Urban Ecoist

Maybe all remember the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing (or maybe not, Michael Phelps…), and if you do remember than perhaps you also recall that the city of Beijing went to some lengths to curb its air pollution during the course of the Games.

Well, the data is being analyzed by some researchers that want to see what kind of tangible reductions in particulate pollution came with that olympic effort to cut back on industrial and automobile emissions.

Atmospheric scientist Jan Cermak of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich and a a mysteriously unnamed colleague looked at the aerosols in the atmosphere above the city of Beijing from the years 2002 through 2008. They used satellite data, which could measure the aerosol levels, but not the true location in terms of high-atmosphere or lower ground levels. Wind patterns, weather reports, rainfall, humidity — these factors were all taken into account to determine what the aerosol levels would have been during the Olympics and what they actually were from July to September 2008.

And guess what? It really didn’t matter what Beijing did. The city achieved some reductions in aerosol levels, but really nothing to get excited about. And why, you ask? Because so much air-bourne pollution came in to Beijing’s skies from other regional sources.

It turns out that the Chinese only achieved a modest reduction in aerosols. The researchers report in a paper in press in Geophysical Research Letters that pollution-control efforts reduced the overall amount of aerosols in the atmosphere by about 10% to 15%. That small change highlights the importance of factors such as wind direction in determining local pollution, says Cermak. In spite of the reduction in local emissions, winds from the south and southeast sullied Beijing’s air by bringing in pollution from distant industrial areas, he says. — Science Magazine News

You see, that’s the funny thing about air-bourne pollution. It doesn’t stay still like land-based pollution. Oh, wait, land-based pollution doesn’t stay put, either. It leaches into the water supply. Huh, maybe we should just try harder not to pollute in the first place.

Naw, that will never work.

Still, the numbers show that Beijing did achieve a 10 to 15 percent reduction in aerosols above the city. Am I the only one who thinks that is a good start? Too bad the Chinese only did it for three months. Who knows what reductions could be achieved with a long-term cut in emissions?

air pollution, Olympics, China, Beijing, emissions, aerosols, atmosphere

You may not know about all the chemicals floating around in your house or even your office, and chances are you are not aware of how dangerous some of the Volatile Organic Compounds that are given off by synthethic materials that are found in your home. It’s a process called off-gassing. For example, particle board (that cheap stuff that all cheap furniture is made of) off-gasses formeldahyde. But here’s the deal. Even natural products off-gas, so it’s not like you can ever fully remove VOCs from your home. Anything plastic gives off VOCs, but then wood also gives off gases.

Much like a garden can be a “sink” and a “scrubber” for water and pollutants, your indoor houseplants can help you remove volatile organic compounds (loosely defined by the Environmental Protection Agency as any compound that photoreacts or easily vaporizes and enters the atmosphere. The problem with VOCs in your house is that because you keep your house closed up (especially in colder weather) those VOCs can reach some pretty high levels, even 5 times more than if you were outside.

And your houseplants are effective at removing VOCs from your house. Of course, some plants are better than others. Here’s a top 15 to get you started.

1. Philodendron scandens `oxycardium’, heartleaf philodendron
2. Philodendron domesticum, elephant ear philodendron
3. Dracaena fragrans `Massangeana’, cornstalk dracaena
4. Hedera helix, English ivy
5. Chlorophytum comosum, spider plant
6. Dracaena deremensis `Janet Craig’, Janet Craig dracaena
7. Dracaena deremensis `Warneckii’, Warneck dracaena
8. Ficus benjamina, weeping fig
9. Epipiremnum aureum, golden pothos
10. Spathiphyllum `Mauna Loa’, peace lily
11. Philodendron selloum, selloum philodendron
12. Aglaonema modestum, Chinese evergreen
13. Chamaedorea sefritzii, bamboo or reed palm
14. Sansevieria trifasciata, snake plant
15. Dracaena marginata , red-edged dracaena

That list comes from Clean Air Gardening.

