Climate 411

EPA Updates Standards to Reduce Levels of Deadly Soot Pollution in Our Air

By Mandy Warner / Published: December 14, 2012

America took a big step toward cleaner, healthier air today.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its long-awaited updated standards for fine particulate matter.

EDF was among the many health and environmental groups applauding the life-saving new standards.

Fine particulate matter is often referred to as soot, although it actually comprises a broader array of fine particles. It gets into the air we breathe — some of it directly emitted from cars and trucks, some of it resulting from factories and power plants hundreds of miles upwind – and then can lodge in our lungs and cause a variety of heart and lung problems, especially in children and seniors.

In fact, soot is one of the deadliest types of air pollution. It can cause heart attacks, asthma attacks, and premature death. Recent studies have found that soot is potentially associated with autism as well.

A letter signed by over 650 health and medical professionals stated:

Fine particulate air pollution is cutting short the lives of tens of thousands of Americans each year. Studies have shown fine particulate air pollution is shortening lives by up to six months …

Numerous, long-term multi-city studies have shown clear evidence of premature death, cardiovascular and respiratory harm as well as reproductive and developmental harm at contemporary concentrations far below the level of the current standard ..

Infants, children and teenagers are especially sensitive, as are the elderly, and people with cardiovascular disease, lung disease, or diabetes. The new EPA standards should be set at levels that will protect these sensitive people with an adequate margin of safety, as required by the Clean Air Act.

States have a variety of tools to meet the updated and strengthened standards. They include:

  • Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – these national standards for power plants are already being implemented, and will help reduce soot as well as mercury
  • Lower Sulfur Gasoline for Cars — EPA could put these standards in place as soon as next year to help clean up soot
  • Air Toxics Rules for Cement Plants and Boilers — EPA is expected to finalize these soon. They will provide further soot emission reductions across the country
  • Diesel Emission Reduction Act — this highly successful, bi-partisan program can, if funded by Congress, reduce emissions from dirty diesel engines across the country while also providing economic benefits
  • Reducing Emissions from Shipping – the U.S. is part of an international program that will play an important role in reducing soot, especially for coastal areas
  • Cross State Air Pollution Rules — a robust cross-state air pollution program would reduce the power plant emissions that drift across state borders. Those emissions contribute to air quality problems, both locally and in downwind states. Over the summer, a deeply divided court struck down EPA’s “good neighbor” program that would have addressed this problem. We need a strong replacement program as soon as possible.

Those are just a few of the tools we can use to reduce the soot pollution in our air. They are all highly cost-effective, and broadly supported.

Many of them are being challenged in the courts and Congress, however — so we still have a lot of work to do. We must ensure that EPA can implement the programs that will reduce dangerous pollution like soot.

Some industrial interest groups are opposing the soot standards, but a lot more groups are cheering today’s announcement. The breadth of the support for this life-saving measure is tremendous.

Leading health groups including the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, American Thoracic Society, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and the March of Dimes have all expressed strong support for stronger soot standards.

They’ve been joined by a wide variety of other groups, representing moms, African Americans, faith communities, doctors and health professionals, teachers, environmental justice advocates, state leaders, communications workers, Hispanics, nurses, conservation and sportsmen groups, and business communities.

It’s rare to see an issue that can bring so many different people together. But it seems all of them recognize the importance of clean air.

I find it inspiring to be part of such a broad coalition, united by the common cause of improving the health and lives of every American.

This holiday season, I am grateful for the promise of cleaner air for all Americans, for the opportunity to work on an issue that unites so many diverse people, and for the reminder that clean air is not just an environmental or health right but an essential human right.

Posted in Clean Air Act, Health, News, Policy / Comments are closed

The Costs Of Particulate Matter To American Health

By Sharyn Stein / Published: December 6, 2012

This blog post was written by Dr. Bonnie New, former Director of Health Professionals for Clean Air.

Physicians treating patients with respiratory symptoms look for underlying causes or aggravators, and that includes exposure to air pollution.

If that pollution involves particulate matter – also known as soot – their concerns intensify, because of its well-known negative health impacts.

Many studies demonstrate associations between short- and long-term exposures to fine particle air pollution (PM2.5) and cardiopulmonary disease and mortality.

PM2.5 exposure is also associated with:

  • endocrine and reproductive dysfunction, including pre-term and low birth-weight babies;
  • increases in lung cancer;
  • increases in the development of vascular disease; and
  • increases in diabetes mortality.

In addition to aggravating existing asthma and other lung diseases, PM2.5 has been linked to retarded lung growth and reduced lung function in children, and even with de novo (newly occurring) development of respiratory problems in infants and children. Research also shows that reductions in PM2.5 are associated with reductions in adverse health effects and improved life expectancy.

It’s important to state here that currently, there is no identified level of PM2.5 that is known to not make people sick.

The groups most susceptible to adverse health effects from PM2.5 are infants, children, teens, the elderly, and those with existing lung and cardiovascular problems. Taken together, this represents almost half of the U.S. population.

