PM-2.5 and smaller are extremely dangerous

From an Article by Robert Ferris, CNBC, September 21, 2017

Add kidney disease to the list of health problems associated with air pollution.

A team of scientists from Washington University in St. Louis and the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System found an association between tiny particulate matter and kidney disease in two different data sets.

The scientists compared Veteran Affairs data on kidney disease with data on air pollution from two separate sets: satellite data from NASA and information from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Their study consistently found that risk of kidney disease rose along with air pollution levels across the continental United States.

As might be expected, many of the areas of the U.S. at greatest risk tend to be more heavily populated. The part of the country with the lowest risk overall is a section that runs roughly from Montana through West Texas. There are pockets of lower-risk areas in other places, but much of California and the Eastern half of the United States are more vulnerable.

The scientists published their results in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

It is important to note that this only found an association with air pollution — the study did not conclusively determine pollution to be the cause of kidney disease.

But the fact that the study found the association in both the EPA data set and the NASA data set is compelling, said Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, a senior author on the study and an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, in a statement.

“The beauty of using both EPA and NASA data is that the agencies used two distinct techniques for collecting data, yet the results were similar,” he said. “This constellation of findings suggests that chronic exposure to air pollution is a significant risk factor for the development and progression of kidney disease.”

The study focused on a type of pollution called PM 2.5, which is particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in size. This particular form of pollution can come from myriad sources, including vehicle emissions, fossil fuel power plants, wildfires or even campfires.

Scientists say the particles can enter the bloodstream once they are breathed into the lungs.

Air pollution has been linked to health problems as varied as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and weight gain. The study’s authors say that one of those conditions could be responsible for kidney damage, rather than the pollution itself.

They also noted that the population they studied was mostly older white male military veterans, so the results might not apply to other populations. The scientists tried to account for confounding factors, but there could still be additional variables, such as diet or genetics, or even other environmental factors such as exposure to heavy metals.

But the data show a clear association.

“In our analyses, the risk of chronic kidney disease and its progression was most pronounced at the highest levels of fine particulate matter concentration,” Al-Aly said in the release. “This suggests further study is needed for a broader assessment of the global burden of kidney disease attributable to air pollution.”

Air quality has improved in the United States in recent decades, but Al-Aly pointed out that there is no safe level of exposure to PM 2.5; even low levels can increase risk.

Other parts of the world have serious problems with hazes of pollution. China has even had to essentially shut down entire cities for days at a time. Just breathing Beijing’s air might be as bad as smoking 40 cigarettes a day.

... to say nothing about air pollution, ash disposal, greenhouse gases, etc.

From an Article by Max Garland, Charleston Gazette-Mail, August 27, 2017

A proposed deal for FirstEnergy subsidiaries to acquire a coal-fired power plant would likely cost customers $470 million over the next 15 years, according to testimony from an energy and environmental consultant filed with the state Public Service Commission on August 25th.

David Schlissel, president of Schlissel Technical Consulting, submitted his prepared testimony on behalf of groups against the acquisition. He said Mon Power and Potomac Edison’s proposed Pleasants Power Station purchase from FirstEnergy should be rejected by the PSC because customers would be saddled with higher utility bills.

According to Schlissel, revenues earned from selling electricity generated by the Pleasants County plant wouldn’t be enough to cover the costs of maintaining it. The $470 million figure Schlissel reached is based on an economic analysis of energy market prices, Pleasants’ generation for the past year and generating capacity price estimates, he said in the filing.

“There is a high risk that the plant will not be profitable and will not produce a net benefit to ratepayers,” Schlissel said. “In fact, if there was not such a high risk, AE Supply and FirstEnergy would not be looking to offload the Pleasants plant to begin with.”

The groups Schlissel provided testimony for, WV SUN and West Virginia Citizen Action Group, have argued the $195 million deal would raise customer utility bills to benefit company shareholders and is similar to Mon Power’s Harrison power plant purchase, which an IEEFA report said cost customers more than $160 million.

If the purchase is approved by both the PSC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the plant would exit a competitive market and become a part of West Virginia’s regulated market, where it is guaranteed a profit.

FirstEnergy has made it clear it wants to exit the competitive energy services part of its operation, with CEO Charles Jones telling investors in earnings calls in 2016 that the company would either shut down coal plants or sell them so they are placed in regulated markets.

The companies have maintained in filings that the deal is expected to produce a 1.6 percent net decrease in rates, adding that acquiring the plant will prevent future capacity shortfalls the company projects will occur without adding additional power.

West Virginians for Energy Freedom, a group formed specifically to oppose the deal, said in a news release it delivered nearly 1,000 petitions to the PSC’s Charleston office asking for the commission to reject the deal. “West Virginians are counting on you to do the right thing,” says West Virginians for Energy Freedom’s petition. “Please don’t put Mon Power and Potomac Edison customers on the hook for bailing out FirstEnergy’s shareholders.”

