Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Virginia Air: Less than Pure but Pretty Darn Clean

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

particulates

Ambient air pollution caused an estimated 3.7 million deaths worldwide in 2012, according to a recent report by the World Health Organization (WHO), while household air pollution, typically smoke from the use of coal, wood and dung in home cooking and heating, resulted in 4.3 million more.

There are four main categories of air pollution, including ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide but the deadliest is particulate matter, a complex mix of solid and liquid particles. The deadliest of these are the smallest ones, 1o microns in diameter or less. In March WHO published a database tracking the levels of sub-10 micron particulates in the ambient air of 1,600 cities around the world.

The cleanest cities in the world (with the lowest levels of particulates) would come as no surprise to those who follow the political geography of environmentalism. For the most part, they are Nordic or English-speaking countries, with Iceland, Canada and Australia at the top. The United States ranks 15th in the world (tied with Norway and the Maldives) but U.S. cities vary considerably in the cleanliness of their air. Despite being downwind from coal-fired power plants, Virginia cities are cleaner than the U.S. average. They may not be up to Icelandic standards — the country runs on geothermal energy — but they’re Gardens of Eden compared to major cities in India, China and the country with the worst particulate pollution in the world, Pakistan.

To peruse the WHO database, click here.

Bacon’s bottom line: Particulates are only one measure of air pollution but they are arguably the most important when it comes to public health. By this measure, Virginia cities are among the cleanest in the world. That’s not to say we’ve got the air pollution problem licked — ozone is still an issue — but when it comes to allocating resources, we probably can get a lot more bang for our buck concentrating on water quality, which is distressingly poor in the Old Dominion.

— JAB

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

41 responses to “Virginia Air: Less than Pure but Pretty Darn Clean”

  1. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Interesting. How does one talk about the good news about much lower particulate matter pollution in the US – without talking about the EPA – and that would include why we, even with that nasty “regulation” still are 15th in the world?

    Rick Perry of Texas promised to get rid of the EPA if he was elected as did New Gingrich and others.

    In fact , I’d bet that the list of GOP that would gut the EPA if they could, far, far, outnumbers GOP defenders of the EPA.

    My two cents worth – if we are going to entitle something that says:

    Virginia Air: Less than Pure but Pretty Darn Clean

    wouldn’t it be good to mention the EPA and their role in this country having less particulate pollution- and the fact that most GOP would gladly gut the EPA if they could?

    WHO does not regulate – it only reports data, right?

  2. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ” George Will: Incandescent light bulb has ‘no effect whatever on the planet’”

    “The EPA Furthers the Carbon Tax Agenda with Deadly Human Experiments –

    Our friends and protectors at the Environmental Deception Protection Agency are so adamant about protecting us from air pollution that they are conducting dangerous experiments on human beings, some of them children.

    Just to emphasize the importance of your soon-to-be-due carbon taxes, the EPA exposed vulnerable members of our population to deadly pollutants: the elderly, people with chronic health problems, and children. What’s more – they never warned those participating in the study that the toxins they would be exposed to carried with them the risk of cancer and death.

    The website JunkScience.com first called out the EPA for their unethical experiments back in February of last year, when the EPA scrubbed their site of information regarding the unethical particulate experiment on children. (You can read their report HERE.) This week, JunkScience went even further with their exposure of the twisted experiments:

    Let’s see if we can summarize the human experiments scandal.

    I have an ongoing effort, along with many others to do battle with the EPA on air pollution research that violates scientific rules on how to prove causation.

    Milloy and I found out the EPA was doing human experiments under the radar exposing subjects to what EPA said was lethal and toxic, even carcinogenic air pollution.

    Here’s where we are in 2014:

    Either the EPA is sponsoring horrific human experiments, or they are lying to the Congress about the toxicity of air pollution.”

    and this is just a mild snippet of what you’ll find if you do a cursory search for the keywords EPA and “particulate matter pollution”.

    you can “juice” of the search even more if you add the term “Agenda 21”.

    so where exactly did reductions of particulate matter pollution come from in the US? Did we need the EPA to have these reductions or is the EPA “lying” about the dangers of particulate matter pollution?

    I just it’s kind of weird to brag on how clean Virgina’s air is and not attribute it at least partially to the EPA’s long battle to regulate it with the GOP and anti-science folks fighting them every inch of the way – and it continues.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Larry, You can engage in rhetorical battles with Republicans, if you’d like. As for me, I’ve always said that regulation is justified when it comes to protecting the public health and safety. So, it’s no stretch for me to point out with some pride that we have pretty darn clean air here in Virginia.

      That said, I do agree that regulators are sometimes guilty of over-reach and that they often impose regulations whose costs vastly exceed their benefits. Reasonable people can have conversations about the social return on investment of a particular set of regs.

      1. Tysons Engineer Avatar
        Tysons Engineer

        We could get even cleaner air if we helped economically incentivize Dominion to switch from coal to renewables through one time credits, since their major hold up is the initial capital costs and their current over capacity. Of course, they want us to give up on net metering in order to do so, so they can be the monopoly on power generation even on a micro level for households. If only if only, till then coal king will continue to be the #1 source of pollution for our great commonwealth, much more than our cars and whatever is left of our manufacturing combined.

      2. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        re: “that said”..

        do you ALSO AGREE that we have clean air IN SPITE OF THE GOP?

        what would our clean air look like if the GOP had their way ?

