All throughout the eighties and early nineties, acid rain was the hot topic. There was alarming talk of stone buildings melting, forests being killed and whole rivers and lakes being stripped of all their animal life.
Since then, I cannot remember hearing acid rain being mentioned, it seems to have dropped completely off the map. Is it still a problem, or was the effect of acid rain overhyped? Why is it no longer a hot topic (I’m guessing global warming has taken it’s place)?
You’re right. I work with environmental workers in the Netherlands, and acid rain has faded back in the general problem of air-quality. It certainly isn’t the hot topic it once was.
IMHO, the air we breathe in the western world has become cleaner, due to finer methods of measurement and stricter laws. Here’s a recent cite.
My impression is that people quit caring about the environment after some assholes flew a couple airliners into the WTC back in 2001. It simply got burried the whole terrorism issue.
Well, there has been a sea change in Washington, DC. The party in charge has adjusted the government’s attitude about environmental issues. If that’s not neutral enough for General Questions, I offer this alternative:
Acid rain? Man, Jimi Hendrix and Jerry Garcia are dead.
Well, a combination of new technology (paging Una Persson!!) and a politics-neutral stance of requiring its use on major industries and power plants has cut the incidence of SO[sub]2[/sub] and NOx compounds in the atmosphere, the principal constituents of acid rain.
In 1981 when I started work for a state agency, there was a creek in northern Oswego County, NY, which every spring had a pH equivalent to table vinegar, from runoff from melting acid snow resulting in large measure from Midwest smokestack emissions. It’s now down to a relatively neutral pH typical of upland streams.
The problem’s not totally solved, of course, but it has been greatly alleviated.
Thank to the Clean Air Act and environmental groups and the EPA the Acid rain problem has been reducing in US at least.
A couple of good links to the EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp03/summary.html
We need to continue to lower emissions from cars and clean up coal burning power plants but the Clean Air Act is really working.
Why you don’t here about it as much is the Clean Water Act and Wetland destruction has been under heavy assault from the current administration and environmental groups have spent more time on these issues. Also as stated after 9/11 the mainstream press has paid less attention to environmental groups.
Jim
There are a couple of factors involved, I believe. First, as others have posted - the 9/11 attacks took a lot of the focus on environmental issues out of the general public eye. Second, global warming seems to be both something that more people can point to (If there’s odd weather going on in your area, it must be because of that global warming thing.) than lake acidity that can only be measured with specific instruments. Remember, acid rain lead to lakes and ponds that were clear and clean-looking. It takes education to make someone realize that a kettlepond that is clear blue is in serious trouble, ecologically. Third, there has been a lot done to reduce emissions and collect flyash (IIRC the major component that lead to acid rain.) from coal burning plants.
Finally, I think that a number of people involved in the acid-rain debate realized where their arguments were going to lead them, if they were honest about how they confronted the issue. The major source for acid rain, I believe (Una Persson, if I’m giving out bad dope, here, please correct me.) comes from combustion products from burning coal for electric power generation. This would indicate to me that the way to beat acid rain is to go to various non-polluting power-production technologies: hydro (Which in the US is already being utilized about as much as it could be, AIUI.), wind (Which is a politically difficult option to sell in populated areas.), solar (Which is, currently, one of the most expensive ways to generate power.) and nuclear.
I’ve spoken with a number of so-called environmentalists who believe, to the soles of their Birkenstocks, that any kind of coal power is “greener” than any kind of nuclear power. Confronting global warming is much less likely to cause cognitive dissonance in the minds of that sort of environmentalist, IMHO.
Remember swine flu? Or SARS? Or killer bees? Or shark attacks? Or racially-motivated arsons at black churches? Or the epidemic of child abductions?
All are classic example of the “apocalypse du jour” mindset, fed by the media and catered to by politicians, that can skew public perceptions of and policy on an issue. This mindset is particularly prevalent on issues that people feel personally affected by, like health, the environment and crime.
That’s not to say that these aren’t often legitimate concerns that should be scrutinized to deterimine the level and nature of the problem and to vet the pros and cons of any potential solutions. But the coverage often immediately defaults to highlighting worst case scenarios (no matter how improbable), and taking anectdotal evidence and conjecture at face value. The public outcry and desire for more information feeds the story, and you get a vicious cycle of each media outlet trying to out-doomsday the next. Politicians find it far easier to cater to the public mood through outraged speeches and blunt, rushed solutions than to approach the problem objectively.
And then, just as easily as it sprang up, the issue disappears as the story loses steam and the public moves on to other concerns. Any subsequent evidence that the problem was misunderstood, misintepreted or just plain non-existent is usually ignored by press and politicians.
Any subsequent evidence that the problem was serious, or that it continues to be a problem, is also usually ignored. A little bit of improvement, or even just getting used to the presence of the problem, is enough to make most people feel that the problem’s gone away. “Acid rain? Oh, that’s over.”
No kidding - there are still lakes in the Adirondaks that are being killed. More slowly, perhaps, but it’s still a concern. And I found that site only after a very specific Google search. Certainly it’s not often brought up in the local news, let alone the national news.
That whole thing about cigarettes causing cancer? I mean, how whacky was that?
I take your point. As I said, the problem is usually something of legitimate concern. Ideally, tackling a problem like acid rain would begin with a dispassionate analysis of the causes and costs of acid rain, as well as the costs and benefits of any proposed solutions. Then we as a society could debate and determine which, if any, means of remediation maximizes our expected benefit.
But the kind of media sensationalizing that takes hold on these issues creates a “Fix it now!” chorus from the public. The headline “ACID RAIN: DOES THE BENEFIT IN JOBS AND INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT OUTWEIGH THE COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE?” won’t sell a lot of newspapers. But “ACID RAIN: WILL IT MELT YOUR CHILDREN’S FACES?” will. And it’s tough to treat a public policy problem rationally when the public is worried that little Susie’s dimples are going to get washed down the storm sewer.
Consequently, politicians are all too happy to answer the public mood with either a superficial patch that doesn’t really address the problem, or an iron fist approach that can cause tremendous unforseen damage. And once the ink is dry on the “End Acid Rain Forever Act,” the public is willing to put the whole issue behind them even if the original problem continues unabated (or the solution proves worse than the problem).