Category Archives: Air Pollution

Statistics Invalidate Air Pollution Death Claims

“Clearly we don’t know everything about asthma, but there is little evidence to suggest that air pollution from traffic makes much difference.” click here

China Air Pollution Study has Serious Weaknesses; Non-conclusive

Peng Yin, Guojun He, Maoyong Fan, Kowk Yan Chiu, Maorong Fan, Chang Liu, An Xue, Tong Liu, Yuhang Pan, Quan Mu, Maigeng Zhou. Particulate air pollution and mortality in 38 of China’s largest cities: time series analysis. BMJ 2017;356:j667 doi:

The findings of this particular study (click here) and been seriously questioned (click here). If not considered, cigarette smoking is a huge confounding factor in any study involving the respiratory system. Confidence limits on the analysis must be considered when evaluating data.

How do Climate Models Account for Klyuchevskaya Sopka?

An honest question. What about the particulate and gas emissions from volcanoes?

“The volcanic ash cloud has spread over an area of almost 13,500 square feet. It has drifted 124 miles southeast toward the Sea of Okhotsk, in the Pacific Ocean. “click here

The sordid story behind USEPA’s air regulations

“The greatness of our unique nation hinges on the fundamental purpose of the government to serve at the will of the people and to carry out public policy that is in the public interest. When it comes to the executive branch, the Courts have extended deference to agency policy decisions under the theory that our agencies are composed of neutral, non-biased, highly specialized public servants with particular knowledge about policy matters. This report will reveal that within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), some officials making critically important policy decisions were not remotely qualified, anything but neutral, and in at least one case — EPA decision making was delegated to a now convicted felon and con artist, John Beale.”

Click here or image below for full report.

Pages from index

California Air Resources Board double-counts emissions

“The California Air Resources Board used data that double-counted emissions from natural gas suppliers and the output from related power plants in reporting a 2 percent increase from 2011 to 2012, said William Nelson, a New York-based analyst for New Energy Finance. In both years, output was unchanged at about 351 million tons of carbon dioxide, he said. “(click here)

USEPA Cross-State Air Pollution Rule vacated (overturned)

The majority ruling below. Click here for full opinion.

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: Some emissions of air pollutants affect air quality in the States where the pollutants are emitted. Some emissions of air pollutants travel across State boundaries and affect air quality in downwind States. To deal with that complex regulatory challenge, Congress did not authorize EPA to simply adopt limits on emissions as EPA deemed reasonable. Rather, Congress set up a federalism-based system of air pollution control. Under this cooperative federalism approach, both the Federal Government and the States play significant roles. The Federal Government sets air quality standards for pollutants. The States have the primary responsibility for determining how to meet those standards and regulating sources within their borders.

In addition, and of primary relevance here, upwind States must prevent sources within their borders from emitting federally determined “amounts” of pollution that travel across State lines and “contribute significantly” to a downwind State’s “nonattainment” of federal air quality standards. That requirement is sometimes called the “good neighbor” provision.

In August 2011, to implement the statutory good neighbor requirement, EPA promulgated the rule at issue in this case, the Transport Rule, also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The Transport Rule defines emissions reduction responsibilities for 28 upwind States based on those States’ contributions to downwind States’ air quality problems. The Rule limits emissions from upwind States’ coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, among other sources. Those power plants generate the majority of electricity used in the United States, but they also emit pollutants that affect air quality. The Transport Rule targets two of those pollutants, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Various States, local governments, industry groups, and labor organizations have petitioned for review of the Transport Rule. Although the facts here are complicated, the legal principles that govern this case are straightforward: Absent a claim of constitutional authority (and there is none here), executive agencies may exercise only the authority conferred by statute, and agencies may not transgress statutory limits on that authority.

Here, EPA’s Transport Rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority in two independent respects. First, the statutory text grants EPA authority to require upwind States to reduce only their own significant contributions to a downwind State’s nonattainment. But under the Transport Rule, upwind States may be required to reduce emissions by more than their own significant contributions to a downwind State’s nonattainment. EPA has used the good neighbor provision to impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind States without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text. Whatever its merits as a policy matter, EPA’s Transport Rule violates the statute. Second, the Clean Air Act affords States the initial opportunity to implement reductions required by EPA under the good neighbor provision. But here, when EPA quantified States’ good neighbor obligations, it did not allow the States the initial opportunity to implement the required reductions with respect to sources within their borders. Instead, EPA quantified States’ good neighbor obligations and simultaneously set forth EPA-designed Federal Implementation Plans, or FIPs, to implement those obligations at the State level. By doing so, EPA departed from its consistent prior approach to implementing the good neighbor provision and violated the Act.

For each of those two independent reasons, EPA’s Transport Rule violates federal law. Therefore, the Rule must be vacated.

CARB’s Mary Nichols closes mind to science….

California Air Resources Board (CARB) met on Thursday, May 24.  Chair Mary Nichols lets the clock run out before public comment could be presented….CARB regulations are based on junk science……click here for more….