        You can’t give the EPA credit for the clean air and can only talk about WHO?

  3. Breckinridge Avatar
    Breckinridge

    Having spent much of my youth in southern California in the 50s and 60s, I didn’t need any convincing when the Clear Air Act kicked in and the EPA started its efforts, but please do not dismiss the importance of the changes in motor fuels. Power plants are not the only problem. Tail pipe emissions were and are major contributors, especially from diesel engines. But praising the Clean Air Act (which once enjoyed wide bipartisan support — didn’t Nixon create the EPA?) for the progress we’ve seen does not mean I endorse every effort going forward. NOx, SOx, ozone and particulate matter are real pollutants. CO2 is not a pollutant.

    By the end of Obama’s term the use of coal for electricity will be far below what it was a decade ago, and the trend is clear. Coal will be on the way out for a while, but it is going. The last coal fired plant has been built in the US. In Virginia, for that matter.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      folks can argue about regulation but the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act – both implemented by the EPA have had major and meaningful beneficial impacts to all Americans.

      Can we not credit the EPA for achieving that?

      re: CO2 – think about this – if you had in your house a device that spewed out 3 times as much Co2 as normal – would it worry you?

      If you put 3 times as much nitrogen in a river – would you think it a pollutant even though at normal levels it’s beneficial?

    2. Tysons Engineer Avatar
      Tysons Engineer

      Those same things were said about leaded gas when the oil lobbyists argued there was no scientific proof that it was bad for people to breath in those fumes. Now you are believing the same petro lobbyists that are saying there is no scientific proof that CO2 has 1) increased in the atmosphere and water, something that is literally measured from ice cores but some still don’t believe that we are seeing abnormal growth in the past 50 years for and 2) that the increase C02 is a net increase in atmospheric energy/water temps/and global air temps (which anyone can conduct a simple experiment showing this reality in an enclosed system).

      There is no scientific backing for anyone who says CO2 hasn’t increased at a faster rate in the past 50 years. There is no scientific backing for anyone who says that increased CO2 levels does not create a greenhouse effect which is a reality of this little thing we call chemistry. The only remaining argument is that CO2 being produced by humans is not accountable for that increase and that there is no way to stop that trend.

      Well to that final, evidently remaining argument, I would add that pumping out CO2 without consideration sure as hell isn’t helping that trend no, and there is no other explanation currently available to doubters that the source is from some other explainable natural occurrence. None.

      A rag tag team of petroleum lobbyists are not fighting against big green people, this is the most asinine of all the arguments, that only these 3% of scientists are the ones who stand for reason against all those evil people trying to correct and hold accountable industrial polluters who fought tooth and nail for decades against every other damn pollutant that we have sound science (that even some of you older conservatives evidently now agree) are bad .

      These scientists worked on the studies through multiple administrations, have varying political affiliations, and all stake their reputations on their research putting their asses and lives on the line in harsh climates of this globe so that some suit from Houston can lie to you and tell you, naaaaaaah shit’s fine they are being crazy.

      Sorry, boo hoo, death of coal, we will move on. Even if wrong (they arent though one could atleast debate the severity I supposed), I’d rather have a world that runs on renewable energy than on murderous and greedy coal companies and their cohorts over at OPEC and big petro.

      And now the craziest assertion, look the anticipated rate of increased temperature is slowing in its rate of growth, hizzuh! Well it might have to do with all those higher fuel standards (and decrease in VMT in the US over the past decade), increased spending on renewables, and all the other carbon-balancing proposals that multiple countries (even China) are implementing. This isn’t a defense, it is an outright direct outcome of the decisions we make which only BOLSTER the argument towards sensible approaches to our energy.

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        Scientists and the EPA are evil .. lying to the American people…etc, etc, etc.

        The GOP and their industry supporters, including the coal companies and the power companies have fought – not just one issue – they have opposed the EPA and all of it’s regulations – for decades.

        Ask Jim Bacon which regulations – specifically which regulations he supports and which one he does not.. and I bet you dollars to donuts that he’ll be conflicted about it.

        I’ve never heard the GOP detail the regs they support – and then draw a line between the ones they do verses the ones they don’t. They oppose all of it, fight it tooth and nail with the industries, like the Koch Brothers who give them campaign money.

        never heard a GOP – talk about the “good” of the EPA. Never heard a GOP compliment the EPA for the reductions in small particulates…

        they attack science and regulation, and the EPA regularly THey promise in their campaigns for election to either get rid of it or gut it.

      2. Tysons Engineer Avatar
        Tysons Engineer

        Its all about the cash, and last I checked, big industry isn’t doing too shabby in the cash on hand situation

        http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/big-oil-big-profits-industry-tops-120-billion-in-2012

        http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/coal-industry-profits

        Billions upon billions in profits, but won’t pay to offset the damage they do through their uncontrolled CO2 damage for a fraction of those profits. The world’s smallest violin is somewhere around here, let me play you a soft sonata oil and coal execs, those bad environmentalists are just so mean to your little company.

      3. James A. Bacon Avatar
        James A. Bacon

        “There is no scientific backing for anyone who says CO2 hasn’t increased at a faster rate in the past 50 years. There is no scientific backing for anyone who says that increased CO2 levels does not create a greenhouse effect which is a reality of this little thing we call chemistry. The only remaining argument is that CO2 being produced by humans is not accountable for that increase and that there is no way to stop that trend”

        Wow, T.E., you’re an educated and savvy guy but you absolutely went off the rails on this one. You obviously have no idea why skeptics question global warming orthodoxy.