And get this…the study of using plants to clean the air all started with NASA in the 1960’s. The materials used in the enclosed environments in space are synthetic and the VOCs off-gassed were making people sick. An environmental scientist named Wolverton started studying how plants could clean up toxic waste, and he found that simple houseplants can be really effective little cleaners of indoor air pollution. Today, Wolverton’s company is working on using natural materials derived from plants as filters for enclosed environments.

plants, indoor air quality, indoor air pollution, VOC, volatile organic compounds, plastics, synthetic materials, indoor environment, health

Am I the only one who sees the Nano from India’s Tata Motors as both a blessing and a burden, and yet, as an American, I feel guilty about pointing out that this little car that could could increase the total number of cars on the road by say 750 million, the approximate population of India. Ok, that number is far-far-fetched, but my point is that even a small relatively gas-efficient car will create more emissions overall, especially when the vehicle is being priced to attract first-time car-owners. And yes, I am aware how selfish I am by saying that, as I do own a car.

It’s kind of that same feeling I got when I read this article in the New York Times today about stimulus money building a toll-road through a Texan prairie outside of Houston. Even the best intentions has undesirable consequences, and unfortunately these consequences are getting more and more dire as we pump more and more carbon into the atmosphere.

I realize that we Americans have had our cheap cars for about a century now, and we did way more than our fair share of contributing to the current carbon crisis, so how is it fair to criticize affordable individual transportation options in other countries? It is not fair, but yet, fair has little to do with this, unfortunately. We are all going to suffer the affects of climate change, and the poorest among us will be hurt the most. How is that fair? The poor pay for the environmental degradation needed to provide us all with luxury goods that we perceive as necessities. Ah, but I am being rather pessimistic today.

Luckily, the cheap car that India’s growing middle class is clamoring for (and thanks to the low price of about $2000 USD, even the lower classes may be able to afford the Nano) has a small engine that is fairly fuel-efficient at 20-26 km/liter, or approximately 47 to 61 miles per gallon, which beats the US average by a lot.

So, yes, I applaud that India is becoming wealthy and more people are moving out of poverty and into relative affluence through hard work and innovation. And I appreciate that the People’s Car gets good gas mileage. I just hope that the flip side of that wealth will also look at responsible transportation options. It is nice having a car around for some things, but it is better to use public transit or a bike for everyday commutes. It just worries me that the US has exported it’s rather toxic culture to the rest of the world for so long that it might be too late to change the lens.

Tata Motors, Tata, India, Nano, cheap car, People’s car, transportation, cars, vehicles, carbon emissions, US

I have spent some time in the past on the issue of clean coal, both on this site and on Urban Ecoist’s sistah-site, Daily Science Dose, here and here. So it won’t come as any secret to anyone that I am skeptical of the fossil fuel industry and I like sharing my skepticism with all my smart and well-groomed readers.

I received my first update from a group called the ACCCE. At first, I had to wonder what group this was, but I sign up for newsletters from many, many organizations, so it was perfectly reasonable for me not to figure out immediately that ACCCE stands for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

The email itself doesn’t explain the acronym, but there are several handy links in the body of the message. One of which takes you to the Behind the Plug blog. Here, I’ll give you a link to it as well, it’s that awesome!

An example of pure comedy genius:

Today’s post is all about the “regrettable choice” that my home state of Michigan has made by forcing Big Coal to slow down plans to build more coal-fired power plants in the Great Lakes State.

Recently, Michigan’s Governor has taken a stand to become a “green energy” state. The auto plants have let the state down, and she is looking to the future to save her sorry state. Have you not noticed the ads on TV every now and then (I usually see them during PGA Tour events) with Jeff Daniels talking about how great it is to do business in Michigan? Michigan is hurting, economically, as it has depended on old, dirty technology for far too long.

The Clean Coal blog claims that due to the automaker’s forced re-tooling, the state will be needing a “robust supply of baseload energy.” And renewable sources “will not be sufficient to meet that growing need.” No evidence to support that claim there, but why would Big Coal lie? Here’s the best part…

Gov. Granholm also set a goal to reduce the carbon footprint associated with power generation in her state. That goal can be best met through deploying new technologies that capture and store CO2, not through mandates that would lessen Michigan’s reliance on affordable, domestic energy resources like coal – which currently provides more than 60 percent of Michigan’s power.

