Pollution danger higher than earlier estimated

Direct link

Health problems were generally related to respiratory illnesses and heart disease. Some studies reported bouts of asthma and bronchitis. Even small increases can affect children, the elderly and people with chronic diseases, researchers say.

The cost of hospitalizations, physician visits and lost work days connected to airborne specks of dust and tiny droplets could reach $70 billion a year, health officials said.

Numbers of premature deaths are difficult to estimate because the scientific knowledge isn't far enough along to determine a safe level of the tiny particles. California's average small-particle concentration is about 14 micrograms of PM2.5, or particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, per cubic meter of air. The San Francisco Bay's average over the past three years is 10.69 micrograms.

Assuming that a safe level is 7 micrograms of PM2.5 per cubic meter of air - half as clean as the state's air - means that there would still be about 14,000 to 24,000 premature deaths every year in the state associated with these small particles, the study said. That is two to three times the number of deaths previously predicted.

Currently, the cleanest cities in the country generally measure 7 micrograms of PM2.5 per cubic meters of air in the atmosphere.

At that level, there would still be 1,800 to 3,200 deaths a year in the Bay Area; 8,100 to 14,000 in the Los Angeles region, and 2,000 to 3,500 in the San Joaquin Valley.

"The risk in a highly polluted area is similar to living with a smoker," said Bart Croes, the board's chief of research.

The forest fires burning in the Santa Cruz Mountains can cause serious health problems for people breathing in the smoke, he said. The assessments on premature deaths in the study include the effects of California fires in the last few years.

Fine particles - whether from fires or industrial emissions or traffic - penetrate deeply into the lung and inflame the lung tissue. There is evidence that they can cross the tissue into the blood stream, and accumulate in the organs.

Scientists today believe that it's the size that causes the problem. However, research continues to see if materials in the particles such as metals or other toxic compounds may be the ones most responsible for the damage to the body.

Cancer study

Researchers looked at diet, smoking habits and other factors in trying to isolate the pollution effects, which Croes noted was a difficult task.

As part of the assessment, they looked at changes in death rates during a coal-burning ban in Dublin, Ireland, sulfur dioxide reduction under new regulations in Hong Kong and a steel mill strike in Utah Valley.

Representatives of the Western States Petroleum Association said they hadn't yet evaluated the draft of the study. The California Truckers Association, which is expected to comment, didn't respond to queries from The Chronicle.

The air board will accept comments until July 11. The study could be accepted by the board as early as August.

See the study

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/23/BAFB10RFT5.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/23/BAFB10RFT5.DTL&type=printable

San Francisco Chronicle

Friday, May 23, 2008
San Francisco has drawn national attention for proposing tough, environmentally friendly building codes, but those standards could decrease the city's economic output by as much as $700 million a year, a city report shows.

Mayor Gavin Newsom made a celebrated appearance before a congressional committee last week, urging lawmakers to push for similar rules nationwide. The city's standards would require new commercial and high-rise residential buildings to use clean energy and sustainable building materials, among other measures. If finalized, the codes would be the most stringent of any major U.S. city.

The city's Office of Economic Analysis has issued a report concluding that the city guidelines would significantly reduce greenhouse gases over time. But it also found that the higher costs of constructing environmentally sustainable buildings would translate to higher housing prices and commercial rents, slow construction rates and possibly discourage businesses from locating and expanding in the city.

The codes' estimated negative economic impact could range from $30 million to $700 million a year through 2027, according to the study. The reason for the big cost range is that green building costs are new, uncertain and could significantly change over time.

Newsom disagrees that the program would hurt the local economy, suggesting that it could also create jobs.

The report also analyzed a possible alternative: charging local businesses a tax based on energy use that results in greenhouse gas emissions. The Office of Economic Analysis concluded such a program could reduce pollution without affecting the city's economy.

In such a carbon-tax program, the city would charge taxes based on a company's energy use, but offset that burden by lowering the business' payroll tax. The more energy a company saves - thus lowering greenhouse gases - the more it would save in taxes.

"The energy tax is a market-based approach that is neutral on the economy," said the report's author, chief economist Ted Egan.

The city's proposed green building codes feature requirements such as the use of on-site renewable power generation, nontoxic paints and eco-friendly building materials.

It is estimated that by 2012 the codes would reduce 60,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, save 220,000 megawatt hours of power and spare 100 million gallons of drinking water.

In contrast, the carbon tax would make a more immediate impact and involve no up-front costs. Instead of applying only to new buildings or renovations, it would apply to all local businesses. Egan estimated that such a tax would need to be phased in over 11 years and would raise the city utility user's tax by 16.5 percent.

Egan noted that the city could choose to do both - impose tough eco-building standards and an energy tax.

Newsom's office agrees and is drafting carbon-tax legislation.

"We're committed to doing both," said spokesman Nathan Ballard. "We're taking a belt-and-suspenders approach."

Newsom quibbled with the report's conclusion that the city economy would suffer as a result of the new building codes. He said other reports show a minimal financial impact and questioned whether Egan gave enough weight to job creation and higher lease rates garnered by green buildings.

"There's a lot of mythmaking regarding the up-front costs, and we have argued that it is not as significant as others suggest," Newsom said. "I don't accept the premise that there will be a hit to the (city) economy."

The city's green building codes are pending approval by the Board of Supervisors.

E-mail Robert Selna at rselna@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/23/BAPA10R7K6.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/23/BAPA10R7K6.DTL&type=printable