The Business, Technology, and Politics of Green Energy and Alternative Fuels
About this blog
"The business enterprise is a creature of society and an economy, and society or economy can put any business out of existence overnight." - Peter F. Drucker
Green is Good is a blog written by entrepreneur and green capitalist Chris Schultz of Pittsburgh, PA.
Joining Chris is Cara Jette, who blogs under the name Illyrias at PGH is a City and will be keeping us informed about everything green in the city of Pittsburgh.
At the county and state level, we need to update our antiquated air toxic guidelines. At every level, we need to continue retro-fitting our old diesel school buses and public transportation vehicles to improve our air quality. Upcoming Pittsburgh city council legislation promoted by Clean Water Action will require any city-sponsored projects that uses diesel vehicles to retrofit the vehicles to reduce the pollutants released. I beg city council and the mayor to pass this legislation quickly. There is also a program to retrofit Allegheny County's 2000 school buses. I urge every parent to insist that your child's school participates in this program.
The air is improving in Allegheny county, but it is not enough to be third worst.
Pollution in Pittsburgh is a tough beast. Our air quality has improved ten-fold over the past few decades, but we are still topping up on worst-of lists nation-wide. One of the major culprits is that one of the places that air quality is measured in the region is downwind of the largest coke plant in the country, Clairton. US Steel is regularly fined for the awful state of this plant, and last year agreed to spend a record billion dollars on improving the plant. We had hope of falling behind Los Angeles yet again when this construction was done.
But maybe I was wrong? Maybe I should be thinking of particles in the air one ton at a time, by each diesel-powered dump truck and Port Authority bus. The latest round of federal stimulus grants is hitting Allegheny County, $3.5 Million to upgrade these pollution belchers. If we can get rid of all these relics, maybe our pollution rate can still drop enough to make a difference. Maybe it's like all of us switching out one bottle of petroleum-based detergent or adding one energy-efficient light bulb or riding our bikes to work once a week. Or maybe not. But if there's one thing I've realized, it's that we can't depend on US Steel to get us there.
Year after year Pittsburgh is ranked as one of the US city's with the poorest air quality. Almsot two years ago I wrote a post titled "Why Pittsburgh's air quality sucks." A few months after that post I wrote another titled "America's most livable city is once again rated....most polluted?" Back then I called on the mayor, whom I did not oppose at the time, to do more to regulate diesel emissions in the city of Pittsburgh. Needless to say the mayor has done nothing of the sort, and Allegheny County and county executive Dan Onarato have done a great job ignoring our air quality problem as well.
We are perennial favorites to be ranked #1 or #2 for particulate matter pollution, but despite the rankings there are always those who want to blame the results of the surveys on the monitoring system in Clairton, which is home to a US Steel coke plant. Well thankfully Pittsburgh Quarterly's Jeffrey Fraser has written a fantastic report titled "The truth about Pittsburgh's air" in this month's PQ magazine. The magazine is currently in stores, or you can read the report and other PQ articles via PDF. I encourage you to at least check out the air quality report so you at least know the truth about how bad it is out there. Thanks for Jeffrey Fraser for putting this issue into print.
To see a history of my blog posts on pollution and Pittsburgh's air quality please click here.
Pittsburgh Penguins fans, prepare yourself for annoying advertising about how good coal is for you and our country. Prepare yourselves for an onslaught of misleading ads regarding Consol Energy's commitment to "clean coal", because the Pens just awarded Consol Energy, a coal company located right here in Southwestern PA, with the naming rights to their arena in deal worth a reported $5 million dollars a year. Prepare yourselves for an arena powered by, but filled with dirty filthy stinking coal industry representatives. KDKA news broke the story:
When the Penguins' new arena opens, it will have a new name.
KDKA Investigator Andy Sheehan has learned that Consol Energy has won the naming rights.
The local coal and energy company is claiming more and more of a national and international spotlight. Next week, the Penguins will announce the sale of the arena naming rights to Consol on a long term basis for at least several million dollars a year.
The Penguins aren't commenting, but in a similar deal, the New Jersey Devils sold naming rights to their arena to Prudential Insurance for $5 million a year.
Here are a few reasons why I am particularly pissed off about this:
1. During the segment on KDKA, Andy Sheenan mentions Consol's development of "clean coal" as if it was a real thing. As we have seen, heard, and read time and time again coal is not clean, it is freaking dirty and toxic substance for Christ's sake, but remember, we shouldn't expect the media to report the facts, right? The media's failure to get on board with climate change and clean technologies is why this blog exists, after all.
And how could I omit this clean coal demonstration that is now hitting the airwaves across the US.
2.The second thing I have a problem with is that the media has made no mention of coal's negative impact on our environment. I'm not surprised that they have ignored the climate change issue, but come on, right here in our own backyard we have First Energy's Bruce Mansfield plant, which has been spewing and raining soot and toxins upon the families that live in the vicinity of the power plant in nearby Beaver County.
To the right is a picture of what is left after companies like Consol Energy perform their magic of mountaintop coal removal.
3. The third thing has to do with Pittsburgh's image. We were known as the smokey city throughout most of the 20th century due to the abundance of coke works and steel mills. The air is much cleaner now, and Pittsburgh is trying to position itself as a leading city in the new clean energy industry. But how can Pittsburgh be a true green city when its largest indoor sporting venue is named after a coal company? Burning coal to produce electricity is the biggest source of CO2 emissions, which, along with other green house gasses like methane, are the primary culprit behind climate change. How can the mayor of Pittsburgh say with a straight face that Pittsburgh is one of America's greenest city's when our professional hockey team is represented by one of the least green entities around, a friggin coal company.
4. Penguins fans, most of them at least, won't give a you know what about the decision and may even buy into this clean coal myth. From the sounds of the people interviewed in the KDKA story (above), the arena could be named after the Bin Laden family and it still wouldn't matter because, as the guy stated:
"As long as I can come see the Pens I don't care what they call the arena."
Way to be and sound like a dumb yinzer, buddy.
The irony of course is that a coal company's name will now adorn the arena of a hockey team named The Penguins. Climate change is causing a ripple effect that is warming the arctic and antarctic air and water, which is melting the ice at alarming rates, rates that are even more aggressive than the scientists predicted at least a decade before climate change and global warming were even brought to our attention. Real life penguins live in these areas, and the burning of coal and other fossil fuels will advance the melting of glaciers, which lead to the demise of animals such as polar bears and penguins unless something is done to drastically cut he amount of greenhouse gas emissions we are putting into the atmosphere. This is not likely to happen because corporations like Consol, who could be investing in ways to sequester their CO2 emissions, are instead investing their money on PR campaigns like the billboards and advertisements we see all around Pittsburgh, and now they are spending money on naming rights, which they will use as a strategy to further enhance their image and spread the word that they are actually the good guys, and that they are doing the right thing when it comes to developing this thing, this myth known as "clean coal.'
Bravo gentleman, and a big thank you to Mario Lemiuex, Ron Burkle, and the rest of the owners and management of the Pittsburgh Penguins hockey franchise for bringing us the Consol Energy Arena, or "Clean Coal Place", or "We are the power behind America" arena, or whatever the hell these imbeciles and climate change deniers decide to call it.
The NRDC posted an excellent cartoon bit on the ridiculousness of the subsidies being paid to big coal companies for liquid coal to fuel technology. From the NRDC's website:
The coal industry is touting a plan to transform millions of tons of coal into diesel and other liquid fuels - an expensive, inefficient process that releases large quantities of carbon dioxide, the worst global warming pollutant, into the air. Instead of offering viable answers to the critical problem of global warming, this senseless industry "solution" would exacerbate the problem: Relying on coal-derived liquid as an alternative to oil-based fuels could nearly double global warming pollution for every gallon of transportation fuel that is produced and used.
"Coal can do anything! It's no longer just another sooty rock to burn..."
"Why, I even drink a delicious glass of Coala every morning for an extra boost of some good old fashioned coal fired energy."
"Burn it. Drink it. Dump it. We don't care what you do - just buy our coal!"
Despite spending millions of dollars on "scrubbers", the Bruce Mansfield plant in Shippingport is still among the dirtiest polluting power plants in the United States. Newsflash to the energy companies, their investors, and the politicians and regulators who continue to make excuses for harmful polluters like First Energy: COAL IS KILLING US! Burning coal has long been known to release toxic emissions such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), various oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and it is responsible for the water in our region having one of highest concentrations of mercury.