Supporters of the move say the plant’s economic benefits are crucial to the area it resides in and that a deal is necessary to prevent the plant from closing. “While customers are expected to realize the transactions market hedging benefits, the state and surrounding communities should also gain the security of knowing that Pleasants is a reliable utility asset and a proven contributor to the economy and well-being of West Virginia for years to come,” Mon Power and Potomac Edison said in a March PSC filing.

Jody Murphy, director of the Pleasants Area Chamber of Commerce, said in a letter of support of the deal that the plant “pays millions in annual property and business taxes to fund local and state government and schools,” adding that the plant employs roughly 200 people.

“FirstEnergy … has stated repeatedly it will be leaving the competitive generation business sometime next year,” Murphy said in the letter. “That said, Pleasants County’s plant stands a good chance of being deactivated without the sale to Mon Power.” If the deal is approved, Schlissel said, the companies should be required to bear the plant’s market risks instead of their customers.

Schlissel’s testimony was filed Friday, the deadline for case filings by opposition parties. In September, three public comment hearings will be held in the companies’ service territory, along with a Sept. 18 deadline for Mon Power and Potomac Edison rebuttal testimony. At some point after the deadline for reply briefs Oct. 19, the PSC will decide whether to approve or reject the deal.

The deal also requires approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regained its quorum earlier this month.

The state Consumer Advocate Division recently submitted a protest asking for FERC to reject the deal. The CAD said the deal was intentionally structured so FirstEnergy “could avoid a further write off of its investment in an aging coal plant that is no longer economic” in wholesale markets.

The companies have said in filings they will have a projected capacity shortfall of more than 1,400 megawatts by 2027 and that Pleasants would satisfy the majority of that need with its 1,300 megawatts of power. But the CAD said Mon Power’s justification for the purchase is based on “overly aggressive assumptions” about the need for additional generating capacity, meaning customers would be paying for “significant stranded capacity costs.”

Additionally, comments submitted to FERC by WV SUN and West Virginia Citizen Action Group earlier this month said the transaction violates Section 203 of the Federal Power Act because it results in an inappropriate cross-subsidization involving captive customers. Mon Power and Potomac Edison contend they are shielded from Section 203 review by FERC because the PSC is reviewing the transaction.

“While Mon Power submits that the Transaction does not raise cross-subsidization concerns … the WVPSC will determine in that decision whether any further conditions on the Transaction are required,” the companies said in a July FERC filing.

But Monitoring Analytics, an independent market monitor of the PJM Interconnection, the regional electric grid the companies are part of, said in a filing that it is in fact within FERC’s power to deny the acquisition under Section 203 “if it finds that the proposed transfer does not meet the public interest standard, including the public interest in competition.”

See also: WV Ciitizens Action Group

Left to Right: Corals progressive death (9 mo.)

It is Unacceptable to Normalize the Disruption and Loss of Earth’s Corals

From an Article by Stephen Mulkey, The Environmental Century, 3/18/17

For the first time the Great Barrier Reef has experienced two back-to-back bleaching events, which have been driven entirely by extreme sea surface temperatures. The devastation is hard to miss, unless you are not looking. Successive generations often experience the conservation phenomenon known as shifting baselines of perception. A boy’s granddad may remember when they fished for more than 15 species of fish in the Gulf of California, but the boy believes that the five remaining species are normal, i.e., a new baseline. As the disruption of the biosphere accelerates and reductions in biodiversity ensue, it will become increasingly hard for each generation to perceive current conditions as normal, assuming that they are paying attention.

What matters in terms of their awareness is whether our kids will perceive these losses as meaningful. In the coming few years, their lives will revolve around sophisticated technology and immersion in urban culture. At least in the relatively near term, they will have precious little reason to link these losses to their immediate wellbeing. The disruption of our planet’s ecology will be background noise – something that someday somebody will do something about. But, not today.

The consensus among climate scientists and ecologists is that an era of reckoning is rapidly approaching. There is no reason to believe that the foundation of civilization provided by our rich and diverse biosphere will continue to support us as it is disrupted. Anyone who is paying attention and gives credence to science knows that climate change is accelerating. It is not the warming per se that is the issue, but rather, it is the impact of warming on living systems that matters the most.

A few degrees warming in sea surface temperature has a dramatic impact. Corals support the the highest fish species diversity in the oceans and they provide commercial fisheries with high-quality abundant harvests. As coral communities fail, so will the fisheries with consequences for millions of people who rely on these harvests as a primary source of protein. In Asia, for example, coral reefs provide 25 percent of the annual catch and food for over 1 billion people.

What is happening in the ocean surface waters is only part of this tragic story. Recent studies show that the vast Amazon basin is likely to experience increasing frequency of major drought and associated forest dieback. Just as the increased frequency of bleaching leads to coral death, drought in the Amazon will progressively compromise the survival of individual trees and impair the function of entire regions of the rainforest.

