Hurricane Maria Destroys Puerto Rico's Science Programs Then Presents Unusual Research Opportunities?

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists

The devastation caused by Hurricane Maria is still being revealed nearly a year and a half after the storm ripped through the island.  Of course, anyone who has lived through a disaster like this will tell you that the island will probably never recover.  Not to mention that the loss of life can never be replaced.  With that being said, any community (or island) must find the courage to recover and re-establish life as it were if possible.  

Under normal conditions, agencies such as FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) would provide sufficient funds to help the island start the journey toward recovery.  Unfortunately, we do not live in normal conditions at the current moment under the current administration.  Funding agencies are being stressed beyond reach for existing funds and when this occurs, areas like scientific research usually suffer the most. 

How Did Maria Impact Science?

At the very least, the lightest impact (which actually may not be true due to PTSD), the lab members may undergo treatment to make sure that there are no residual medical issues after a storm has hit the island.  Of course, if you have no laboratory staff: graduate students, undergraduate students, postdoc's, professional researchers -- then you have no lab.  Meaning, all the best equipment can occupy the lab, but without scientists to run and monitor the instruments, then there is no lab.



The second critical component of any scientific laboratory are the scientific instruments and infrastructure in which these along with the supplies (beakers, tubing, cell cultures, glove boxes, etc.) needed to conduct good/sound science.  This is sometimes the perceived most critical component of any scientific laboratory.  Although, I would argue that the scientists which occupy any laboratory are the most critical components to any scientific instruments.  I have yet to see any scientific instrument just start collecting data by itself without any scientist's intervention/initiation.

A recent article in 'The Scientist' titled "Science in Puerto Rico Still Recovering After Hurricane Maria" details some of the disastrous consequences to a scientific laboratory after a storm of a magnitude such as Hurricane Maria.  The human damage alone can be irreplaceable not to mention the buildings and local municipal utility grid.  And when the destruction to the infrastructure is considered, parameters such as mold and water damage can set a laboratory recovery back several months to years:

Giray’s lab is among 14 or so in the Julio Garcia Diaz biology building, which was among those severely damaged, particularly as it was already undergoing roof repairs when the storm hit. Water seeped in through the roof and windows, damaging costly research equipment, furniture, and lab materials. Toxic mold thrived in the moist, hot climate, creating hazardous conditions that made the building uninhabitable. Power outages cut off researchers’ freezers and fridges, destroying precious genetic and tissue samples for good. The damages are estimated to range from $250,000 up to $2.5 million dollars per lab in that building, says Giray, a behavioral biologist whose main focus is honeybees.

Even more important are samples which are collected outside of the laboratory or purchased for several thousand dollars which are sensitive to temperature/humidity/vibrational fluctuations:

Some of the casualties from the hurricane are less easy to restore: “Collections take much longer time and may never be replaced,” says Giray’s colleague Riccardo Papa, who lost almost all of his DNA samples documenting the diversity of butterflies across South America when his lab’s –80 °C freezer lost electricity. Papa, an evolutionary biologist, didn’t have a lab again until a week ago, and until recently has been meeting with his students and postdocs at coffee shops or places around campus to discuss research. He has been able to do some experiments and genetic analyses in another building. Repairs are still underway for the damaged insectary, in which his team raises butterflies.

Research must go on.  With or without the infrastructure.  Here in California, after the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, FEMA set up temporary 'mobile homes' to serve as both classrooms and temporary offices along with laboratories in certain circumstances.  To hear that 'group meetings' were still being held at coffee shops is a testament to the pace of recovery.  In a majority of cases after a disaster, classroom recovery comes first, then eventually research laboratories.  Although, it is worth remembering that each research laboratory group is made up of students and research professors who take years (applying for individual grants/writing publications) to acquire the appropriate funding to purchase research scientific instrumentation.  Therefore, to put a price on the total loss in the event of a disaster like Hurricane Maria proves extremely difficult.



The total cost to a researcher is really unknowable for years to come.  Some researchers never recover and decide to shut down their laboratories after such a storm.  Which leaves current graduate students without an end in sight to their degrees (M.A. and PhD).  Additionally, staff (professional researchers) might quickly find themselves out of work and have to leave regions like Puerto Rico and find work elsewhere.  Which means transplanting their families and children's education to a different geographical location.  The cost can be severe not just to the researcher themselves.



More can be written in future articles on this theme of disasters and research laboratories.  Either together or separately.  The total cost to a geographical location from a disaster such as Hurricane Maria can only be estimated at the beginning (a very rough approximation).  The price tag evolves over time with the disbursement of emergency funds by organizations such as FEMA along with other federal organizations or the Congress.  The terrible destruction to a scientific institution is terrible to say the least.  Restoring science should be a high priority among others on the island of Puerto Rico.

Related Blog Posts:


Parameters: What Research/Science Is Affected During A Government Shutdown?


What does a Government Shutdown look like?


What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Puerto Rico Aid Should Not Be A Partisan (Political) Issue


Natural Disasters Hit, What Happens to School Students?

Richard Branson's Son Produces Short Films To Illustrate The Devastation By Hurricane Irma

Natural Disasters Have Long Term Effects Which Are Quickly Forgotten?

What is the next big step in Mental Health Research?

Puerto Rico Crops Devastated By Hurricane Maria

Senator Carper Blasts Environmental Protection Agency For Considering Relaxing 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard'?

Source: Discover Magazine

Would you say that breathing healthy air is important?  Further would you be happy to learn that the Environmental Protection Agency is considering 'data' which would result in 'relaxed' standards for the current "Mercury and Air Toxics Standards"?  Which translates to emitters being able to pollute the environment in which you breath your air with mercury and other toxic chemicals.  Do I have your attention now?  Luckily, the attention of Senator Tom Carper was not only received, but he followed up and took action with an inquiry.  This action was important since recently (as in last Friday), the EPA released the initial report which will be open to public comment.  First, enjoy the background and concern of altering dangerous levels of pollution in the air.



Below is the inquiry (in letter form) in text from the original letter which can be found here.  The letter is worth reading for several reasons.  The least of which is the historical precedence provided by Senator Carper on the evolution toward enacting the standard called "Mercury and Air Toxics Standard" (or MATS):

Dear Administrator Rao:

I write with great concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed reconsideration of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Supplemental Finding (81 FR 24420, April 25, 2016).  Your office received this reconsideration proposal for review on October 4, 2018.  According to press reports, EPA intends to propose to reverse its decision that it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate mercury and toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants.  These reports indicate that, in arriving at that conclusion, the EPA is attempting to ignore or dismiss many of the MATS rule's public health benefits.  If this is the case, this proposal should be rejected.  It would contravene Congressional intent and endanger the health of all Americans.