There are currently eight new coal plants being proposed in Michigan. Each of these projects provides an opportunity to create jobs for Michigan workers and ensure that electricity production keeps pace with the state’s projected energy needs. These plants can be retrofitted with advanced technologies to capture and store CO2. In fact, given the time necessary to permit and construct a new power plant today, it’s possible that these technologies would become available for deployment at or very near the time these new plants are put into operation.

I added the emphasis on that last sentence.

So the argument is that coal will be just fine when the new technology is installed to capture the carbon and sequester it elsewhere. BUT…that technology is not available. The writer even admits that, but he lamely offers a possibility that those new technologies may prove successful enough by the time that these new coal plants are built that the plants can be retrofitted to reduce their emissions.

This post is just an example of the greenwashing going on. I am tempted to leave a comment, just for giggles, as the comment will only appear after being approved by the author.

And let’s look at the author. He’s Joe Lucas. He’s the ACCCE’s VP of Communications. And he also helped found a group called the Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, which is one of two groups that merged to form the ACCCE. The ABEC was a lobbying group. They got their funding from guess who, the mining industry. In just the last year that ABEC operated, the group received over 3 million dollars in funding.

Huh, I guess that it is “possible” that Mr. Lucas is maybe just a little biased…

coal, clean coal, ACCCE, Americans Coalition for Clean Coal Technology, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, mining, Big Coal, carbon, Michigan, Governor Granholm, renewable, energy, automakers, technology, greenwashing, lobbyists

Ask any gardener and they will tell you that perennials make your life a lot easier when it comes to garden chores and plantings. In such, that perennials grow for many years, unlike those prima donna annuals that need to be added every year. If you are an urbanite looking to add perennials to your garden space, then you need take into account the fact that city plants must be able to tolerate city pollution. And considering the lifespan of perennials, shrubs and trees, urban gardeners should take extra care to find hardy species that can withstand air pollution to ensure a healthy garden for years to come.

Perennials

Everyone likes flowers, so today, I’ll concentrate on perennials that produce lovely flowers, as opposed to perennials that are striking for their foliage. Although the three species I have listed below have lovely foliage as well.

Coreopsis: Also called Tickseed. Think of tickseed as a smaller cousin to the sunflower with a lot of small blooms. I had a couple of coreopsis plants and they provided me with a summer’s worth of cut flowers, that last for some time in the house. There are many varieties of Tickseed (the seeds kind of look like ticks, get it?) and some are annuals, so be sure what you are buying, although the annuals do self-seed and can even become invasive if left to their own devices. But we are talking perennials here. Some varieties grow taller than others, but all coreopsis is tolerant of poor soil and little water, a bonus to city gardeners. Although originally a native wildflower, cultivated coreopsis’ do better when divided every few years.

Phlox: I used to take my dogs for walks along this river and into a forest along side of it. We always had a certain destination in mid- to late-summer. There was a grove of wild phlox that created a truly magical atmosphere in this forest, in gently dappled summer sunlight. And the fragrance produced by these striking purple flowers that bloom in clumps is a nice addition to any city garden. If you have a spot that gets a light shade and good circulation, you may want to add phlox. Phlox attract butterflies to your garden as well as being a treat for rabbits, which you may not want, but hey, city rabbits need to eat too. Some varieties are better suited for xeriscaping than others, and some cultivars grow tall while others grow short in mats.

Yarrow: Named after Achilles (achillea) for it’s medicinal properties back in the Trojan War, this perennial is well-known for many good reasons. It grows in poor soil (preferring it even), attracts beneficial insects and seems to make other plants healthy when planted nearby. Yarrow leaves can be added to soups as a bitter green or cooked like spinach. It also just happens to have a lot of really good natural chemicals in it’s flowerheads to help with certain maladies like allergies and even the common cold. Yarrow blooms in the spring and early summer, producing umbrella-like blooms on stems that can be three feet tall in some varieties. The blooms dry really well for cut flowers, or you can try your hand at homeopathy.

perennials, air pollution, city pollution, pollution, city, urban, garden, plants, flowers, soil, herbal medicine, homeopathy, blooms, annuals, garden planning, xeriscaping, drought-tolerant

Ah, winter. Snow, ice, nothing green growing in most parts of the US. Winter may mean that we are not actively out working in our gardens, but it doesn’t mean that we cannot plan our gardens. Take advantage of being housebound to daydream about flowers, fruits and what parts of you garden need an overhaul. Lately, I have been thinking about a roadside garden, that is one between either a lawn and the street or between sidewalks and streets. Or you can situate your new garden plot between your lawn area and the sidewalk if the sidewalk abuts the street.

