Urban Ecoist

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

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

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

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

Ah, traffic. It really is the worst thing about city-living, and more and more cities across the globe are following the American model of individual vehicles for each driver. Our freeways are congested, and commute times rival the time you’d spend watching a sports game. If you have ever driven during rush hour on the interstate system in Atlanta, LA, Detroit, San Francisco, Tampa, Miami…you know what I am talking about. Well, more and more global urban centers are starting to see what I am talking about.

Location: Beijing, China — we all heard that some draconian driving laws started a little before the Olympic Spectacle began. Recent reports from China are detailing the utter confusion that most Beijing drivers are feeling with some of the new laws and their post-Olympic variants. It seems that back in July, Beijing made alternate-day driving a rule for two months…

Beijing launched new driving restrictions on Sunday [July 20] that will ban more than a million cars from its streets in a bid to rein in the city’s notorious air pollution and traffic for next month’s Olympics.

Traffic on the capital’s normally bustling streets was noticeably light on Sunday, even for a weekend, amid the new rules that will ban cars with odd- and even-numbered licence plates from the roads on alternate days for two months.–France 24/AFP

…and it was good.

Many in China seemed to approve, taking to the Internet to mostly praise the measures, which in the end produced bluer skies and generally smoother traffic flows. A survey of 5,058 people by the New Beijing News last month showed 68.9 percent supported the traffic controls based on odd- and even-numbered license plates, 19 percent objected to them and 12.1 percent had no opinion. Asked what they would do if the restrictions were to continue, 18 percent of interviewees said they would buy another car.

“Recently, it takes me nearly twice as long to commute than it did during the Olympics,” said Zhang Fengyan, 30, an appliance salesman. “The difference is too big. I’d love it if they can make this rule permanent.” –Washington Post Oct. 2

However, it seems that the more severe alternate day driving was easier to understand for most people. The one car-less day a week is further complicated when the day changes.

BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing car owners, many apparently puzzled by no-driving days designated by the last digit of their license numbers, now face revised rules which threaten even greater confusion.

The no-car days, introduced on Oct 11 to reduce gridlock and pollution, have apparently left so many drivers scratching their heads that one Beijing newspaper runs front-page notices each day to remind drivers which weekday they aren’t allowed to drive. –via ENN

I guess this week, the day you could not drive was moved back a day, and it threatening to destroy the whole system. Ok, I made that destroy thing up, but it is a little confusing when the days change on you, kind of like when your trash/recycling pick-up day is if it’s a holiday week.

Unfortunately, Beijing is only an example and a beginning to bigger headaches when it comes to transportation and its infrastructure and all of those darn cars polluting our skies. Think about it. Beijing has 3 million cars for its 17 million residents. That is one car per 5.6 people. In the whole of the United States, we have 250 million cars/trucks per 305 million people. So that is one car per 1.2 people. Think what Beijing would be like if it’s car ownership rate were the same as the United States.

Wait. Is it fair that I would compare Beijing to the whole of America and its multiple car households, instead of comparing Beijing’s numbers with another major urban center, such as New York City. It seems that Beijing is more like New York, if you look at these numbers.

From the New York Department of Motor Vehicles, in 2007, there were 1,738,970 registered personal vehicles in the whole NYC area. The population of the area is approximately 8,250,000 as of 2006. That’s about 0.2 cars per person in NYC. Beijing is 0.17, so it’s not far off from the US’s largest metropolis. The real problem is that Beijing is adding 1,000 new vehicles a day — if you figure 365,000 new cars a year, that represents a 12% increase. That 12% means that Beijing’s number of cars will double in less than seven years.

If I haven’t advocated it enough, this world really, really needs to figure out mass public transportation. It’s not so much that it is not available in some cities, it is that it’s seemingly ineffective. People don’t want to spend an hour on a bus or a train if they can drive themselves in their car in twenty minutes. Or what on a good traffic day is twenty minutes. More cars will mean more roads, more delays, and despite our best efforts at switching over to fuel-efficient vehicles and even electric cars, if we don’t cut the overall number of vehicles, we are all screwed.

Get a bike. Avoid suburbs.

Beijing, driving, traffic, Atlanta, Detroit, LA, San Francisco, cars, vehicles, Tampa, Miami, China, alternate day driving, laws, rules, per capita, New York City, NYC, New York, mass transit, public transit, bus, train

So, after being a resident of the area for two years, I can safely say that Southern California has its fair share of urban ecosystems. Along the coast, and inland for a bit, and except for a pause of housing developments between Southern Orange County and San Diego, the entire Southern California landscape is its own brand of urban living.

