Take a deep
breath; itÕs time to clean the air
By Peter Schwartzman
One of the only things that we donÕt have to pay for is the air
that we breathe. The right to eat, drink, and discard waste, three other
essential human functions have been turned into a commodity—and,
therefore, now require money. However, although air is free to breathe, it
still comes with costs. The air in cities throughout this country contains
dangerous chemicals. Air in many rural areas is polluted as well, compromised
by urban air blowing through or dust and agricultural chemicals (and odors)
from neighboring farms and animal factories. Despite government propaganda to
the contrary, the air that we are breathing is not healthy. Yet, it should be!
Everyone has the right to breathe clean air. Clean air is a human right which
shouldnÕt be violated or superseded by industrial interests. Somewhere along
the way we gave our air to the large-scale pollution makers. It is time we took
it back. Too many of us are sick. Too many of us are missing work and school.
Too much productivity is being lost to the economy. And, too many of us are
actually dying.
And take it back, we are. All across the United States, states and
localities are saying Òno more.Ó The state of Minnesota, just last week, became
the latest state to put the clamps on mercury polluters. Earlier this month,
the PG&E Hunters Point power plant, the largest polluter in the city of San
Francisco, was turned ÒoffÓ after many years of activism by the residents of
that community and the non-governmental organization (NGO) Greenaction for
Health and Environment Justice. This January, after a ten-year struggle, a
coalition of organizations, including the American Lung Association, got the
city of Chicago (and soon afterwards Cook County, its county seat) to eliminate
smoking in places of employment, restaurants and many other public places.
Chicago joined New York City and Los Angeles among cities to have reclaimed the
right to breathe healthier indoor air. Undeterred by current and past U.S.
presidents who were unwilling to support the Kyoto Protocol (an international
agreement to reduce the emission of climate change inducing gases), two-hundred
and thirty-one mayors all across the country have signed the Climate Protection
Agreement (to see where these cities are located and what the Agreement is all
about, go to: www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/). So you see, there is a
movement afoot, and it is time that all of us joined it. This year figures to
be a year when Illinois takes significant strides to clean up its air. There is
definitely much work to be done and many exciting opportunities for you to get
involved.
The primary focus of Illinois campaigns to clean the atmosphere we
breathe centers on outdoor air—particularly those pollutants coming from
coal power plants and diesel trucks and buses. Why does our air need cleaning
in the first place?
Air pollution, defined as substances in the air that are harmful
to living things, is nothing new. Humans have long breathed in atmospheric
matter that was damaging to them. One of the more common sources of air
pollutants in the past was fire which produces harmful byproducts during the
combustion process. As any person who has watched a fireplace burn various
plant materials can attest to, burning objects results in the production of
particulates (small particles, such as, ash and soot) and gases. Many of these
substances are quite dangerous to the body when they enter lungs and the blood
stream.
It turns out that most of our air pollution problems today stem
from burning materials as well. In this case, the substances being burned are
not recent plant products, rather they are fossilized living materials known as
fossil fuels, e.g, coal and petroleum. The burning of these substances produces
particles and gases, which are injurious to humans. And, given our speciesÕ
massive population as well as the energy intensive lifestyle demanded by people
in the industrialized world, it is not surprising to learn that these
pollutants can often be found at dangerous levels in the atmosphere. These
particles and gases are entering our lungs, our bloodstreams, and even our
breasts and brains and, in so doing, causing serious problems for far too many
of us.
Since coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel to burn, it is receiving
the bulk of the attention in policy circles. Burning coal releases nitrogen
oxides, sulfur oxides, mercury, arsenic, particulate matter, dioxin and,
secondarily, ozone. Each of these substances, once absorbed into the body, does
measurable harm. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) decrease lung function and have been
shown to contribute to respiratory disease in children. NOx is also a major
precursor for the production of ozone in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is one
of the more serious pollutants in terms of making asthma worse and its probable
association with infant cardiac defects, low birth weight, and inhibited lung
growth. Short term exposure to ozone has also been shown to cause respiratory
problems (such as wheezing, coughing, and shortness of breath) and weaken
immune systems as well (which makes people more vulnerable to other sources of
infection). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) aggravates asthma and can even
affect heart rhythms. It is also contributes to low birth weight. Both NOx and
SO2 (collectively known as NOX and SOX, and pronounced as ÒKNOXÓ and
ÒSOCKSÓ) can also be converted to harmful particulates in the atmosphere.
