air pollution

China’s central government faces a choice between democracy and eco-collapse

"Choking on Growth" is the apt title of the new New York Times series on the "human toll, global impact and political challenge of China's epic pollution crisis." Epic, indeed. The first installment shows how "As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes." The statistics are daunting:

But what about the economy?

According to David Pimentel and his team of researchers, water, air, and soil pollution cause 40% of all deaths worldwide. (via Hugg)

More great news from the climate

Nature has published another landmark study showing how the complex interplay of human-generated pollution with natural systems worsens climate change. Their news article (subs. req'd) explains:

Rising levels of ozone pollution over the coming century will erode the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a new climate-modelling study predicts.

Ozone is already known to be a minor greenhouse gas, but the new calculations highlight another, indirect way in which it is likely to influence global warming by 2100. High levels can poison plants and reduce their ability to photosynthesize, says Stephen Sitch of the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter.

Note this is actually a new amplifying feedback, since the hotter it gets the more ozone pollution is generated.

Below the fold is the rest of this article -- and for you hardcore science types, I'll end with the abstract of the original journal article.

A scary/funny post from China

I found this in my Google Reader feed this morning, a post from a British blogger named Charlie living in Beijing. Three weeks after it was reported that the Chinese government convinced the World Bank to suppress a report that over 700,000 Chinese citizens die every year of pollution-related ailments, due to the fact that it may lead to revolution social unrest among the populace, Charlie's post reads like a bittersweet valentine to the city he's lived in for four years:

You ever have that nightmare where the lifeline becomes a deadly snake?

India's emissions may be higher due to dams:

Defends herself at a hill hearing, poorly

You’ve probably heard that ex-EPA chief Christie Todd Whitman was up on the hill on Monday, defending herself against accusations that she misled New Yorkers about the dangers of air pollution following the 9/11 attacks. It was about what you’d expect: despite an EPA Inspector General report containing definitive proof that Whitman was logrolled by […]

Sign the petition!

I opened my inbox the other day and thought I must be dreaming: the venerable progressive organization MoveOn is taking on coal-to-liquids (CTL). This is from an email they sent to their over three million members on Wednesday: In the next few weeks, Congress could vote to DOUBLE the amount of greenhouse gases America produces […]

It would pre-empt state fuel efficiency laws

An energy bill is emerging from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but it has some "unacceptable" provisions, according to leading energy and environmental experts.

Rick Boucher (D-Va.), chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, has a draft bill online, along with summaries of key provisions. The bill has a variety of important provisions aimed at promoting energy efficiency in electricity and vehicles -- and some useful provisions to promote low carbon fuels.

But it has at least two serious flaws.

First, it helps subsidize coal to liquids, which is an irredeemably bad idea, as I have argued repeatedly (here and here). Yes, the bill would require carbon capture and storage, but even so, the process still generates high-carbon diesel fuel. Also, such storage would take up the space in underground geologic repositories that could otherwise be used for storing carbon dioxide from future coal plants, which results in carbon-free electricity -- vastly superior to high-carbon diesel fuel.

Second, the bill would "prevent California and other states from taking independent action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions," as noted by Environment & Energy Daily (sub. req'd -- article reprinted below). In an email, David Hawkins, director of NRDC's Climate Center, called this provision "absolutely unacceptable."

Others who question this provision can be found in today's E&E Daily:

Pollution hasn’t gone down of its own accord

It was only a matter of time before Planet Gore got around to the most famous bit of disinformation.

The big lie is to tout the fact that the air has gotten cleaner in recent decades while conveniently ignoring the fact that the reason for this achievement is environmental activism leading to tough air pollution standards. Progressives must push back hard on this big lie (something John Kerry failed to do with George Bush in the second Presidential debate).

Planet Gore proclaims proudly today: