Skip to main content

Old Men Yell at Trees

An atrocious piece of journalism has appeared in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, blaming air pollution on trees, people, dirt, and pretty much everything but cars and the burning of fossil fuels.

On the campaign trail in 1980 Ronald Reagan was famously reported to quip that "trees cause more pollution than automobiles do".  He was widely mocked - and rightly so - for this naive interpretation of atmospheric science.  Now another old white man, Paul Gigot, is shaking his fist at the sky in vain, and dragging his like-minded and trouble plagued editorial board along with him.

In their editorial, the WSJ inform us that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react with nitrogen oxides (NOx) to form ozone and smog.  So far so good.  They then go on to cite the latest scientific literature showing that in many cities personal care and household cleaning products - plus industrial solvents and commercial chemicals but they curiously don't get much attention here - provide a larger total VOC burden than automobiles do.  Finally, they remind us that trees also emit VOCs.  Ultimately and unsurprisingly this is all used to argue in support of the Trump Administration's proposal to relax automobile efficiency regulations.

It is true that trees provide a large source of VOCs to the atmosphere and that they are, to quote the WSJ piece, "to blame for the blue haze in the Appalachian Mountains" not to mention in other beautiful and pristine parts of the world.  But it is also true that we would all prefer to breathe in this mountain air than city smog, and that is where the science gets interesting.  Although we have a pretty good picture of the chemistry taking place in polluted urban air, it has emerged in recent years that we don't have a great understanding of how the world's relatively untouched forests cleanse themselves of the chemicals that they naturally emit.  In cities, the presence of NOx from burning fossil fuels and farming accelerates the destruction of VOCs emitted from all sources, yet it does this at the expense of making toxic ozone and particulate matter.  What we have unexpectedly found over the last decade or so is that forests are also capable of efficiently cleansing their air without the interference of NOx and ozone, by naturally recycling the reactive free radicals responsible for breaking down VOCs.  In other words, the new science of smog has actually revealed that man made air pollution is having even more of an impact upon the natural environment than we had previously thought.

So, what should we take away from the latest research revealing that cities have high VOC loads from sources other than cars?  For one, we should celebrate that fuel efficiency standards have been cutting the contribution of cars to air pollution, particularly in developed nations.  But there is further progress to be made, and this is not the time to take our foot off the pedal.  We also need to recognise that all human activities impact upon our environment, be mindful of what we are releasing into the air that we breathe, and minimise these emissions where we can.  What we shouldn't be doing is twisting scientific findings to support the profits of commercial interests at the expense of the public's health.


Popular posts from this blog

Australia's Clean Air Myth

I've been thinking a lot about air quality in Australia recently as I wrote up my submission in response to Victoria's Air Quality Statement, which will help shape a future air quality strategy for this state.  The Clean Air Statement presents a rosy picture for air quality in Victoria - our air is repeatedly described as "great" and "very good" - and this leaves the impression that air pollution is not a current health danger to Victorians.  Anecdotally, I have seen this attitude adopted by Australians around the country, who ask me why I need to research air quality in Australia and tell me that we already breathe clean air.  It is true that our air is cleaner than many of our neighbours, but this doesn't mean that it is healthy.  Air pollution in China, for instance, is one of the biggest handbrakes on development in what may soon be the world's biggest economy, and it is meaningless to compare it to Australia.

So, how big is Australia's air …

Is Someone Cheating on the Montreal Protocol?

The Montreal Protocol regulates emissions of ozone depleting substances.  It is ratified by every nation and bans the use of chemicals including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), long lived substances which break down the stratosphere's protective ozone layer.  The international treaty has led to decreasing atmospheric levels of CFCs, and the ozone layer is beginning to recover.  It is now being reported, however, that atmospheric levels of one CFC (trichlorofluoromethane, CFC-11) have slowed their rate of decrease, attributed to a new CFC-11 source from Asia.

The origin of these new CFC-11 emissions are unclear, and will be difficult to pinpoint.  They may be from clandestine use of the banned substance, but could also arise from leaky CFC-11 stockpiles.  An international effort to investigate this issue now appears warranted, since it threatens to undo much of the good work of the Montreal Protocol.

CFCs are not the only threat to the ozone layer.  Recent studies have shown that the o…

New Zealand's Toxic Methyl Bromide Problem

Concerns are mounting in New Zealand around the continued use of methyl bromide for fumigation.  Methyl bromide is a highly effective fumigant, but it is also depletes the ozone layer and is harmful to human health.  Under the Montreal Protocol for the regulation of ozone depleting substances, use of methyl bromide is banned for all but a few exempt quarantine purposes. This ban has seen measured atmospheric levels of this substance drop from about 10 to 8 parts per trillion. In New Zealand, however, methyl bromide usage is soaring, with a 2020 deadline to eliminate methyl bromide emissions looming.

One of the biggest exemptions for methyl bromide use is in fumigating logs for export. China and India are the main destinations and both prefer methyl bromide treatment as a bio-security measure. New Zealand is a significant exporter of logs to China and India, and in recent years has grown to become one of the biggest users of methyl bromide worldwide. The NZ government have a 2020 deadl…