Particulates, once inhaled, get into the blood stream and can cause
inflammation of the heart and premature death (even among infants). Fine
particulates (that are smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, usually referred
to as PM2.5) get deeper into the lungs and are much harder for the body to
expel or combat (Children at Risk). Fine particles decrease lung
function in all humans, increase both the frequency and severity of asthma in
children and adults and may actually cause asthma. Mercury is a neurological
toxin that affects the brain and entire nervous system. It disrupts childrenÕs
development resulting in learning and behavioral disorders, lower IQs, and even
autism. It can cause brain damage in both adults and children. It is also
suspected to affect blood pressure and heart rate.
To give you an idea of the immense quantities that are released
when we burn coal, consider the emissions from one of the two coal power plants
located in the city of Chicago. Over the course of a year, the Crawford plant
(located just 5 miles southwest of Michigan Avenue) emits the following into
the atmosphere: 11,000,000 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 19 million pounds of
sulfur dioxide, 370,000 pounds of fine particulates, 586,000 pounds of large
particulates (particles larger than 2.5 microns but less than 10 microns,
referred to as PM10), 104,000 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
366 pounds of mercury (data from 2000). (Closer to home, there are four coal
power plants within 60 miles of Galesburg, two near Peoria, one at Duck Creek
in Fulton County, and one at Havana in Mason County.) Considering that there
are 24 coal-fired power plants in Illinois alone, the actual total pollution
input from this single source is clearly gargantuan. In fact, coal power plants
are the focus of many efforts to reduce air pollution precisely because of the
enormity of their contribution to the problem. For example, in the Midwest, 30
percent of all NOx pollution comes from coal-fired power plants (Nitrogen
Oxide). Nationally, more sulfur is emitted into the air by coal power
plants than all cars, trucks and factories combined (Sulfur Dioxide). And coal
power plants are also responsible for one-third of all human releases of
mercury into the environment (Mercury).
Are these releases dangerous? While it is always difficult to
determine exactly how much damage comes by way of a specific pollutant in the
atmosphere, recent studies suggest that the problems caused by pollution from
coal power plants is extensive. In the past six years, Abt Associates, an
independent research organization, conducted an extensive investigation of the
health impacts of power plant pollution. Their research led to two studies
which concluded that fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants causes
premature death in ~24,000 people each year—with the average life-years
lost by individuals due to exposure being roughly 14 years (Dirty Air). These
astounding results werenÕt unexpected. A Harvard study (referred to as the Six
Cities Study) released in 1993 as well as a American Cancer Society study done
two years later both determined significant levels of premature death due to
particulate emission. Closer to home, Levy et al.Õs 2002 study
focused on the impacts of power plant emissions in the state of Illinois. The
two power plants located within the city limits of Chicago, Crawford (in Little
Village) and Fisk (in Pilsen) were found to be responsible for 41 premature
deaths, 550 emergency room visits, and 2,800 asthma attacks per year. And to
make matters worse, this study only looked at the impacts of particulate emissions
(not ozone, arsenic, mercury, nor VOCs) and not the effects of the other three
coal plants which are located within thirty miles of the city. According to the
American Lung Association, human deaths in the Metropolitan Chicago region due
to power plant emissions are larger in number than deaths caused by drunk
driving (by nearly 3 times), HIV/AIDS (by more than 2 times), and homicide (by
over 200) (Asthma Plan). Similar horrifying statistics can be found all
across the country.
