Climate 411

America’s Leading Mercury Scientists Call for Strong Air Pollution Standards

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce its long-awaited Mercury and Air Toxics Standards any day now.

The new standards would place the first-ever national limits on mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants, and the issue is already being examined from every possible angle – politics, economics, business, health, you name it.

Now a new group is weighing in.

Just yesterday, 23 of the country’s leading scientific experts on mercury wrote a letter to the White House about the proposed new standard and its importance to the health and safety of all Americans.  And I had the honor of joining them!

Together, our group of scientists represents at least a million hours of study on mercury and its effects. But this is the first time we’ve publicly weighed in, as a group, to support this vitally important standard.

We felt compelled to write to President because, during recent Congressional hearings – despite voluminous scientific literature to the contrary – a few people actually claimed that there is no science to back up the health benefits of decreasing pollution from power plants.

Our letter is our answer to that ridiculous claim:

As mercury scientists and physicians, we strongly refute such statements

And we:

affirm our belief that the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) will protect the health of thousands of Americans each year.

Some of us have studied how mercury travels in our air, soils or waters — and how it ends up in our bodies. Some of us specialize in how various forms of mercury affect everything from our individual enzymes and cells all the way to our ecosystems. We have, collectively, traced mercury all the way from smokestacks to the cells in our bodies. We also represent physicians who actually treat patients, including children, who have chronic pulmonary, cardiovascular, and neurological diseases caused by air pollution.

And we all came to the same conclusion, which we put into our letter:

… minimizing all mercury exposure is essential to improving human, wildlife and ecosystem health because exposure to mercury in any form places a heavy burden on the biochemical machinery within cells of all living organisms.

Our letter both affirms our support for the scientific findings of EPA’s Science Advisory Board on the health impacts of methylmercury, and goes a step further – to highlight the toxicity of all forms of mercury.

Here are our key points:

  • The neurological development, particularly brain maturation, of fetus and young children are severely affected by methylmercury, the form of mercury that collects and concentrates in aquatic food chains.
  • While the neurotoxicity of methylmercury to the young has been widely acknowledged, the effects on children and adults through exposure to all other forms of mercury have not been effectively publicized. No form is mercury is safe.
  • Mercury has no biologically beneficial function; indeed, each atom that ends up in the body can be toxic to all types of cells.
  • Mercury is such a potent toxin because it bonds very strongly to functionally important sites of proteins including enzymes, antibodies and nerve growth-cones that keep cells alive, “intelligent” and safe.

One of my personal heroes is the late Dr. Kathryn R. Mahaffey, who conducted careful studies for over a decade to test the mercury levels in the blood of women of child bearing age in the U.S. Her research is the reason we know that about 10 percent of babies born in America each year have mercury levels sufficient to cause adverse neurological and developmental health effects. Along with her collaborators, she also carefully compiled information on the effects of all forms of mercury on our endocrine system, including hormones that control functioning of our reproductive system.

The pioneering research tools and methodologies developed by several of the mercury research giants who have signed on to this letter helped Dr. Mahaffey reach her conclusions. Some of the signatories are now building on Dr. Mahaffey’s work in insightful ways. For example, Dr. Chad Hammerschmidt from Wright State University has written that unless we decouple mercury emission from power production, we could have as many as 30 percent of children born in the U.S with too much mercury in their blood. Along with their collaborators, Drs. David Evers, Charlie Driscoll and Thomas Holsen identified that local mercury emissions are linked to such high mercury concentrations in multiple biological species that these areas of high mercury emissions were referred to as biological mercury hotspots.

I would love to write more about the fundamental ways in which the signatories of this letter have added to the understanding of the transport, transformations and toxicity of mercury, and I encourage you read the entire letter to see who they are, and to learn more about the work they do.