  

Mercury and other air toxics (such as lead, arsenic, benzene, and acid gases) harm the public while airborne, and when they settle on the soil and in the waterways we depend on for the water we drink and fish we eat.  These toxic substances, which are emitted by power plants, then build up in  our bodies, causing cancer, respiratory illness, mental impairment, and death.  Mercury pollution is especially dangerous for unborn children, who can suffer long-lasting neurological damage if exposed during development.  According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, there is no safe level of mercury exposure for children--none.

After a long delay, in 2012 EPA issued the MATS rule to reduce emissions from power plants, our nation's largest sources of mercury and air toxics.  The MATS rule to reduce emissions from power plants, our nation's largest sources of mercury and air toxics.  The MATS rule was expected to reduce utility mercury emissions by 90% and other ait toxic emissions by 50%.  In the agency's 2011 cost-benefit analysis for the MATS rule, EPA estimated that the quantifiable benefits to public health (including 11,000 fewer deaths each year) of the MATS rule far outweighed the estimated costs of compliance for the utility industry.

The substance of the MATS rule survived court challenges, and remains on the books today.  However, in the 2015 Michigan vs. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that EPA should have considered costs when deciding whether it was "appropriate and necessary" to regulate hazardous air emissions from power plants.  Instead of vacating the MATS rule, the Court allowed the rule to stay in place while EPA addressed the Court's concerns.  In Justice Scalia's majority opinion, he wrote: "We need not and do not hold that the law unambiguously required the Agency, when making this preliminary estimate, to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis in which each advantage and disadvantage is assigned a monetary value.  It will be up to the Agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost."

In April 2016, in response to Michigan vs. EPA, EPA issued the MATS "Supplemental Finding."  That finding reconfirms that it is "appropriate and necessary) to regulate hazardous emissions from power plants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.  EPA reiterated its conclusion after considering "the full range of factors relevant to the appropriate and necessary finding."  In coming to this conclusion, EPA reviewed the industry's compliance costs (e.g., revenue, consumer costs, capital expenditures, operation costs, etc.) based on data provided for the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).  EPA also reviewed all the health and environmental benefits, including those that "are impossible, to quantify or monetize, but are no less real than any other advantage of regulation."

Despite the MATS rule's overwhelming public health benefits, former-administrator Scott Pruitt announced in 2017 that EPA would reconsider the April 2016 MATS Supplemental Finding.  OMB's Regulatory Review Dashboard shows that your office is currently reviewing EPA's proposal to recosider those determinations.  Based on public comments made by EPA Assistant Administrator Wehrum--both when he was a private citizen representing clients that opposed the MATS rule and supported a reconsideration of the MATS Supplemental Finding, and now in his official capacity at EPA--I believe the agency has decided to make a legal finding that it is no longer appropriate and necessary to regulate power plant air toxic emissions.  Further, Mr. Wehrum's comments suggest that EPA is making such a finding based on a limited view of the benefits from the MATS rule. It is my understanding that EPA has determined that it will only consider quantifiable costs and benefits of reducing hazardous air pollutants, not all the actual benefits.  If ture, this blatant attempt to undermine the MATS rule would contradict longstanding EPA practice, OMB requirements, Congressional intent, and common sense.

EPA should not turn a blind eye to the societal benefits of the MATS rule that cannot easily be reduced to dollars and cents.  Economic tools for projecting and estimating costs and benefits are always evolving and they work better in some situations than others.  For example, EPA has good health, exposure, and mortality data that can translate to monetized health benefits for criteria air pollutants like ozone and particulate matter.  Yet, EPA has struggled for over four decades to precisely monetize the health benefits of controlling air toxics such as mercury.  EPA explains that difficulties in monetizing the health benefits of controlling mercury arise because: "the adverse health effects of toxics are often irreversible, not mitigated or eliminated by reduction in ongoing exposure, and involve particularly painful and/or protracted disease.  Therefore these effects are not readily studied and quantified in human clinical studies, in contrast to, for example, ambient ozone."

Congress, EPA, and OMB have long recognized that if EPA cannot quantify the benefits that does not mean those benefits do not exist.  When Congress wrote and passed the 1990 Clean Air Amendments--including Section 112(n)--there were few, if any, quantifiable data available on cancer risks of air toxics and no quantifiable data whatsoever available for non-cancer risks, like birth and neurological defects.  Despite the lack of quantifiable benefits, Congress still found it necessary to require EPA to pursue robust regulations to address major sources of air toxics emissions.  At the same time, Congress indicated that it was well aware of the limitations of relying exclusively on cost-benefit analyses when assessing air toxics, stating: "[T]he public health consequences of substances which express their toxic potential only after long periods of chronic exposure will not be given sufficient weight in the regulatory process when they must be balanced against present day costs of pollution control and its other economic consequences."  Based on this legislative history, it is clear Congress did not intend for EPA to ignore public health benefits that could not be quantified into dollars when determining if it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate power plant air toxic emissions.  Congress also did not intend for EPA to ignore co-benefits that can be monetized.

The scientific information critical to determining the monetized value of reducing air toxic pollution is still limited.  This has resulted in some of the most important benefits (including reduced incidents of birth defects and cancer) not being able to be quantified in EPA's cost-benefit analyses for air toxic rules.  In 2003, then EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Jeff Holmstead testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the difficulty of quantifying the benefits of reducing air toxic emissions from power plants, saying: These estimates [for clear skies] do not include the many additional benefits that cannot currently be monetized but are likely to be significant, such as human health benefits from reduced risk of mercury emissions, and ecological benefits from improvements in the health of our forests, lakes, and coastal waters."

EPA has tried to bridge the air toxic data gaps through various stakeholder workshops over the years.  The latest workshop in 2009 concluded that monetizing all air toxic benefits is still not possible, making a cost-benefit analysis "difficult" to do for any action involving hazardous air pollutants: "[F]of many chemical son the [Clean Air Act hazardous pollutant] list, the information on potential health effects is so limited that quantitative benefits analysis is not feasible...This lack of information is in contrast to the criteria air pollutants for which there is extensive human exposure or epidemiological data on the health effects at ambient-exposure levels...characterizing the health effects of air toxics at ambient levels can be subject to a very high level of uncertainty; thus, using these health effects in economic benefits assessment is difficult."

