# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Large facilities with smokestacks, such as factories and electric generating units, must apply for and comply with air pollution permits issued by the MPCA.

The Clean Air Act has brought about major emissions reductions from these large facilities by requiring process changes, new equipment, and pollution control devices. Permitted facilities still make up 22% of the total emissions in the state, but they have also already achieved significant reductions in the past twenty years.

How we're doing

The amount of air pollution coming from factories and electric utilities - sources with individual MPCA air emission permits - has decreased significantly over the last 20 years. These reductions are largely due to government and industry efforts to reduce smokestack emissions.

What we're doing about it

The MPCA continues its long-standing work to reduce air pollution from stationary sources. Traditional regulatory methods such as permitting, compliance, and enforcement actions are well-suited to reduce emissions from large stationary facilities such as mining operations and power plants. The MPCA and, at the federal level, the EPA, work to review and update rules that govern these facilities as both the science to understand pollutants and the technology to control them advance.

Reducing mercury in our air and water

Nearly all of the mercury pollution in Minnesota's waters comes from air pollution, so efforts to reduce mercury in our waters and fish begin with our air. Minnesota's statewide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for mercury plan for achieving mercury emission reductions was developed to reduce mercury levels in our waters and protect people from consuming mercury-contaminated fish.

Minnesota has led the nation in efforts to reduce mercury air emissions. Since 2006, state statutes and MPCA rules, along with national emissions standards for mercury and air toxics from coal-fired utility boilers, have resulted in mercury reductions. Power plants in the state have achieved major reductions in mercury emissions through emission control devices and shifting away from burning coal. Despite significant reductions in the power sector, we project that Minnesota will not meet its 2025 statewide mercury emissions reduction goal. The MPCA is working to improve the accuracy of its estimates for these uses to better inform reduction strategies. To help meet the goals of the TMDL, Minnesota is implementing the Minnesota Mercury Emission Reduction Act of 2006 (MERA), the Mercury Air Emission and Reduction Requirements Rule, and the national emissions standards for mercury and air toxics from coal-fired utility boilers. Together these rules and laws are driving significant mercury emissions reductions, especially in the electric utility sector.

Clean Power Plan

In 2015, the EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan, which requires states to draw up plans for reducing emissions of CO2 from coal- and gas-fired power plants - currently the nation's largest single source of CO2 emissions. EPA's rule provides states with a great deal of flexibility in determining how to meet emissions reduction targets, including making existing plants more efficient, transitioning from coal- to gas-fired plants, relying upon more renewable energy, and reducing energy demand. Minnesota has already made great strides in a state transition to cleaner energy, and is well on the way toward meeting the Plan's requirements. But there are still some important goals to set and decisions to make before the state could develop a compliance plan.

States were originally expected to submit final plans to EPA no later than September 2018, but on February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay that halts implementation of the Clean Power Plan while legal challenges to the rule are decided by the courts.

While the case works its way through the courts, the MPCA has taken time to hear from Minnesotans on what is important to them in the development of clean energy in our state. The MPCA's current work aims to ensure that Minnesota is well-positioned to respond to any possible outcomes when lawsuits on the Clean Power Plan are resolved and supports efforts to meet the state's broader greenhouse gas reduction goals

Minneapolis comprehensive air pilot project

The MPCA has started a pilot project to experiment with a more comprehensive and proactive approach to working with facilities we regulate in areas of concern for environmental justice.

Air quality permits address emissions from facilities individually. In recognition of the potentially cumulative impact of neighboring sources of air pollution, the MPCA is working with 12 facilities in areas of concern for environmental justice in Minneapolis to better understand their impact on air quality in the urban core. Through this process, the agency will engage industry and the community to identify options for reducing air pollution.

Want the full report?

Learn more about how we work with industrial facilities to reduce air emissions: The air we breathe 2017
Document - dpop Document - ppop

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The amount of air pollution coming from factories and electric utilities - sources with individual MPCA air emission permits - has decreased significantly over the last 20 years. These reductions are largely due to government and industry efforts to reduce smokestack emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The federal Clean Air Act and associated environmental regulations have driven steep declines in air pollution emissions over the past several decades, even as U.S. manufacturers increased production, a study by two University of California, Berkeley, economists has shown.

The study, forthcoming in the American Economic Review, found that polluting emissions from U.S. manufacturing fell by 60 percent between 1990 and 2008-a period in which manufacturing output grew significantly-primarily because manufacturers adopted cleaner production methods in tandem with increasingly strict environmental regulation.

"In the 1960s and 1970s, people worried that Los Angeles, New York and other U.S. cities would have unbearable air pollution levels by the end of the 20th century," said Joseph Shapiro, an associate professor of agricultural and resource economics who co-authored the study with Reed Walker, an associate professor in the Haas School of Business and Department of Economics. "Instead, air pollution levels have plummeted, and the evidence shows that environmental regulation and the associated cleanup of production processes have played important roles in those steep declines."

Shapiro and Walker analyzed newly available data on over 1,400 different products produced by U.S. plants between 1990 and 2008. They combined this with plant-level pollution emissions data over the same period. The authors then categorized reductions in overall emissions into those that can be explained by changes in manufacturing output, changes in the types of goods produced or changes in production technologies.

The researchers found that most of the decreases in emissions of important pollutants from manufacturing-such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide-came from changes in production technologies.

"People often assume that manufacturing production pollutes less today because manufacturing output has declined, when in fact output was 30 percent greater in 2008 than in 1990," said Walker. "Others argue that manufacturing has shifted towards cleaner, high-tech products or that the manufacturing of 'dirty' products like steel has moved to China, Mexico or other foreign countries. Our analysis showed that changes in the product-mix of U.S. manufacturing do not explain much of the reduction in emissions. Instead, manufacturers are producing the same types of goods, but they've taken significant steps to clean up their production processes."

The researchers sought to identify the key driver of the change in production technology. They quantified the importance of reductions in tariffs and other trade costs, improved productivity and environmental regulation in explaining decreases in air pollution emissions. Then they showed that the stringency of environmental regulation for manufacturing firms nearly doubled between 1990 and 2008. The researchers demonstrate that this increase in regulatory stringency, rather than improvements in manufacturing productivity or trade exposure, accounted for most of the decreases in pollution emissions.

Provided by: University of California - Berkeley

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental regulations drove steep declines in US factory pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The federal Clean Air Act and associated environmental regulations have driven steep declines in air pollution emissions over the past several decades, even as U.S. manufacturers increased production, a study by two University of California, Berkeley, economists has shown. The study, forthcoming in the American Economic Review, found that polluting emissions from U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Cure Smoke Pollution From Factories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Smog from industrial processes comes with numerous environmental and health concerns. However, the use of greener materials and chemical filtering processes is becoming cheaper and more common.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chris Dinesen Rogers

Chris Dinesen Rogers has been online marketing for more than eight years. She has grown her own art business through SEO and social media and is a consultant specializing in SEO and website development. Her past work experience includes teaching pre-nursing students beginning biology, human anatomy and physiology. Rogers's more than 10 years in conservation makes her equally at home in the outdoors.

Industrial pollution is one of the primary sources of environmental contamination. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), air pollution levels rose 14 percent from 1990 to 2008. This trend reflects the amount of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions in the air. Air pollution can have profound effects on the health of the entire planet.

Video of the Day

Factories pollute the air through fossil fuel emissions. These emissions include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Combustion creates these toxic pollutants. While all of these are naturally-occurring substances, it is the high levels of emissions which are of concern. Industrial processes will also emit manmade emissions such as fluorine-containing gases such as hydrofluorocarbons.

Chemical reactions create another air pollutant, ozone. Ozone forms with sunlight, nitrous oxide and volatile organic compounds in the air. Volatile organic compounds include fossil fuel emissions, chemical solvents, and byproducts of other industrial processes. When ozone stays close to the Earth&#039;s surface, it becomes harmful to human and environmental health. The Air Quality Index measures the levels of ozone and other common air pollutants.

The effects of air pollution are often widespread because pollutants can drift great distances from their source. Acid rain occurs when factory emissions combine with moisture present in the air to form acidic precipitation. Acid rain changes the pH of lakes, ponds, and soils to toxic levels. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that air pollution caused the pH of rainfall to drop to 4.2 in the Washington, D.C. area. Unpolluted rain has a pH of 5.6.

Air pollution has severe human health effects. Ozone, for example, causes irritation to the respiratory system. It can aggravate existing conditions such as asthma and bronchitis. Carbon monoxide can adversely affect your cardiovascular and central nervous systems. Your body has some natural resistance and will attempt to fight off the effects of pollutants. Yet, some damage may be irreversible, according to a report by the National Aeronautics Space Administration.

