A new federal study finds ground level ozone in the air can cause lung damage and lead to premature death at levels the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe. The new study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the EPA itself. The GLRC’s Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
A new federal study finds ground level ozone in the air can cause lung
damage and lead to premature death at levels the Environmental
Protection Agency considers safe. The new study was funded by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the EPA itself. The
GLRC’s Rebecca Williams reports:
Ozone is the major ingredient of smog. Ground level ozone can make
asthma worse and can even cause permanent lung damage.
A new study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives says the
EPA’s current standards aren’t good enough. The authors say breathing
ozone at levels the EPA considers safe can increase the risk of premature
death. The authors say if there is a safe level of ozone, it’s at very low
concentrations… far below current EPA standards.
But there’s a problem. Cities already have trouble meeting the current
EPA standards. The EPA says more than 100 million Americans live in
areas that exceed what the EPA considers safe.
The EPA is reviewing the scientific evidence on ozone to decide whether
to revise its standards further.
Air deposition is when air pollution settles out into lakes and streams and becomes water pollution. (Photo by Lester Graham)
We’re continuing our series, Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. Our guide through the series is Lester Graham. In this report he explains one of the threats that experts identified is air pollution that finds its way into the Great Lakes:
Transcript
We’re continuing our series ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes’. Our guide through the
series is Lester Graham. In this report he explains one of the threats is air pollution that
finds its way into the Great Lakes:
It’s called ‘Air Deposition.” Melissa Hulting is a scientist at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. We asked her just what that means:
“Air deposition simply is just when materials, in this case pollutants, are transferred from
the air to the water. So, pollutants in particles can fall into the water. Pollutants in rain
can fall into the water, or pollutants in a gas form can be absorbed into the water.”
So, it’s things like pesticides that evaporate from farm fields and end up in the rain over
the Great Lakes. PCBs in soil do the same. Dioxins from backyard burning end up in the
air, and then are carried to the lakes
One of the pollutants that causes a significant problem in the Great Lakes is mercury. It
gets in the water. Then it contaminates the fish. We eat the fish and mercury gets in us.
It can cause babies to be born with smaller heads. It can cause nervous system damage
and lower IQ in small children if women of childbearing age or children eat too much
fish.
One of the notable sources of mercury is from power plants that burn coal.
(Sound of coal car)
Railroad cars like this one empty their tons of coal at power plants all across the nation.
More than half of the electricity in the nation is produced at coal-burning power plants,
and with a 250-year supply, coal is going to be the primary fuel for a while.
One coal producing state is acknowledging that mercury is a problem. Doug Scott is the
Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. He says coal is important to
the energy mix, but we need to reduce pollutants such as mercury as much as possible.
“The policy of the state has been to try to work with the power plants to try to burn
Illinois coal as cleanly as you can. Now, that means a lot more equipment and a lot more
things that they have to do to be able to make that work, but we’re committed to trying to
do both those things.”
And, Scott says the federal government’s mercury reduction program does not go far
enough soon enough, but the electric utility industry disagrees.
Dan Riedinger is spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a power industry trade
organization. Riedinger says, really reducing mercury emissions at power plants just
won’t make that much difference.
“Power plants contribute relatively little to the deposition of mercury in any one area of
the country, including the Great Lakes, and no matter how much we reduce mercury
emissions from power plants in the Great Lakes Region, it’s really not going to have a
discernable impact in terms of improving the levels of mercury in the fish people want to eat.”
“Relatively little? Now, that flies in the face of everything I’ve read so far. Everything
I’ve read, indicates coal-fired power plants are a significant contributor to the mercury
issue in the Great Lakes and other places.”
“It’s really not quite that simple. Power plants are a significant source of mercury
emissions here in the United States, but most of the mercury that lands in the Great
Lakes, particularly in the western Great Lakes is going to come from sources outside of
the United States.”
Well, it’s not quite that simple either. The U.S. EPA’s Melissa Hulting agrees some of
the mercury in the Great Lakes comes from foreign sources, but recent studies show
some mercury settles out fairly close to the smokestacks. She says you can blame both
for the mercury in your fish.
