MVCAC July 2013

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

5 participants
5 discussions

Life is better: Dramatic changes - Editorial - The Charleston Gazette
by Duane 19 Jul '13

19 Jul '13

http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/201307120075 Life is better: Dramatic changes - Editorial : The Charleston Gazette, Jim Haught, Executive Editor, July 12, 2013 World War II killed at least 40 million people, only a generation after World War I killed 15 million. Yet today, full-scale warfare between nations has disappeared. When the 1900s began, average human life expectancy was only about 48 years. Now it's nearing 80. Murder in Europe was about 100 per 100,000 population during medieval times -- but it has fallen 99 percent, to just one per 100,000 today. Lynching of blacks in the U.S. south ended. Right after World War II, the world had only 20 democracies, but now the total is near 100. Surprisingly, life has improved to a stunning degree. Several recent books declare that civilization has entered a new phase -- a time of humane values, orderly society and widespread public safety -- despite random terrorist attacks, gun massacres and other horrors that make headlines. Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker -- author of The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined -- calls the transformation "maybe the most important thing that has ever happened in human history." Interviewed in the July-August issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Dr. Pinker said some scholars once assumed that humans have built-in "urges like revenge and dominance" making them "killer apes" with "homicidal DNA." But now it has become clear that intelligent, reasonable people can suppress lethal instincts and create law-abiding cultures in which families live peacefully. The psychologist said: "It used to be that countries in Europe would start two new wars a year for 500 years. As of 1945, that went to zero. Military historians have just been astonished at the fact that war between developed countries has pretty much ceased to exist .... If you look at statistics on war worldwide, since 1990, they have been going down, down, down. Fewer people are killed in war than ever before." Question: If warfare is vanishing, why does America bankrupt itself by spending $1 trillion per year for the world's largest war-making machine -- more taxpayer cost than virtually all other nations on Earth combined? What's the point of this gigantic spending? Other Western nations don't squander their assets in this manner. Today, threats arise chiefly from hidden terror fanatics and Third World civil conflicts -- small menaces against which giant armies, navies and air forces are ineffective. Dr. Pinker attributes the general retreat of violence to democratic civilization fostered through efforts like the United Nations. "If you live in a society where there is a rule of law for long enough, it changes your emotions," he said. " You become less likely to react with rage if someone gives you the finger or calls you a nasty name. You don't challenge them to knife fight; you walk away." The Harvard scholar added that gun-saturated America is bloodier than other advanced nations: "By a number of criteria, the United States is more violent than other Western democracies. Our rate of homicide is two to five times higher .... We start more wars, and 33 of the 50 states have capital punishment, which has been abolished everywhere else." Let's all hope that America gradually joins the rest of modern cultures in the historic shift away from killing. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim Haught Kudos for your editorial "Life is better". But if I may, I'd like to expand that to illustrate how government intervention through regulation has also improved our lives. First I should disclose that as a Canadian I was until my company transferred me to California, a member of the Progressive Conservative party there. While that party name may seem to be an oxymoron, the truth is it was a party dedicated to careful thoughtful progress while taking into consideration the lessons of the past, so “...we would not be doomed to repeat the mistakes!” That's a concept that the right wing in this country has abandoned...and sadly in Canada too. Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and even Ronald Ragan are undoubtedly spinning in their graves at the obstructionist no progress attitude of the GOP today. But I digress. As an engineer who has been challenged by air quality issues and opportunities for the last 50 years, I have seen time and time again how regulatory agencies pushed the technology envelopes and demanded cleaner air even when B.A.C.T* was not good enough or the technology beyond it was seemingly possible. Let me give you some examples. (*Best Available Control Technology) My father when I was a teenager, had a Cadillac. That car when new had a 90 day 4000 mile warranty and was lucky to get a 11 or 12 miles to the gallon. The California Air Resources Board, (CARB is the State’s primary air regulatory agency for mobile sources), recognizing scientifically the serious smog conditions in Southern California in particular were caused primarily by automobile emissions, began in the late 50’s, early 60’s, a process of demanding through regulations an improved control of emissions in vehicles. That process for the last 45 years has brought us today to automobiles that are 98% cleaner than they were when they started in 1968. During those efforts, CARB realized that requiring clean emissions in new vehicles was not enough. They then demanded that the automobile companies design and build vehicles so that the emission performance would exist for the first hundred thousand miles of the vehicle's life...assuming proper maintenance. The automobile industry fought them every step of the way. What’s the result? today’s vehicles are cleaner, far more efficient, and much better made. My wife’s 2009 Cadillac today has a six-year 100,000 mile warranty and we regularly achieve an average of 26.4 miles to the gallon. That's progress! Let me give you another example. As an engineer I was retained by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Los Angeles to examine the economic impact of a more Stringent rule that they were proposing to eliminate, not reduce, but eliminate all volatile organic compounds from coatings on furniture. That meant eliminating what for many years ago we all remember was the smell of drying paint. It was the evaporation of the volatile organic compounds on the manufacture of new furniture and painting of architectural elements, that was clearly in the science based opinion of SCAQMD, contributing to the smog of Southern California. The furniture industry in Southern California, which at the time was the second-largest concentration of furniture manufacturers in United States, screamed bloody murder. Jobs! Economic chaos! You've all heard the mantra. They argued that not only were no such coatings available at the time, (and they weren't), but that if the rule was implemented the entire industry would either die or leave Southern California and go to Mexico where no such rules existed. SCAQMD set a goal of implementing the rule five years hence from its announcement. So it was the regulators who press the technology which, within four years, was successful. Through innovation, pressured by regulatory demands for cleaner air, VOC free coatings were made available before the fifth year arrived and are now the standard for those coatings today. These are just two examples I offer to show how we have made major progress in cleaning up the air we breathe by regulatory agencies, in other words the government, pressing for "dramatic change" by pushing the technological envelopes. These were not market forces that brought these changes about, but Government regulators acting with scientific evidence and thoughtful legislative support from both progressive and conservative legislators who demanded that "Life should be better" in California. Today Obama's Pressure for "dramatic changes" in coal fired power plants is certainly and scientifically justified. As we see all around us in West Virginia the serious health damages that are caused to citizens everywhere, we must ask, no demand, that nothing less than zero emissions be tolerated. Alternative energy sources are dramatically lower in emissions. Why should we tolerate anything less... except to protect coal company profits. And in spite of the deniers, it is now quite clear, we are by our in action and a century of the escalating emission of greenhouse gases causing serious damage to our planet. Why should we tolerate anything less than clean air and a safe planet for our grandchildren. While there may be an ER for citizens whose health is compromised by air and water pollution, there is no ER for the planet! Yes, "Life will be better" when we stop killing each other and our planet. And the irony, which has been shown so many times before, and as I pointed out in the examples above, the economic opportunities and advantages of cleaning up our act are clearly available once we reintroduce and embrace the concept of being Progressive Conservatives. Allan Tweddle, Charleston, WV, July 15, 2013

