EPA Finds that Carbon Dioxide Endangers Public Health April 17, 2009

The EPA has finally issued its findings (albeit proposed at this point) that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.  This is the first step on the road to regulating carbon dioxide emissions, however the EPA says that no regulations are being proposed at this time. 

 

This is a long time coming.  It’s especially nice to see science’s prominent role returned to EPA’s decision-making process.  The press release says it all:

 

“EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.”

 

While this is certainly only a first step—and I expect some dramatic fights when draft regulations are proposed—it is a very good and important first step.  

Our Nuclear Future? March 19, 2009

With no apparent intentional irony, Reuters today published two news briefs close together on their website, both of which involved nuclear power.  I don’t have a screenshot, but they appeared side-by-side this morning (March 18).  The first said that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expecting to receive numerous requests to build new nuclear reactors across the United States.  After Obama was elected, I expected to see an increased push toward nuclear power.  After all, nuclear is one of the cleanest sources of large amounts of electricity.  The carbon emissions are low and the electricity output is high.  Other sources of renewable energy might be cleaner and greener overall, but no other alternative source of power comes close to contributing as much power as does nuclear. 

Of course, there are drawbacks with nuclear power.  The obvious is the catastrophic consequences when the reactors fail.  And that was the subject of the second news item from Reuters.  It described a study that was recently conducted of the animal populations in the Chernobyl area more than 20 years after the famous meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear plant.  The study found that animal populations, across species, were far lower than was believed.  So, even after the passing of so much time, the effects of the disaster are still very much apparent. 

These news pieces highlight my own indecisions about nuclear power.  On the one hand, I recognize that our need for large volume electricity must be met, even in the short term, with some source of power that is (much) cleaner than coal and that in the history of nuclear power, meltdowns have been few.  However, when those catastrophes occur, they are devastating.  And, of course, there are other issues, like where to store the nuclear waste and the negative effects on aquatic ecosystems of dumping out huge amounts of super-heated water from the reactors into marine environments.  At least until other sources of renewable power can produce the amount of electricity to match nuclear, it really is a question of how much risk we as a society are willing to accept to power our lives.  

Bush Ordered Air Quality Standards to be Weakened March 14, 2008

This week, the EPA announced new air quality standards at levels higher than what its expert scientific panel advised is safe for the public.  That action alone rightly drew plenty of criticism.  Now reports are circulating that the EPA was planning to go forward with a lower air quality level than what it officially adopted.  At the last minute (literally on the day that the EPA was statutorily required to set new standards), President Bush intervened directly and ordered the new standards to be set at the higher levels. 

The Clean Air Act gave the EPA the authority to set air quality standards because the EPA has the scientific knowledge and resources to determine what level of contaminant emissions is permissible while protecting the public.  President Bush’s interference in this process is an unjustifiable political intrusion into matters that should be decided based on scientific findings.  As former EPA Administrator Carol Browning said, “[The Clean Air Act produces] a moral and ethical commitment that we’re going to let the science tell us what to do.” 

EPA Chief Wants to Alter the Clean Air Act March 14, 2008

The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants Congress to alter the Clean Air Act (CAA) to permit the EPA to take cost and feasibility into consideration in setting air standards designed to protect public health.  Currently, in establishing safe levels of various contaminants emitted into the air, the EPA is only permitted to consider what is required for public health and welfare.  At first blush, taking cost and feasibility into consideration in determining contaminant levels under the CAA seems appropriate.

But permitting cost and feasibility considerations in determining air quality standards pursuant to the CAA will give opponents of clean air standards a statutory defense against attempts to improve air quality in the interests of public health.  Permitting cost and feasibility to be taken into consideration would allow powerful interests to pressure future administrations into keeping air quality standards at high levels, even in the face of scientific evidence showing that those levels are unsafe for the public. 

Smell the Smog… and the Greenwash March 12, 2008

Well, the EPA announced a reduction in the allowable level of air-borne pollutants that cause smog, from 80 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion.  Yet, this new 75 parts per billion level is significantly higher than the 60 to 70 parts per billion the EPA’s own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee unanimously recommended.  In fact, the advisory committee recommended that the level be set at no higher than 70 parts per billion.   So much for the hope that the EPA will take science seriously.