Because trees are the primary source of water transpired to the atmosphere in the Amazon, dieback has dramatically affected patterns of precipitation. More importantly, drought compromises the photosynthetic capacity of trees, resulting in a net release of CO2 from the forest ecosystem for up to three years following a significant drought.

The best science shows that we are on track to exceed 3˚C average global warming by the last decade in this century. The impact of this warming during coming years will be profound. Weather patterns and seasonal phenologies of plants and animals will be impacted worldwide. While there is evidence that some organisms have adjusted to the changes thus far, studies have demonstrated that many species will not be able to migrate to favorable habitats as climate zones shift. It is simply out of the question that most plants and animals will be able to continue to adapt to the speed and degree of change as climate disruption progresses.

As I have argued before, the window of opportunity for aggressive mitigation of climate change is almost closed. To be sure, all efforts at mitigation, whenever they occur, will help. But, avoiding the extreme effects of climate change during this century will no longer be possible if we wait to take action. Although there has been little increase in global emissions during the last three years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to increase at a record pace. The warming over the past three years has been dramatic. The emissions reductions accepted by the Conference of the Parties signing the Paris climate accord are not even close to being adequate to avoid dangerous effects. Of course, we welcomed the Paris climate accord as a positive development, but the scientific community is well aware that it is not enough.

With an aggressively hostile environmental policy embraced by our Executive branch and a Congress unwilling to act, we are squandering precious time. The U.S. simply must lead in the efforts to combat climate change. The majority of carbon pollution in the atmosphere came from us, and we continue to be the world’s largest economy. Thus, we directly or indirectly continue to drive most of the emissions worldwide. We not only have a moral obligation to lead, other nations cannot compensate for our lack of regulation through their own reductions. Without the U.S. as part of a worldwide aggressive effort to mitigate climate change, we stand zero chance of slowing climate change sufficiently to avoid massive disruption and loss.

Yet, in daily life we normalize this unfolding crisis. We look away. We talk about everything but the global changes that will threaten the wellbeing of our kids and subsequent generations. We are more concerned with gaining weight or being able to afford a new car than we are about the precipitous loss of Arctic sea ice or the accelerating hemorrhaging of biodiversity. Car manufacturers are perfectly happy to have the fuel standards of the Obama administration repealed. SUVs and F-150s will continue to be the biggest sellers. Fossil fuel interests are promoting legislation to tax electric vehicles, thus making them prohibitively expensive to own.

Most of the major players in our economy act as if the impacts of global disruption and loss are nothing to be concerned about. In anticipation of reduced regulation, the stock market is booming. There is no moral imperative to act for the greater good. The elites see themselves as immune to the effects of global ecological disruption as they serve the God of Growth.

With the current Congress and Administration in charge of our future, business as usual will be the order of the day. Well meaning environmental groups will continue to shout the good news of the expansion of solar and wind energy. Unfortunately, commercially driven changes in energy sources will not be sufficient to significantly reduce the rate of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. We need a wholesale reorganization of energy sources and their distribution.

Massive investment in infrastructure is required. This is what government is for. Unfortunately, our agencies responsible for monitoring emissions and developing new energy infrastructure are being dismantled. Indeed, any federal program related to climate change science, mitigation, or adaptation is slated for deletion. A politically conservative Congress is likely to support these elements of the President’s budget request. Thousands of dedicated and brilliant professionals will soon be discarded if the proposed budget is enacted.

Normalizing and ignoring the monumental changes underway is not only tragic for life on Earth, it will soon be tragic for us. I believe that serious damage to human wellbeing will be globally apparent by 2030 and beyond. This impact will be increasingly felt in affluent countries, but the poor regions of the world will be most affected. Mass migration, food shortages, and disease will be part of our future. Senior U.S. military brass recognize climate change as a grave security threat. Whatever we do, we must do soon because our window of opportunity for aggressive mitigation is rapidly closing. The U.S. came to a crossroads during the elections last November and made a fateful decision.

How will global ecological disruption affect your life? How will it affect the lives of your kids and grandkids? What are you willing to do to turn this around? Are you willing to engage in the uncomfortable task of challenging your neighbor, your political adversaries, family members, and your legislator? Are willing to stop being passive when the juggernaut of growth comes to your community? Have you called or written your elected representatives? Will you be part of the March for Science on 22 April or the Peoples Climate March on 29 April? Are you willing to go to the lengths necessary to prevent catastrophe?

What is required is far beyond what we thought necessary just a decade ago. Conserving energy and water and recycling on an individual basis will have little effect. These actions won’t get you into environmentalist heaven and they won’t significantly slow the unfolding disruption of our planet. We need systemic change across literally all sectors of the global economy.

Right here, right now, systemic change means political change.

NOTE: A planet that can’t sustain its greatest reef will eventually become a place that won’t support human life. – Tim Winton, 2017. The Australian Marine Conservation Society.

>>> See also: www.350.org