BOULDER, Colorado, October 9, 2008 (ENS) – Wildfires can hike ozone pollution to levels that violate U.S. public health and environmental standards, new research has determined.

The study by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research focused on California wildfires in 2007, finding that they repeatedly caused ground-level ozone to spike to unhealthy levels across a broad area, including much of rural California as well as neighboring Nevada.

Fires worsen ozone levels by releasing nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, which can form ozone near the fire or far downwind as a result of chemical reactions in sunlight.

The study was published today in “Geophysical Research Letters.” It was funded by NASA and by the National Science Foundation, which sponsors NCAR.

Blaze at night on the Panther Fire
in north central California, August 6,
2008. (Photo by Art Gonzales)

“It’s important to understand the health impacts of wildfires,” says NCAR scientist Gabriele Pfister, the lead author. “Ozone can hit unhealthy levels even in places where people don’t see smoke.”

Although scientists have long known that wildfires can affect air quality by emitting particles and gases into the air, there has been little research to quantify the impacts.

The researchers, using a combination of computer models and ground-level measurements, studied intense California wildfires that broke out in September and October of 2007. They found that ozone was three times more likely to violate safe levels when fire plumes blew into a region than when no plumes were present.

At the time of the wildfires, the public health standard for ozone set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was 0.08 parts per million over an eight-hour period.

The EPA has since tightened the standard to 0.075 parts per million. Under the stricter standard, the number of violations would have nearly doubled.

While ozone in the stratosphere benefits life on Earth by blocking ultraviolet radiation from the Sun, ozone in the lower atmosphere can trigger health problems.

These range from coughing and throat irritation to more serious problems, such as aggravation of asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Ground-level ozone pollution also damages crops and other plants.

“Wildfires are expected to worsen in the future, especially as our climate grows warmer,” Pfister says. “But we are only now beginning to understand their potential impacts on people and ecosystems, not only nearby but also potentially far downwind.”

The unhealthy levels of ozone the researchers detected occurred mostly in rural areas. This finding may be a result of the computer modeling, which lacked the fine detail to zoom in on relatively compact urban areas.

But the authors also speculate that wildfire emissions have a greater impact on ozone levels in the countryside than on cities.

They say cities tend to have more nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant that can, at high levels, reduce the efficiency with which ozone is produced or even destroy ozone.

“The impact of wildfires on ozone in suburban and rural areas, far from urban sources of pollution, was quite noticeable,” says NCAR scientist Christine Wiedinmyer, a co-author of the paper.

The paper notes that ozone levels would likely have been even greater except that Santa Ana winds in October blew wildfire plumes over the Pacific Ocean, safely away from populated areas.

To measure the impact of the fires on ozone formation, the researchers used a pair of computer models developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

With the first one, a specialized fire model, they estimated the amount of vegetation burned and resulting emissions of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, and other pollutants.

Those results went into a global air chemistry model that simulated the movement of the emissions and tracked the resulting formation of ozone as the fire plumes spread downwind.

The scientists verified the accuracy of their modeling results by comparing them with ozone measurements from a network of EPA ground stations at various sites in California.

This also allowed them to determine both the number of ozone violations and the extent to which the wildfires contributed to those violations.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

BOULDER, Colorado, October 1, 2008 (ENS) – When pine bark beetles kill trees, scientists believe they may also alter local weather patterns and air quality. For the next four years researchers will study forests from southern Wyoming to northern New Mexico to determine the precise relationship between the beetles, the trees they kill and the atmosphere.

A new international field project, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, is exploring how trees killed by the beetles influence rainfall, temperatures, smog and other aspects of the atmosphere.

“Forests help control the atmosphere, and there’s a big difference between the impacts of a living forest and a dead forest,” says NCAR scientist Alex Guenther, a principal investigator on the project. “With a dead forest, we may get different rainfall patterns, for example.”

Preliminary computer modeling suggests that beetle kill can lead to temporary temperature increases of between two and four degrees Fahrenheit. This is partly because of a lack of foliage to reflect the Sun’s heat back into space.

Beetle kill stimulates trees to release more particles and chemicals into the atmosphere as they try to fight off the insects, Guenther says. This worsens air quality, at least initially, by increasing levels of ground-level ozone and particulate matter.

The mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae, is a species of bark beetle native to the forests of western North America from Mexico to central British Columbia and Alberta.

Forests in Colorado, Wyoming, and South Dakota are experiencing bark beetle epidemics at a historically unprecedented scale, according to the U.S. Forest Service. A plan by the Service to deal with the beetles will log, burn, or spray 104,000 acres of lodgepole pines in the Rocky Mountain Region by 2011.

Researchers from the Canadian Forest Service have studied the relationship between the carbon cycle and forest fires, logging and tree deaths. They conclude that by 2020 the pine beetle outbreak will have released 270 megatonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from Canadian forests.

The NCAR project, known as BEACHON for Bio-hydro-atmosphere interactions of Energy, Aerosols, Carbon, H2O, Organics and Nitrogen, is funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.

BEACHON will allow scientists to gain insights into cloud formation, climate change, and the cycling of gases and particles between the land and the atmosphere, according to Cliff Jacobs, program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric Sciences.

The exchange of gases and particles between the surface and the atmosphere is critical in arid areas such as the western United States. Guenther says even slight changes in precipitation can impact the region.

The red on this map of Wyoming,
Colorado and South Dakota shows
areas of pine bark beetle infestation.
(Map courtesy U.S. Forest Service)

“Here in the western United States, it is particularly important to understand these subtle impacts on precipitation,” Guenther says. “Rain and snow may become even more scarce in the future as the climate changes, and the growing population wants ever more water.”

Researchers will use aircraft as well as towers that reach above the forest canopy to measure emissions at 100 feet above the ground.

Additional data will come from soil and moisture sensors, instruments for gases and tiny particles, radars, and lidars, which are radar-like devices that use light instead of radio waves.

“BEACHON will give us a very comprehensive picture of a forest’s impact on the atmosphere,” Guenther says. “But at this point, we don’t know what the project will reveal. We may end up with more questions than answers.”

Organizations participating in the project include Colorado College, Colorado State University, Cornell University, Texas A&M University, and the universities of Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Washington, as well as the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and universities in Austria, France and Japan.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

DALLAS, Texas, July 3, 2008 (ENS) – With more than $100 million in funding from two state programs, the smoggy air of the Dallas-Fort Worth area has been cleared to the point that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this week announced its proposed approval of the area’s clean air plan.

Tuesday, the regional EPA gathered local and state partners to publicize the fact that Dallas-Fort Worth is the first community with a clean air plan that has been proposed for approval that meets the 8-hour federal health-based standard for ground-level ozone by 2010.

Under the proposed plan, ozone forming pollutants will be reduced by 88 tons per day – about 40 tons more than the plan had first proposed.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Buddy Garcia and EPA Regional Administrator Richard Greene joined with community leaders and businesses within the nine county non-attainment area to strengthen the original plan.

“That work – a result of the North Texas can-do spirit – has moved this clean air plan across the goal line and makes it the first in the nation to gain EPA’s proposal for approval,” Greene said.

The Dallas-Fort Worth area currently does not meet the federal air quality standard for ozone, a harmful air pollutant. Ozone forms when emissions from sources such as vehicles and industry mix with sunlight. On-road and off-road vehicles and equipment make up about 70 percent of the ozone sources in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

The air is clearing over Dallas-Fort
Worth as older, polluting vehicles
are replaced or retrofitted.
(Photo by Luis Tamayo)

The proposed clean air plan will improve air quality by more than 55 percent over 1999 levels, Greene said. The new plan in combination with previous plans will result in a reduction of 409 tons per day of ozone pollution.

“Today’s announcement shows that once again Texas leads the nation in developing and implementing innovative programs that reduce air pollution and improve air quality for all citizens,” said Garcia.

The nine county area in northern Texas that in the past has not attained federal benchmarks even under the old 1-hour ozone standard is now in compliance with that earlier standard through the success of its previous air quality plans, Greene said.

The plan could not have come about without the efforts of local and state partners and over $100 million in funding.

Dallas-Fort Worth has captured more dollars than other areas in the state from the popular voluntary Texas Emission Reduction Plan, known as TERP. In the last six months, the Dallas-Fort Worth area beat out all other areas, two to one, with a record-setting $84 million in applications from the $110 million TERP grant budget.

