When one happens to be a scientist with expertise in environmental issues like yours truly, one has the opportunity to digest a disturbing number of misleading, eye-rolling headlines in the mainstream media as heavily biased journalists vainly attempt to present accurate information about environmental issues.
Even by that ridiculously low bar, the headline that appeared in the May 5 edition of the Chicago Tribune rates as the most misleading, unscientific, and mindlessly hysterical that I have ever seen.
A major metropolitan newspaper in the United States actually printed the following:
BURNING NATURAL GAS IS NOW MORE DANGEROUS THAN COAL
Pollution from natural gas is now responsible for more deaths and greater health costs than coal in Illinois, according to a new study highlighting another hazard of burning fossil fuels that are scrambling the planet’s climate.
Researchers at Harvard University found that a shift away from coal during the past decade saved thousands of lives and dramatically reduced health impacts from breathing particulate matter, commonly known as soot. But the numbers declined only slightly for gas, another fossil fuel that by 2017 accounted for the greatest health risks.
About half the deaths from soot exposure that year can be attributed to the state’s reliance on gas to heat homes and businesses, the study found. Coal is more deadly only when used to generate electricity.
The alarming findings raise questions about whether Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s proposed transition to a zero-carbon economy would move fast enough in phasing out the use of gas—not only to blunt the impacts of climate change but also to ensure Illinoisans breathe clean air.
The term “fake news” hardly covers it. This is “farcical news,” “fanciful news,” “delusional news,” etc. Yeah, journalists are not scientists. I get it.
But, how sad it is to consider there is not one editor at the Trib who might have enough passing knowledge to think something like “that really doesn’t sound right, maybe we should take a second look.”
The essence of the Trib’s story, written by staff enviro-propagandist Michael Hawthorne, may be summarized thus:
1) burning natural gas has increasingly displaced coal combustion in order to generate electricity,
2) Americans should be concerned about the amounts of fine particulate, also known as Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic diameter of fewer than 2.5 microns, (aka, PM-2.5) generated through fossil-fuel combustion of any kind, and
3) the total amount of PM-2.5 generated by the combustion of natural gas to generate electricity now exceeds the amount of PM-2.5 generated by the combustion of coal to generate electricity.
Hawthorne does not actually use the accepted environmental terms “fine particulate” and “PM-2.5” in his story. Instead, he calls fine particulate “soot.”
Certainly, that’s a much more appealing term to someone attempting to create a narrative, but it has little to do with reality.
When you call in a chimney sweep to remove actual soot from your fireplace, almost none of the black gunk he or she will brush off is anything close to 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter.
Anyway, the problem with this particular narrative is the same one that always occurs when people with an agenda attempt to dragoon science into supporting their political agenda: they use that portion of the science that helps them and ignore (willingly or ignorantly) any of the science that disproves their premise.
I can accept that the amount of PM-2.5 generated through the combustion of natural gas now exceeds the amount of PM-2.5 generated through the combustion of coal. At least theoretically.
The amount of PM-2.5 generated by the combustion of natural gas is relatively so tiny that it is very, very difficult to accurately measure using accepted EPA test methods.
In the enviro-biz, one errs on the side of caution, meaning that PM-2.5 emission rates attributed to natural gas are likely inflated.
Doesn’t really matter though, since the amount of PM-2.5 emissions that can be tied to electrical generation of any kind is trivial.
Based on the last verified National Emissions Inventory (NEI) of 2017, the total amount of PM-2.5 emissions generated across America was 5,706,842 tons/year.
Of that, EPA attributed 107,270 tons/year of fine-particulate emissions to fossil-fuel combustion used to generate electricity. That’s less than two percent of all national PM-2.5 emissions.
Wondering about the biggest source of PM-2.5 emissions? Glad you asked. The 2017 NEI attributes 4,188,615 tons/year of PM-2.5 emissions to “Miscellaneous Sources.”
That’s a shade over 73 percent of the total. Miscellaneous sources are non-industrial, non-transportation-related sources of all kinds.
In this case, the vast majority of miscellaneous sources consist of wildfires – many of which are the result of pitifully irresponsible forest management in blue states like California – and natural erosion.
Back in the nineties and early 2000s, environmental NGOs like the Sierra Club were all-in supporting natural gas.
They recognized that natural gas combustion was inherently cleaner than coal combustion and that the amount of greenhouse gas produced using natural gas was far lower than that amount of greenhouse gas produced using coal on a per megawatt generated basis.
They gleefully accepted donations from natural gas producers in order to fund initiatives like the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign.
Chesapeake Energy, the nation’s second-largest natural gas producer, was a big Sierra Club supporter back then, presumably because Chesapeake executives hoped that going “beyond coal” would help their bottom line.
They didn’t have the foresight to see that once the enviros actually went beyond coal, natural gas would be the next target of opportunity.
I’ve been told by people I trust that several Chesapeake shareholders were somewhat less than pleased when the Sierra Club pivoted from being a natural gas supporter to a natural gas opponent, which is where they and most of their fellow environmental NGOs remain today.
In the business of environmental advocacy, as is the case with any other big business, one has to follow the money.
It’s a disappointing story, but I fear that Chesapeake will be far from the last company to jump at the bait when an environmental NGO offers them absolution in return for thirty pieces of silver.
Image by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay
Read more at The Pipeline
Years ago the Japanese manufactured low emissions high out put coal powered plants which removes particles as well are being installed in several countries even by the Chinese . America cuts down thousands of forests and wood chip them and ship accross the ocean . (At what cost of oil )them to Wind powered Germany and Denmark for power plants when there is no wind or sun HA HE Sorry and the UK does as well. Dont take my word for it look on the Webb .
Hi Brian. You are right about wood chips for power generation. It’s called biomass. A name selected to ensure the green zealots are kept in the dark. FYI.. There was one power station in the US where they tried to burn garbage, to save money vs buying wood chips, but the stink was so bad, they had to go back to wood chips. Local residents complained and the power station was caught out….
Regarding technology to remove particles from emissions, it has been in place in coal plants for many years, while all diesel vehicles on our roads have devices incorporated to re-burn, at extreme high temperatures, all particles in the exhaust. Catalytic converters designed to burn contaminants, do a similar job with particles in gasoline engines as well.
There is a lot to say about this article. My daughter just read an account stating that in Demark people are going back to burning wood for heat because electricity is so expensive. Just as with Germany electric rates have been driven to a high level in Demark due to action on climate change. When it comes to particulate matter pollution, heating by wood is the worst option. Action on climate change in the high electric rates is causing real pollution.
My home town of Klamath Falls Oregon once had quite a problem of pollution every winter due to the use of wood heat. The problem was solved by subsidizing the replacement of wood stoves with natural gas. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. I wonder if “net zero” will force people back to wood heat.
David, you raise a very good point regarding burning wood for heat during winter.
Here in Australia, there are rules preventing wood fire heating and where it is permitted, wood must by bark free.
Areas where it’s prevented are usually towns/cities in valleys and a good example is Australia’s capital city, Canberra. It’s in a huge bowl where smoke from wood fires hung close to the ground during winter due to seasonally low wind while (heavy) cold air above the bowl forced smoke close to the ground.
In both cases, bark free wood and restrictions (for wood heating) in specific locations were justified, however, if energy prices rise to a point where home-owners struggle, I bet wood burners will reappear.
It occurred to me why the Chicago Tribune says burning natural gas is creating more pollution than burning coal. Liberals are always speaking of carbon dioxide as being a pollutant as if it was the same as particle pollution. Currently burning natural gas produces 33% of the carbon dioxide of American’s energy sector, and 21% comes from coal. Since they don’t seem to be able to distinguish between carbon dioxide and particulate pollution, then they conclude natural gas is now a large source of pollution.
Obama’s signing of the Paris Treaty without Senate ratification did not provides the legal means to the action he wanted. What he did was use the excuse of 2.5 micron size particles to claim action was needed for public health. He set the allowable level of such particles to ridiculously low levels and this is what his Clean Power Plan was based on. He did the same with ozone. This article did an excellent job of pointing out that fossil fuel generation is responsible for only 2% of the fine particles, yet Obama was using this as excuse to curtail fossil fuel power generation. This is the same as the climate change movement in general. The goals are excuses for new taxes, more government control, forcing the middle class into a lower standard of living, and transferring the wealth of the industrial nations to the developing nations. The lame excuse to implement these goals is claiming action is needed on climate change.
I just did a good search on the Clean Power Plan. The liberal organizations supporting it all gave the reason of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide as justification. Yet, the real justification was lame excuse for public health.
So now according to some liberal news rag and bunch of loose screws and total Screwballs Natural Gas is now a product more dangerous then Ricen or strictnine