Urban gardening poses its own set of challenges and one of those is higher levels of air pollution. When planning on a new garden space, an overhaul or just a specimen planting or two, set yourself up for success by choosing wisely for you urban garden plot.

Shrubs

Lilac: If you have ever stood downwind from a lilac bush, it is quite the olfactory experience. Lilac can grow in most soils and even poor ones, as long as there is decent enough drainage. Blooms don’t last nearly as long as you’d wish, but if you get a few different varieties, you can extend the lilac season by choosing both early and late blooming varieties. The less you prune, the better, but if you do have to prune, prune right after flowering, as the flowers grow on old wood, so you want to be sure to give them enough time to grow some “old wood” during the summer. Lilac can grow taller than some shrubs, and almost as tall as some trees. Very full growth pattern as well.

Mock Orange: Another fragrant addition to the garden. This shrub blooms in the late spring-early summer into lovely white blossoms that look kind of like smaller camellias to me, or at least some varieties do. The mock orange is so-named as the blossoms almost look like citrus blossoms, and some varieties smell of oranges. Can grow to 8 feet high and six feet wide, and it can become tree-like in its growth pattern.

shrubs, urban garden, urban, gardening, garden design, planning, winter, lilac, air pollution, urban pollution, roadside garden, sidewalk garden

So, we have been discussing planning and creating a roadside garden for your city space. These gardens can be either between your lawn and the street or between a sidewalk and the street, depending on what level of urban dwelling you call you own. Of course, often in cities, you may be renting and live in an apartment with no yard whatsoever. We can talk about that, too, in the future, that is how to create “temporary” garden spaces.

I have already mentioned that urban gardens must be able to tolerate higher levels of air pollution than, say, a country home’s garden (depending on the country house, unfortunately, it seems that no where is clean).

When planning a garden space in such an area, you may or may not want to incorporate taller plants such as trees and schrubs. But with taller plants, you can create a bit of privacy for your front yard, an urban oasis if you will. Not only that, but you can create a screen for that car-generated pollution, in addition to a nice spot for birds, bees and butterflies.

Shrubs

Trees can be a bit much — too tall or too wide for many smaller urban spots, so luckily, there are some really fabulous shrubs and bushes out there that are both evergreen and deciduous and can withstand urban pollution.

Butterfly Bush: I love butterfly bushes (left). They can grow tall and hedge-like, or you can prune them severely and grow them smaller. In addition to attracting this bush’s namesakes, hummingbirds also dig the butterfly bush. The flowers grow out on graceful arching branches and they are quite fragrant. They make super cut flowers in the house, and the more you cut, the more purple or pink flowers these bushes will produce.

Forsythia: Forsythias are wonderful and a welcome sign of spring. This shrub breaks out of the “new season” gate with bare branches that load up with little yellow flowers very early in the spring. Forsythias are easy growers and easily pruned back to whatever space you want them to fill with vibrant green leaves. They also live for a very long time if cared for, properly. The picture above is a forsythia bush that is over 50 years old.

urban garden, urban, gardening, garden plots, roadside garden, sidewalk garden, shrubs, bushes, trees, air pollution, urban pollution, cars, yard, design, planning

Yesterday, I began to list trees that would be a nice addition to an urban garden, especially a garden that is situated alongside the road. Cars generate a lot of air pollution, and some plants and trees can withstand higher and more concentrated levels of air pollution, so why not set yourself for success when planning a new garden plot (or replanting an already existing space) and make the right choice of tree to add to your garden.

More Trees

Fringe Tree: A pretty smaller tree that grows from 12 to 20 feet with a 10 to 20 feet spread. It is also a slow grower, so you can plant one and sit back for a while without having to prune it back heavily in order to keep it appropriate for a smaller urban space. Also, it grows wide and loosely, so it shouldn’t create too much shade for other plants in the plot. It flowers in the spring, and produces blue fruit in the fall. Oh, yeah, and birds like the fruit, so that is always a bonus.