Air pollution caused by factories is one of the leading causes of climate change. The air is directly impacted, yet the effects go far beyond air quality issues. Greenhouse gas emissions can cause physical damage to plants and reduce crop yields. Plants store carbon dioxide in their tissues in a process called carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. By affecting plants, air pollution impairs one mechanism for improving air quality. This creates a vicious cycle of continued air quality impairment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Industrial pollution is one of the primary sources of environmental contamination. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), air pollution levels rose 14 percent from 1990 to 2008. This trend reflects the amount of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions in the air. Air pollution can have profound effects on the health of the...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The presence of chemicals, particulates or biological compounds in the atmosphere can harm human and animal health and damage the environment. Factories and other industrial installations have caused such pollution since the dawn of the industrial age by burning fuels, carrying out chemical processes and releasing dust and other particulates. Air pollution can be controlled through the installation of filters and scrubbers to clean exhaust fumes from factory processes, and by taking steps to minimize the generation of pollution at the source.

Factories need an energy source to power their production processes. In the United States, this has been electricity generated by fossil fuel burning, in particular coal. Air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants include nitrogen and sulfur oxides, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride gases, and arsenic, lead and other metals. Power generation for factories may cause greater air pollution than the factory processes. Natural gas is the least polluting fossil fuel for power generation. It emits nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide on burning but in far lower quantities than coal

Metals provide machine components, vehicles, instruments and infrastructure in factories. Metal smelters that process and refine mineral ores and scrap metal create silica and metallic dusts during initial crushing and grinding. Heating and smelting processes produce emissions of sulfur and carbon oxides. Aluminum smelting can emit arsenic particulates, while lead and gold refining produces mercury and cyanide emissions.

Factory processes involve varied combinations of cleaning, painting and heating, while other raw material or appliance treatments release volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere. These are carbon- or hydrocarbon-based chemicals that quickly evaporate in the air. In the presence of sunlight, they react with other air pollutants like sulfur or nitrogen oxides from vehicle exhausts to create peroxyacetyl nitrates, commonly known as photochemical smog. This looks like a thick brown haze and can linger for days or weeks over urban centers.

The food processing industry uses a wide range of methods for the preparation, cooking and packaging of foodstuffs that release particulates into the atmosphere. Bulk material handling of grains and flour produce dust. Frying and smoking processes release soot into the air. Rendering and washing in meat and fish processing plants produces volumes of liquid waste that leaves mold and bacterial residues that also pollute the air.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Factories produce air pollution by burning fuels, carrying out chemical processes and releasing dust and other particulates. Air pollution can be controlled with filters and scrubbers, and by taking steps to minimize the generation of pollution at the source.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In recent years, wildfires have made headlines as they blazed across the west, Alaska and Canada, burning more than 9.8 million acres just last year, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

Not only were people forced to flee their homes, but smoke from fires in the north and west also threaten the lung health of Americans thousands of miles away. In fact, in one fire alone, wildfire pollutants reached people in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa from flames in northern Canada.

See this dramatic photo from NASA showing the smoke from that Canadian fire on June 29.

Wildfire smoke can be extremely harmful to the lungs, especially for children, older adults and those with asthma, COPD and bronchitis or a chronic heart disease or diabetes. Even if you don't live near wooded areas, you can learn more on how to protect yourself from wildfire smoke.

Dangers of wildfire smoke

One of the many pollutants found in wildfire smoke is particle pollution, which is a mix of very tiny solid and liquid particles suspended in air. How tiny? Many of the particles in wildfire smoke are no larger than one third the diameter of your hair. These particles are so small that they enter and lodge deep in the lungs.

Particle pollution triggers asthma attacks, heart attacks and strokes-and can kill. Studies of children in California found that children who breathed the smoky air during wildfires had more coughing, wheezing, bronchitis, colds, and were more likely to have to go to the doctor or to the hospital for respiratory causes, especially from asthma.

Another threat from forest fire smoke is carbon monoxide(CO)-a colorless, odorless gas most common during the smoldering stages of a fire and in close proximity to the fire. Inhaling CO reduces oxygen delivery to the body's organs and tissues and can lead to headaches, nausea, dizziness and, in high concentrations, premature death.

Wildfires spread many other harmful emissions, including nitrogen oxides and many hazardous air pollutants.

Why so many fires?

In 2015, we had one of the worst fire seasons in the past decade, but each year sees tens of thousands of fires and millions of acres burned. Researches tell us climate change has contributed to fueling the flames of these wild fires.

Climate change has caused higher spring and summer temperatures and earlier spring snow-melt, which typically cause soils to be drier for longer, increasing the likelihood of drought and a longer wildfire season. And once wildfires ignite-whether by lightning strikes or a cigarette-these hot, dry conditions will increase the likelihood that the fire will be more intense and long-burning.

Wildfires threaten lives directly, and wildfire smoke can affect us all. They spread air pollution not only nearby, but thousands of miles away-causing breathing difficulties in even healthy individuals, not to mention children, older adults and those with heart disease, diabetes, asthma, COPD and other lung diseases.

Take wildfire threats seriously and be prepared.

Janice Nolen

Assistant Vice President, National Policy

American Lung Association

Janice Nolen is the American Lung Association's Assistant Vice President of National Policy.

Follow Janice:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In recent years, wildfires have made headlines as they blazed across the west, Alaska and Canada, burning more than 9.8 million acres just last year, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. Not only were people forced to flee their homes, but smoke from fires in the north and west also threaten the lung health of Americans thousands of miles away.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans today are breathing cleaner air than they have in decades. Our cars run 100 times cleaner than in the 1960s, and we burn less coal for power in favor of natural gas and renewables-changes with a huge impact on our health. But in areas across the West wildfires threaten to undo much of that progress.

Climate change has made the West hotter and drier, and that, combined with decades of fire suppression, has led to larger wildfires and a longer fire season. Between 1984 and 2011, in fact, the area burned in this region increased by almost 90,000 acres each year. These massive new fires are sending huge amounts of particulate matter in the form of noxious ash into the air, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. And some of the worst affected areas are much of northern Utah and Nevada, parts of California and Oregon, and most of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana.

"This is a more rural part of the country, but that area includes cities like Salt Lake City, Reno, Boise, and Spokane," says Daniel Jaffe, an atmospheric scientist with the University of Washington and one the study's authors. "There are a lot of people who live in the areas that are being affected."

To track trends in air quality, the scientists tapped into data from a series of monitoring sites, most of them located in national parks and forests across the U.S. They looked at levels of fine particulate matter-particles like smoke, metal, or organic compounds 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter-from 1988 to 2016. Pollution this fine often comes from smoke or burning fossil fuels, especially coal, so to differentiate the two researchers compared levels of carbon versus sulfur. Sulfur emissions-a main source of which is burning coal-went down across the states. But carbon-an indicator of wildfire-showed increasingly big, summertime spikes in the West.

They then measured the increase of carbon matter in the air during the worst 2 percent of days, because even such a short period is considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to have the potential to harm health. The impacts of particulate matter -including smoke-to our health are well-documented and include asthma, shortness of breath, and, as Jaffe puts it, "various assaults on our cardiovascular system, up to and including loss of life." Young children and the elderly are hardest hit, but at high levels it's bad for everyone, no matter the age, which is another reason why the increase during the typically most polluted days is concerning.

The study was focused on air quality up to 2016, but with last year being one of the worst wildfire seasons on record the amount of particulate matter in the air and the area impacted will probably have grown. According to climate models, this will all only get worse. While the U.S. has done a lot to limit particulate matter from burning fossil fuels, the country is still spewing a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, which is speeding climate change. That, in turn, makes wildfires more severe.

"There have been a number of computer simulations on climate that predicted this-saying that in 2050 it's going to be hotter, there's going be more wildfires in the Western U.S., and we're going to have more smoke," says Jaffe. "Well, guess what: the future is here now."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Think the West Has Clean Air? Wildfires Are Destroying It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans today are breathing cleaner air than they have in decades. Our cars run 100 times cleaner than in the 1960s, and we burn less coal for power in favor of natural gas and renewables-changes with a huge impact on our health. But in areas across the West wildfires threaten to undo much of that progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tracking Nature's Contribution to Pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists combined models and satellite data to track the spread of pollutants from forest fires in Alaska and Canada in 2004. They discovered that fires can have a significant impact on air pollution far from the fires location.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Smoke from the Camp Fire hung over Paradise, Calif., on Wednesday. Air quality in Northern California ranks with the worst in the world. Credit Credit Eric Thayer for The New York Times

PARADISE, Calif. - The wildfires that have laid waste to vast parts of California are presenting residents with a new danger: air so thick with smoke it ranks among the dirtiest in the world.

On Friday, residents of smog-choked Northern California woke to learn that their pollution levels now exceed those in cities in China and India that regularly rank among the worst.

In the communities closest to the Paradise fire, an apocalyptic fog cloaked the roads, evacuees wandered in white masks and officials said respiratory hospitalizations had surged. Nearly 200 miles to the south, in San Francisco, the smoke was so thick that health warnings prompted widespread school closings. Even the city's cable cars were yanked from the streets.
[Read some expert advice on how to protect yourself from the damage done to California's air quality]

And researchers warned that as large wildfires become more common - spurred by dryness linked to climate change - health risks will almost surely rise. "If this kind of air quality from wildfires doesn't get people concerned," said Dr. John Balmes, a pulmonologist at the University of California at San Francisco, "I don't know what will."

