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?

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why 'Space Force' is nothing new...

Source: Patriot Patch Co.

In a previous blog post, I introduced the concept of a space force as portrayed in popular news.  Remember at the end of the post, there was a brief video in which Commander Scott Kelly was interviewed in which the introduction of the 'orbital perspective' was unveiled.  What is an 'orbital perspective'?


What Commander Kelly was arriving at was the mutual respect with which space is explored by many different nations.  Specially, when each nation is collectively working in the 'International Space Station' -- looking back through the window -- they collectively see 'Planet Earth' - not each geographical location from where each have travelled from.  All that is visible from space is "One Planet Earth" which implies that all residents (of Planet Earth) should be working together rather than waging war between each other.  Which is why a 'space force' does not necessarily make sense.



Although, ever since each nation pursued travel into space, the commercialization from that initial travel has produced a presence over the past decade which is staggering in comparison to just five decades earlier.  The commercialization of space -- near commercialization -- more appropriately, each nation's presence in space had made the endeavor more about information collection rather than actual warfare.  Hundreds of satellites reside in near orbit and collect/serve as information carriers to various corporations which span across the globe (i.e. the planet).



With the above in consideration regarding the tremendous growth in space, what role do physicists play in space?  Or helping to create a 'space force'?  As you will see shortly, in the video segment from the YouTube channel of MSNBC, Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why the concept of 'Space Force' is not new and misunderstood:

Nice.  Space warfare is not necessarily warfare as it is more about access to information.  The overall arching statement made by Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson regarding a space force in the video above is the 'fall out' from shooting satellites or other commercial space infrastructure down is going to be enormous and impact us all in some direct or indirect way. 



Which is to say, that if a certain government/enemy force were to shoot down a satellite or space hardware, the 'fall out' would be dangerous to say the least.  The explosion from destroying a satellite or other space hardware would fragment (break apart) into tiny pieces -- each of which -- would be traveling at a speed of 18,000 miles per hour.



To put that speed into perspective would be to cast that speed into traveling around planet Earth.  The circumference of the Earth is 24,901 miles -- the total distance around Earth at the equator.  Traveling at a speed of 18,000 miles per hour, a traveler would go around the entire planet Earth in 1 hour and 38 minutes.   The point is that destroying a piece of equipment in space could very easily result in destruction of other satellites -- such as our own.  We could potentially lose out in the process of shooting another country/nations' satellite down.



There is no need at the present time to create an independent 'space force' in the United States.  Each citizen of the planet should be working together rather than finding divisions.  Each country should aspire to work towards common goals -- especially when concerned with reaching out into space and beyond. 



Related Blog Posts:


Thoughts: Instead of forming a "Space Force" why don't we work together to solve the world's problem?

Scientists should find similarities rather than focus on differences


What is a typical day like for a systems engineer at JPL?

Typhoon Mangkhut Drops Enough Rain On Philippines To Fill 25,000 Superdomes per hour?

Source: Time

As Americans were watching Hurricane Florence ravage the East Coast of the United States over the weekend, residents of the Philippine Islands were experiencing an equivalent destruction of their country from Typhoon Mangkhut.  According to the New York Times article titled "See Inside Typhoon Mangkhut in 3-D" at the height of maximum rainfall over the Philippines, the rate of rainfall reached 11.7 inches as shown in the excerpt below:

Rain tends to be heaviest near the center of a storm, in what is known as the eyewall, visible here in red. The highest rainfall rate for Typhoon Mangkhut reached 11.7 inches per hour inside the southern wall on Friday.

With this astounding rate of rainfall in mind, regular readers of this site will naturally ask themselves the following question:



How many Superdomes were filled per hour by Typhoon Mangkhut?



In the paragraphs below, the amount of Superdomes are calculated using dimensional analysis.  The result as indicated (potentially 25,000 Superdomes per hour) is astonishing.  Following the analysis is a video confirming the astounding number which should blow your mind.

