Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘air pollution’

Just following up on our post yesterday that the EPA was going to announce a new air quality standard limiting ozone pollution: they did it!

The United States Environmental Protection Agency today proposed the strictest health standards to date for smog…The agency is proposing to set the “primary” standard, which protects public health, at a level between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million (ppm) measured over eight hours.

For those of you who, like me, loathe decimals, that’s the same as 60-70 parts per billion(ppb). The previous standard was 75 ppb, a threshhold that failed to protect human health.  Ground-level ozone, also known as smog, is linked to a number of health problems such as asthma, and is especially dangerous for those with heart, lung or circulatory problems.  Children are especially at risk.

Yesterday I noted that “the proposed rule would strengthen the Bush administration’s ozone standard, which did not meet scientific scrutiny or standards to protect public health.” But that statement doesn’t tell the whole story (because I didn’t know the whole story at the time — you learn something new every day).  The fault with the current standard doesn’t lie with scientists — EPA scientists actually recommended a stricter standard, those recommendations were ignored when the final rule was set. According to the Washington Post,

Under Bush, EPA officials had initially tried to set a lower seasonal limit on ozone to protect wildlife, parks and farmland, as required under the law, but Bush forced the agency to abandon that proposal just before it announced the new standards.

The proposed rule will now undergo a 60-day comment period, after which it will be published in the Federal Register. The EPA will also have three public meetings on the proposed rule, one of which will be in Houston Feb. 4th.

So what does the new rule mean for Texas? I touched on a bit of that briefly yesterday, but for now I’ll defer to my boss (as he spoke to KERA radio):

That means… we are going to have to find new ways to reduce pollution. It may mean shutting down cement kilns and some plants… It may mean changing some of the ways we drive and getting more efficient automobiles, plug-in-hybrids on the road more rapidly.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

The dramatic irony of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) decision this morning to grant the NRG Limestone Coal Plant an air permit (and therefore permission to begin construction on a third smokestack) is painful.  At the very moment that leaders from around the world are meeting to come to an international agreement to save the world from catastrophic global warming, at the very moment that residents of developing nations are begging for the continued existence of their land and way of life, Texas gives the green light to build another mercury-spewing, asthma-inducing, planet choking coal plant.

Not exactly what I was hoping to wake up to this morning.

This decision also comes just days after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came out with its engangerment finding, which says that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases represent a significant threat to public health and welfare.  Earlier this year, the EPA also ruled that TCEQ has not been adhering to the Clean Air Act in its issuance of new air permits.  This is the first coal plant permit that TCEQ has issued since that warning (which TCEQ doesn’t seem to have taken to heart).  AND, according to Karen Hadden, executive director of SEED Coalition,

The TCEQ is not following federal law (Maximum Achievable Control Technology or MACT) in issuing this permit and a result, mercury emissions will be higher.

So many hearts to break, so little time. But of course there’s always a silver lining. Next legislative session, the TCEQ (and a whole host of other commissions) will undergo the Sunset Review process — and as Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office mentions, that gives Texas a chance to reform the TCEQ permitting process:

This is just another example of why the Sunset Commission should take a good hard look at how TCEQ rubber stamps permits for coal plants in Texas.

In the meantime, keep your fingers crossed for progress in Copenhagen, and stay tuned at Texas Vox for more information on how you can help fight global warming and a 2nd Texas coal rush.

Full breakdown of the good (NRG has agreed to offset 50% of their emissions, though there’s nothing in their permit to hold them to that), the bad, and the ugly after the jump:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

burger1

For years fast food restaurants have been our nation’s go-to source for cheap, quick food we can eat on the run or take home to the family to avoid cooking dinner for the night.  I am betting that almost every person reading this blog has or will eat a product of the fast food faction at some point this week.  Well, thinking about our fan base…maybe not.  According to a 2004 study by the International Trade Leader, Americans are ranked number one when it comes to the purchasing of convenience meals—spending a total of $148.6 billion, more than our spending on higher education.  Among the top ten nations listed, the United States is responsible for almost two-thirds of the total spending on fast food meals.  Aside from the commonplace debate about whether to buy organic or conventional fruits or vegetables, there are an overwhelming amount of other choices made every day that can ultimately have both personal and global consequences.  What many people don’t realize is that our national diet may not only affect our waist sizes, but it may also lead to environmental, political, cultural, social and ethical repercussions.