We fully understand the remaining uncertainties in our understanding of the global mercury cycle. Yet we believe there is irrefutable proof for:

  • The local and regional deposition of mercury from coal-fired power plants within the U.S.
  • The toxicity of each and every atom of mercury in any form, and
  • Rapid reductions in mercury levels in many biological species upon reductions in mercury emissions from local sources

Thus, we attest to the wisdom of stringent national-level mercury regulation. Now we need our policy makers to act. We need them to create and support a strong Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Health, News, Policy / Read 2 Responses

New Report on Climate Change Says Wilder Weather is Headed Our Way

A new report by some the world’s top researchers confirms that climate change will make the extreme weather we’ve seen recently even worse in the future.

The report was released today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It synthesizes two years work from 100 experts who analyze data from all over the world.

Their conclusion: climate change is bringing us more extreme weather, and it’s likely to get worse and have greater negative impacts over the next century.

Here’s what EDF’s Chief Scientist, Steve Hamburg, had to say today:

We’ve all been experiencing these dangerous storms and heat waves, and this report provides strong evidence of the links between impacts of dangerous weather and climate change. Now we need to start using this data to find ways to protect ourselves and our communities.

Here are some of the highlights of the report – or lowlights as the case may be:

Here in the United States, we’re likely to see

  • Higher temperatures and more hot days through the next century (Record-breaking heat that would have been a once-in-20-year high are likely to become a one-in-two-year event)
  • More frequent and heavier rains, especially in winter
  • Stronger hurricanes that will do more damage
  • Increased droughts, especially in the center of the country
  • Higher sea levels, which means more coastal erosion and other damage
  • All these changes will affect our agriculture, water supplies, health – even tourism. And all that, in turn, will affect our economy.

That’s more bad news on top of an extremely unpleasant year of bad weather. America suffered through a number of extreme weather events, including these compiled by Climate Central:

  • The Groundhog Day Blizzard blanketed 22 states and crippled travel. The deadly blizzard was one of Chicago’s top five snowstorms on record.
  • Some of the worst flooding in history hit us in the spring, from the Upper Midwest all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. More than three times the normal spring rainfall caused the Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi Rivers to overflow. Flooding in Minot, North Dakota damaged 4,000 homes and forced 11,000 to evacuate. More than a million acres of farmland flooded in Missouri and Arkansas.
  • Hurricane Irene became the first hurricane to make landfall in New Jersey in 100 years, and inundated people from Virginia all the way north to Vermont. Tropical Storm Lee following right behind Irene. Their combined rainfalls led to damaging floods in the East.
  • Record-setting rainfalls were recorded across the country. August 2011 was the all-time rainiest month in New York City, Newark and Philadelphia; 2011 will be the rainiest year ever in Cleveland, Scranton, Binghamton and Harrisburg. 14 places in Wyoming and Montana set precipitation records in May, and seven places set new all-time records for the single rainiest day ever.
  • Deadly tornado outbreaks caused damage across the Southeast. 748 twisters touched down across the South in April, the most ever recorded in a single month. The EF-5 tornado that destroyed Joplin, Missouri was America’s deadliest single tornado since modern record-keeping started in 1950.
  • Extreme heat across the region had people sweltering. Texas had the hottest summer for any state in U.S. history, going back to when modern records were first kept in 1895. New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado had their hottest summers on record — as did Tallahassee, Florida and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Wichita Falls, Texas had 100 days when the temperature was more than 100 degrees; Austin had 67 days over 100 degrees. Washington D.C. hit an all-time record high of 105 degrees on July 22.
  • Severe droughts caused massive damage in the Southwest. Texas had the worst one-year drought on record.
  • Wildfires — which are linked to droughts –burned across the West. 3.5 million acres burned in Texas — the state’s worst wildfire season ever. 156,000 acres burned in New Mexico and 538,000 in Arizona.
Also posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Extreme Weather, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News / Read 4 Responses

NOAA Report Confirms: Yes, the World Is Warming

A report released this week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides new evidence that global warming continues relentlessly.  The report comes after climate science was found to be solid in several official investigations into the so-called “Climategate” controversy, and it adds even more urgency to the need to reduce global warming pollution to prevent severe impacts in the future.

