Photo: Peter Davis via FlickrIf Seattle were an 8th grader, she'd probably be grounded right now. And considering the poor scores the city received on its air quality report card (an F for ozone pollution and a C for particulates), it might not be a bad idea if we all stay inside for a while.

Issued by the American Lung Association, the "State of the Air" report [PDF] analyzes data from 2005-2007 for the two most common pollutants in cities and counties across the country. They found that six in 10 Americans live in areas where air pollution is high enough to endanger lives -- damaging lungs, exacerbating asthma, and increasing the risk for heart attacks, stroke, and premature death.

The cities receiving the dubious distinction of most polluted were Pittsburgh (short-term particulate pollution), Bakersfield, Calif. (year-round particulate pollution), and Los Angeles (ozone pollution), while Fargo, N.D., was the only city to be named one of the cleanest in all three categories. (Which leads me to wonder which is worse: realizing how bad your air is or that you live in Fargo?)

But not to worry, the poor marks for Seattle and other cities can be partially attributed to a recent change in the EPA's standards, says Janice Nolen of the Lung Association. "[It] does not necessarily mean the air is getting dirtier. It means we've had unhealthy air all along." Brilliant! I feel so much (cough, hack, cough) better!

Here's a rundown of the top bottom most-failingest five in each pollution category:

Short-term particle pollution

Year-round particle pollution

Ozone pollution

Related Links:

Learning how to count to 350

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

U.N. chief will pressure senators on climate bill

STOCKHOLM—The ozone layer over Sweden was thicker in February than it has been in decades, the Swedish meteorological institute SMHI said on Tuesday.

Measurements taken at SMHI’s station in Norrkoeping, just south of Stockholm, showed the ozone layer was at its thickest in February since recordings there began in 1988, with a measurement of 426 Dobson units.

At the Vindeln station in northern Sweden, where measurements started in 1991, a record high of 437 DU was recorded.

“We have to go as far back to the measurements taken in Uppsala between 1951 and 1966” to find levels that high, SMHI said in a statement.

There, the highest level for February was in 1957, when a value of 439 DU was recorded.

The circumpolar whirl over the Arctic—a polar high pressure system formed of a distinct column of cold air that develops during the long polar night—disappeared very quickly in mid-January, and the stratosphere warmed up quickly in the space of a few days, SMHI explained.

As a result, “the low temperatures that usually cause rapid depletion of the ozone layer did not take place,” it said.

The institute, which only a year ago recorded the second-thinnest levels of ozone ever, said it was too early to tell whether the ozone layer was improving in general.

“We would need to see more high values before we can say with certainty that the ozone layer is growing thicker. However we are now in a period where the decrease appears to have halted and we expect to see a thickening,” it said.

The ozone layer over Sweden usually reaches its thickest level during the spring, before thinning during the summer and reaching a minimum during the winter, according to SMHI.

Ozone provides a natural protective filter against harmful ultra-violet rays from the sun, which can cause sunburn, cataracts and skin cancer and damage vegetation.

Its depletion is caused by extreme cold temperatures at high altitude and a particular type of pollution, from chemicals often used in refrigeration, some plastic foams, or aerosol sprays, which have accumulated in the atmosphere.

Most of these chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons, are being phased out under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, but they linger in the atmosphere for many years.

Related Links:

10 green royals

The Climate Post: Pools of oil, plumes of gas

Failing grades issued for air quality in Seattle, other major cities

Dear Umbra,

Love the column. Keep up the great stuff! A question: My co-workers and I are suspicious of buying spray cans, even though we know they no longer contain CFCs. We suspect that aerosol cans contain HCFCs -- hydrochlorofluorocarbons -- which are proving to be dangerous as well, this time as greenhouse gases. Do all aerosol cans contain HCFCs? Can we trust a "green" product like an essential-oils-and-water-based deodorizer that comes in an aerosol can? And what about non-aerosol cans -- are their contents safe?

Kate
Boulder, Colo.

