Air modeling is an important science for predicting the impact of air quality changes. There are numerous conservative models available to fit many different circumstances. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just released a new version of its Community Multi-scale Air Quality model (CMAQ) that uses up-to-the minute meteorology and air chemistry data to determine how weather conditions affect pollution, and how pollution can affect and change weather. Version 5.0 of CMAQ allows scientists to analyze air quality at smaller, finer-resolution settings for individual towns and cities, and model air quality for the entire northern hemisphere. Currently, scientists use CMAQ to estimate air quality levels at the regional and national scales.

CMAQ is an air quality model and software suite designed to model multiple pollutants at multiple scales. CMAQ allows regulatory agencies and state governments to evaluate the impact of air quality management decisions, and gives scientists the ability to probe, simulate, and understand chemical and physical interactions in the atmosphere.

“The ability to apply the CMAQ model to larger scales will allow scientists to better understand the ways that air pollution moves around the globe, and provide much-needed information for decision makers in protecting public health,” said Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “The model represents collaborative work among scientists in the fields of engineering, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, atmospheric science, and meteorology.”

Air quality has a direct impact on people’s health. EPA research has shown that air contaminated with common pollutants like ozone, acidic gases, and toxic components of particulate matter can aggravate asthma symptoms and put stress on cardiovascular systems. CMAQ 5.0 allows scientists to study air pollution at the local level and much larger scales. Version 5.0 has the capability to use data from other air quality models. This gives the system more flexibility to address new and increasingly complex air pollution issues, and incorporate input from a worldwide community of CMAQ users.

Earlier versions of CMAQ have been used for more than a decade by EPA and states for air quality management. CMAQ uses meteorology and emissions data to evaluate air pollution trends and distribution. The system models multiple air pollutants, which include ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics to help air quality regulators determine the best air quality management scenarios for their communities, regions, and states. Also, the National Weather Service uses CMAQ to produce daily U.S. forecasts for ozone air quality.

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy ENN.

photo: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/File:Industrial_air_pollution_plume.jpg

Related posts:

• Community Solar: Coming to a Neighborhood Near You
• EPA Launches Updated Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
• Honeybees Deployed to Test Air Quality at German Airports
• Tesla Promises an Electric SUV Model After Their Sedan Hits Markets
• The Phoenix Recipe for Solar Manufacturing Job Creation

Over the last two and half years the Obama Administration, under the leadership of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, has taken some of the strongest actions since the enactment of the Clean Air Act four decades ago to protect our environment and the health of our families from air pollution.

On Friday, President Obama asked Administrator Jackson to withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time, as work is already underway to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013.

Several state and local officials spoke out about the President’s announcement and commitment to working with state and local governments.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder:

“The President made the right decision to stop this move by the EPA.  The present ozone standard was last reviewed a mere three years ago.  Michigan companies have worked hard to meet the standard, because we all support a healthy environment. It is important to balance environmental goals with the need for economic development, particularly as Michigan and the rest of the nation work to recover from the recession”

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa:

“In our current economic climate, we must do everything we can to stimulate the economy short of taking a step back in the unprecedented environmental gains this administration has already made. This is the sort of balanced approach we need to create jobs and also improve the quality of air, health and life for countless Americans.”

East Moline, Illinois Mayor John Thodos:

“We in the Quad Cities are very happy with the President’s announcement.  We take clean air very seriously, but it’s difficult enough to create jobs without these new standards.  I fully support the President’s decision.”

Texas State Representative Garnet Coleman:

“I want to thank President Obama and his administration for listening and working with state and local governments. Withdrawing the new standard allows an update of the science and the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013 while granting our state and local governments and businesses more regulatory certainty and flexibility. President Obama and his administration are strong partners with those of us on the state and local level of government in the fight for clean air and public health.” 

Bettendorf, Iowa Mayor Mike Freemire:

“The standards are quite rigorous as they are, and the threat of new standards from a manufacturing standpoint aren’t helpful for the economy or growing jobs.  It’s a prudent move.  Everything is a balancing act.  I applaud the President for his decision.”

Scott County, Iowa Board of Supervisors Chair Tom Sunderbruch:

“I certainly support the President's move to withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time…I think delaying the standard change is the right thing to do.  I also believe making sure you have the right science to know what to do next is important.  I believe those responsible for setting the regulations should continue to research the issue.”

