Real Science OR the Analysis of Dean’s Report
The article cited by Dean in support of his thesis refers to a group called “Clear the Air.”
You will find their website here: http://www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower/ A quick review of the Clear the Air website shows that the article cited by Dean is truly a conduit for the viewpoint of the group.
Clear the Air offers a report called “Dirty Air, Dirty Power’ for public consumption. This report contains repeated UNQUALIFIED ASSERTIONS of numbers of deaths “caused by power plant pollution.” Clear the Air also posts their source document called “Power Plant Emissions, Particulate Matter Related Health Damages and the Benefits of Alternative Emission Reduction Scenarios. You can find that report here:
http://www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower/docs/abt_powerplant_whitepaper.pdf.
A quick review of this report shows that it is a presentation of a complex mathematical model. The model contains hundreds of equations tying key factors together in cause and effect relations. In order for the OUTPUT of this study to be useful, each of those equations must be grounded in fact or very well supported assumptions. Even small changes in just a few of the equations would result in VERY LARGE changes in the outcome.
Let us look for ourselves and see what the authors of this article state about their study
http://www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower/docs/abt_powerplant_whitepaper.pdf.
Page 1-1 Introduction
Over the past decade and more, hundreds of studies worldwide have linked particulate matter to a wide range of adverse health effects in people of all ages, including premature death, chronic bronchitis, hospitals admissions and asthma. While this large body of research cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between PM and adverse health effects, the research does provide strong evidence that reducing ambient PM concentrations will lead to improvements in human health.
This is one massive admission: “this large body of research cannot establish a cause-and effect relationship between PM and adverse health effects.” WOW, right off the bat the authors admit the speculative nature of the enterprise. Let’s continue through the report.
Page 3-1 Air Quality Modeling
Modeling future air quality anticipated to result from policy-driven emissions changes is extremely difficult and inherently uncertain. Alternative air quality models inevitably produce differing results. Scientific understanding of the complex atmospheric processes involved in PM formation and transport is increasing rapidly.
What this paragraph is telling the reader is that we still don’t know a very great deal about how PM behave in the widely variable environment of the great outdoors. But this is where people live, breathing real air which is the subject of real weather systems. No medical study can replicate this total environment. What we are being told here is that the researchers are guessing a good deal about how PM travel through the air before they get to any set of human lungs. This is important because the human body is designed to cope with a certain amount of “pollution.” For instance, our kidneys and our liver screen and remove toxins from our system, as a normal part of their function. Alcohol is a toxin which we can tolerate without permanent injury if we consume it in sufficiently small doses. So this means that merely stating that PM is a pollutant that the lungs should not be exposed to, doesn’t tell us much. Our lungs can process a certain amount of harmful materials without permanent injury; they do it every day.
Overlapping Health Benefits Page 4-4
Several endpoints reported in the health effects literature overlap with each other. For example, hospital admissions for single respiratory ailments (e.g. pneumonia) overlap with estimates of hospital admissions for “all respiratory” ailments. Similarly, several studies quantify the occurrence of respiratory symptom where the definitions of symptoms are not unique ( e.g. shortness of breath or upper respiratory symptoms).
The authors have done the right thing by pointing this out. They assure us that they have chosen studies carefully to avoid double counting. However, just a moment’s thought recognizes the difficult of separating out the possible causes of these respiratory illnesses.
Application of a C-R function everywhere page 4-6
Although the C-R (concentration response) relationship may in fact vary somewhat from one location to another (for example, due to differences in population susceptibilities or differences in the composition of PM), location-specific C-R functions are available only for those locations in which studies were conducted.
This means that the authors have only SKETCKY data about C-R in a few locations and they are essentially guessing about the rest of the country. But, this is a very crucial relationship and constitutes the very heart of the study.
Page 5-6
It is not possible to estimate with any degree of confidence how premature is the PM-related mortality. Making such an estimate requires considerably more understanding of the relationships between PM and human health than is currently available.
Just read this through one more time: “It is not possible to estimate with any degree of confidence how premature is the PM related mortality.” This means that the authors are pretty much guessing, yes, guessing how much PM might accelerate the time of a person’s death. Remember PM doesn’t kill with one dose, if so all power plant workers would be dead. The only theory that makes sense is extended exposure that hastens the death of someone who is susceptible to respiratory problems; that is what the authors mean by “PM related mortality.”
Correlation between PM and heart attacks
Page 5-15
We used a recent study by Peters, et. Al. as the basis for the C-R function estimating the relationship between PM and non-fatal heart attacks. It is the only available U.S. study to provide a specific estimate for heart attacks.
