Climate Change Reversing Gains In Air Quality Across the US, Study Finds (axios.com) 121
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Axios: After decades of progress in the U.S. toward cleaner air, climate change-related events will cause a steady deterioration through 2054. New research from the nonprofit First Street Foundation is part of a hyperlocal air quality model showing shifts down to the property level between 2024 and 2054. Its conclusions flow from methods contained in three peer-reviewed studies published by the coauthors. The report itself is not peer reviewed, however. The study finds that climate change is increasing the prevalence of two of the air pollutants most harmful to human health: particulate matter, commonly referred to as PM2.5, and tropospheric ozone.
PM2.5 are tiny particles emitted by vehicles, power plants, wildfires and other sources. They can get lodged in people's lungs and enter the bloodstream, causing or exacerbating numerous health problems. Through the use of air quality observations and the development of the new model, First Street's researchers found that the West will be particularly hard hit by increasing amounts of PM2.5 emissions, as wildfires become more frequent and severe. [...] Future projections estimate a continued increase in PM2.5 levels by nearly 10% over the next 30 years, said Jeremy Porter, head of climate implications at First Street, tells Axios in an interview. This would "completely" erase air quality gains made in the last two decades, he said.
Porter says that whereas pollutants from cars and factors could be targeted by regulations over the past few decades (and the EPA is proposing tightening some further), climate-related deterioration in air quality is a much tougher problem to solve. Instead of national regulations, climate action requires global emissions cuts, and even sharp declines in greenhouse gas emissions may not alter trend lines for the next few decades. The population exposed to "dangerous" days on the air quality index is likely to grow to 11.2 million between 2024 and 2054, an increase of about 13%. A 27% gain in the population exposed to "hazardous" (or maroon) days on the AQI is likely between the present climate and 30 years from now, the report finds. Porter said that while 83 million people are exposed to at least one "unhealthy" (red) day, this is likely to grow to over 125 million during the next three decades. "The climate penalty, associated with the rapidly increasing levels of air pollution, is perhaps the clearest signal we've seen regarding the direct impact climate change is having on our environment," Porter told Axios via email.
PM2.5 are tiny particles emitted by vehicles, power plants, wildfires and other sources. They can get lodged in people's lungs and enter the bloodstream, causing or exacerbating numerous health problems. Through the use of air quality observations and the development of the new model, First Street's researchers found that the West will be particularly hard hit by increasing amounts of PM2.5 emissions, as wildfires become more frequent and severe. [...] Future projections estimate a continued increase in PM2.5 levels by nearly 10% over the next 30 years, said Jeremy Porter, head of climate implications at First Street, tells Axios in an interview. This would "completely" erase air quality gains made in the last two decades, he said.
Porter says that whereas pollutants from cars and factors could be targeted by regulations over the past few decades (and the EPA is proposing tightening some further), climate-related deterioration in air quality is a much tougher problem to solve. Instead of national regulations, climate action requires global emissions cuts, and even sharp declines in greenhouse gas emissions may not alter trend lines for the next few decades. The population exposed to "dangerous" days on the air quality index is likely to grow to 11.2 million between 2024 and 2054, an increase of about 13%. A 27% gain in the population exposed to "hazardous" (or maroon) days on the AQI is likely between the present climate and 30 years from now, the report finds. Porter said that while 83 million people are exposed to at least one "unhealthy" (red) day, this is likely to grow to over 125 million during the next three decades. "The climate penalty, associated with the rapidly increasing levels of air pollution, is perhaps the clearest signal we've seen regarding the direct impact climate change is having on our environment," Porter told Axios via email.
Don't be shy (Score:5, Insightful)
Just spill the beans about the millions that die yearly due air pollution already.
Global warming is bad, but there's already pretty horrible consequences for all the pollution right now.