How Many Superdomes Per Hour?

Basically, for the current blog post, the same methodology which was used to calculate the number of Superdomes which could be filled with the predicted rainfall due to Hurricane Florence - which I posted last Friday.  The Mercedes-Benz Superdome is located in Louisianna and has an interior volume of 125,000,000 cubic feet.  Shown below is a picture of the Mercedes-Benz Superdome:

Source: The Advocate

Superdomes can be a 'metric' which are commonly used to cast large (enormous) values of volumes or statistics popularly reported in the news.  The maximum rate of rainfall reported in the New York Times article above is a perfect candidate along with the landmass of the Philippine Islands -- which makes a volume -- to be used in an analysis with the metric above used.  The volume of rainfall can be expressed as an equation as shown below:

The volume for a geographic area is the land mass area multiplied by the amount of rainfall over the given land mass area.  If we consult Google with the following question: Rainfall?  The definition of the term 'rainfall' is shown below:

The definition of rainfall is 'the quantity of rainfall falling.'  To begin the analysis (with actual numbers) the land mass (total area) of the Philippine Islands needs to be determine.  As usual, Google is consulted with the following question: Philippine Area?   The answer is shown below:

Notice that the area (land mass) is expressed in units of measurement of 'square mile'.  When the maximum rainfall is reported in units of 'inches', a decision to convert one number to the other needs to be made.  For this analysis, 'inches' will be the unit of measurement for analysis -- at least the beginning of the analysis.  In order to convert the land mass area of Philippine Islands from units of 'inch' to 'mile' the following question needs to be asked in a search engine like Google: How many square inches in a square mile?  The answer is shown below:

For every single square mile, there are 4.014 billion square inches.  The conversion of units from 'square miles' to 'square inches' is shown below:

The answer above shows that Philippines is around 116 thousand square miles which when converted to square inches turns out to be 460 trillion square inches.  Now that the land mass area is converted to units of square inches, the volume of rain which fell at a maximum on Friday due to Typhoon Mangkhut can be calculated using the expression for volume from above:

Wait?  The above equation is 'rate of rainfall' -- whereas I stated that the volume was being computed above?  Why the difference?  As I stated above, the amount of rain falling over and hour was reported to be 11.7 inches/hour.  Which is a rate.  Therefore, the volume is actually the rate of volume of rainfall over a given time as shown below:

With 11.7 inches/hour of rainfall pouring down due to Typhoon Mangkhut, the total amount (volume) of rain would be 5,400 trillion cubic inches per hour of rain.  Wow!  Based on the calculations in the previous blog post regarding the total amount of rain predicted (by a forecaster) due to Hurricane Florence, lets cast the rate of rainfall into comprehensible units.  To do so, a unit conversion needs to be accomplished from units of 'cubic inches' to 'gallons'.  A conversion factor needs to be determined.



If the following question is typed into Google: How many cubic inches are in a gallon?  The answer is shown below:

With the conversion factor known, the conversion is carried out by using the same methodology as above:

Therefore, the amount of rainfall over the Philippine Islands at maximum rainfall is shown below:

Wow!  23 trillion gallons in a single hour.  In my previous blog post about the predicted amount of rainfall over four states (in a few days) was expected to be 17 trillion.  The difference shows that Typhoon Mangkhut is larger than Hurricane Florence.  This is not to say that Hurricane Florence is not inflicting a large amount of damage in the United States over the weekend.  The East Coast is in terrible shape and we are keeping the residents there in our thoughts.  Be safe.



The metric which has been used to visualize large volumes of rain is the Mercedes-Benz Superdome as shown above.  With a volume of 125,000,000 cubic feet, the Superdome is a perfect metric to which compare the large volume of rain falling over a given region in a storm.  To calculate the number of Superdomes which could be filled with 23 trillion gallons/hour, first a unit conversion needs to be accomplished.  In order to compare the 23 trillion gallons/hour to 125,000,000 cubic feet, a unit conversion from 'gallon/hour' to 'cubic feet/hour' needs to be accomplished.