The results of coal fired power plant pollution on our health have been conclusive for a long time now, so where is the justice? The first place we need to start is a stricter regulations on power plant emissions in the Federal Clean Air Act. We need to start seeing stiffer penalties for violations of the act, but if First Energy's continuous violations only result in $25,000 fines, it is clear that the Clean Air Act needs an overhaul. The recent $5 billion settlement between the nation's biggest utility, AEP, and the EPA, 8 states, and 13 environmental groups, was monumental and it gives us some hope for sweeping changes to regulation written for the people rather than the energy industry. Let's hope this set's the stage for bigger fines and stronger regulations for power plant pollution.
It's hard to believe that we are still struggling with this issue, since the detrimental effects of coal pollution has been known for years now, but alas, thats what we get when we elect congressmen who prioritize the interests of the coal and electric utilities over the interests and health of their constituents. Please remember that we can change things by voting for and electing public servants who truly believe in their duty to perform public service. Good people who care about the environment and the need for renewable energy are running for offices statewide - let's make sure they win in 2008.
FirstEnergy Corporation's Bruce Mansfield plant in Shippingport, Beaver County was fined $25,000 for releasing soot that ended up covering more than two dozen properties this past June. The June incident is the second time within twelve months that FirstEnergy's plant has fined by the state's Department of Environmental Protection. The fine is the maximum allowed by our state's Air Pollution Control Act.
There are two major things wrong here. First, this plant was ranked as the 17th worst polluting plant in the United States, and it is one of the major reasons we here in Southwestern PA rank as one of worst MSAs for air particulate pollution. So why is this plant allowed to stay operational? People who work at the plant and the local small businesses who support their families obviously want the plant to stay open - even though they may not realize the detrimental effects their employer has on the health of their families. But why can't we start shutting down this dirty plants and begin putting those displaced employees to work for companies producing green energy?
The second major thing I find wrong with this incident is the lame penalty. The maximum penalty for this soot pollution offense is only $25,000 - this is not enough! The cost of reducing or eliminating this soot pollution for First Energy is probably in the millions of dollars. Since they do not fear getting shut down and they are fined a tiny amount - there is no incentive to clean up their act. We need to start replacing the dirty power and dirty jobs with green power and green jobs!
According to the Air Pollution Control Act website, the Act is in place in order to:
To provide for the better protection of the health, general welfareand property of the people of the Commonwealth by the control,abatement, reduction and prevention of the pollution of the air bysmokes, dusts, fumes, gases, odors, mists, vapors, pollens andsimilar matter, or any combination thereof; imposing certainpowers and duties on the Department of Environmental Resources,the Environmental Quality Board and the Environmental HearingBoard; establishing procedures for the protection of health andpublic safety during emergency conditions; creating a stationaryair contamination source permit system; providing additionalremedies for abating air pollution; reserving powers to localpolitical subdivisions, and defining the relationship between thisact and the ordinances, resolutions and regulations of counties,cities, boroughs, towns and townships; imposing penalties forviolation of this act; and providing for the power to enjoinviolations of this act; and conferring upon persons aggrievedcertain rights and remedies. (Title amended Oct. 26, 1972,P.L.989, No.245)
Is it possible that this Act needs to be revamped in order to levy heavier fines on polluters such as FirstEnergy? It is time for our state congressman to step up and do something about these irresponsibile actions. It's time to shut down these dirty plants - or at least give them a deadline to get their acts together. I saw set a hard deadline and shut down the polluters who do not meet the minimum pollution control requirements. The state could create a green jobs training and placement program for the displaced workers.
To be fair to FirstEnergy, they reported that the plant's emissions scrubbing equipment had a malfunction, which caused the soot to be released into the air and onto the houses. If this is the case and they truly are trying to clean up their act - we'll see where the Shippingport plant stands when next year's dirty plants rankings are released.
(Note - as I sit here typing this post a commercial just aired claiming that coal is "securing our future" and that we have over two Saudi Arabia's of coal here in the US)
It is time for the city of Pittsburgh to be a leader and innovator among green cities. The city was actually ranked #1 for total LEED certified buildings back in 2005, however, other cities with more aggressive green goals have either caught up or surpassed Pittsburgh in the green building rankings. So what can we do now to stand out? How about putting green roofs on every possible building in downtown Pittsburgh? How about we transform downtown's Golden Triangle into the Green Triangle?
