Sustainability of our Environmental Policy is complex to say the least, but clearly there is a reality that many in the movement either are ignorant of or chose to ignore. The simple truth is that there is a limited amount of capital that can be expended on the environment. This limited amount of capital increases for a given nation as that nation’s GDP increases. For example over the past 10 years China’s GDP has grown, and they have drastically increased their expenditures on the environment.  Corporations struggle with the same reality. The decrease in income over the past 18 months has caused companies to slash their budgets for environmental projects.

The question that must be asked in development of a Sustainable Environmental Policy is “What is the best and highest use for this limited capital?” Is the best use of this limited capital, to decrease the emissions of CO2 by increasing the cost of energy derived from fossil fuels? Is the best use of this capital supplying clean drinking water to the 1/3 of the world population that does not have this basic necessity? 
This blog will attempt to ask these hard questions, and present the data that will hopefully result in a more responsible formulation of an Environmental Policy.

I just returned from my fourth trip to China in the last year, and while the reports about the condition of the environment are true, that is only half of the truth.  It is true the lakes and rivers have been severally damaged by the environmental impact of urbanization and industrialization over the past 15 years.  It is also true that the air in the major metropolitan areas is contaminated.  However, that is only half of the truth.  The truth is that China is making great strides, and investing more in environmental infrastructure than any nation outside the US.  They have a plan and are executing on that plan.  They have authorized the construction of 1,000’s of water and sewage treatment plants, they are transitioning from coal to nuclear power more rapidly than the US, and have budgeted billions of dollars for environmental remediation.

The truth is the Chinese people are very proud of their nation, and ingrained in their culture is the belief that their nation is made up of their people and their land.  In other words as they see the quality of their environment degraded they see their nation being degraded.   The challenge for the government leaders is giving 2,000,000,000 people the opportunity to work, raise a family, and develop hope for their children while also developing the infrastructure to protect the environment.  Given how far they have come over the past 15 years I would give them an “A”.

Who remembers the acid rain scare of the 1980s?  As an environmental professional the fear and hysteria resulting from the Acid Rain “Armageddon” is a prime example of how too many environmental policies are being formed based upon emotion and not sound science.

If you will recall, photos of forests annihilated by acid rain, buildings dissolved, and lakes and rivers destroyed created widespread fear.    Since that time we discovered that the forests that were affected by the power plants that released SO2 where actually effected by the particles in the emissions and minimally if any by the formation of Sulfuric Acid (the byproduct of SO2).  In fact, in some areas the SO2 actually had a beneficial effect on plant growth, and in certain areas farmers are now required to add sulfur as a fertilizer where previously it was a byproduct of coal combustion.
There is no question that SO2 treatment equipment on power plants fired by sour coal or coke is beneficial.  The effects of this treatment equipment can be seen in the decrease of annual average SO2 concentrations in the US decreasing from 70 micrograms per meter cubed in 1960 to 12 in 2000.  That is an 82% reduction, and the trend continues to decrease.  This indicates that the current policies we have implemented are working, and if we are allowed to stay the coarse we can produce energy from the combustion of coal (soar or “clean”) without any adverse environmental effect from SO2.

For those of us that have spent our careers improving the quality of the environment the misinformation depicting an environmental “Armageddon” is insulting.  However, without doing the research it has been hard to say to my RECON team “good job” we are making a difference.  Well this series of blogs gives all of us in the industry the encouragement that we are making a difference and the data proves it.  First lets look at air quality since that poses the greatest risk to the general public.  The EPA primarily tracts six metrics to assess air quality:  

1.    Ozone (O3)
2.    Nitrogen Oxides NOx
3.    Carbon Monoxide (CO)
4.    Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
5.    Particulate Matter (PM10)
6.    Lead (Pb)

In general each of these contaminants is on the decline.  For example, since 1970 the CO level has dropped by 73% in the US and 80% in the UK.   We should be encouraged that CO levels continue to decline under current regulation, and all indications that if current regulations are allowed to run their coarse the air quality will continue to improve.

Our real challenge is developing countries are improving their standard of living at the expense of their local environment.  If we want to focus on CO as a problem we need to assist Beijing, New Delhi, and Mexico City in addressing their pollution from burning coal and garbage.  These developing countries are where CO posses the only real health risks.  Congratulations environment industry, I would say we have won this CO battle.

It does not need to be said that the media does not research sufficiently what they present as fact. When it comes to the condition of our environment, they are overly accepting of propaganda published for many reasons other than the dissemination of truthful information. The result of this negligent reporting manifests itself in people’s opinion of the condition of the environment. This was documented by Dunlap and Gallop in an international poll taken in 24 countries. The poll indicated that in virtually every country those polled believed the world’s environment was worse than their own country's, and that their country's environment was worse than their local communities. In other words, when those polled based their opinion of the condition of the environment on their personal experience they believed the environment was in reasonably good shape. However, when they based their opinion on the fear driven tactics of the media, politicians or special interest groups, the environment was perceived to be in poor shape.

The point of this 20 Blog series will be to present the facts about the change in the quality of the environment over the past 20 years, and to encourage those of us that have spent our lives and careers improving the environment through a systematic process of analyzing, designing, and implementing solutions to specific problems. The impetus for this series of blogs was my “all knowing” 16-year old's baseless accusation that after 25 years of cleaning up the environment I was not a conservationist. Frankly, I found this insulting. Over the last 20 years RECON (the company I run) has cleaned up over 3,000 hazardous waste sites, and contained tens of millions of tons of uncontrolled waste, but because some activist group has manipulated public opinion and created a fear of a catastrophic end to the environment as we know it, my 16 year old believes I am not “doing my fair share”. Please subscribe to my blog as I let the numbers speak for themselves. We will analyze the metrics and the trends in the metrics that define the quality of our environment. Stay Tuned!!