One of the most critical aspects of the study is supported by ONE study. Generally medical science does not consider a scientific proposition established UNTIL it is confirmed by repeated studies by different researchers. Until then, it is an interesting experimental result. However, here the authors simply used what was there because it was all they could find. Now, remember, Clear the Air is SCREAMING about deaths, yet, looking at the report, there isn’t true scientific foundation for the non-fatal heart attack figures.
Does it make sense to conclude that lower PM helps health and higher PM hurts health. Sure, it is common sense, however, the Clear the Air propaganda report pounds home a start message with no qualifiers. Clear the Air claims to be able to assert with firmness that various cities and states will suffer quite specific increases in mortality, without even HINTING at the massive set of ASSUMPTIONS underlying the report.
Frankly, the report is simply one HUGE collection of assumptions, piled on estimates, piled on assumptions. There does not exist solid scientific evidence relating alleged emissions from a set of power plants to specific deaths. The authors of this report include disclaimers in virtually EVERY major section of the report. I wouldn’t base policy on this.
NO SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE SUPPORTING A DIRECT BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM FOR OBSERVED EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.
The title of this comment is a quote from the Summary of Uncertainties compiled by the authors of the study and found on page 4-18. This is worse than I ever imagined.Please look at the following summary of the major sources of uncertainty in this report. This is found on pages 4-17 and 4-18 of the report:
BEGIN STUDY QUOTE
Page 4-17
In any complex analysis using estimated parameters and inputs from numerous different models, there are likely to be many sources of uncertainty. This analysis is no exception. There are many inputs that are used to derive the final estimate of benefits, including emission inventories, air quality models (with their associated parameters and inputs), EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ESTIMATES OF C-R FUNCTIONS [emphasis added], estates of value (both WTP and cost-of-illness studies), population estimates, income estaimtes and estimates of the future state of the world, i.e. regulations, technology, and human behavior. Each of these inputs may be uncertain, and depending on their location in the benefits analysis, may have a disproportionately large impact on final estimates of total benefits. For example, emissions estimates are used in the first stage of the analysis. As such, any uncertainty in emissions estimates will be propagated through the entire analysis. WHEN COMPOUNDED WITH UNCERTAINTY AT LATER STAGES SMALL UNCERTAINTIES CAN LEAD TO MUCH LARGER IMPACTS ON TOTAL BENEFITS.[emphasis added]
END STUDY QUOTE
What the authors mean by “epidemiological estimates of C-R functions” is a quantifiable and proven relationship between the concentration of pollutants (C) and the change in the health of the public as a result of those pollutants (R). This is what they call the “C-R function.” This “function” (a mathematical term which means that output (variable y) is the product of a mathematical manipulation of some input (variable x) OR “cause and effect” in ordinary terms. So boiled down to standard English, the authors are saying that
the impact on public health “R” resulting from a certain level of pollution “C” cannot be stated with certainty. Why read further?
Cotinuing on to page 4-18 the authors itemize twenty different “sources of uncertainty.” Here is what I consider the even more damning:
NO SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE SUPPORTING A DIRECT BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM FOR OBSERVED EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.
This means that there is no scientific literature that actually traces and explains in detail HOW PM actually causes, (if, it does cause) epidemiological evidence (illnesses reported by large groups of people)Compare this statement of the studies limitations with the assertions of “Clear the Air.” Clear the Air is screaming “thousands die yearly from air pollution.” There is simply no true proof of that proposition in this study. Clear the Air doesn’t think anyone will read the study directly. They assume people will glance at it and see alot of mathematical formulas and give up. Most journalists are math and science phobes, they were right.
11 December 2005
TESTIMONY OF RONALD R. COOKE
The Cultural Economist
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECEMBER, 2005
Dear Members of Congress.
I agree in concept with most of the testimony given at The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on December 7, 2005. Udall, Aleklett, Bartlett, Esser, Hirsch, et al. They didn’t mince their words. All us oil consuming nations have a collective problem. Over the long haul, oil is going to be more expensive and less available. Although Congress obviously disregarded Joseph P. Riva’s excellent report on oil depletion that was written for the Congressional Research Service in 1995, there will be no escaping THIS testimony. The cards are on the table. Congress has been informed.
Do something. Constructive.
The Key Issue.
One of the most confusing aspects of the Peak Oil debate is embedded in the definition of what constitutes reserves. Every agency and nation appears to have its own method of accounting. We hear about identified, proven, probable, and possible reserves. Reserves volumes are estimated using 95 percentile, mode, mean, or 5 percentile recovery data. Adding to the confusion, emerging technology and volatile crude oil prices change the definition of what is â�� or is not – economically recoverable oil.