        No one disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

        No one disputes that CO2 acts to warm the atmosphere.

        No on disputes that human activity has increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

        The main disputes are over:

        — the extent to which can we believe computer models that forecast temperature increases that never forecast 17 years of no global temperature increase.

        – the extent to which positive feedback loops exist in the atmospheric system that amplify the minor warming effect of CO2 into something much more alarming.

        – the extent to which global warming will be an environmental and human disaster. The alarmist camp emphasizes the negatives and poo-poos positives, such as the effect of higher CO2 concentrations on plant growth and drought resistance.

        — the necessity of re-engineering the industrial economy to reduce CO2 emissions as opposed to pursuing other strategies to dampen temperature rises or adapt to rising temperatures.

        1. Tysons Engineer Avatar
          Tysons Engineer

          You reiterated the very things I noted. Not sure what new info you have added or why I went off the rail, but you did not?

          It is the extent to which, which I noted. However, my final point that you left off, what is the point of objecting to sensible regulations on those that WE KNOW are emitting extreme levels of CO2? What other natural cause could create orders of magnitude increases in the presence of CO2 measured versus those that are very trackable in ice cores. Has there been an increase in volcanic activity? No we are actually in a lull compared to many times in human history. Has there been any natural changes in animal and plant processes? Nope, same ole same ole there (though one could argue beef practices in the Amazon are certainly a double whammy of deforestation and increases beef production).

          So what is it? God is magically implanting us with more CO2, which just happens to track with recessions in industrial economies? Honestly, what is your scientific proof other than to be cynical of others scientific research? You can’t just say, I dunno? Its just happening dude, when no natural occurrences that we have tracked have shown any similar drastic changes as from the beginning of the industrial revolution.

        2. larryg Avatar
          larryg

          re: ” The main disputes are over:

          – the extent to which can we believe computer models that forecast temperature increases that never forecast 17 years of no global temperature increase.”

          where was this dispute for the Ozone Holes?

          “- the extent to which positive feedback loops exist in the atmospheric system that amplify the minor warming effect of CO2 into something much more alarming.”

          why would you disbelieve the same scientists that warned you about what would happen with Ozone holes ?

          “- the extent to which global warming will be an environmental and human disaster. The alarmist camp emphasizes the negatives and poo-poos positives, such as the effect of higher CO2 concentrations on plant growth and drought resistance.”

          how can you convince yourself that no damage is the opposite of possible damage?
          If you think no damage then you advocate nothing. If you think some damage is possible but you’re not sure – do you advocate nothing?

          “– the necessity of re-engineering the industrial economy to reduce CO2 emissions as opposed to pursuing other strategies to dampen temperature rises or adapt to rising temperatures.”

          we altered the industrial economy over CFCs -was that a HOAX?

          what has happened between the Ozone Holes and now where people think basically the same field of science has gone from one that we accepted scientific consensus – AND we DID make changes to one where we think scientists are lying and engaging in a world wide conspiracy to mislead people to spend trillions that we don’t need to spend?

          this has gotten to the point where it is congenital – to right-leaning folks.

          it’s just loony tunes..

          you can be suspicious and a skeptic without impugning science and scientists. but can you really?

          1. Tysons Engineer Avatar
            Tysons Engineer

            The good news here is, that the policies are being enacted (though painfully slow) and soon enough with the price of PV and other renewables being what they are, and the fact that people are fed up with feeding the petro industry and getting more fuel conserving vehicles (albeit with some help from good regulations on mpg) the carbon output of our country and much of the post-industrial world will reduce as it already is in the US. We are actually off peak on carbon output almost 10% and improving with every year and every new green infrastructure improvement.

            What will be left is 1st world countries with clean standards, and third world countries without, and by then the decentralized nature and the cost effective nature of renewables in countries with no established history of coal/oil may mean that we’ve hit a watershed.

            Sure would be nice if the GOP would help support that by simply admitting that helping renewable energy does have a value added, but if they don’t the outcome will still be the same thankfully because of the continued progress of science.

          2. larryg Avatar
            larryg

            re: ” The good news here is, that the policies are being enacted (though painfully slow) and soon enough with the price of PV and other renewables being what they are, and the fact that people are fed up with feeding the petro industry and getting more fuel conserving vehicles (albeit with some help from good regulations on mpg) the carbon output of our country and much of the post-industrial world will reduce as it already is in the US.”

            no thanks to the GOP – though. every inch we got, we got over the kicking and screaming of the GOP –

            re: ” What will be left is 1st world countries with clean standards, and third world countries without, and by then the decentralized nature and the cost effective nature of renewables in countries with no established history of coal/oil may mean that we’ve hit a watershed.

            Sure would be nice if the GOP would help support that by simply admitting that helping renewable energy does have a value added, but if they don’t the outcome will still be the same thankfully because of the continued progress of science.”

            what the GOP supports is the “free market” – what they oppose, like the Koch boys is – regulation… “job killing” regulation – never mind that pollution control actually adds jobs…

            but what I (and you I think) wanted Jim Bacon to say is how we got cleaner air?

            did it come from the “free market”?

            did it come from WHO?

            did it come from the anti-regulation GOP ?

            did it come from the love of the GOP’s life – the “free market”?

            Every time JImB get “close” to admitting that the things the GOP oppose – have actually helped the environment – he bites his tongue!

          3. Tysons Engineer Avatar
            Tysons Engineer

            I will help reduce some of the rhetoric by saying the following (first Larry I do agree with you on this subject which makes the SWM argument we had a few months ago all the more frustrating btw).

            The rhetoric cutting I will say is, you can impose regulations, you can impose caps, you can do that stuff but if there isn’t technological support to make it viable and on parity with alternatives, the status quo continues.

            The reason why renewables are increasing 100% per year in capacity, why we will be adding another 6 GW of PV/Solar this year, dozens of GW of geo/wind this year, all of which continues in perpetuity every year there after where as combustibles burn and require replacement, is because those technologies are now largely at parity. Without that parity, we would have been seeing continued irrelevant renewable percentages. Some might argue that the current percentages are still irrelevant, but they don’t recognize that the NEW energy capacity created has been by majority via renewables the past 4 years, which indicates that the life cycle of existing plants, as they end, will mean that replacement will be from renewable sources, not new combustible plants.

            Now, that being said (the free market side of me) without research investment, and that early 1st costs to get past the new gen of those technologies by subsidies, we would never have gotten to the point where PV for industrial/power is now getting under $3 per W. Thats halved upon halved upon halved since the 2000s. It couldn’t have happened unless some non-market based entity didn’t help it get past the initial R&D costs.

            Now the argument turns to the following. If even Jim Bacon recognizes that higher levels of CO2 = greenhouse effects, and that when extrapolated to a mass entity of “industry” those outputs do have SOME effect on our climate, then shouldn’t the conservative stance be that those who reap the benefits of a process, should also help to mitigate the costs on society?

            Is that not your stance Jim on highway sprawl? That homes are creating this highway sprawl, not one at a time, but as a whole, and they aren’t paying for their infrastructure despite it not being directly attributable to them? Ergo, industry, which creates a known green house effluent, should have to atleast show how they are NOT net increasing output from some existing condition. Its the same as stormwater management. You need to show that your post conditions are less than or equal to your pre-conditions. So, that can either be done with better filtering requirements, or by mitigation for existing facilities that can’t be retrofit through the purchase of carbon credits that come from either biological sources (forestation) or mechanical (via renewable energy funding). What is SO wrong with that concept? This, sorry theres no money to pay for it is a ridiculous absolute argument by industry. You are making record profit, surely you can pay SOMETHING, so lets negotiate on it because any improvement is still that, an improvement.

            Lets get past this rhetoric of passing laws to ignore global warming, to continue this idea that humans don’t have any effect on it, which you yourself say yes we do (though to what extent is the more difficult question) and get to a solution where industry can help pay for mitigation while continuing their operations as they need until which point it makes pure economic (without including the cost they cause to society) to do the right thing on their own.

            Pollution is a cost on society. Whether it is a paper mill that kills the fishermans livelihood downstream, or the old industry pumping out lead or NOx and causing health problems which society/neighbors pay to fix, these are costs. No one reasonable is saying, let’s ban all together, the infrastructure is there and that kind of stuff takes time and there is sunk costs to consider, but is it SO absurd to ask that they help mitigate through whatever means we can come to a compromise about? Yeesh.

          4. larryg Avatar
            larryg

            re: ” I will help reduce some of the rhetoric by saying the following (first Larry I do agree with you on this subject which makes the SWM argument we had a few months ago all the more frustrating btw).”

            I agree.. got off on the wrong foot – my apologies – again.

            “The rhetoric cutting I will say is, you can impose regulations, you can impose caps, you can do that stuff but if there isn’t technological support to make it viable and on parity with alternatives, the status quo continues.”

            not quite sure the point – you have the technology to reduce particulate pollution – … but it’s not free and it does impose costs. and there is a cost-benefit.

            re: renewables – ” the power companies are taking them seriously…

            but then you have supposedly intelligent folks like George Will – who does not understand how incandescent bulbs – result in the need for more coal-burning power plants. How can you have a reasonable dialogue with folks who are anti-science and anti-facts?

            “Now, that being said (the free market side of me) without research investment, and that early 1st costs to get past the new gen of those technologies by subsidies, we would never have gotten to the point where PV for industrial/power is now getting under $3 per W. Thats halved upon halved upon halved since the 2000s. It couldn’t have happened unless some non-market based entity didn’t help it get past the initial R&D costs.”

            I think it is a HOOT – that people say the government did not need to impose mileage standards on cars – and then once they did – they then deny that gas tax revenues have been affected by it.

            “Now the argument turns to the following. If even Jim Bacon recognizes that higher levels of CO2 = greenhouse effects, and that when extrapolated to a mass entity of “industry” those outputs do have SOME effect on our climate, then shouldn’t the conservative stance be that those who reap the benefits of a process, should also help to mitigate the costs on society?”

            used to be – the word “Conservative” meant something different than now.

            carbon monoxide in minor quantities is not deadly and it is present in the air – from automobiles and anything than burns combustibles but for some reason the argument about the importance of concentration flies over heads. I guarantee you if you breath too much carbon dioxide – you will be harmed.

            “Is that not your stance Jim on highway sprawl? …

            I find Jims’ arguments incongruous and contradictory at times.

            he’s clearly drunk too much of the far right kool-aid on some things but then he advocates these things that the Agenda 21 folks in the GOP go ape-crap over.

            “Lets get past this rhetoric of passing laws to ignore global warming,….

            passing laws to IGNORE the impacts of climate change and to prepare for the future. It’s Luddite, anti-science, anti-government.

            “Pollution is a cost on society. ”

            the Right Wing and Libertarians call this the tragedy of the commons – not the responsibility of the free market to deal with.

            it’s a “tough luck” argument. In order to actually acknowledge the fact that things like air and water are also property rights – just drives the GOP/Libertarian property rights folks up the wall.

            no one can “own” the air and water because if they do – it just blows up the whole “free market” concept. they have another phrase – the “common good” or “social good” which no one owns and no one is responsible for.

            it’s sorta like their view of public roads. they just exist. no one had to give up their property rights to get them… the started as cow paths and indian trails which no one really owned.. and just evolved over time to modern times.

            😉

    3. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: high concentration vs “pollution”

      Breckinridge – if you drank a whole bottle of Wild Turkey at one setting – would you be “polluted”?

      I rest my case.

      1. Breckinridge Avatar
        Breckinridge

        I’d be dead. You’d be happy.

        Tyson Engineer — you aren’t trying to prove a negative with some of those earlier statements, are you? Again, you guys just crack me up. In the real world, fossil fuels will be around for the next several centuries and if Al Gore got everything he wanted in this country, India and China would continue to pollute the air with real poisons and pump out massive CO2 (again, not a pollutant.) I want to see wind and solar become cost competitive, and they will, and I’m all for more use of nuclear. Yes, there are negative consequences from higher CO2 levels. Is the sky falling? Will Norfolk be underwater in 2050? Not buying it.

  4. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    China rated at a mere 90? Are you kidding? Beijing and Shanghai have had air pollution in recent months beyond the ultra level.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Particulates are just one measure The noxious fog in Chinese cities includes the other three chemicals, which are probably also off the charts.

  5. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Richard Nixon signed the EPA into law.

    If Nixon were around today – the GOP would impeach him after the Dems got done with him.

    We can talk about how much cleaner Virginia Air is without attributing it to EPA regulation – because we think the EPA “over” regulates?

    come on …. this is just foolish… you can’t have cleaner air then blame the Agency that is responsible for cleaner air. Do you think the air just magically got cleaner without regulations?

    1. Breckinridge Avatar
      Breckinridge

      Yes, Nixon would be run out of today’s GOP on policy grounds, not just ethical ones.

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        and Reagan and both Bush’s.

        right?

        re: concentrations of substances that won’t hurt you.

        what concentration of mercury from power plants are too low to hurt you or to turn this around – can too much concentration of mercury from power plants hurt you?

  6. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    here’s the GOP these days:

    ” GOP says fake CIA agent wrote major EPA regs”

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/201265-gop-says-fake-cia-agent-wrote-major-epa-regs

    yet another conspiracy… the GOP claims this guy – this guy alone wrong the air quality regulations…

    here: ” A former high-ranking EPA staffer convicted of stealing nearly $900,000 by pretending to be a CIA spy had virtually no experience, got his job with help from a college buddy, and went on to play a key role in sweeping environmental regulations, according to a report Senate Republicans released Wednesday.”

    take note of this ” according to a report Senate Republicans released Wednesday”… yet another Republican (only) Congressional Report.

    no one with an once of intelligence can seriously believe that one CIA “mole” guy wrote the clean air regulations… but apparently that is what the GOP report purports to say.

    so Virginia has cleaner air because of the CIA?

    😉

  7. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    CIA? Probably right . They will do anything

  8. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    In my continuing effort to offer some BALANCE and truth to issues that have been just totally distorted by the more virulent wing of the GOP these days – on this particular issue – is a nugget of truth (note the date): (excerpts – see link for full story):

    “EPA Soot Standards To Reduce Particulate Matter Pollution
    AP | By By MATTHEW DALY
    Posted: 12/14/2012 10:58 am EST | Updated: 12/14/2012 5:43 pm EST

    WASHINGTON (AP) — In its first major regulation since the election, the Obama administration on Friday imposed a new air quality standard that reduces by 20 percent the maximum amount of soot released into the air from smokestacks, diesel trucks and other sources of pollution.

    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said the new standard will save thousands of lives each year and reduce the burden of illness in communities across the country, as people “benefit from the simple fact of being able to breathe cleaner air.”

    The new soot standard has been highly anticipated by environmental and business groups, who have battled over the extent to which it would protect public health or cause job losses. The EPA said its analysis shows the rule will have a net benefit ranging from about $3.6 billion to $9 billion a year.

    A study by the American Lung Association and other groups said the new standard will save an estimated 15,000 lives a year compared to the current standard — many in urban areas where exposures to emissions from older, dirty diesel engines and coal-fired power plants are greatest.

    Soot, or fine particulate matter, is made up of microscopic particles released from smokestacks, diesel trucks, wood-burning stoves and other sources and contributes to haze. Breathing in soot can cause lung and heart problems, contributing to heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks.

    now pay attention to this part:

    But congressional Republicans and industry officials called the new standard overly strict and said it could hurt economic growth and cause job losses in areas where pollution levels are determined to be too high. Conservative critics said they feared the rule was the beginning of a “regulatory cliff” that includes a forthcoming EPA rule on ozone, or smog, as well as pending greenhouse gas regulations for refineries and rules curbing mercury emissions at power plants.

    Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, said the new soot rule is “yet another costly, overly burdensome” regulation that is “out of sync” with President Barack Obama’s executive order last year to streamline federal regulations.

    The soot rule will “place many promising new projects — and the jobs they create — into permit limbo,” Eisenberg said.

    A letter signed by one Democratic and five Republican senators said the EPA rule would “impose significant new economic burdens on many communities, hurting workers and their families just as they are struggling to overcome difficult economic times.”

    The letter cited EPA data showing that air quality in the United States is at its highest level in 30 years — a sign that the current standard is working, the senators said. The letter was signed by Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Michael Lee of Utah, Roy Blunt of Missouri, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rob Portman of Ohio and Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

    Jackson and other administration officials said the new rule was based on a rigorous scientific review. Only 66 of more than 3,000 U.S. counties would fail to meet the proposed standard, which takes effect early next year.

    All but seven counties in the United States — all in California — are projected to meet the new standard by 2020 with no additional actions needed beyond compliance with existing and pending rules set by the EPA, EPA officials said. The counties are Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Merced, Riverside, San Bernardino and Tulare.

    Jackson and other officials said they will work with states and counties to ensure they can meet the new standards without penalties.

    The Obama administration had sought to delay the new soot standards until after the November election, but a federal judge ordered officials to act sooner, and the administration released a proposed rule in June.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/epa-soot-standards-pm_n_2301150.html

    I would suggest that the above is why Virginia has cleaner air …

    and NO THANKS AT ALL – to the GOP.. who if had prevailed would have resulted in dirtier air and thousands of deaths.

    we need to be honest about these things.. if you want to give kudos for cleaner air inVa – you need to give the reason why and you need to acknowledge the folks who were opposed to it and you need to acknowledge that the GOPs point of view on this – is dead wrong.

    1. Tysons Engineer Avatar
      Tysons Engineer

      Pretty damning in my opinion, but as you know, people’s views on all things Obama, are preset regardless of whether they are good or bad. If Obama had created the regulations that stopped the murder by the paper industry of our Appalachian waterways, people in those same areas would have screamed murder because it would destroy the industry.

      No, paper was just fine, till it became a much more obsolete industry thanks to technology that is. No one saw that one coming, turns out all those overpaid CEOs were just pushing “paper” and had no idea what they were rabbling about.

      The resulting point?

      Pollution regulations don’t kill jobs, dinosaur lumbering ancient industries that refuse ANY amount of change, kill jobs and people! Yay two-fer-one!

    2. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Larry, I love the way you claim full credit for environmental improvements from Dem initiatives while disclaiming any adverse economic impacts from said initiatives.

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        re: ” Larry, I love the way you claim full credit for environmental improvements from Dem initiatives while disclaiming any adverse economic impacts from said initiatives.”

        not true. I’ve pointed out numerous times there are costs.

        and I’ve also pointed out as you have – cost-benefits.

        what I’ve objected to is claiming we have cleaner air and then refusing to admit why we do.

        why do we have cleaner air?

        and do you really think – it cost too much?

        if you do – say so. if not, admit it.

        and please admit where the cleaner air came from.

        it did not come from the free market and it did not come from the GOP advocating it.

        The GOP – in their latest idiocy – Senators, in fact, are claiming, that our clean air regulations came from a CIA ‘plant’ in the EPA.

        this is the kind of loony tune stuff going on in the GOP these days.

        it’s congenital… it’s wacko..

        we got cleaner air from regulation.. plain and simple.

  9. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    one of the loony concepts that is promoted by free-market folks is the
    public good and they will cite, for instance, a lighthouse that anyone can use without being forced to pay for it.

    From Wiki:

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.[1] Examples of public goods include fresh air, knowledge, lighthouses, national defense, flood control systems and street lighting. Public goods that are available everywhere are sometimes referred to as global public goods.”

    so they live in this dream world that whoever built the lighthouse did not get paid for it and just did it to be a good guy.

    they never once think that the owners of the boats got together to build it then incorporated that cost into the price of their shipping.

    same thing with clean air.. if someone pollutes it – it’s called an “externality” which in Libertarian-speak means it’s someone else’s problem not the guy that did it.

    the right does not see regulation as defending property rights – the property rights of those who are adversely impacted by pollution.

    so we have, for instance, power plants in the east, that rain down mercury pollution on our rivers and waterbodies – and a significant number of elected folks who are dead-set against doing anything about it – even though we tell woman and kids not to eat “too much” fresh water fish..

    which is sort of the argument that a “little bit” won’t hurt you – “much” but regulation would hurt you much more.

  10. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    The alternative energy industry needs to become disruptive and figure out a way (sans tax subsidies) to deliver energy at rates less than Dominion can produce. We’ve seen disruptive technology in IT, military and weaponry, telecom, pharma. Why not energy? Economic progress requires access to relatively low-priced energy. Why can’t non-fossil fuel-generated power fill the bill?

    If telecom operated on this basis, high-tech would be Western Union telegrams. Or maybe, we’d have cord boards.

    1. Tysons Engineer Avatar
      Tysons Engineer

      This is way too simplified of a statement TMT. The alternative energy industry IS already at parity on energy production thats not the issue. In electrical, its a grid, no entity can exist without the ability to distribute the power.

      That grid, by Dominion, by NOVEC, by PepCo, by Duke, were all built with public agreements. However, those same companies say, its our grid we own it. Well that grid couldn’t have been possible without the help of the government (whether local, state or federal). That is one of the base agreements municipalities have with power companies, which is why they are allowed to have defacto monopolies in regions.

      The issue at hand now is, new renewable power providers are lining up, but the power companies that are entrenched are telling them they can feed back to the grid, despite the grid being a partnership of the public and private.

      If the grid were open, not currently obstructed via net metering and monopolistic guarantees, then alternative power would be popping up EVERYWHERE. Because as I said, the return for PV in 95% of the US is under 6 years. For wind less than a decade. For geothermal within 3 years where capable. These are the realities of the costs for municipal sized projects, but what is holding them back are the entrenched power providers WHO, were given the opportunity to improve their own blending on their own and to date Dominion has literally done jack squat beyond some nat gas improvements. At the same time they have been fighting tooth and nail to end net metering practices on home owners and universities who wish to create power on site and sell back on the grid (again the grid that was built via a public and private agreement and is not the sole ownership of any one company).

      You need to learn more about the issue before taking the standard GOP stance that the free market is speaking. The free market isn’t speaking, its being crippled for innovation by powerful entrenched companies.

      1. TMT Avatar
        TMT

        TE sorry, but you are wrong on public utility law. States (or sometimes municipalities when allowed by state law) have granted franchises (often exclusive) to power companies in exchange for an obligation to serve all customers within the franchise area. Rates are often regulated too, generally at the state level. Early deregulation uncoupled generation from distribution, but generally didn’t work as no one offered prices for the commodity that were lower than the old monopoly company.

        Incumbents have often opposed distribution competition because new companies would not likely serve all customers, but rather, cream skim. I’d happily serve you and your neighbors in Tysons and me and mine in McLean, but not rural customers. Notice Dominion doesn’t serve customers in more rural areas where NOVEC operates.

        As you suggest, off-grid competition might work, but the incumbents would likely charge more for standby electricity. The revenue risk is greater, hence, the cost of capital is higher also. The power company also has a right to recover sunk costs when customers abandon service since the investment was made on a utility basis. Alternatively, new power generators can interconnect with incumbents and sell electricity to customers who must pay the incumbent for distribution.

        Virginia reregulated electric power because competition failed. Dominion has a duty to serve, but also a monopoly on the commodity except for some green power exceptions. If you want competition, you must exempt the incumbent from a duty to serve and likely amortize sunk costs. Or figure out how to deliver power over some other network.

        1. Tysons Engineer Avatar
          Tysons Engineer

          That is essentially what I said, except from the view point of why Dominion doesnt want it. Thats fine, its a debatable subject as to whether the current regional monopoly is fair due to the sunk costs Dominion has put in, but my point was that the grid is not the sole ownership of Dominion however over the past 10 years their connections in politics and regulatory bodies has made it such, not due to free market.

          See their lawsuit against several universities who were trying to supplement their power with self-generated power. They (dominion) can’t both be dependent on public assistance to make their own power distribution possible and yet defend their monopoly from competition of that same publicly assisted infrastructure. The middle ground that some proposed to Dominion was for them to blend their sources quicker rather than later, and to date they have no shown any positive movement or willingness to do so.

          So whats left? We (the people) asked nicely for them to provide renewable power because many people want it. They refuse, despite some legislation that would have paid back for the cost for that new capital expenditure(was very kind to them) with new peak pricing from renewables.

          The only model left, if the grid is sacred, would be what some Japanese prefectures have done which is to be solely off the grid as a municipality, but that requires 1) expensive retrofits and new easements to create the infrastructure to distribute or 2) picking a green field and designing a city from scratch with renewables as a cost-shared valued added model (ie upfront fee for development to pay for capital cost but with a payback through no cost energy for customers).

          1. TMT Avatar
            TMT

            TE, I see no reason why any customer cannot provide its own power. There are, however, issues when such a customer wants backup power from the grid as the customer could easily become a free rider. I think the customer would need to pay for access to the distribution plant even if not used since it is at the ready. I also think backup power should be priced at the peak marginal cost (higher since inefficient generating plant must be used) and make some reasonable contribution to common overheads. I think those conditions would protect other ratepayers.

            Rebuilding the local electric distribution system would seem very expensive to me. But then, there may be disruptive technology out there. There is a lot of unused copper Telco cables in the area. Maybe small local electric generation plants (renewable?) could be transmitted as DC power and we can fight the Tesla/Edison battle all over again. 🙂

          2. larryg Avatar
            larryg

            re: ” I think the customer would need to pay for access to the distribution plant even if not used since it is at the ready. I also think backup power should be priced at the peak marginal cost (higher since inefficient generating plant must be used) and make some reasonable contribution to common overheads. I think those conditions would protect other ratepayers.”

            agree. take water and sewer. You pay a monthly fee for them but initially you pay a hefty “availability” fee – thousands of dollars.

