Rules to cut carbon emissions also reduce air pollution harmful to people, environment

May 27, 2014

Setting strong standards for climate-changing carbon emissions from power plants would provide an added bonus – reductions in other air pollutants that can make people sick; damage forests, crops, and lakes; and harm fish and wildlife. This, according to a first-of-its-kind study released today by scientists at Syracuse University and Harvard who mapped the potential environmental and human health benefits of power plant carbon standards.

The authors of the new study, Co-benefits of Carbon Standards: Air Pollution Changes under Different 111d Options for Existing Power Plants, use three policy options for the forthcoming EPA rule as a guide to model changes in power plant emissions of four other harmful : fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury. The scientists compared the model results with a business-as-usual reference case for the year 2020.

Of the three scenarios simulated, the top-performing option decreased sulfur dioxide and by 27% and nitrogen oxide emissions by 22% by 2020 compared to the reference case. This option reduced from the power sector by 35% from 2005 levels by 2020. The scientists state that the resulting air quality improvements are likely to lead to significant gains in public and environmental health.

"When power plants limit carbon dioxide emissions, they can also release less sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and other pollutants," said Dr. Charles Driscoll of Syracuse University. "One of the policy options we analyzed cut emissions of these non-carbon pollutants by approximately 75,000 tons per year by 2020," Driscoll said.

"We know that these other pollutants contribute to increased risk of premature death and heart attacks, as well as increased incidence and severity of asthma and other health effects. They also contribute to acid rain, ozone damage to trees and crops, and the accumulation of toxic mercury in fish," added Driscoll. "This new analysis shows that there is a real opportunity to help reverse decades of environmental damage from power plant emissions and to improve human health," he said.

In addition to summarizing changes in emissions, the study quantifies the resulting improvements in air quality. It features detailed maps illustrating the benefits of decreased emissions from roughly 2,400 power plants for every 12x12km area of the continental United States. With a strong carbon standard, improvements are widespread and every state receives some benefit. The maps show that the greatest benefits occur in the eastern U.S., particularly in states in and around the Ohio River Valley, as well as the Rocky Mountain region.

  • States that are projected to benefit from the largest average decreases in fine particle pollution (PM2.5) and summer ozone pollution detrimental to human health include: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Indiana, Arkansas, Colorado, and Alabama (based on the top 6 states for each pollutant).
  • States that are projected to benefit from the largest average decreases in sulfur and nitrogen pollution detrimental to ecosystems include: Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri (based on the top 6 states for each pollutant).
  • Most other states see improvements in both air quality and atmospheric deposition of pollutants which vary state to state.

The findings also show that different policy options yield different outcomes. The detailed air quality modeling makes it clear that a modest rule limited to making power plant improvements "inside the fence," similar to what some industry groups have proposed, would bring little if any air quality benefits for states.

"Our analysis demonstrates that strong carbon standards could also have widespread benefits to and public health," said Dr. Jonathan Buonocore, of the Harvard School of Public Health at Harvard University. "With a mix of stringency and flexibility, the new EPA rules have the potential to substantially reduce of and nitrogen oxides from power plants, which contribute to local and regional air pollution. This is an opportunity to both mitigate climate change and protect public health."

The U.S. EPA is expected to release its proposed rules for carbon pollution from existing June 2.

Explore further: Clean Air Act has led to improved water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

More information: eng-cs.syr.edu/our-departments… o-benefits-research/

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US power plant emissions down, study finds

Jan 09, 2014

Power plants that use natural gas and a new technology to squeeze more energy from the fuel release far less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide than coal-fired power plants do, according to a new analysis ...

EPA sets tougher auto fuel, emissions standards

Mar 03, 2014

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced new fuel and emissions standards that should significantly lower the levels of pollutants that cars and trucks spew into the air, the agency said.

Recommended for you

Dead floppy drive: Kenya recycles global e-waste

33 minutes ago

In an industrial area outside Kenya's capital city, workers in hard hats and white masks take shiny new power drills to computer parts. This assembly line is not assembling, though. It is dismantling some ...

New paper calls for more carbon capture and storage research

5 hours ago

Federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must involve increased investment in research and development of carbon capture and storage technologies, according to a new paper published by the University of Wyoming's ...

Coal gas boom in China holds climate change risks

10 hours ago

Deep in the hilly grasslands of remote Inner Mongolia, twin smoke stacks rise more than 200 feet into the sky, their steam and sulfur billowing over herds of sheep and cattle. Both day and night, the rumble ...

User comments : 0