Given these results, it isnÕt surprising to find asthma so
prevalent in Chicago. In Cook County, the county where Chicago is located, it
is estimated that over 317,000 adults and over 121,000 children have asthma
(numbers which donÕt reflect many other respiratory ailments found in these
communities). Nationwide, approximately 20 million people currently have
asthma, with more than half of them having experienced an asthma attack within
the past year (Asthma Action).
Health impacts arenÕt the only way pollutants can take a toll on a
community. Asthma is the leading chronic illness causing kids to miss school
(U.S. Department of Education). Nearly 15 million school days are missed
because of asthma (Asthma Action). And when kids miss school, parents
miss work. This only reduces family income and heightens financial insecurity.
Loss of income also decreases the purchasing power of a community which hurts
small business owners. Though these economic and educational losses may not
have been well-quantified at this point (although the U.S. Department of Health
puts the annual costs of asthma at $16 billion), their significance cannot be
underestimated.
Air pollution also has environmental justice (EJ) components (for
more on EJ, see essays in 6/30/05 and 7/28/05 issues). African American and
Hispanic communities are disproportionately harmed by poor air quality and
pollutants from coal power plants. Recent data, taken in 2002, suggests that 71
percent of African Americans and 71 percent of Latinos (as compared to 58
percent of whites) live in U.S. counties that violate federal air quality
standards. Additionally, people of color bear an undue burden due to coal as
well. Whereas only 56 percent of whites live within 30 miles of a coal-fired
power plant (the distance considered the zone of greatest detrimental health
impact), 68 percent of African Americans live in these zones. Meanwhile, the
two coal-fired plants within Chicago are both in the majority Hispanic
communities of Pilsen and Little Village (over 95 percent Latino) (Air of
Injustice I & II).
Not surprisingly then, people of color exhibit unequal health
impacts. According to the American Lung Association, Non-Hispanic blacks have
asthma death rates 200 percent higher (Hispanics 15 percent higher) than
non-Hispanic whites. And again, despite sensationalizing and stigmatizing news
stories which regularly highlight the excessive presence of violence in the
inner city, power plant emissions are killing 37 percent more people than
homicide in the Metropolitan Chicago area (Asthma Plan). Certainly,
if the press reported this statistic as regularly as they do a shooting or a
stabbing, there is no question in my mind that the air quality in Chicago would
have improved dramatically by now.
Sadly, the pollution from coal power plants need not be as
damaging as it is. Technologies exist to greatly reduce the emissions from the
coal power plants in the United States. Many of the active plants in 2006 were
built before 1977 when the New Source Review (NSR) regime was incorporated as
part of that yearÕs Clean Air Act. The NSR required that the best available
pollution control technologies be incorporated in all future power plants. But
since many ÒoldÓ power plants were built before the Act was passed, they need
not abide by modern emission standards. It is a loophole that has long since
outlived any purpose it may have had. And since the costs of incorporating
these technologies dwarfs the profits made by the companies involved, it seems
absolutely absurd that we, the people that have to breathe these toxins,
havenÕt yet forced the government to require the adoption of them. It also
reflects very poorly on our elected officials and their overly-strong ties to
industry (rather than their constituents).
LetÕs now move to the policy arena where there has been a lot
going on lately, particularly in Illinois. Most initiatives have focused on
reducing mercury and NOX & SOX. However, these two emission forms (i.e.,
heavy metal and gases) get treated separately largely because the cleaning
technologies that exist are specific to particular pollutants. For example, a
fabric filter or sorbent injection is best suited to reduce mercury, while
selective catalytic removal (SCR) is well-suited to take out NOX,
and sulfur-scrubbers and various coal cleansing techniques can tackle SO2.
There is no question that we have the technologies available to reduce the
emissions of coal-fired power plants by 90 percent or more. Considering the
existence of these technologies, it can be said that the Òold,Ó pre-1977 power
plants which dot the landscape of the U.S. pollute up to 10 times more material
(per energy unit produced) than modernized and retrofitted coal power plants
would. It is time to demand that all coal plants modernize (or shut down and
let cleaner energy forms, such as wind and solar flourish in their absence) (IllinoisÕ
Dirty Power Plants).
