The thousands of Maine children with asthma need your help. On unhealthy air days, elevated smog can trigger life-threatening asthma attacks, resulting in more trips to the emergency room for kids. Maine had five unhealthy air days in 2010 — and in the absence of a change in public policy, we can expect more in future years. Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency is accepting public input until June 25 on new standards that, if implemented, would limit the amount of carbon pollution that new power plants would be able to emit. While the new rules would be of some benefit to all children, our higher rates of asthma in Maine make the issue even more pressing.
While we typically think of automobiles as the major source of carbon emissions, U.S. electricity generation actually creates more CO2 than cars. If we want to effectively reduce pollution, it is imperative that EPA finalizes their proposed standard to limit carbon pollution from power plants, the source of more than 2 billion tons of the pollution yearly.
Why are we talking about global warming when the concern here is asthma? The science of “atmospheric chemistry” ties the two issues together, with the link being ozone, a nasty, irritating component of smog. High temperatures accelerate the atmospheric photochemical reactions that form ozone. That’s why the days with the most dangerous levels of smog often take place during the hottest weeks of the year.
Left unchecked, the higher temperatures associated with global warming will inevitably worsen smog pollution and increase ozone levels, which in turn impairs lung function and triggers asthma attacks.
The American Academy of Pediatrics firmly believes that global warming is a major public health issue. Besides concerns about short- and long-term lung damage, experts also fear that climate change will induce alterations in infectious disease patterns that would hit children especially hard — like the recent upsurge in Lyme in our state.
We’ve known for years that coal-fired power plants are our largest source of carbon pollution. Building on its historic standards for toxic mercury pollution from power plants that were made final last year, and its fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks currently in development, we encourage the Obama administration to move forward with rules that will reduce carbon pollution from new and existing power plants.
The corporate interests that benefit from lax pollution standards will not go down without
a fight, however, despite the common sense value of the new proposal. That’s where
Mainers can help. In order to ensure that EPA keeps these standards strong — and begins
developing carbon pollution standards for existing power plants as well — we urge Mainers to make their voices heard.
Please visit www.environmentmaine.org/action today to let EPA know that Maine wants strong rules for clean air that will allow Maine’s kids to breathe easier.
Ben Seel is a Clean Energy Organizer for Environment Maine, a statewide, citizen-based environmental advocacy organization working to protect clean air, clean water and open spaces. Also contributing to this piece were Dr. Sydney Sewall, a pediatrician from Augusta and a member of the board of directors for the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and Dr. Steve Feder, a pediatrician from Boothbay Harbor and president of the same organization.
Blame the evil corporate interests… “It’s for the children”… We’ve all heard it before. But what about the necessary increase in the cost of electricity as a result of CO2 emission limitations? It’s basic supply and demand – less generation (supply) with stable demand equals higher prices. We’ve proven again and again that we cannot meet our energy needs with wind and solar power. So why essentially restrict power output? We had FIVE unhealthy air days in 2010. That’s 5 out of 365, or only 1.37% of the days out of the year.
At a time when most Maine families are having a hard time keeping up with rising food, fuel, and electricity bills, is this really in the best interest for Mainers? Is it worth it? Mother Nature is a resilient old biddy, and I’m sure she can handle a great deal more CO2 than we even have now. She did in the distant past (Carboniferous period), and she will be able to again in the future. I promise. Why don’t we focus our efforts on more pressing issues, like 8.2%+ unemployment, a $16T national debt, and repealing oppressive government regulation for small businesses?
Ian,
The bill was voted down. Both our senators voted against it. Electricity rates will not rise . Deaths caused by mercury pollution will decline. People with asthma will have an easier time breathing. Costs for health care will decline. The earth will be protected from people and corporations that put profits ahead of our environment and the health of our people.
Much money came to Maine to influence our senators. The fossil fuel industry funds science denial and efforts to bring renewable energy mainstream.
Oppressive regulation is a talking point the conservatives use to support their ideologies. Lack of regulation in the financial sector is what created the current depression. The money is moving from us to the top. The big sucking sound.
I think we should go back to candles, horse and buggy.
Then again, they would but regulations on the amount
of candles you could burn. How many matches you could
strike to light the candles. How long you could burn these
candles to eliminate smoke and fumes and all the harmful
toxins. As for the horse and buggy, now that would take some
doing. The horse would only be able to doo-doo once a day because
of green house gas emissions. You would have to feed the horse
only what mayor bloomberg deemed healthy food. The buggy wheels
would have to meet govt standards and Obama will tell you how to
conserve your horse by keeping the wheels inflated. Of course we would
be taxed on candle consumption and how many miles you go in your buggy.
The EPA will be right on top of things and fly over and take pics of your
horse going potty. Of course all this would only apply to the people. After all
socialism is for the people, not the socialist.
Yes because Protecting the Earth, the only planet we can live on is a bad idea.
Do you understand just how much we actually have done to protect the Earth? It’s obvious you do not. The clean water act? 30 years ago we dumped our sewage into rivers. Mills dumped their industrial waste, again, into rivers and the oceans. But we have since made that illegal. The clean air act prohibits the use of CFCs, and limits other toxic chemicals in use. But carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of life – animals exhale it. No matter how much CO2 we put into the air, we will not destroy the planet – we can’t, we don’t have the ability to.