The fringe tree (at above left and right) gets its name from the fringe-like flowers it produces in profusion in the early spring.

The Double Almond: Another early bloomer and the double means that there are double the petals on the flowers, so they are fuller and frilly and a welcome sight in spring. The almond is a member of the rose family, so the little flowers look like little roses in a way. And yes, the almond tree produces almonds, and almonds are not only tasty, but good for you. The tree needs bees to pollinate, so your prunus dulcis would also be a good attraction to bees, which are good for everything else in your garden, too.

You can see some almond trees in an orchard in the picture above. They are smaller, growing about 15 feet tall.

trees, air pollution, pollution tolerant, city, urban, pollution, almond, fringe, gardening, garden plot, garden design, garden planning

Yesterday, the idea of creating a small garden plot in an urban environment next to a road was introduced, and today, I’d like to expand on that roadside urban garden plot in terms of plants that you might consider adding to a garden plot that will have to tolerate air pollution.

It is best to plan out the big plantings first, so let’s first talk about what is most likely going to be the biggest type of “plant” you could choose to plan your garden around.

Trees

Depending on your urban space, you may not have the option to plant trees. Trees can be very big and may block sidewalks or roads, or they may have to be trimmed to not touch power lines. This can become a headache for you, so be sure to check out to see not only how much space you have in the garden, but also what kind of space in which a tree will be able to grow.

With that in mind, I have a large space in my front yard, and it is currently a wasteful grassy lawn. I have garden spots along fences and walkways in addition to spaces around the house. But my yard just drops off down a slope (Portland, Oregon is rather hilly being situated between two mountain ranges), and is totally boring until it ends at the street.

However, just because I have lots of space in which to grow a tree, I must also be careful to not diminish any of the afternoon sun on my southwest facing yard. Luckily, due to the house and fences being up on a small hill, even a taller tree shouldn’t create too much shade until later in the evening.

But also once I commit to adding a taller and fuller (i.e. wider) tree, I will have to plan the remaining space as a shade garden.

If you still want to plant a tree or two in your roadside garden, here are some species you may want to consider. These trees tolerate air pollution rather well, so adding these trees will not only act as a shield for your yard from some of that pollution, but they can also dampen the sound of traffic (noise pollution if you think about it) from the road. And…if that weren’t enough, a tree can provide a little privacy for your front yard.

Holly : An evergreen (above and at left) that bears striking leaves and dramatic red berries in the autumn and into winter. The Highclere variety is a good one to pick as it grows in a narrow, compact shape so it won’t take up too much space or create a lot of shade for other plants. It grows to 25 feet tall and 10 feet wide. Holly also provides a good habitat for wildlife, as it keeps its leaves all year, and as those leaves are rigid and pointy, hollies are sought by birds for natural defense. Can also be grown as a hedge.

Serviceberry: Also called shadbush (named this because it would bloom around the time the shad, a fish, would make its annual run) and sarvisberry among other names, the serviceberry (at right) is a useful tree to have around. Some species grow shorter than others, but the trees produce pretty flowers and lots of them in the spring.

A nice added benefit is that the “service” berries are edible. Birds love the berries and if you want, there are lots of recipes out there for everything from serviceberry wine to jellies, jams and relishes. As an example, the Allegheny Serviceberry can grow to 20 feet tall and 20 feet wide, but if you look at the picture to the right, you see it is not compact in its growth pattern, so shade should be light.

Tomorrow, more trees…

trees, garden, urban garden, sidewalk garden, roadside garden, plants, garden design, air pollution, car pollution, noise, privacy, hedge, serviceberry, sarvisberry, shadbush, shad, shade garden, holly, berries, wildlife, birds

If you cannot tell what is on my mind lately by reading a recent post, then you should know that there is something about winter that brings out the dreamer in me in terms of what I will be doing in my small urban garden this next season. As a city dweller, I am a renter and as such, my dreams for my little garden will most likely never be realized as who knows how long I will live in this house, and hi, it’s not my house, so I don’t get to call the shots on major garden design and projects.