Dearest Kate,

Thank you for the compliments. In grateful return, I will tell you all I've learned about the aerosol can. An aerosol is a wee particle or liquid droplet that's suspended in air, including natural forms seen in smoke, dust storms, or sea spray from the briny deep. Naturally occurring aerosols are of great interest to climate scientists, as (of course) are the propellants that shoot products out of aerosol cans. In former days, the go-to propellants were CFCs, or chlorofluorocarbons.

Put the can down and back away.

A can creates aerosols much the same way we might transform drool into a fine spray, if we weren't so gosh-darned busy. If we simply open our mouths and let saliva fall out, we get a goopy liquid (thus, the bib industry). If, on the other hand, we apply pressure and narrow our lips, we can push the liquid out of a smaller hole, and it becomes an aerosol. Aerosol cans follow a similar principle, if a bit more explosively. A liquid product is poured into a can, the can is closed, and gas propellant is pumped in under high pressure. The gas, crowded and uncomfortable, presses hard on top of the liquid. When we press the nozzle, a tiny seal opens inside the bottle and the gas pushes the product out of a too-small hole, rendering it misty or foamy. Then we shave.

The propellants known as CFCs, widely embraced for being non-toxic and non-flammable, were hugely popular until the 1970s, when scientists realized that they broke down in the upper atmosphere and released chlorine. Chlorine, they found, is a "catalytic agent" in ozone destruction, allowing too much ultraviolet light to hit us. An international agreement to phase out CFCs was forged in 1987 and, as of this December, the U.S. ban on ozone-depleting CFCs will be complete.

Unfortunately, manufacturers have used CFC replacements that have problems of their own. HCFCs were substituted for CFCs in many instances, but, though less harmful, they also contain ozone-depleting chlorine. In this country, HCFCs are being phased out and will be completely banned by 2030. I should mention here that there are eye-glazing varieties of all these chemicals, which are used in many assorted ways (not just in aerosol cans) and were banned in different years. For example, according to the U.S. EPA (where no one, apparently, is regulating acronym use) the compound HCFC-141b has the highest ODP, or "ozone depleting potential" -- the quantification of badness -- of any HCFC, and the U.S. can no longer produce or import it. The EPA offers lists of "acceptable substitutes" that have little or no ODP, which presumably will allow the aerosol industry to continue its fine spraying into the future.

The ozone hole has very little to do with global warming but, as Kate mentions, some of the newer propellants are potent greenhouse gases that have high "global warming potential." These gases, including hydrofluorocarbons, are far more heat-trapping than CO2, though less abundant. (As you know, greenhouse gases are not regulated in the U.S.) Additionally, the volatile organic compounds found in many propellants are now targets for fussy state governments concerned about clean air.

Unfortunately, I could find no perfect list of which propellant is used by which aerosol can vendor. But I think it's safe to say that, although aerosol cans make a satisfying noise and well-fluffed shaving cream, it's usually best if we don't use them.

Even non-aerosol sprays, which spit lightly upon us via a pump and nozzle, may contain volatile or non-earth-friendly substances. Still, I don't believe that any volatilizing ingredient in a simple spritz-y deodorizer bottle could compete with aerosol propellants on the environmental-destruction front. Famous last words? I hope not.

Propellantly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Happy International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer! Sad to say, the hole that plagues the ozone is already bigger this year than last, and will likely not max out in size until late September or early October. As of Saturday, the hole measured 10.4 million square miles; last year, at its biggest, it was 9.7 million square miles. While a gash bigger than North America might seem somewhat concerning, David Parsons of the World Meteorological Organization assures, "You can have strong annual variations, due to changes in weather, colder temperatures in the stratosphere, and increased water vapor. ... It's important to keep your eye on the long-term trend, which is that the ozone hole is moving toward recovery." Experts expect the ozone to fully recover by 2075, which is even farther away than the end of election season. Hard to imagine, we know.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

