Planet DFW

Is it possible to reduce aviation pollution while increasing air traffic?

If you stop and think about it, the maze of thousands of airplanes that criss-cross the nation each day is a stunning accomplishment. As a result, it's possible to reach any corner of the country -- or the world, for that matter -- within a matter of hours.

There is, however, growing concern over the amount of pollution emissions from all these planes, even though when compared with other sources the pollution from commercial jetliners is relatively small. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that aviation emissions account for less than 1 percent of local air pollution nationwide and about 2.7 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases linked to global warming. So what's the concern? Those emissions are expected to increase as air traffic increases.

With all that in mind, I wanted to point  you to some interesting testimony by a top official with the Government Accountability Office. Gerald Dillingham, director of physical infrastructure issues for the GAO, told members of the House subcommittee on aviation Monday that two existing federal efforts can help reduce air-traffic pollution. The first is an ongoing effort with the Federal Aviation Administration, NASA and the EPA to transform the current air traffic control system. Called the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), it proposes using more satellite-based navigation systems for more direct routing, which would improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide -- the chief man-made greenhouse gas. The other is long-term research and development to devise technologies that make airplanes cleaner, according to the GAO report.

Click here to read the full report.

There are many challenges, such as encouraging financially stressed airlines to purchase more fuel-efficient planes, he told the congressional committee. But addressing these issues will be critical to expand airport infrastructure and operations in the future.

-- Scott Streater

The "Care for Cowtown" Clean Air Fair will focus on pollution from automobiles

Would you like to test drive a hybrid car, get free maintenance and tune-up tips, and learn more about what you can do to improve air quality in the D/FW area? Of course you do. You'll have your chance Friday at the 10th annual "Care for Cowtown" Clean Air Fair in downtown Fort Worth. The Star-Telegram is one of the co-sponsors.

The fair is free and open to the public from 11 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. in Fort Worth’s Sundance Square, downtown between Third and Fourth streets, according to this city press release. It is designed educate you about air pollution and why it is so critical to that we find ways to reduce pollution in the D/FW area. Why so much about cars? Because more than half of air pollution in North Texas comes from vehicle emissions. Keeping your vehicle properly maintained or driving an alternatively fueled car can help reduce air pollution.

Click here for more information.

However, I would advise checking the weather before you head out. The forecast for Friday calls for afternoon showers and thunderstorm, according to the National Weather Service.

-- Scott Streater

The Top 10 cleanest cars, as ranked by Forbes

I came across what I would consider to be a fairly unique Top 10 list. Forbes magazine has ranked the cleanest cars on the market today. This is somewhat unique, as the editors at Forbes note, because most of the discussion involving cars and their contributions to air pollution center on fuel-efficiency. Or, as we have seen with the expanding debate over the environmental impacts of bio-fuels like corn-based ethanol, the discussion focuses on what goes into the gas tank.

The magazine's editors ranked luxury and non-luxury vehicles based on the fewest pollutants emitted, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Click here to view a slideshow of the luxury cars that made the list. Click here for the non-luxury models, like the Prius and Civic.

Not surprisingly, hybrids fare well in both rankings, according to the magazine. Three Lexus hybrids (including one with a sticker price of $104,000) topped the list of luxury vehicles that pollute the least. After the hybrids, cars with four- and five-cylinder engines came next on the list of luxury vehicles that pollute the least, including the Audi TT Roadster pictured above.

Anyway, check out the list and see what you think.

-- Scott Streater

Did state regulators ignore evidence that a controversial copper smelter is dangerous?

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has certainly not looked like a champion for the protection of the state's vast natural resources in the past year. It's permitting of power plants and ozone clean-up plans that critics say are too weak have made it a target for advocates and elected leaders.

But did the state agency ignore information that shows the Asarco Inc. Copper Smelter in El Paso would emit dangerous levels of air pollution?

The state of New Mexico's top environmental regulator sure think so, and he has asked the federal Environmental Protection Agency to review the state commission's decision approving a permit that will allow the smelter to restart after it was shut down nine years ago. New Mexico Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry sent a letter to Richard Greene, administrator of the EPA's regional office in Dallas, asking his agency to help address deficiencies in the permitting process for the smelter. The smelter is less than a mile from the New Mexico border.

The TCEQ has approved a permit that would allow the copper smelter, which has been closed since 1999, to reopen. During its earlier operation, the smelter created arsenic and lead soil contamination around the El Paso facility and in parts of New Mexico.

"The New Mexico Environment Department has repeatedly voiced serious concerns about the permit renewal for Asarco for several years, which the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality failed to address," according to Curry's letter. "TCEQ essentially ignored extensive and detailed comments and pleadings by the City of El Paso, numerous citizens' comments and even the decision of Administrative Law Judges with Texas' State Office of Administrative Hearings."

It's another black eye for the TCEQ. The agency has been hammered for approving a controversial new power plant near Waco that could impact air quality in Dallas-Fort Worth, and for approving an ozone-cleanup plan for D/FW that Greene said may be too weak for the agency to approve.

-- Scott Streater

A dirty sock can tell us a lot about Dallas-Fort Worth pollution. Really ... it can.

If you think dirty socks are gross, imagine what that sock would look like after you coated the inside of it with the emissions from your car's tailpipe. It would be digusting. Which is the whole point behind the "Dirty Sock Contest" this weekend at North Richland Hill's Discover: Project Green event.

Here's how it works. You take an athletic sock and place it over you car's tailpipe and run it for 30 seconds. When you take the sock off and turn it inside out, you can see what an automobile emits into the air. The person with the dirtiest sock from the two contest sessions (11 a.m. and 1 p.m.) wins a free oil change from National Tire and Battery in North Richland Hills. Who said it doesn't pay to be dirty? If you have the cleanest sock, you get tickets to the NRH2O Family Waterpark. Frankly, I'd rather have the oil change.

The Project Green event is the first of what is hoped will be an annual event, which will run from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Saturday, at Cross Timbers Park, 7680 Douglas Road. There will be a lot going on besides the dirty socks. There will be environmental education sessions, beginning at 10 a.m., with topics including green building, rainwater harvesting and low impact pesticide use.

Click here to find more information, or call 817-427-6600.

-- Scott Streater

Democrats hate the coal industry, right? Well, not so fast

It appears that the candidates vying for the Democratic Party nomination are upsetting some environmentalists.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were ripped today by Friends of the Earth Action, a Washington, D.C.-based group that lobbies on a wide range of issues from household toxics to corporate pollution. The group is angry over comments the two candidates made that, at least to the group, appeared to be coal-friendly. Or at least did not go far enough in condemning coal, the pollution it creates, and the mountain top removal mining that has proven so environmentally disastrous.

According to the group, Clinton expressed enthusiasm for coal and failed to condemn mountaintop removal during an interview Wednesday on West Virginia Public Radio. And today, Obama delivered a speech in West Virginia advocating so-called “clean coal” as a solution to global warming.

But are these comments so bad? A transcript of Obama's speech, for instance, shows the "offending" comments came within the context of a long rant against the Iraq War. It reads, "Instead of fighting this war, we could be freeing ourselves from the tyranny of oil, and saving this planet for our children. We could be investing in renewable sources of energy, and in clean coal technology, and creating up to 5 million new green jobs in the bargain, including new clean coal jobs. And we could be doing it all for the cost of less than a year and a half in Iraq." I'm wondering, what is so bad about developing technologies that allow us to continue to burn fossil fuels in a way that does not harm the environment?

Speaking of Clinton and Obama, Brent Blackwelder, the Friends of the Earth Action's president, says in a press release: “These comments raise serious questions about whether the Democratic candidates are as committed to clean energy as they claim to be. Coal is not clean -- period."

Do they? I think it is very short-sighted to say we must abandon coal. We can't. Many credible environmental groups, such as Public Citizen, welcome development of technologies like coal gasification, which if it could be applied to widespread use would be much cleaner. These are promising technologies.

What do you think? Does this group have a point, or are they being short-sighted?

-- Scott Streater

Do controlled forest fires cause more harm than good?

Planned forest fires can save lives and millions of dollars in property by reducing the amount of biomass that is available for wildfires. Yet these prescribed fires emit significant amounts of air pollutants.

New research in the online journal Environmental Science & Technology examines whether land managers should set managed fires during different seasons or on days when the wind blows away from urban centers, among other questions. The primary health concern is ultra-fine particles in the smoke that are so small they can easily sidestep the lungs' natural defense system, building up over time and causes a host of respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Tens of thousands of Americans are estimated to die prematurely every year due to this particulate matter pollution.

The study, led by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology, centered on data gathered in Georgia, where forests cover more than two-thirds of the state's total land, according to an overview of the study in the online journal.

Click here to read the study abstract and to download a copy of the full report.

The researchers conclude that changes in forest management practices can reduce the pollution levels from prescribed forest fires, according to the journal. For example, fires in the spring and winter have a greater impact on air-pollution levels than equivalent fires in the summer and fall. Complicating matters, however, is the fact that ozone levels rise because of smoke from forest fires that occur during the spring and summer. It's a tricky problem.

In the U.S., about 2 million acres per year of federal forests were burned by prescribed fires from 1998 to 2006, according to the study. When air-quality impacts are considered together, prescribed fires and wildfires contribute nearly a quarter of all particulate matter emissions in the U.S.

The overview story notes that not everyone is impressed with the study. Colin Hardy, the acting program director for fire, fuel, and smoke science with the Rocky Mountain Research Station of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, says the authors do not address how the reduction of foliage from prescribed burning lessens the impacts of air-pollutant emissions from wildfires.

-- Scott Streater

A scarcity of platinum will make it harder to clean the air

You never know what you've got till it's gone ...

The manufacturers of some of the most complex and effective pollution-control technologies are increasingly concerned about a worldwide shortage of platinum. The manufacturers of air pollution control products -- not the jewelry industry -- are the top consumers of platinum, which is used as the catalyst in most catalytic converters and diesel particulate filters that rid exhaust emissions of dangerous soot and other pollutants.

This information comes from CleanAIR Systems, a Santa Fe, N.M.-based manufacturer of emissions control systems worldwide. The demand for platinum has soared with the demand in the U.S. and Europe to control air pollution in cars, diesel trucks, construction vehicles, and emergency generators. The company blames a recent shutdown of South African mines for an increase of 41 percent in platinum prices since the beginning of the year. South Africa supplies 78 percent of the world’s supply of this precious metal, and even a stoppage of a few days has a worldwide effect on prices, they say.

The result is that manufacturers of air pollution control products are finding it increasingly more expensive to produce catalytic converters and particulate filters mandated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Those costs get passed on to the consumer in the form of higher price tags on cars and trucks to cover the cost of catalytic converters made with high-priced platinum. In addition, fewer diesel-powered school buses will be retrofitted with converters to protect children from dangerous pollutants.

Just something to think about.

-- Scott Streater