Article by Cecilia Muñoz, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Related posts:

• The Case for National Security: Clean Energy
• Winning the Clean Energy Future in Communities Across America
• PV Production Follows Policy In Illinois
• Victory for the Jersey Shore: Governor Vetoes Offshore LNG Port
• White House Backs $5 Billion Clean Energy Tax Credit

24 million American children ride school buses daily. On average, these students spend an hour and a half each day in a school bus. School buses drive more than 4 billion miles each year. School buses are the safest way for children to get to school. However, pollution from older diesel vehicles have health implications for everyone, especially children.

Clean School Bus USA (EPA based) brings together partners from business, education, transportation, and public-health organizations to work toward the goals of reducing the potential health impact on children. School districts, with the help of federal grants (and state grants in some cases) have been working to replace the oldest, most polluting buses, and to upgrade others with better pollution control equipment. (The Diesel Reduction Act was reauthorized for five years in December 2010, but it’s unclear how much money Congress will appropriate to continue the program.) The way drivers operate the buses can also have a big impact on the air quality for kids.

School buses are a necessary evil despite some issues such as diesel pollution fumes.

Unnecessary school bus idling pollutes the air, wastes fuel, and causes excess engine wear. Fortunately, it’s easy to implement practices that reduce school bus idling. This also applies to all of those people who drive their kids to school and let their cars idle in lines.

Idling school buses can pollute air in and around the bus. Exhaust from buses can also enter school buildings through air intakes, doors, and open windows. Diesel bus exhaust from excessive idling can be a health concern.

Idling buses waste fuel and money. When idling, a typical school bus engine burns approximately half a gallon of fuel per hour. School districts that eliminate unnecessary idling can save significant dollars in fuel costs each year.

Any bus built before 1998 should be considered a prime candidate for replacement because older vehicles are designed with higher air emission standards in mind. The ideal current goal is to have a fleet of buses built since 2007, when a new law went into effect requiring closed crankcases and advanced emissions controls to limit the emissions of soot and other harmful pollutants. On older buses, having drivers close the crankcase reduces pollution inside buses significantly.

Despite the air quality problems that persist in older buses, the bus is still the most efficient and least-polluting way to get most kids to school as well as the safest. If everybody drove to school there would be fifty vehicles for every bus spewing fumes and blocking traffic flow.

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• So What Does the Clean Air Act Do?
• Solar Powered Schools for Small Town America
• Air Pollution Costs Billions to the European Union
• A Shining Example from the Sunshine State
• Air Pollution in China Contributing to Drought — Food Shortages Possible

A new study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change looks at the cost to the Chinese economy of lax air quality regulations between 1975 and 2005. The MIT researchers found that air pollutants produced a substantial socio-economic cost to China over the past three decades.

China has experienced unprecedented development over the past three decades, but this growth has come at a substantial cost to the country’s environment and public health. China is notorious for extremely high levels of air pollution. As the country faces continuous environmental challenges that mirror its continuing development, there is a need to measure the health impacts of air pollution.

What makes this study unique is that researchers looked at long-term economic impacts that arise from health damages, and how pollution-induced morbidity and mortality cases may have had ripple effects on the Chinese economy beyond the time period when those cases actually occurred. This method creates a comprehensive picture of the cumulative impacts of air pollution on a dynamic, fast-developing country.

“This study represents a more accurate picture than previous studies of the air-pollution damages associated with rapid economic development in China,” says Noelle Selin, an assistant professor of engineering systems in MIT’s Engineering Systems Division, with a joint appointment in atmospheric chemistry in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. “A major advantage of this study over previous work is that it links state-of-the-art atmospheric modeling tools with a comprehensive global economic model incorporating health and economic damages from pollution.”

To observe how changes in pollutants, and their associated health impacts, have historically affected the Chinese economy, the MIT researchers modeled the number of cases of health incidences caused by air pollution — such as restricted-activity days, respiratory hospital admissions and asthma attacks, to name a few examples — given a pollution level and the number of people exposed. Then the model calculated the summed costs of these incidences — i.e., payments for health services and medicine, loss of labor and productivity from time off work, loss of leisure time needed for healing — to estimate the total change in available labor supply.

