The Denver Post puts its succinctly in an editorial today: safeguarding public health from ozone pollution may not be easy, but for our health, it's worth the effort.
The editorial comes on the heels of the Environmental Protection Agency's decision last week to strengthen federal health standards limiting ozone. While strengthening health standards, the EPA's decision did ignore the recommendations of its own health scientists.
While we applaud the Denver Post for reminding us that our health matters most, we're not sure we agree that we face such a daunting challenge. True, reducing ozone means cleaning our cars, requiring polluters to upgrade emission controls, among other actions, but is all this really that difficult to get implemented?
If it's about money, then we don't think so. The EPA's own cost-benefit studies show that society reaps up to $8.50 for every $1 spent on reducing ozone pollution. Those benefits come from lower hospital bills and increased productivity in work and school. We're hard pressed to call such a payback difficult to achieve.
If it's about getting the pollution controls in place to reduce the ozone, then we're also a bit skeptical of any difficulty here. Here in the Denver metro area, some major sources of ozone forming pollution have yet to take any steps to curb their emissions. These sources include the area's coal burning power plants, which emit on average 160% more ozone forming pollution than similar power plants back east.
In fact, Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action, along with Environmental Defense and several local governments have identified a number of strategies that can be easily implemented to reduce ozone in the Denver metro area.
Instead of bemoaning any "difficulty" that may go along with reducing ozone, let's first look at the simplicity of the matter. It's our health on the line after all, it should be easy.
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
March 16, 2008
March 14, 2008
But Wait, There's More
Responding to orders from President Bush, the Environmental Protection Agency scrapped a limit on ozone pollution that would have protected parks, wildlife, and crops.
While a major public health threat, ozone also damages vegetation. Take this example, where researchers studying the effects of ozone on corn crops found "significant" impacts, including reduced grain yield, lower seed weight, and shorter cob length.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA adopts two different air quality standards: one to protects public health and the other to protect public welfare, including vegetation.
Last year, the EPA proposed a public welfare standard for ozone especially to protect parks, wildlife, and crops. While that standard was weaker than what the agency's science advisers recommended, President Bush ordered the EPA to scrap it entirely and just make the public welfare standard the same as the public health standard.
It could be argued that any ozone standard good enough for public health is good enough for plants, but that's not exactly true. Last year, the EPA's science advisers recommended that the public health standard limit ozone concentrations over 8-hour periods, while the public welfare standard limit concentrations over an entire growing season. In other words, plants are more sensitive to long-term exposure while people are more sensitive to shorter-term exposure.
From our standpoint, it's confusing that President Bush would intervene like this. Every year, ozone pollution destroys hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crops. One recent study found that reducing ozone by 25% would benefit agriculture by $1-$2 billion annually.
This latest Bush giveaway to industry is going to cost this country a lot more than we think.
While a major public health threat, ozone also damages vegetation. Take this example, where researchers studying the effects of ozone on corn crops found "significant" impacts, including reduced grain yield, lower seed weight, and shorter cob length.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA adopts two different air quality standards: one to protects public health and the other to protect public welfare, including vegetation.
Last year, the EPA proposed a public welfare standard for ozone especially to protect parks, wildlife, and crops. While that standard was weaker than what the agency's science advisers recommended, President Bush ordered the EPA to scrap it entirely and just make the public welfare standard the same as the public health standard.
It could be argued that any ozone standard good enough for public health is good enough for plants, but that's not exactly true. Last year, the EPA's science advisers recommended that the public health standard limit ozone concentrations over 8-hour periods, while the public welfare standard limit concentrations over an entire growing season. In other words, plants are more sensitive to long-term exposure while people are more sensitive to shorter-term exposure.
From our standpoint, it's confusing that President Bush would intervene like this. Every year, ozone pollution destroys hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crops. One recent study found that reducing ozone by 25% would benefit agriculture by $1-$2 billion annually.
This latest Bush giveaway to industry is going to cost this country a lot more than we think.
March 13, 2008
New Smog Standards Half Protect Public Health
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced stronger limits on ozone pollution in the United States yesterday, but kicked off a firestorm of controversy because it ignored the recommendations of its own scientists.
Ozone is formed when pollutants from tailpipes, smokestacks, and oil and gas drilling react with sunlight. It's a corrosive gas that can trigger asthma attacks, send people to the hospital, and cause premature death, even at low concentrations. Children, seniors, those with asthma and other respiratory conditions, and even active adults are most at risk. It's considered to be the key ingredient of smog.
