EPA Tightens Rules On Some Air Pollution For the First Time In Over a Decade 59
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today unveiled new, stricter limits for PM2.5 (particulate smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter), commonly referred to as soot. As NPR notes, these particles are are "one of the deadliest types of air pollution." From the report: The agency lowered the allowable limit for annual PM2.5 levels from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9. That's a "significant reduction," says Regan Patterson, an air pollution expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. "The science is clear," says EPA Administrator Michal Regan. "Soot pollution is one of the most dangerous forms of air pollution and is linked to a range of serious and potentially deadly illnesses, including asthma and heart attacks."
The new standard represents the first tightening of the rules since 2012, but states will have several years to reach the new limits. The EPA left the daily limits on PM2.5 pollution unchanged, at 35 micrograms per cubic meter, saying the same efforts that will reduce pollution under the revised annual standard will drive down short-term pollution exposures as well. Decades of research have demonstrated that tiny particles are dangerous to people's health at nearly any concentration. The sources vary: fossil fuel combustion, agriculture, and industrial processes all add to the load, as does wildfire smoke and dust.
In aggregate, the tiny particles drive millions of premature deaths worldwide each year. The EPA estimates that the new, tighter standards will prevent about 4,500 premature deaths a year by 2032 in the U.S. and prevent about 800,000 asthma-related emergency visits. It estimates the lower pollution exposures could reduce healthcare costs by about $46 billion by that time.
The new standard represents the first tightening of the rules since 2012, but states will have several years to reach the new limits. The EPA left the daily limits on PM2.5 pollution unchanged, at 35 micrograms per cubic meter, saying the same efforts that will reduce pollution under the revised annual standard will drive down short-term pollution exposures as well. Decades of research have demonstrated that tiny particles are dangerous to people's health at nearly any concentration. The sources vary: fossil fuel combustion, agriculture, and industrial processes all add to the load, as does wildfire smoke and dust.
In aggregate, the tiny particles drive millions of premature deaths worldwide each year. The EPA estimates that the new, tighter standards will prevent about 4,500 premature deaths a year by 2032 in the U.S. and prevent about 800,000 asthma-related emergency visits. It estimates the lower pollution exposures could reduce healthcare costs by about $46 billion by that time.
Regularly exceeded (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Regularly exceeded (Score:1, Troll)
Money.
CARB is funded by Cap and Trade. This means that they impose limits on things that are impossible to stop emitting, and force you to pay them for âoecreditsâ for pollution they think you owe. They then use that money to further their political power and send inspectors to verify their claims.
The point is that they will continue to label smaller and smaller particles as problems, which adds to the amount of money they can charge. PM2.5 particles are basically emitted by every human activity.
Re: Regularly exceeded (Score:4, Informative)
1) CARB is not the EPA.
2) There's an overwhelming amount of evidence about the harmfulness of soot and other small particulates. Studies from around the world, not just the USA, have found the same results.
But look at you. None of the facts stopped you from throwing out the dumbest possible conspiracy theory with absolutely no evidence to support it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He never said it was CARB drafting these proposals. Stop and think about it for a moment.
Otherwise nothing you've said disproves his other points.
Re: (Score:1)
Ask any extraction industry shill
Re: Regularly exceeded (Score:2)
The EPAâ(TM)s version of Cap and Trade is CAMPD and is HEAVILY derived from input gained from CARBâ(TM)s experiences.
You could, in fact, say that the EPAâ(TM)s Cap and Trade program is virtually modeled after CARB.
Re: Regularly exceeded (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're referring to Carbon offsets and credits (You need to define acronyms if you use them - it's good etiquette) & cynically implying that this is some kind of bureaucratic money-grab, then who benefits? Cap'n'trade programmes were put forward & enthusiastically adopted by the private sector, namely Wall St. types & their ilk. They've made a lot of money for the private sector while showing little progress in actually reducing CO2 emissions or capturing CO2 from the environment. They've become more of a greenwashing mechanism than anything else. Now that's being more widely recognised, the mostly fraudulent system is increasingly being abandoned by large, public opinion sensitive corporations for fear of being associated with it.
Re: Regularly exceeded (Score:4, Informative)
Did you really not know why smaller particles are more of a problem than larger ones? I'll give you a hint: smaller particles can bypass lung defenses like cilia and mucous, and cross into the bloodstream. Larger particles are easier to expel.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Is George Soros involved somehow?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is George Soros involved somehow?
You bet!
It goes like this:
They of course need healthy children for their adrenochrome program.
In short, they try to do everything to make sure kids' future is s
Re: (Score:2)
It helps people sue when the limits are exceeded. That's how some countries handle increasing the cost of pollution to the point where it is no longer a viable business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... I think the biggest problem is they haven't reduced the limit by enough. 9 is still too much pollution, and enough to cause serious harm. The reduction Should be more. A more suitable maximum limit they should phase in would be 3 micrograms.
AND the Requirements for Public auditable independent monitoring of each individual commercial entities' emissions, where emissions occur in business activity, should be extensive, And include Registration and monitoring systems for individual prod
Re: (Score:2)
The reduction Should be more. A more suitable maximum limit they should phase in would be 3 micrograms.
Is there data showing that the benefit in reducing from 9 to 3 micrograms outweighs the cost of compliance?
Typically regulations like this have to be costed to show that they're justifiable. Otherwise you'd presumably just set the limit to 0 (assuming PM2.5 is a substance where there's no safe level of exposure).
Re: Regularly exceeded (Score:2)
There is evidence that 0 is the amount humans can tolerate well, but the cost for getting to zero is way high. Human life is not worth that much.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically regulations like this have to be costed to show that they're justifiable. Otherwise you'd presumably just set the limit to 0
No.. The reason you don't set the limit to 0 is that it is basically Impossible.
I would say that the limit should be as low as possible, and the burden of proof rests on those who Don't want to meet a safer level to demonstrate that the goal is impractical.
That is, zero is impossible unless you narrow the definition of emissions.
You would emit PM2.5 particles into the air an
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, of course. Zero is impossible. And yes, we should baseline against other natural occurrences like people walking across their yard. What's the acceptable amount of PM2 above that baseline? 0.0001? 0.001? 0.01? 1? 3? 5?
I once read a statement that stuck with me: "A chemist (or physicist depending on definition) can filter anything you give them down to the isotopic level if you give them sufficient budget." So when you say a company needs to justify that "no possible investment can be made...
Re: (Score:2)
What's the acceptable amount of PM2 above that baseline? 0.0001? 0.001? 0.01? 1? 3? 5?
There is no need to make guesses about the acceptable amount; the WHO already has that guideline. above 5 micrograms per cubic meter is hazardous, and above 3 is detrimental.
That's where costing comes in. Where's the evidence that 3 micrograms does in fact allow for ...
No; just like you said, filtration is possible. And nobody's proven that it costs billions of dollars to run a filter on a combustion engine -- In fac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pollution limits are regularly exceeded
Are they? TFA says that only 15 out of the USA's 3000 counties are breaching the current PM2.5 limit.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Of all the people who didn't graduate high school, you didn't graduate the most.
Re: (Score:2)
There are standard methods for how to do this, like estimating QALYs lost. The GP exaggerated to make an absolutely valid point.
Re: Worthless statistics. (Score:2)
And the TFA simplified to make an absolutely understandable point for laypersons who are not actuaries.
Wildfires (Score:3)
The sources vary: fossil fuel combustion, agriculture, and industrial processes all add to the load, as does wildfire smoke and dust.
They need to regulate wildfires and dust storms, which will totally bring those incredibly major sources of global pollution to a halt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you arguing that wildfires and dust storms are the primary source of PM2.5 exposure?
PM2.5 is not just soot (Score:3)
The EPA's own site states that PM2.5 can consist of organic compounds, metals, and 'etc.'. Not terribly specific actually.
Mind you, the EPA would prefer to focus on combustion products, since those are much easier to identify and the originators much easier to punish, since life on our planet will produce substantial particulate matter despite the most earnest legislative efforts to minimize that.
More ugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It includes some pollen as well. Let's get rid of those damned trees.
Re: (Score:2)
And flowers. Wait, how do I get raw honey? Curses!
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, did you see what I did there?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I was just making a joke about the trees. Some flowers have much smaller pollen particles.
particulates 10m or larger
Big suckers, aren't they?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
science reporting is just getting worse. a few days ago my sister handed me a newsweek article speaking of "Nitrogen pollution", in atmosphere and water. But it then said that this nitrogen pollution in the water is caused by fossil fuel combustion [chances are it didn't use the word combustion].
Never mind that most nitrogen compounds contributing to water pollution come from fertilizers, ammonia etc. Never mind that the atmosphere is 78% nitrogen [N2]. Don't mention that NO, NO2, N2O & NH3 are all diff
Re: (Score:2)
In search of a problem (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I think they are now chasing diminishing returns at increasing costs. I have no idea, and EPA does not inform us, how much the latest tightening would cost. Would it make shipping more expensive because diesel semis have to adjust? Would it result in coal power plants to shut
Re:In search of a problem (Score:5, Informative)
>> EPA does not inform us, how much the latest tightening would cost
Actually they do inform us, and it is broken out into the various forms of the pollution.
https://www.epa.gov/system/fil... [epa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of imposing new rules on people based on 5-year-old data that was trending fast in the desired direction, how about a doublecheck to see if it is already down to 9? It is projected that there will be a net loss in jobs if this regulation goes through. It may be a very bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
>> falling fast in 2019
Do you mean Figure 2-2 on page 2-8? The grey line is PM2.5 levels and it has barely budged.
"Decades of research have demonstrated that tiny particles are dangerous to people's health at nearly any concentration."
santa (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. Us city-dwellers that actually drive economic prosperity will continue to do everything we can to snuff out your way of life with our superior means.
/troll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Things that will have to be banned (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's a list of things that will have to be banned in order to meet the new standard:
Charcoal grills
Camp Fires
Wood-burning stoves and furnaces
Propane-fired pizza ovens
Matches, Candles, and Fire Starters based on sawdust/wax
Gas-powered lawn equipment that uses carburetors
Oil-fired home heating furnaces
Wood pellet stoves
Home fireplaces
There are probably many more things...
Re: (Score:2)
Can't help but notice wildfires+California (Score:2)