China has only recently begun monitoring levels of the second air pollutant, ozone. Chinese ozone data does not exist between 1970 and 2005, the period considered in the study. In fact, most air pollution studies of China omit the pollutant completely due to lack of data. However, the MIT study incorporates historical ozone levels over the past three decades as simulated by GEOS-Chem (a chemical transport model) and MIT’s Integrated Global Systems Model, thus significantly improving on previous studies of pollution damage.

Click here for more information on this interesting study.

Article by Roger Greenway, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Air Pollution in China Contributing to Drought — Food Shortages Possible
• Nitrogen Pollution Soaring In Waters Off of China, Study Shows
• China Named Leader in Green Energy Investing
• China Unveils Plan to Cut Heavy Metal Pollutant Emissions
• Stratospheric Pollution Is Slowing Global Warming, Study Says

Dedicated bus lanes, subway-like stations, intermodal terminals and infrastructure improvements to move buses more efficiently are all features you might see in one of the many Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems that are popping up in cities all over the world. After the success of the world’s first BRT in Curitiba, Brazil, planners in cities including Bogotá, Mexico City, São Paulo, Hanoi, Seoul, Istanbul and Quito, among others, began implementing BRT systems to not only provide a valuable mode of transportation for the city’s inhabitants, they address traffic congestion and associated air quality. And as planners learn what works and what doesn’t with the new bus systems, some creative new designs are being implemented.

One of the newest BRTs is also one of the most advanced. Only one year old, the BRT in Guangzhou is already carrying up to one million passengers daily. China has eleven BRT systems currently in operation but the 4.3-mile (23 km) Guangzhou bus corridor design is the first to integrate bicycles into its design — five thousand of them.

Streetfilms, in collaboration with the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), recently released a video highlighting Guangzhou’s BRT.

Article by Timothy Hurst, appearing courtesy Earth & Industry.

Related posts:

• Your On-Call, Electric Taxi: Personal Rapid Transit
• Catching a Ride in a Driverless Electric Vehicle: Masdar City’s PRT
• Which Cities are the Best for Public Transportation?
• Going against the Trend: For one Locality the Price of Public Transit is not Increasing?
• Braking of Subway Trains To Generate Power for Electricity Grid

Last week, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted a petition by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to limit sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from a Pennsylvania power plant. Emissions from the coal-fired power plant, Portland Generating Station in Northampton County, have adversely impacted air quality in four northwest NJ counties: Warren, Sussex, Morris, and Hunterdon. The EPA has ordered the plant to reduce its SO2 emissions by 81 percent over a three year period.

It’s known as the “Transport Rule”. Under the Clean Air Act, states can file petition against polluters in neighboring states in which the neighbors’ air emissions negatively affect the state’s air quality. Due to the prevailing winds in the United States, the eastern states are the ones most affected. EPA estimates that the transport rule will reduce SO2 emissions 71 percent from 2005 levels by 2014, and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions by 52 percent.

The NJDEP has found the transport of emissions from the PA plant to be unlawful and filed a petition in 2010 for the EPA to take action. The NJDEP determined that these emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2 and particulate matter (PM), particularly in Knowlton Township in Warren County. Excessive exposure to SO2 can cause respiratory difficulties, especially children, the elderly, and people with asthma.

As part of the petition, NJDEP include several exhibits such as several air quality monitoring and analysis, and existing wind fields in the region. The evidence points directly to the PA plant as the cause of nonattainment in the northwest NJ region. EPA conducted their own modeling which concurred. Usually, a mix of sources from multiple locations is responsible. But in this case, the PA plant alone is found to be the culprit.

Coal-fired power is one of the dirtier sources of electricity which the US uses, and it uses a lot of it. Coal plants emit large quantities of SO2 and NOx which contribute to respiratory difficulties as well as acid rain. They also emit large amounts of particulate matter. There are control devices available for capturing these pollutants in the flue gas before release into the atmosphere. However, current technology cannot capture all of it, and many plants are not equipped with the newest state-of-the-art equipment.