The report, “State of the Climate in 2009,” was authored by more than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries.  It confirms that each of the past three decades was warmer than the last, with the 2000s being the warmest in the 150-year record.

The latest data from all the regions of the world are presented for a variety of climate indicators.  Ten of the indicators most closely related to surface temperature all support the idea that the Earth is warming.

Specifically, seven indicators are rising, indicating a warming world:

  • air temperature over land
  • sea-surface temperature
  • air temperature over oceans
  • sea level
  • total heat content of the ocean
  • humidity
  • tropospheric temperature (in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface)

And three indicators are declining, also indicating a warming world:

  • Arctic sea ice
  • glaciers around the world
  • spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere

These climate indicators represent many independent lines of evidence for global warming.

This report comes on top of a set of recent reports by the National Academy of Sciences that provide yet more evidence that human-produced pollution has caused the warming observed over the past several decades and that continued warming poses serious and costly risks to society.  Together, these latest scientific reports show that global warming is happening and will only get worse unless we seriously cut back our global warming pollution.

As evidenced yet again by the new NOAA report, the science is very clear:  We must begin cutting our emissions now to avoid even more dramatic cuts later, since global warming gases stay in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries and keep accumulating there. A delay of two or three years will make the necessary pollution cuts more severe and expensive.

My colleague Chris Scott will in touch regarding sending the proposal to you. If you need to contact us at all next week, please call or email Chris on +44 1722 320596 or chris.scott@headscape.co.uk.
Also posted in News / Comments are closed

Somewhere Over the Gulf Coast: A “Glee” and BP Oil Disaster Mashup

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jPjJPVdR4g

From a comfortable distance – in our classrooms, around our water coolers, through pictures on TV or newspapers – the BP oil disaster is depressing and horrific.

But up close where every breath you take fills your mouth, nose, and lungs with the toxic mix of oil and industrial chemicals, where you talk with resilient and proud locals and hear their frustration, anger, and concern, where the disturbing and unforgettable scenes of a precious and fragile ecosystem in crisis are just seared into your mind – all of it is just so bad, so repugnant, so wrong in the most profound way.

Two days in the Gulf of Mexico left me enraged – and deeply resolved. Both the widespread damage and the inadequacy of the response effort exceeded my worst fears.

Seeing terns and gulls sitting on the oil-soaked booms that were supposed to be protecting their fragile island marshes – booms that had been blown or washed ashore – may have been the ultimate symbol of the devastation unfolding in the Gulf.

Or maybe it was the lone shrimp trawler, aimlessly circling off the coast, dragging a saturated gauze-like boom behind it, accomplishing nearly nothing.

Or maybe it was the desperation of the fishermen whose livelihoods had been snatched away by BP’s recklessness – and yet want nothing more than to see the moratorium on drilling lifted so their economies don’t dry up, as well.

I’d spent a full day on the Gulf and we ended up soaked in oily water and seared by the journey into the heart of ecological darkness.

By Tuesday night, I was home. My throat burned and my head was foggy and dizzy as I showed my pictures and my flip-camera video to my wife, Fran, and my 13-year-old daughter, Nicole, on the TV in the family room.

Images of the gooey peanut-butter colored oil and the blackened wetlands flashed by. Pictures of dolphins diving into our oily wake and Brown Pelicans futilely trying to pick oil off their backs popped on the screen. And, out of nowhere, Nicole put on the music from the season finale of Glee.

With all these horrific images on the screen, she had turned on the show’s final song of the year, “Somewhere Over The Rainbow.” The song, a slow, sweet, ukulele and guitar-driven version, couldn’t have added a deeper sense of tragic irony.