To determine the number of 'cubic inches' are in a 'cubic feet', we type into Google the following question: How many cubic inches are in a cubic foot?  The answer is shown below:

The conversion of units between 'cubic inch' and 'cubic feet' is shown below:

Next, to determine the number of Superdomes which could be filled with the amount of rain falling over an hour over the Philippine Islands is shown below:

Wow!  The total amount of Superdomes which would be filled at the rate of rainfall equal to 3.1 trillion cubic feet per hour is a whopping 25,000 Superdomes per hour.



The final question is the following:



Does the amount of rainfall -- 3.1 trillion cubic feet per hour over the Philippine Islands make sense?



To answer the question above, lets view the video from YouTube below taken over the weekend during the storm - Typhoon Mangkhut:

Wow!   I am left speechless by the video above.

Conclusion...

Oh my goodness?  The amount of rain is enormous and unparalleled.  Between the total number of storms hitting the globe over the weekend, the amount of rainfall is historic and unparalleled in volume.  The rainfall must be surging into the hundreds of trillions of gallons of water falling on land masses like Philippine Islands and the East Coast of the United States of America.  Destruction is inevitable.  Just think of the amount of time and effort which will be required to restore basic resources like power and water?  The destruction is huge and should not be understated.  Keep the residents experiencing these terrible storms in our thoughts and prayers.



Related Blog Posts:


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

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

Source: Axios

Hurricane Florence has arrived on the East Coast of the United States with a force which seems unparalleled compared to previous storms.  The category has changed with time, though, without dispute, hurricane Florence is present and causing damage which will take years to recover from.  To comprehend the predictions from weather forecasters, dimensional analysis is necessary to cast the enormous predictions into light.  How much rain is going to fall on the East Coast from hurricane Florence?  Here is an excerpt from a weather forecaster interviewed by 'Mashable' in an article titled "Hurricane Florence is forecast to dump a historic amount of rain. Here's how much" which states the huge amount of potential rain to be dropped:

Meteorologist Ryan Maue of WeatherModels tweeted some projections on Thursday morning. 

Maue's models suggest that around 17 trillion gallons of rain will fall across North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia with some spots receiving as much as 30 inches of rain before Florence is finished. 

According to the excerpt shown above, 17 trillion gallons is predicted to fall on North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia over the next few days.  This will cause terrible damage to the infrastructure in cities lining the coast and displace many thousands of residents from services (which are much needed) such as electricity, emergency services, and make returning to work nearly impossible.  In order to understand the terrible destruction of the storm, the amount of rain (17 trillion) should be placed into context.  In the paragraphs below, dimensional analysis is used to compare the amount of rain to the number of Mercedes-Benz Superdomes which could be filled with 17 trillion gallons.

How Much Space Occupies The Mercedes-Benz Superdome?

The metric which has been chosen to compare the enormous amount of rain that is expected to fall over the 4 states mentioned above on the East Coast over the next few days is the Mercedes-Benz Superdome.  The Superdome is located in Louisianna and has an interior space (volume) equal to 125,000,000 cubic feet of space.  Yes, I said 125,000,000 cubic feet of space as shown below:

Which fills the Superdome shown below:

Source: The Advocate

That is an large space indeed.  Football games are played in the Superdome and at max capacity will hold a total of 73,000 people.  Although, during a super bowl, the capacity has expanded beyond capacity to hold upwards of 79,000 people.  Needless to say, when an HUGE volume is reported of liquid such as the amount of rain which will fall over the next few days, a perfect metric to compare is that of the Mercedes-Benz Superdome.



According to the excerpt taken from the news, the amount of rain expected to fall is 17 trillion gallons.  First, lets look at the amount of zero's after 17 -- trillion.  If 'Wikipedia' is consulted for the page defining 'trillion', the following definition is shown below:

Trillion (short scale) (1,000,000,000,000; one million million; 1012; SI prefix: tera-), the current meaning in both American and British English.

Therefore, if the number 17 trillion is written out in entirety, the number would appear as follows:

The first line above shows 17 trillion in long form.  For the purpose of shortening up a number to move around in calculations used in dimensional analysis, the value 17 trillion could be expressed in 'Scientific Notation' as shown in the second line above.  Which makes writing and expressing the number much easier.  Compared to writing out all of the unnecessary zero's involved.



Notice that the unit of measurement in which the amount of rain projected to fall are expressed in units of 'gallons'.   Remember that the interior space of the Superdome is expressed in units of 'cubic feet'.  Therefore, if the two numbers are going to be used in the same analysis (the purpose of the blog post), then a 'unit' conversion is necessary.  For this blog post, I will arbitrarily use the units of 'cubic feet' as a comparison.  We just as well could have converted over the units of 'cubic feet' to 'gallon's in order to compare the two values of interest (i.e. volume of Superdome and volume of rain).



In order to convert the units of measurement from 'gallon' to 'cubic feet', a conversion factor is needed.  To simplify the search for a conversion factor, consult Google with the following question: How many cubic feet are in a gallon?  The answer is shown below:

For every gallon, there are 0.133681 cubic feet.  Written as a conversion factor, the unit conversion from gallon to cubic feet is shown below:

The answer to the conversion shows that 17 trillion gallons is equivalent to 2.3 trillion cubic feet.  Which means that 17 trillion gallons of water is equivalent to 2.3 trillion cubic feet of water.  Same volume, different units of measurement. Now that both values are in the same units of measurement -- 'cubic feet' -- a simple division of two values (total volume of rain divided by total volume of a single Superdome) yields the total number of Mercedes-Benz Superdomes which would be filled with 17 trillion gallons of rain:

The answer indicates that if 17 trillion gallons were poured into 18,400 Superdomes, there would be no water remaining.  Wow.  With this enormous amount of Superdomes as a result, there should be no wonder why residents should be concerned about their health and safety.  That enormous amount of rain will inevitably wreak havoc on the four states listed above.

Conclusion...

In the blog post above, the number of Mercedes-Benz Superdomes were calculated which would be needed to hold a total volume of rain of 17 trillion gallons.  At this moment, you may be wondering how 17 trillion gallons compares to the amount of rain that Hurricane Harvey dropped on Houston (Texas).  Hurricane Harvey dropped 58.3 billion cubic feet of rain.  That is enough to fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums.  Note that the total amount of rain is distributed across very different amounts of land masses.  Different amounts of rain across different proportions of land.  Still, these hurricanes are dropping enormous amounts of water (in the form of rain) which is wreaking havoc on the surrounding land.



Hopefully, the blog post above along with other dimensional analysis blogs on this site shed light on the severity of storms hitting the world over the past two years.  In the index of blogs below, other storms have been analyzed in a similar fashion.  Regardless of the size of the storm, any loss of life is tragic and unacceptable.  Please keep the residents of hurricane Florence in your thoughts over the next few days (and months).  If you are in the path of hurricane Florence, stay safe please.



Related Blog Posts:


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

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

Source: Governor Jerry Brown

President Trump vowed to pull the United States out the the Paris Climate Agreement as then 'candidate Trump' - then followed his with the words 6 months into his presidency.  The only problem as I have noted in a previous blog is that there is no way (technically) to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement.  As the Paris Climate Agreement stands of right now, every few years, each country (nation) will evaluate the goals which are self imposed and self-regulated to serve as a check point to see where their respective nation is headed into the next few years.



With the shocking news of President Trump's attempt to convince the United States of his intention to withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, came news (in the form of tweets and press releases - written about here) from various states that they would remain committed to sticking with the Paris Climate Agreement.  Specifically, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a 'Memorandum of Understanding' with China stating that California would remain committed to the Paris Climate Agreement.  Furthermore, Governor Brown committed to hosting a 'Climate Convention' in California less than two years later.  That date has arrived and the convention is convening in San Francisco (California, United States of America).

