Chemical & Engineering News 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Editor: Albert F. Plant Managing Editor: Michael Heylin Assistant Managing Editors: David M. Kiefer, James H. Krieger, Donald J. Soisson Senior Editor: Earl V. Anderson (New York) Senior Associate Editor: Howard J. Sanders Staff Writer: Joseph Haggin Associate Editor: Ernest L. Carpenter Assistant Editors: P. Christopher Murray, Rebecca L. Rawls, Richard J. Seltzer EditoriaP Assistant: Theresa L. Rome Editing Services: Joyce A. Richards (Head) Editorial Reference: Barbara A. Gallagher (Head) Graphics and Production: Bacil Guiley (Head). Leroy Corcoran (Manager). Norman W. Favin (Art Director). John V. Sinnett (Designer). Linda McKnight, Gerald Quinn (Artists). NEWS BUREAUS: New York: William F. Fallwell (Head). Chicago: Ward Worthy (Head). Houston: Bruce F. Greek (Head). Washington: Fred H. Zerkel (Head), Ling-yee C. Gibney, Janice R. Long (Assistant Editors) FOREIGN BUREAUS: London: Dermot A. O'Sullivan (Head). Tokyo: Michael K. McAbee (Head) ADVISORY BOARD: Alfred E. Brown, Marcia Coleman, Arthur W. Galston, Derek P. Gregory, James D. Idol, Jr., Gerald D. Laubach, Paul F. Oreffice, Edward R. Thornton, Herbert L. Toor, M. Kent Wilson Published by AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY (202)-872-4600 Robert W. Cairns, Executive Director Division of Public Affairs and Communication Richard L. Kenyon, Director Arthur Poulos, Editorial Promotion Marion Gurfein, Circulation Development EDITORIAL BOARD: Mary L. Good (Chairman), Herman S. Bloch, Bryce Crawford, Jr., Robert W. Parry, B. R. Stanerson; PresidentElect: Glenn T. Seaborg; Representative, Council Publications Committee: Arthur Fry; PastPresident: Bernard S. Friedman © Copyright 1975, American Chemical Societv Subscription Service: Send all new and renewal subscriptions with payment to: Office of the Controller, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. All correspondence and telephone calls regarding changes of address, claims for missing issues, subscription service, status of records and accounts should be directed to: Manager, Membership and Subscription Services, American Chemical Society, P.O. Box 3337, Columbus, Ohio 43210; telephone 614-421-7230. On changes of address, include both old and new addresses with ZIP code numbers, accompanied by mailing label from a recent issue. Allow four weeks for change to become effective. Claims for missing numbers will not be allowed if received more than 60 days from date of issue plus time normally required for postal delivery of journal and claim; if loss was due to failure of notice of change of address to be received before the date specified above; or if reason for claim is "issue missing from files." Subscription Rates 1975: nonmembers, U.S., 1 yr. $15, 3 yr. $32; Canada and Pan American Union $20.50, $48.50; other nations $21, $50. Air freight rates available on request. Single copies: Current $1.00. Rates for back issues and volumes are available from Special Issues Sales Dept., 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. An annual index is available tor $20. Standing orders are accepted. Back and current issues are available on microfilm. For further information, contact Special Issues Sales, ACS, 1155 — 16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Published by the American Chemical Society from 20th and Northampton Sts., Easton, Pa., weekly except the last week in December. Second class postage paid at Washington, D . C , and at additional mailing offices. The American Chemical Society assumes no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by the contributors to its publications. Views expressed in the editorials are those of the editors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society. Advertising M a n a g e m e n t CENTCOM, L T D . (For list of offices see page 47)
2
C&EN Jan. 13, 1975
Editorial
One win, one loss In what was a suprise move in one case and an expected one in another, President Ford recently allowed two bills to die by pocket veto—the strip mining bill and the oil cargo preference bill. The unexpected veto of the latter is one of the few bright spots in the Administration's performance in recent weeks. This bill, which eventually would have required 30% of all imported oil to be carried by U.S. flagships, was both inflationary and unnecessary. Although the bill included a minor tax reduction provision that would have eliminated some of the increased costs of transportation via U.S. ships, it neatly skirted the problems of federal subsidies for shipbuilding, other maritime subsidies that would increase, an ongoing surplus in world tanker capacity, and the multitude of other increased costs that the bill would have fostered. Equally important, but potentially more dangerous, would have been the precedent this bill would have set for other countries and commodities. What if all of the oil-producing countries decided that their oil had to be transported in their own or other specifically designated tankers? This could create chaos in the world's import-export trade. The bright spot of the tanker bill veto, however, was overshadowed by the unwarranted demise of the strip mining bill. In listening to the biased and unfounded estimates of the strip mining industry, President Ford has opened more of our lands to the devastation of the strippers. Having been born and raised in Pennsylvania, I have a disturbing firsthand knowledge of what the land looks like when these operators are through with them. Inhospitable, uninhabitable, and unfarmable are charitable descriptions. Visits to more recently strip-mined land in Appalachia show some improvement in operations, but little reason for optimism. President Ford already had indicated a number of times that he would veto this particular bill, but his method of killing it left much to be desired. Instead of a positive act of vetoing it as promised when he received it from Congress, he chose inactivity and letting it die after Congress had adjourned and could not override his veto. Part of the responsibility then must lie with a Congress who spent so much time with other less important matters that they left this bill to become a victim of adjournment. This, however, still does not excuse the pocket veto of this very important piece of legislation. President Ford allowed himself to be "scared off" by predictions of 40 million to 140 million ton-per-year losses because of the bill's protective provisions. The President said such losses, in the face of our current energy problems, were unacceptable. The problem is that these predictions are so vastly overexaggerated and biased that to call them predictions at all is an act of pure charity. More realistic estimates place the yearly losses in the 5 million to 15 million ton-peryear range—a much less significant loss in terms of our total annual production. I personally don't think there would be any loss in production at all—the price of coal would simply go up a little to cover the increased costs of strip mining. The only bright hope in the whole affair is that there is some strong sentiment in Congress that an even stronger strip mining bill will be produced this year. The new Congress should now give it number one priority. I'm all for compromises between energy and the environment, but the environment suffered unconditional surrender in this case. Albert F. Plant