Impacts to the Economy

When we see the large impacts of pollution on health, it’s impossible not to notice the financial impacts as well.

The economic impact of preventable illness and death related to soot pollution in the U.S. is staggering, estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year. The functional impact on the lives of those affected and their families is also dramatic.

As doctors, we deal with not only the challenges of diagnosis and treatment, but with the sadness, frustration and pain of people who can not live normal lives and children who can not enjoy just being kids.

It raises anger in physicians to hear from those opposing health-based air quality regulations on the basis that such regulations would be “too costly”. It’s not like the costs are avoided if regulations are not put into place. The costs are simply shifted to our patients, and to the health care system. The costs are paid for in lives impaired and lives lost, in kids who can’t run and play, in increasing hospitalizations and people missing work and school because they’re sick.

Shifting costs like this from polluters to the general public makes for healthy business profits, but sick and unhappy people. As patient advocates, doctors have good reason to be angry. The public, those current and future patients and families, do too.

Posted in Health / Comments are closed

EDF’s Business-Friendly Suggestions for Fighting Climate Change

By Sharyn Stein / Published: November 12, 2012

We’ve been hearing the same question a lot lately – what should President Obama do in his second term to fight climate change?  

In today’s online Harvard Business Review, EDF’s Eric Pooley has some thoughts on that subject. He’s laid out a five-point plan to help us address climate change.

Those points range:

[F]rom no-brainer ideas almost everyone can agree on to ambitious items that would require Congressional action

And they all have one thing in common – they are business friendly.

As Eric puts it: 

It is worth remembering that strong business support helped secure passage of the House climate bill in 2009, and though that effort failed in the Senate, no serious legislation can move without the backing of men and women in the engine room of the American economy. To be politically viable, climate solutions must be economically sustainable.

Here’s the (very) short version of Eric’s plan:

  • Feed the conversation
  • Reduce climate accelerants
  • Start a clean energy race
  • Use the Clean Air Act
  • Put a price on carbon

If you’d like to read the whole plan, you can find it here: A Business-Friendly Climate Agenda for Obama’s Second Term

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics, Extreme Weather, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Comments are closed

EDF Congratulates the President on Re-Election Amid Increased Need for Climate Action

By Shira Langer / Published: November 7, 2012

EDF would like to congratulate President Obama on his re-election. In the wake of super storm Sandy and with the election campaigns behind us, it is more important than ever for the president and elected officials to address the increasing threats from climate change, a pivotal issue of our time.

In a statement, EDF President Fred Krupp said:

“Congratulations to President Obama on his re-election to a second term, and to all of those who will be serving in the 113th Congress. We look forward to working with them to solve our country’s most pressing environmental problems, including global climate change. As the President declared last night, ‘we want our children to live in an America … that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.’

“Exit polls confirm that for millions of American voters, Hurricane Sandy and climate change were decisive factors in this election. As the historic storm just reminded us, we have no time to waste; we must get serious about climate solutions in order to protect our loved ones and communities from terrible impacts — extreme weather disasters, droughts, heat waves, and other dangerous consequences of global warming. Especially in the wake of Sandy, which demonstrated that doing nothing about climate change is much costlier than taking action, this issue clearly should be a top priority for our leaders in government.”

Earlier this week EDF VP Nat Keohane discussed the pressing challenges and priorities for the next president in regard to climate action in Bloomberg Businessweek.

He said:

“…The magnitude and urgency of the challenge have not diminished. If we needed any reminder of that fact, Hurricane Sandy should have provided it—especially coming on the heels of devastating drought, record-breaking temperatures through the spring and summer, and a record low in the extent of Arctic sea ice.

“…Addressing global warming will be politically challenging—but presidents are not elected to do the easy things, and political realities are not set in stone. The first step to tackling climate change is to start talking about it, not just once in a while but routinely, as a fact of life rather than a special-interest issue.

“The next president must build public understanding of the issue, connecting the dots between our own actions and the extreme weather we are already seeing. He must engage folks from across the political spectrum on the possible solutions. And he must be willing to spend political capital to get something done.”

See Keohane’s full Bloomberg Businessweek article for specific steps the president could take to address the growing threat of climate change.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, News, Policy, What Others are Saying / Comments are closed

Geoengineering: Ignore Economics and Governance at Your Peril

By Gernot Wagner / Published: October 31, 2012

How serious is global warming? Here’s one indication: the first rogue entrepreneurs have begun testing the waters on geoengineering, as Naomi Klein laments in her must-read New York Times op-ed.

Sadly, Klein misses two important points.

First, it’s not a question of if but when humanity will be compelled to use geoengineering, unless we change course on our climate policies (or lack thereof). Second, all of this calls for more research and a clear, comprehensive governance effort on the part of governments and serious scientists – not a ban of geoengineering that we cannot and will not adhere to. (See point number one.)

