Diesel dustup pits Smokey against sheriff

New Zealand has a clean, green image - and a lot of dirty diesel. MATHEW DEARNALEY reports on how the country is lagging.

Too many of us take it for granted - the air we breathe. Every day, we each draw about 11,000 litres of it through our lungs.

Yet Aucklanders crawling through worsening traffic snarl-ups, mostly one person to a car, are choking on some of the world's dirtiest diesel fumes.

Auckland's chronic traffic congestion, aggravated by sulphur in diesel six times higher than permitted European levels, is producing a potentially lethal brew of fine particles that lodge deep within our lungs.

More than 700,000 motor vehicles, almost three-quarters of which are used to carry Aucklanders to work, subject the region to congested traffic pollution at five to 10 times that of the free-flowing variety.

Although this includes a cocktail of nasties, from cancer-causing benzene to global-warming gases, particularly alarming are quadrupling sulphur fumes since the late 1990s from heavy vehicles and rising numbers of second-hand diesel imports.

This is because fumes that are too minute to be seen as black or blue smoke combine with other fine particles to set potentially carcinogenic time-bombs in our lungs.

Sulphur also threatens to clog exhaust filters designed to weed out other toxins, such as the nitrous oxide "greenhouse" gases.

This is why Auckland Regional Council chairman Philip Warren and his staff are taking on the world's largest oil company, Exxon-Mobil, in a war on dirty diesel.

Why is Mr Warren making it his fight?

Officially, because his organisation is responsible under the Resource Management Act for controlling discharges of contaminants and monitoring the state of the region's environment.

Then again, the issue has become a handy election-year cause for Mr Warren.

He believes media interest - "even CNN has been sniffing around" - is linked to apparent attempts by Exxon-Mobil to stymie world pollution control moves.

These attempts include using some of its $45 billion annual profit to successfully lobby the Bush Administration to oppose the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and efforts in Australia to stall sulphur reduction moves.

Greenpeace New Zealand campaigner Sue Connor says her organisation views Mobil as "global warming villain number one" and a fair target of protests such as the sandbagging of its Wellington offices last week against alleged rising sea levels.

The company denies being unconcerned about climate change, despite Greenpeace allegations on the website www.stopmobil.net, but says it sees the protocol as being seriously flawed for its potentially crippling costs.

Closer to home, Mr Warren is enjoying a groundswell of support in his plea for motorists to boycott Mobil, which has refused support for a stopgap bid to reduce sulphur in Auckland's diesel supply until the Government introduces new standards.

What has been the reaction to the boycott call?

Mr Warren says the council is being swamped with messages of support.

Mobil is alone, among this country's four main oil companies, in withholding support for a council-inspired plan to cut sulphur in diesel to a maximum of 1000 parts per million, from an average of 2200 parts per million.

Its support is crucial because the Marsden Pt oil refinery can supply only one grade of diesel though its pipeline to Auckland, although BP says it will investigate alternative ways of getting lower-sulphur fuel to the region if industry unanimity cannot be reached.

BP already receives from the refinery small batches of diesel with sulphur at 500 parts per million for sale at its 22 Christchurch outlets, at which it reports a 10 per cent increase in sales since late last year.

BP came out against the other big oil companies in 1997, pledging action against climate change, and says it cannot understand Mobil's procrastination.

But even its Christchurch diesel has 10 times more sulphur than targets set for 2006 in Europe and Australia, and 33 times more than a proposed United States level that has so far survived the Bush presidency.

Minor retailer Gull Petroleum says a rush on its low-sulphur diesel has emptied stocks. A new shipment arrives next week with 400 parts per million.

Mobil insists that it is committed to reducing sulphur for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and has placed full-page newspaper advertisements saying it cannot support a plan that would place Auckland's interests ahead of the rest of the country.

It says that a new additive it has introduced to diesel is equivalent to reducing sulphur to 500 parts per million, and that the boycott is unfair on the small independent retailers who carry its brand.

