Urban CO2 Domes May Enhance May Increase Ozone and PM, With Accompanying Increase in Mortality
17 March 2010
While the existence of higher CO2 levels overs cities—CO2 domes—has been known for more than a decade, their effects on local air pollution has up to now not been explored. In a new study published online 10 March in the ACS journal Environmental Science and Technology, however, Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson finds that local CO2 emissions in isolation may increase local ozone and particulate matter.
Although the health impacts of such changes are uncertain, he notes, they are of concern. His study estimates that local CO2 emissions may increase premature mortality by 50-100 and 300-1,000/year in California and the US, respectively.
As such, reducing locally emitted CO2 may reduce local air pollution mortality even if CO2 in adjacent regions is not controlled. If correct, this result contradicts the basis for air pollution regulations worldwide, none of which considers controlling local CO2 based on its local health impacts. It also suggests that a “cap and trade” policy should consider the location of CO2 emissions, as the underlying assumption of the policy is incorrect.
—Jacobson, 2010
| “Not all carbon dioxide emissions are equal. As in real estate, location matters.” |
| —Mark Jacobson |
According to the study, the domes of increased carbon dioxide concentrations cause local temperature increases that in turn increase the amounts of local air pollutants, raising concentrations of health-damaging ground-level ozone, as well as particles in urban air. In addition to the changes he observed in local air pollutants, Jacobson found that there was increased stability of the air column over a city, which slowed the dispersal of pollutants, further adding to the increased pollutant concentrations.
In modeling the health impacts for the contiguous 48 states, for California and for the Los Angeles area, he determined an increase in the death rate from air pollution for all three regions compared to what the rate would be if no local carbon dioxide were being emitted.
The cap-and-trade proposal passed by the US House of Representatives in June 2009 puts a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases that each type of utility, manufacturer or other emitter is allowed to produce. It also puts a price tag on each ton of emissions, which emitters will have to pay to the federal government. It will also allow emitters to freely trade or sell their allowances among themselves, regardless of where the pollution is emitted.
In other words, the proposal prices a ton of CO2 emitted in the middle of the sparsely populated Great Plains, for example, the same as a ton emitted in Los Angeles, where the population is dense and the air quality already poor.
The cap-and-trade proposal assumes there is no difference in the impact of carbon dioxide, regardless of where it originates. his study contradicts that assumption. It doesn’t mean you can never do something like cap and trade. It just means that you need to consider where the CO2 emissions are occurring.
—Mark Jacobson
Resources
Mark Z. Jacobson (2010) Enhancement of Local Air Pollution by Urban CO2 Domes. Environ. Sci. Technol., Articles ASAP doi: 10.1021/es903018m
Drivel.
Please show me any epidemiological study that critiques CO2 as a hazard, at any where this density, as being of any concern, whatever.
The "maybe a concern" is certainly a very wishful and hopeful desire for such to be the case, apparently. CO2 is simply NOT a toxic gas, despite this, ahem, "gentleman's" desire, to attempt to make it so.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 17 March 2010 at 09:02 AM
Stan, please reread the article; this guy does not say CO2 is a toxic gas. All he's saying is that when CO2 is released in an urban setting it seems to create a trap which may increase local ozone and particulate matter.
Posted by: ai_vin | 17 March 2010 at 10:26 AM
Whatever happened to green roofs? Even in this economic environment - especially for state and local governments, is there any way to incentivize green roofs? Crops could be grown and donated to charities that help the poor - take in CO2 at the same time. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22green+roofs%22&oq=&gs_rfai=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=15GhS6DPIsKVtgeRzdnyBw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CDQQsAQwBA
Posted by: ejj | 17 March 2010 at 07:39 PM
Shorter Stan Peterson: "CO2 is good for you, and I don't care what evidence you have that says otherwise!"
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 17 March 2010 at 09:08 PM
Massive fossil fuel consumption will be looked at 100 years from now as one of the methods that stayed WAY too long at the party. It got us to where we needed to go by the middle of the 20th century and we have not made the needed transition yet.
Posted by: SJC | 18 March 2010 at 12:16 PM
The pebble bed reactor can make heat at high enough temperatures to extract hydrogen out of water and CO2 out of the air, if necessary, to make liquid fuels of all types for existing cars, planes and locomotives. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 25 March 2010 at 01:16 AM