Pollution Free Cities

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

World-wide Causes of Death from Climate Change to the Mid 21st century

Quantitative risk assessment of the effects of climate change on selected causes of death, 2030s and 2050s (128 page pdf, Editors: Simon Hales, Sari Kovats, Simon Lloyd, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, World Health Organization, Sep. 21, 2014)

Also discussed here: Quantitative risk assessment of the effects of climate change on selected causes of death, 2030s and 2050s (Press Release, WHO, Sep. 21, 2014)

Today we review an updated estimate of the impact of climate change on health by the World Health Organization. Not including deaths from extreme events, the WHO estimates that an additional 241,000 deaths per year by 2030 (rising to 250,000 /yr to 2050) will be caused by climate change impacts that include under-nutrition of children, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress for the elderly. The greatest impacts geographically are in southeast Asia and India with significant impacts also in central and southeast Africa and southeast USA. Because of sea level rise brought about by climate warming and sea ice melt, coastal floods caused by cyclones. While reductions in emissions and mitigation may reduce some of the impacts, deaths from heat exposure and stress are expected to continue to rise above 100,000/yr by 2050.

Key Quotes:

“Global climate-health models were developed for a range of health outcomes known to be sensitive to climate change: heat-related mortality in elderly people, mortality associated with

coastal flooding…
diarrhoeal disease in children…
malaria ..
dengue ..
undernutrition (stunting) ..”

“Around 120 million people are exposed to coastal floods associated with tropical cyclones and storm surges each year, causing an estimated 250 000 deaths between 1980 and 2000.. In the future, climate change is expected to worsen coastal flood hazards through sea-level rise …and an anticipated increase in the intensity (but not frequency) of cyclone events”

“Compared with a future without climate change, the following additional deaths are projected for the year 2030: 38 000 due to heat exposure in elderly people, 48 000 due to diarrhoea, 60 000 due to malaria, and 95 000 due to childhood undernutrition.”

“climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050” “by the 2050s, deaths related to heat exposure (over 100 000 per year) are projected to increase.”

“Under a base case socioeconomic scenario, we estimate approximately 250 000 additional deaths due to climate change per year between 2030 and 2050.”

“avoiding climate-sensitive health risks is an additional reason to mitigate climate change, alongside the immediate health benefits that are expected to accrue from measures to reduce climate pollutants, for example through lower levels of particulate air pollution”

Thursday, November 6, 2014

What is the Answer to Avoiding Urban Congestion and Traffic-Related Air Pollution that accompanies Increased Car Dependence?

English: Graph of CO2 emissions by city for the year 1995. Graph created by me from data published in Kenworthy, JR (2002) Transport Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases in Urban Passenger Transport Systems: A Study of 84 Global Cities / Millennium Cities Database UITP KENWORTHY JR* (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Cars Will Cook the Planet Absent Shift to Public Transportation - By making it easier to walk, cycle or take the bus, the world cut pollution by 40 percent (Julia Pyper, ClimateWire, Sep. 17, 2014)

Today we review a paper that examines the trend toward increased urban car use, the consequences in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and the opportunities that exist to reduce these emissions. Under the “high shift” scenario, urban transportation emissions could be reduced by 40% world-wide with savings of $100 trillion in operating and infrastructure costs. Putting more funding into public transit is not necessarily the best way to make these savings, but rather investments to promote cycling and walking.

Key Quotes:

“If the world's cities focused their investments on expanding public transportation, walking and cycling, they could save more than $100 trillion in public and private capital and urban transportation operating costs between now and 2050”

“In a "high shift" scenario with far greater urban passenger travel by clean public transport and non- motorized vehicles … roughly 1.7 gigatons of carbon dioxide could be eliminated each year—a 40 percent reduction in urban passenger transport emissions—by 2050.”

"Transportation, driven by rapid growth in car use, has been the fastest-growing source of CO2 in the world….While every part of the global economy needs to become greener, cleaning up the traffic jams in the world's cities offers the least pain and the most gain."

“Transportation emissions in China… are expected to mushroom in the coming decades, from less than 200 megatons of CO2 annually today to nearly 1,200 megatons of CO2 in 2050…India will also see a huge jump in urban transportation emissions, from about 70 megatons of CO2 today to more than 500 megatons in 2050.”

"Unmanaged growth in motor vehicle use threatens to exacerbate growing income inequality and environmental ills, while more sustainable transport delivers access for all, reducing these ills,"

“mass transit is a day dream, fostered by politicians…the trains are rarely full, and are less efficient than autos, and because people have to be transported to and from the system, and once at their destination, must be transported by other means, mass transit almost always INCREASES Greenhouse Gas emissions. And when you rank mitigation projects by dollars invested vs CO2 emissions reduced, mass transit doesn't even make the list, it's so terrible.”

"I must admit there's a question about whether business as usual is even plausible, because many cities are going to run into infrastructure constraints and space constraints at some point…But that is the trend, the trend is such fast motorization rates that if nothing is done to try and redirect that, it looks like a very unsustainable future."

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

How Healthy is it to Live Near Natural Gas Wells being Fracked?

Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status: Results of a Household Survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania (28 page pdf, Peter M. Rabinowitz, Ilya B. Slizovskiy, Vanessa Lamers, Sally J. Trufan, Theodore R. Holford, James D. Dziura, Peter N. Peduzzi, Michael J. Kane, John S. Reif, Theresa R. Weiss, and Meredith H. Stowe, Environmental Health Perspectives, Sep. 10, 2014)

Also discussed here: People Who Live Near Fracking More Likely To Become Sick, Study Finds (Emily Atkin, ThinkProgress, Sep. 10, 2014)

And here: An Evaluation of Water Quality in Private Drinking Water Wells Near Natural Gas Extraction Sites in the Barnett Shale Formation (Abstract, Brian E. Fontenot, Laura R. Hunt, Zacariah L. Hildenbrand, Doug D. Carlton Jr., Hyppolite Oka, Jayme L. Walton, Dan Hopkins, Alexandra Osorio, Bryan Bjorndal, Qinhong H. Hu, and Kevin A. Schug, Environmental Science and Technology, Jul. 25, 2013)

Today we review ground-breaking (literally) research into the potential health impacts for those who live near natural gas wells being drilled using fracking which involves the injection of large amounts of water and solvents into the earth. Results indicated that 39% of people within 0.6 miles of the wells reported respiratory problems compared to only 18% of those who live more than 1.2 miles away. Other studies indicate the presence of certain poisonous chemicals such as arsenic, selenium and strontium near fracking wells which exceed Environmental Protection Agency standards. The authors recommend more studies into this issue.

$fracking cancer$

Key Quotes:

“Little is known about the environmental and public health impact of unconventional natural gas extraction activities including hydraulic fracturing that occur near residential areas….The drilling and completion of natural gas wells, as well as the storage of waste fluids in containment ponds, may release chemicals into the atmosphere through evaporation and off-gassing.”

“39 percent of people living less than 0.6 miles from a gas well reported upper-respiratory problems like sinus infections and nosebleeds, compared to just 18 percent of people living more than 1.2 miles away. For skin problems like rashes, 13 percent living close to the wells reported irritation, compared to only 3 percent living further away who said the same.”

“preliminary scientific research is finding more and more of a connection between birth defects and the proximity of the child’s mother to a natural gas well.”

“The results of this study suggest that natural gas drilling activities could be associated with increased reports of dermal and upper respiratory symptoms in nearby communities and support the need for further research into health effects of natural gas extraction activities.”

“assessment of private well water quality in aquifers overlying the Barnett Shale formation of North Texas..Analyses revealed that arsenic, selenium, strontium and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Limit (MCL) in some samples from private water wells located within 3 km of active natural gas wells”

Thursday, October 30, 2014

How Does Air Pollution Impact the Health of Children?

A sketch displaying the efflux transports at the blood-brain barrier. Inspired by a sketch from S. Ohtsuki: New aspects of the blood-brain barrier transporters; its physiological roles in the central nervous system. In: Biol Pharm Bull. 27, 2004, pp. 1489-1496. PMID 15467183 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Air Pollution and Children: Neural and Tight Junction Antibodies and Combustion Metals, the Role of Barrier Breakdown and Brain Immunity in Neurodegeneration (Abstract, Lilian Calderón-Garcidueñas, Aristo Vojdani, Eleonore Blaurock-Busch, Yvette Busch, Albrecht Friedle, Maricela Franco-Lira, Partha Sarathi-Mukherjee, Su-Bin Park, Ricardo Torres-Jardón, Amedeo D'Angiulli, Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, Aug. 2014)

Also discussed here: Air pollution harmful to young brains, study finds (ScienceDaily, 10 Sep. 10, 2014) And here: Air Pollution Invades Kids' Brain Barriers, May Cause Neurological Diseases (Anthony Rivas, Medical Daily, Sep. 10, 2014

Today we review research that found that fine particulate air pollutants (typical in exhausts of diesel buses and trucks) can penetrate barriers in the lungs, intestines and brain that, in turn, can affect children’s health and lead to long term permanent damage, including the onset of Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease or multiple sclerosis.