Imagine seeing this view as a visitor flying into town for the first time:
Personally, I find the green rooftops much more visually appealing than the typical black and gray tar and concrete rooftops. But this is not about making Pittsburgh "pretty." This initiative is about making Pittsburgh the leader in green roofs and setting an example of how going green can save businesses and government buildings in downtown districts millions of dollars in heating and cooling costs and, in addition, providing the following benefits to the general public:
Reduction of surrounding air temperatures
Improved air quality/reduced C02 emissions
Storm water retention/reduction of pollution in runoff water
Pittsburgh currently has a number of green buildings, several of which have been around for a while including two at Carnegie Mellon University. It is too bad that this Trib Review article from two years ago mentioned the cost savings potential of green roofs yet here we are today without much progress in this green area. Since our political leaders are reluctant to take (most, with the exception of BP) a chance on something this big, it is up to us green bloggers and green advocates here in the burgh to organize and take action. Please email me if you are willing to create a task force or if you are already part of a green group that would like to round up volunteers and obtain funding to take on the work of this massive and ground breaking green project.
Pittsburgh buildings with green roofs (from greenroofs.com)
Now this I cannot believe - it was just reported that the Allegheny County Health Department has let $1.4 million of the $4.8 million in Federal Clean Air grant money go unused from 2002 through this past march. Allegheny County is a perennial favorite to win worst air quality - so how did this happen? Are the people at the Allegheny Health Department that incompetent or do they not really care about our health? Who is accountable? Enough is enough, its time for someone to lose their job.
The Wabash Tunnel was opened in Pittsburgh in 2004 and was supposed to be used by 2,500 cars per day. The sad thing is - since the tunnel is HOV during peak commuting hours people in Pittsburgh will not use it. People here do not carpool - there is no incentive to which is why I have been a proponent of bringing NuRide to the region.
Now, I drive by the Wabash tunnel entrance every day I never see cars taking the ramp off of route 51 to the tunnel. The three entrances to the city in that area - Liberty and Fort Pitt tunnels, and the West End Bridge entrance - are all congested. So, my question is this, and it is self serving since I would use it - why not open up the tunnel to all vehicles? A recent report said that the Port Authority was debating closing the tunnel. Well, I say at least open it to all vehicles and charge a toll. That would still save many of us time in the morning, and, it would alleviate some of the congestion that is detrimental to the air quality in our region.
Well, 2nd worst for particulate pollution, or soot. I've posted a few times that the Pittsburgh region has poor air quality. While our leaders continue to beat their chests over meaningful rankings such as "Most Livable City", other rankings such as our annual placement in the worst pollution rankings and statistics such as our poor job and population growth seem to refute that this city is in fact on the right track.
Don't get me wrong, I love Pittsburgh, but we need to get our priorities straight if we ever want to be a place that attracts and retracts young people. Redundant commissions are not enough. The new hockey arena won't do it. Casino? Come on. I've said it once I'll say it again. Pittsburgh has to create jobs if it wants young people to stay here and young people to migrate here. One way to create jobs - BE DIFFERENT!
Pittsburgh needs to strive to be unique in its regional economic policies. Clever marketing campaigns won't do it. Why not become a leading edge city for green tech and environmentally sensible regulations? Pittsburgh should build on its success with green building and become the Green city. Why not turn this city into one that replaces cars with light rails, congestion priced roads (want to drive from Monroeville to downtown? Pay up!), NON-SOOT emitting trucks and city where riding your bike to work is not only preferred but safe!
In order to do most of those things hundreds of millions must be spent on infrastructure such as light rails, new roads, personnel, etc but unfortunately there is going to be roughly $1 billion tied up in construction of a light rail tunnel from downtown to the North Shore. People think that much money to extend the 'T' 1.2 miles is ridiculous, it may be, but hopefully it is the start of something big. That rail may eventually extend further north of the city where congestion is getting worse and worse as more people move to the northern suburbs. Not all boondoggles have to be bad.
This picture was taken as I drove through Shadyside, a primarily residential neighborhood in the City of Pittsburgh's east end. I was driving two cars behind a dump truck (partially visible through the soot) on S. Aiken Ave as I witnessed it spewing black soot into the air, the same soot that causes particulate air pollution, one of the culprits behind asthma and various lung diseases. It is also to blame for Pittsburgh ranking among the worst cities for particle air pollution year after year.