At fault, researchers say, is a confluence of two modern events: More people are moving to communities in and around wooded enclaves, pushed out by factors like the rising costs of housing and the desire to be closer to nature - just as warming temperatures are contributing to longer and more destructive wildfires.

Wood smoke contains some of the same toxic chemicals that city pollution does. While humans have long been around fire, they generally inhale it in small doses over cooking or heat fires. Humans have not, however, evolved to handle prolonged inhalation of caustic air from something like the Paradise blaze, Dr. Balmes said.

Research into the long-term health effects of large wildfires is still new. But a growing body of science shows how inhalation of minuscule particles from wood fires can nestle in the folds of lung tissue and do harm to the human immune system.

The body creates zealous responses to what it sees as an alien presence, and those effects can last for years by priming the body to overreact when it encounters subsequent lung irritation, said Dr. Kari Nadeau, a pediatric allergy and asthma specialist at Stanford.

Image

From left, Parker Bush, Paige Bush, Fiona Nielsen, Erin Nielsen and Aiden Nielsen brought supplies for evacuees in Chico, Calif. Credit Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York Times

In short, researchers like Dr. Nadeau believe that a person's short-term exposure to wildfire can spur a lifetime of asthma, allergy and constricted breathing.

Officials statewide don't have a grasp yet of how damaging and widespread the health effects of the smoke might be. Attention on Friday was focused on the death toll from the Paradise fire, north of Sacramento, which had reached 71 people. More than 1,000 people are still missing, according to Sheriff Kory Honea of Butte County.

The 142,000-acre fire was 45 percent contained, and officials said they expected to reach 100 percent by Nov. 30. Full containment does not mean that the fire is extinguished, only that firefighters were able to complete a perimeter around the flames and stop them from spreading.

That means that the health danger won't disappear even as the firefighters make progress. Research already shows how that smoke directly affect lungs.

An extensive study of the 2015 wildfire season in Northern California found that smoke exposure led to increased emergency room visits for adults of all ages, but particularly those over 65 years old. One of the biggest research projects on the subject, the study looked at nearly 1.2 million emergency room visits during the summer of 2015, and found that during smoke-dense periods, there was a statistically significant increase in emergency room visits for heart attack, stroke and respiratory infection.

In recent days, as California's air pollution map shifted from healthier green and yellow to red and purple - and then dark purple - officials from Los Angeles to North California urged residents to stay indoors and wear white N95 masks when they could not avoid leaving their homes. Even in Los Angeles, where smoke from the Woolsey fire had subsided by late Thursday, the air was still hazy and many schools required children to take recess inside.

For anyone who must go outside, the state public health department recommends P100 masks and N95 respirators, both of which are approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for use by firefighters.

But Sacramento will no longer distribute N95 masks, warning that for those not living next to the fire, their risks outweigh their benefits. Risks include increased heart rate.

In the Bay Area, the National Weather Service said smoke would linger in the region into the coming week. The unhealthy air in Berkeley forced the California and Stanford football showdown to be pushed back until Dec. 1, the first postponement of the Big Game since the rivals' 1963 match was delayed after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

In the communities around Paradise, air quality is considered hazardous for everyone, and the county health department is urging people to remain inside. But this has been difficult for evacuees. More than 81,000 people have been forced from their homes and many are sleeping outside in tents, unable to find other shelter.

Smoke from the Camp Fire lingered in Oakland, Calif. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

"I've got 18 grandkids here," said Jewel Taylor, 50, an evacuee from nearby Magalia, standing in a hotel lobby where she had managed to find a room for the previous night. Next to her, Eli, 7, could not stop coughing.

Ms. Taylor said that she was most worried about her infant grandson, a 1-month-old named Evan who had developed a cough and goopy eyes. "What do you do when you see your kids like this?" she said, her voice catching. She said she had lived through other fires in the region, she added. "This is the worst. Ever."

This week, some around Paradise said that when they inhaled, they could feel the particles cutting their throats. Others likened breathing to a persistent low-level anxiety attack.

"Let me put it this way," said Becky Dearing, 66, who already has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, "you almost feel like you're choking."

"We're like zombies," she went on, "walking around, all the unknowns."

The precise biological mechanics of how people develop chronic lung problems, while not fully flushed out, lie at the intersection of two seemingly disparate scientific areas, immunology and environmental study.

Immune cells that respond to foreign particles douse the particles with toxins, among other tactics, to destroy them. But an intense event like extremely poor air quality can prompt such a strong immune response that it can throw the body's delicate network out of balance, particularly in people predisposed to asthma or allergy.

A vicious cycle can begin where each time a person experiences even small, related stress - like smoke - the body overreacts, leading to constricted air flow and intensifying the risk of heart attack and stroke for some people.

Researchers say that climate change leads to this kind of ill health through wildfire, but also through prolonged pollen seasons, dust storms and other events that affect air quality.

"We're setting up a tipping point in the immune system that leads to more inflammation and disease," said Dr. Sharon Chinthrajah, a pulmonologist and allergist at Stanford, speaking of the way climate change has put increased pressure on human defenses.

"California," she added, "is being reset to a new reality."

Jennifer Medina contributed reporting from Los Angeles.

Follow Julie Turkewitz and Matt Richtel on Twitter: @julieturkewitz and @mrrichtel.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: New Casualty As Fires Rage: California's Air. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Air Quality in California: Devastating Fires Lead to a New Danger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PARADISE, Calif. - The wildfires that have laid waste to vast parts of California are presenting residents with a new danger: air so thick with smoke it ranks among the dirtiest in the world. On Friday, residents of smog-choked Northern California woke to learn that their pollution levels now exceed those in cities in China and India that regularly rank among the worst.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
ozone 																															 maps

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Smoke from Fires Can Affect Your Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How Smoke from Fires Can Affect Your Health - How Smoke from Fires Can Affect Your Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Emissions from cars increase the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. At normal levels, greenhouse gases keep some of the sun's heat in the atmosphere and help warm Earth. That said, many scientists believe that burning fossil fuels such as gasoline causes greenhouse gas levels to spike, leading to global warming.

Scientists use sophisticated instruments to measure concentrations of harmful substances in the air, but it's tough to say exactly what percentage of air pollution comes from cars. This makes sense, because many other human activities contribute to air pollution as well. In fact, the production of electricity by coal-fired power plants and other sources can cause more pollution than most cars. If that wasn't enough, we pollute the air when we heat our homes and public buildings with fuels other than electricity - just as we do when we drive our cars. Even people who don't drive add to pollution when they buy goods and services that involve fuel when they're made or delivered.

What we do know is that the transportation sector is responsible for over 55 percent of NOx total emissions inventory in the U.S., less than 10 percent of VOCs emissions in the U.S. and less than 10 percent of particulate matter emissions in the U.S. Volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, are gases that are emitted into the air from products or processes, according to the American Lung Asociation, and come from deisel emissions and the burning of gasoline.

Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared cars " mobile sources" of pollution, they aren't the only culprits. Big trucks, bulldozers, ships and boats, trains and even snowblowers pollute the air.

The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks estimated that mobile sources constituted 32 percent of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States in 2019 when including emissions from non-transportation mobile sources. And according to a study by researchers at the University of Toronto, published in 2015, 25 percent of cars and trucks are causing about 90 percent of pollution from the vehicle fleet.

The United States was long considered the world's biggest polluter in terms of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases, but China has moved into the top spot, according to the Global Carbon Project 2020.

The percentage of air pollution caused by cars is higher in urban areas and higher still near major highways. Fortunately, better fuels and new technologies in cars help. The U.S. government has imposed tougher emissions standards, and consumers want better efficiency. According to the EPA, today's cars are 98 to 99 percent cleaner for most tailpipe pollutants compared to the 1960s. Hybrid cars, electric cars and alternative fuels will continue to help, but the sheer number of people - and cars - on the roads offsets these improvements.

People can help by driving less. Combine trips for efficiency. Walk, bike, carpool or use public transportation when you can.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You see it every time smoke billows from your car's exhaust pipe. There's no denying that vehicles are major contributors to air pollution. But how much are they responsible for?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Problem-Increasing Air Pollution in Cities in the mid-1900's

After World War II, economic growth, population growth, rapid suburbanization, and the closing of some public transit systems led to more reliance on personal vehicles for transportation. The number of cars and trucks in the United States increased dramatically, as did the number of highways. One result of the rapid increase of motor vehicles was air pollution, especially in cities, that had serious impacts on public health and the environment.

Historic Success of the Clean Air Act

Congress passed the landmark Clean Air Act in 1970 and gave the newly-formed EPA the legal authority to regulate pollution from cars and other forms of transportation. EPA and the State of California have led the national effort to reduce vehicle pollution by adopting increasingly stringent standards.

The U.S. vehicle pollution control under the Clean Air Act is a major success story by many measures:

New passenger vehicles are 98-99% cleaner for most tailpipe pollutants compared to the 1960s.

Fuels are much cleaner-lead has been eliminated, and sulfur levels are more than 90% lower than they were prior to regulation.

U.S. cities have much improved air quality, despite ever increasing population and increasing vehicle miles traveled.

Standards have sparked technology innovation from industry.

Reducing pollution from transportation sources has led to healthier air for Americans. In cities, smog has been visibly reduced. Just compare the images of New York City below.

New York City: 1973 vs. 2013.
Slide the arrows to compare.

Source: EPA Documerica "Then and Now Challenge"
Pollution from vehicles, engines, and fuels dramatically reduced while achieving economic growth

Over forty years of clean air policies have improved air quality and improved the health of Americans, and the environment. Since 1970, EPA has set and implemented emissions standards to control pollution from everything from passenger vehicles, heavy duty trucks and buses, construction and farm equipment, locomotive and marine engine and even lawn and garden equipment. These standards are a critical part of the progress and improved air quality we have achieved despite increased economic activity and more miles traveled on average per person.

Cleaner Cars, Trucks, and Fuels

Compared to 1970 vehicle models, new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks are roughly 99 percent cleaner for common pollutants (hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particle emissions). New heavy-duty trucks and buses are roughly 99 percent cleaner than 1970 models.

Lead Removed from Gasoline

Motor vehicles were once the major contributor of lead emissions. EPA began to phase out lead in gasoline starting in the 1970's and leaded gasoline was fully prohibited after 1995. As a result, levels of lead in the air decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999.

Spurring Innovation in Cleaner Cars, Trucks, and Fuels

EPA vehicle emissions standards directly sparked the development and implementation of a range of technologies.The automotive catalytic converter, in particular is considered to be one of the great environmental inventions of all time.

Emissions standards led to the adoption of many modern automotive technologies-computers, fuel injection, and on-board diagnostics-resulting in cars that are not only much cleaner, but also higher quality, more reliable, and more durable.

The vehicle emissions control industry employs approximately 65,000 Americans with domestic annual sales of $26 billion ¹.
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-and-economy#technology
Contributions to the U.S. Economy

Efforts to reduce air pollution from transportation have proven to be cost effective. For every one dollar spent on programs to reduce emissions, the American people receive nine dollars of benefits to public health and the environment.

Timeline of Major Accomplishments

Air pollution and cars were first linked in the early 1950's by a California researcher who determined that pollutants from traffic was to blame for the smoggy skies over Los Angeles. At the time, typical new cars were emitting nearly 13 grams per mile hydrocarbons (HC), 3.6 grams per mile nitrogen oxides (NOx), and 87grams per mile carbon monoxide (CO). Since then, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set standards to bring down levels of these pollutants, and the auto industry has responded by developing new emission control technologies.

The Road Ahead

Despite our successes, many places in the United States still have poor local air quality and there is more to be done. EPA is now taking on the critical challenge of climate change. Carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels is rapidly changing the earth's climate. The transportation sector is one of the largest sources of carbon pollution in the U.S. EPA has set carbon emissions standards for passenger cars and trucks, onroad heavy duty trucks and buses, and is now working to develop standards for aircraft.

Learn more about EPA's current standards and programs to reduce pollution from transportation:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of Reducing Air Pollution from Transportation in the United States | US EPA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After World War II, economic growth, population growth, rapid suburbanization, and the closing of some public transit systems led to more reliance on personal vehicles for transportation. The number of cars and trucks in the United States increased dramatically, as did the number of highways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Car pollutants cause immediate and long-term effects on the environment. Car exhausts emit a wide range of gases and solid matter, causing global warming, acid rain, and harming the environment and human health. Engine noise and fuel spills also cause pollution. Cars, trucks and other forms of transportation are the single largest contributor to air pollution in the United States, but car owners can reduce their vehicle's effects on the environment.

Car pollution is one of the major causes of global warming. Cars and trucks emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which contribute one-fifth of the United States' total global warming pollution. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, which causes worldwide temperatures to rise. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth would be covered in ice, but burning excessive amounts of fossil fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, has caused an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius, or 1 degree F, in global temperatures since pre-industrial times, and this will continue to rise over the coming decades. Warmer global temperatures affect farming, wildlife, sea levels and natural landscapes.

The effects of car pollution are widespread, affecting air, soil and water quality. Nitrous oxide contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer, which shields the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide mix with rainwater to create acid rain, which damages crops, forests and other vegetation and buildings. Oil and fuel spills from cars and trucks seep into the soil near highways, and discarded fuel and particulates from vehicle emissions contaminate lakes, rivers and wetlands.

Particulate matter, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and other car pollutants harm human health. Diesel engines emit high levels of particulate matter, which is airborne particles of soot and metal. These cause skin and eye irritation and allergies, and very fine particles lodge deep in lungs, where they cause respiratory problems. Hydrocarbons react with nitrogen dioxide and sunlight and form ozone, which is beneficial in the upper atmosphere but harmful at ground level. Ozone inflames lungs, causing chest pains and coughing and making it difficult to breathe. Carbon monoxide, another exhaust gas, is particularly dangerous to infants and people suffering from heart disease because it interferes with the blood's ability to transport oxygen. Other car pollutants that harm human health include sulfur dioxide, benzene and formaldehyde. Noise from cars is also harmful, damaging hearing and causing psychological ill-health.

There are several ways that car and truck owners can reduce the effects of car pollutants on the environment. Old and poorly maintained vehicles cause most pollution from cars, but electric, hybrid and other clean, fuel-efficient cars have a reduced impact. When buying a new car, check the fuel economy and environment label. High ratings mean low pollution levels. Maximize fuel economy by removing all unneeded items, such as roof racks, and driving steadily, rather than accelerating quickly and braking hard. Keep your vehicle well-maintained, with regular tune-ups and tire checks, and leave the car at home whenever you can. Walk, bike or use public transportation when possible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effects of Car Pollutants on the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many ways vehicle emissions affect human health and the environment, including ozone and sulfur dioxide emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We Need Your Support
to Make Change Happen

We can protect consumers, the climate, and our environment from the growing costs and risks of our oil use -but not without you. Your generous support helps develop science-based solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vehicles, Air Pollution, and Human Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Transportation is a major source of air pollution in the United States. Learn more about the health risks of air pollution--and how clean vehicles can significantly reduce pollution, improve public health, and save billions of dollars in health care costs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
En español: Carros, camiones, buses y la contaminación del aire >

Dirty cars, dirty air
Download the factsheet >
Cars, trucks, and buses powered by fossil fuels are major contributors to air pollution-transportation emits more than half of nitrogen oxides in our air, and is a major source of global warming emissions in the US. Studies have linked pollutants from vehicle exhaust to adverse impacts on nearly every organ system in the body.

While this air pollution carries significant risks for human health and the environment, through clean vehicle and fuel technologies, we can significantly reduce emissions from our cars and trucks, while cutting projected U.S. oil use in half within the next 20 years.

The ingredients of air pollution

Cars, trucks and buses produce air pollution throughout their life cycle, including pollution emitted during vehicle operation and fuel production. Additional emissions are associated with refining and distribution of fuels and to a lesser extent, manufacturing and disposal of the vehicle.

Air pollution from cars, trucks and buses is split into primary and secondary pollution. Primary pollution is emitted directly into the atmosphere; secondary pollution results from chemical reactions between pollutants in the atmosphere. Fetuses, newborn children, and people with chronic illnesses are especially susceptible to the effects of air pollutants. The following are the major pollutants from motor vehicles:

Particulate matter (PM). One type of particulate matter is the soot seen in vehicle exhaust. Fine particles - less than one-tenth the diameter of a human hair - pose a serious threat to human health, as they can penetrate deep into the lungs. PM can be a primary pollutant or a secondary pollutant from hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxides. Diesel exhaust is a major contributor to PM pollution.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). These pollutants react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to form ground level ozone, a main ingredient in smog. Though beneficial in the upper atmosphere, at the ground level this gas irritates the respiratory system, causing coughing, choking, and reduced lung capacity. VOCs emitted from cars, trucks and buses - which include the toxic air pollutants benzene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene - are linked to different types of cancer.

Nitrogen oxides (NO x). These pollutants form ground level ozone and particulate matter (secondary). Also harmful as a primary pollutant, NOx can cause lung irritation and weaken the body's defenses against respiratory infections such as pneumonia and influenza.

Carbon monoxide (CO). This odorless, colorless, and poisonous gas is formed by the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and is emitted primarily from cars and trucks. When inhaled, CO blocks oxygen from the brain, heart, and other vital organs.

Sulfur dioxide (SO₂). Power plants and motor vehicles create this pollutant by burning sulfur-containing fuels, especially diesel and coal. Sulfur dioxide can react in the atmosphere to form fine particles and, as other air pollutants, poses the largest health risk to young children and asthmatics.

Greenhouse gases. Motor vehicles also emit pollutants, predominantly carbon dioxide, that contribute to global climate change. In fact, tailpipe emissions from cars, trucks and buses account for over one-fifth of the United States' total global warming pollution; transportation, which includes and airplanes, trains and ships accounts for around thirty percent of all heat-trapping gas emissions.

The effects of air pollution

Pollutants from vehicle exhaust can affect more than just your lungs. Indeed, tailpipe pollutants pose health risks at every stage of life, and can even cause premature death. But the impacts of climate change, driven by global warming emissions, also affect people's health and the well-being of entire communities. Global warming is leading to more frequent and intense heat waves-especially risky to children and elderly people-and to sea level rise, flooding, and drought that can devastate local communities.

People in low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately exposed to higher levels of air pollution. Marginalized by urban segregation in American cities, these communities are often located near freight centers and heavily traveled roadways, and can lack access to the resources to adapt to-or move away from-air pollution and climate-related damage.

Emissions from heavy-duty vehicles

Trucks and buses play a major role in our lives, hauling goods from manufacturers to stores, picking up our trash, delivering packages, and transporting thousands of people around cities, everyday. But these vehicles also also greatly affect public health and global warming

Heavy-duty vehicles comprise only about 5 percent of all vehicles on the road, yet they generate more than 25 percent of global warming emissions that come from the transportation sector, and significant amounts of air pollution. As the United States moves more and more freight each year, the challenge of reducing emissions from this sector will continue to grow.

Addressing heavy-duty vehicle pollution is critical for improving air quality and reducing global warming emissions in communities around the country. Continuing to lower emissions from fossil fuel-powered trucks is an important first step.

The clean air benefits of electric trucks and buses

Just as electric cars are helping to reduce pollution from passenger vehicles, with new technological developments, like electric trucks and buses, we have a unique opportunity to eliminate tailpipe pollution entirely, and increase the development of clean, renewable electricity and hydrogen.

In addition to emitting no harmful tailpipe pollution, electric trucks and buses have significantly lower global warming emissions than vehicles powered by fossil fuels. A battery-electric bus on today's electricity grid is the lowest-carbon option in every part of the country.
Listen to Jimmy O'Dea talk about heavy duty electric vehicles on the Got Science? Podcast:
Battery- and fuel cell-electric trucks and buses, especially transit buses, are already operating in cities across the United States, and these fleets continue to expand as new models become available. A growing number of cities are committed to 100 percent zero-emission transit buses in their fleets-including New York and Los Angeles, which represent the two largest bus fleets in the country.

Cleaner air is on its way

The right policies and investments from federal, state, and municipal governments will accelerate the transition to a zero-emissions transportation system. These include setting targets for electric truck and bus adoption, enacting standards for manufacturers to make more of these types of vehicles, and developing and funding incentive programs to help cities and companies achieve these goals.

These policies and investments should also ensure that workers from marginalized communities gain access to training and job opportunities, and that electric vehicle deployment is prioritized in the communities already breathing the dirtiest air.

Learn more: Cleaning up California's Freight System >

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
En español: Carros, camiones, buses y la contaminación del aire > Download the factsheet > Cars, trucks, and buses powered by fossil fuels are major contributors to air pollution-transportation emits more than half of nitrogen oxides in our air, and is a major source of global warming emissions in the US.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Methane emissions from cattle are 11% higher than estimated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bigger livestock in larger numbers in more regions has led to methane in the air climbing faster than predicted due to 'out-of-date data'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Global Study Shows How Agriculture Interacts With Industry

Heavy use of fertilizers is a major contributor to fine-particulate air pollution in much of the United States, Europe, Russia and China. (Courtesy U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)

A new study says that emissions from farms outweigh all other human sources of fine-particulate air pollution in much of the United States, Europe, Russia and China. The culprit: fumes from nitrogen-rich fertilizers and animal waste that combine in the air with industrial emissions to form solid particles-a huge source of disease and death. The good news: if industrial emissions decline in coming decades, as most projections say, fine-particle pollution will go down even if fertilizer use doubles as expected. The study appears this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Agricultural air pollution comes mainly in the form of ammonia, which enters the air as a gas from heavily fertilized fields and livestock waste. It then combines with pollutants from combustion-mainly nitrogen oxides and sulfates from vehicles, power plants and industrial processes-to create tiny solid particles, or aerosols, no more than 2.5 micrometers across, about 1/30 the width of a human hair. The particles can penetrate deep into lungs, causing heart or pulmonary disease; a 2015 study in the journal Nature estimates they cause at least 3.3 million deaths each year globally.

The new study is not the first to flag agricultural pollution; many regional studies, especially in the United States, have shown it as a prime source of fine-particulate precursors. However, the study is perhaps the first to look at the phenomenon worldwide, and to project future trends. It shows that more than half the aerosol ingredients in much of the eastern and central United States come from farming. In Europe and China, the effect is even stronger. The aerosols form mainly downwind of farming areas, in densely populated places where farm emissions combine through a series of chemical reactions with those of cars, trucks and other sources.

"This is not against fertilizer-there are many places, including Africa, that need more of it," said lead author Susanne Bauer, an atmospheric scientist at Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "We expect population to go up, and to produce more food, we will need more fertilizer."

The fact that agricultural emissions must combine with other pollutants to make aerosols "is good news," said Bauer. Most projections say that tighter regulation, cleaner sources of electricity and higher-mileage vehicles will cut industrial emissions enough by the end of this century that farm emissions will be starved of the other ingredients necessary to create aerosols. A study this January showed that global industrial nitrogen oxide emissions declined from 2005 to 2014, even as farm emissions boomed. (Fast-growing China and India are exceptions.)

A world map shows main sources of fine-particulate pollution: natural (brown); industrial (red) and agriculture (green). (Bauer et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 2016)

Production of artificial fertilizers has skyrocketed from about 20 million tons in 1950 to nearly 190 million tons today--about a third of them nitrogen-based. Fertilizer production will almost certainly keep growing to keep pace with human population, but the amount of aerosols created as a result depends on many factors, including air temperature, precipitation, season, time of day, wind patterns and of course the other needed ingredients from industrial or natural sources. (In parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East, aerosols or their precursors come mainly from desert dust, sea spray or wildfires.) The largest increases in farm emissions will probably be in Africa, while the slowest projected growth rates are in Europe, says the study.

Fabien Paulot, an atmospheric chemist with Princeton University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who was not involved in the study, said, "You might expect air quality would decline if ammonia emissions go up, but this shows it won't happen, provided the emissions from combustion go down." That means that pollutants other than ammonia should probably be targeted for abatement, he said.

Johannes Lelieveld, lead author of the 2015 Nature study disagreed. "The article underscores that all source categories should be controlled," he said. "One should be cautious about suggesting that food production could be increased" without increasing pollution, he said because that "critically depends" on the assumption that societies will successfully curb industrial emissions. Lelieveld cited the recent scandal over Volkswagen's fraudulent auto-emissions controls, and pointed out that even with the recent reductions in industrial pollution, most nations including the United States still have large areas that exceed the World Meteorological Organization's recommended maximum of 10 micrograms of fine particulates per cubic meter.

Bauer says that if future industrial emissions go down, much farm-produced ammonia will end up in earth's troposphere, roughly 2 to 10 kilometers from the surface. There, lightning and other natural processes may also help create fine particulates-"but it will be so high up, it won't be a problem for us," she said. Most of these particles would be trapped by raindrops and removed harmlessly, she says.

All this said, agricultural pollution raises other concerns. Vast quantities of excess fertilizers wash off fields each year, polluting huge watersheds; as just one example, each summer an oxygenless "dead zone" spreads from the mouth of the Mississippi River, fueled by excess nitrogen from upstream. More careful fertilizer application would solve a lot of this, said Bauer. On the other hand, industrial sulfates have been credited with reflecting solar radiation and thus slightly mitigating ongoing global warming caused by other fossil-fuel emissions. "It's all pollution, but in some sense, some of it is good," said Bauer. "We have to decide: do we want a small cooling effect, or do we want clean air?"

Geophysical Research Letters is a publication of the American Geophysical Union. The other authors of the study are Kostas Tsigaridis and Ron Miller, also both of Columbia University and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Heavy use of fertilizers is a major contributor to fine-particulate air pollution in much of the United States, Europe, Russia and China. (Courtesy U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) A new study says that emissions from farms outweigh all other human sources of fine-particulate air pollution in much of the United States, Europe, Russia and China.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine for a second, you're driving through the rolling green pastures of central Pennsylvania. Surrounded by wide open fields and mountains in the distance, you are taken in by the immense natural beauty. Then it hits you. Like a thick wall of putrid bricks: the smell of manure. Next thing you know, you're gasping for air and high-tailing your way out of this place.

We all know this experience and surely, by now, we have all come to terms with the fact that shit literally happens when you're in the middle of farm country. But something we haven't all quite grasped yet is the real impact that all of these smelly farms are having on our air quality.