Key Quotes:

“The study found when air particulate matter and their components such as metals are inhaled or swallowed, they pass through damaged barriers, including respiratory, gastrointestinal and the blood-brain barriers and can result in long-lasting harmful effects.”

"We asked why a clinically healthy kid is making autoantibodies against their own brain components….That is indicative of damage to barriers that keep antigens and neurotoxins away from the brain. Brain autoantibodies are one of the features in the brains of people who have neuroinflammatory diseases like multiple sclerosis."

"The barriers are there for a reason…They are there to protect you, but once they are broken the expected results are not good."

“Air pollution exposure damages epithelial and endothelial barriers and is a robust trigger of tight junction and neural antibodies.”

“The major factor determining the impact of neural antibodies is the integrity of the blood-brain barrier. Defining the air pollution linkage of the brain/immune system interactions and damage to physical and immunological barriers with short and long term neural detrimental effects to children's brains ought to be of pressing importance for public health.”

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Why Get Out of Your Car? - Some Good Reasons

Behind the Wheel: Opportunities for Canadians to drive less, reduce pollution and save money (42 page pdf, Cherise Burda, Katie Laufenberg, Alison Bailie and Graham Haines, Pembina Institute, Oct. 2012)

Today we review a report prepared by the well-respected Pembina Institute which detailed many good ways to both reduce emissions from driving and save money. If all of their suggestions were acted on, the emissions from Canada’s transportation sector would be reduced by 16 million tonnes each year which is equivalent to taking 3.5 million cars off the road.

Key Quotes:

“Canadians drive over 300 billion kilometres in their cars, trucks and motorcycles, with the average Canadian household driving around 26,460 kilometres per year….consume over 36 billion litres of fuel a year, which equals about 243 million barrels of oil a year”

“car crashes and air pollution from cars cost American society between $535 and $4,214 per person per year”

"riding transit to and from work just one day a week can reduce personal transportation emissions by about 1 to 4%, reduce gas consumption by over 91 litres and save $215 in auto-related costs (gas, maintenance and depreciation) per year.”

“The average Canadian commuter spends about an hour on their round trip to and from work… Telecommuting two to three times a week could reduce costs of driving (based on an average sized car) by roughly $480 per year….between 41% and 47% of jobs [in Canada] are compatible with working at home.”

“drivers using the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane along Highway 404 reduced their travel time on the highway from 26 minutes to nine minutes”

“Moving to a location that allows you to eliminate one household vehicle provides savings equivalent to $200,000 on a 25-year mortgage….living in a city or neighbourhood that has location-efficient attributes (walkable, mixed use and access to transit) can reduce your auto dependence by about 20%. … moving close enough to work to get rid of the car entirely can save roughly $10,000 per year.”

“An average Canadian would spend only $38 per month to fuel up an electric vehicle, compared to $128 per month for a mid-sized gasoline powered car” Conclusions:
• If 50% of Canada’s driving commuters took action to leave the car at home, the combined annual greenhouse gas savings would be in the order of 4 million tonnes …
• If 50% of all Canadian drivers switched to a smaller, more fuel-efficient or electric vehicle, combined greenhouse gas reductions could reach 9 million tones….
• If 50% of all Canadian drivers drove smarter, it could be possible to reduce our emissions by 4 million tonnes ….
• If 50% of Canadian drivers took all these actions our savings could be in the order of 16 million tonnes CO2e. That’s equivalent to taking 3.5 million cars — almost one out of five — off Canada’s roads.”

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Which Approach to Urban Development reduces Air Pollution the most - Intensification or Greenspace?

Effects of Compact Urban Development on Air Pollution: Empirical Evidence from Korea (15 page pdf, Hee-Sun Cho and Mack Joong Choi, Sustainability, Sep. 5, 2014)

Today we review research aimed at finding out whether a concentration of the urban population in a city core and reducing the need for traffic emissions is the better option for improved air quality than developing urban areas with lots of greenspaces which offer a way of diluting the air pollution concentration across the urban area. The examination including looking at five major air pollutant measurements in 17 cities in Korea, as well as assessing dilution using air quality dispersion modeling. Results are inconclusive in terms of these two options. More important to improved overall air quality is finding ways to reduce individual emission sources.

Key Quotes:

“urban sprawl …leads to loss of green open spaces and an increase in traffic and energy consumption…the compact city concept has been put forward as a form of sustainable urban development. Air pollution is one of the key environmental problems associated with urbanization.”