Ironically, this photo was taken as I drove right passed UPMC Shadyside hospital, not to mention, I was blocks away from a school where young children were probably outside enjoying the nice weather during their lunch hour.
Mayor Luke - I know you are running unopposed in this spring's democratic primary but that doesn't mean you can tout Pittsburgh as a "green" city while we rank #1 on the list for cities with the worst pollution and we have trucks spewing soot into our residential neighborhoods. It's one thing to have these trucks emitting dirty soot on our bridges and highways, it is another that they do this where our children play and where the elderly are already suffering from lung disease. Please do more to clean up Pittsburgh than the "Redd Up" campaign started by your predecessor. Regulations need to be put in place - either these trucks burn cleaner fuels or they receive fines for polluting our neighborhoods.
How do we get more people to share rides to and from work? Some people do it, and a lot of companies offer incentives and monthly drawings to reward those employees who share rides. Two of my former employers offered monthly drawings, one being Merck & Co. who happened to offer incentives to carpoolers and even offered zero percent financing for hybrid automobile purchases (neat!).
Is that enough? I don't think so. People do not carpool for a number of reasons. People become attached to their vehicles. Some like the "thrill" of the commute, or maybe its the 1 hour of talk radio, while most of those people probably just desire the flexibility driving the car to work gives them - whether that is the ability to work late, go to the gym after work, or pick up the kids or meet friends following the daily grind. Those same employees at Merck's suburban Philadelphia offices who lived in Center City, the same who had carpool incentives AND access to a train to and from work, chose to drive themselves to work, which is nuts if you've ever commuted around Philly, especially on the Schuylkill expressway deathtrap. Whatever the reason, we can't rely on good faith and "doing the right thing" to get people to share rides more than they do today and that does not help places like Pittsburgh where the air quality is pretty poor.
I'm not an economist but these types of decisions and incentive studies are what keeps our econobloggers busy day in and day out. I'll have to forward this on to one of them to see if I can get an answer on potential solutions to the lack of carpooling in the US. Me personally, I shared a ride with a co-worker for about 18 months. Each way was close to 20 miles and while my co-worker did most of the driving I did pay my share in gas. Besides saving on gas and the mileage on my leased vehicle (my incentive at the time!), we were able to have a lot of good conversations and became good friends, but I doubt most others would be lucky enough to share the same love of music and entrepreneurship that my friend and I shared.
So what can we do? Most regions have an organization in place that offers some sort of system for car pool scheduleing, such as Pitsburgh's fine commuteinfo.org. The problem with solutions such as commuteinfo.org is A. The lack of clarity - where the heck do I go on this page and how do I use it? and B. Lack of incentives.
NuRide.com is a solution I read about two years ago and is a potential solution I asked some of our local organizations to look into. That was back in the Summer of 2005 and I came across several emails to both individuals at NuRide and also here at the groups in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is not on NuRide's list of operating regions so I am assuming my efforts back in 2005 were wasted. Well, I'm not giving up. I'm seeing more and more vehicles backed up on the highways leading into Pittsburgh to the North, East, and West, with the Northern parkway (route 279) being much worse than it was back when I shared a ride in 2001-2002.
The NuRide program relies on funding from regions that receive money from the federal government's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program. Through the use of these funds, which , according to my contact at NuRide only come about when "the local governments are willing to spend some of the money on ride sharing programs," NuRide is able to serve a region and recruit its partners, which are the bread and butter of this incentive program.
If your region is using CMAQ funds to operate a ride sharing program, is that ride sharing program effective? If not, and I believe a lot of those dollars are funding bureaucracies that do little to ease the congestion and pollution problems or our cities, start reaching out to the leaders of your community action groups, start bringing up programs like NuRide to your local leaders, and let's all try a little harder to extend the offer of ride sharing with a fellow co-worker even if it does not get you a free latte at Starbucks.
Despite the media frenzy caused by the TXU buyout last week, Coal powered electricity plants are not going away. Coal is too cheap - 3 times cheaper than Solar Power. With increasing demand for power plants and coal being an abundant natural resource, a homegrown resource no less, we will see coal continue to play a huge role in our electricity supply. That is, unless a couple things happen.