Now, the EPA has ruled in favor of the NJDEP petition and will be making new requirements of the Portland Generating Station. They will be accepting comments on this proposal until May 27, 2011 and will be holding a hearing on April 27, 2011 in Oxford, NJ to get public comments. The hearing will provide stakeholders to voice their opinions verbally and in writing.

Click here for more information on EPA’s actions.

Article by David A. Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Solar Success on the Line in Pennsylvania
• Students Push Higher Education to Lead the Charge Against Climate Change
• California ‘Clean Car’ Rules Mandate Boost in Electric Vehicle Sales
• Support for Nuclear Power Drops Sharply in the U.S., Poll Says
• California’s Air Quality Plan to be Rejected by the EPA

Let’s say you have a million dollars. Of course, you want to make it grow, right? You ask around…find the right financial advisor…discuss your options. When you are absolutely sure you are comfortable with your new portfolio, you make your investments and never think about that million ever again. Right? Of course not!

Savvy individuals monitor their investments. Whether it’s a daily check of the markets, connecting with a broker on a regular basis or just perusing quarterly dividend statements, any investment worth making is worth watching.

When it comes to making a green investment in new construction or retrofitting an existing building, not having a way to monitor energy usage and savings is akin to walking away from that million and never looking back.

Neil Chambers, CEO and founder of New York City-based Chambers Design, Inc., said, “Monitoring must be a critical part of any green effort. You spend a lot of money to install your system and, if you are not monitoring it, you have no way of knowing if you are really getting the most out of it.”

Many companies that choose green buildings rely on energy bills to determine return on investment of a sustainable energy system. Chambers said, however, that monthly energy bills tell customers one thing: how much money to pay. What they don’t tell you is why you are paying that much, how you can be saving more energy and money, and whether or not you are making the most of your original investment.

Simply put, energy monitoring is an essential piece of green design, he added. “By monitoring your system, you can be sure you are away of your daily usage and energy expenses. You can track use and forecast energy needs. You can plan financially because you can use historical data to know what your costs are this month compared to next and year over year.”

Further, energy monitoring not only allows you to be certain that you are getting what you paid for but also allows you to immediately know when the system is not working at its best.

The Liberty Science Center, a 295,000 square foot museum in Jersey City, N.J., is a great case in point. The facilities manager wanted to know exactly how his building’s systems were operating in an effort to save money and energy. LSC installed Noveda Technologies web-based energy monitoring energy systems and discovered overnight that the facility was consuming three times more energy than originally estimated. By readjusting the night settings, daily electrical consumption was reduced by approximately 11 percent. The museum’s energy bills were reduced more than $700,000 and its carbon emissions were cut by 40 percent after only one year of energy monitoring.

Govi Rao, CEO of New Jersey based Noveda, said LSC is one of a host of customers who are serious about energy and cost savings and leveraged the data collected by his company’s systems to the fullest extent. “The Noveda system has been deployed and has been continually used to achieve sustained cost savings and lowering energy usage. It has helped LSC understand where they can save and continues to do that month over month and year over year.”

“Most buildings use more than one type of energy. You may have solar, electricity, natural gas, steam and others. All of those energies cost different amounts of money. A good energy monitoring system will tell you how much of which type of energy you are using and when you are using it,” Chambers said.

If you see you are using a particular type of energy more than the others, you can make changes in usage. System tweaks are easy and can save you untold dollars. But if you aren’t monitoring your system, you are operating blind.

Going forward, Chambers added, regular energy system monitoring allows you to make savvy financial decisions in other areas of your business – to save even more green. For example:

• Spikes in energy usage at various times of the day may cause you to initiate company-wide policies aimed at saving more energy such as automatic lights or shutting off monitors when not in use.
• You can track CO2 levels with employee performance and absenteeism, since air quality is known to impact productivity.
• And, going forward, a review of energy usage trends can offer ideas for ways to make changes to the system at a later date.

While the concept of keeping an eye on a major investment may seem obvious, Chambers said the idea of energy monitoring is relatively new to the general public.

“People want to go green but they see the monitoring part of it as an extra cost that they don’t want to pay for,” he said. “Truth is, they just don’t understand the value of energy monitoring. It’s a very important extension of green design.”