Around 99 percent of all farm animals are raised in one of the 20,000 factory farms in the U.S. Concentrating millions of animals onto factory farms has a number of negative effects. Crowded by the thousand into small sheds and stalls, these animals know nothing but fear and stress during their severely shortened lives. Starting with animal cruelty, the harmful repercussions of factory farms radiates to the surrounding environment.

Livestock in the U.S. produce 500 million tons of excrement every year. This is way more waste than factory farms could ever redistribute as fertilizer, so the majority of waste is left to fester in massive, open-air waste lagoons. In effect, this waste is a pollutant, not a productive farming tool as some might believe. When you're driving through the countryside and smell manure, it is likely coming from one of these lagoons, but the smell is really the least of our worries.

Toxic Gases From Factory Farm Waste

The mountains of manure from factory farms can release around 400 different harmful gases into the atmosphere. Some of these gases include nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. Because animals are kept by the thousand, the concentration of these gases can be extremely dangerous to the local community. Many of these gases are also potent greenhouse gases that contribute to environmental damage and climate change.

Jo-Anne McArthur/WeAnimals

Health Concerns

If you have ever used products containing ammonia, you know how overwhelming the smell can be. For this reason, opening windows and ensuring proper ventilation are always recommending when using anything ammonia-based. But when thousands of tons of ammonia are being released directly into outdoor air, how is one supposed to escape the irritating effects of this gas?

The sad answer is, you can't. This is what it is like to live factory farm adjacent.

Around 80 percent of ammonia emission in the U.S. come from farm animal waste and this noxious gas can cause a variety of harmful health effects, including dizziness, eye irritation, respiratory illness, and nausea.

In addition to ammonia, factory farm waste releases dangerous levels of hydrogen sulfide. Exposure to this gas, even in small doses can cause sore throats, but more troublingly, seizures, comas and even death.

While adults are highly susceptible to these gases, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), children, who take in 20-50 percent more air, are at extreme risk. As a result, children raised in communities near factory farms are more likely to develop asthma or bronchitis. Low air quality can exacerbate asthma symptoms, making living near these farms even more dangerous.

The CDC also states that mental health deterioration and increased sensitization to smells can occur in people who live near factory farms.

Having to live with the smell and the harmful gases released by farm waste can ruin people's health and their entire lives. But sadly, many communities located near factory farms fall below the poverty level, meaning people cannot afford to relocate - even if their family's lives depend on it.

Environmental Impact

Factory farms emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere just as readily as industrial smokestacks and tailpipes. Globally, 37 percent of methane emissions come from livestock production. Methane can trap up to 100 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over a five-year period. But methane is hardly the only damaging gas released by farm waste.

Topping out methane's powerful global warming potential is nitrous oxide. This gas is about 296 times more potent than carbon dioxide. When nitrous oxide mixes with ammonia, it creates nitric acid, which causes acid rain. Acid rain not only causes statues to deteriorate, but it sucks minerals from the soil, destroys forest ecosystems, and can cause massive fish kills.

Particulate Matter

When factory farm waste decomposes, it releases airborne particulate matter along with harmful gases. These particulates can include dry manure, feathers, bits of feed, and animal dander. Inhaling larger particulates can cause respiratory irritation, bronchitis, a decline in lung function and organic dust toxic syndrome. According to the CDC, smaller particulates can even be absorbed into the body, causing systematic effects including cardiac arrest. That's some powerful dust.

Recent studies have also found that dry manure particulates can transfer antibiotic-resistant bacteria from feedlots to areas 10-30 yards away!

Jo-Anne McArthur/WeAnimals

What Can You Do?

Avoiding air pollution from factory farms is no easy task. While you could carry around protective facemasks with you everywhere, this hardly solves the root of the problem. One of the best things that you can do to help lower the amount of air pollution produced by factory farms is to stop supporting them.

Factory farms only exist to meet high demands for meat, dairy, and eggs. When we lower demand for these products, factory farms begin to lose their value. Switching to a plant-based diet is a great way to achieve this, but even if you reduce your consumption of meat and other animal products, it will slowly make a difference.

We all have the right to clean, healthy air and factory farming compromises this. To learn more, check out the #EatForThePlanet Book!
Image source: Kelly Sikkema/Flickr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Factory Farming Creates Air Pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine for a second, you're driving through the rolling green pastures of central Pennsylvania. Surrounded by wide open fields and mountains in the distance, you are taken in by the immense natural beauty. Then it hits you. Like a thick wall of putrid bricks: the smell of manure.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Facts About Animal Agriculture and Air Pollution That You Just Can't Argue With

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal farms may produce food, but they also produce massive amounts of animal waste like urine and manure that emit around 400 different harmful gases into the atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A constant rotten stench, biting flies, and air that burns your eyes and throat. That is how neighbors of some large-scale animal farms describe the environment around their homes. They don't enjoy going outdoors, and they don't open their windows.

Such is life for Jeff and Gail Schwartzkopf, who purchased their house in rural Rudd, Iowa, four years ago. Shortly after they moved in, the couple discovered that they were getting new neighbors. Thousands of squealing pigs moved in less than 600 meters from their property line, and "their lives changed forever," according to testimony of Mark Kuhn, a farmer and county supervisor in Iowa. Kuhn was speaking in favor of requiring large-scale animal facilities to report dangerous air emissions during a March 8 subcommittee hearing of the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee.

Air quality is not just a problem near pig farms in Iowa; similar concerns have arisen elsewhere, such as dairy operations in Wisconsin, egg-laying facilities throughout the Midwest, and broiler chicken houses in Maryland. For decades, the U.S. agriculture industry has moved to increase profits by geographically concentrating facilities. The size of these facilities has increased over the years, and today tens of thousands of animals are raised in confined spaces. As emissions from such facilities go largely unchecked, concerns about negative impacts on the environment and public health are on the rise.

Just days after the hearing, however, lawmakers passed the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act (S. 2421), a bill that exempts farmers and ranchers from reporting air emissions to federal agencies. The bill was attached as a rider to the omnibus federal spending bill that funds the federal government for the remainder of fiscal 2018 (see page 16). Lawmakers stepped up in response to a recent court decision that would have required farms to report emissions of hazardous pollutants such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide when they exceeded specific thresholds.

The reporting exemptions, however, leave people like the Schwartzkopfs with little information on what is in the air they breathe. They worry about their health and suffer from fatigue, digestive issues, and insomnia, Kuhn testified. With livestock operations off the hook at the federal level, states are now responsible for determining whether and how to address pollution from the industry.

Exempting farm emissions

Since 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has exempted farmers and ranchers from air emissions reporting requirements under a 1980 federal law known as Superfund, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA). EPA's 2008 rule also exempted farms from reporting hazardous air releases under the 1986 Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) if the farm had fewer animals than a so-called concentrated animal feeding operation.

EPA interprets the law to exclude farms from EPCRA requirements because they use substances like animal waste in routine agricultural operations. In guidance released in October, EPA noted that reporting under EPCRA is required for facilities that produce, use, or store a hazardous chemical, and EPCRA specifically excludes substances used "in routine agricultural operations" from the definition of a "hazardous chemical." EPA claimed in 2008 that emissions reports "are unnecessary because, in most cases, a federal response is impractical and unlikely."

Others in favor of exempting farms from emission requirements note that CERCLA's purpose is to require industrial reporting so that federal, state, and local officials can evaluate how to respond in an emergency situation. CERCLA gives EPA tools to clean up hazardous waste sites and hold responsible parties accountable, Senate EPW Committee Chair Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said at the March 8 hearing. "When applied to the everyday activities on ranches and farms, it makes very little sense," he said.

Had EPA not exempted them in 2008, as many as 100,000 farms and ranches would have had to comply with CERCLA and EPCRA reporting requirements. However, many are not large industrialized facilities spewing out pollutants at high enough concentrations to make people in the community sick. Some of them manage manure from thousands of animals by relocating the waste to farms that use it as fertilizer to grow corn, soybeans, and other crops. In other cases, such as cattle raised on pastures, emissions are spread out over a large area.

When applied to such operations, CERCLA and EPCRA create "needless requirements that burden the agricultural community while providing no environmental or public health benefit," Todd Mortenson, a South Dakota rancher honored by the Sand County Foundation for his land conservation practices, said at the Senate hearing. He testified at the hearing on behalf of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which represents cattle producers and family ranchers.

Nevertheless, environmental and citizen groups had challenged EPA's rule exempting farms from emissions reporting, saying that EPA does not have the authority to exempt any industry from CERCLA and EPCRA requirements. In April 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, putting farms back on the hook to report emissions. At EPA's request, the court delayed the effective date until at least May 1, 2018, so that EPA could develop guidance documents to help farmers understand the reporting requirements.

Now, with the passage of the FARM Act, Congress has exempted farmers and ranchers from one of the two laws-CERCLA. Large-scale industrialized farms, however, will still have to report emissions of certain hazardous air pollutants to state and local officials under EPCRA.