The company denies a suggestion by Mr Warren that it and Shell threatened to haul him before the Commerce Commission "before Shell saw the light."

Former World Health Organisation air specialist Kevin Rolfe has, in a paper commissioned by the regional council, queried the additive.

He believes that although Mobil is probably justified in claiming a decrease in the amount of visible smoke emitted, such additives are likely to increase the number of fine particles sent into the atmosphere.

And he is concerned by a lack of field testing of the additive, a similar version of which is under intense scrutiny across the Tasman before the Australian Government decides whether to allow it.

What is the Government doing?

Commerce Minister Paul Swain expects a review of fuel specifications, for which a long-awaited discussion paper is due out in about six weeks, to set "bold targets" for reducing sulphur and other pollutants.

He says the Government is looking at reducing sulphur to 50 parts per million over five years, to bring it in line with European and Australian moves.

But independent sources believe the Government is considering leaving it until at least 2003 to make 500 parts per million a mandatory intermediate figure.

This will be to allow enough time for the oil industry to pay for $200 million refinery modifications, at an extra cost to motorists of 2c to 3c a litre.

Motor importers share the regional council's concern that the introduction of new specifications will be too gradual to suit new vehicles. Motor industry spokesman Perry Kerr has described the quality of our diesel as a "national scandal."

How did the council campaign start?

Mr Warren points to its origins in last year's Operation Smokey drive, in which the Auckland Regional Council encouraged people to "dob in" polluting vehicles.

Of 27,000 vehicles whose owners were sent pollution advisory notices, with offers of free checks at Motor Trade Association garages, 58 per cent were diesel-powered. But diesel vehicles account for just 14 per cent of the region's fleet.

Although petrol fumes contain their share of carcinogens, an American study has blamed diesel particulates for 70 per cent of the overall cancer risk.

When refinery officials revealed that they could reduce sulphur in Auckland's diesel to 1000 parts per million at minimal cost, without denting supply, the regional council pounced.

Says council air quality manager and scientist Kevin Mahon: "We were given an opportunistic chance to do something cheaply and quickly."

Mr Mahon says a first-cut reduction in sulphur in Auckland promises a bigger impact than anywhere else in New Zealand.

"We have 700,000 vehicles in a congested space, and when traffic is congested it puts out five to 10 times as much air pollution as when it is not - we can't get a gain like that elsewhere."

He says fine particles from sulphur emissions stay suspended for up to 30 days.

Mr Warren says Aucklanders have given a strong signal that they see a likely cost rise of about 1c a litre as a small fee to pay for having one tonne a day of fine sulphuric particles removed from the air.

Council publicist Simon Roche says several months were spent planning a campaign to thank the public for participating in Operation Smokey.

The idea was to let them know what had been achieved and what further steps were being taken, including a new rule enabling police to fine motorists $150 for vehicles that emit smoke for 10 seconds or longer.

But the campaign turned pugilistic after Mobil and then Shell said they would not support the council's reduced sulphur plan.

Shell fell into line after Mr Warren began his boycott call, on condition the council would do more to combat traffic pollution.

Why is Mobil holding out?

Mobil has engaged in the time-honoured tradition of playing the rest of the country off against the region.

New Zealand Refining Ltd confirms that it has the capacity to reduce sulphur in Auckland's diesel supply only. But Mobil says the refinery's existing technology is adequate to cut sulphur levels for all of New Zealand to between 1300 and 1500 parts per million by the end of this year.

Mr Warren says the rest of the country, apart from Christchurch, suffers nothing near Auckland's level of air pollution.

He says he has lobbied for a new national standard on sulphur, but the Government failed to deliver on a promise to issue its fuel specifications discussion paper by April.

Mobil's tactic appears to be working on the Government. Mr Swain on Wednesday seemed relaxed about the Auckland campaign, saying that it was helping to focus public attention on the fuels review and that he had written to the oil companies asking whether there could be a voluntary sulphur reduction in the meantime.

But in Parliament yesterday, he said the Government did not think it was right to lower diesel levels in Auckland at the expense of the rest of the country.