Article by Bari Faye Siegel, a technology journalist with a passion for green initiatives and sustainability. She can be reached at barifsiegel@gmail.com.

Related posts:

• Schneider Electric Calls for “Active Energy Efficiency”
• Renewable Energy Monitoring Systems – The Next Big Thing?
• Energy Efficiency: To HOME STAR and Beyond
• Earn LEED Points for Energy Monitoring
• Carbon Capture and Storage & the Key to Subsurface Technical Issues

Where are the most Buicks in the world sold? Not in the US but China. This year, sales of American-based General Motors (GM) cars in China outpaced that same consumption in the US. This development has ramifications for the auto industry and international climate policy.

USA Today reports that in 2010, Chinese consumers bought 2.35 million cars from GM. Demand in the US was about 136,000 less over that same time period. The total cars sold for 2010 represent a 29% increase over the year before. In comparison, US sales rose just 6%. One of the most popular car brands in China is Buick, which had anemic sales in the US.

Other carmakers also saw gains in the Chinese market. For example, Porsche saw an increase in sales of 63% in 2010. However, their totals are far lower than GM, with about 15,000 units sold.

One major automaker didn’t experience similar success in China, though. Toyota, the largest auto manufacturer in the world only sold about a third of GM’s total in China despite being the most popular car brand in the world.

The fact that GM outpaced Toyota by three-to-one is indicative of the allure an American lifestyle in an increasingly affluent China. Banking on this allure, GM plans to export US$900 million worth of cars and parts to China over the next two years.

GM also made big gains in other large developing markets. In Russia, sales increased 12.4% while in Brazil they jumped 10.4% in 2010. Overall, though, China remains the largest market for cars in the world.

This status brings up some issues about global trade, climate change, and local air quality, though. In the US, improved tailpipe emissions standards will help reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a main factor in causing climate change. Regulations are much more lax in China, however, as well as other foreign markets.

In addition, new cars on the road generally replace motorcycles and scooters, which get much higher mileage per gallon. The carbon intensity of driving a car is anywhere from two to seven times greater per mile than these other vehicles.

Locally, an increase in the number of cars on the road also negatively affects air quality. In the run up to the Beijing Olympics, there were worries about air quality possibly putting a damper on the event. Since then, Beijing has taken to auctioning off a set number of new license plates each year to reduce both congestion and local air quality problems.

It’s clear more needs to be done on the international level to reduce automobile emissions. There are a number of approaches from switching to more hybrid and alternative technologies to better urban planning to prevent sprawl to improving public transit. While China is ramping up it’s renewable energy production, it should also consider automobile efficiency if it really wants to lay claim to the world’s clean energy leader.

Article by Brian Kahn, appearing courtesy Justmeans.

Related posts:

• China to Keep Rare Earths Export Quota at 2010 Levels
• Carbon Storage Projects Expanded in 2010 Despite Economic Challenges
• Investment in Renewables Outstrip Fossil Fuels in Europe and U.S.
• Go First Solar, Go First Solar, … Go!!!
• Air Pollution in China Contributing to Drought — Food Shortages Possible

Earlier this week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to disapprove plans developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The air quality plans aimed to bring areas with poor air quality such as the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley into attainment with national health standards for particulate emissions. The fine particulates, known as PM2.5 are notoriously bad in places like Los Angeles and the surrounding area.

EPA requires the states to submit a plan on how health-based air quality standards will be met in areas that are currently non-attainment zones. They are set to reject California’s plan because the emission reductions rules have not been submitted to EPA for review. EPA needs California to demonstrate that their new rules will achieve its air quality goals.

“California has a history of adopting aggressive rules to tackle some of the worst air quality in the nation, but we need to redouble our efforts,” said Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator for EPA’s Pacific Southwest Region. “EPA will continue to work with California to strengthen measures to improve air quality for the millions of residents in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley.”

Parts of CARB’s plan will be approved by EPA. For example, there are emission reductions rules from state and local agencies that have already been approved. These pre-approved rules include emissions control from various industrial processes along the South Coast, and even rules governing residential wood-burning.

A final decision from EPA on their rejection of California’s plan is set to be made next year. If the plans are officially disapproved, and corrections are not made in a timely manner, EPA would apply certain sanctions. This may include imposing more stringent facility permitting requirements after 18 months and imposing highway funding restrictions after 24 months from the date of final disapproval.