Great News From California Early!

Right before -- as of Monday -- the conference (summit) was to begin, Governor Brown announced and signed into law SB100 -- to transition California to 100% renewable energy by 2045 as shown below:

With the following excerpts regarding SB100 and Governor Brown's intentions for sustainable energy and California provided by authors of 'Politico California Playbook' via e-mail as shown below:

Via POLITICO'S Jeremy B. White in Sacramento: "California's Brown signs renewable energy bill in another rebuke to Trump" -- "California will aim to derive all its retail electricity from renewable sources by 2045 under a bill Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law on Monday, with backers framing the measure as the state’s latest rebuke to environmental backsliding by the Trump administration.

-- "The bill 'is sending a message to California and the world that we are going to meet the Paris agreement and we are going to continue down that path to transition our economy,' Brown said, referencing the climate accord from which President Donald Trump withdrew the United States last year."

-- "Trump has made himself an outlaw on the matter of climate change," Brown said in a follow-up interview with POLITICO’s David Siders on Monday. "And since climate change is [an] existential threat, I would say that doing what he’s doing to undermine efforts that will save lives and prevent catastrophe for California, for America and the world, is about as reprehensible as any act that any American president has ever been guilty of.”

MORE BROWN: “The clash has intensified because Trump, more than anybody else in the whole world in terms of national leaders, is going in the opposite direction. He’s trying to subsidize coal, undermine vehicle emission standards, sabotage clean electricity, make it harder to buy electric vehicles and on and on. So, yes, we’re going on a certain course.”

More celebratory tweets such as those shown below are contagious with wonderful news from Governor Brown on the eve of the Climate Summit in San Francisco.  And as one observer notes in a tweet video that every place around the world should have California politicians who are super ambitious for a change toward renewable energy to better the environment:

I am here in #California where Governor @JerryBrownGov has just signed a bill to have the Golden State 100% green powered by 2045. This is ambitious, courageous and feasible. There should be more politicians like him around the world. #ActOnClimate #SB100 #GCAS2018 pic.twitter.com/VTD6As8MpG

— Bertrand PICCARD (@bertrandpiccard) September 11, 2018

Source: Brendan Pierpont

For the energy transition to happen, the challenge is much more psychological than technological. The goal is to get rid of old beliefs that keep us prisoners of the past and prevents us from seeing better solutions. #1000solutions #GCAS2018 pic.twitter.com/ubb1NoZH4q

— Bertrand PICCARD (@bertrandpiccard) September 11, 2018

The news on Monday was a good start to the beginning of the Climate Summit in San Francisco with a warm welcome to Mayors by Mayor London Breed of San Francisco as shown below:

Source: SF Environment

In her tweet, a thread is shown with a few exciting statistics which display the reality that a city (or region) can invest in renewable energy (i.e. implement environmental policy) and have a thriving economy:

Which Mayor London Breed closed the thread with the following message on behalf of all Mayors present in San Francisco for the Climate Summit shown below:

Signaling that there is a large amount of support for the Climate Summit.  Further, that there is a large support for the United States to stay with the Paris Climate Agreement.  This should be no surprise to those who follow this blog and read newspapers regularly.  The world is shifting continuously and dynamically (reshaping the investment landscape) to move away from fossil fuels and invest in renewable (sustainable) energy.  Remember the list of corporations along with the tremendous amount of capital (money) available for renewable energy last year?  Read here.



For those readers interested in the full press release, I have provided the release below from Governor Brown's web site:

Governor Brown Signs 100 Percent Clean Electricity Bill, Issues Order Setting New Carbon Neutrality Goal

Published: Sep 10, 2018

SACRAMENTO – Reaffirming California’s global climate leadership, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today signed Senate Bill 100, authored by Senate President pro Tempore Emeritus Kevin de León, setting a 100 percent clean electricity goal for the state, and issued an executive order establishing a new target to achieve carbon neutrality – both by 2045.