Laws control pollutants in different ways. Some chemicals are
banned (such as lead in gasoline). Others are reduced in concentration or
amount of effluent rather than banned. Sulfur dioxide emissions have been
reduced this way, under a system known as Òcap and trade.Ó Cap and trade
regulations put limits on overall emissions of a pollutant (the ÒcapÓ) but
allow polluters to ÒtradeÓ (i.e., sell) pollution credits (which they have
received for reducing their emissions amounts) to other polluters who, having
purchased these ÒextraÓ credits, may increase their emission of a particular
pollutant. In this way, the total emission of a pollutant will be reduced but
this regime of trading doesnÕt handle ÒwhereÓ these reductions occur. That is,
under the Òcap and tradeÓ paradigm, some areas may actually see increases in
pollutants despite the lawÕs intentions. This is exactly what has happened.
From 1995 to 2000, 60 percent of the 500 power plants increased their SO2
emissions and 53 percent increased their NO2 emissions (Darkening
Skies) despite overall reductions in these gases. Obviously, the
majority of communities have gotten more polluted with Òcap and tradeÓ policies—a
clear violation of environmental justice protections. Something more effective
must be incorporated to protect our health.
So how has the U.S. government sought to control coal power plant
pollutants in the past and what is on tap for the future? Regarding mercury,
practically nothing has been done in the past to rid the sky, the ground, the
surface water or ground water of this toxic substance. The Bush Administration
has tried to treat mercury under the Òcap and tradeÓ regime. As this is inadequate
to protect all communities, it is suggested that we require all plants to
reduce their emissions. This is exactly what some states have begun to mandate.
Minnesota is the latest to do so. A law there, that the governor just signed
last week, calls for a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions at its three
largest coal power plants in the next 3 to 9 years. The technologies necessary
to reduce mercury are relatively cheap ($1-2 million per plant). And the
relative cheapness of removing mercury, along with the fact that nearly
everyone in society is harmed by mercury, especially those of us that eat the
fish that have absorbed this emitted mercury, it is a pollutant given high
priority and attention. Illinois Governor Blagojevich has been pressing for a strong
mercury bill for the past year or so. BlagojevichÕs efforts lead to a piece of
legislation that has been presented to the state legislature which calls for
the 90 percent reduction of mercury emissions in all coal power plants by 2012;
note: the bolding of the ÒallÓ represents a clear rejection of the adequacy of
the Òcap and tradeÓ paradigm. This may seem like an amazing change especially
considering that there have been no regulations on mercury emissions before.
However, it is very reachable economically and it should be done on the grounds
of environmental health anyway.
However, reducing mercury emissions
will not reduce NOX or SO2 emissions. In terms of
damaging our lungs, hearts and general health, it is these gases (and the
particulates that they become once they enter the atmosphere) that are the
major culprits. Regulation of these gases (and many others) began with the 1970
Clean Air Act. And while the incentives provided in this act helped motivate
industry to clean up somewhat, subsequent weakening of the Act and
industry-favorable enforcement of the law leaves us with, more than 30 years
later, serious air quality problems. In response to insufficient reductions,
sulfur dioxide was targeted in the 1990 Clean Air Act. And, since 1995 (when the
acid rain provisions of the Act went into effect), sulfur dioxide has been
regulated under the Òcap and tradeÓ regime. As noted earlier, under this
regime, most coal power plants saw increases in SO2 emissions, and
as such, this regulatory mode is inadequate. Unfortunately, under the Bush
AdministrationÕs current CAIR (Clean Air Interstate Rule) program, NOX and SOX
are going to continue to be regulated under the Òcap and tradeÓ system. And
while this system, if properly orchestrated and enforced, will reduce NOX and
SOX levels in the long term, it still will not address the inequity issues
raised earlier in terms of EJ considerations. Governor Blagojevich has proposed
firmer NOX rules for Illinois than have been offered at the national level but,
one again, Òcap and tradeÓ is the method being considered. We need to demand
that the CAIR rules that are passed in IL adopt the same paradigm of protection
(read, all rather than some) as the Governor has proposed for
mercury. We must also demand that they eliminate as much of the NOX and SOX as
is possible with modern technologies. To do otherwise is to continue trading
our health from industry profits.