If you really want to address an environmental issue that actually needs a solution, how about finding a better way to deal with our waste rather than burying it in the ground? Seems like a lot more pressing issue than regulating CO2 emissions as a means to extort money out of power companies.
Just a closer look at the children’s diets and home environment might make a bigger difference.
We just had our two senators vote for more regulations by the EPA–“vote to uphold Mercury law”
Should say, “voted for more increased money grabs for the taxpayers and for closing coal operations and taking away jobs.”
Well, why don’t we just let them pump anything into the air, when this planet is used up we will just move over to Earth #2 that is waiting for us
We’re talking about CO2, mero818. It is a natural product of animal respiration. And plant decay. And combustion (not JUST gasoline engines). It’s not a dangerous, toxic, synthetic chemical (CFCs?), but a common gas that makes up only approximately 0.04% of our atmosphere. Let’s think rationally here. Even an increase to 0.1% of our atmosphere would have a negligible effect on, well, anything at all.
Yes and everything you just described is natural occurring. Pumping out chemicals from factories is not. We only have one and must do as much as we can to protect it. .01% add up quickly if we don’t do anything about it.
We aren’t the problem, Mero. Emissions are so strongly regulated in the US that we can’t pump ‘chemicals’ out of factories – it’s illegal. Unless you consider common gases such as carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide “chemicals”. But the Chinese don’t have those same regulations, and they are contributing to overall pollution at a rate hundreds of times greater than the US. So this type of feel-good legislation described in the article won’t make a bit of good. There is no reason we need to punish ourselves for our technological successes by limiting our energy production. It makes no sense other than to intentionally hinder our economic growth.
What’s done for the children is done to the adults those children will spend most of their lives as. I’m not sure they’ll be all that grateful for the constrained lives our betters are planning for them.
“Ben Seel is a Clean Energy Organizer…Dr. Sydney Sewall, a pediatrician…Dr. Steve Feder, a pediatrician…” None of whom drive a car and all of whom who live by solar power? Funny, I don’t see the word “nuclear” in this story.
This is why abortions are needed to keep liberals from having to expose their children to this mess.
5 whole days in 2010 out of 365 were deemed unhealthy and now we are warned of what we may/might expect in 2012. Still beating the global warming drum. Before anyone falls for the rederic please look into the facts. This administration is doing whatever it can to shutdown our energy supplies, and coal is in the gun sites. I guess in order to really understand the rules and regulations in place right now one should ask an energy producer what they must endure from bureaucrats and ultra environmentalists.
Our energy supplies are shutting themselves down, in the fact that they will eventually run out. We need to get rid of coal and oil power as soon as possible. However this move will cost Billions if not trillion of dollars.
We have barely even begun to tap into the natural resources that we have available to us, especially here in the United States. We have the largest reserves of coal in the world, and a large amount of oil and natural gas as well. The reason why we aren’t utilizing these resources is because we are being prevented from doing so.
So why not drill here at home? Regarding the BP oil spill, it was an anomaly. It has managed to resolve itself in just about 2 years, so I don’t understand why we are giving the rights to drill off our coast to other nations – it’s actually safer if we do it because of our advanced technologies. Drilling in ANWR would have a minimal effect on the land, and would add greatly to the North American oil supplies. Even approving the northern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline would allow us to pump oil from Canada to refineries in the south and dramatically increase gasoline and other fuel production.
Oil, coal, and natural gas generation is still going on to this day – it did not stop happening the minute we started pumping it from the ground. So we aren’t at risk of running out anytime soon. The only way we WILL run out is if the environmentalists and leftists continue to play the environment card and prevent us from truly becoming energy independent, because we will never meet our needs with wind and solar power alone.
Yes, but we also know that they will not last, We are growing exponentially and all these resources that we have will have to be used. The problem I have is why are we not looking beyond in any real capacity. We know it will be a problem in the future yet we seem willing to pass the buck with the saying ” we have hundreds of years of energy, plenty of time to figure it out”.
As for drilling at home, all those fields are already plotted out by Corporations who is going to sell to the highest payer, that could or could not be the USA. Why would we want USA companies drilling on USA soil selling to other countries? If we really cared about our energy future we would nationalize all our oil fields and make sure all the oil stays in the USA.
Nationalize the oil fields? And let the Washington bureaucracy deal with oil production? Your true Communist/Socialist colors are shining through, Mero. That is one way to make sure we have a permanent shortage – the government cannot, by virtue of its size, do anything efficiently. The global market determines oil prices (and that is okay) because as we inject more supply into the market, prices will go down. However, if the Middle East suddenly goes up in flames (which it will), we won’t be up a creek, and neither will the rest of the Western world, because we will be able to maintain oil production and not be dependent on foreign oil sources.
Because our greatest resources should be drilled by people that would rather it go to the highest bidder then to make sure the USA is doing well. The problem with your idea is that if the middle east goes up in flames, all that oil that is being drilled on USA soil, still goes to the highest bidder, which might not be the USA. We get most of our oil from right in the USA as it is, we are less dependent on foreign oil then ever before. We want to open our oil fields to people that care about themselves and not the USA first. I have no problem with drilling, just the fact that if will not help us that much. Look at the keystone pipeline, almost all of that oil will go to china, we already defeated a bill that would require some of that oil to stay in the USA.