Fortunately, OMB has long recognized the constraints of using cost-benefit analysis when evaluating a rule, especially when it is difficult to quantify benefits.  That is why OMB's 2003 Circular A-4 requires EPA and other agencies to conduct a complete regulatory analysis that "includes a discussion of non-quantified as well as quantified benefits and costs.  When there are important nonmonetary values at stake, you should also identify them in your analysis so policymakers can compare them with the monetary benefits and costs."  In addition, OMB clarifies in Circular A-4 that all ancillary benefits should be counted in any rule analysis, directing agencies to "look beyond the direct benefits and direct costs of your rulemaking and consider any important ancillary benefits and countervailing risks.  An ancillary benefit is a favorable impact of the rule that is typically unrelated or secondary to the statutory purpose of the rulemaking."   OMB also states that when agency personnel "can estimate the monetary value of some but not all of the ancillary benefits of a regulation, but cannot assign a monetary value to the primary measure of effectiveness, you should subtract the monetary estimate of the ancillary benefits from the gross cost estimate to yield an estimated net cost."

For decades, and in multiple Administrations, EPA has followed OMB's direction by providing a robust record of all the quantifiable and qualitative data for ai toxic rules.  The Congressional Research Service has found that, since January 1, 200, EPA has issued at least thirty-two Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) for rules that involve regulating air toxics under Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, including the MATS rule.  None of thes thirty -two RIAs fully quantified the direct benefits of reducing hazardous air pollutants, yet the rues discuss benefits that cannot be quantified as important justifications for reducing the toxic emissions--particularly those regarding critical health benefits.  For the MATS rule specifically, EPA concluded "there are some costs and important benefits that EPA could not monetize, such as other mercury reduction benefits and those for the [hazardous air pollutants] other than mercury being reduced by this final rule.  Upon considering these limitations and uncertainties, it remains clear that the benefits of the MATS are substantial and far outweigh the costs." 

In these thirty-two RIAs, EPA also provided monetized ancillary benefits, sometimes referred to as "co-benefits."  The co-benefits included the dollar value of lives saved and other health benefits from the reduction of sulfur dioxide and ozone pollution that occurs along with--and often as a result of--the reduction of ai toxics.  EPA found that the quantified ancillary benefits for MATS are significant, up to $90 billion in the benefits per year.

Based on all the health and scientific data, Congressional intent, and historical justification and precedent, it just does not make sense for EPA to change course regarding the consideration of non-quantifiable benefits in its Supplemental Finding for MATS.  No judicial or legislative directive requires this willful blindness to the public health consequences of EPA's proposal.  This decision is especially peculiar given that MATS is resulting in faster and significantly more cost-effective public health benefits than EPA initially predicted in 2011.  On July 10, 2018, every major electrical utility trade organization representing coal-fired and other utilities joined with labor organizations in a letter to EPA that confirmed our power plants have already "reduced mercury emissions by nearly 90 percent over the past decade."  These reductions are in large part due to the investments that were made to comply with MATS--investments that turned out to be about one-quarter the costs EPA conservatively predicted.  The utilities and labor organizations explained that industry compliance with the MATS rule was easier than first estimated, stating that today "all covered plants have implemented the regulation [MATS] and that pollution controls--were needed--are installed and operating."  The letter went on to cite the important of regulatory certainty given all the investments made to meet the MATS rule and asked EPA to "leave the underlying MATS rule in place and effective."

My hope is that OMB will ensure that EPA follows Congressional intent under the Clean Air Act when it comes to determining if it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate air toxic emissions from power plants.  If EPA looks at all the actual benefits and updated costs of this rule instead of persisting in its tortured effort to re-define its own legal authority and responsibility, there is no reasonable conclusion other than that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate these dangerous power plant emissions under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.  I echo the call of health and environmental groups, states and the business community: Keep the entirety of the MATS rule in place. 

I thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.  If you or your stff have questions about this letter, your staff is encouraged to contact Laura Gillam of my Environmental and Public Works Committee staff at laura_gillan@epw.senate.gov. 

With best personal regards, I am, 

Sincerely yours,

Tom Carper,

Ranking Member

Senator Tom Carper lays out a convincing argument based on history for the continuation of reducing Mercury and other toxic air pollutants rather than relaxing regulations.  Of course, the Trump Administration is trying desperately to 'roll back' regulations to save coal power plant operators money at the expense of your health along with others (including mine).  Which is terrible.



Just last Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report (temporarily, yet to be finalized until after public comment) which runs counter to the suggestions above by Senator Tom Carper.  Which is completely disappointing to say the least.  In an article from the Associated Press titled "Trump EPA orders rollback of Obama mercury regulations" the "next steps" in the process of finalization are the following:

The proposal Friday from the Environmental Protection Agency challenges the basis for the Obama regulation. It calculates that the crackdown on mercury and other toxins from coal plants produced only a few million dollars a year in measurable health benefits and was not “appropriate and necessary” — a legal benchmark under the country’s landmark Clean Air Act.

The proposal, which now goes up for public comment before any final administration approval, would leave the current mercury regulation in place.

However, the EPA said it will seek comment during a 60-day public-review period on whether “we would be obligated to rescind” the Obama-era rule if the agency adopts Friday’s finding that the regulation was not appropriate and necessary. Any such change would trigger new rounds in what have already been years of court battles over regulating mercury pollution from coal plants.

The report generated by the EPA is a result of the calculations which state that the health benefits to the public does not outweigh the costs to the coal power plant industry.  According to a number of environmental groups these calculations are flawed and can result in polluted air which will have adverse (negative) health affects on the surrounding communities.  This result is disappointing as I have already mentioned.



Conclusion....



Upon release of the report by the EPA, the American Academy of Pediatrics has responded with an official statement which can be read by clicking here.  Regardless of which side you come down on the argument, the world needs 'cleaner air' -- which is inarguable. As long as the pollution does not end up in the lungs of the coal fired power plants or other law makers, then the right to pollute is fine.  When pollution affects everyone equally (negatively), then action will be taken to improve the quality of air around us.  Fortunately, leaders like Senator Tom Carper are fighting for our 'right' to have clean, breathable air for years to come.  Thank you Senator Carper.  Keep fighting the fight.



As soon as the comment period opens, I will post a link for the public to comment.  Until then, have a Happy New Year Celebration!



Related Blog Posts:



What does a Government Shutdown look like?


What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?


Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!


Thoughts: An example letter of opposition to repealing the 2015 Clean Waters Rule


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


President Trump Just Allowed Greater Environmental Risk To Children's Health


Thoughts: Senator Bernie Sanders Asks Public To Get Involved In The Public Process At Any Level


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Coal Magnate Murray Shames Fossil Fuel Industry For Being "Forward Thinkers" For Energy


Democrats Question EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt On Historical Job Cuts At EPA


There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?

Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?

A Republican Senator Votes "NO" For EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt For The Environment?

Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?

Happy Holidays!!.....Here are some fun facts to share with family about the holidays

Source: Southern Living

With the holidays rapidly approaching, last minute shopping is all around us.  Hysteria at the malls with frantic shoppers trying to wrap up their gift giving expedition.  On top of that weight are the decorations needed for the season.  By now, neighborhoods around the nation are adorned with Christmas lights while Christmas trees are on full display through front windows of houses all around us.  For this year, a couple of fun facts are in order to spread the Christmas cheer.  The two categories will be: Christmas trees and Christmas lights.

How many Christmas Trees are purchased?

Each Christmas season, trees can be spotted on the top of cars as they are transported from the farm to the house to be decorated.  I always have wondered about the number of trees on average which are sold during Christmas.  Therefore, I decided to search Google with the following question: How many Christmas Trees are sold each year?   The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

According to the National Christmas Tree Association, there are between 25 and 30 million Christmas trees sold each year in the United States.  What was fascinating is the total number of Christmas trees grown in the U.S. each year are 350 million.  The information highlighted in the box above comes from the National Christmas Tree Association's website which has a few more fun facts about Christmas trees shown below:

There are approximately 25-30 million Real Christmas Trees sold in the U.S. every year.

There are close to 350 million Real Christmas Trees currently growing on Christmas Tree farms in the U.S. alone, all planted by farmers.

North American Real Christmas Trees are grown in all 50 states and Canada. Eighty percent (80%) of artificial trees worldwide are manufactured in China, according to the U.S. Commerce Department.

Real Trees are a renewable, recyclable resource. Artificial trees contain non-biodegradable plastics and possible metal toxins such as lead.

There are more than 4,000 local Christmas Tree recycling programs throughout the United States.

For every Real Christmas Tree harvested, 1 to 3 seedlings are planted the following spring.

There are about 350,000 acres in production for growing Christmas Trees in the U.S.; much of it preserving green space.

There are close to 15,000 farms growing Christmas Trees in the U.S., and over 100,000 people are employed full or part-time in the industry.

It can take as many as 15 years to grow a tree of typical height (6 - 7 feet) or as little as 4 years, but the average growing time is 7 years.

The top Christmas Tree producing states are Oregon, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Washington.

I immediately wondered why there was such a large difference between the amount of Christmas trees planted each year and those that are sold.  Sounds like there are only 1 in 10 trees which actually make the cut to be sold in order to end up in a living room for display with decorations and lights.  The industry requires a significant workforce to support the retail which comes along with the Christmas celebration.  Just take the amount of trees grown to be sold are staggering by itself.



To understand the magnitude of the number of trees which are planted along with the amount that are sold, let's imagine that each tree is stacked on top of one another.  How high would that stack of trees reach? The analysis below will show the answer to that question.  In order to start, an assumption regarding the average height of a Christmas tree needs to be introduced.  For the purpose of this analysis, the assumption will be made that the average height of a Christmas tree is 6 feet tall.



First, the amount of trees which are sold annually in the United States is large.  Therefore, choosing a 'unit' of measurement which will appropriately shed light on the magnitude of the values is essential.  A common unit of measurement for large distances on Earth is the 'mile'.  If Google is consulted with the following question: 'How many feet are in a mile?'  The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

There are 5,280 feet in every mile.  To begin analyzing the values, let's look at the numbers which we are interested in.  Each year, there are between 25 million and 30 million Christmas trees sold in the United States.  That is out of a total of 350 million Christmas trees growing across 15,000 farms.



First, each of the amount of trees sold (and grown) in the United States must be converted to units of miles -- using the assumption that each tree is on average 6 feet tall.  The unit conversion is shown below:

The results above indicate that the range 25-30 million trees sold equal to the distance of 28,409-34,090 miles.  Additionally, the total number of Christmas trees grown annually would equal a total distance of 397,727 miles.  In order to understand the magnitude of these distances, a metric is needed to compare the distances with.  What if we took the total distance of stacked Christmas trees and wrapped the line around a sphere (the Earth)?  How many times could the line of trees circle around the Earth?



We need to determine the total distance around the Earth.  If we consult Google with the following question: What is the circumference of Earth?  The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

One trip around Earth (at the center) is equal to traveling a total distance of 24,901 miles.  The three distances of Christmas trees can be divided by the circumference of the Earth -- 24,901 miles as shown below:

The answers indicate that the amount of Christmas trees sold in the United States each year would stack up to a range of 28-34 thousand miles -- which would equal just over 1.4 trips around the Earth.  Additionally, the total number of Christmas trees grown in the United States would stack up to a distance equal to 16 trips around the Earth.  These numbers really drive home the magnitude of the amount of Christmas trees needed for the Christmas holiday.  Here is a great idea for recycling parts of the Christmas tree -- click here.



How about Christmas light?



In the next section, an analysis will be carried out to highlight the total number of Christmas lights which are purchased each year in the United States.

How about Christmas Light?

On top of all of the Christmas trees which are sold annually and would wrap around the circumference of Earth are Christmas lights -- at the very least to provide the minimum amount of decoration.  In order to wrap a few strands of Christmas lights around a given tree, either one must store Christmas lights in the garage or choose to purchase new strands.  There is nothing wrong with purchasing new lights in a given year.  Especially when the old lights break or strands of bare exposed wire show -- which could easily cause danger when voltage is applied to them (i.e. plugged into the wall socket).  How many strands are sold in the United States each year?



If a Google search is conducted with the question above, the following answer appears below:

Source: Google

According to our search, there are 150 million strands of Christmas lights sold each year in the United States.  If the same analysis from above is used, the first step will be to convert the strands of lights into a distance.  For this, an online store needs to be consulted to find out the distance sold.  The Christmas lights (clear, no color) sold at Target are shown below:

Source: Target

The length of the Christmas lights in the picture above (100 count) is 24.7 feet.  If the total number of strands of Christmas lights is multiplied by the length (in feet) of a single strand, the total distance would be yielded:

The answer indicates that the total number of strands of Christmas lights would add up to a total distance of 701,704 miles in length.    Last, if the total distance of Christmas lights sold is divided by the circumference of the Earth, the total number of trips around Earth will be yielded as shown below:

The total amount of Christmas lights sold in the United States each year would equal traveling around the Earth 28 times.  Wow!  That is an enormous amount of Christmas light sold each year.  The enormous number made me question the total amount of Christmas lights which are sitting in boxes in closets, attics, and garages in American houses across the country.  Additionally, a certain percentage of this enormous amount of purchased Christmas lights must be recycled.



