According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, there are about 400,000 deaths each year in the United States from direct exposure to cigarette smoke. According to a recent article from researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there are about 200,000 premature deaths each year in the United States caused by air pollution, specifically from small particulates (PM2.5) and from ground level ozone. The MIT researchers state that their results are indicative of the extent to which policy measures could be undertaken in order to mitigate the impact of specific emissions from different sectors.

The research found that the largest contributors to premature death from air pollution from the burning of fuel are road transportation and electric power generation. Sector by sector, the number of premature deaths in the US are projected to be approximately:

• road transportation, 53,000 from particulate emissions and 5,000 from ozone;
• power generation, 52,000 from particulate emissions and 2,000 from ozone;
• industrial emissions, 41,000 from particulate emissions and 2,000 from ozone;
• commercial and residential heating, 42,000 from particulate emissions and a few hundred from ozone;
• maritime transportation, 8000 from particulate emissions and 500 from ozone;
• rail transportation, 4000 from particulate emissions and 500 from ozone;
• aviation, 1000 from particulate emissions and 100 from ozone.

Although the research is based on 2005 emissions data, because this was the latest available at the time the project began, the authors are confident that it is broadly reflective of the situation today.

The paper, which provides data by region, is available, fee required, at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013004548

The research is published in the journal Atmospheric Environment. Volume 79, November 2013, pages 198–208 under the title Air pollution and early deaths in the United States. Part I: Quantifying the impact of major sectors in 2005.
Fabio Caiazzo, Akshay Ashok, Ian A. Waitz, Steve H.L. Yim, Steven R.H. Barrett, Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States.

The French government has implemented a regulation to reduce ‘light pollution’ and greenhouse gas emissions from unnecessary overnight lighting. The Minister of Environment, Sustainable Development, and Energy has said that nighttime artificial lighting can be a source of significant disturbance to the ecosystem by altering communication between species, migration, reproductive cycles and the predator-prey system. The impact of artificial light on night sleep, disrupting the alternation of day and night, has also been the subject of discussion by the National Institute of Sleep and Vigilance. The Minister also claims that reducing night time lighting will save energy equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of about 750,000 households and eliminate the emission of about 250,000 tonnes of CO2.

The regulation, which took effect July 1st, requires that:

• interior lighting in business premises must be extinguished one hour after the end of occupation of the premises;
• exterior lighting of non-residential buildings must be turned off no later than 1 am;
• lighting in store windows or trade exhibitions must be turned off no later than 1am, or one hour after the end of occupation of such premises if it occurs later;
• shop windows or trade exhibitions may be lit from 7:00 am or one hour before the start of the activity if it is carried out earlier;
• facades of buildings may not be lit before sunset.

Municipalities may grant exemptions for statutory holidays, the period of Christmas lights,  during special events, or in places of exceptional tourist interest.

If it can be done in France it can be done almost anywhere. GallonDaily is not a big fan of moving by regulation. Maybe owners of commercial and industrial facilities should look into voluntary programs to emulate the French initiative before other governments get similar ideas.

The Minister’s statement on the new law can be read, in French, at http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Un-arrete-pour-limiter-les.html

An interesting commentary by  James Madison University professor Paul Bogard on the light pollution issue, which may be more serious than many of us have previously considered, is to be found on the Yale University environment360 website at http://e360.yale.edu/feature/bringing_back_the_night__a_fight_against_light_pollution/2681/

A new report from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory of the US Department of Energy analyses the market and opportunities for small and medium scale windpower applications. According to the report, 68% of all wind turbine installations in the US in the last ten years fall into this “distributed power” category. Distributed power, in the context of wind energy, describes turbines that provide electricity to the owner or to operations close to the installation rather than commodity electricity to the grid. By the end of 2012 there were 69,000 turbines in distributed applications with an installed capacity of more than 812 MW across all 50 states.

Industry leaders cited the desire to reduce utility bills as the primary motivation for 2012 domestic small wind turbine sales, along with related concerns over future utility rate increases caused by rising gas and coal prices, and the availability of state incentives. The value of onsite wind generation in providing a hedge against future fossil-fuel price uncertainty was recognized across applications: households, schools, farms, and municipal. To a lesser degree, interest in being environmentally responsible and reducing pollution (including carbon) were cited as reason some customers installed small wind turbines.

The installed costs for small turbines covers a range of $1,500 to $27,500 per kW, with a capacity-weighted average cost of $6,960/kW. The range for mid size turbines is somewhat less broad, ranging from $2,400 to $3,350 per kW with a capacity-weighted average installed cost of $2,810/kW. Assuming a turbine provides power at its rated capacity for 35% of the hours in a year, each kW of turbine capacity will provide 3066 kWh per year. If electricity costs 12 cents per kWh, a turbine will provide $368 worth of electricity each year. Ignoring maintenance costs, this means that a turbine with an installed cost of $2,810 will be fully paid for in less than 8 years, interest not included. While not yet a great return on investment, this is reaching the level of a reasonable ROI.

The 62 page PNNL report provides a wealth of information especially for those thinking of getting into distributed wind power as investors, users, manufacturers, or distributors. It can be found at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2012_distributed_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf

Nikita (Nik) Nanos, currently public policy scholar at the prestigious Washington, DC, based Woodrow Wilson Center and Director of Nanos Research (a Canadian market and public opinion research organization), has recently published a new report entitled Entering the Energy & Environment Policy Frontier. Based on interviews with opinion leaders, policy research, and new polling data, the report identifies energy policy risks and opportunities in Canada and the United States.

There is much of interest in the report. Among elements that caught GallonDaily’s eye:

• The current level of [political] partisanship can be an obstacle to moving forward with sound energy policy.
• Government should not pick energy winners and losers but focus on encouraging competition among energy sources within a common environmental standard.
• Building a framework for a carbon policy is a key opportunity for energy and environmental policymaking. This is especially true because of the policy interests and jurisdictional roles of states/provinces and federal governments on energy and the environment. Even with the limitations of the current political atmosphere in Congress and increasingly active at the state and provincial levels of government, a National Carbon Policy dialogue between the United States and Canada will need to take place.
• The process of advancing environmental policy on the summit model, such as that which created the Acid Rain Treaty, is difficult politically in terms of the different legislative priorities in the United States and Canada, the risks related to the negotiation and ratification process, indeterminate in terms of time, and complex because of the role of state/provincial governments in environmental policy and different national legislative priorities in the United States and Canada.
• 68% of Canadians and 74% of Americans support or somewhat support the Keystone XL pipeline.

The 42 page report, with further interesting analysis of public and elite opinion, is available at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/WW%20-%20Energy%20Report%20-%20Nanos%20Master%20File%2026-August.pdf

The somewhat activist US environmental group 350 Action has launched an idea that is taking off like, well, wildfire. 350 Action is the non-charitable (ie. political action) partner of 350.org, the environmental group founded by U.S. author Bill McKibben to encourage global action on climate change.

350 Action’s idea is to stop naming hurricanes and tropical storms from a list set up by the World Meteorological Organization and instead to name them after people that 350 Action identifies as climate deniers and obstructionists. 350 Action has published a list of people it puts into that category, all Republican members of the US Congress.

350 Action’s petition might be regarded as little more than an amusing political lark were it not for the extreme support that it is attracting. Launched this week, the first goal of 25,000 names was surpassed almost immediately. The second goal, of 50,000 names by November 30th, was surpassed last night. Now 350 Action is seeking to achieve 75,000 names by November 30th. This target may well be reached by the end of the Labour Day weekend.

350 Action knows full well that the chances of persuading the WMO to adopt its proposal are slim indeed but it is also providing people who want to see action on climate change with a simple mechanism to express that view. GallonDaily would not be at all surprised to see the petition attract a million names by November 30th. And what will the politicians do then?

The petition reads as follows

Petition to the WMO to name extreme storms after climate change deniers.

Since 1954, the World Meteorological Organization has been naming extreme storms after people. As scientific evidence shows that climate change is creating increasingly frequent and devastating storms, and with climate scientists declaring these extreme weather events as the new normal, we propose a new naming system. A system that names extreme storms caused by climate change, after the policy makers who deny climate change and obstruct climate policy.

You can append your name to the petition at http://www.climatenamechange.org/#/petition

The Center for Environmental Health, a California-based environmental group, has launched a suit against four companies that sell shampoos, soaps, and personal care products claiming that the products contain a known carcinogen and that they are not labelled “WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm” as required by State law.

CEH has published a list of 98 products which contain cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA), used as a foaming agent and emulsifier in many products. Cocamide DEA was listed by California as a known carcinogen in June of last year. Michael Green, Executive Director of CEH, is quoted as stating “consumers need to know that they could be doused with a cancer-causing chemical every time they shower or shampoo”.

The list of products purchased in the San Francisco Bay area that CEH claims have shown positive  for the presence of cocamide DEA in testing by an independent laboratory includes some with such well-known brand names as Colgate-Palmolive Co., Walmart, Target, Alberto Culver USA, Upper Canada Soap, and Toys R Us.

GallonDaily does not know whether similar products in the Canadian market contain cocamide DEA.

The CEH announcement of its legal action and the list of products which it claims contain cocamide DEA can be found at http://www.ceh.org/making-news/press-releases/29-eliminating-toxics/663-lawsuit-launched-as-testing-finds-cancer-causing-chemical-in-nearly-100-hair-care-and-personal-care-products

RobecoSAM is an investment specialist focused exclusively on Sustainability Investing. It is also the company behind the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes, the widely recognized series of stock exchange indexes which attempt to recognize corporate leadership in Sustainable Development and social responsibility.

It is not surprising that such a sustainability reporting leader would seek to rank countries on their sustainability. In a just published summary, entitled Measuring Country Intangibles, RobecoSAM evaluates 59 countries – 21 developed and 38 emerging markets – on a broad range of Environmental, Social and Governance factors that RobecoSAM considers to be relevant for investors. Within this framework, Canada ranks 7th after Sweden, Australia, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, and the United Kingdom but two positions ahead of the United States.

The analysis is interesting because it awards 60% of the ranking to governance, including such aspects as rights and liberties, human capital and innovation,  internal risks and inefficiencies, management of public goods, protection of property rights, democratic participation, corruption, terrorism and political crimes, competition / liberalization, demographic profile, and monetary policy independence. Social aspects account for 25% of the overall ranking and include human welfare education, life expectancy, and number of strikes and lockouts. Environment accounts for only 15% of the ranking and includes emissions, biodiversity, energy use, energy sources, exposure to environmental risks, and risk mitigation. RobecoSAM does not explain the foundation for this 60:25:15 weighting, nor does its summary report provide individual country scores on each of the various indicators.

It is interesting, however, to break out the scores for environmental performance based on the information that RobecoSAM does provide. Whatever the limitations of this kind of ranking, and they are numerous, as even RobecoSAM acknowledges,  Canada ranks 18th in environmental sustainability out of the 59 countries analysed for sustainability by RobecoSAM.

That’s a record of which no Canadian should be proud.

The RobecoSAM Country Sustainability Ranking is available at http://www.robecosam.com/en/sustainability-insights/about-sustainability/country-sustainability-ranking.jsp

The Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst has published a report, the Toxic 100 Air Polluters Index, that one might be more inclined to expect from an environmental group. PERI, however, has done it better than most environmental groups and the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

The Toxic 100 Air Polluters Index highlights the top U.S. air polluters among the world’s largest corporations. The underlying data are from the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory, in which facilities across the U.S. report their releases of toxic chemicals. However, unlike many other lists of top polluters, which often simply add together the quantities of low toxicity and high toxicity pollutants,  the Toxic 100 also takes into account the degree of toxicity of the releases and the population exposed. This is a fairly sophisticated list.

Among the leaders are some household names:

• du Pont
• Bayer Group
• Dow Chemical
• ExxonMobil
• BASF
• General Electric

and hundreds more. Despite the name the list ranks all companies which report to the Toxics Release Inventory, not just the top 100.

PERI points out that there are quite a few potential sources of error in the data, almost all of them associated with poor reporting by the companies themselves. Potential sources of error include:

1. Incorrect data submitted by facilities.
2. Imprecise data submitted by facilities.
3. Inadequate information on stack heights.
4. Toxicity weights for chemical groups.
5. Lack of toxicity weights for some chemicals.
6. Geographical limits of modeled dispersion
7. Focus on long-term health effects.
8. Products of decay not modeled.
9. Imprecise location of facilities.
10. Releases assumed to be constant over time.
11. No reporting of emissions from mobile sources, such as trucks, automobiles, ships, and aircraft.
12. The chemicals in the TRI do not include some bulk pollutants that pose significant health and environmental risks, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide.

These are the same kind of problems that dog other pollutant release and transfer registries, such as Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory. Why government and industry do not get together to fix the problems is very strange: it seems inconceivable that anyone wins by having inaccurate pollutant release data circulating in the public domain.

Another question might be why a political economy research institute at a respected university is publishing a Toxics 100 list. Apparently the folks at PERI are interested in environmental justice. They calculate environmental justice ratios using geographical microdata generated by the model behind Toxics 100, then match the grid cells to U.S. Bureau of the Census geography, and make links to data on race, ethnicity, and poverty.

It is one of many environmental lists, most of them fingering supposed ‘bad’ companies, about which those with operations in the US should be aware.

The Toxic 100 is fully available, with many explanatory texts, at http://www.peri.umass.edu/toxic100/

A new report from the US Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows that solar power does not take up as much land as some critics have claimed. In fact, NREL has estimated that if solar energy was to meet 100% of all electricity demand in the United States, it would take up about 0.6% of the total land area of the country. The percentage is lower for Canada because our land area per person is greater. However, current technology does not allow sufficient power storage to advance solar power for 100% of our electricity requirements.

Direct land-use requirements for small and large photovoltaic installations range from 2.2 to 12.2 acres per megawatt with a capacity-weighted average of 6.9 acres/MW. Concentrating solar power installations take from 2.0 to 13.9 acres/MW, with a capacity-weighted average of 7.7 acres/MW. These numbers, which are drawn from actual in-place installations, are useful for landowners and owners of large commercial flat roof space who may be considering a solar power installation.

NREL states that a large fixed tilt photovoltaic (PV) plant that generates one gigawatt-hour per year requires, on average, 2.8 acres for the solar panels. This means that a solar power plant that provides all of the electricity for 1,000 homes would require 32 acres of land. This is reportedly less than the total amount of land used for a similar amount of power from a coal-fired plant using surface-mined coal.

The report also provides data on the land use requirements of various tracking and energy storage technologies designed for use with solar panels. In general, tracking systems generate more energy than fixed-tilt systems but also require more land per unit of capacity. GallonDaily adds that they also substantially increase costs and may increase maintenance requirements.

A press release and a link to the full 39 page report can be found at http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2013/2269.html

Some environmental science reports are easy to interpret but others require much more care. However, it remains GallonDaily’s view that information on emerging issues should be made public and that the public should be helped to understand that just because something is being reported does not mean that it is a fact but it also does not mean that it is necessarily a fallacy.

We are drawn to mention this by a newly published research report in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that indicates that there may be a link between ingestion of copper and development of Alzheimer’s disease, a significant cause of serious dementia in elderly people.

It is early days for this research. The laboratory research was carried out on mice, not humans, and it could be that humans respond differently when exposed to copper. We need very small amounts of copper for our bodily functioning and the effect may only show up at higher levels than we are normally exposed to. The conventional dose-response linkage, the higher the dose the greater the adverse effect, probably does not apply, though recently this supposed linkage has been shown not to apply in a number of other cases. It may be that not all humans respond the same way to copper and, even if we do all respond the same way, it may be that different concentrations produce different results in different people. There may be different types of Alzheimer’s disease and copper may only influence one or several of them. As Alzheimer’s is a disease affecting the brain diagnosis is difficult or impossible until the patient has died.

In other words there is much more that we do not know than we know. However, if we were involved in an industry that uses copper in ways that expose people to it, most likely through drinking water, I would be thinking that this research may be the beginning of something important and that in some number of years I may have to make changes to my product or to its marketing.

The research comes from the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York. Researchers there have found that a protein known amyloid-β (Aβ) accumulates in the brain of normal animals dosed with low levels of copper.  The study was looking for the mechanism for this accumulation and found that copper regulates low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein mediated Aβ clearance across the blood–brain barrier (BBB) in normal mice. Faulty Aβ clearance across the BBB due to increased Cu levels in the aging brain vessels may lead to accumulation of neurotoxic Aβ in brain tissue.

The research team speculates that copper-specific chelating agents, chaperones, or antioxidants may reduce copper-induced Aβ accumulation in brain, which should, by extension, prevent Aβ accumulation in brain tissue and improve cognition in Alzheimer’s disease.

An abstract and the research report may be accessed at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/08/14/1302212110.abstract?sid=a85cbc1a-2cfe-4c11-a38e-970d1d0e103e