But focusing on oil in the ground, while essential to understanding our economic future, misses the essential point. For consuming nations, the key issue is not how much oil is left, or when will production peak? The key issue is: How much oil can we produce? And that is an entirely different and far more complex question.
Although oil in the ground has intrinsic value, it has no practical value. The intrinsic value of oil in the ground is currently being used as loan collateral, and as a means of acquiring political influence. But oil reserves have no practical value until they have been found, produced, transported, refined, and distributed in the form of a product that can be consumed. In today’s world, that demands a very long â�� and highly vulnerable â�� supply chain. Thus, when you consider policy legislation on the subject of oil, I suggest you consider the following reality: Proven or identified reserves are less important than accessible reserves.
“Accessible reserves are those reserves of oil that can actually be found, produced, transported, refined, and distributed without disruption at a price the consumer can afford to pay.”
Why is this definition important? Because although there is a lot of oil left on this planet, only a small fraction is accessible.
Possible Optimism.
Robert Esser, CERA Senior Consultant and Director, Global Oil and Gas Resources, almost made the “there’s no problem” business case. I actually agree with CERA’s assessment. IF there are no disruptions to the oil supply chain for the next 20 years, then we humans will have enough oil to continue our economic expansion and population growth. But CERA inserted two key points into its testimony. You should not make the mistake of overlooking them.
1. “It is important to understand that we do not predict production as such, but rather capacity to produce, â�¦. “.
2. ” CERA believes the risks to capacity expansion are mostly above ground: â�¦. ”
True enough. I have agonized many long hours over a very complex spreadsheet, trying to bridge the huge gap between the concept of “capacity to produce” versus a realistic estimate of “probable production”. My article “Oil Depletion? It’s All In The Assumptions” http://www.tceconomist.blogspot.com, details the potential barriers to oil exploration and production that must be incorporated into any analysis of probable oil supplies. So although CERA’s testimony does give us a baseline for possible oil production, it does not â�� as they state â�� make an estimate of probable production. In order to do that, we have to examine the attributes of the entire supply chain, from exploration through production, transportation, refining, distribution, and consumption. We must examine the above ground factors that may disrupt the oil supply chain in making public policy. These factors include corporate behavior, government action, cultural stability, economics, legal agreements, geography, weather, transportation, military diplomacy and the always potent combination of religion and politics. Above ground factors are now more important than geology in developing resource production forecasts.
In order for suppliers to provide enough oil we have to assume:
� The proven reserves claimed by OPEC actually exist.
� Cultural stability prevails in the Middle East, Africa and South America.
� Saudi Arabia will continue to be a �swing� producer.
� Russia does not choose to use oil as a political weapon.
� Resource nationalism will not disrupt world oil markets.
� Emerging technology will substantially increase production.
� Environmental concerns will not limit access to potential resources.
� There is sufficient infrastructure, labor and capital.
� New production comes on-line on schedule.
� Reserve depletion rates will not increase.
Are these assumptions realistic?
Probably not. Certainly not in the aggregate.
Even a Best Case Scenario Points to Economic Hardship.
Using an economic model, I have developed several oil production and consumption scenarios. My “Best Case” scenario is very similar to the one CERA presented to you. It assumes we humans will be able to find, produce, transport, refine, and distribute oil products for the next 20 years without any impediments or disruptions at a price the consumer can (hopefully) afford to pay. There is a positive â�� no problem â�� response to the assumptions listed above. Everything works. There are no screw-ups.
Even with this optimism, however, the model still suggests that inflation and unemployment will increase in the out years of the forecast period. GDP will decline. Chronic recession is possible.
Why?
For the last 30 years, we have been living in a resource supply never-never land. Saudi Arabia has provided the world with a huge buffer of oil reserves. If the demand for oil exceeded the available supply, they opened the spigot. If the world had more oil than it needed, they reduced production. That buffer is almost gone. Even if depletion were not a factor in the oil market equation, the vulnerability and unpredictability of the supply chain will make it impossible to balance supply with demand. Going forward, we can expect price and supply volatility unlike anything we have experienced in the past.
Another point. The oil markets of the last 30 years have been characterized by excess production capability. For most of this period, changes in consumer demand defined the parameters of the available market. But we are in a trap. World oil is transitioning from a market driven by consumer demand to one limited by producer capacity. Over the next 20 years â�� and beyond – the characteristics of the worldwide oil market will be determined by a very vulnerable supply chain. As a result, oil exporting countries are now able to control the price and the availability of an increasingly scarce commodity.
Conclusion.
The bad news: the odds we will experience the oil production and consumption characteristics of a Best Case scenario are probably less than 40%. The really bad news: we seem to be tracking the “Production Crisis” scenario produced by my model. Unless Congress takes action and initiates a REAL energy research and development program, higher rates of inflation and unemployment are almost certain to disrupt western culture long before “peak oil”. GDP will go negative. Chronic recession is probable. The industrialized nations on our planet will not have enough energy to support their economies.
So far, the odds on this scenario appear to be 80 percent.
Note 1: Joseph Riva’s report is available on the Internet. Do a Google search. I found his excellent report for the Congressional Research Service, “World Oil Production After Year 2000: Business As Usual or Crises?” long after I completed the research and analysis for my book on peak oil. Why Congress ignored this report is one of the mysteries of American politics.
Note 2: Key parts of the referenced testimony before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality can be found at http://www.tceconomist.blogspot.com
If I may summarize what I perceive to be the gist of Missourian’s posts. The quest for strict economic and industrial controls to curb global warming is scientism run amok. The emotional reaction from folks like Dean is just the desired effect the politico/scientistic folk desire to create so that they can amass governement grant money to perpetuate their research.
Even if all of the worst case scenario’s concerning global warming are true, as Christians, we should not react with fear and trembling, but with sober action based upon Christian anthopology and wisdom.
Remember this though it is democratic, capitalist societies that have reacted to environmental concerns in far more effective ways than any socialist, communist, or Muslim society on earth.
MaleOrthodox, My point. Single point emitters are GOOD.
My point was primarily in response to several assertions by Dean that America was being “done in” by pollution from coal powered, electric power plants and that the “big bad power industry” was SUPPRESSING research into solar and wind power.
The value of coal powered plants is that they are SINGLE POINT EMITTERS. This means that when we built a NEW power plant that uses coal, we know from the onset that we will be SCREENING emissions from several discrete points. We know that potential pollution in a coal powered plant comes from the smoke stake and the air and water output. If addressed at the point of initial design, it is relatively INEXPENSIVE to design filtering and screening systems that PREVENT the emission of hotter than ambient air and hotter than ambient water and particulate matter (coal dust). Contrast this with controlling emissions from the existing private car fleet. With the car fleet you have millions of traveling emitters. With MODERN coal powered electric plants you have a limited number of potential emission points. Engineers can and HAVE designed effective ways to pre-screen and pre-treat any emissions to protect the outside environment.
There is agreement that America has a great deal of coal. Today, we can use machinery to get that coal out of the earth and therefore we don’t need to risk the safety of human coal miners. I have seen estimates of a 300 year coal supply. Jim Holman says that should be reduced to 31 years. Fine, 31 years is a very long time in science.
We have a safe and CLEAN source of electric power—-modern coal powered electric power plants.
Turning to Dean and the Clear the Air crowd, we see that they have made extreme and undocumented assertions. This is the sign that these people aie propagandists, not people looking for solutions in good faith.When President Bush suggested that America develop coal powered plants as sources of energy, the American public scoffed. The American public has been conditioned to believe that COAL IS BAD. This is not true. Properly designed plants, plants which are already in operation, can be virtually emission free.
Lastly, I gave direct links to the extensive research being done on wind power. Research into alternative power sources is going full blast. I support it fully. I support funding for legitimate research into any and all public health issues. I support research into alternative energy sources. My friends in the Power Society are literally working day and night to find ways to use wind power and solar power effectively. They will hop on the first breakthrough with great aclarity.
The people that I call “environmentalists” are people who are propagandists. They have values which are in conflict with those of the American people. They are often anti-scientific, anti-progress, anti-growth even anti-human. They are willing to put the interests of several bird species above that of children dying from malaria. They are often people who are not happy with the results of the industrial revolution of the 19th Century. They have fantasies of returning to a bucolic past where everything was “wonderful.” They are willing to injure the interests of the Third World, much like the husband in the Taming of the Shrew, for the sake of their idea of environmental purity.
Teddy Roosevelt would be a conservationist today, but not an environmentalist.
It would be nice if studies put out by the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council were treated with as much skepticism as those put out by Clear the Air. Those interested in looking at how you can “lie with facts” might read How To Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff.
The lesson is to check with who’s funding the study and asking whether they would have anything to gain by certain facts being skewed one way or another. Sadly, more often than not, they do.