First, the nuclear waste issue has not been solved. If it is ever solved, and the public can be confident in the government's ability (ha!) to store and manage the waste safely, we could see a resurgence in Nuclear Power.
Secondly, Solar Thermal, in my opinion, has the greatest upside. Two large scale (400 to 500 MW) solar thermal plants are currently under construction in Southern California and additional plants are under consideration for Nevada. If these solar plants, which can produce as much electricity as a conventional gas or coal plant, ever achieve economies of scale great enough to encourage more investment in the construction of more plants, it is possible that the majority of our electricity could someday come from solar thermal technology.
The TXU buyout will still have a huge impact industry wide- companies will now be under greater pressure by consumers and environment groups to increase their capital spending on clean burning technologies. Utility firms better wake up - if they refuse to invest to reduce their toxic emissions and greenhouse gases they are sure to see an uprising from their customers.
Due to pressure from environmental groups and citizens of Texas, the buyout group led by Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts (KKR) in the $32 billion bid for Dallas utility TXU has agreed to cancel the construction of 8 out of the 11 planned coal-burning power plants - a decision that is sure to set a president for future buyout deals. The buyout and decision to invest in cleaner technologies comes several months after TXU defied public demand for fewer coal-burning plants and the retrofitting of old plants with better technology. The deal, which if approved would surpass KKR's buyout of RJR Nabisco as the largest in history, is sure to cause "shock waves" from Wall Street to Washington, as the article noted.
A few months back, TXU's CEO had admitted that there were benefits to pollution reduction technologies such as coal gasification which burns 70 to 90 percent cleaner than the conventional plants TXU planned to build, however, he stated that due to the increasing demand for power, they were putting their plans for that technology on the back burner. Its funny how many public companies still are not grasping the new democracy led by the increasing influence and power of new media.
Gone are the days of F. Ross Johnson and other free wheeling, free spending CEOs who get away with spending shareholder dollars frivolously and only care about the bottom line. Lee Scott of Wal-mart is a perfect example of the CEO 2.0 - a leader who listens to the public's concerns and integrates the demand for change into the business model - making the shareholders, stakeholders, and the public better in the end.
Energy Consultant Geoffrey Styles said on his blog, Energy Outlook, that Al Gore and his documentary played a role in the KKR decision:
“The indirect connection is obvious: climate change has become one of the biggest issues of our times, and both of these events reflect that reality,” he writes. “At the same time, it’s tempting to see a causal link between the influence of Mr. Gore’s documentary and the recognition by KKR and its partners that stakeholder concerns about the global-warming impact of TXU’s coal power plant construction program could put their entire transaction at risk.”
GE, the supposed environmentally friendly company behind the Ecomagination marketing campaign, has been fighting an aggressive proposal by the EPA to cut the smog emissions in locomotives. GE agrees with the EPA that there is a need for NOx reduction but is arguing for a less aggressive limit on emissions.
The EPA estimates that the cost to reduce these emissions would be $2 to $4 billion by the year 2030 but also estimates the value of the health and environmental benefits of the smog reduction at $70 billion over the same period. Wow. So why is GE fighting the EPA's proposal?
Existing GE locamotives meet the EPA's current limit of 5.5 grams per horsepower per hour's operation. This doesn't sound like a lot at first until you read that the EPA estimates each locomotive produces as much pollution over its lifetime as 500 heavy-duty diesel trucks. Yuck. The EPA wants to set the new limit to 1.3 grams while GE is willing to meet them at 1.9 grams. Okay. GE has stated that 1.3 grams is not feasible and would require a technological breakthrough. However, one of GE's smaller competitors in the locomotive space has stated that the new limit would be a "stretch" but it is reachable using existing smog control technology used in cars and trucks.
GE, to their credit, has issued a press statement and has insisted that the press characterization of them "fighting" the EPA is misleading. Well, if that is the case then how much of the shareholder's money is GE spending on lawyers and lobbyists for this cause?
I for one, think this is a PR blunder on GE's part as they have been a leading company in green technology, and, with their sketchy past, have come a very long way. When you're the second largest company in the world (by market cap) with as many businesses as GE has, 100% of the company is not going to get it right the first time around. I just hope that we do not see GE making empty promises like the ones we have seen from the energy companies.