These funds apply to projects to reduce emissions of smog-forming nitrogen oxides from high-emitting mobile diesel sources; rebate grants for diesel on-road and non-road replacement and repower projects; and the clean school bus program of retrofits to reduce emissions of diesel exhaust, among others.

As much as 14 tons per day of pollution could be cut through the replacement and retrofit of old diesel engines, state and federal officials estimate.

AirCheckTexas brought another $21 million to North Texas to repair and replace older vehicles which typically produce more emissions than newer models.

“From the outset our phones were ringing off the hook. People were very interested in this incentive program,” said Executive Director Mike Eastland who heads the North Central Texas Council of Governments, or NCTCOG. “Within the first hour, we realized that the funding available for these projects was going to be used up very rapidly.”

“North Texas’ success with AirCheckTexas is exactly what we expected,” said Ellis County Judge Chad Adams, immediate past president of the NCTCOG. “When 6.5 million people benefit from an idea, things change. We are seeing a lot of changes in the way North Texas is tackling clean air.”

Other industry sectors also contributed to the area’s clean air effort.

The aviation industry helped by refining estimates of their operations’ pollution emissions. New accurate information allowed EPA and Texas air quality modeling experts to certify pollution reductions totaling almost 10 tons per day from the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport and Love Field.

Power plants in the nine county non-attainment area all are subject to the strictest air pollution controls required for either commercial or municipal power plants in the country.

New regulations on back-up generators used by business and industry provided for some air quality improvements, about one ton per day.

Now, the Dallas-Fort Worth clean air plan, referred to as the State Implementation Plan, or SIP, will be published in the Federal Register for public review and comment after July 7.

“Our goal from day one was to encourage everyone to join an effort to bring clean air to the Dallas-Fort Worth area sooner than expected,” said Greene. “Had the SIP not been approvable, it would have resulted in years-long delays in getting the types of pollutant controls now being put in place.”

The EPA says it will consider “all relevant information” submitted during the 30-day comment period and may modify its decision to approve the plan based on new information.

For more information on the Dallas-Fort Worth clean air plan, click here [www.epa.gov].

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, May 28, 2008 (ENS) – Health and environmental advocates filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal to adopt stronger standards for ground-level ozone proposed by the agency’s own scientists.

The American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Appalachian Mountain Club are taking issue with the standards adopted by the federal environment agency in March.

The standards for ozone pollution, one of the components of smog, are not only far weaker than those unanimously recommended by EPA science advisors, but also leave public health and the environment at great risk, the groups contend.

“EPA officials ignored the advice of their own scientists when they chose these deficient standards, but they can’t ignore the law,” said attorney David Baron with the public interest law firm Earthjustice who filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, DC Circuit.

Smog hangs over the city of Atlanta,
Georgia. (Photo credit unknown)

“The Clean Air Act requires EPA to adopt standards strong enough to protect our lungs and our environment. We’re fighting to make sure that happens,” Baron said. “Stronger standards could save thousands of lives, by some estimates.”

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson is already under suspicion of bowing to White House pressure to reject stronger smog standards. Johnson was grilled last week by members of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform who asked why he rejected the advice of scientists in setting the standard.

Before the committee on May 20, Johnson defended his actions and insisted that he was solely responsible for the smog decision. He declined to provide details about his meetings with the president and other White House officials.

“I have routine meetings with the executive branch including the president … those meetings are in confidence,” Johnson told the committee.

Johnson testified beside the head of EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, Dr. Rogene Henderson, who critiqued Johnson’s actions, telling committee members, “Policymakers wandered into science and they did not do it well.”

“Willful ignorance triumphed over sound science,” Henderson told the legislators.

Henderson’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee had recommended that the EPA set the health standard at between 60 and 70 parts of ozone per billion parts of air.

Instead, Johnson and the EPA set the standard at 75 parts per billion.

In their petition for review of the EPA ozone standard, the groups contend that the 75 parts per billion standard leaves asthmatics, young children, the elderly and others at greater risk for lung and heart disease than the standard recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee .

Smog is linked to premature deaths, thousands of emergency room visits, and tens of thousands of asthma attacks each year. Ozone is especially dangerous to small children and senior citizens, who are often warned to stay indoors on polluted days.

Exposures of less than 24 hours to current levels of ground-level ozone in many areas are likely to contribute to premature deaths, according to a National Research Council report published on Earth Day 2008

Evidence of a relationship between exposures of less than 24 hours and mortality has been mounting, but interpretations of the evidence have differed, prompting the EPA to request the Research Council report.

