The Ethical Side of EPA's Proposed Clean Air Regs

Coal-fired power plant in Conemaugh, PA   (Photo by Stefan

Schlöhmer on ens-newswire.com)

I read a great op-ed piece last week that blows away the smokescreen spewed by detractors of the EPA’s newly proposed clean air regulations. The op-ed, by Christina Simeone of the Harrisburg-based advocacy group PennFuture, explained how market forces, rather than a mythical war on coal, are chipping away at the demand for coal.

That same day I also read an editorial in Scranton’s Times-Tribune that laid out much the same argument as Simeone’s op-ed. I entirely agree that there are valid economic reasons that we should not kid our selves into believing that that a liberal cabal is plotting to eradicate the coal industry.

But I’m also thinking about the human aspect of why we have to seriously wean our country from reliance on coal. Writing this post on Father’s Day, I’m thinking of the strong sense of social justice that my father impressed upon me. Because the reality of coal-fired power plants is that, other than the newest plants, they spew harmful contaminants into the air we all breathe. And in many cases, the people who live closest downwind to the older coal-fired plants have higher rates of respiratory illnesses than people in upwind towns. The people who are most likely to live in the downwind fallout zone of those older plants typically live there because they cannot afford to live elsewhere. They may be economically disadvantaged because of their race, their education, or simply because they are the n^th generation of their family living and working in that town. Regardless of their situation or background, they have a right to breathe clean air, just like any other American has the right.

Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the environmental rights amendment, states:

"The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all of the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people."

EPA’s newly proposed clean air regulations, therefore, are entirely consistent with the right to breathe clean air that was guaranteed by the passage of PA’s environmental rights amendment in 1971. The argument that clean air regulations are killing PA’s coal industry has been debunked. Rather, if the newly proposed federal regulations are ratified, they will help to ensure the health of tens of thousands of Pennsylvanians, including coal industry workers and residents of coal mining towns.

I imagine some libertarians might argue that if the demand for coal is weakening because cleaner energy technologies are actually cheaper then the free market should be allowed to make adjustments without regulatory intervention. But surely there will be cheapskate coal plant operators intent on running their plant into the ground to squeeze out every last nickel from of their investment, regardless of how many of its neighbors it sickens or kills. The free market relies on rational decisions. But deciding to continue to pollute without regard for the human casualties of your pollution is neither a rational choice nor an ethical choice.

Portland, PA, coal-fired generating station. In 2011, Greenpeace reported that pollution from this plant was responsible for 30 deaths annually, as well as 54 heart attacks, 500 asthma attacks, and scores of hospital admissions and emergency room visits.

(Photo:  Les Stone, Greenpeace. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/greenpeace-airship-highlights-coal-pollution/blog/36318/)

  

The reality is that trying to protect the coal industry is simply enabling a behavior that is destructive to everyone living and working downwind from any of the older coal plants. Without enactment of the EPA’s proposed clean air regulations, we are giving the operators of those plants a free pass to continue to pollute. That free pass forces someone else to subsidize their damaging behavior (in the form of the increased healthcare costs of downwind residents) rather than making the responsible party pay the external costs of their own archaic business model.

And this argument is only about the health and healthcare costs of the people downwind of coal plants. I haven’t even touched on the effect of coal plant emissions on our planet’s atmosphere. That will be another post for another day.

Rock Snot - Coming to a River Near You

Have you been concerned about didymo (a.k.a. "rock snot"), the algae that seems to be slowly taking over waterways throughout the northeast? A study from the University of New Brunswick, recently published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, offers both good news and bad news about didymo’s spread.

Didymosphenia geminata (www.mdinvasivesp.org)

Didymo is an algae (technically, a diatom) that forms a dense mat on the bottom of swiftly flowing freshwater rivers and streams. As its nickname implies, it looks a bit like a thick, gooey layer of mucous covering the bottom of streams and rivers. It can smother other aquatic vegetation, reducing habitat for the aquatic macroinvertebrates that fish feed on. In the past two decades it has been identified in the waters of the U.S., Canada, New Zealand and Europe.

First, the good news. Especially for anglers and boaters. Up until now, the conventional wisdom was that didymo was an exotic invasive algae species that was hitchhiking between watersheds on anglers’ gear, especially felt-soled wading boots, and on boats. State environmental agencies have launched intensive educational campaigns urging anglers and boaters to wash their gear and let it dry thoroughly to prevent further spread of didymo. Washing gear with a bleach solution was recommended. But according to the University of New Brunswick study, anglers and boaters are not spreading anything that was not already in their local ecosystems. So if anglers and boaters are not to blame for the ooze of algae popping up in more and more watersheds, what is going on? Sit tight for the bad news.