Saying that we ought not to tinker with the planet on a grand scale – by attempting to create an artificial sun shield, for example – won’t make it so. Humanity got into this mess thanks to what economists call the “free rider” effect. All seven billion of us are free riders on the planet, contributing to global warming in various ways but paying nothing toward the damage it causes. No wonder it’s so hard to pass a sensible cap or tax on carbon pollution. Who wants to pay for something that they’re used to doing for free – never mind that it comes at great cost to those around them?

It gets worse: Turns out the same economic forces pushing us to do too little on the pollution front are pushing us toward a quick, cheap fix – a plan B.

Enter the Strangelovian world of geoengineering – tinkering with the whole planet. It comes in two distinct flavors:

  • Sucking carbon out of the atmosphere;
  • Creating an artificial sun shield for the planet.

The first involves reversing some of the same processes that cause global warming in the first place. Instead of taking fossil fuels out of the ground and burning them, we would now take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and bury it under ground. That sounds expensive, and it is. Estimates range from $40 to $200 and more per ton of carbon dioxide – trillions of dollars to solve the problem.

That brings us to the second scary flavor — which David Keith, a leading thinker on geoengineering, calls “chemotherapy” for the planet. The direct price tag to create an artificial sun shield: pennies per ton of carbon dioxide. It’s the kind of intervention an island nation, or a billionaire greenfinger, could pay for.

You can see where economics enters the picture. The first form of geoengineering won’t happen unless we place a serious price on carbon pollution. The second may be too cheap to resist.

In a recent Foreign Policy essay, Harvard’s Martin Weitzman and I called the forces pushing us toward quick and dirty climate modification “free driving.” Crude attempts to, say, inject sulfur particles into the atmosphere to counter the carbon dioxide that’s already there would be so cheap it might as well be free. We are talking tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That’s orders of magnitude cheaper than tackling the root cause of the problem.

Given the climate path we are on, it’s only a matter of time before this “free driver” effect takes hold. Imagine a country badly hit by adverse climate changes: India’s crops are wilting; China’s rivers are drying up. Millions of people are suffering. What government, under such circumstances, would not feel justified in taking drastic action, even in defiance of world opinion?

Once we reach that tipping point, there won’t be time to reverse warming by pursuing collective strategies to move the world onto a more sustainable growth path. Instead, speed will be of the essence, which will mean trying untested and largely hypothetical techniques like mimicking volcanoes and putting sulfur particles in the stratosphere to create an artificial shield from the sun.

That artificial sunscreen may well cool the earth. But what else might it do? Floods somewhere, droughts in other places, and a host of unknown and largely unknowable effects in between. That’s the scary prospect. And we’d be experimenting on a planetary scale, in warp speed.

That all leads to the second key point: we ought to do research in geoengineering, and do so guided by sensible governance principles adhered to be all. We cannot let research get ahead of public opinion and government oversight. The geoengineering governance initiative convened by the British Royal Society, the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, and the Environmental Defense Fund is a necessary first step in the right direction.

Is there any hope in this doomsday scenario? Absolutely. Country after country is following the trend set by the European Union to institute a cap or price on carbon pollution. Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and also California are already – or will soon be – limiting their carbon pollution. India has a dollar-a-ton coal tax. China is experimenting with seven regional cap-and-trade systems.

None of these is sufficient by itself. But let’s hope this trend expands –fast – to include the really big emitters like the whole of China and the U.S., Brazil, Indonesia, and others. Remember, the question is not if the “free driver” effect will kick in as the world warms. It’s when.

Posted in Economics, Geoengineering, Science / Tagged , | Read 1 Response

Court Briefs Filed Today in Appeal of Life-Saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

By Pamela Campos / Published: October 23, 2012

Today, attorneys for large power and coal companies will file briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. challenging EPA’s new life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal- and oil-fired power plants.

These vital clean air standards will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks each year, and bring health benefits as high as $90 billion per year starting in 2016.

The standards, which have already survived a challenge in Congress, were announced in December 2011. They are supported by the American Nurses Association, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the NAACP, leading power companies, and the Consumers Union.

Our nation has been working towards reducing emissions of toxic mercury, acid gases, and heavy metals from power plants for over twenty years. While other sources of mercury emissions, such as municipal and hospital incinerators, have since reduced their emissions of mercury by over 90%, power plants continue to poison air, water, and food with nerve-damaging mercury.

We have the technology to protect the health of our children and our communities from toxic air pollution.

17 states have successfully established standards reducing toxic emissions from power plants — and our country is well positioned to provide the control technologies necessary while creating American jobs. Numerous power companies have indicated they can comply with the standards and many have lowered their estimated cost of compliance. A variety of independent studies have found that the standards will not harm electric reliability.

Power plants are responsible for the lion’s share of many toxic pollutants in the U.S., including 50% of all mercury pollution, 77% of acid gases, and 62% of arsenic. Protecting the standards that will clean up these dirty plants is essential for all of us.

EPA will file its brief in response on January 22, 2013, and the states, public health and environmental groups that support the rule, including EDF, will file their response on February 21, 2013.

We’ll be updating our site with the key filings from this case, so keep an eye on our webpage for updates.

Posted in Clean Air Act, Health, News, Policy / Comments are closed