I choked up. And then that resolve kicked in: I wanted anyone/everyone to see what our addiction to oil had done to the Gulf and to contrast that with the sense of hope and possibility that “Somewhere” exudes.

Long story short, last weekend, Peter Rice, Chairman of Fox Networks Entertainment, gave Environmental Defense Fund the green light to use the song. The pictures you’ll see were shot by two incredibly talented EDF staffers, Yuki Kokubo and Patrick Brown – and a few are mine.

The inspiration was Nicole’s. This is for her, and for all of our kids – and theirs to come.

David Yarnold is executive director of Environmental Defense Fund.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, News, Oceans, Policy / Read 1 Response

We’ve hit rock bottom. Let’s start on the path to recovery.

A new poll conducted by Stanford University and funded by the National Science Foundation finds overwhelming public support for government action to curb carbon pollution and shift America towards a clean energy economy.

Of the 1,000 adults polled, most want the federal government to start limiting carbon pollution.

  • 86 % “said they wanted the federal government to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit.”
  • 76 %  “favored government limiting business’s emissions of greenhouse gases in particular”

When asked about the causes of climate change,

  • 75% said that “human behavior was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred”

Large majorities favor government action to require or encourage the manufacturing of more energy efficiency goods.

  • 81% want more fuel efficient cars that use less gasoline
  • 80% want more appliances that use less electricity
  • 80% want more home and office buildings that require less energy to heat and cool

Another new poll conducted by Knowledge Networks and designed by researchers Yale University and George Mason University shows that the vast majority of the public believes that the president and congress should make global warming and clean energy priorities.  Over 1,000 adults were survey in May and June of this year and the results are no surprise: the public wants government to take action now.

  • 77% believe that global warming should be a priority for the president and congress
  • 94 % believe that developing sources of clean energy should be a priority for the president and congress
  • 87% believe that the United States should make an effort to reduce global warming, even if it has economic costs.
  • 77% support regulating carbon dioxide(the primary greenhouse gas) as a pollutant

As the oil in the Gulf continues to flow, the American people are sending a strong message to Congress. They want federal regulation of carbon pollution and real investment in clean energy now. We know the dangers of our addiction to oil and fossil fuels. Let’s not fail to harvest the one and only redeeming quality of this Gulf tragedy, its power to move a nation to finally kick our fossil fuel addiction and more forward into a new clean energy future.

It is common knowledge that once an addict hits rock bottom, the traumatic nature of the event causes a profound shock to his system. It also serves as a wake-up call, a true inflection point. The message playing in the addict’s head goes something like this: change now or self-destruct.

With pelicans and dolphins soaked in oil plastered on the front of every newspaper and Gulf coast fisherman hanging onto their livelihoods by a thread, I think it is safe to say we have hit rock bottom.

Are we ready to change or self-destruct?

As the polls above prove, the American people want change. The time is now to take the first steps away from oil and towards a new era of clean energy independence.

We’ve hit rock bottom. Now let’s start on the path to recovery.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response

Yesterday’s climate blog highlights

Grist list five compelling reasons why a comprehensive climate and energy plan is superior to an energy-only bill.

“Anyone contemplating supporting energy-only over a comprehensive bill should bear these facts in mind. And realize that whether your top priority is national security, deficit reduction, job creation, or pollution reduction, a comprehensive bill clean energy and climate bill does a lot more for our country.”

E2 has President Obama’s reactions to the Murkowski resolution. The White House said that the resolution would

“increase the Nation’s dependence on oil and other fossil fuels and block efforts to cut pollution that threatens our health and well-being.”

The statement says that:

“Obama’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the measure.”

Green also has the story of how the White House is less than pleased with the Murkowski resolution.

“[The] White House says that if the resolution, scheduled for debate and a vote on Thursday, reaches President Obama’s desk, his advisers will recommend that he veto it. That’s what is known as a veto threat and in this case it is not a bluff.”

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, News / Comments are closed