The committee that wrote the report was not asked to consider how evidence has been used by the EPA to set ozone standards, but the evidence is strong enough that the EPA should include ozone-related mortality in health-benefit analyses related to future ozone standards, said the committee.

“Ozone pollution threatens breathing for millions of Americans, especially children, the elderly and people with lung disease including asthma,” said Bernadette Toomey, President and CEO of the American Lung Association. “The EPA’s decision to disregard the overwhelming evidence and the advice of respected experts is a decision that we could not allow to go unchallenged.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, May 21, 2008 (ENS) – The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stonewalled Democratic lawmakers Tuesday, refusing to provide information about the role the White House played in recent agency decisions involving the regulation of greenhouse gases and the finalization of a new federal smog standard. The defiance of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson drew a sharp rebuke from the Democratic chair of the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, who said the EPA chief has repeatedly bowed to pressure from the White House and become “essentially a figurehead.”

“My concern is decisions at EPA are not being made on the science and they are not being made on the law,” said committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat. “They are being made at the White House and they are being made for political reasons.”

Congressman Henry Waxman chairs the House
Oversight and Government Affairs
Committee. (Photo courtesy Office
of the Congressman)

Waxman said senior EPA staff had told Congressional investigators that Johnson reversed course on the smog standard, abandoning a plan to set a secondary standard designed to protect natural ecosystems from ground-level ozone, the key ingredient in smog.

The investigation by Waxman’s committee found that the president weighed in with his opposition to a secondary ozone standard only hours before EPA finalized the new rule on March 12.

The EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, CASAC, had recommended setting such a standard to better protect natural ecosystems from the hazards of smog. Documents show Johnson initially agreed with that recommendation. The final rule did not set a secondary standard.

Waxman also pointed to depositions from agency staff that said Johnson caved to the White House in deciding to reject California’s request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

He criticized the EPA chief for a second global warming decision, pointing to agency documents and testimony that indicate Johnson was prepared to push forward last December with an agency effort to begin exploring how to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, only to abandon the plan due to White House pressure.

“Three times in the last six months you have recommended to the White House that EPA take steps to address climate change and protect the environment,” Waxman told Johnson. “In each case, your positions were right on the science and the law but in each case you backed down.”

Waxman added that Johnson and other administration officials have failed to fill in gaps about how the process for each of the decisions was completed and questioned the legality of the White House’s involvement.

“The president apparently insisted on his judgment and overrode the unanimous recommendations of EPA scientific and legal experts,” he said “Our investigation has not been able to find any evidence that the president based his decisions on the science, the record, or the law. Indeed, there’s virtually no credible record of any kind in support of the decisions.”

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson
(Photo courtesy EPA)

Johnson defended his actions and repeatedly stymied Democrats looking for answers. He insisted that he was solely responsible for the decisions in question and declined to provide details about his meetings with the president and other White House officials.

“I have routine meetings with the executive branch including the president … those meetings are in confidence,” Johnson told the committee.

Under a barrage of questions from New Hampshire Democrat Paul Hodes, Johnson refused to even acknowledge discussing the decisions with president or other White House officials.

“If I did recall, I’m not sure it would be appropriate for me to get into who said what at what time,” Johnson said. “I don’t believe that it is appropriate for me to discuss the nature of those conversations.”

The EPA chief added that disclosing such information would limit his ability to have candid conversations with the White House about policy and regulatory matters.

President George W. Bush stands beside EPA
Administrator Stephen Johnson as
he takes his oath of office, May 23,
2005. (Photo by Paul Morse
courtesy The White House)

Waxman grew visibly frustrated with Johnson during the nearly three hours of questioning.

“It seems to me you are being awfully evasive,” Waxman said. “No one is asking you what you said, but if there was a conversation.”

Johnson didn’t budge, repeating that he has had “routine conversations” with White House officials on many EPA matters.

Republicans on the panel rallied to the Johnson’s defense, questioning the motives behind the hearing and arguing that White House involvement in EPA decisions is neither inappropriate nor rare.

“Yes, there is undue influence … but no one administration has a monopoly on that,” said Representative Brian Bilbray, a California Republican.