1 0

Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole
by Duane 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/ Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole Center for Biological Diversity, July 15, 2013 On Friday, a key federal court ruling confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution apply to industrial facilities that burn biomass, including tree-burning power plants. The court vacated an exemption that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had carved out for “biogenic carbon dioxide.” The decision, by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101), found that the EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from permitting programs intended to protect people and the environment from harmful pollution. “Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous, polluting and ought to be limited to protect people and the environment,” said Kevin Bundy, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “This important decision will reduce respiratory ailments, protect forests and help ensure a healthier, more livable climate.” “Today’s ruling upholds [the] EPA’s authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The court’s decision is grounded in an understanding that the science shows that biomass fuels, including tree-burning, can make climate disruption worse,” said Ann Weeks, legal director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for the petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. “The court clearly noted that the atmosphere can’t tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees,” said Weeks. “The science is clear that not all biomass burning is good for the planet and today’s ruling rightly affirms science as the guide for how [the] EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production,” said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean.” “The court’s decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clearcutting the region’s wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts,” said Frank Rambo, head of the clean energy and air program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and Wild Virginia in the case. Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is “re-sequestered” by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any “significant” emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the court’s decision also means that communities near these plants will benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems. Duane Nichols, Cell- 304-216-5535, www.FrackCheckWV.net

4 4

Re: [MVCAC] Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole
by James Kotcon 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