You never get a second chance to make No Impact—oh wait, yes you do

A surprising sneak peek at the clothesline revolution

Asthma inhalers containing ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons will be phased out by the end of 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced Friday. The phaseout of CFCs is required under the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty that the United States actually deigned to sign on to. Alternatives to CFC inhalers use hydrofluoroalkanem as a propellant; HFA inhalers may taste different, feel different, require more regular cleaning, and cost about $20 more. Some 52 million inhalers are prescribed in the U.S. each year, and the FDA estimates that some 65 percent of inhaler users have already switched to HFA.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Cast your vote for the best climate journalism

The science behind a climate headline

A geoengineering scheme to solve climate change could hurt the Antarctic ozone layer, while recovery of the ozone hole could increase Antarctic warming, new research suggests. A study published Thursday in Science decries suggestions to solve climate change by spewing sulfur into the atmosphere, saying that such a scheme would wipe out the Arctic ozone layer and delay the healing of the ozone hole over Antarctica for up to seven decades. But hey, maybe that's not all bad: A paper to be published in Geophysical Research Letters suggests that a full recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole could amplify warming in that region. So ... basically, we've just really screwed things up.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Short-term exposure to smog is clearly linked to premature deaths, a National Academy of Sciences report has concluded. Some Bush administration officials have claimed that the link between ground-level ozone and health is, well, hazy: when the U.S. EPA was determining acceptable air standards for ozone last month, officials in the Office of Management and Budget claimed there was "considerable uncertainty" of a link. But the NAS declared that such arguments should be given "little or no weight," and that agencies should assume that smog can kill when formulating future regulations.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

President Bush interfered at the last minute to weaken the recently announced U.S. ozone standards, according to EPA documents. On Wednesday, the EPA set both the "public health" standard (how much ozone is in one place at one time) and the "public welfare" standard (consideration of the long-term effect of ozone) at the same level. Before Bush interfered, the agency planned to make the "public welfare" standard more stringent, as encouraged by greens and EPA scientists. "This is not a weakening of ... standards," a White House spokesperson said Friday. "It was an effort to make the standards consistent." But since Bush's order to make the limits less stringent was in direct conflict with past EPA statements on the negative effects of ozone, the announcement of the standards was delayed for five hours while officials scrambled to make up new legal justifications for the weakened limits.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Photo: iStockphoto

In an effort to clear up smog, the U.S. EPA on Wednesday lowered the permissible amount of ozone in the air, a move that will require 345 counties around the country to clamp down on pollution over the coming years. But the agency ignored the calls of its own scientific advisers for a steeper pollution cut. The EPA will lower the ozone standard to 75 parts per billion from the current limit of 80 ppb. The EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee had unanimously called for a standard of 60 to 70 ppb, and the American Lung Association and other public health advocates had called for a standard of 60. In contrast, electric utilities, oil companies, and other polluting industries intensely lobbied the Bush administration to keep the limit at 80 ppb.

"While an improvement over the current standard, EPA's rule fails to adequately protect the health of millions of people throughout the country," said William Becker of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. Smog can cause asthma, permanent lung damage, and premature death. The EPA estimates that the new standard will save up to 1,100 people from premature death, whereas lowering the standard to 70 ppb could have avoided as many as 3,800 premature deaths.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond

Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix

Gore on The Daily Show

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Cast your vote for the best climate journalism

The science behind a climate headline

In-home air purifiers that emit more than a tiny amount of ozone will be banned under a new California regulation. While manufacturers of ozone air purifiers claim that their products can relieve asthma and other respiratory symptoms, thousands of studies have shown that ozone exposure can actually worsen such conditions. "There are reports of ozone being generated in someone's living room ... at levels equivalent to having a Stage 1 smog alert right in your own house," says former Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, who sponsored anti-purifier legislation. Some 2 percent of California's population owns one of the popular purifers, and some say they have seen dramatic health benefits. "God gave humans these air purifiers, and you should not take away that gift," said one satisfied customer at the air board's public hearing yesterday. Other types of purifiers are available.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