People are now, more than ever, beginning to value those things in life that can be obtained fast, cheap, and easy—including the food we eat.  In the past five years, the fast food nation as we know it grew unexpectedly.  There is one major contributor, responsible for about 80% of this growth.  Two words: drive through.  Recently, our country has seen a rapid increase in the amount of drive-through lanes at fast food institutions.   More than half the money spent at fast food restaurants is received through a drive-through window from a customer tucked behind the steering wheel and hopefully a seatbelt.  Today, 90% of the 13,000 McDonald’s restaurants in the United States have a drive-through lane; Starbucks has picked up the pace and added drive-through lanes to many of their stores across the country; and one fast food business called Good to Go has 14 drive-through lanes at their Houston location alone.

Now, I would like to do something a little different here.  I am going to talk my way through a normal visit to a local fast food place—starting from the time you start your engine to the time you eat the last fry.

So, let’s say you are jonesing for a cheeseburger and french fries.  You decide to take a break from your television marathon and go to the nearest fast food joint to get some food.  You hop into your Ford Focus and drive about seven or so minutes to the restaurant (making the entire trip a total of 15 minutes, minus the time spent in the drive-thru lane).  It takes about 8000 litres of air, weighing almost 12 kg, to burn one litre of gasoline or diesel. Furthermore, for every litre of petrol you burn, you emit 2.5 kg of carbon dioxide.  Aside from carbon dioxide, our cars also emit carbon monoxide, lead and hydrocarbons while we are driving through the act of petrol combustion.  This has lead many to believe that driving a car is probably the most polluting act an average citizen can commit in their lifetime.  In recent years, emissions from passenger vehicles in the United States have increased thanks to the increase in vehicle usage and the nationwide preference for larger vehicles.  An average new vehicle in 2003 consumed far more fuel than its counterpart in 1988. So, what can you do?  Like Kirsten said in an earlier blog entry—drive less.  Both local and global pollution would be reduced if each car-driving person pledged to use their car 30% less starting immediately.

Since you just ran out of the house and you are still wearing your pajamas, you decide to order from the drive-through lane to avoid the embarrassment and save some time.  You pull into the line and notice four other cars in front of you—all burning around the same amount of petrol and releasing carbon dioxide into the air.  Many believe that avoiding the drive-through lane and parking your car is the greenest thing to do.  On the contrary, some researchers in Canada have claimed that a parking-only restaurant produces 20% more smog pollution and 60% more greenhouse gases than a restaurant with a drive-through lane due to the stopping and restarting of cooled-down vehicle engines.

Finally, you pull up to the speaker box and place your order—a cheeseburger with everything on it, an order of french fries, and a small coke.  When it comes to fast food restaurants, up to $1,000 a month can be spent on electric bills for one location alone.  Air conditioning and lighting account for 25% to 40% of the electrical spending, while refrigeration shares the majority with other expenses including powering the speaker box and indoor cooking appliances.

You drive forward to the drive-through window and wait patiently for your food.  One of the most overlooked energy users at fast food restaurants are the drive-through windows themselves. The window is oftentimes left open unnecessarily during the drive-through process, letting air-conditioned air escape.  The employee appears in the window and hands you your order.  Your total is $6.99.  You give them cash, they give you change, and you take a peek inside the paper bag to make sure everything is there.  You see your cheeseburger wrapped in paper and your fries sitting in its cardboard packaging, along with some napkins and a few packets of ketchup.  You grab your drink and take a sip of the coke from the straw protruding from the paper cup.  In general, fast food outlets are our country’s primary source of urban litter, which includes the paper, plastic, and Styrofoam packaging material.  The most abundant type of litter (not counting cigarette buds) is Styrofoam, which becomes a permanent fixture in our environment when littered.  Moreover, plastic is the largest source of marine debris.  In some areas of the Pacific Ocean plastic has become so concentrated, there is six times more plastic than there is plankton.  These materials from fast food restaurants have become a huge burden on the local communities.  Less than 35% of the waste from fast food businesses is diverted from landfills.  Every year millions of pounds of food packaging waste litter our roadways, clog our landfills, and spoil our quality of life.  Food packaging takes up 15% of landfills.  About three-fourths of all food packaging come from forests, with half of landfill waste being made of either paper or wood.  The Southern forests of North America supply 60% of United States and 15% of global paper demands. This demand for wood and paper products has led to deforestation, resulting in a total decline from 356 million acres in colonial times to 182 million acres today.

You give your thanks and drive off.  As you drive you start nibbling on some fries because they taste better when they’re hot.  In order to fry these delicious pieces of potato, fast food institutions use fryers, which ultimately requires a lot of oil and energy to operate.  There is now a new generation of fryers that supposedly allow restaurants to cook the same amount of product with approximately 40% less oil.  Furthermore, these low oil volume fryers use about 4% less energy than their standard counterparts.

