BY SARAH RUBY, Californian staff writer
e-mail: sruby@bakersfield.com |
Sunday, Sep 17 2006 11:51 PM
Politicians won’t touch it, air regulators hate to
admit it and tree advocates would rather not discuss it, but here’s
the ugly truth: Plants are a thriving source of air pollution.
Tree emissions dwarf what comes from dairy cows.
Dairies are pegged as major polluters, but plants out-emit dairies by
more than 30-to-1 statewide. California’s trees release some 2,000
tons of smog-forming gases daily. Dairies produce 60 tons each day.
All of it is harmless until fumes from automobiles
and other engines mix in, creating summer smog. Because trees also
have benefits, such as sucking up carbon dioxide and providing shade,
researchers haven’t figured out whether they are overall good or bad
for pollution.
Nevertheless — due in part to jurisdiction and
politics — dairies, not trees, are a primary target of regional air
regulators.
No joke
“(Former President) Reagan got laughed at for
talking about (tree emissions) 30 years ago and a lot of people are
afraid to talk about it now,” said J.P. Cativiela, a spokesman for the
dairy industry group Community Alliance for Responsible Environmental
Stewardship.
That’s not to say dairies shouldn’t be regulated, he
said, but “sometimes we can get a little bit ridiculous when we think
about pollution sources.”
In the San Joaquin Valley, where dairies are
concentrated, plants out-emit dairy cows by more than five to one.
“Industry does bring this up,” said Stephen Shaw, an
air quality specialist with the regional air authority known as the
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. But regulators
“consider natural resources something we can’t do anything about,” he
said.
The district can control emissions from dairy cows,
wineries, refineries and other non-vehicular sources. Models show
reductions in these sectors help air quality despite what’s released
by plants, district staffers say.
Business advocates often bristle at being the focus
of air police. New rules can mean big money.
Existing dairies dodged expensive equipment this
summer, largely because regulators’ understanding of dairy emissions
changes with each new study. Until more research is done, dairies are
allowed to make procedural changes to reduce emissions rather than
invest in new equipment.
Was Reagan right?
Plant emissions shed light on Ronald Reagan’s
infamous observation that trees pollute more than cars on the road.
His statement dabbles in fact — plants outdo motor vehicles when it
comes to one specific emission variety — but the larger picture is
more complicated.
Automobiles, power plants and engines produce a
range of pollutants, one of which sullies the air year-round. Some of
them are toxic in themselves, but they also mix with benign gases to
form pollution.
On the other hand, raw automobile emissions also
“quench” certain kinds of pollution, said Don Hunsaker, a supervisor
at the valley air district. It’s another paradox of air chemistry, he
said.
“People throw their hands up and say ... why even
bother,” he said. But “the problem’s too big. It’s a matter of working
harder to (meet) the standards.”
The notion of plants as polluters has “really hurt”
local efforts to encourage tree planting, said Dana Karcher, executive
director of the Tree Foundation of Kern.
Trees absorb pollution, she said. Their shade
creates a cooling effect, which keeps polluting gases from evaporating
and slows down smog’s chemical reaction. A well-placed tree can also
minimize the need for air conditioning fueled by polluting power
plants.
“A shaded street or parking lot does more for air
quality than micromanaging oak (trees),” she said.
The Center for Urban Forest Research in Davis is
trying to quantify the benefit of trees. The think tank, which is
affiliated with the U.S. Forest Service, is studying Sacramento’s
canopy to figure out its net effect on air quality.
“There’s all sorts of ifs, ands or buts” when it
comes to trees and air pollution, said Jim Simpson, a meteorologist
with the center.
Tree species ooze emissions at vastly different
rates, and whether those emissions contribute to smog depends on
climate and the mix of pollutants already in the air.
With the right mix of trees in the right place, “I
think they can be a net benefit,” Simpson said.
In the benefit column, Sacramento’s 6 million trees
remove about 1,000 tons of pollutants from the air each year,
according to the center’s research.
Trees do absorb carbon dioxide, but when trees die
and decompose they release it again. The real carbon dioxide reduction
is in prevention; Sacramento’s shade reduces energy use, keeping
83,000 tons of carbon dioxide from being released from power plants.
The detriment column is still a work in progress,
Simpson said. State data show plants in Sacramento County produce
about 10 tons of emissions each day.
The forest for the trees
The city of Bakersfield doesn’t account for air
quality when it advises developers and residents on the kinds of trees
to plant. Some trees that do best in Bakersfield’s climate, such as
oak and sycamore varieties, are also active emitters.
“When we start picking on our greenery, I don’t know
where we’re going to go then,” said Pat Denney, who supervises the
city’s tree maintenance crews.
The city no longer employs an urban forester to
oversee the mix of trees in Bakersfield. The city is in the process of
counting up its trees, but the inventory will be used to track tree
maintenance rather than plan future tree planting.
If someone were planning Bakersfield’s trees with
regard to pollution, he or she should try to achieve a mix, said Greg
McPherson, director of the Center for Urban Forest Research.
“It doesn’t mean you don’t plant native oak,” he
said. You just make sure “you’re not kind of blindly planting trees
that may in fact be high emitters.”
In other words, the botanical bouquet needs to be
managed — something long sought by Karcher and other tree advocates.
They want the city to write a long-range plan for its trees, one that
could address pollution and the value of shade.
“If you have a plan, the rest ... will follow,”
Karcher said.
Global Warming Scientist's Models All
Based on Data from a Single Tree
Is it really possible to determine the change in global
temperatures over the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163999,00.html
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
"The Inconvenient
Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent
obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore
sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland
4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world
climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine
Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what,
for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial
arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that
they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what
most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree
with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly
qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts
who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are
causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the
operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think
is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the
climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus
their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who
study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are
highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge
about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of
Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only
about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct
their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but
doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among
experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many
concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of
hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all
their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are
not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in
letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making
forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who
use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about
the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small
community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would
suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the
debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University
paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no
meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this
[geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher
than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths
of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson
asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still
believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the
major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by
explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all
time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and
natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine
researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine
geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of
Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a
normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a
glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to
prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to
break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs
will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor,
Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University,
Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up
recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part
of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in
the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass
balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting
off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of
icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans.
When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is
considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of
an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold
events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario
in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in
1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and
thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball:
"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the
Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the
middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of
September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in
2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region
of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears
showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several
published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the
World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University
of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice
thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down.
The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average,
to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease
of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average,
values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and
since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions
since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide
warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW
Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific
Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and
the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea;
New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the
IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average)
and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled
the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and
cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in
the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading
according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University
of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the
thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he
says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S.
were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about
Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many
fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly)
that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading
experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public
review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened
in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if
you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his
opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa
Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He
can be reached at
letters@canadafreepress.com
|