For more information from EPA: http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/actions/pdf/ca/SJV-SC-FactSheet.pdf

Article by David A. Gabel, appearing courtesy ENN.

Related posts:

• Pennsylvania GOP Rejects Natural Gas Tax Plan
• California’s Long Awaited Net Surplus Compensation to Take Center Stage
• Court Rules Against Jacobs Wind in Minnesota Eco-mark Dispute
• Maryland Rejects Smart Meters Due to Concerns
• Challenging California’s Reverse Auction Mechanism

America has been getting rid of its industrial base and as a result pollution will tend to decrease in America. Where does it all go? Other countries should know the bitter lessons of pollution should they not? Maybe yes and maybe no. Industry has gone to many other nations including China especially in the last decade. According to the People’s Republic of China’s own evaluation, two-thirds of the 338 cities for which air quality data are available are considered polluted. Respiratory, cancer and heart diseases related to air pollution are the leading cause of death in China. Meanwhile in Tehran, which is one of the most polluted cities of the world, there is a similar situation. Air pollution in the Iranian city of Tehran is not new. Ever since 1950 population and automobile ownership has risen dramatically.

Joseph Kahn and Jim Yardley of the New York Times filed a report on August 26, 2007 about China’s pollution problem. Selected points from the report included:

1. 500 million people in China are without safe and clean drinking water.

2. Only 1% of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the standards of the European Union, because all the China’s major cities are constantly covered in a “toxic gray shroud”.

3. Lead poisoning or other types of local pollution continue to kill many Chinese children.

4. A large section of the ocean is without marine life because of massive algal boom caused by the high nutrients in the water.

5. The pollution has spread internationally: sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo;

6. A 2007 World Bank report concluded “…outdoor air pollution was already causing 350,000 to 400,000 premature deaths a year.

This is pollution from industrial sources as well as a growing population and its needs. China does not confide in the world much but it seems to be poor planning.

In Iran on the other hand, many industrial factories were established in the 1950’s and thereafter around Tehran, especially in the south, south west, and west of the city. Cars and factories have a major role in the dangerous levels of pollution in Tehran. Other factors like land use planning, urban form and weak public transit encourage residents to use personal automobiles. In addition to these factors, the geographical characteristics of the location of Tehran make the air pollution problem of the city harder to solve.

Studies have shown how geographical limits around Tehran like the direction of the wind, rainfall, inversion, topography, and so on, affect the quality of air. Among these factors, it seems that the wind direction and topography, have the major role in the in the air pollution of Tehran. The north of the city is blocked by the Alborz Mountain and the eastern and south eastern parts of the city are blocked by some shorter heights like Bibi Shahrbanoo Mount in the southeast.

The dominant wind of Tehran blows from the west. Most local industries of Tehran are placed in the west and southwest. So the wind brings the pollutants to the city and there is no escape way through the eastern heights. In the case of Tehran, poor industrial planning as well as increased automotive use has led to severe pollution.

In India, cities are polluted by both vehicles and industry emissions. In cities like Bangalore, it has been reported that around 50% of children suffer from asthma.

One of the biggest causes of air pollution in India is from the train and bus system. Hundreds of millions of older diesel engines use fuel with about 150 to 190 times the amount of sulfur allowed elsewhere in the world. Now India is trying to upgrade these engines but it will take time. Even electric rickshaws are being designed.

Another major cause of air pollution is due to public cremations in India. In India 78% of the population consign the dead bodies to fire for cremation as a ritual in open air.

So in India they are learning but they have their own unique sources such as body cremation.

When industry goes away, it does not mean pollution goes away especially when the new host country does not plan ahead for their own unique problems or use correct control technology. Yet industry is needed for all those goods people use and often need.

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network

photo: duffman34

Related posts:

• Air Pollution Costs Billions to the European Union
• Air Pollution in China Contributing to Drought — Food Shortages Possible
• Europe To Import Clean Energy From Up North?
• Chinese Solar Company Vows Toxic Cleanup After Four-Day Protest
• Kerry Says Cap and Trade Should Take Backseat to Pollution