8 million deaths worldwide - outdoor air pollution (Score:5, Informative)
Quote: "Of more than 8 million deaths worldwide from outdoor air pollution, 61% linked to fossil fuels, finds study"
Scientific paper: 8 million deaths worldwide (Score:5, Informative)
Air pollution deaths attributable to fossil fuels: observational and modelling study [bmj.com]
Published 29 Nov. 2023.
Re: (Score:3)
Scientific paper cited by the Guardian article to which I linked above:
Air pollution deaths attributable to fossil fuels: observational and modelling study
The general problem with pollution studies is high density areas are always more polluted and people who live in such places tend toward sedentary lifestyles. One can pull studies that link lifestyle differences to diabetes and heart disease with enormous effect.
The studies I know of that bothered to look back at gains due to pollution control measures over the years are interestingly enough quite myopic in their evaluations... they don't usually go crazy with diabetes, stroke, heart problems, births, kitc
Re: (Score:2)
It's been on autopilot for a long time. If it wasn't they'd remove moderation ability from the people who abuse the mod system to silence views the mod doesn't like instead of using it as intended to bury SEO spam and raise up the interesting posts from across the view spectrum to improve discussion quality and pop the thought bubble.
But they don't seem to do that. It would only take a few minutes a day to find the handful of abusive mods.
Welcome to autopilot until the value of the SEO ad posts is lower t
Re: (Score:2)
Can't be long, sad to say this site is beyond knackered, even though, incredibly, despite the descent some good voices remain.
Re: (Score:2)
I have been posting AC for the past few weeks because it's gotten out of hand again.
No. You have been posting AC because you're so afraid your opinion is rubbish that it may be associated with you. You can post on Slashdot with bad karma. There's no reason to hide your pseudonym unless you're afraid of associating yourself with your own opinion.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Around 90 people a year die from nuclear reactors. Usually from job site injuries, but sometimes radiation or poisoning. Scary stuff.
I think we should stick with good clean and green hydroelectric power, water is perfectly safe and natural. If the dam breaks, just swim, everyone knows how to swim.
(data from a random article I found in a search. they didn't cite references)
A report in 2009 said, "Climate change kills about 315,000 people a year through hunger, sickness and weather disasters, and the annual d
Re: (Score:2)
Deathless anything is impossible, but when coal and oil kill as many people while working normally as if half of the nuclear reactors went full hiroshima per year. it's a pretty good idea to consider less lethal options unless you want people to die on purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear power is profoundly, incredibly safe by any comparative standard. Brushing your teeth is probably more dangerous than nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
unless you want people to die on purpose.
It's important to me that I get to choose and not simply allow it to be random. ;-)
There are so many things where the risk of death is non-zero (but small) and when you have enough people involved you can still end up with an impressive number of fatalities. People keel over running in marathons every year. And from commuting by bicycle (my company lost more than one employee that way). Of course we conveniently ignore the opposite statistics. Like of living of a sedentary lifestyle or of commuting by car.
Lithium Lung (Score:4, Funny)
How much air pollution does a burning Tesla make?
Depends on the model (Score:2)
How much air pollution does a burning Tesla make?
Depends on the model. A Tesla 3 might generate $42,000 of pollution.
Re:Depends on the model (Score:5, Funny)
Regular or long ranged? Dual motor? What color? African or European?
Re: (Score:1)
Note that the paper is not peer reviewed is probably headline seeking garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think is dumb enough to believe that obvious lie? Very few people are as stupid as Mike Lindell's followers.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't drive a Tesla but I do drive around mostly on electrons.
The electricity comes from a nuclear reactor up the road that makes approximately no pollution.
Re: (Score:1)
And it's cheaper to put a scrubber on one coal plant than a hundred thousand cars. And even if a Tesla is strictly charged by coal power, its still more efficient than ICE.
Miss the forest for a tree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Miss the forest for a tree (Score:5, Informative)
I’ve got people complaining about the lowered air quality from 2-cycle lawn blowers and trimmers when they are 0.000001% of emissions.