Nationally, the Clean Air Act limits ozone concentrations to safeguard public health. Yesterday, the EPA announced it would set those limits at 75 parts per billion, a drop from 80 parts per billion. While the move is good for public health, sadly the new standard will leave many of us still gasping for clean air.
That's because the EPA's own clean air scientists called for the standard to be set to no more than 70 parts per billion. In a letter last March, the scientists emphatically stated, "the level of the current primary ozone standard should be lowered...to no greater than [70 parts per billion]."
That's not all. The EPA's own Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee called on the EPA to drop the standard to 60 parts per billion. And a flurry of public health groups, including the American Lung Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action also called for the standard to be dropped below 70 parts per billion.
It's yet another case of the EPA playing politics with public health.
Not surprisingly, the agency is under intense fire. Representative Diana DeGette, vice-chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, chided the EPA's failure to protect public health, as well as Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
In the meantime, the new standards promise some changes in the Rocky Mountain region. With lower ozone limits, the bar has been raised, and that's good news for clean air and public health. While groups like Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action are going to continue to fight for ozone standards that fully protect public health, the new limits give will at least get us half the way there.
Smog-filled Denver Skyline.
Ozone is formed when pollutants from tailpipes, smokestacks, and oil and gas drilling react with sunlight. It's a corrosive gas that can trigger asthma attacks, send people to the hospital, and cause premature death, even at low concentrations. Children, seniors, those with asthma and other respiratory conditions, and even active adults are most at risk. It's considered to be the key ingredient of smog.
Nationally, the Clean Air Act limits ozone concentrations to safeguard public health. Yesterday, the EPA announced it would set those limits at 75 parts per billion, a drop from 80 parts per billion. While the move is good for public health, sadly the new standard will leave many of us still gasping for clean air.
That's because the EPA's own clean air scientists called for the standard to be set to no more than 70 parts per billion. In a letter last March, the scientists emphatically stated, "the level of the current primary ozone standard should be lowered...to no greater than [70 parts per billion]."
That's not all. The EPA's own Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee called on the EPA to drop the standard to 60 parts per billion. And a flurry of public health groups, including the American Lung Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action also called for the standard to be dropped below 70 parts per billion.
It's yet another case of the EPA playing politics with public health.
Not surprisingly, the agency is under intense fire. Representative Diana DeGette, vice-chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, chided the EPA's failure to protect public health, as well as Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
In the meantime, the new standards promise some changes in the Rocky Mountain region. With lower ozone limits, the bar has been raised, and that's good news for clean air and public health. While groups like Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action are going to continue to fight for ozone standards that fully protect public health, the new limits give will at least get us half the way there.
Smog-filled Denver Skyline.February 22, 2008
EPA Rips Wyoming Bureau of Land Management
Citing massive increases in air pollution, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ripped into the Bureau of Land Management's plans to allow more than 4,000 new oil and gas wells to be drilled in southwestern Wyoming.
In comments submitted earlier this week, the EPA noted that previous drilling in the area had led to "significant and unanticipated" clean air impacts and called on the Bureau of Land Management to adopt stronger clean air safeguards before allowing any additional drilling.
The EPA's comments are the latest sign that booming oil and gas drilling in the region is maxing out air quality. Earlier this month, the EPA told the State of Colorado to reassess whether it should exempt thousands of oil and gas wells from clean air safeguards.
We've said it before and we'll say it again. Oil and gas drilling is the largest, fastest growing source of air pollution in the Rocky Mountain region. Kudos to the EPA for helping to make sure we don't lose our clean air in the midst of this latest boom.
In comments submitted earlier this week, the EPA noted that previous drilling in the area had led to "significant and unanticipated" clean air impacts and called on the Bureau of Land Management to adopt stronger clean air safeguards before allowing any additional drilling.
The EPA's comments are the latest sign that booming oil and gas drilling in the region is maxing out air quality. Earlier this month, the EPA told the State of Colorado to reassess whether it should exempt thousands of oil and gas wells from clean air safeguards.
We've said it before and we'll say it again. Oil and gas drilling is the largest, fastest growing source of air pollution in the Rocky Mountain region. Kudos to the EPA for helping to make sure we don't lose our clean air in the midst of this latest boom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