If the Wikipedia page for Christmas Lights is consulted regarding the recycling of Christmas lights, the following information can be found:

Christmas lighting does lead to some extensive recycling issues. Every year, more than 20 million pounds of discarded holiday lights are shipped to Shijiao, China (near Guangzhou), which has been referred to as "the world capital for recycling Christmas lights".[28] The region began importing discarded lights around 1990 in part because of its cheap labor and low environmental standards.[28] As late as 2009, many factories would simply burn the lights to melt the plastic and retrieve the copper wire, releasing toxic fumes into the local environment.[28] A safer technique was then developed that involved chopping the lights into a fine sand-like consistency, mixing it with water and vibrating the slurry on a table causing the different elements to separate out, similar to the process of panning for gold.[28] Everything is recycled: copper, brass, plastic and glass.

More and more cities in the U.S., for example, are setting up sensible alternatives and schemes to recycle Christmas lights, with towns organizing drop-off points for handing in old or discarded lights.[29][30]

Installing holiday lighting may also be a safety hazard when incorrectly connecting several strands of lights, repeatedly using the same extension cords, or using an unsafe ladder during the installation process.

The total amount of Christmas lights (in weight) which are shipped to China each year is around 20 million pounds.   I wonder how much material (copper, brass, plastic, and glass) -- percentages of each are recovered.  And used for what?  The process of recycling is interesting and worth reading about for further information.

Conclusion...

The Christmas holiday is a time of celebration.  At the same time, the holiday is an opportunity for families to gather together and catch up on life.  The fun facts calculated and gathered surrounding the Christmas holiday are perfect to add into a trivia game or dinner conversation.  The analysis above showed that the enormous amount of Christmas trees would add up (stack up to) to enough miles to equal 1.4 times traveling around the Earth.  Further, the total number of Christmas trees planted on farms would equal a distance equivalent to traveling around the Earth 16 times.  That is amazing to say the least.  That is a large amount of wood to recycle or burn.



And what about the Christmas lights which are sold each year in the United States?  The total distance of all of the strands of lights sold in the United States each year would be equivalent to traveling around the Earth 28 times.  My goodness that is quite a large amount of Christmas lights sold each year.  Imagine the total amount of Christmas lights which are sitting in boxes in closets, attics, and garages around the United States.  To add to that, 701,704 miles are purchased each year.  Christmas time is a very popular holiday of the year.  Have a great holiday celebration!!



Related Blog Posts:


Parameters: How Much Ice Is Melting In The Antarctic? Enough To Cover Texas?


Parameters: How many sticks of butter are contained in 7.5 million pounds of butter?

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster asks lawmakers for $1,228,000,000 For Recovery from Hurricane Florence?

Boston Natural Gas Explosion Reveals Old Piping Needs Replacement - Enough To Travel To Colorado?

A Forecaster Predicts That Hurricane Florence Will Drop Enough Rain To Fill 18,400 Mercedes-Benz Superdomes

Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?

Storm Raises Water Level In Lake Cachuma By 31 feet, How Much Water Is That?

How To Make Sense Of Water Flowing At 100,000 Cubic Feet Per Second

Can 11 Trillion Gallons Of Water Fill 14,000 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums?

How Much Rain Did The East Coast Receive From Hurricane Matthew?


How Much Rain Did Haiti Really Receive?

How Much Rainfall Has Dropped On Louisiana?


How Big Was The "Water Bomb" Of Rainfall In Macedonia?

How Much Rain Did Huauchinango (Mexico) receive?

How Much Rain Did Elliot City (Maryland) Really Receive?

If The Mosul Dam Breaks, The City Of Mosul Would Be Under 65 Feet Of Water?

What is the volume of water in a few inches of rain?


Volume of Waste in the Mine Spill (in Brazil) Equivalent to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills

NIAID Director Anthony Fauci: How Should We Communicate About Crises?

Source: Armstrong Economics

The news capitalizes off of spreading fear -- which gathers 'eyeballs' and clicks.  A few years ago, Author David Altheide wrote a book titled "Creating Fear" - about the news and the control which is created by the atmosphere of fear surrounding society.  With that being known, how does the public receive a 'fear' or 'crisis'?  What is the correct course of action (for the public) given that the media (news) organizations are living off of perpetuating the notion of 'fear' or 'crisis'?  These are all credible questions.


There are more than a single side to each issue.  In the current issue of perpetuating "fear" or "crisis," those in positions (government, state, and local officials) can actually make a large difference by being more open and transparent into the state of a situation.  An 'disease' or 'outbreak' is a perfect example to use as shown below.  A few years ago, Director Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) wrote a short piece 'Op-Ed' titled : Zika and Beyond: Communicating about Crises  for the NIH website.  The piece is shown below in full:

During the Ebola outbreak, we admitted two patients infected with the virus to the NIH Clinical Center. People would ask me, “My goodness, are you putting us at great risk?” So I would ask them, “How did you get to work this morning?” They would answer by saying something to the effect of, “Well, I got on the Beltway and drove to the NIH.” This is a high-speed road that encircles Washington, DC, and carries more than 200,000 vehicles per day. I would point out, “Well, your commute posed a greater risk to you than an Ebola patient at the Clinical Center.”

We live in a world where we take risks every day. When you have been taking a risk every day, for the last 20 or 30 years, you may be fully aware of the risk, but you have learned to live with it and it does not bother you.

However, it is very interesting to me how people react when they are confronted with a new risk. When a new risk emerges, especially if it is highly publicized, people often start to consider the new risk to be more significant than others that, in reality, pose a greater threat. This is human nature. We saw it with Ebola, we saw it here in Washington, D.C., with the anthrax attacks, and we are starting to see it now with Zika.

Zika virus is not actually new. It was first recognized in 1947 in a monkey in the Zika forest of Uganda. It was not known to infect humans until 1952, and it stayed under the radar screen for a long time. That was understandable. The virus circulated relatively unnoticed in areas of Africa and Southeast Asia until 2007, when it caused an outbreak on the Yap Islands in Micronesia. In 2013, the virus caused a much larger outbreak in French Polynesia. Despite this spread, few people paid much attention to the virus because the disease it caused was thought to be mild.

Now, of course, the situation has changed. The current outbreak that started in Brazil last year has provided new evidence that Zika virus can also cause a serious birth defect called microcephaly in babies born to infected mothers. Zika virus also has now been associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome. Now, Zika has our attention.