They are not insignificant. Blowers and mowers don't have ANY emissions control, and they spew quite a bit of unburnt crap.
Also, they should be banned because they are terrible for the health of people who use them.
Re:Miss the forest for a tree (Score:4, Insightful)
2 cycles do have emission controls, that's why you need the special tool to tune the carbs now. That's if you are lucky. Some new ones have no adjustment. And of course some states have already banned 2-cycle blowers and trimmers.
Now, having known this I already bought battery versions to replace all my 2-cycle equipment as soon as the first one needed replacing at fifteen years old. I don't expect these to last that long BUT it is nice not dealing with the vibration, stink, noise, and 'will it run today' of using the blower/trimmer/chainsaw now.
Re:Miss the forest for a tree (Score:5, Informative)
2 cycles do have emission controls, that's why you need the special tool to tune the carbs now.
No. They do not, they don't have catalytic convertors, so they emit plenty of unburned hydrocarbons. The result is that small engines are now emitting about the same amount of total smog-forming pollution as all passenger cars in CA! Source: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resourc... [ca.gov]
It's crazy how filthy these things are. Also, banning them won't help that much with the noise, electric blowers are quieter, but not that much quieter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The entire thread is proof that you're an idiot. People are NOT focusing on CO2 emissions, but on nitrogen oxides, PM2.5, and ozone. You know, the good old smog-forming pollution.
And the CO2 is causing wildfires that emit trillions of times the direct emissions of those substances and you have such limited intelligence you don’t even know what’s real.
on his behalf, I'll offer you a hint... (Score:5, Interesting)
The sheer size and quantity of particulate matter stuffed into the atmosphere by those wildfires is always VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE because it BLOTS OUT SOME OF THE SUNLIGHT unlike the engines people are complaining about.
I lived in Los Angeles long ago when the smog was at its worst; we used to joke that we did not trust air we could not see. The smog in LA at that time was NEVER anywhere near as capable of turning the sky orange, and lowering the light levels the way these wildfires routinely do. The last time a wildfire got near my current city, the particulates were so bad we had to wear masks to breathe and the junk in the air was gritty on our hands and was visible to the naked eye. The fires were so hot and ejected so much burned material (un-sequestered carbon!) that the biggest debris it actually sounded like a light rain as bits of burned wood (more like charcoal at that point) precipitated out. Let me know the next time you see some weed whacker or lawnmower do that.
You could run every single two-stroke engine on the planet and not obstruct the sunlight to that extent, and you'll certainly not HEAR the combustion byproducts raining onto the pavement around you. While I might otherwise agree with your assertion that the previous poster posted no numerical data to backup his assertions, in this case nobody with a brain needs them... and YOU did not post any facts to counter his assertions. In fact, you did not even post an identity.
Thanks for playing, anonymous coward armed with no facts.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The sheer size and quantity of particulate matter stuffed into the atmosphere by those wildfires is always VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE because it BLOTS OUT SOME OF THE SUNLIGHT unlike the engines people are complaining about.
I think that might have as much to do with where in the atmosphere the particles are as their density. And, actually, it seems like particles high in the atmosphere where they can blot out the sun are less likely to harm human lungs, since they're not in the air we're actually breathing.
Re: (Score:2)
One can see the curvature of the earth by observing a boat sailing off in the distance much as one can observe high levels large particle pollution by noticing they cant see through the damn air more than 50 meters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This entire thread is proof of my point. People focus on 0.000001% of the problem while CO2 emissions are causing trillions to quadrillions of times the particulate issue alone
People aren't living in the high atmosphere inhaling the general mixture of global air. They are living next to other people inhaling fumes from 2 stroke shitty engines so bad that they actively go and close their windows to stop the smell.
Just because a coal power plant 100km away spews more CO2 into the air doesn't mean you shouldn't focus on the emission sources that directly affect *YOU*. Specifically *YOU*. Not the globe. The globe doesn't give a shit if you press your face into the tailpipe of a combu
Re: (Score:2)
You've never been down wind from a forest fire, apparently.