At the conference marking the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol last week, some 191 nations agreed to a faster phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals than had originally been negotiated in 1987. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs, emerged in the 1990s as a less-ozone-damaging alternative to CFCs, which did truly nasty things to the ozone layer. But HCFCs also turned out to be a potent greenhouse gas a few thousand times more potent than carbon dioxide. Whoops! However, at the conference last week, developed countries agreed to reduce both production and consumption of HCFCs by 75 percent by 2010, 90 percent by 2015, and finally ending their use in 2020 -- 10 years earlier than in the previous agreement. Developing countries, for their part, agreed to cut production and consumption by 10 percent in 2015 and gradually cut down their use until a final phaseout in 2030. Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Program, said, "It is perhaps the most important breakthrough in an international environment negotiation process for at least five or six years." Translation: Holy crap, I can't believe the U.S. actually agreed!

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

The Montreal Protocol turned 20 this weekend -- and you forgot to get it a gift, didn't you. As nearly 200 nations convene this week to discuss the protocol, which has been successful in spurring an international phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals, it has been lauded by no less a person than Pope Benedict XVI, who declared on Sunday, "In the last two decades, thanks to an exemplary collaboration in the international community among politics, science, and economics, important results have been obtained with positive results for current and future generations." Da pope is on an eco-roll, having installed solar power at the Vatican and preached the green gospel to Italy's yoots. He may also soon preside over the world's first carbon-neutral state, as cardinals recently accepted a Hungarian startup's offer to offset the Vatican's emissions by planting trees.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

Nearly 200 nations will gather on Sept. 15 to discuss the Montreal Protocol, a 20-year-old treaty put into place to phase out the nasty chemicals that contribute to the thinning of the ozone layer. At the meeting, a dozen countries plan to suggest that participating nations move up the deadline for a full phaseout of refrigerating chemicals called HCFCs; the most ambitious plan will be presented by the Bush administration. No joke. The U.S. hopes to move up the deadline by a decade, to 2020 for industrial nations and 2030 for developing nations. U.S. chemical companies are in favor of the plan, hoping a stricter timetable will drive up demand for newer, less ozone-effing refrigerants. But China, which has taken in some $4 billion in profits by reducing emissions at its many refrigerant factories and selling credits on the global carbon market, is likely to strongly oppose the U.S. plan. So, uh: USA! USA! USA! Or whatever the kids say these days.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

Ask Umbra on bike helmets

Twenty-year-old Montreal Protocol has helped combat global warming

It kind of sucks to be the Montreal Protocol. Not only do you lack the name recognition of your compatriot from Kyoto, you also go widely unrecognized for the work you've done to fight global warming. The phaseout of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons under the Montreal treaty -- negotiated in 1987 to protect the ozone layer -- has dramatically slowed the rate of climate change, as CFCs are also potent greenhouse gases. (Shocking statistic alert: common chemical CFC-12 is 11,000 times as heat-trapping as carbon dioxide. Eleven. Thousand. Times.) Research published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences simulated how the planet would have warmed if not for the humble Montreal Protocol -- which contributed to a 60 percent drop in global CFC emissions from 1989 to 1995 -- and "clearly shows that things are possible in a global treaty," says lead author Guus Velders. "We gained about 10 years for climate change." Excellent! We'll pencil in "apocalypse" for 2017.

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Demand for air conditioning in developing countries hurts ozone

Remember when Britney had just broken up with K-Fed, and she seemed happy and healthy and getting her life back on track, and then things ... took a turn for the worse? Let us draw a slightly strained analogy to the ozone layer. As ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons were banned in Europe and began to be phased out in the U.S., the yawning ozone hole seemed to be closing -- but now demand for air conditioning in India and southern China is slowing the healing process. The main offending gas is refrigerant HCFC-22, which developing countries are allowed to continue using through 2040; experts estimate that HCFC-22 output in developing countries is rising 20 to 35 percent each year. Ozone-effing air conditioners are, of course, much cheaper than cleaner modern ones, and chemical companies dole out HCFC-22 willy-nilly to repair shops. Says one Mumbai repair-shop manager, "If it were something so bad, they would not legally sell it." Oops, they did it again.

Related Links:

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen