I would like to draw your readers' attention to the forum on air quality objectives held by the Advisory Council on the Environment last week.
When the objectives, or AQOs, were set out in 1987, it was agreed that they 'should be maintained to promote the conservation and best use of air in the public interest'. They have yet to be revised, in contrast to the policies in many other countries. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency is obliged to review its air quality standards every five years. The need for a review of our AQOs is especially urgent, as we are faced with steadily deteriorating air quality.
The forum was well attended, and many opinions were expressed, but I was dismayed by the viewpoints of several panel participants who are also members of the Advisory Council on the Environment.
Three said that health was not the only, or overriding, concern when formulating AQOs, and that 'social costs' should be considered (meaning the cost of fighting air pollution, rather than social cost in terms of illnesses, deaths or health-care spending).
Another went even further, saying that reviewing the AQOs would have a grave impact on development - as the council would have to reject environment impact assessment reports it might previously have approved. If this is the case, then what is the purpose of environmental impact assessments? Are they conducted to assess whether projects might adversely affect our environment and our health? Or are they merely a hurdle that project proponents must overcome, whatever the cost to the community's health?
The most outrageous remark came from an advisory council member who suggested that health was not the overriding concern because some people might want to live a short but 'glorified life' and die young. This is absolute nonsense. Even if there is some freak out there willing to die from air pollution for the sake of development, he has no right to ask others to die with him.
Economic considerations should not be part of the equation. In the US, this is a clearly stated policy. The World Health Organisation, from which our government is supposed to take its lead, recommends air quality guidelines be based on health.