So, maybe someone out there can glean something from my grandiose plans for the grandiose problems that I have in “my” yard. I always believe in leaving a yard in better shape than that in which I found it, so my planning tends to go below the surface in many aspects of garden design. And if I were to undertake a major project this next spring, it would be to build and plant a raised bed garden along the roadside of my front yard. It would reduce noise from the street, increase privacy and add more plants that could be attractive to both wildlife and insects.

The first thing you should consider when building a roadside urban garden is that these plants are on the front lines of pollution from cars. I live on a quiet street that doesn’t not see much traffic, but many urbanites live on busy thoroughfares and should take pollution generated from traffic into consideration when choosing the plants you will use in your roadside garden.

And like the “garden” above, there is no reason that you cannot have a little roadside garden. It may have to be a container (or many, many containers), but hey, it’s still a garden.

urban garden, gardening, pollution, roadside garden, plants, design, planning

A new study came out that finds that by cutting pollution in your city, you can live longer.

More importantly, the study found that life expectancy increased by 3 years over the last 20 years (approximately) in 50 cities across America. It may be in all cities, and I’m sure you could draw that conclusion; I only add the 50 cities because that is what the study included. The researchers behind the study analyzed data sets comparing life spans and levels of particulate pollution from 1980 and 2000. As pollution levels dropped, life expectancy rose. Seems simple enough…

Actually, to put a finer point on it, your life was extended by 5 months because of a drop in air pollution. How they came up with five months, I don’t know, but wait, the article mentions that factors such as “such as changes in demographics, income, migration, population, education and cigarette smoking.” So I guess due to all those factors, we urbanites in the 50 cities included in the study are living 2.72 years longer than we did back in 1980. The air pollution accounts for 15% of that increase.

Neat.

Some of the very dirtiest cities saw an increase in life expectancy of 10 months due to the reduction in air pollution, thanks to the Clean Air Act. Although even relatively clean cities show a benefit to public health standards from additional reductions in air pollution levels.

This is good news for many reasons — longer, healthier lives for one — but this is good timing for all those who are trying to undermine the intentions of the Clean Air Act by ignoring some pollution and/or not enforcing limits on things that are produced by burning, say, gas or coal. Hopefully, with a new Administration and a new EPA administrator, the EPA will start regulating such things as carbon dioxide, and then new studies will show us in twenty years how we lengthened our lives by doing so.

Just a thought.

air pollution, health, life expectancy, cities, urban, America, US, Clean Air Act, pollution, particulates, gas, coal, public health

Like how I rhymed that…

I got an email from the Sierra Club today. Reading through it, I clicked on a link to a really scary report from the Environmental Integrity Project. Seems the Tennessee Valley Authority may not be all that truthful about the recent “leakage” at the Widow’s Creek Fossil Plant in Alabama.

No!! A member of the Big Coal not being truthful. I can’t…nay, I won’t believe it.

The Environmental Integrity Project went through the TRI’s (Toxic Release Inventory) of both the Kingston Fossil Plant and the Widow’s Creek Fossil Plant. TRI are just what they sound like, an inventory of all toxic (by the Environmental Protection Agency standards) substance released over the course of a year and these reportings are required by law. Of course, that doesn’t mean that some industrial entities don’t lie about their releases. That is how companies end up paying fines, if and when the EPA starts enforcing rules.

The TRIs from the Widow’s Creek coal-fired power plant tell a very different story from what the TVA said the day the leak was discovered. The TVA claimed that the dump site that leaked was simply relatively safe gypsum.

Now to be fair, that could be true. I am not privy to the exact location of the leaking waste pond. However, I did check out the location of the Widow’s Creek plant on Google Earth, and there are quite a few holding ponds. One of which is a sickly green color that is oozing into another different green pond. Incidentally, that green pond looks like it is close to what I think is Widow’s Creek, which is harder to find since it looks like it may have been manipulated by the Plant. What is worrisome is just how closely the ponds are situated in relation to not only Widow’s creek (which looks pretty small), but also the very large Tennessee River.

But truly, the most frightening thing to me — and maybe I’m not the only one here — is the large amounts of toxic releases that are allowable by the EPA. Truly staggering numbers of both air and water releases of things like arsenic, lead, mercury. There was over a billion tons of mercury emissions coming from Widow’s Creek in four years (1998-2002).