            ” Rebuilding the local electric distribution system would seem very expensive to me. But then, there may be disruptive technology out there. There is a lot of unused copper Telco cables in the area. Maybe small local electric generation plants (renewable?) could be transmitted as DC power and we can fight the Tesla/Edison battle all over again”

            well we sorta tried that when we separated the distribution charges from the generation charges but it failed – in large part – because residential electricity is basically subsidized and no power generators wanted it because there was no profit in it.

            this is another one of those areas where there are embedded subsidies that most folks don’t even know are there…

            you can fix it – in large part – in my view – by installing smart meters and charging out the wazoo for peak power.

            if you can charge for peak power – other providers might get involved.

            but more than that – individuals will then become directly involved in curbing their use of power – especially during peak periods.

            they’ll connect their smart meter to their water heater – and it will automatically not use electricity to heat it until it goes to a lower rate.

            if you want to think about backup power – think about a backup generator at your house. it would use 2-3 gallons per hour at 2,3, 4 bucks a gallon.

            over 24 hours – you’d pay $100-200. If the power company charged you merely $50 dollars it would be a “bargain” but 30 days worth of that price would get you a $1500 electric bill.

            if you use 1500 kwh per day – on an island where electricity costs 50 cents a kwh – you’d pay 75 dollars a day for electricity. You can bet in those places.. that how electricity is used is very different than how it is used in NoVa where it is dirt cheap 24/7 ……

        2. larryg Avatar
          larryg

          electricity, the free market, and pollution are fascinating subjects.

          All these folks running around blathering about letting the free market do health care – are nowhere to be seen in proposing that the free market “do” electricity. Nope.. and most of them are also not talking about roads, pipelines, rail, etc be done by the free market either – except the ones that are clueless about the role of eminent domain in provisioning – electricity, public roads, pipelines, rail, etc.

          or for that matter, “unleashing” the power and innovation in the free market to reduce/eliminate pollution – without regulation.

          The role of government is denigrated… attacked for being bureaucratic, incompetent, dictatorial in imposing job killing regulation, etc.

          but these same folks never advocate for the private sector to “do” electricity “better” – “cheaper” – with less pollution.

          It’s not that they could not do. They do it in many parts of the world. They do it as for-profit companies and they do it as customer-owned co-operatives.

          One of the first thing a private sector company would probably do – is exactly the same thing airlines do – peak-hour pricing just like they do with toll roads.

          if that were done – the government would not need to give tax breaks for solar or green power.. it would happen on it’s own and it would accelerate as power companies then raised their prices even higher to compensate for the loss of revenues.

          If we required conventional plants to have no more pollution than solar panels – what would happen? If we had to remove mercury – a known toxin that bio-accumulates in the environment -how much would electricity cost?

          1. Tysons Engineer Avatar
            Tysons Engineer

            There is peak costing, you dont see it on your bill because they use averages to tell you your effective billing, but its true that on a hot summer day you are spending about 10 to 15 cents more per kw-h than during night time hours.

            The rest is essentially the point. If society has to clean up the messes, just like they do with waterways prior to regulations being accepted, but for air/ambient pollution then what are we really talking about other than a subsidy for aging industry that refuses to change? Those are costs, they are simply being removed from a per kw-h basis and being applied uniformly through public funds.

            To date Dominion has not told Virginia what it would cost for them to start blending to renewable sources. They added a fun little category where one could voluntarily pay for a renewable credit elsewhere, but there is no tracking of how that money is spent, you have to take their word for it. Give us a number, and let the tax payers decide. If installing a new 600MW PV/Wind system will add an across the board 2 cent increase so they can recoup the capital costs, make the proposal, let it be voted on. But they refuse to even talk about it, they don’t want to, because as of right now they are having their cake (selling their electric power without competition) and eating it too (having the public pay for the pollution costs that come from it).

          2. larryg Avatar
            larryg

            re: ” There is peak costing, you dont see it on your bill because they use averages to tell you your effective billing, but its true that on a hot summer day you are spending about 10 to 15 cents more per kw-h than during night time hours.”

            don’t they essentially include the peak cost on every bill no matter whether you were using peak power or not?

            so everyone pays for peak power – not just those that use it.

            here’s what we should do IMHO and it will fix many of the other problems.

            charge for peak power… just like we do for airlines and water/sewer, and toll roads.

            then let the folks that use less power -benefit from it – and let the people who want unlimited power no matter when – pay for it.

            the folks that want to save money – will install solar and buy more energy efficient stuff – and the folks that don’t want do will pay more for electricity.

            Start with Smart Meters – people who install smart meters get a reduction on their electric bills – at the start – an “incentive”.

            In day, they get an email showing their use… and at some point – what was actually using the electricity.

            right now – I get an email from the electric company detailing how power we use.

            we started keeping a simple log on the washer/dryer. Guess what? there is a STRIKING correlation between using hot water in the washer and then drying clothes in the dryer verses days we don’t do that.

            we’re starting to address that issue now that we know. we’re motivated to cut down our use and we’d like to get the savings – not give those savings to someone who does not give a rip.

  11. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Many islands in the world that do not have native fossil fuels are good places to look at when talking about electricity politics.

    In many of those countries – electricity costs 40-50 cents KWH and energy efficiency and “green” energy are much more part of the issue.

    often – you do not have a water-heater -you have a tankless water heater. You do not heat or cool every room in the house -just the ones you are in. You don’t use clothes dryers -you use clothes lines and you wash your clothes in cold water.

    we take so much for granted in this country – and a lot that we take for granted – does not come from the private sector when it comes to electricity.

    It is subsidized in different ways including relaxation of pollution regulations, – forget carbon dioxide.. you never hear the “skeptics” of carbon dioxide talk about how “bogus” mercury pollution is or whether it should be regulated tighter – nope .. much better to talk about carbon dioxide…and no need for regulation.

    what about regulation for mercury?

Leave a Reply

Read More