Editorial: Diesel Cleans Up
As if being stuck in a traffic jam isn't bad enough. If you're unlucky enough to be lodged behind one of those diesel-burning trucks or buses when traffic lurches to a halt, you know it's going to get a lot worse. When the truck driver hits the accelerator, out spews that smelly black exhaust that practically chokes you. Your first thought is ... unprintable. Your second: Is polluting like that legal?
But now there is reason to rejoice.
First, diesel pumps across the nation recently started dispensing a dramatically cleaner fuel, with most of the pollution-producing sulfur removed. Second, new and cleaner diesel engines--which can only use the new fuel--are now standard.
When the new fuel is used in the new engines, the difference is a 90 percent decline in the noxious mix of chemicals belched into the air by the old diesel exhaust. All of that could eventually prevent 8,300 deaths and tens of thousands of respiratory ailments every year, not to mention reducing the blood pressure of motorists stuck behind these smoke-belching behemoths. No wonder EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson calls this move "the greatest single achievement in clean fuel since lead was removed from gasoline a generation ago."
Unfortunately, there's an asterisk by this monumental achievement. It's summarized in one word in the paragraphs above: eventually.
The new diesel fuel now in circulation will help reduce pollution fractionally when it is burned in the older diesel engines. But the air won't be substantially cleared of diesel pollution until millions of older trucks and other diesel-fueled off-road equipment are either junked or retrofitted with pollution-control devices.
Unlike cars, however, many trucks and other heavy equipment tend to stay in service for decades, not years. And so the transition won't be complete until around 2030, the EPA says.
That's a long time to wait. Too long.
Diesel vehicles can be retrofitted with filters or other pollution-control technology to reduce diesel pollution. It's not cheap. Depending on the vehicle, it can cost from $425 to $1,150 or so for a diesel oxidation catalyst, EPA officials say. Or it can run into thousands of dollars for more complex pollution-control equipment. Analysts estimate that it would take $50 billion to $100 billion to clean up the existing fleet of 11 million diesel engines now in service.
Not surprisingly, many companies aren't eager to invest in retrofitting their trucks. Nor did they wait to shell out for new vehicles this year with prices expected to be higher because of the cleaner-running engines. Just the opposite. Some companies snapped up trucks last year with the old, heavily polluting, less costly engines. That saves money now. But it also guarantees years more of belching trucks on the roads. And it strikes us as depressingly short-sighted about Americans' health.
There are ways to speed the change. For instance: Congress can come across with the full $200 million a year intended for grants and loans to help firms clean up the older diesel engines.
Some local authorities may not be content to wait for nature to take its course. In November, port officials in Los Angeles and Long Beach approved a $2 billion plan aimed at reducing air pollution. Among the goals: replacing or retrofitting thousands of aging diesel trucks, some probably at industry expense, within five years. Though the details are still being worked out, port officials agreed to charge higher fees on the heavier-polluting trucks, to fund grant programs so truckers can upgrade.
Diesel is a major source of the pollution that has rendered the air in the Chicago region among the dirtiest in the nation. Diesel exhaust is full of tiny soot particles that can cause a variety of ailments. One recent New York University study found that one type of pollution in diesel exhaust--fine particles small enough to lodge themselves deep in the lungs--worsened children's asthma symptoms more than other types of pollution.
Yes, clean air costs money. But American companies have two choices: They can make this switchover go faster ... or slower. Speaking for those who have to breathe the air around here, we'd vote for faster.
Print This