“This bill and the executive order put California on a path to meet the goals of Paris and beyond. It will not be easy. It will not be immediate. But it must be done,” said Governor Brown.

“In California, Democrats and Republicans know climate change is real, it’s affecting our lives right now, and unless we take action immediately – it may become irreversible,” said Senator de León. “Today, with Governor Brown’s support, California sent a message to the rest of the world that we are taking the future into our own hands; refusing to be the victims of its uncertainty. Transitioning to an entirely carbon-free energy grid will create good-paying jobs, ensure our children breathe cleaner air and mitigate the devastating impacts of climate change on our communities and economy.”

SB 100 advances the state’s existing Renewables Portfolio Standard, which establishes how much of the electricity system should be powered from renewable energy resources, to 50 percent by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030. It also puts California on the bold path to implement a zero-carbon electricity grid by 2045.

“California is committed to doing whatever is necessary to meet the existential threat of climate change,” said Governor Brown in his SB 100 signing message. “This bill, and others I will sign this week, help us go in that direction. But have no illusions, California and the rest of the world have miles to go before we achieve zero-carbon emissions.”

To further ensure California is combatting global warming beyond the electric sector, which represents 16 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, the Governor issued an executive order directing the state to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and net negative greenhouse gas emissions after that. This will ensure California removes as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it emits – the first step to reversing the potentially disastrous impacts of climate change.

The state will reach its goals with continued significant reductions of carbon pollution and increased carbon sequestration in forests, soils and other natural landscapes and programs focused on improving air quality and public health, especially in California’s most impacted communities.

With Governor Brown’s order, California establishes the most ambitious carbon neutrality commitment of any major economic jurisdiction in the world – of more than 20 countries and at least 40 cities, states and provinces planning to go carbon neutral by mid-century or sooner.

This action comes days before grassroots activists, mayors, governors, heads of industry and international leaders convene in San Francisco for the express purpose of mobilizing climate action at the Global Climate Action Summit. Late last week, Governor Brown also signed legislation to block new federal offshore oil drilling along California’s coast and announced the state’s opposition to the federal government’s plan to expand oil drilling on public lands in California. The entirety of the state’s coast has been off-limits to new oil and gas leases for more than 30 years, and the state has not issued a lease for offshore oil or gas production since 1968.

The Governor’s signing message for SB 100 can be found here.

The text of the executive order can be found here.

California’s Leadership on Climate Change

California continues to lead the world in adopting innovative policies to fight climate change. Last week, the Governor issued an executive order to safeguard California’s unique plants, animals and ecosystems that are threatened by climate change. Last month, the state also issued its Fourth Climate Change Assessment, which details new science on the devastating impacts of irreversible climate change in California and provides planning tools to support the state’s response.

Earlier this year Governor Brown issued executive orders to improve the health of the state’s forests and help mitigate the threat and impacts of deadly and destructive wildfires, and get 5 million zero-emission vehicles onto California’s roads by 2030. Last year, the Governor signed landmark legislation to extend and strengthen the state’s cap-and-trade program and create a groundbreaking program to measure and combat air pollution at the neighborhood level.

Under Governor Brown, California has established the most ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in North America; set the nation’s toughest restrictions on destructive super pollutants; and will reduce fossil fuel consumption up to 50 percent  and double the rate of energy efficiency savings in buildings by 2030.

The state has met its 2020 target four years early, reducing emissions 13 percent while growing the economy 26 percent. From 2015 to 2016 alone, emissions reductions were roughly equal to taking 2.4 million cars off the road, saving 1.5 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel.