The first one, regarding the correlation of traffic pollution and lung problems in children, is further proof that the Pittsburgh region's poor air quality is behind the region's, or part of the region's above average asthma rates. (Hey Harold - here is another link for you).
The second story on Iran highlights an alarming trend in developing economies around the world. Globalization, increasing ranks of the middle class(more automobiles), and little or no environmental oversight mean cities such as Tehran and smaller industrial towns in China (see story on Leifeng and Puxing ) are experiencing deadly pollution levels, levels that we haven't seen in the US since the days of Carnegie and Frick.
If this Global Warming thing is as bad as it seems - and if the US and our allies get their act together - will it matter? How could an energy independent, less polluting US and its 300 million citizens offset the damage being done by the economic run-away freight train known as China? These countries are basically where we were at the turn of the 20th century, our democratic made those pollution levels by the major industries unsustainable (although not enough has been done in the following 100 years!). China's economy will eventually surpass ours, but the lack of free speech makes it difficult for the type of sea change necessary to halt the dangerous effects of global warming.
The Global corporations, led by GE, a major sponsor of the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing, need to step in and lend their expertise and clout to help curb this problem.
A New England Journal of Medicine study finds that increased heart risk is linked to air pollution. The WSJ also has a nice writeup on the a study, and being a resident of Pittsburgh - the city at the top of the list of highest annual levels of outdoor fine particulate matter,(in other words, the bad stuff that comes from soot), I have a vested interest in this subject.
I have read advisories against daytime jogging in other large cities, (Los Angeles, Atlanta come to mind) and I have known for years that Pittsburgh had a higher than normal level of particle pollution, but I've never really pinpointed why we still have poor air quality with the steel industries being long gone and why nothing has been done about it.
First of all, what exactly is particulate matter and where does it come from? Why should Pittsburghers care about this? Here is the wikipedia definition, lots of good info here on this and it also states the health effects of particulate matter in our air:
"The effects of inhaling particulate matter has been widely studied in humans and animals and include asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular issues, and premature death."
Getting back to the source of our pollution problem in Pittsburgh, a city our young mayor wants to be known as "Green" Pittsburgh. The most likely primary source of this pollution is our fossil fuel burning vehicles, but I think a major factor in Pittsburgh being the highest on the list is our inefficient highway system. Pittsburgh does not have a beltway. Everyone driving from the eastern suburbs to our airport must drive through a tunnel on the parkway, through the east end of the city and then through downtown, across a bridge, and then through another tunnel to continue on the parkway to the airport. This is the way it is to get from one quadrant of the metro area to another - you must go through the city of Pittsburgh.
While having to drive through the city to get from suburbs out East to West, North to South, etc, is a pain and probably contributes a great deal to our poor air quality, I think the source is not necessarily automobiles, but the hundreds of soot emitting diesel trucks and buses that have to drive through the city each and every day. How many recall driving next to a truck like the one in the picture above that was was emitting black soot into our air? I see it just about everyday as I commute through the Liberty Tunnel, through downtown to get to my workplace in the northern suburbs. Thinking about it makes my blood boil because there is nothing I can do except watch the soot spread out through the air. I know the driver of the truck either does not care or has no idea what his truck his putting in our air. And why should it be his problem? This has been an issue for years now and I doubt little has been done beyond this EPA funded research study at Carnegie Mellon University.
So why am I so up at arms about this? We do not have children but my wife and I have both recently begun to experience breathing problems. My wife's is more severe as she seems to have some of the symptoms of asthma. We both love to go into the city to go out to eat or take walks in the parks by ourselves or with our dogs. Will it get to a point where we can no longer take walks in the city? Or not want to raise our children in a city that puts them at high risk for asthma or cardiovascular disease? Are people who walk or jog on the Eliza Furnace trail (the jail trail) putthing themselves at risk? And what the heck is with those Ozone Days anyways?
If our current mayor, or whoever is elected this spring, is serious about making Pittsburgh a leading edge city, a city that truly embraces the environment and cares about the health of its citizens, then they will do more than Green Building initiatives and running public works vehicles on vegetable oil.
Our leaders at the local and state level must impose clean burning diesel standards on all trucks and buses in the region. This would be a mandate that we usually see coming out of California, so why not....Pennsylvania ??