At a city level, the Chicago City
council has been sitting on a Clean Power Ordinance for over four years now.
The Ordinance which is in the process of being rewritten, in order to take into
account the latest technological advancements, sets out to reduce NOX and SOX
emissions at the cityÕs two coal-fired power plants by ~65 percent over a given
period. The new Ordinance plans to increase the reductions required to perhaps
90-95 percent, given that existing technologies are available to do so.
So where does all leave us? Residents
of Illinois can contact their governor as well as their state representatives
and tell them that we support a strong mercury bill for coal power plants as
well as a strong NOX and SOX bill. The laws that will have greatest impact on
human health and economic benefit are ones that will require significant
reductions in the emissions of these pollutants on a timeline that is short (5
years maximum). Additionally, laws that do not rely on Òcap and tradeÓ regimes
will protect all Illinois citizens, not just ones that live in affluent and
powerful districts. (Governor Blagojevich can be reached by phone at
217-782-0244, (312) 814-2121 or (888) 261-3336. For information about your
state representatives go to: <www.illinois.gov/government/>.)
For those of you that live in or near Chicago (or visit it on occasion),
contact Mayor Daley or any one of the 50 Alderman in the city; contact
information for these politicians can be obtained at:
<egov.cityofchicago.org>. Tell them that a strong Chicago Clean Power
Ordinance is best for the city because too much pain and suffering is coming to
its residents and visitors (and too many children are missing school and too
many parents are missing work, as well). If you want to be more involved and/or
just want to stay informed on this issue, please visit the Chicago Clean Power
CoalitionÕs website: <www.chicagocleanpower.org> (something I helped
develop during my recent sabbatical stint in the Windy City).
There is no better time than now to be
involved in cleaning our air. Everywhere we look more and more people are
getting on board. It is high time that we all contributed to protect our lungs
and our childrenÕs and grandchildrenÕs lungs and education. If you want to
breathe clean air, what are you waiting for?
Works Cited
(all works can be found in full text at www.chicagocleanpower.org)
Abt Associates. (2000) ÒThe Particulate-Related Health Benefits of
Reducing Power Plant Emissions.Ó
Air of
Injustice [I]: African Americans & Power Plant Pollution. (2002) Black
Leadership Forum, Clear the Air, Georgia Coalition for the PeoplesÕ Agenda,
& The Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice.
Air of
Injustice [II]: How Air Pollution Affects the Health of Hispanics and
Latinos. (2004) Clean Air Task Force, Clear the Air, & LULAC.
Asthma Action Plan for Chicago. (2006) World
Asthma Day 2006 Report. American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago.
Children
at Risk: How Air Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health of
AmericanÕs Children. (2002) Clean the Air & Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Darkening
Skies: Trends Toward Increasing Power Plant Emissions. (2002) Clear
the Air.
Dirty
Air, Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution
from Power Plants. (2004) Clear the Air.
IllinoisÕ Dirty Power Plants. Clear the Air.
Levy, J.I. et al.
(2002) ÒCALPUFF to evaluate the
impacts of power plant emissions in Illinois: model sensitivity and
implications." Atmospheric Environment, vol. 36,
1063-1075.
Mercury and Midwest Power Plants. (2003) Clean
Air Task Force.
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions and Midwest Power Plants. (2003) Clean
Air Task Force.
Sulfur Emissions and Midwest Power Plants. (2001) Clean
Air Task Force.
Peter Schwartzman (email: pschwart@knox.edu)
is associate professor and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox
College. He is a climatologist with publications in the area of climate change
and human population growth. A nationally-ranked
Scrabble¨ player, he is also the
founder and maintainer of a website dedicated to peace and empowerment (www.onespower.org), natural spaces (www.blackthornhill.org), and clean air and energy (www.chicagocleanpower.org).