“You blame the sources that are close by and you blame the sources that are far away.
The bottom line with mercury is that we’re all in this together and it’s going to take
everybody reducing their sources to take care of the problem.”
Taking care of the problem is going to take some money, and that will mean we’ll all pay in
higher utility bills. The Illinois EPA’s Doug Scott says it’ll be worth it if we can reduce
mercury exposure to people.
“We know what the issue is. It’s not a matter of us not understanding the connection
between mercury and what happens in fish, and then what happens in humans as a result
of that. We understand that. We know it, and we also know to a great degree what we
can do to try to correct the problem, and so, it’s a matter of just going out and doing it,
and so I’d like to think it’s something that can be done sooner rather than later.”
And since Great Lakes fish have elevated levels of mercury, sooner would be good.
It’ll take a while for the mercury already there to work its way out of the ecosystem and
return to more normal levels.
Every year companies have to file a report with the Environmental Protection Agency on the toxic chemicals they release into the air, water, or ground. This information is made available to the public. And proponents say this database has led to the cleanup of countless facilities. Now, the EPA says it wants to cut back on the amount of information gathered. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
Every year companies have to file a report with the Environmental
Protection Agency on the toxic chemicals they release into the air,
water, or ground. This information is made available to the public, and
proponents say this database has led to the clean-up of countless
facilities. Now, the EPA says it wants to cut back on the amount of
information gathered. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush
has more:
The EPA says it wants to make things easier on companies that are
required to file yearly reports on the toxic chemicals they work with.
Instead of filing a report every year, officials say they want companies to
file a report every other year.
Dr. Michael Harbut heads up the Center for Occupational and
Environmental Medicine in southeast Michigan. He says
epidemiologists rely on the annual reports for research into human
diseases:
“What’s being proposed here is a marked reduction in the data available
to persons who are involved in the fight against cancer, and to persons
who are involved in the fight against the most common killers in the
United States; heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes.”
EPA officials say having companies report every other year will help
improve data quality, and will allow them to conduct more analysis
on the data that’s submitted.
For the GLRC, I’m Mark Brush.
Host Tag: The EPA will take public comments on the proposed changes
until January 13th.
Coal fired power plants use chemical scrubbers in their
smokestacks to reduce pollution. Now researchers are working on
ways to re-use what’s scrubbed out of the stacks. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight has more:
Transcript
Coal fired power plants use chemical scrubbers in their smokestacks to
reduce pollution. Now researchers are working on ways to re-use what’s
scrubbed out of the stacks. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight
has more:
Warren Dick is a soil scientist at Ohio State University. He’s been
studying synthetic gypsum, which comes from coal-fired power plants that
use scrubbers to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. While nobody wants sulfur
in the air we breathe, Dick says it is often needed by farmers for some of
their crops.
“Sulfur is one of five or six major plant nutrients that are required for good
plant growth, and our soils are becoming deficient in sulfur. We’re not
getting it out of the atmosphere as much anymore.”
Dick’s research shows crops do better using synthetic gypsum as a sulfur
fertilizer. Coal is burned to generate more than half of the electricity in
the U.S., but it results in approximately 120 million tons of waste
each year, and Dick says the tonnage is likely to increase as
additional clean air measures are imposed.
Some say that the use of air-friendly gas blends causes prices to increase. (Photo by Pam Roth)
The new energy legislation passed by Congress
includes an item that supporters claim will ease spikes in gasoline prices. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
The new energy legislation signed by the President includes an item that supporters claim will ease spikes in gasoline prices. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Critics claim the system of using special gasoline blends to reduce air
pollution has led to sizable price hikes when production problems reduce
supplies of the so-called boutique fuels.
The energy legislation would allow the temporary lifting of cleaner fuel mandates during supply disruptions. The EPA would also limit the number of boutique fuels and look for ways to
make the blends more widely available.
Wisconsin Republican House Member Paul Ryan says the new plan will bring stability.
“So we can standardize our gasoline blends, maintain our clean air standards, but stabilize the supply of gasoline.”
Ryan admits it may take several years for motorists to see any savings. Democrats worried about air pollution and oil companies concerned about additional regulations have traditionally blocked changes in the fuel supply system, but with gas prices around two fifty a gallon, the federal
government is taking action.
Particulate matter is an air pollution problem the EPA is trying to reduce. (Photo courtesy of the National Park Service)
Federal regulators are looking at two plans for reducing the amount of soot in the air. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports, public health advocates say tougher regulations would prevent thousands of premature deaths from heart and lung disease:
Transcript
Federal regulators are looking at two plans for reducing the
amount of soot in the air. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah
Hulett reports, public health advocates say tougher regulations would
prevent thousands of premature deaths from heart and lung disease.
One of the plans would cut the amount of pollution in a 24-hour period by more than half. A second plan would allow a little more soot each day, but it would cut the total amount allowed each year. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson is expected to make a make a choice between the two plans by the end of the year.
EPA researchers looked at the links between air pollution and premature death in nine U.S. cities. Janice Nolen is the director of national policy for the American Lung Association.
“In those nine cities they were estimating that each year, about five thousand people died of particle pollution, where the standards are right now.”
Nolen says the standards EPA is considering would greatly reduce those deaths. The new standards would take effect in the fall of 2006.
For some, a ceiling fan just isn't enough to cool down. (Photo by Tarrer
Pace)
As the hot weather settles in, air conditioners are being wedged into windows everywhere. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly usually tries not to use one. But she finds as the temperatures rise, her concerns for the environment evaporate:
Transcript
As the hot weather settles in, air conditioners are
being wedged into windows everywhere. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Karen Kelly usually tries not to use one. But
she finds as the temperatures rise, her concerns for the
environment evaporate.
Every year – late spring – I start my annual denial of the fact that I need air conditioning.
The problem is, I really relate to the people who wave it away and say, all you need is a ceiling fan and nice cold glass of water.
Like my friend Ross, who has no air conditioning on the job as a home renovator, and no air conditioner at home, either.
“Well, it’s not really anything ethical. I just find that recycled air, it sort of smells bad. And I would prefer breathing steamy but clean air to cooled but stale air.”
Ross is one of those people who thinks it’s silly to use air conditioning where we live, which is in Ottawa, Canada. I mean, come on, we might only have a couple of weeks of hot weather. And in the beginning, I try to do without.
I have fans. I drink iced lattes. I take cool baths.
But the truth is, I can’t take it. My brain just stops functioning properly. Like the time my husband came home to find me trying to work at the computer in tears, because I was so hot. Meanwhile, the air conditioner is in the window, but I was refusing to turn it on.
Part of it is that I’m worried about the impact on the environment. I talked to Corey Diamond at the Clean Air Foundation in Toronto and asked him how bad is air conditioning really?
He agreed it uses a lot of electricity, but even worse, he says we’re all using it at the same time.
“Everybody sort of comes home at five o’clock, turns on their air conditioning, and we get to a point where the electricity grid is at the peak demand that it can access. What ends up happening is when people are demanding more power, they have to use as much coal as they can to meet that demand.”
And that means more pollution, which leads to smog, health problems and maybe even climate change.
Despite that, I recently decided I had to have air conditioning in my car – both for my own comfort and the safety of other drivers.
I tend to get disoriented in the heat. I usually relied on a bottle of ice water between my knees and the windows wide open. About an hour later, I’d be taking the wrong exit off the highway.
So, I recently took my 1990 Honda Accord into the shop to find out if they could fix it. I was prepared to spend a few hundred dollars, maybe more. Then they call back with a quote of one thousand eight hundred dollars.
That’s probably more than my car is worth. The guy on the phone says at that price, he won’t let me get it fixed, even if I want to. So the car is out of the question. But at home, the heat creeps into my living room, and the temptation becomes too great.
Third day of plus 85 temperatures… What more do I have to say?
(Sound of air conditioning)
My 18 month old daughter stands in front of the air conditioner. She reaches her arms towards it. She basks in its coolness.
“How does that feel? Good… good…good!”
I’ve given in to my weaker self. But I’m still determined to use the air conditioner sparingly.
Corey Diamond at the Clean Air Foundation gave me a bunch of ideas on how to do that.
“Keep the blinds drawn during the day. You want to install some ceiling fans if you have some. And lastly, you can add a timer to your air conditioner. You sort of set it to come on at four o’clock and if you get home at five o’clock from work, your house is cool, but it hasn’t been cooled all day.”
At first, Diamond’s group tried to get people to stop using air conditioning. That didn’t work. So they switched gears. They started a program in Toronto where you can trade in your old, inefficient air conditioner for a rebate on a new one. Diamond says the newer ones use as much as 70 percent less electricity.
So as I sit here, telling you this story, I have a new air conditioner with an Energy Star sticker on it.
Which means either the Canadian or American government deemed it more efficient. I do kind of feel like I’m working in a wind tunnel. And I miss the sounds of the birds and squirrels outside my window. But yet, I feel comfortable.
Now I’m reluctant to turn the air conditioner off.
Ontario is trying to fight air pollution, but is calling for action on the U.S. side to help. (Photo by John Hornak)
A government study released by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment confirms what Canadian officials have long suspected that the majority of Ontario’s air pollution comes from U.S. sources. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Cwiek reports:
Transcript
A government study released by the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment confirms what Canadian officials have long suspected:
that the majority of Ontario’s air pollution comes from U.S. sources.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Cwiek reports:
The study found that more than half of Ontario’s air
pollution originates in the U.S. The study’s authors say air
pollution flows across the border in both directions, but the
predominant flow is from the U.S. into Canada.
Arthur
Chamberlain is spokesperson for the Ontario Environment
Ministry. He says southern Ontario feels the greatest impact.
“There’s a fairly wide regional impact. Obviously, it’s a
greater issue particularly in the Windsor area because it’s
closer to Detroit. In Toronto, being a larger city, probably
only about half of the pollution that we would have on a bad
pollution day would be transboundary pollution.”
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty recently hosted a conference
in Toronto promoting transnational efforts to improve Great
Lakes air quality.
McGuinty says the province is currently
taking aggressive steps to combat air pollution, but stresses
action on the U.S. side is vital as well.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Sarah Cwiek.
A catalytic converter may be on its way to a lawn mower near you. (Photo by Karen Trilford)
Small gasoline engines—including those on lawnmowers and weed trimmers— are a major source of air pollution. But one Republican lawmaker says more testing is needed to ensure that proposed emission controls for the engines are safe. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Matt Sepic reports:
Transcript
Small gasoline engines, including those on lawnmowers and weed trimmers, are a
major source of air pollution. But one Republican lawmaker says more testing
is needed to ensure that proposed emission controls for the engines are
safe. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Matt Sepic reports:
Air quality advocates want the federal government to require catalytic
converters be put on all new small engines.
However, Missouri Republican Senator Kit Bond wants a safety study first. He
says extra heat from the devices could be a fire hazard. But William Becker, who heads a group of local and regional air quality officials, says that’s just a stalling tactic.
“Both California and the Environmental Protection Agency have done a lot of testing. And they show that engines with catalysts are no hotter than engines without catalysts. The issue of safety is really bogus.”
Becker says Senator Bond is just trying to protect Briggs & Stratton. The
engine maker has two plants in Missouri.
In 2003, Bond also pushed for a measure that blocks all states but
California from imposing small engine pollution regulations that are
stronger than federal rules.