It is no longer acceptable to ignore the considerable amount of toxic substances that we spew onto the land and into the water and the air. Widow’s Creek is not unusual and there are many, many, many facilities around the United States pumping out similar numbers of compounds that are making us sick. Widow’s Creek supplies the electricity for 650,000 homes according to the TVA’s website. No matter where you live, you are consuming power that has to come from somewhere. Find out where, and find out how dirty it is and just how close it is to your home and your child’s school. Then maybe we will start looking beyond the empty promise of clean coal[sic].

At what cost progress? And we are only going to be needing more energy…

Widows Creek, Fossil Plant, fossil fuels, emissions, toxins, toxic substances, coal, energy, electricity, Tennessee Valley Authority, Tennessee, Alabama, Stevenson, Google earth, Kingston, clean coal, schools, homes, pollution

It is not often lately that I can applaud the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency. But today, it was announced that another agreement was reached between the EPA and three major manufacturers of sulfuric acid. The three companies — Chemtrade Logistics, Chemtrade Refinery Services, and Marsulex — will pay civil penalties for pollution emitted that violated the Clean Air Act in addition to the combined $12 million in new pollution controls that the companies will install to curtail harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide.

Remember sulfuric acid…it makes acid rain. We don’t hear as much about acid rain anymore, do we? A lot of that has to do with the Clean Air Act. And certain industries are better than others at cleaning up after themselves, but the acid production industry has not been held all that accountable until recently.

“The companies are expected to reduce harmful air pollution by an estimated 3,000 tons per year, which is well over half of their annual emissions,” said Granta Y. Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Today’s settlement will improve air quality for millions of people.”

“This settlement is the product of our sustained effort to bring all sulfuric acid manufacturers into compliance with the Clean Air Act,” said Michael Guzman, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division. “We are pleased that the cooperative effort among us, our state counterparts, the Northern Arapaho Tribe, and the defendants resulted in this victory for the environment.”

Between January 2010 and January 2013, at its four production facilities in Beaumont , Texas ; Shreveport , La. ; Tulsa , Okla. ; and Riverton , Wyo. , Chemtrade will upgrade existing pollution control equipment called scrubbers to meet new, lower emission limits for sulfur dioxide. At its facility in Oregon , Ohio , Marsulex will improve chemical processing equipment, which will reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by no later than July 2011. Finally, Marsulex will install a new scrubber at Chemtrade’s sulfuric acid plant in Cairo , Ohio , to meet lower sulfur dioxide limits by July 2011. — EPA

Sulfuric acid production burns sulfur (or sulphur, if you prefer) to produce sulfur dioxide (SO2). SO2 readily combined with water to produce H2SO4, otherwise known as sulfuric acid. Concentrated sulfuric acid is used in many industries like fertilizers, steelmaking, ore refining, petroleum refining, and it’s even used in making nylon and detergents.

Reductions in sulfuric acid emissions will come from new scrubbers and lower allowance limits. The new short-term limits that the companies have agreed to finally follow are from 1.7 pounds to 2.5 pounds of SO2 per ton of product, according to the EPA.

The civil penalty comes from modifications made at Chemtrade and Marsulex that increased emissions, and since neither company bothered to gain proper permits to do so or the required scrubbers to limit those emissions, they effectively violated the Clean Air Act. The fines will go to the Federal government ($460,000) and the rest will go to the four states where the six manufacturing plants are located.

Good job, EPA, doing your, um, job?

Clean Air Act, sulfuric acid, sulfuric dioxide, acid rain, Chemtrade, Marsulex, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, federal, government, emissions, pollution

I have covered this topic again and again, and sadly the consequences of coal mining and coal-fired electric generation plants have come home to roost…actually 15 destroying homes in the roosting process.

Thankfully, no one was killed or seriously injured in the accident. However, the toxic effects of the coal fly ash spill are still being debated by those responsible, of course.

Here’s a great quote from a New York Times article that rehashes the debate over coal ash and its dangers.

The Tennessee Valley Authority has issued no warnings about the potential chemical dangers of the spill, saying there was as yet no evidence of toxic substances. “Most of that material is inert,” said Gilbert Francis Jr., a spokesman for the authority. “It does have some heavy metals within it, but it’s not toxic or anything.”