“Compact urban development would likely have both positive and negative effects on air quality:

"high-density development can result in reduced car dependency, reduced energy consumption, and low emissions via a decrease in distance traveled
Higher densities lead to traffic congestion and greater air pollution …Large cities pollute more and generate more environmental damage than medium-sized ones
Atmospheric dispersion and dilution of air pollutants are strongly influenced by meteorological conditions and topographical features, and urban structures have a great effect on meteorological parameters such as wind direction, wind speed, turbulence, and atmospheric stability”

“NO2 and CO increased as the net population density increased, implying that compact urban development can result in greater spatial concentration of pollutants. On the other hand, SO2 and CO decreased as the proportion of green areas increased, implying that green areas secured by compact development can promote the dispersion of pollutants and thereby mitigate air pollution…urban compactness did not have a significant effect on PM10 and O3.”

“compact urban development does contribute to a rising proportion of green areas, then such a development is helpful in mitigating air pollution.”

“there is a need to differentiate in regard to whether emission sources are concentrated at the local or regional level and to develop an integrated management system that minimizes local to citywide emissions and thus regulates total urban emissions.”

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Does New York City’s PlaNYC 2030 Adequately Address Climate Change Issues?

Official seal of New York City (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

An Assessment Framework for Cities Coping with Climate Change: The Case of New York City and its PlaNYC 2030 (22 page pdf, Yosef Jabareen, Sustainability, Sep. 3, 2014)

Today we review a critique of New York’s much heralded action plan, published in 2005, to address the challenges facing that city from climate change. Using eight evaluating“concepts”, the author praises the city’s approach to physical aspects such as land, water and air and to a lesser extent, the proposed use of renewable energy, but criticizes the lack of public participation in the development and execution of the plan, especially at the local community level in an extremely multi-community and multi-ethnic urban area.

Key Quotes:

8 CONCEPTS:

Utopian Vision- a plan’s visionary and utopian aspects regarding future urban life and the city’s potential role in climate change mitigation.
Equity - used to evaluate a plan’s social aspects, including: environmental justice; public participation; and methods of addressing each community’s vulnerability to climate change
Uncertainty Management - actions taken to reduce and/or prevent risky events; …or actions taken to recover losses after a risky event
Natural Capital - the consumption and…the renewal of natural assets that are used for development, such as land, water, air, and open spaces.
Integrative Approach - the integrative framework for city planning and adaptive management under conditions of uncertainty, and the spectrum of collaboration that a plan proposes
Ecological Energy - how a plan addresses the energy sector and whether it proposes strategies to reduce energy consumption and to use new, alternative, and clean energy sources.
Ecological Economics - Cities that are committed to climate change mitigation and sustainability should stimulate markets for “green” products and services, promote environmentally friendly consumption, and contribute to urban economic development by creating a cleaner environment
Eco-Form - evaluates spatial planning, architecture, design, and the ecologically-desired form of the city and its components

“New York City already faces the probability of a “hundred year flood” once every 80 years. This could increase to once every 43 years by the 2020s and to once every 19 years by the 2050s”

“Climate change poses particular threats to the city’s infrastructure, in the form of: Increased summertime strain on materials; increased peak electricity loads in summer and reduced heating in winter; voltage fluctuations, equipment damage and service interruptions; increased demands on HVAC systems; transportation service disruption; increased street, basement and sewer flooding; reduction of water quality; inundation of low-lying areas and wetlands; increased structural damage and impaired operations; and increased need for emergency management procedures”

PlaNYC :
• suggests no mechanism or procedure for facilitating citizen participation in the planning process, and makes no mention of public participation in the City’s communities and neighborhoods.
• is a top-down bureaucratic initiative with little community involvement and “buy-in” and is not well integrated with the rest of city policy making
• does not address the climate change vulnerability matrix, i.e., how climate change could affect each neighborhood, with an emphasis on the specific environmental risks that exist in each neighborhood and that each neighborhood is likely to face in the future.
• PlaNYC does not effectively address issues of equity, such as social justice, diversity, race, and economic segregation. It also fails to address the issues facing vulnerable communities due to climate change.”

“when planning for climate change, planners must not overlook any one of the eight concepts of assessment. The framework is not a mere collection of unrelated concepts. Rather, they are interconnected, with each concept playing a specific role in the evaluation and influencing the others.”

DATA

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Related articles

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Related articles

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Related articles

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Related articles

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Related articles

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Related articles

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Related articles