The didymo study looked at archival samples of lake sediment from several regions in Canada, and they found that didymo has been in these ecosystems for quite some time. Evidence of didymo can be found in the sediment record back to the beginning of the 20^th century and possibly even the last decade of the 19^th century. The researchers found that even in ecosystems which did not necessarily have evidence of didymo, there were increases in other algae species at approximately the same rate that didymo was increasing in lakes where it was present. The researchers found that increases in didymo and other algaes appeared to correlate with the warming climate. The study leader, Michelle Lavery, said, "We can't make any solid claims as to what the mechanism is that is favoring didymo, but we strongly suspect it has to do with climate." So although anglers and boaters seem to be off the hook for spreading didymo, the awakening of dormant didymo in bodies of water potentially throughout North America by a gradually warming mean global temperature would mean that we have little hope of preventing didymo from appearing in a river near you. That’s the bad news.

So does this new view of didymo mean that anglers and boaters don’t need to sweat about washing down their gear between destinations? No. There are other aquatic nuisance species that are much better understood than didymo that can hitchhike on our gear. Zebra mussels are one prominent example. So keep scrubbing down between trips.

I think the take-away message from this study is that didymo is still going to be a concern for those of us who rely on healthy and diverse waterways for our outdoor recreational fix. Although the indication is that anglers and boaters are not spreading it, this new study suggests that didymo may continue to appear throughout the waterways of the traditionally cooler regions of North America as long as the mean global temperature continues to inch up. I suspect that these findings mean that researchers can now focus their future didymo studies looking for ways to minimize inevitable didymo blooms under the assumption that it is already present but dormant in most aquatic ecosystems. And for anglers who will have to adapt to wading through dense patches of slippery rock snot? Maybe it’s time to invest in a wading staff.

Sources:

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/newbrunswick/story/1.2554825

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/whats-causing-canadas-rock-snot-infestation

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-debunk-argument-invasive-algal-species.html

Climate Change From a Fish-eye View

For those of us who acknowledge that climate change is real and is already happening, we have the advantage of planning ahead to identify actions that we can take on a local scale to alleviate some of the effects we expect to see throughout the rest of our lifetimes. The U.S. Congress and global diplomats certainly have the ability to take much bigger strides to try to mitigate a climatic tailspin by taking action to lessen the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. But let’s consider something each of us can do to mitigate some of the CO2 already in the atmosphere. Plant trees.

A shade tree is capable of absorbing and storing as much as 48 pounds of CO2 in one year. In 40 years, a tree can sequester one ton of CO2 (http://www.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm). That’s pretty substantial, especially considering that most large shade trees (non-ornamentals) can live decades beyond 40 years.

I have a feeling that not very many climate deniers are going to be reading this post. But just in case, for their benefit, I’ll point out another important benefit of planting more trees in our communities. Stormwater control. Trees can manage some of the stormwater heading for waterways in two ways. First, they intercept rainfall before it hits the ground. The result is a delay in the rain hitting the ground as it hangs out on the vast surface area of the leaves and bark. Think about how often you’ve walked under a tree after a rain shower and had raindrops fall from the leaves onto your head and shoulders. And more significantly, trees consume huge amounts of stormwater after it hits the ground. A mature oak can consume up to 40,000 gallons per year. Decreased stormwater runoff means less severe flooding. It’s estimated that for every five percent increase in tree cover in a community, the stormwater runoff is decreased by approximately two percent (https://www.americanforests.org). A two percent decrease might not sound like much, but for municipalities trying to meet the requirements of their EPA stormwater discharge permit (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, or MS4, permit), every gallon that doesn’t go into the local creek is a welcome reduction. Trees also absorb some of the pollutants picked up by stormwater, keeping them from washing into waterways as well. See, trees have something to offer everyone regardless of their climate beliefs.

So, speaking of trees, my local Trout Unlimited chapter (the Little Lehigh Chapter) last week was awarded a 2014 Coldwater Conservation Implementation Grant from the Coldwater Heritage Partnership. The Coldwater Heritage Partnership’s mission is to provide leadership, coordination, technical assistance, and funding support for the evaluation, conservation and protection of Pennsylvania's coldwater streams. The partners are Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds, and Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited. The chapter will use this $5,172 grant to purchase and plant 76 appropriate shade trees throughout five selected areas along the Little Lehigh Creek in Lower Macungie Township that have significant gaps in the streamside riparian buffer tree canopy. As they mature, these shade trees will help to maintain the naturally cool water temperature in the spring-fed Little Lehigh to help prevent heat stress on the native trout during the summer months.

 

Little Lehigh Creek at Willow Lane in East Texas, PA. 

But this grant award is a win for more than the Little Lehigh’s native trout. As the trees grow, they will be sucking up stormwater runoff heading for the creek along with some of the road salt, fertilizer, oil and grease typical in suburban stormwater runoff. And, by 2054, these 76 trees will have absorbed approximately 76 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.