March 25, 1997 – The Calgary Herald
March 5, 1997 – The Victoria Times Colonist
February 23, 1997 – The Vancouver Province
February 21, 1997 – The Montreal Gazette
February 13, 1997 – The Sarnia Observer
February 13, 1997 – The St. John Telegraph Journal
By Colin Kenny
When it comes to the pleadings of corporate giants, a lot of us tend to be skeptical. The automotive industry? The petroleum industry? The people who run these shops are big boys and girls, with enough money to put plenty of spin on whatever they're trying to sell us.
So who are we to believe when the petroleum gang squares off against the auto gang over a federal bill currently being examined by the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. The legislation would ban the import and interprovincial trade of the fuel additive MMT (methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl), which the auto people say causes deposits of manganese oxide which gum up the anti-pollution equipment on cars and trucks.
Most of the industrialized world does not use MMT as an octane-enhancer in gasoline. It is banned in many of the most smog-prone areas of the United States, including California and much of the Eastern Seaboard, and 85% of US oil refiners have confirmed that they are not currently using MMT.
MMT, however, is still in wide use in Canada, much to the distress of the automotive industry. This is an industry that has, under duress, made significant advances against air pollution in recent years. The latest emission control equipment reduces hydrocarbons by 98%, carbon monoxide by 96% and nitrogen oxides by 90% compared with the pre-control era.
The latest technology - known as OBD-II (on-board diagnostics) - which monitors the performance of the emission control equipment, became mandatory on all US vehicles in 1996. Canada wants to benefit from this technology as well. OBD-II goes a long way to ensuring that all three of the dangerous pollutants mentioned above are kept under control. All auto manufacturers are claiming that this technology often gets fouled in regions where MMT is used in gasoline. Unfortunately, that is all across Canada.
The adherence of manganese oxide on catalytic converters can upset the chemical action that helps eradicate hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Oxygen sensors at the front and aft of the converters can apparently also be affected. These monitor the operation of the converter and also control the mixture of air and fuel fed to the engine. The argument is that when they get coated with manganese oxide, they are more likely to transmit a false impression that a converter is doing its job when it isn't. Finally, long-life spark plugs are more likely to need early replacement.
While the petroleum companies acknowledge that 80% of MMT adheres to the components mentioned above, they maintain that the overall effect isn't a big problem. In fact they argue that testing has shown that the manganese oxide actually improves the catalytic process and reduces nitrogen oxides. Honda Motor Co., however, told our Committee that upsetting the delicate air-fuel balance leads to a deterioration of efficiency for the removal of hydrocarbons.
Are the auto companies lying about saying anti-pollution efficiency is lessened by the presence of MMT? Why would they? Think about it. If MMT were actually helping, rather than hindering, why spend the money taking on the huge petroleum lobby? Hey, if MMT were helping rather than hindering the fight against pollution, why not go along for the ride? Emission regulations are being tightened all the time. If MMT helped reduce overall emissions, you can bet your bottom dollar the auto companies would be glad to have them aboard.
On the other hand, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why the petroleum people want to hold onto MMT wherever they can. It's the cheapest octane enhancer around. This camp has a history of trying to hold onto refining tricks no matter what the social costs. When Ethyl Corp. introduced lead as an additive to gasoline in 1924 they had the gall to promote it on the basis of its safety benefits.
It is true that if the petroleum companies pass on the cost of replacing MMT with other additives, it will cost the consumer money: an average of $5 annually for a driver who does 16,000 kilometers a year. Compare that to the cost of replacing spark plugs early, or replacing an oxygen sensor for something in the neighbourhood of $250. Or, beyond all that, messing up our air.
Both sides have enough money to produce scientific reports that will for decades leave lingering doubt about the urgency of dealing with MMT. I will read those reports. But in the meantime Canadians have to breathe, which means we've got to make a decision. I think its worth examining motives to help us do that. Unless I uncover some plot whereby the auto companies intend to rule the world by pestering the petroleum companies, I'll ride with them this time.