I have pictures at noon from my back porch of the last California wild fires. The sky was dark oranfe and the light level was similar to twilight. To say nothing of the serious hacking coughing fits that inspired me to buy half a dozen 13+ rated air filters to simply survive indoors from the shit that made it inside.
I have battery powered everything but this crying about the non battery versions destroying the planet is sheer idiocy when consideri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've never been down wind from a forest fire, apparently.
You've never been able to logically follow a conversation apparently. Let me distil it down to your level of intelligence: Me no say forest fires not bad. Me say 2 stroke engines not good.
Kapish idiot?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice grade school level attempt at recovery. But, ultimately, fail. As expected.
You managed to put ad hominem in every single sentence. Yermom is proud of your mad debate skillz!111
Re: (Score:2)
This entire thread is proof of my point. People focus on 0.000001% of the problem while CO2 emissions are causing trillions to quadrillions of times the particulate issue alone
People aren't living in the high atmosphere inhaling the general mixture of global air. They are living next to other people inhaling fumes from 2 stroke shitty engines so bad that they actively go and close their windows to stop the smell.
Just because a coal power plant 100km away spews more CO2 into the air doesn't mean you shouldn't focus on the emission sources that directly affect *YOU*. Specifically *YOU*. Not the globe. The globe doesn't give a shit if you press your face into the tailpipe of a combustion engine. That has only health impacts on *YOU*.
I couldn’t see the sun for weeks, the sky was burnt orange, visibility went from miles to 2 hundred yards and you focus on smell. Smell that does not matter except for some small localized health effects while my state has feet less snow than normal and unfrozen bodies of water at abnormal times. Smell while ecosystems collapse and the world is being destroyed for indigenous life. Smell while the acrid stench of burn wet wood and leaf is choking and we have health alerts to stay inside and not ventu
Re: (Score:2)
They are unimportant in terms of climate change, but if you live near someone using one then the emissions are quite likely to be significant to you.
Re: (Score:2)
They are unimportant in terms of climate change, but if you live near someone using one then the emissions are quite likely to be significant to you.
Where does someone live where collapsing climate biomes don’t affect them? These people are morons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The overall impact maybe insignificant but we're talking about pollution here. The impact of interest should be to you and those in the immediate vicinity when using the blower.
How about 40% of the nation who are in the immediate vicinity of those climate induced wildfires, where the particulates are so plentiful they can be seen from space with the unaided eye? These people have no idea what the real problem is not what vicinity means.
Re: (Score:2)
they don't have catalytic convertors
leaf blower with catalytic converter [stihl.com]
Do they all have them? No. Do some of them have them? Yes.
Even with one they are still filthy, though, because of the fact that they urn premix. Oil injected 2 strokes exist but they are mostly shit from a reliability perspective so people do their best to avoid them, or just defeat the oil injection and run premix anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, yes:
EPA has adopted emission standards to control both exhaust and evaporative emissions from small spark-ignition engines. Phase 3 exhaust emissions standards took effect in 2011 or 2012, depending on the size of the engine.
Re: (Score:2)
My battery blower is that much quieter, enough that I don't need hearing protection just to go blow off a sidewalk or driveway. Same for the trimmer and chainsaw, noise is there but it isn't like a 2 cycle where instead of comfort y
Re: (Score:2)
i'm guessing you've never actually used any of those tools before.
banning 2 stroke engines (namely for use in chain saws) is about the dumbest, most asinine thing progs are pushing (and that's saying oh so very much.)
>but lithium
yeah, okay.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, having known this I already bought battery versions to replace all my 2-cycle equipment as soon as the first one needed replacing at fifteen years old. I don't expect these to last that long BUT it is nice not dealing with the vibration, stink, noise, and 'will it run today' of using the blower/trimmer/chainsaw now.