That said, I happened upon this news about Southern California Edison (SCE) building an artificial reef for a kelp forest. You see, Southern California Edison is one of the largest power companies out there, providing power to 13 million people in 180 cities in 11 California counties. And one way that SCE powers so many homes is with the help of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). The San Onofre nuke plant generates 2200 MW of SCE’s electricity that powers numerous pools in SoCal. Ah, I kid, hospitals, grade schools, and fire houses also get power from San Onofre. At least a portion of it.

But it seems that like most nuclear power generation facilities, SONGS needs water to cool the reactor or else it will get much too hot and cause a meltdown (in a very simplified version of how a nuke plant works). SONGS uses ocean water, as it is abundant due to SONGS location on the ocean. The intake valve is about 3000 feet offshore, but the output valve is situated at about 6000 feet offshore. Therein lies the problem of San Onofre and the solution in the form of the artificial reef.

It’s not so much that the water discharged is too warm, but rather that the cloudier near-shore water is being transferred to an area that is home to a rather sizable kelp reef that thrives in clear, non-cloudy water. Kelp needs sunlight to grow. Cloudier water means less sunlight is getting to the kelp. Kelp is an important habitat for fish and other species that depend on the “forest” for safety, stability, and food. In fifteen years of research at the site, it was determined that the kelp forest was indeed suffering a bit from the cloudy water, and if the kelp suffers, so does the neighborhood — of fish and other marine creatures.

Click on the image for better detail.
So what does SCE do? It figures that there isn’t much that can be done to prevent the cloudy water from reaching the area of the kelp forest, as the pipes are already built, and it is not like the plant itself can be located farther away from the kelp. Instead, SCE and the California Coastal Commission did some studies and concluded that if a new reef were built northwest of the San Onofre nuclear plant, the kelp could relocate and restore the area for fish and wildlife.

From the article:

SCE environmental engineers began with an experimental 23-acre reef northwest of the power plant to test the first-of-its kind design researchers had developed.

Utility and commission scientists analyzed a new single-layer rock design as well as several types of material, evaluating how best to develop a sustainable giant kelp forest. The results formed the basis for SCE’s construction plan that was endorsed last February by the coastal commission. Construction of the two-mile reef began in June and recently was completed.

So you see, urban ecoists, sometimes the appliance you plug in has far reaching consequences to many other ecosystems. Find out where your power comes from.

Southern California Edison, SCE, artificial reef, kelp, forest, fish, wildlife, Orange County, San Diego, Los Angeles, sunlight, California Coastal Commission, urban, ecosystems, habitat restoration

A Superfund site involves the cleanup of hazardous waste. It’s a term used by the US Environmental Protection Agency to designate a program to clean up abandoned hazardous waste. The Superfund program, full name being Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), was a result of disasters like toxic waste dumping sites Love Canal and Times Beach. You see, it seems that some business owners feel it is okay to dump toxic waste, and just cover it up and sell the land to unsuspecting buyers or mix toxic waste into something else, but not mention it to anyone until people start dying. Not that all Superfund sites are the result of such egregious behavior, but there is at least a degree or two of negliglence.

Do you know how many Superfund sites there are?

This map is not complete, but shows the worst of the bunch. Click on map for better detail.

Let me put it this way, as the Superfund site list (actually called the National Priorities List or NPL) is an ever-changing one, so far, assessments have been completed for over 40,000 sites. Are all of those terrible waste dumps — no, but they all have something toxic involved to some degree.

Actually, this is a little off topic, but when you talk about Superfund sites, it is hard to not also bring up the idea of environmental justice, or EJ for those in the know. Environmental Justice involves the whole issue of toxic waste and what neighborhoods or towns you find it in. Check out East St. Louis or West Dallas to see what I mean.

So you see, Superfund sites are often an urban problem.

Newtown Creek, an estuary between Queens and Brooklyn. Click here for story.

How can you find out where the Superfund sites are in your neck of the concrete woods?

May I recommend the EPA’s Superfund Sites Where You Live page (click on the title for the link)? I must warn you, it is somewhat depressing.

Superfund, site, sites, National Priorities List, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, United States, toxic, waste, hazardous, Love Canal, Times Beach, environmental, justice, East St Louis, West Dallas, NPL, urban