970 began in 1977. As we now know, it was not actually changed until 1990 (Kraft 106). This kind of gridlock, possibly even more, is what we can expect with a large policy change, such as what I am proposing. The effort must be made anyway. We can not continue to allow millions of people to breathe unhealthy air every day. The effort may take years to actually start working, but the longer we wait to begin; the longer we all must breathe dirty air.

Of course, this kind of comprehensive change will not come easily to many people, but there are things that can be done to ease the shock. This plan can not be expected to start working overnight. A car is a major investment for most people, and no one can demand that the entire country go out and buy a new car. The manufacturers will need time as well to develop their products and modify their factories. The whole process must begin by making people aware of the change and what will happen over the next several years. The government must also be willing to bend a little itself when they will be expecting so much from the people. This can be done in the form of tax breaks and incentives. Possibilities include charging no sales tax on the new cars or making the cost of purchasing a new car tax deductible. They could provide tax incentives for dealers to give higher trade in amounts on older vehicles. Tax breaks could be made for those who convert their own automobile to run on cleaner burning fuel, or for the mechanics who will do the work. Some kind of a time cap will have to be placed on the whole process so that eventually the industry and citizens will be forced to comply with the new requirements. The policy could be enforced by charging some kind of pollution tax on people who drive their older cars after the time cut off.

Many people would be a little hesitant to support this kind of policy because they view driving alternative fuel vehicles as a huge change in their lifestyle, but this does not have to be the case. Study, research and experimentation with alternative vehicles have been going on for decades. New cars could be created without any drastic change in the body style of the vehicle. Studies were done by a group of researchers from Northern Arizona University concerning the feasibility of adopting alternative energy vehicles in Arizona. They found that the newest breed of electric vehicles could very easily be used in the Phoenix valley and in most other parts of the state as well (Morgan 44). Solar and heat powered cars are another practical option for the Phoenix valley (Electric 3). Solar energy is already used for a wide variety of energy needs, but its potential for automobiles is very high (Blake 48). However, the NAU study suggests that the very best option for Arizona would be to switch to vehicles fueled by CNG. This type of fuel is currently used on a large scale in Italy, New Zealand and Canada. A petroleum burning vehicle, such as the ones we currently drive, can easily be converted to run on CNG. The study also states that a CNG vehicle is 39% cheaper to operate than out current cars (Morgan 56). But these are not the only options. There are also cars that run on methanol, ethanol, natural gas and hydrogen (Lorenzetti). Citizens and manufacturers could be free to research the type of car they are interested in and what type best fills their needs.

In the long run, everybody would benefit from having cleaner cars. The time to begin action is now. Our health and our environment will not last forever if we continue on our current path.

Blake, James. Run Your Car on Sunshine. Louisville: Love Street Books, 1980.

"Electric and Solar Cars". Bright Ideas. Arizona Energy Office Department of Commerce. Phoenix, August 1991.

"Environmental Profile for: Maricopa County, Arizona. Air Quality". Environmental Protection Agency. 24 November, 1998. http://www.epa.gov/epahome/general.htm

Kraft, Michael. Vig, Norman. Environmental Policy in the 1990’s. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1994.

Langone, John. Our Endangered Earth. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1992.

Levy, John. Contemporary Urban Planning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997.

Lorenzetti, Maureen S. Alternative Motor Fuels. Tulsa: PennWell Publishing Co., 1996.

Morgan, James, et al. The Technical Feasibility, Socio-Economic Impact and Environmental Benefits of Alternative Energy Vehicles As Related To The State of Arizona. Northern Arizona University, 1986.

Patterson, D.J. Emissions From Combustion Engines And Their Control. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1972.