In Pittsburgh, it’s all about AIR

NEXT Pittsburgh recently published an article entitled “5 Challenges Facing Pittsburgh and what we’re doing about them,” and air pollution was number one on the list. Air pollution is a complex problem, to say the least (Dr. Neil Donahue at CMU explains just how complex on Essential Pittsburgh). Car exhaust as well as diesel from trucks, buses and industrial facilities all contribute to unhealthy levels of particle pollution and toxics – emissions that are known or suspected of causing cancer, birth defects, neurological problems and other serious health risks – in the air we breathe.

If you’ve been paying attention in Pittsburgh, the fact that air pollution remains a problem, even as we move away from the city’s industrial past, will come as no surprise. Both the Post-Gazette and Trib have published stories on air pollution this fall and the local National Public Radio station, WESA, spent another hour last Wednesday addressing the harmful impact of pollution from DTE’s Shenango Coke plant on the surrounding community. During the WESA radio show, the Deputy Director of Environmental Health at the Allegheny County Health Department articulated the problem well when he pointed out that, inevitably, an industrial  coke plant, located in a densely populated area, is going to put a “significant burden” on the surrounding community. The question, then, is does the community have a say in reducing that burden? 

In August, the Allegheny County Health Department signed a consent order and agreement with U.S. Steel's Clairton plant, fining the facility for daily violations and outlining a timeline for compliance with no public involvement. There was no notification and there were no public meetings. U.S. Steel was given the opportunity to negotiate just how long they can continue to dump unhealthy levels of pollution into the air but the people who live, work and play in the shadow of the plant, battling higher than average rates of asthma, cancer and respiratory illnesses, had no say.

As the steel city continues to become a tech city, we need to re-examine the cost of our ongoing industrial legacy. Right now, residents and clean businesses, which struggle to attract employees to a region with some of the worst air in the country, are paying the price. It’s high time we shifted that burden onto the polluters themselves.

Want to get involved and speak out against unhealthy air in our region? Email me at souter-kline [at] pennfuture.org.

Valessa Souter-Kline is PennFuture's western Pennsylvania outreach coordinator and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @ValessaSK.

Speak up: ACHD is in process of updating open burning rules

Particulate matter, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)  are just a few of the unhealthy pollutants found in the smoke drifting off of our campfires and out of our wood-stoves. That list goes on for three pages and, to a camper and marshmallow roaster like me, is wholly discouraging. 

No one wants to see that the warm, fuzzy scene evoked by cozy gatherings around a fire pit may not paint the whole picture. The good news: Taking a minute to understand the risks won't take away your favorite fall pastime altogether. 

While campfires always release pollution, there are ways to make them better -- and make them better we must. Wood burning, indoors and out, is on the rise and the health impacts are significant. According to the American Lung Association: "Besides particle pollution, wood burning also produces carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and even toxic air pollution. Studies have found that wood smoke leads to coughing and shortness of breath, decreases in lung function, and aggravated asthma and may even cause cancer." 

In many parts of Pennsylvania, where our air routinely receives a failing grade from the American Lung Association and our kids suffer from higher-than-average rates of asthma, burning wood (or, even worse, illegally burning leaves, debris and trash) exacerbates the problem. 

Allegheny County currently bans wood burning only on bad air days. The problem with enforcement is, do you know what today's air quality level is? It matters what you burn, how you burn it -- and when. 

While we prepare to testify at a hearing in support of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed clean power rule (join us!) and fight to bring big air polluters into compliance with air quality regulations, let's not lose sight of the air closest to home -- in our back yards -- and make sure we aren't part of the problem.

In Allegheny County, the Health Department is in the process of updating its open burning regulations. Now is your chance to speak up in favor of clean air. You can submit public comments through Monday July 7. As they are currently written, the regulations allow for only clean, dry wood to be burned, which will help cut down on smoke and particulate matter but will not eliminate the problem altogether. 

PennFuture recommends that in addition to working to reduce pollution from open burning in Allegheny County, more education needs to take place to connect the dots between the air we breathe and our health. Our cities, in particular, struggle to keep particle pollution within a safe range, especially on hot summer days. If you’re considering building a fire outdoors, check the air quality index first to make sure you’re not making a bad day even worse.

Valessa Souter-Kline is PennFuture's western Pennsylvania outreach coordinator and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @ValessaSK.

Victory for our health: Mercury emissions rule upheld

This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a key Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule to require coal and oil-fired utility power plants to reduce hazardous mercury and other toxic emissions. Industry and others opposed the rule on the grounds that the agency didn't consider the cost of the rule.

However, we in Pennsylvania know well the "cost" of mercury emissions: In 2009, EPA's Toxics Release Inventory placed Pennsylvania second nationally for mercury and mercury compound emissions from power plants. The cost to our health includes accumulations in humans and other organisms (fish we consume), risks to pregnant women, and risks to developing fetuses' brains. As many as one in six women of childbearing age have mercury in their blood above safe levels.

For more thoughts on the true cost: According to EPA, the proposed rule will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, and 130,000 asthma attacks each year. That's a major health cost we've been shouldering nationally, and this rule makes a difference in addressing that number.

The EPA rule has survived various ill-intended attempts to weaken or eliminate it. In 2012, Senator Bob Casey voted down a Congressional attempt to derail the rule, standing with the major health, faith, and environmental organizations all working to protect the health of those most at risk: Babies and mothers. PennFuture has been working on this health issue on state and federal levels for more than a decade, including organizing testimony at EPA hearings and postcard campaigns (thank you, PennFuture supporters for your work on this!). This ruling is a victory for human health and against polluters but, unfortunately, it won't be the last word on the topic.

For more info and background, here's a brief round-up on the subject:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427336/court-air-toxics-ruling/

http://citizensvoice.com/opinion/states-should-end-appeals-comply-with-mercury-rule-1.1671417

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/dc-circuit-upholds-utility-mact-mercury-and-air-toxics-standard-rule-2-1-split

Kate Gibbons is northeast Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture, based in Wilkes-Barre.

CMU paper: Renewable subsidies should vary across the nation

I was driving on the Pennsylvania Turnpike near the town of Somerset recently when I was perplexed by a billboard that declared ominously, "Your tax dollars subsidize wind power."

Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University will publish a paper this week in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that argues for focusing renewable energy subsidies in those areas of the nation that will yield the greatest health and climate benefits - such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Those that argue against government subsidies for wind such as former US Rep. Phil Gramm, tend to use per watt figures to make their case that wind is not a good investment, instead of overall federal and state spending that shows government subsidies have historically favored black and not green energy sources.  The per watt figures that detractors use tend to ignore life cycle costs associated with subsidizing fossil fuels. For example, Gramm's figures do not account for the total cost to society of choosing coal over wind, such as the billions that will be needed to treat abandoned post-mining acid discharges, the lost recreational revenue because 5,000 miles of streams have been polluted by mining throughout the mid-Atlantic region, and the numerous health care costs of dirtying the air that our children breathe. The detractors also fail to account for the major economic benefits that would result from drastically reducing CO2 emissions by eliminating fossil fuel subsidies worldwide.

The researchers at Carnegie Mellon point out that wind and solar provide identifiable health benefits that should be considered and maximized by targeting government subsidies for renewables in areas of the country where clean energy would yield the greatest benefit to society.

This blog previously argued for a "health revenue" policy in Pennsylvania that recognizes the disparate effects of carbon-based fuels and renewables. That would allow a more descriptive billboard to read, "Your tax dollars subsidize less asthma attacks for your children and less heart attacks for your grandparents."