Tag Archives: early

Soot is the second-most dangerous global warming pollutant

Soot is the second-most dangerous global warming pollutant

When the EPA announced stricter limits on soot emissions last year, the health benefits were immediately apparent. Less soot — that is, tiny particles that result from burning fossil fuels — means fewer heart attacks, less asthma, longer lifespans. On this basis alone, the new standard is a beneficial move.

Soot and smoke in Pittsburgh during the early 1900s

As it turns out, the move could also play a significant role in countering global warming. Researchers have determined that black carbon (soot) contributes twice as much to global warming as previously understood. From the University of Washington:

Black carbon’s role in climate is complex. Dark particles in the air work to shade the Earth’s surface while warming the atmosphere. Black carbon that settles on the surface of snow and ice darkens the surface to absorb more sunlight and increase melting. Finally, soot particles influence cloud formation in ways that can have either a cooling or warming impact.

Last year, another team of researchers proposed a novel way to curb Arctic ice melt: halting airplane trips over the region. The black carbon emitted by trans-Arctic flights lingers in the atmosphere in the area longer than it does elsewhere.

Bloomberg.com outlines other effects:

The four-year study by more than two dozen researchers also showed that black carbon causes “significantly higher warming” over the Arctic and can affect rainfall patterns in high- emitting regions such as Asia. The pollutant also has contributed to rising temperatures in mid- to high-latitude areas including the U.S. and Canada.

The article (by the aptly named “Justin Doom”) notes that soot “trails only carbon dioxide as the most dangerous climate pollutant.”

Soot pollution won’t be a trivial problem to fix. A recent report suggested that some 1,200 new coal plants are planned around the world, and coal consumption for power production is a big generator of soot. Earlier this week, we noted that soot pollution in Beijing was spiking as electricity production increased, though levels have since receded. Diesel engines, another major contributor to black carbon pollution, pose another set of challenges.

Nonetheless, you can’t cure a disease until you diagnose it. Here’s our diagnosis: Soot is dangerous — in more ways than we knew.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Living

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

This article is from:

Soot is the second-most dangerous global warming pollutant

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Soot is the second-most dangerous global warming pollutant

Did removing lead from gasoline cause crime rates to plummet?

Did removing lead from gasoline cause crime rates to plummet?

Researchers have proposed many theories to explain the huge drop in crime that started in the early 1990s. Some cite the legalization of abortion. Some think maybe it was cell phone use. Rudy Giuliani credits Rudy Giuliani.

At Mother Jones, Kevin Drum presents a strong case for another contender: lead.

stevendepolo

The biggest source of lead in the postwar era, it turns out, wasn’t paint. It was leaded gasoline. And if you chart the rise and fall of atmospheric lead caused by the rise and fall of leaded gasoline consumption, you get a pretty simple upside-down U: Lead emissions from tailpipes rose steadily from the early ’40s through the early ’70s, nearly quadrupling over that period. Then, as unleaded gasoline began to replace leaded gasoline, emissions plummeted.

Intriguingly, violent crime rates followed the same upside-down U pattern. The only thing different was the time period: Crime rates rose dramatically in the ’60s through the ’80s, and then began dropping steadily starting in the early ’90s. The two curves looked eerily identical, but were offset by about 20 years.

Mother Jones

Your first reaction to this may be similar to mine (and to Jess Zimmerman’s) — those graphs are a rough correlation, not a surefire link between lead and crime. Drum addresses that concern by citing research that isolated lead legislation and abatement, sometimes down to a city-block level.

Sure, maybe the real culprit [behind the crime drop] in the United States was something else happening at the exact same time, but what are the odds of that same something happening at several different times in several different countries?

[Economist Rick] Nevin collected lead data and crime data for Australia and found a close match. Ditto for Canada. And Great Britain and Finland and France and Italy and New Zealand and West Germany. Every time, the two curves fit each other astonishingly well. When I spoke to Nevin about this, I asked him if he had ever found a country that didn’t fit the theory. “No,” he replied. “Not one.”

Just this year, Tulane University researcher Howard Mielke published a paper with demographer Sammy Zahran on the correlation of lead and crime at the city level. They studied six US cities that had both good crime data and good lead data going back to the ’50s, and they found a good fit in every single one. In fact, Mielke has even studied lead concentrations at the neighborhood level in New Orleans and shared his maps with the local police. “When they overlay them with crime maps,” he told me, “they realize they match up.”

Drum then goes one step further, noting that the areas of the brain that lead affects are those that one might associate with criminal behavior: aggressiveness, impulsivity. With that, he rests his argument.

The argument isn’t a new one; we covered it in 2011. The argument presented by Drum is more robust, even if still not entirely persuasive.

The most important point comes last. Lead, in its various forms, is still a widely present pollutant, one that significantly impairs cognition and bone strength, particularly in pregnant women and young children. Regardless of how strong the link between crime and lead, there is a massive health benefit in reducing exposure. There’s an urgent need to curtail ongoing lead pollution.

A decade ago, I worked with a team that did lead abatement, repainting walls covered in lead paint and clearing the dust and chips that had flaked off. Even these small measures were considered to be crucial for the health of the often-low-income kids living in the homes.

Did cutting lead in gasoline spur a huge drop in crime? Possibly. Whether it did or not, there’s nonetheless huge value in removing lead from our environment.

Source

America’s Real Criminal Element: Lead, Mother Jones

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Cities

,

Living

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Credit: 

Did removing lead from gasoline cause crime rates to plummet?

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did removing lead from gasoline cause crime rates to plummet?