On Mon, 10 September 2001, "jfisher@igc.org" wrote:

> 
> ((i don't know what i'd do without cockburn, but sometimes i just can't follow him. what's funny is that i came across it on the same day that i heard an npr report on how houston's air quality is worse now even than LA's. nitrous oxide emissions from refineries east of houston cause huge bursts in ozone. the feds are threatenening houston with cutting off funds unless they attain compliance with EPA standards.))
 
The problem in Houston is two-fold:  cash-cow refineries and chemical plants east of Houston (and along I-10 into the Beaumont/Pt.Arthur/Orange triangle), and incredibly inept city/county planning which has allowed sprawling growth with few resources for moving people about other than the automobile.  (It should be added that culturally speaking, said automobile is inevitably an SUV or oversized pickup truck, e.g., four door cab with all the bells, whistles and add-ons imagineable.)  The solution for mass transit in Houston is invariably wider highways, and even light rail has met enemies in Houston's own southwest area congressional representation, Tom "doomsday" DeLay.   

It's the combination of this sprawling, unorganized growth and dependence on the auto with the unchecked refinery action that as created the very real crisis Houston faces today.  I, my partner, kids, immediate peers are relatively healthy, fit people, but everyone we know, selves included, are experiencing increased upper respiratory infections, asthma, bronchitis, and such, regardless of age.  Of further concern are the increases in melanomas, as well.

Growing up in this swampland-turned-metroplex, I remember learning to fly a single-engine Beechcraft out of Hobby Airport on the east side of town and becoming all too familiar with the orange haze that hung in the air from about 1100 to 1300 feet above all of Harris County and beyond, like a displaced ring of Saturn.  That was the early 80's, and that "ring" has turned into a block, with "ozone warnings" now a standard part of our daily weather report.

Grumblings in the activist community down here are suggesting that the most effective method for affecting real change and grabbing attention is to make the concern an economic concern among the companies located here, but an economic hit that they will take personally.  Pressure from the federal government can certainly help, but from what we've seen locally, such pressure usually translates into what the common, individual citizen must do - give up the car, change traffic habits, use mass transit that really doesn't work for the majority, and incur significant increases in cost of living and hits on the working poor/middle class pocket books.  Hence, we have talk of more toll roads, pay-per-use HOV lanes, increased bus fare, and limited light rail.

For more specific corporate and local government action, though, we need to inundate their boards with the kinds of economic information that grabs their attention to the multi-layered and sometimes hidden costs associated with such extreme pollution:   significant increases in medical treatment and insurance coverage costs; notable increases in time lost from sick days or family leave;  days lost due to unworkable conditions on construction projects; increased costs for maintaining infrastructure; fewer corporate relocations to a less than attractive environment.

Having lived and worked in this town all my life, and having had most of the major energy concerns as clients in law firms for which I've worked, it's been my observation that only economics - the bottom line - motivates any real, significant change.  Cut through the "politics" of global warming and focus on the "economics" of same, and we'll have a better shot at remedy, all around.

 - Deborah


_________________________________________________
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com