The president is entitled by law to be involved in EPA decisions, said California Republican Darrell Issa.

With regard to the ozone standards, Issa said, the president did provide his opinion and “made no pretense” that he did not.

The president’s role “does not reflect any unusual or improper action,” Issa said, adding that setting a secondary standard would do little to further protect wildlife and vegetation.

The EPA chief is not obligated to “simply rubberstamp” CASAC’s advice, Issa said. “By definition recommendations can be rejected.”

But the head of CASAC, Dr. Rogene Henderson, and Democrats on the panel said they wanted to know the reasoning behind the decision and why Johnson gave in to the White House.

The advice that appears to be trumping CASAC “is not transparent,” Henderson told the committee. “Willful ignorance triumphed over sound science.”

Johnson replied that he made the decision “based on all the science before me” and praised the transparency of the process.

“This is good government,” he said.

The EPA chief took issue with the report that he had initially supported partially granting the California waiver, saying he had considered a wide range of “legally defensible” options before denying the request.

“I evaluated all options,” Johnson said.

He also told the committee that EPA does intend to move forward with a preliminary notice for options for regulating greenhouse gases next month.

But Johnson said lawmakers should develop a new law to tackle carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, rather than relying on the Clean Air Act, which he contends is poorly designed to tackle the concern.

“A legislative fix is a much better approach to working with the intricacies of the Clean Air Act and the likely litigation that would ensue,” he said.

That comment drew another rebuke from the committee chair.

“Even if you’d like another law you have to enforce the law that is there,” Waxman said.

The California Democrat told Johnson he would continue to push for additional documents and information about the three decisions.

“You are trying to shield the White House from reasonable oversight,” Waxman said. “Unless you assert executive privilege … we expect compliance with the subpoenas.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, April 22, 2008 (ENS) – Exposures of less than 24 hours to current levels of ground-level ozone in many areas are likely to contribute to premature deaths, finds a new National Research Council report.

Ozone, a key component of smog, can cause respiratory problems and other health effects. In addition, evidence of a relationship between exposures of less than 24 hours and mortality has been mounting, but interpretations of the evidence have differed, prompting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to request the Research Council report.

The committee that wrote the report was not asked to consider how evidence has been used by the EPA to set ozone standards, including the new public health standard set by the agency last month.

But the evidence is strong enough that the EPA should include ozone-related mortality in health-benefit analyses related to future ozone standards, says the committee, which is chaired by John C. Bailar III, professor emeritus, Department of Health Studies at the University of Chicago.

In addition to scientists specializing in environment, public health, and statistics and from across the United States, the committee includes scientists from Canada and Spain.

A blanket of smog hangs over Los Angeles, California. March 2007 (Photo by Jim Zellmer)

Based on a review of recent research, the committee found that deaths related to ozone exposure are more likely among people with pre-existing diseases and other factors that could increase their susceptibility. But, the committee said, premature deaths are not limited to people who are already within a few days of dying.

The EPA asked the committee to analyze the ozone-mortality link and assess methods for assigning a monetary value to lives saved for the health-benefits assessments.

Like other federal agencies, the EPA is required to carry out a cost-benefit analysis on mitigation actions that cost more than $100 million per year.

The EPA recently used the results of population studies to estimate the number of premature deaths that would be avoided by expected ozone reductions for different policy choices, and then assigned a monetary value to the avoided deaths by using the value of a statistical life, VSL.

The VSL is derived from studies of adults who indicate the “price” that they would be willing to pay – that is, what benefits or conveniences someone would be willing to forgo – to change their risk of death in a given period by a small amount.

The monetary value of the improved health outcome, or VSL, is based on the value the group places on receiving the health benefit; it is not the value selected by policymakers or experts.

The EPA applies the VSL to all lives saved regardless of the age or health status, so a person who is 80 years old in poor health is estimated to have the same value of a statistical life as a healthy two-year-old.

To determine if an approach that accounts for differences in remaining life expectancy could be supported scientifically, the EPA asked the committee to examine the value of extending life.

For example, EPA could calculate VSL to estimate the value of remaining life, so a two-year-old would have a higher VSL than an 80-year-old.

It is plausible that people with shorter remaining life expectancy would be willing to devote fewer resources to reducing their risk of premature death than those with longer remaining life expectancy.

By contrast, if the condition causing the shortened life expectancy could be improved and an acceptable quality of life can be preserved or restored, people may put a high value on extending life, even if they have other health impairments or are elderly.

The committee concluded that EPA should not adjust the value of a statistical life because current evidence is not sufficient to determine how the value might change according to differences in remaining life expectancy and health status.

However, the committee did not reject the idea that such adjustments may be appropriate in the future.

The committee examined research based on large population groups to find out if there is a threshold – a concentration of ozone below which exposure poses no risk of death. The committee concluded that if a threshold exists, it is probably at a concentration below the current public health standard.

“Even in many areas EPA currently considers safe, the science clearly shows that the air is too often dangerous to breathe, particularly for those with lung disease,” said American Lung Association Chair Terri Weaver last May when releasing the association’s annual ranking of air pollution in U.S. cities.

“The good news is that there’s less ozone everywhere. Yet, we remain concerned because the science shows that millions are still at risk from ozone that exceeds acceptable levels,” Dr. Weaver said.

“Breathing ozone smog threatens serious health risks, including new evidence that links it to premature death,” she said. “We’re calling on EPA to set new standards for ozone at levels that would protect public health as the Clean Air Act requires.”

As people have individual susceptibilities to ozone exposure, not everyone may experience an altered risk of death if ozone air concentration changes, the committee said in today’s report.

Further research should explore how personal thresholds may vary and the extent to which they depend on a person’s frailty, the committee said.

The research on short-term exposure does not account for all ozone-related mortality, and the estimated risk of death may be greater than if based solely on these studies, the committee noted.

To better understand all the possible connections between ozone and mortality, future research should address whether exposure for more than 24 hours and long-term exposure – weeks to years – are associated with mortality, including how ozone exposure could impact life expectancy.

For example, deaths related to short-term exposure may not occur until several days afterward or may be associated with multiple short-term exposures, the committee said.

The EPA was advised to monitor ozone during the winter months when it is low and in communities with warmer and cooler winters to better understand seasonal and regional differences in risk.

The committee said further research also could look at how other pollutants, such as airborne particulate matter, may affect ozone and mortality risk.

The report, “Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution,” is available from the National Academies Press at: http://www.nap.edu

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, March 12, 2008 (ENS) – The Bush administration has tightened federal air quality standards for smog-forming ozone, but not to the extent recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific advisers. The decision was met with dismay by state and local air quality officials, public health advocates and environmental groups, who contend the new rules fail to adequately protect the public or the environment from the serious health hazards of smog.

The head of the EPA defended his decision during a press call Wednesday, telling reporters he analyzed “the most recent scientific evidence” about the health and environmental impacts of ozone before making his decision.

“The bottom line is … I adhered to the law and I adhered to the science,” said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

The rules, which cover average concentrations of ground-level ozone over an eight-hour period, lower the current standard of 80-84 parts per billion, ppb, to 75 ppb.

A band of smog hangs over Los Angeles. (Photo credit unknown)

Ozone is formed in the presence of sunlight by reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. These pollutants are released by motor vehicles, power plants and other industrial facilities.

Linked to a slew of respiratory ailments, ground-level ozone – the main ingredient in smog – has major public health impacts and can damage ecosystems even at low levels.

Johnson told reporters that since EPA last updated the standards in 1997, scientific studies have indicated that the health impacts from ozone “are more significant and more certain than we previously thought.”

But critics remained unconvinced that Johnson has followed the science.

“EPA’s new standard is like lowering the speed limit in a neighborhood from 85 miles per hour to 75,” said John Walke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Clean Air Program. “Sure, it’s better, but it still won’t get the job done in keeping folks safe.

Walke and other critics note that EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended a stricter standard.

The committee sent a letter to Johnson last year outlining its “unanimous recommendation” that the standard be set “no greater” than 70 ppb and suggested it could be set as low as 60 ppb.

That recommendation was echoed by an EPA children’s health advisory panel, as well as more than 100 scientists and a long list of public health advocacy groups and environmental organizations.

“We wish we could be happier about this decision, but we cannot,” said Bernadette Toomey, head of the American Lung Association. “We are unable to celebrate half measures when the risks are so evident, when the science and the scientists are so united about what is needed and when the missed opportunity means that thousands will suffer more and die sooner than they should.”

The agency also refused to set a separate standard, recommended by the science advisers and the National Park Service, to protect natural ecosystems from the impacts of smog.

When pressed on what weight he gave the recommendations of EPA’s science advisers, Johnson repeatedly stated that his final decision complied with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Atlanta steeped in smog
(Photo by Ben Ramsay)

The law requires EPA to review air quality standards for several pollutants, including ozone, every five years. EPA is bound by the statute to determine the standards based solely on the scientific knowledge of impacts on public health – it is not permitted to consider economic impacts.

The law requires the EPA administrator “protect public health with an adequate margin of safety,” Johnson said. “I followed my obligations.”

Industry groups and governors from at least 11 states lobbied against the changes, arguing that new rules are too costly and the health impacts of the stricter standards questionable.

“EPA is promising health benefits that people may never receive, even though they’ll end up paying for them at the pump and through higher energy bills,” said John Kinsman, spokesman for the Edison Electric Group, an electric utility lobbying group.

At least 345 counties do not meet the new standard and could be forced to take measures to cut emissions of smog-forming pollutants.

Johnson acknowledged that it would take years for the rules to truly enter into effect. EPA won’t determine which areas are officially not in compliance until 2010. Counties out of attainment with the rules will then have at least three years to develop plans to cut smog and could have up to two decades to make the reductions, the EPA chief told reporters.

EPA estimates the new rules could cost some $7.6 to $8.5 billion. Health benefits could range between $2 billion and $19 billion, according to agency estimates.

Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, said the rules would require relatively few areas of the country to take additional smog cleanup steps beyond those already planned.

“Unfortunately, real science appears to have been tainted by political science,” O’Donnell said. “The Bush administration is compromising public health to save industry money.”

Johnson rejected claims that he considered economic costs when making his decision, but added that the Bush administration is keen to see the Clean Air Act changed so that future decisions can take into account the economic impacts and feasibility of more stringent air quality standards.

“It is time to modernize the Clean Air Act to improve human health,” Johnson said. “We have a responsibility to overhaul and enhance … to ensure it translates from paper promises to cleaner air.”

Democrats in Congress were quick to throw cold water on the administration’s call for an overhaul of the law.

The idea is “outrageous,” said Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat and chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

OSLO, Norway, March 6, 2008 (ENS) – Solving four major environmental problems – climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, and the health impacts of pollution and toxics – is both achievable and affordable, finds a new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, which includes 30 countries committed to democracy and the market economy.

The 2008 OECD Environmental Outlook marries economic and environmental projections through 2030 and offers specific policies to address these challenges.

Angel Gurria of Mexico is
Secretary General of
the OECD. (Photo
courtesy OECD)

“Solutions to the key environmental challenges are available, achievable and affordable, especially when compared to the expected economic growth and the costs and consequences of inaction,” OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria said at the worldwide launch of the report in Oslo, hosted by Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.

“The Outlook is an impressive body of work. It combines hope for the future with an urgent call for action today. It offers important guidance for decision-makers and integrates economic and environmental analysis,” said Prime Minister Stoltenberg.

Economic-environmental projections show that global greenhouse gas emissions are expected to grow by 37 percent to 2030 and by 52 percent to 2050 if no new policy action is introduced.

To meet increasing demands for food and biofuels, world agricultural land use will need to expand by an estimated 10 percent to 2030, the report projects.

Water scarcity will worsen due to unsustainable use and management of the resource as well as climate change until one billion more people will be living in areas of severe water stress by 2030 than today, the OECD warns.

Premature deaths caused by ground-level ozone worldwide would quadruple by 2030, and in addition the report says, chemical production volumes in non-OECD countries are rapidly increasing, and there is insufficient information to fully assess the risks of chemicals in the environment and in products.

Drought has ruined this corn crop
(Photo courtesy Fullerton College)

A considerable number of today’s known animal and plant species are likely to be extinct, largely due to expanding infrastructure and agriculture, as well as climate change, the report warns, saying, “Continued loss of biodiversity is likely to limit the Earth’s capacity to provide the valuable ecosystem services that support economic growth and human well-being.”

“Countries will need to shift the structure of their economies in order to move towards a low carbon, greener and more sustainable future. The costs of this restructuring are affordable, but the transition will need to be managed carefully to address social and competitiveness impacts, and to take advantage of new opportunities,” said Secretary-General Gurría.