Many people are now hearing or reading that Zika is in their state. By the end of April, the CDC had identified Zika cases in 43 states. Some people are starting to ask whether they should travel to certain states that have reported cases of Zika. In that regard, it is important to note that none of these infections was acquired locally through infected mosquitoes.* So far, all of these cases have been acquired through travel (or sexual contact with someone who has traveled) to countries or territories where Zika is circulating locally.

While we have not yet seen locally acquired cases of Zika in the continental United States, this almost certainly will occur. It is unlikely that these locally acquired cases will become sustained and widespread. However, we must be prepared to deal with them. Certainly, there is no reason to panic. We are going to have to do a lot to educate the public about what the risk is and what the risk is not, and to help people keep the risk in perspective. We should all recall what happened in the United States not so long ago, when an individual came from Liberia and was hospitalized with Ebola in Texas, and then two nurses became infected when caring for him. This sad situation sparked a panic that there was going to be a major outbreak of Ebola in the United States. In reality, there was virtually no chance that would happen.

As concerning as the Zika virus is, we must remember and remind people that it is just the latest disease in a perpetual series of emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats. The timeless threat of new diseases—or old diseases that start to appear in new places or new ways—is now amplified by factors such as urban crowding, international travel, and other human behaviors.

An evolving situation such as the current Zika outbreak, in which there are still unknowns, will create a lot of concern and even panic on the part of some people. We in the public health sector must be crystal clear in articulating exactly what we know and what we still need to know about the threat, and in helping people understand how this new risk compares to risks they willingly assume every day. With that perspective, people will be better able to understand what rational steps they can take to protect themselves.

For more information about Zika Virus, please visit: http://syndication.nih.gov/zika.htm


As I mentioned above, there are more than a single side to every story.  Further, in the introductory paragraph, I asked the question regarding what the public could do to receive a 'fear' or 'crisis' story.  Yes, I am asking what the responsibility is of the public.  That might seem counter intuitive to the normal flow of information.  Although, to a sizable percentage of the U.S. citizens, the question is not out of the ordinary.



We, as Americans need to to change -- when reading or hearing news from either media organizations or government (including state, regional, and local) -- the way that the news permeates our minds and further travels into our lives.  Fact checking on all of our parts could clarify a large amount of controversy and lead to less emotion and more logical conclusions.  Last but not least, reading can serve as a wonderful conduit through which to educate ourselves about issues.  Too few of us read.  Which is concerning.  I understand that not all of American citizens' are 'readers', but reading different forms of news could help clarify misunderstandings.  Additionally, coherent discussions can go a long way to resolve differences.  Mediation is an important field which is fueled by our inability to sit or stand in each others' presence and have coherent discussions.



Regardless of where any one of us stand on an issue, each of us could be served well to put 'crisis' or 'fear' in society into perspective.  In the future, watch to see how these organizations create 'fear' or 'crisis' and come up with your own solutions.  Feel free to share those solutions below.  Have a great day!





Related Blog Posts:


NIH Director Francis Collins Makes A Statement Regarding Sexual Harassment In Science

National Institutes of Health - Anti-Sexual Harassment Web site


National Science Foundation Sexual Harassment of Women Study


Thoughts: What Does National Institute of Health Director Francis Collins get asked in front of Congress?

Parameters: What is the 'mission' of the National Institute for Aging?

NIH Director Updates Congress On Research Progress


Dr. Francis Collins and Bill Gates Discuss Global Health And Genomics


How Much Do New Drugs Cost To Bring To The Pharmacy Counter?


Is Disease Or Treatment Different In Women?


Unraveling The Resistance Of Antibiotics!

How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!

The 1% Can Push Science Research Forward -- Example1: Bob Wright!

Was Enough Coal Ash Spilled Into A Local Lake To Fill Up 2/3 Of An Olympic Sized Swimming Pool?

Source: The Daily Beast

Hurricane Florence has no doubt had a devastating and long lasting impacts on the East Coast which will unveil themselves over time.  Already at the outset, a forecaster predicted that nearly 17 trillion gallons of rain would fall over four states - which has partially come true.  The damage has caused lawmakers to call or write elected politicians in Washington D.C. for around $1.2 billion - just for South Carolina alone.  Unknown to most, is that additionally, other potentially dangerous spills have occurred which have not made the popular news cycle.  As noted in an e-mail from Politico Energy, a coal ash pit broke and spilled a fair amount of toxic solution into a lake as stated below:

Coal ash collapse: Duke Energy said Saturday that heavy rains from Florence had caused the collapse of a slope in the coal ash landfill at a closed plant outside Wilmington. About 2,000 cubic yards of the toxic waste was displaced, the company said in a statement — roughly enough to fill two-thirds of an Olympic-sized swimming pool — although it could not say how much reached a lake that the plant used as a cooling pond or if any coal ash reached the Cape Fear River. Environmental groups that have been fighting in court to force the cleanup of coal ash pits pointed out that the lake is used for recreation and fishing. "After this storm, we hope that Duke Energy will commit itself to removing its ash from all its unlined waterfront pits and, if it refuses, that the state of North Carolina will require it to remove the ash from these unlined pits," Frank Holleman with the Southern Environmental Law Center said in a statement.

In the blog post below, we will verify the statement: "About 2,000 cubic yards of the toxic waste was displaced, the company said in a statement -- roughly enough to fill two-thirds of an Olympic-sized swimming pool..."  Additionally, another potential disaster -- a coal ash spill will be analyzed at the very end of the blog post from South Carolina.

What Is The Volume Of An Olympic-sized Swimming Pool?

In a recent blog post regarding the amount of oil flowing through a pipeline in Canada, the Olympic-sized swimming pool was used as a metric -- i.e. a volume which to compare other large volumes too.  A typical Olympic-sized swimming pool is shown in the picture below:

Source: Spring Pool Builder

The volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool is 660,430 gallons as noted in the previous blog cited above.  With the metric -- i.e. Olympic-sized swimming pool -- defined in terms of volume, we can proceed to verify the statement above -- to prove that the amount of coal ash spilled would fill nearly 2/3 of an Olympic-sized pool.  Let's get on with the analysis...



In order to compare the amount of coal ash which spilled to the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool, both values (statistic and metric) need to be defined in uniform (the same) units of measurement.  The author states the volume of coal ash in units of 'cubic yards' whereas the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool was cited above in units of 'gallons'.  Therefore, to proceed forward, a unit conversion is necessary: change units from 'cubic yards' to 'gallons'.



To determine the unit conversion factor from units of 'cubic yards' to 'gallons', first we consult Google with the following question: How many gallons are in a cubic yard?   The answer is shown below:

The answer indicates that there are 201.974 gallons in a single cubic yard.  With this unit conversion factor in hand, the conversion from 'cubic yards' to 'gallons' is accomplished below:

Now that both statistics (coal ash spill and metric) are expressed in the same units of measurement, a simple division of the two values will yield the number of Olympic-sized swimming pools which could be filled with 2,000 cubic yards of coal ash as shown below:

How do we make sense of the answer shown above?  Comparing the amount of coal ash which spilled to the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool yields the number 0.61 -- but remember the author states that the amount which spilled is around 2/3 of an Olympic-sized swimming pool.  Therefore, compare 0.61 to 2/3 -- a fraction computed below:

The answer indicates that the two numbers -- calculated 0.61 and 0.67 (2/3) are within 10% of one another -- which is good.  The author was good in his assertion in the excerpt above.  Readers of this blog site might inspect the answer and think critically about the size of the spill relative to other spills discussed in previous blogs.  Why worry about a volume of coal ash equivalent to 2/3 the size of an Olympic-sized swimming pool?



The fact of the matter is that any sizable amount of coal ash which leaks into a natural waterway could harm the public and future damage down the line.  Which is unacceptable.  As you will learn below, the analysis goes further and identifies a much larger volume of coal ash which could potentially cause an unbelievable amount of damage to waterways.

South Carolina - Potential Spill?

Recently, in the news, the statistic was reported from South Carolina which caused me to wonder how the reported number compares to the reported one above.  The article was titled "SC coal ash pit with 200,000 tons of waste could start taking on water Tuesday":

A pit of coal ash holding some 200,000 tons of toxic sludge in Conway could start taking on water Tuesday as the Waccamaw River sloshes over its banks.

How does the reported number or value of 200,000 tons compare to 2,000 cubic yards?  To start the analysis, a unit conversion factor is needed.  We can consult Google with the following question: How many grams are in 200,000 tons?  The answer is shown below:

In previous blog posts, the methodology follows that above, which is to determine a 'unit conversion factor' then convert initial numbers to the desired units.  For the purposes of brevity, taking a slightly different route, we just asked Google to help us convert from units of 'ton' to 'gram'  directly.



With the mass determined in units of 'grams', the proper way to extract a volume of a given mass of a substance is to use the density of a substance.  Using the density, a volume can be determined as shown below:

The answer is expressed in units of 'milliliters'.  A couple remaining steps are needed to arrive at a final answer.  First, we need to consult Google with the following question: How many milliliters are in a gallon?  The answer is shown below:

Next, the desired units are 'gallons' which can be determined using the conversion factor above.  The number of gallons in 200,000 tons is where we would like to travel towards in the present analysis.  To get there, the conversion of mass to a volume needs to be accomplished.  This can be done by using the concept of a substances' density -- amount of mass per volume.  Below, the conversion of the mass of coal ash (mass) is converted to a volume (milliliters) is shown:

The approximation above is that the density of water was used in place of the density of 'coal ash' which is closer to 1.6 gram/mL.  Readers might be slightly disappointed, although, the final value will not change dramatically.  The conversion from 'milliliter' to 'gallon' is shown below:

Last but not least, the total amount of Olympic-sized swimming pools which could be filled with 47.9 million gallons of coal ash - potentially which might spill in South Carolina is shown below:

The answer indicates that the potential spill of 200,000 tons would have been equivalent to 73 Olympic-sized pools.  Compared to the amount which spilled in North Carolina, the above value is very large and could cause an unbelievable amount of damage to the environment.  The analysis above has shed light on two very different volumes of coal ash.  At the same time, the analysis gives the reader the ability to analyze the amount of coal ash which could damage the environment and is reported in two different news articles.

Conclusion...

Looking at this value might not seem large compared to the total quantity of rain which fell as a result of Hurricane Florence.  Although, the toxic nature of coal ash could have much greater damage than flooding.  Not to say that flood damage is not bad too to residents.  Contaminating the local water supply for decades could be a much greater risk.  For the present time being, the dams have held up.  That could be temporary given the tremendous amount of rain which has already fallen.



Never the less, the spill in Wilmington is dangerous enough to have potentially damaging effects which might not be realized for quite a while.  The potential amount under threat in other areas should be concerning.  Mining companies should be regulated to a greater extent regarding the large storage pools of coal ash which are commonly stored near mining sites.  The analysis above drives home the point which is that the potential spills along with those already occurring can be quite devastating to the surrounding ecosystems and natural resources on which residents rely.



Related Blog Posts:


South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster asks lawmakers for $1,228,000,000 For Recovery from Hurricane Florence?

Boston Natural Gas Explosion Reveals Old Piping Needs Replacement - Enough To Travel To Colorado?

A Forecaster Predicts That Hurricane Florence Will Drop Enough Rain To Fill 18,400 Mercedes-Benz Superdomes

Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?

Storm Raises Water Level In Lake Cachuma By 31 feet, How Much Water Is That?

How To Make Sense Of Water Flowing At 100,000 Cubic Feet Per Second

Can 11 Trillion Gallons Of Water Fill 14,000 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums?

How Much Rain Did The East Coast Receive From Hurricane Matthew?


How Much Rain Did Haiti Really Receive?

How Much Rainfall Has Dropped On Louisiana?


How Big Was The "Water Bomb" Of Rainfall In Macedonia?

How Much Rain Did Huauchinango (Mexico) receive?

How Much Rain Did Elliot City (Maryland) Really Receive?

If The Mosul Dam Breaks, The City Of Mosul Would Be Under 65 Feet Of Water?

What is the volume of water in a few inches of rain?


Volume of Waste in the Mine Spill (in Brazil) Equivalent to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills

Thoughts: Pause before reacting to news regarding 'Proposed Changes' to EPA and other Federal Agencies

Source: EPA (Twitter)

One model of the popular news is based on 'fear' -- propagating/inciting fear -- to get the most 'eyeballs' on a given story.  The thought is to produce news which is extremely controversial in nature and install fear into the story, while receiving the most 'eyeballs' from a given audience.  Don't forget to run ads on the sides of the articles to generate revenue.  Each of us react differently to news.  Take for instance the headline shown below of a recent news article from USA Today shown below:

Source: USA Today

Regardless of the degree of reaction (negative/positive), each of us would be well served to take a pause and consider the degree of threat each story poses to our daily life/safety or to our environment.   In the blog post below, I offer a video in which a former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency offers an opinion on the degree of truth behind news bites regarding 'Proposed' changes by either a federal agency (EPA, FDA, USDA, CDC, etc.) or a presidential administration (such as President Trump's administration currently).