I think I want to read the decision and the facts of the case before I jump to conclusions. While biomass "recycles" carbon instead of releasing fossil carbon, biomass facilities also encourage clear-cutting, and clear-cutting generates significantly more CO2 from degradation of soil organic matter than from the biomass burned directly. This "carbon debt" means that it may take 75 years before a forest regrows and stores enough carbon to make up for what was lost by clear-cutting. The few studies available suggest that the energy and carbon balance for biomass may make sense for small local facilities, but the balance tips against large industrial-scale facilities. While it may seem counter-intuitive, the science does not automatically favor biofuels as a solution to global warming, and we need to let reality drive air pollution policy. Jm Kotcon >>> Andrew Liebhold 07/16/13 11:13 AM >>> This strikes me as a very poorly informed decision. Burning forest-derived biomass is potentially highly desirable from a carbon standpoint. The carbon contained in trees will be released into the atmosphere regardless of whether it does so by combustion or via decomposition, and is therefore a truly "carbon-neutral" source of energy. If it is utilized in place of burning fossil fuels, it can greatly reduce net carbon emissions. Whoever these people are in the Clean Air Task Force, Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine, I think they would benefit from studying a little bit of ecosystem science. There efforts are clearly mis-placed which is unfortunate... -Sandy Liebhold On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Duane wrote: > http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/ > > Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole Center for > Biological Diversity , July 15, 2013 > > On Friday, a key federal court ruling confirmed that Clean Air Actlimits on carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution apply to industrial facilities > that burn biomass, including tree-burning power plants. > The court vacated an exemption that the U.S. Environmental Protection > Agency (EPA) had carved out for “biogenic carbon dioxide.” > > > > > The decision, by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit > in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101), found that the EPA had improperly exempted > all sources of biogenic CO2 from permitting programs intended to protect > people and the environment from harmful pollution. > > “Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous, polluting and ought > to be limited to protect people and the environment,” said Kevin Bundy, a > senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law > Institute. “This important decision will reduce respiratory ailments, > protect forests and help ensure a healthier, more livable climate.” > > “Today’s ruling upholds [the] EPA’s authority to regulate pollution that > drives climate change . > The court’s decision is grounded in an understanding that the science shows > that biomass fuels, including tree-burning, can make climate disruption > worse,” said Ann Weeks, legal director of the Clean Air Task Force, > who argued the case for the petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation > Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of > Maine . > > “The court clearly noted that the atmosphere can’t tell the difference > between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning > trees,” said Weeks. > > “The science is clear that not all biomass burning is good for the planet > and today’s ruling rightly affirms science as the guide for how [the] EPA > must now move forward on biomass energy production,” said Niel Lawrence, > senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. > “This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans > who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they lov> also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are > actually clean.” > > “The court’s decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we > have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that > avoids clearcutting the region’s wildlife-rich forests for energy while > intensifying climate change impacts,” said Frank Rambo, head of the clean > energy and air program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, > which is representing Dogwood Alliance , Georgia > ForestWatch , South Carolina Coastal Conservation > League and Wild Virginiain the case. > > Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn > biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of > respiratory and cardiac problems. Biomass-fueled power plants emit > significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn > fossil fuels—even coal—and > it can take decades before that excess CO2 is “re-sequestered” by > subsequent plant growth. > > Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 > emissions must also control any “significant” emissions of other regulated > pollutants, so the court’s decision also means that communities near these > plants will benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and > other health problems. > > Duane Nichols, Cell- 304-216-5535, www.FrackCheckWV.net > > > _______________________________________________ > MVCAC mailing list > MVCAC(a)osenergy.org > http://wvcompletestreets.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac >

2 1

To clean the air, Dutch scientists invent pavement that eats smog - latimes.com
by Duane 09 Jul '13

09 Jul '13

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-smog-eating-street… TO CLEAN THE AIR, PAVEMENT THAT EATS SMOG . .. ... What if the solution to smog was right where the rubber meets the road? Scientists in the Netherlands have found that installing special air-purifying pavement on city streets can cut air pollution nearly in half. Researchers at Eindhoven University of Technology outfitted one block in the city of Hengelo, Netherlands, with paving blocks sprayed with titanium oxide, which has the ability to remove pollutants from the air and turn them into less harmful chemicals. The researchers left normal pavement on an adjacent street as a control. After taking measurements for a year, the scientists found that the street outfitted with smog-eating paving blocks, also called photocatalytic pavement, reduced nitrogen oxide air pollution by up to 45% in ideal weather conditions and 19% over the course of a day. Nitrogen oxides -- also known as NOx -- are a group of poisonous gases produced by cars and power plants that react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form smog. The findings, published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, could provide a glimpse of how cities in the future might be designed to gobble up air pollution from auto emissions. While the air-cleaning potential of photocatalytic surfaces has been known for several years, Institution of Chemical Engineers Chief Executive David Brown said in a news release, “this latest research shows the potential of chemically engineered surfaces to further improve our quality of life, especially in major urban areas where traffic emissions are high.” Duane Nichols, Cell- 304-216-5535. www.FrackCheckWV.net

1 0

Ground Level Ozone and Inversions . .. ...
by Duane 03 Jul '13

03 Jul '13

Thanks to Joe Osborne from GASP for helping us with our continuing education on air pollution. Joe sends this information on ground level ozone and inversions: Ozone is almost exclusively a summer pollutant because sunlight is necessary for ozone to form. Temperature inversions, which tend to trap locally-generated pollutants in valleys, can occur year-round but are somewhat more frequent in the summer as well. That said, inversions are more likely to result in higher concentrations of particulate matter than ozone because: 1. particulate matter pollution is present year-round, significant ground-level ozone concentrations are not. So even though winter inversions are less common than summer ones, when they do occur, they may well result in unhealthy particulate matter concentrations, but are exceedingly unlikely to result in unhealthy ozone concentrations. 2. inversions tend to occur late at night or early in the morning--times when the sun is not shining and ozone concentrations are low. So in the summer we're likely to see elevated ozone and PM concentrations. In the winter, elevated ozone concentrations are almost unheard of (outside of some rather freakish examples like the wintertime ozone exceedances associated with oil and gas development in Wyoming), and elevated PM concentrations occur somewhat less frequently than in the summer, but do still occur (sometimes aided by a winter inversion). I do a somewhat better job of explaining this (and also illustrate with some charts) at: http://gasp-pgh.org/2011/07/physical-activity-and-temporal-trends-in-air-qu… Joe Osborne, Legal Director Group Against Smog and Pollution Office: 412.924.0604 Cell: 617.909.8365 gasp-pgh.org

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC July 2013