The 2008 OECD Environmental Outlook projects that world GDP will almost double by 2030.

The OECD policy simulation shows that it would cost just over one percent of that growth to implement policies that can cut key air pollutants by about a third, and contain greenhouse gas emissions to about 12 percent instead of 37 percent growth under the scenario without new policies.

To keep the costs of action low, the OECD recommends using economic and market-based instruments such as green taxes, efficient water pricing, emissions trading, polluter pay systems, and waste charges.

The elimination of environmentally harmful subsidies for fossil fuels and agriculture is also recommended.

In addition, more stringent regulations and standards for transport and building construction, investment in research and development, sectoral and voluntary approaches, as well as eco-labelling and information are also needed, the OECD advises.

Meltwater stream flowing off the Greenland ice sheet (Photo by Roger Braithwaite, University of Manchester courtesy NASA)

Technological developments will contribute to the solutions but Gurría said the generalized application of breakthrough technologies poses important challenges in the area of intellectual property rights which will have to be confronted.

The Outlook identifies ways to share the cost of policy action globally.

Developed nations have been responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions to date, but rapid economic growth in emerging economies – particularly Brazil, Russia, India and China – means that by 2030 the annual emissions of these four countries together will exceed those of the 30 OECD countries combined.

“Fair burden-sharing and distributional aspects will be as important as technological progress and the choice of policy instruments,” the OECD says in its report.

“While OECD countries should take the lead, further co-operation with a wider group of emerging economies, the “BRIICS” countries (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China and South Africa) in particular, can achieve common environmental goals at lower costs,” the report states.

“We must be aware that getting it right in the field of the environment is not only about what to do and how to do it. We also need to address the question of who will pay for what,” Gurría said. “The global cost of action will be much lower if all countries work together.”

Highlights of the report are online at: www.oecd.org/environment/outlookto2030.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, January 10, 2008 (ENS) – In its largest consumer product settlement ever, the California Air Resources Board has fined Ace Hardware $850,000 for selling windshield washer fluid in stores throughout the state that failed to meet California air emissions requirements.

ARB cited the hardware chain for selling windshield fluid that was specially formulated with higher pollutants to prevent from freezing in the state’s colder, mountainous areas.

Windshield wiper fluid is the only consumer product in California that has two permissible limits for volatile organic compounds. All other consumer products have only one limit they must meet to be sold throughout the state.

In colder areas of the state, California
allows higher amounts of VOCs in
washer fluid. (Photo courtesy DMV
Clinic)

From 2003 to 2007, Ace Hardware sold nearly 25,000 one-gallon containers of washer fluid with higher volatile organic compound content in areas of the state where it was not allowed, resulting in more than 20 tons of excess emissions, according to the Air Resources Board, ARB.

Volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, react with other pollutants and sunlight in the atmosphere to form ground-level ozone and particulate matter, the main ingredients in smog. Both pollutants can worsen asthma as well as respiratory and cardiovascular ailments.

Ace Hardware was cited previously by the Air Resources Board in 2005 for selling wiper fluid, resulting in a $40,000 settlement.

“We will continue our aggressive consumer products program to protect Californians from harmful emissions,” said ARB Chairman Mary Nichols. “This sizable settlement underscores our commitment to pursuing offenders who don’t follow through and correct problems.”

The ARB’s Consumer Products Regulation specifies different VOC limits for automotive windshield wiper fluid in California, depending on the climate of the region.

The limit is 35 percent VOC by weight for mountainous areas that are subject to low freezing temperatures, and one percent VOC for everywhere else in the state. The higher limit is permitted in the coldest areas of the state because more VOCs are needed to keep the fluid from freezing.

“By selling cold weather wiper fluid in all areas of the state, Ace Hardware needlessly sent 20 tons of smog and soot-forming emissions into our imperiled skies,” said Nichols.

The ARB’s Consumer Products Program, which discovered the violations in November 2006, works to reduce the amount of VOCs emitted from the use of chemically formulated consumer products in homes and institutions. This vast product category includes detergents, cosmetics, disinfectants, and automotive specialty items, as well as lawn and garden products.

All settlement monies are paid to the California Air Pollution Control Fund, which was established to mitigate sources of pollution through education and the advancement and use of cleaner technology.

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.