Repeal or Not Repeal?

The news is good at producing eye-catching headlines like the one displayed above.  Further, at first sight the headline implies that the 'proposal' to 'repeal' or 'make changes' is absolute and without question.  In previous blog posts on this site, this is not the case at the outset.  More complications come into play when changing or repealing a law which has been enacted.  I came to the understanding of this reality last year while listening to a series of online webinars from the American Association of the Advancement of Science(AAAS).  The Facebook page for the AAAS has a series of webinars which can be viewed on demand.



Dr. Rush Holt, the current CEO of AAAS engaged in a discussion in which he described the reality of repealing or changing a current law enacted by a federal agency or congress -- which was extremely informative.  But why should we be listening to Dr. Rush Holt -- the CEO of AAAS?  The reason is that prior to a career spent in research at Princeton University, Dr. Rush Holt (who is a physicist) served as a U.S Representative for New Jersey's 12th congressional District from 1999 to 2015.  During his tenure in congress, Dr. Holt learned a tremendous amount regarding the processes which turn the wheels moving the country forward on a day to day basis.  Therefore, when Dr. Holt says that laws are in place which can only be replaced by laws which are "better" for the environment -- then I tend to believe him.



Although, what if people (readers) choose not to believe him.  Fair enough.  You may choose to believe the next source I have to provide.  Below is a video of a recent interview between veteran reporter Stephanie Ruhle and former EPA Administrator Christine

Wow.



In the video above, former EPA Administrator Christine Whitman points out the overall complications with the previous EPA Administrator - Scott Pruitt.  Namely, that on a day to day basis, Administrator Pruitt would announce publicly that he was going to 'repeal back an Obama administration regulation'.  Although, as pointed out by former congressman Rush Holt above, that statement is usually followed by legal action -- especially, if the new guidelines put the nation at greater risk of environmental damage.



Remember, to repeal or replace a regulation, the new proposed regulation cannot due more damage to the environment than the previous (or replaced) regulation did.



Additionally, former EPA Administrator Christine Whitman points out that the overall approach to changing (repealing or modifying) an existing regulation has to be done by the following approach: "This is why we think that the existing regulation is bad for the environment and here is the study to back up this assertion" -- along that avenue of reasoning.  Otherwise, the regulation will not be changed at all.

Example-Court Rules against Electric Companies?

Yes, the headline is written correctly.  For all of the news of 'roll-backs' or 'repeals' happening in the Trump Administration, the reality is the opposite.  An example is a lawsuit just ruled against by a panel of judges in Massachusetts.  Here is the news brief from 'Politico Energy' sent yesterday morning via e-mail to subscribers:

COURT SAYS MASSACHUSETTS CARBON CAP APPLIES TO UTILITIES: Massachusetts' top court on Tuesday ruled that electric utilities are indeed subject to the state's major climate change law, including a shrinking cap on carbon emissions imposed last year following an order from Republican Gov. Charlie Baker. The New England Power Generators Association and GenOn argued that the cap cannot apply to the electric sector because it is already regulated under another part of the state law. But the seven-member Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the two parts of the law "complement each other," adding: "Given that the electric sector is one of the largest in-state greenhouse gas emission sources, it would make little to no sense for the Legislature to have excluded it from the critical emission reduction requirements."

The case did not meet the criteria for a reversal or repeal on the ban.  Why would it?  As former EPA Administrator points out correctly, a large percentage of large (huge) corporations are actually falling in line with new environmental regulations (even those set in place by the Obama Administration).   Only the 'outliers' who are in jeopardy from not keeping up with the changing (sustainable) measures are crying out and lobbying the Trump Administration.  Which is attempting to 'roll back' or 'repeal' to protect these dying companies.



In fact, a critical statement made in the video above is that the 'route' or 'method' taken by the Trump Administration is not correct and often fails in courts (i.e. a legal battle) - which is not surprising. I have been saying all along over the past two years that the greatest threat to the Trump Administration is the lack toward attention to detail.  Which specific departments like the State Department and other federal agencies can greatly assist in creating legislation which will actually challenge existing regulations.  Although, the change has to be grounded in 'sound science'.



Speaking of regulations and emissions, in the same e-mail sent yesterday by Politico Energy, a short poll was taken on emission standards and pollution linked to higher adverse health incidences.  Here is the excerpt as reported by the journalist shown below:

HOW ACE IS PLAYING OUT: EPA's own estimates on its proposed Affordable Clean Energy plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is turning off voters, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found. When asked whether EPA "estimates that the proposal could, in some scenarios, increase annual premature deaths from certain particulate emissions by up to 1,400 by 2030" would make voters more or less likely to support the plan, 30 percent of respondents said it would make them "much more likely to oppose" the plan. Fifteen percent said it would make them "somewhat more likely" to oppose the ACE plan, while 9 percent and 13 percent said it would make them "much more likely to support" or "somewhat more likely to support" the plan, respectively.

Asked a similar question about agency estimates that the proposal could reduce 2030 carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 1.5 percent from projected levels without the existing Clean Power Plan, 15 percent of voters said that knowledge would make them either "somewhat more" or "much more" likely to oppose the plan, while 45 percent said the opposite. The poll was conducted Aug. 28-31, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. It surveyed 1,964 registered voters.

Not surprising to say the least.

Conclusion...

The overall approach by the Trump Administration has met considerable opposition in courts.  Which is not surprising given the lack of evidence to support such repeals.  If the science was questionable, then a reasonable argument could be made.  But as I mentioned above and in previous blog posts which can be found here, the efforts have been largely unsuccessful -- especially since large corporations are already moving toward investing in sustainable energy technology.  Shell announced earlier this year such efforts.  Still, the Trump Administration chooses to argue with congress over science which is settled.



The world is composed of many parts moving at varying speeds.  Different nations move at different speeds with regard toward implementing more sustainable policies at various levels within their respective government.  The United States is one nation moving forward -- not necessarily leading the sustainability future.  Although, over the past few years, investments into a more sustainable world have been made and are continuing to be realized.  We should be investing in a green future.  With that being said, the next time that news is aired which is counter toward forward progress, take pause and think about the probability of the adverse impact actually becoming a reality.  There are certain steps in place in congress to ensure that forward progress is inevitable. That is where we should spend our focus and energy on.



Related Blog Posts:


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%

French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations

Conservatives are calling on President Trump to fire EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over Renewable Fuel Standards

Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?


Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!