Oh, that “it’s not toxic or anything” is really reassuring, isn’t it? And what’s with that “most of the material”? What else is there besides the supposedly inert, non-toxic material?

Fly ash is a by-product of burning coal to produce electricity. And the same icky stuff that is found in coal is concentrated in the coal ash, so if you are worried about the heavy metals in coal, you should really be concerned about the heavy metals in coal ash.

And those heavy metals are…

arsenic

lead

selenium

chromium

nickel

vanadium

beryllium

cadmium

barium

molybdenum

and don’t forget the good ol’ radioactive substances in coal and fly ash like uranium, thorium, radium, and radon.

The biggest threat that most of the aforementioned substances pose is when they are inhaled or ingested. Almost of those substances are carcinogenic or carry other threats of developmental damage to animals and humans. Once that sludge dries, it will become air-borne dust. And obviously, it has already been introduced into the water supply.

Inert, maybe. Not toxic, hardly.

And when you add most of those heavy metals to water, it is a dangerous situation, indeed, whether you boil that water or not.

Fly ash is called fly ash because it used to be the by-product that flew off into the sky from coal-fired plants. The Clean Air Act put a stop to that, and the fly ash had to be captured by the plants. Unfortunately, there is that old law of matter not being created nor destroyed, and the fly ash had to go somewhere. Coal-fired plants simply built some earthen dams and made their own landfills. However, that was hardly the solution as whenever it rained, fly ash leached into groundwater supplies.

Another 2007 E.P.A. report said that over about a decade, 67 towns in 26 states had their groundwater contaminated by heavy metals from such dumps.

For instance, in Anne Arundel County, Md., between Baltimore and Annapolis, residential wells were polluted by heavy metals, including thallium, cadmium and arsenic, leaching from a sand-and-gravel pit where ash from a local power plant had been dumped since the mid-1990s by the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. Maryland fined the company $1 million in 2007. — NY Times

I hate to keep pilfering from the NY Times, but here is a really good graphic to give you an overview of how fly ash is produced and a map of the Kingston fly ash spill. Click on the image for a bigger view and better detail.

Kingston, Tennessee, coal, ash, fly ash, spill, heavy metals, arsenic, lead, selenium, chromium, nickel, vanadium, beryllium, cadmium, barium, molybdenum, uranium, thorium, radium, radon, toxic substances, radioactive, dangers, water supply, coal mining, coal-fired plants, electricity

Despite my reluctance to admit that I read USA Today occasionally, I read USA Today occasionally. My aunt and uncle subscribe, and spending the holidays at their house, well, it’s here, and I tend to read anything within an arm’s reach.

USA Today has been publishing special investigative reports on “The Smokestack Effect: Toxic Air and America’s Schools“, and I happened upon this week’s installment in what seems to be a pretty expansive series. Monday’s paper had a scary article on the alarming proximity of industrial facilities and elementary schools and pre-schools.

USA Today found that more than 20,000 schools are located within one half-mile of an industrial plant that emits some rather dangerous pollution. That is one in every six schools. And to make matters worse, half od those schools are elementary schools and early education centers such as pre-schools. That is just unacceptable.

Children are kind of like our canaries in the coal mine. Think about it. Kids are smaller, so any chemical that is taken in is naturally going to become a higher amount percentage-wise than in adults. And here’s where it becomes downright negligent — the EPA only tests chemicals in terms of how they may affect an adult body.

Too little is understood about the impact of thousands of chemicals on children. In part, that’s because most government assessments of the dangers assume those exposed are adults.

“The science doesn’t know — it can’t establish — what a safe level is” for children, says Stephen Lester, the science director of the Center for Health, Environment & Justice, an advocacy group that focuses on children and schools. “There’s no tool, scientifically, for evaluating cumulative risk.”

Landrigan says the lack of detailed knowledge on safe levels of exposure, coupled with today’s rates of childhood cancer, asthma and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, begs “the obvious question: Is there a cause-and-effect relationship?” –USA Today

One of my pet research projects, and biggest gripes, is that many, many, way too many chemicals are not thoroughly tested before being approved for general consumption. Look at bisphenol-A. And in the case of many industrial facilties, chemicals are being pumped into our air with hardly a thought given to how those chemicals affect people over the long term.

USA Today, chemicals, pollution