In addition, Governor Brown has helped establish and expand coalitions of partners across the nation and globe committed to curbing carbon pollution. The Under2 Coalition, which originated from a partnership between California and the German state of Baden-Württemberg, now includes 206 jurisdictions on 6 continents that collectively represent 1.3 billion people and $30 trillion in GDP – equivalent to 17 percent of the global population and 40 percent of the global economy. Members of the coalition make a number of key commitments, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels or to less than 2 annual metric tons per capita by 2050.

Last year, California joined Washington and New York to form the U.S. Climate Alliance, which now includes 17 U.S. states – led by both Democrats and Republicans representing 40 percent of the U.S. population – committed to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement and meeting or exceeding the targets of the federal Clean Power Plan. Governor Brown also partnered with Michael Bloomberg to launch America’s Pledge on climate change, an initiative to compile and quantify the actions of U.S. states, cities and businesses to drive down their greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Earlier this year, California and 17 other states collectively representing more than 40 percent of the U.S. car market sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to preserve the nation’s uniform vehicle emission standards that save drivers money at the pump, cut oil consumption, reduce air pollution and curb greenhouse gases.

Who can argue with the need for cleaner air (i.e. less air pollution)?  How about environmental justice?  How about jobs?  Who does not want to create more jobs?  The renewable energy sector has been growing tremendously over the last two years.  Just ask Google about the growth of renewable energy jobs and see if I am wrong.  The investment into a sustainable future makes sense on multiple fronts.  As a nation, we will not be traveling back in time.  Governor Brown correctly points out that President Trump is an isolationist and stands alone in regards to bringing back the coal industry to power the nation.  Whether we (as a nation) like the change or not, the transition is becoming a reality to keep in line with other developing nations towards a cleaner future.  A more prosperous future.

Skeptics Weigh In...

All is not sunny with the emerging news of ambitious targets set for California.  One major reason is that skeptics are concerned that California will not be able to meet the targets even with all other sources reduced dramatically.  According to an article in the Los Angeles Times titled "Until California curbs its oil refineries, it won't meet its climate goals" - the state has obstacles (refineries) which are paramount:

Concentrated in Los Angeles’ South Bay and the San Francisco Bay Area, the state’s 17 refineries comprise the largest oil processing center in western North America. Unless emissions from those refineries are curbed, the state has no chance of meeting its long-range climate change goals.

The cumulative greenhouse gas output from these 17 refineries will overshadow the tremendous progress made over the next 27 years. I will disagree with this notion.  Tell anyone that refineries will be going out of business in the new few years and undoubtedly, the response will involve the word "cars" and "California" and "dependent" and "Oil and Gas".  Although, to mitigate the continuous use of oil and gas, the transition toward cleaner energy will lead naturally to less demand for oil.

Conclusion...

Therefore, skeptics may weigh in and laugh at the thought of refineries shutting down over the next few decades.  But the reality is that as demand for oil and gas continues to decline over the next few decades with a corresponding rise in use of renewable energy, the refineries will be looking to close their doors.  Of course, large refineries are owned by gigantic corporations such as Shell Oil Company.  Which has already started transitioning (and investing) in renewable energy.  That path puts them at an advantage rather than an expected disadvantage.  I expect others will follow -- that is, if their respective corporations have not already entertained the transition (in discussion) already.



Regardless, the news that has been breaking regarding emission reduction along with increase investments in renewable energy is very exciting.  I am excited to hear about more exciting news coming out of the Climate Summit this week in San Francisco.  I will write more as more develops.



Related Blog Posts:


How many Olympic size swimming pools per day would be filled with 890,000 barrels of oil?

A Good Start: Republicans Accept Climate Change As Real


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

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

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


A Good Start: Republicans Accept Climate Change As Real

What Is Going To Be Discussed At The G-20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany?

Trump Goes Right On Paris Agreement, Part Of U.S. And World Head Left

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

Judge Suggests Revisiting Environmental Concerns Of The Dakota Access Pipeline

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


Trump Goes Right On Paris Agreement, Part Of U.S. And World Head Left


World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?

Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future