This. Unless you're doing commercial lawn care or something and need one that will run all day, I think the electric blowers and trimmers are simply better than their two-cycle predecessors. They have plenty of power and not only are they quieter and not smelly, they Just Work every spring. I expect the actual machines to last many years, though batteries may have to be replaced. OTOH, battery tech is continuously improving, so odds are that when you have to buy a replacement battery in a few years, the ne
Re: (Score:2)
Our city is tearing holes in streets and planting decorative median landscaping. Which must be tended to by armies of workers with mowers, string trimmers and leaf blowers. The size of the plantings are such that electric tools just won't do the job. In fact, even consumer grade mowers and other equipment just isn't sufficient.
I say we have them rip up all the plants and put the asphalt back.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, cities not hot enough during Summer?
Re: (Score:2)
You know what else has no emissions controls? (Score:1, Troll)
All those private jets that the politicians and climate activists fly to attend conferences at exotic locations, instead of just making a Teams call.
Aircraft jet engines burn jet fuel, which is just a particular form of kerosene. The fuel is mixed with inbound clean air that has been compressed in the compressor stages, then ignited and blown out the rear for thrust. Not a single catalytic converter in sight. Your gas car, which you need to go to work to provide for yourself and your family, and which these
Which coward marked this as "troll"? (Score:2)
Marking non-troll content as "troll" is a very dishonest tactic to cause such comments to be auto-censored by people whose filters are set to screen-out troll posts. It's a form of censorship of posts deployed by scoundrels who, having no legitimate counter-argument, are desperate to prevent others from seeing. Fear of ideas makes people who do this pathetic.
Challenge:
Whoever marked this post "troll", come back here and refute what was posted with a rational, factual argument and don't do it as "anonymous c
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
eCoteRroRistS
Who set a few fires out of hundreds. This is as much derp as blaming wind and solar for those deadly Texas power outages a few years ago, when the problem was natgas plants freezing because a few bucks spent on preventative measures were a few bucks out of quarterly dividends.
Re: (Score:2)
eCoteRroRistS
Who set a few fires out of hundreds. This is as much derp as blaming wind and solar for those deadly Texas power outages a few years ago, when the problem was natgas plants freezing because a few bucks spent on preventative measures were a few bucks out of quarterly dividends.
Brought to you by the same people who think they just don’t rake the forests enough and keep them clean.
Re:Miss the forest for a tree (Score:4, Informative)
Gas-powered blowers and trimmers are fucking LOUD. Ruined many Sunday naps. Even without the pollution issue, those fuckers should be banned. Electric ones are much quieter.
Good Riddance!
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Your comfort, 24 hours a day / seven days a week, is all that matters.
Everything you don't like should be banned. You are all that matters.
You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Better for the environment, better for nappers, slightly more expensive for gardening corporations, 2 beats 1.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a right to be a noisy, smelly, obnoxious, asshole! To hell with the neighbors! You are all that matters!
Honestly, do you have any self-awareness?
Re: (Score:2)
You have a right to be a noisy, smelly, obnoxious, asshole! To hell with the neighbors! You are all that matters!
Honestly, do you have any self-awareness?
Postel's law works best when practiced in real life.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a right to be a noisy, smelly, obnoxious, asshole! To hell with the neighbors! You are all that matters!
You really don't see a distinction between asking that people be polite and criminally prosecuting people for rudeness?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's review: Burtosis asserts that emissions from 2-stroke cycle blowers and trimmers are insignificant. Tablizer suggested that gas-powered blowers and trimmers should be banned merely because they're obnoxiously loud. JBeretta, who doesn't understand hyperbole, accused Tabilizer of being self-centered. I then explained to JBeretta that he was the one who was actually being selfish.
Nowhere did anyone suggest that anyone should be criminally prosecuted for anything, let alone rudeness. Neither did anyon
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I actually need to explain this?
The belief that you should be able to do whatever you want without regard for others is what makes you selfish. This isn't complicated.
Why do I even bother?
Re: (Score:2)
> The point, you smug, self-entitled, little prick, is that electric (as of now) isn't always the best damn answer for everything. Not everyone lives in your filthy, polluted, smelly, garbage cities. Not everyone has a neighbor that lives so close they can smell your farts.
You miss the point entirely while mentioning the problem.
Everyone -should- live in high density city housing, use only public transit, and never go anywhere. All other options are a manifestation of your moral failings. You are not a
Re: (Score:2)
Yup and they also fail to recognize sarcasm or humor.
You got modded down but my sarcasm was taken seriously, no negative mod.
If the editors would stomp out the handful of bad mods this would be a better place. The mod system was never intended to be weaponized. In fact Cmdr Taco (still visible via Google search) that they smashed the people who did that when the mod system was beta and easier to police. At this point it's about that user base size again but they don't care to do anything about it.
Show us on the doll where the Prius bit you? (Score:1)
Electric yard tools are far lighter, less noisy, and have none of the issues of a gas burning motor. No spark plugs, no oil changes, no winterizing.
Re: (Score:1)
I saw plenty of your derp, thus the response, RWNJ
Re: (Score:2)
Your comfort, 24 hours a day / seven days a week, is all that matters.
Everything you don't like should be banned. You are all that matters.
He's not wrong. Noise pollution is a horrible thing that makes cities unliveable and have negative mental health impacts. You are what matters. And if other people are negatively affecting you they should be brought into line.
Re: (Score:1)
And what do you think caused all those wildfires? (Score:1)
If Slashdot allowed image embedding in posts, this would be a perfect use for the Bart "at least you tried" meme.
https://tenor.com/view/at-leas... [tenor.com]
Or we could ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You know that everyone can see though your idiotic right-wing bullshit, right? Even the morons who think Fox is too woke can tell you're full of shit.
Re: (Score:1)
Those fires weren't blowing giant amounts of smoke south of the border ten years ago, derpman.
Re: (Score:1)
False.
Re: (Score:1)
I admire your fortitude and consistency.
Your cult isn't going to happen (Score:1)
stop trying to make it happen. Wind and solar are cheaper, pose no danger, don't create a toxic waste hazard until the sun goes nova, and yes they're even more reliable as they don't go down for months or even YEARS for maintenance. In you ballyhooed France over half their radioactive water heaters were down at one time.
Re: who decides what's normal? (Score:2)
Money.
It's really due to the increased volcanic activity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no evidence that volcanic activity is actually increasing. There are more reports of small scale volcanic events, because there are more observers looking for these events in order to research them. But the rate of larger volcanic events have been flat for 100's of years.
Re: (Score:1)
That damned Sleepy Joe made more volcanos!
Wait, isn't "Joe Versus the Volcano" a movie?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quick! Which politician do I send my money to? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All hail Trump! He will show us that it's all a hoax!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but even the teens were better in the past of the site.
You know, the average IQ used to be way, way higher back in the good ol' days. But then again, so did the average IQ of the users of the internet, so I guess it's just logical.
Re: (Score:2)
The average IQ of the general population is 100.
It has always been 100. It is 100. It will always be 100.
By definition.
Re: (Score:2)
True. But we're not talking about the population, we're talking about the portion of the users using the internet. Up until the 90s, accessing the internet required either a lot of money, a job at a high tech company or access to the internet access of an university. Which in turn usually excluded people with an IQ below room temperature.
Thus the IQ of the average internet user used to be higher than it is today.
Re: (Score:2)
That long predates slashdot or anything else social but Usenet, muds and irc none of which were exactly a Mecca for hyper intelligent conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you want, the average level of literacy was way higher when people had to be able to read and write to communicate, i.e. before the advent of emojies.
Re: (Score:2)
You damned kids! You and your emojis can get off my lawn!
Re: (Score:2)
lol, :-D ;-P