Having a plaque like this on the outside of a building means that the construction, materials, and utilities of the building are eco-friendly. "Green" building has started to increase in popularity. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Green Building Council)
The Chicago skyline as seen on a beautiful day from the roof of the Chicago Center for Green Technology. (Photo courtesy of the City of Chicago, Department of Environment)
Screened by native plants, this cistern is one of four at the Chicago Center for Green Technology collecting over 12,000 gallons of rainwater off of the roof. The water is stored and used to irrigate the
landscape. (Photo courtesy of the City of Chicago, Department of Environment)
Buildings consume 70 percent of the electricity and create
most of the landfill waste in the U.S. Some cities are looking at “green building” methods to lessen the burden on the environment. The mayor of one major city has set “green” standards for all new buildings, using a mix of mandates and incentives. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Robbie Harris reports on the economic tug of war over building green:
Transcript
Buildings consume 70% of the electricity and create most of the landfill waste in the U.S. Some cities are looking at “green building“ methods to lessen the burden on the environment. The mayor of one major city has set “green” standards for all new buildings, using a mix of mandates and incentives. Robbie Harris reports on the economic tug of war over building green.
(sound of PA system)
Last year, the first green police station opened in Chicago. It will use 20% less energy, and 30% less water than a typical police station. It’s built of recycled and locally available materials. But it looks pretty much like the other newer police stations you see around the city. Officer Jeffrey Bella who has worked here since it opened, says most people have no idea this is what’s known as a “high performance green building.”
“…and the fact that nobody talks about it and nobody notices it is pretty much a testament to how well it does work.”
This is the first police station in the country to earn a LEED Silver rating from the US green building council. LEED – that’s L-E–E-D- for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is a rating system that awards points for features such as energy conservation, site usage, indoor air quality, light pollution reduction, even proximity to public transit. Levels range from basic certification to silver, gold and platinum.
Last spring, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley announced every new building built by the city, must meet basic LEED standards. Private developers aren’t required to meet LEED standards but they must meet the less stringent city Energy conservation code.
Even that has the development community concerned about higher costs. The Mayor had this to say at the Building and Design conference in February.
“Here in the city of Chicago we have to really educate architects, and engineers and I mean you talk about challenges, that alone – and contractors- because they look at money. Money is the source of their profession, like any other profession. How much money… developers, engineers, archiects, contractors, and subcontractors …so green technology to them means money, it doesn’t mean the technology that maybe you and I think about.”
Even the mayor wouldn’t dispute that most LEED certified construction costs more up front. Washington D.C. economist Greg Kats puts it at roughly 2 percent more. Kats ran a performance study of 40 LEED-certified buildings around the country and found higher initial costs were offset ten fold by a variety of benefits.
“And those benefits pay back very quickly in the form of lower energy costs, lower water costs lower operations and maintenance costs, better building operations. And frankly, people are more happy, they’re more productive, kids’ test scores go up, asthma and allergy problem, which is a real concern for a lot of parents like me, tend to go away in green builings.”
On February 14th, one of the city’ largest real estate firms, LR Developers broke ground on what will be the first LEED-certified luxury high rise in Chicago. LR’s Kerry Dixon says, they built green to differentiate themselves in the luxury condo market, and although they’re not required to be LEED certified, they knew it would please the Mayor. But Dixon says it hasn’t exactly been an important selling point.
“We’re not getting feedback from the marketing and sales staff that yeah, everbody’s interested in it.”
If most condo-buyers are not showing much interest in green buildings, more and more large corporations that want to project greener images are.
“We are one of the nation’s largest energy producers. We are by far the nation’s larger operator of nuclear power plants. Some love us for that, and some are skeptical because of that.”
John Rowe is the CEO and chairman of Exelon. The company is looking to consolidate 3 corporate offices into one location and Rowe was fascinated with the idea of building a new green headquarters.
“But it basically worked out so that it would probably be cheaper. And that if we worked on being green we could probably get just as much credit for using an existing building as a new one.”
That’s because the U.S. Green Building Council also certifies commercial interiors. When it’s finished in 2007 Rowe is confident Exelon’s new corporate headquarters will qualify for LEED’s silver rating. He’s hoping it even makes gold.
For now, the Daley administration has chosen to LEED by example – and hope the private sector follows.