Ammonia emissions in states that produce a lot of eggs, such as Iowa, could soon be on the rise, unless the egg industry take steps to mitigate such releases. That is because of a growing trend in the U.S. to raise egg layers in cage-free housing systems. Cage-free housing allow hens to spread their wings, bathe and scratch in dirt, perch, and walk around inside the chicken house. But there are trade-offs, including reduced air quality.
Cage-free eggs on the rise
Many restaurant chains, grocery stores, food companies, and food-service providers have committed to use eggs only from cage-free hens by a certain date. Responding to consumer pressure for more humanely raised products, McDonald's announced in September 2015 that it will use only cage-free eggs by 2025 in its U.S. and Canadian restaurants. A slew of other restaurants and food companies followed with similar pledges. U.S. egg producers are now scrambling to increase the supply of cage-free eggs.

National farm air study falters

Thanks to Congress passing the FARM Act, EPA now has more time to find a way for farmers to estimate their air emissions, particularly for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide released from animal waste. Should emissions reports become required for all farmers again, the agency believes it would be too expensive and impractical to require 100,000 farms to set up air monitors to get actual measurements of air emissions.

EPA has been wrestling with the problem of estimating emissions from livestock waste since the late 1990s. At that time, EPA claimed it did not have sufficient air emissions data to develop accurate methods for determining whether livestock operations are subject to emissions permit requirements under the Clean Air Act and reporting requirements under CERCLA and EPCRA.

Many factors influence air emissions from animal waste, including the number and types of animals, as well as their life stages. In addition, factors such as geography, environmental conditions, feed additives, and manure management affect air emissions. As a result, farmers cannot accurately estimate emissions using only the numbers and species of animals at their facilities. In some cases, farms with fewer animals will have higher emissions than those with more animals of the same species, EPA notes.

In 2005, the pork, dairy, egg layer, and broiler chicken industries worked out an agreement with EPA to fund a $15 million study to monitor air emissions at farms representing those four sectors across the U.S. A team of researchers led by Purdue University monitored emissions for two years at 24 sites in nine states, near barns and lagoons where waste was stored. They measured ammonia, airborne particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide. They also recorded meteorological data, such as temperature and wind speed, and the number of animals, the type of animal housing, and the waste management practices at the site.

EPA was supposed to use the data to develop models for estimating hazardous air emissions from large-scale animal operations. The monitoring study was completed in 2010, and EPA released draft methods in 2012. The proposed methods covered eight of 36 source and pollutant combinations agreed to in 2005 by the livestock industry and EPA. But the process came to a halt in 2013, when the agency's scientific advisory board criticized the quality and quantity of EPA's data. The effort to develop emissions models has languished ever since, and EPA has yet to finalize any methods for estimating emissions from animal waste.

Federal requirements aside, some states are trying to get a handle on livestock emissions. Chicken producers in Maryland, for example, are facing the possibility of a statewide monitoring study aimed at collecting emissions data from the broiler industry.

The Delmarva Peninsula on the eastern shore of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia is home to more than 1,500 family-owned chicken farms that produced 605 million chickens in 2017, according to the Delmarva Poultry Industry (DPI), which represents Delmarva chicken farmers. Those chickens were raised in about 5,000 houses that can collectively hold 138 million chickens at one time, DPI says.

"Chicken growers are concerned about how to measure the emissions, how to report them to the federal government, and the usefulness of the information that is to be reported," DPI Executive Director Bill Satterfield told lawmakers at the March 8 Senate hearing. They are now breathing a sigh of relief that the FARM Act exempts them from such requirements.

Ammonia concentrations on poultry and egg farms "are at very low levels, and they dissipate rapidly into the air," Satterfield said. Even so, chicken producers want to control ammonia emissions because if the levels get too high in chicken houses, the birds don't grow to their full potential and farm income falls, Satterfield said. One way chicken farmers prevent ammonia formation in chicken houses is by keeping moisture levels low. About 20 years ago, the industry changed its watering systems from open pans to a nipple drinker system, Satterfield said. "You have less water going onto the litter, less potential for humid conditions, and less potential for development of ammonia," he explained.

Additionally, some chicken farmers add acidic products to the bedding material when the birds are not on it to reduce the pH, leading to the formation of water-soluble ammonium instead of gaseous ammonia. Others add supplements to chicken feed to increase the amount of nitrogen used by the bird to grow meat so that less nitrogen comes out in chicken waste.

The Delmarva chicken industry has also been working to minimize nitrogen emissions to improve the quality of the Chesapeake Bay, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) noted at the hearing. Since the late 1990s, farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have had to follow nutrient management plans, which include having their soil tested for nitrogen and phosphorus that can wash into the bay with rain and lead to algae blooms.

Ammonia air emissions also contribute to the amount of nitrogen going into the Chesapeake Bay. EPA estimates that chicken producers contribute about 18,000 metric tons of ammonia each year, or 17% of the bay's nitrogen load, but a recent report from the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) suggests that number is closer to 36,000 metric tons.

EIP, a group that advocates for enforcement of environmental regulations, claims that EPA used an outdated emissions factor derived from European-style chicken houses to estimate ammonia emissions from broiler chickens in the Chesapeake Bay states. In Europe, it is more common to replace litter after every flock, whereas in the U.S., litter is usually replaced annually, according to the report. European chickens are also typically smaller and grown in cooler temperatures than U.S. broilers. These factors result in greater ammonia emissions from U.S. broilers than those raised in Europe, the group says.

To resolve the discrepancy, EIP and other environmental groups are urging Maryland lawmakers to pass legislation that would require state officials to conduct an air monitoring study near poultry houses and neighboring communities. After failing to garner enough support to pass the bill last year, state Sen. Richard Madaleno (D) is trying again this year with S.B. 133, the Community Healthy Air Act.

The bill "is a good first step toward tackling the problem," Abel Russ, EIP attorney and coauthor of the group's ammonia emissions report, said in a statement. "The proposed Community Healthy Air Act would require the Maryland Department of the Environment to conduct air monitoring near poultry houses to obtain better data on ammonia air pollution," he said. "With better information we can find effective ways to control this pollution and clean up the bay." A companion bill (H.B. 26) introduced by Delegate Robbyn Lewis is also gaining interest in the Maryland Assembly.

Farm groups are strongly opposed to the legislation, saying it will cost the state millions of dollars and duplicate efforts that are currently under way by EPA. They successfully fought against it last year, and it is unclear whether lawmakers have enough support to pass the bills this year. Maryland's legislative session ends April 9.

At the March 8 U.S. Senate hearing, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) was sympathetic to the concerns of small-scale farmers such as the chicken producers in Maryland. But he also told a story about his 2016 trip to Duplin County, N.C.-home to about 60,000 people and more than 2 million pigs. There, he witnessed pig waste being stored in huge open-air lagoons and sprayed onto nearby fields.

"I smelled a wretched, horrible smell standing hundreds and hundreds of yards away," Booker said, noting that residents of the community came to Washington, D.C., that year asking lawmakers for help. They "complained about suffering from serious respiratory problems, such as asthma, and chronic lung disease caused by living near these lagoons and spray fields," he said.

It's time to "rebalance the scales," Booker said, "and get rid of unneeded regulations" like reporting requirements for pasture-based farming. Lawmakers believe the FARM Act does just that. "I hope that between Congress and EPA we can find a path forward that gives clarity to small farmers that they do not need to report their emissions," he said.

But large-scale industrialized farm animal operations are "a different story" and "create serious health risks," Booker added. He and other Democrats at the hearing advocated for requiring concentrated animal feeding operations that emit more than 100 pounds (45 kg) of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide per day to report their releases under EPCRA. Because of their concerns, such operations must adhere to EPCRA emissions-reporting requirements. What states may do going forward remains to be seen. Ultimately, "This is about people," Booker emphasized. "This is about their lives, their livelihoods, their property values, and their health."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A constant rotten stench, biting flies, and air that burns your eyes and throat. That is how neighbors of some large-scale animal farms describe the environment around their homes. They don't enjoy going outdoors, and they don't open their windows. Such is life for Jeff and Gail Schwartzkopf, who purchased their house in rural Rudd, Iowa, four years ago.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Highlights

*

Kilauea volcano has erupted continuously since 1983; it released 1800 to 10000 metric tons of sulfur dioxide per day between 2000-2010.

*

Volcanic emissions, wind patterns and mountains produce Low, Intermittent, Frequent, and Acid exposure zones on the island.

*

We tested if sulfur dioxide and sulfates are associated with respiratory symptoms, asthma or bronchitis, and reduced lung function in children.

*

Acidic vog exposure was associated with increased cough, but not with physician-diagnosed asthma, persistent cough or wheeze.

Abstract

Background

Kilauea Volcano on the Island of Hawai'i has erupted continuously since 1983, releasing approximately 300-12000 metric tons per day of sulfur dioxide (SO ₂). SO ₂ interacts with water vapor to produce an acidic haze known locally as "vog". The combination of wind speed and direction, inversion layer height, and local terrain lead to heterogeneous and variable distribution of vog over the island, allowing study of respiratory effects associated with chronic vog exposure.

Objectives

We characterized the distribution and composition of vog over the Island of Hawai'i, and tested the hypotheses that chronic vog exposure (SO ₂ and acid) is associated with increased asthma prevalence, respiratory symptoms, and reduced pulmonary function in Hawai'i Island schoolchildren.

Methods

We compiled data of volcanic emissions, wind speed, and wind direction over Hawai'i Island since 1992. Community-based researchers then measured 2- to 4-week integrated concentrations of SO ₂ and fine particulate mass and acidity in 4 exposure zones, from 2002 to 2005, when volcanic SO ₂ emissions averaged 1600 metric tons per day. Concurrently, community researchers recruited schoolchildren in the 4th and 5th grades of 25 schools in the 4 vog exposure zones, to assess determinants of lung health, respiratory symptoms, and asthma prevalence.

Results

Environmental data suggested 4 different vog exposure zones with SO ₂, PM2.5, and particulate acid concentrations (mean ± s.d.) as follows: 1) Low (0.3 ± 0.2 ppb, 2.5 ± 1.2 μg/m ³, 0.6 ± 1.1 nmol H +/m ³), 2) Intermittent (1.6 ± 1.8 ppb, 2.8 ± 1.5 μg/m ³, 4.0 ± 6.6 nmol H +/m ³), 3) Frequent (10.1 ± 5.2 ppb, 4.8 ± 1.9 μg/m ³, 4.3 ± 6.7 nmol H +/m ³), and 4) Acid (1.2 ± 0.4 ppb, 7.2 ± 2.3 μg/m ³, 25.3 ± 17.9 nmol H +/m ³). Participants (1957) in the 4 zones differed in race, prematurity, maternal smoking during pregnancy, environmental tobacco smoke exposure, presence of mold in the home, and physician-diagnosed asthma. Multivariable analysis showed an association between Acid vog exposure and cough and strongly suggested an association with FEV1/FVC < 0.8, but not with diagnosis of asthma, or chronic persistent wheeze or bronchitis in the last 12 months. Conclusions: Hawai'i Island's volcanic air pollution can be very acidic, but contains few co-contaminants originating from anthropogenic sources of air pollution. Chronic exposure to acid vog is associated with increased cough and possibly with reduced FEV1/FVC, but not with asthma or bronchitis. Further study is needed to better understand how volcanic air pollution interacts with host and environmental factors to affect respiratory symptoms, lung function, and lung growth, and to determine acute effects of episodes of increased emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Volcanic air pollution over the Island of Hawai'i: Emissions, dispersal, and composition. Association with respiratory symptoms and lung function in Hawai'i Island school children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kilauea volcano has erupted continuously since 1983; it released 1800 to 10000 metric tons of sulfur dioxide per day between 2000-2010. * Volcanic emissions, wind patterns and mountains produce Low, Intermittent, Frequent, and Acid exposure zones on the island. * We tested if sulfur dioxide and sulfates are associated with respiratory symptoms, asthma or bronchitis, and reduced lung function in children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Three dozen tourists were gathered at the Wailoa Sampan Basin Harbor in Hilo, Hawaii, hoping to get a glimpse of the lava that they'd seen on the news for weeks.

But because Hawaii Volcanoes national park - often a key stop in travelers' itineraries - was closed after Kilauea erupted, their best hope on Monday afternoon was taking a boat to the point where the lava met the sea.

Some said they'd packed breathing masks, just in case the trade winds - which usually blow in clean sea air - changed direction and began blowing a lava haze, a noxious mix of gases and particles, their way.

Although many tourists to Hawaii island - the Big Island - choose to visit because of the active volcano, some have gotten more than they bargained for since the eruption. (Petra Wiesenbauer, who runs a popular Pahoa lodge near the park, had to hurry three guests out of the door while she and her neighbors fled the lava and toxic fumes.)

Up until lava crossed Highway 137 late Saturday night and entered the ocean, volcanic smog, called vog, which contains mostly sulfur dioxide and acid particles, along with ash, had been the biggest air quality concern.

But then the molten rock began pouring into the cool seawater and added clouds of lava haze or "laze". Officials warned people to stay away since the plumes can travel up to 15 miles downwind, according to the Hawaii Volcano Observatory.

The clouds form when hot lava boils seawater, creating tiny shards of volcanic glass and hydrochloric acid that then get carried in steam. The plumes can be deadly.

The USGS says on its website: "This hot, corrosive gas mixture caused two deaths immediately adjacent to the coastal entry point in 2000, when seawater washed across recent and active lava flows." Hawaii civil defense cautioned people on Monday to "stay away from the ocean plume since it can change direction without warning". In the case of laze and vog, store-bought respirators filter particles but not hydrochloric acid or sulfur dioxide.

Vog and laze can cause eye irritation, skin irritation and respiratory issues, according to officials. Those with conditions like asthma or cardiovascular disease are most sensitive, as are the elderly, children and pregnant women, according to an interagency group of volcano experts. Even before the recent Kilauea eruption, Hawaii already suffered air quality issues from volcanic gases. The island of Hawaii has the highest sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in the nation, according to EPA spokesman Dean Higuchi. And according to a 2016 report published in the scientific journal Environmental international, levels were "1,000 times greater" than the EPA's definition of a major pollution source.

There has been a moderate increase in the number of people coming into Hilo medical center for treatment of vog-related symptoms since the eruption, according to Elena Kabatu, a hospital spokesperson. But she said that many more were likely experiencing the less serious effects of vog, such as dry eyes or a scratchy throat.

For those living in Pahoa, near the lava, conditions vary depending on whether the trade winds are blowing, residents said. Gilbert Aguinaldo, who has offered his vacant, central Pahoa lot to serve as a hub of locally organized community aid, said that volunteers were loaning out respirators and breathing masks to anyone who needs them.

"We are a little worried about the laze," said Heather Lippert, 40, who was waiting to board the boat for the lava tour, "But I'm sure they'll try to keep us safe."

Vanessa Homyak, 36, said she and Lippert, who are from San Diego, had originally intended to stay at an Airbnb in Pahoa when they scheduled their vacation. But after the eruption began, the pair reconsidered. "We called the host and asked how things were," she said. "They said, 'If we were you, we would probably stay somewhere else.'"

They took the advice, staying instead on the other side of the island. But though they were out of the path of the lava, they discovered that they were directly in the path of the vog.

"We saw it when we flew into Kona, this big brown layer in the air," Lippert said.

Erik Jacobs, who lives in Waikoloa, in the north-west part of the island and had just returned from a two-week vacation, said the vog was already irritating his eyes, making them feel dry and scratchy. He said his neighbors told him the vog was the "worst they'd ever seen" on the Big Island late last week.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Lava haze' and 'vog': toxic volcanic gases prompt health fears in Hawaii

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Three dozen tourists were gathered at the Wailoa Sampan Basin Harbor in Hilo, Hawaii, hoping to get a glimpse of the lava that they'd seen on the news for weeks. But because Hawaii Volcanoes national park - often a key stop in travelers' itineraries - was closed after Kilauea erupted, their best hope on Monday afternoon was taking a boat to the point where the lava met the sea.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dear EarthTalk: Could it really be true that a single large volcanic eruption launches more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the amount generated by all of humanity over history? Steve Schlemmer, London, England

This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn't back it up.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today's human endeavors.

Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. "If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes-one for each eruption," says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news portal Grist.org. "Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend."

Furthermore, some scientists believe that spectacular volcanic eruptions, like that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, actually lead to short-term global cooling, not warming, as sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash and other particles in the air and stratosphere reflect some solar energy instead of letting it into Earth's atmosphere. SO2, which converts to sulfuric acid aerosol when it hits the stratosphere, can linger there for as long as seven years and can exercise a cooling effect long after a volcanic eruption has taken place.

Scientists tracking the effects of the major 1991 eruption of the Philippines' Mt. Pinatubo found that the overall effect of the blast was to cool the surface of the Earth globally by some 0.5 degrees Celsius a year later, even though rising human greenhouse gas emissions and an El Nino event (a warm water current which periodically flows along the coast of Ecuador and Peru in South America) caused some surface warming during the 1991-1993 study period.

In an interesting twist on the issue, British researchers last year published an article in the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature showing how volcanic activity may be contributing to the melting of ice caps in Antarctica-but not because of any emissions, natural or man-made, per se. Instead, scientists Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey believe that volcanoes underneath Antarctica may be melting the continent's ice sheets from below, just as warming air temperatures from human-induced emissions erode them from above.

CONTACTS: U.S. Geological Survey, www.usgs.gov; Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, cdiac.esd.ornl.gov; British Antarctic Survey, www.antarctica.ac.uk.

EarthTalk is produced by E/The Environmental Magazine. GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dear EarthTalk: Could it really be true that a single large volcanic eruption launches more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the amount generated by all of humanity over history? Steve Schlemmer, London, England This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years.