Once you get home you turn the television back on and sit down to eat your meal.  You bite into your cheeseburger and slurp some of your coke.  According to the Economist, Americans eat as many as three burgers a week for a total of 150 burgers every year.  Believe it or not, the cheeseburger has its own footprint and global warming impact.  There is a ton of energy cost associated with a common cheeseburger, including what it takes to grow the feed for the cattle for beef and cheese, growing the produce, storing and transporting the components, as well as actually cooking the burger.  The total greenhouse gas emissions that arise every year from the production and consumption of cheeseburgers are roughly equal to the amount emitted by 6.5 million to 19.6 million SUVs.

Bon appetit.

This blog entry isn’t meant to scare anyone out of eating a cheeseburger or prevent anyone from going to a fast food restaurant.  It is meant to provide you with information on topics you may not know about, help you to open your eyes, and get you to think about the things you do everyday that can ultimately affect the world and the people around you.

Until next time.

Ashlie Lynn Chandler

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

President Obama has voiced that two of his top priorities will be climate change and energy.  Earlier this month he picture-5announced an energy plan that would call for 14% reduction in emissions from the 2005 levels by 2020, and an 83% reduction by 2050.

But House Democrats Henry a. Waxman (California) and Edward J. Markey (Massachussettes) want more!  They drafted a bill with even more gusto to capture greenhouse gases—a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020!

Remember that this power team was also responsible for the bill to put a moratorium on coal plants introduced a year ago.   The new Waxman-Markey bill will require every region of the country to produce 25% from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal.  This could be a huge factor to increase the demand for sustainable energy to spur wide-range development and adoption of energy technology.

Mr. Waxman, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee said regarding his bill:

This legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence, and cut global warming pollution.  Our goal is to strengthen our economy by making America the world leader in new clean energy and energy efficiency technologies.

However, the bill also makes some concessions to the states whose economy rests upon coal and energy-related industries, with the hope that it will smooth the transition to cleaner forms of energy.   To read more, check out this press release from Tyson Slocum at our D.C. office.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This bill is a really great start.  Obama started the bid at a 14% cut, the House upped the ante to 20%, but according to the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the real target we should be shooting for is about 35%.  Unfortunately, none of the bills in the House or Senate is shooting for this target.  The good news is, according to an analysis by McKinsey and Company, almost all of that 35% can be achieved at a net cost savings through things like energy efficiency.  And realistically, that’s only 3.5% per year for the next decade. ~~Citizen Andy

Read Full Post »

In addition to Lon Burnam’s HB 3423, there are five other good bills that will be heard in the House Environmental Regulation Committee this Wednesday, April 1, 2009 at 10:30 am or upon adjournment of the House in the Capital extension – Hearing room E1.014. We are incouraging everyone who has a few minutes to stop by the committee room and put in cards supporting these six bills. The five bill numbers are listed below, followed by a brief description of the bill and why your support is important. Please send this message along to anyone else you think might be interested!

HB 1450, Rep. Rodriguez. Relating to the disposal and reuse of coal combustion waste.  HB 1450 establishes the disposal and reuse of coal combustion waste as a class I industrial waste and prohibits use as mine backfill. In addition, it requires groundwater and soil monitoring that must be made publically available.   We’ve been over this one before. Texas tops the list of states at risk from toxic coal ash waste, remember?  No bueno.

HB 557, Rep. Hernandez. Relating to the establishment of an air pollutant watch list and associated reports for the purpose of controlling the emissions of air contaminants under the Texas Clean Air Act.  HB 557 establishes an air pollutant watch list and associated reports for the purpose of controlling the emissions of air contaminants under the Texas Clean Air Act to protect against adverse effects related to :

(1) acid deposition;
(2) stratospheric changes, including depletion of ozone; [and]
(3) climatic changes, including global warming; and

(4) air pollution.

HB 769, Rep. Hernandez. Relating to standards for measuring the emission of air contaminants under the Texas Clean Air Act.  HB 769 requires TCEQ to set standards for measuring the emission of air contaminants under the Texas Clean Air Act that takes into consideration acute and chronic health effects on a person resulting from exposure to an air contaminant; the lifetime exposure of a person to the highest concentration of the air contaminant from an emission source; and does not increase the risk of cancer in a person exposed to the air contaminant by greater than one chance in 100,000.

HB 3428, Rep. Hernandez. Relating to measuring, monitoring, and reporting emissions.  HB 3428 requires TCEQ to establish and maintain an air pollutant watch list available online to the public.

HB 3422, Rep. Burnam. Relating to the establishment of a program for the collection, transportation, recycling, and disposal of mercury-containing lights.  HB 3422 establishes a program to safely dispose of and recycle mercury containing lights. It requires manufacturers to provide collection bins, to collect the bulbs and cover the costs of shipping to an appropriate facility. Mercury containing lightbulbs would have to be removed before buildings are demolished. The bill also has an important educational component.

You can register comment on all of these good bills in one fell swoop by visiting the House Environmental Regulation Committee hearing in E1.014 this morning.  Committee hearings are open to the public, and you can put your official stance on the record by just dropping a card.  If you can’t visit the Capitol today, why not give one of the fine legislators on this committee a call?

Read Full Post »

Do you like clean air?

Do you like clean air for KIDS?

Seems like the rest of the state does, too.  According to TCEQ, a program to retrofit school buses around the state has been able to retrofit 2300 buses statewide. Even more amazing was the demand for the program exceeding its allotment by 40%, meaning for every 3 school buses we wanted to fix, we could only fix 2.   However, that means that for tens of thousands of kids, they are now riding in much better buses, and those school districts who gut put on the waiting list just have to wait for more money from the Legislature to get their buses clean, too.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKwjyXjvb6k]

A demonstration of how much pollution is prevented on a school bus

Local ISDs, schools, parents, and kids love this program because of how much it reduces toxic air pollution from our buses, and does so without taking money out of the classroom.  Local businesses and residents should love it because it is making their communities cleaner.  This is a win for air quality, a win for school districts, and most importantly, a win for children’s health.

More video, a press release, and gory details after the break: (more…)

Read Full Post »

An investigative report by USAToday brought me to tears this morning.

Granted, I am a particularly emotional person at a period of transition in my life. I just started a new job (here, with Public Citizen!) in a new town (loving Austin already), and am living out of a suitcase. Things are rather in flux, and my emotional state may have followed suit. But I think that even beyond all that, USA Today’s recent report finally made air toxics issues hit home.

Cesar Chavez High School In Houston, TX

USAToday’s report, entitled “The Smokestack Effect: Toxic Air and America’s Schools”, ranks 127,800 schools nationwide based upon the concentrations and health hazards of the chemicals likely to be in the surrounding air.

The report was initiated after Meredith Hitchens Elementary School in Addyston, Ohio was closed due to the danger posed by the surrounding air. Air monitors placed near the school recorded extremely high levels of toxics coming from the plastics plant across the street. When the Ohio EPA determined that students were being exposed to cancer at levels 50 times higher than what the state deems an acceptable risk, the school was shut down.

Following this story, USAToday spent 8 months examining the extent and danger of schools located in toxic hot spots. Using the EPA’s own models for tracking toxic industrial chemicals, USAToday found 435 schools across the country with air quality worse than that which caused the closure of Hitchens Elementary School. Though the Environmental Protection Agency has a special office dedicated to protecting children’s health, the agency has never used their own data or models to look at potential problems surrounding schools. Nor does the office set health and safety standards for children in schools, as they do for adults in the workplace.

Philip Landrigan, a physician who heads Mount Sinai School of Medicine’s children’s health and the environment unit, comments on this problem in the article:

“The mere fact that kids are being exposed ought to be enough to force people to pay attention. The problem here is, by and large, there’s no cop on the beat. Nobody’s paying attention.”

Children are particularly susceptible to the health risks associated with toxic chemical exposure. Because or their small size, children breathe in more air in relation to their weight than adults. Their bodies are also still in a formative state, making early exposure all the more dangerous. And since kids are required to spend so many childhood hours in school, toxins are likely to accumulate in their bodies and not cause problems until years later.

Unfortunately, the names of several Texas schools peppered this national article. The first was San Jacinto Elementary School in Deer Park:

“At San Jacinto Elementary School in Deer Park, Texas, data indicated carcinogens at levels even higher than the readings that prompted the shutdown of Hitchens. A recent University of Texas study showed an “association” between an increased risk of childhood cancer and proximity to the Houston Ship Channel, about 2 miles from the school.”

The USAToday report’s findings were based upon EPA data and industry estimates. That means, unfortunately, that even what they’ve reported “may be a gross underestimate”, because industries only estimate their emissions. For the most part, dangerous chemical carcinogens such as benzene and butadiene are not monitored because they are not regulated by the EPA. USAToday’s report suggested that Deer Park might be a hot spot particularly worthy of such monitoring because students are exposed to very high levels of carcinogens at area elementary, middle, and high schools – that is, throughout every level of their education and development.

Port Neches-Groves High School in Port Neches, Texas, was featured as a major part of the report. That’s because 27 graduates of Port Neches schools have sued the chemical plants there or there former owners after being diagnosed with cancer… (more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts