Portland's dirty little secret is in the air

Randy Leonard

Car_exhaust_1
A commenter on Jack Bog’s site wrote yesterday that my support for biofuels indicated to him that I may be suffering from a “brain tumor”.

Unfortunately (for me), having lived and worked in Portland my entire life, he may be right.

A front page article in today's Sunday Oregonian, entitled "There's danger in the air", details the increased cancer risks to Portlanders due to significantly more gasoline engine air pollution in our fair city than most anywhere else in the US (with the exception of the Bronx).

According to the Oregonian article

"The DEQ's goal is for no more than one person in a million to get cancer from breathing the air, environmental officials say. But typical Portlanders breathing local air throughout their life run a risk of cancer 66 times higher."

To further make the point of how polluted Portland’s air is from gasoline use the article points out that

"The average Portland resident is almost 10,000 times more likely to get cancer breathing local air than to win the jackpot in Powerball, DEQ figures show. "

An ordinance I proposed last summer -unanimously adopted by the city council- requires that effective July 1, 2007 all diesel sold in Portland contain at least 5% biodiesel and that all gasoline sold after that date contain at least 10% ethanol.

There is little question that diesel powered vehicles using biodiesel as their fuel source have enormous economic and environmental benefits over gasoline powered vehicles that use either the technology of E-85, hybrids or both.

However, the reality is that 97% of the vehicles in the US today are gasoline powered. Their use of gasoline as a fuel contributes significantly to the US’s reliance on foreign oil while simultaneously polluting Portland’s air with lethal carcinogens.

Gasoline that contains ethanol dilutes lethal toxins contained in gasoline, such as benzene, by the percentage of ethanol in each gallon of gasoline combusted.

Ethanol does not contain as much energy as gasoline and requires nearly as much energy to create as it produces. Biodiesel, on the other hand, contains more energy per gallon than does pure petroleum gasoline and is efficiently produced here in Oregon. Biodiesel contains two and one half times more energy than is required to create it.

Therefore, the energy used to create ethanol should not be in the form of petroleum based products. Ethanol can and should be produced using exclusively biodiesel…one renewable fuel source being used to create another renewable fuel source.

Because gasoline engines are a reality, Portland’s ordinance continues the State of Oregon’s requirement of 10% ethanol in each gallon of gasoline sold.

Some argue that it is none of the Portland City Council’s business to regulate fuel sold within our city.

I emphatically disagree.

For the sake of our economy and our citizen’s health I believe it is appropriate for the City of Portland to mandate that vehicle fuel sold within Portland contain products that enhance our economy AND protect our health.

  • (Show?)

    Randy,

    First, have you read the recent Consumer Reports story on ethanol? If we are to believe this story, then using ethanol based fuel in our cars will not decrease total emissions at all, since most vehicles get worse mileage with a 10% ethanol mix.

    I don't question your ability to regulate the mix of fuel sold within Portland's borders, but I do question the wisdom of this regulatory solution. If we've learned anything from the past quarter century of regulatory reform, it is that mandates are ineffective regulatory mechanisms, and providing market incentives for socially desirable behavior works far more efficiently.

    Rather than mandating a mix, why not provide economic incentives to consumers and producers by (for example) lowering the tax on ethanol based fuel?

  • Randy Leonard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Paul- I have read both sides of that debate. However, the working group that helped me craft Portland's ordinance believed that the argument favoring adding ethanol to gasoline to reduce carcinogens vs allowing 100% petroleum gasoline was stronger. After considerable discussion and analysis, I too believe the balance tips towards adding 10% ethanol to gasoline in order to reduce carcinogens from tailpipe emissions.

    As far as the mandate goes, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

    There has been no significant reduction in air pollution (from all sources), water pollution or more efficient engines without government intervention.

    The moneyed interests lobbying forces win out time and again over good public policy.

  • (Show?)

    Rather than mandating a mix, why not provide economic incentives to consumers and producers by (for example) lowering the tax on ethanol based fuel?

    Question: Does the city of Portland have a gas tax?

  • Randy Leonard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No.

  • (Show?)

    If you're a mentally ill man urinating on a tree, the Bronx is a lot safer than Portland.

  • KISS (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Always reaching for the stars and ignoring reality. Most studies I've read, say that most pollution occurs from people too poor to maintain their cars, and or, not affording the luxuries of diesel Volkswagens and such. Feel good legislation seldom rectifies a problem...but allows one to pat his own back.

  • JB Eads (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Paul writes: "mandates are ineffective regulatory mechanisms."

    It shouldn't be either/or. Mandates mixed with incentives can be extremely effective. One point the article made is that the state's tailpipe emissions standards -- which is a mandate -- is helping the problem, although obviously there's a need for better clean air protection.

    On the broader subject of energy independence, the vast majority of renewable growth is happening in the states that have renewable portfolio standards, which again are mandates. Incentives can be valuable to be sure -- but if the market alone could solve this problem, we'd see more evenly distributed renewable energy growth.

    At the federal level, there are also many incentives that work against renewable development; the majority of tax breaks contained in the last energy bill went to traditional coal and fossil fuel development and the oil and gas industry. Exactly the wrong approach.

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't question your ability to regulate the mix of fuel sold within Portland's borders, but I do question the wisdom of this regulatory solution. If we've learned anything from the past quarter century of regulatory reform, it is that mandates are ineffective regulatory mechanisms, and providing market incentives for socially desirable behavior works far more efficiently.

    History tells us that the air & water of the sixties would anwer you question when considering how things have changed since the Clean Air & Water Acts, unless you want your rivers burning perpetually, the skys in a grey hugh, and our children suffering cancers, and lung issues we would otherwise have not seen. // Dan Grady

    Rather than mandating a mix, why not provide economic incentives to consumers and producers by (for example) lowering the tax on ethanol based fuel? //

    Ah yes the tax break that is a new commodity for the trading, and with oil profits historic for all industry on the planet, I'm sure the oil men in the Oval Office will jump right on that idea. Tax credits that may only be used by the venture capital shown to already been specifically spent is of the kind yet to be passed at the state governments, or federally.// Dan Grady

    Posted by: paul | Oct 29, 2006 1:25:56 PM

    Am I a socialist, a liberal, or a pragmatist when it comes to providing an enviroment our next generations thrive in. Is breathing good air, drinking abundant, clean water in a preserved natural surroundings that makes me proud to show my children a Republican virtue?? Really?? Does anyone really think so??

    I would say that a Republican to be elected will have to fall in line with the RNC, meaning they see our enviroment as part and parcel of their political capital meant for improving their political position, meant to be spent!!!

    Does Oregon really need to be reminded of that with a bumper salmon run just a few short years ago, now a crisis???

    Happy Thoughts;

    Dan Grady

  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Assuming the 10% ethanol mix reduces the carcinogens in the automobile exhaust by 10%, is my risk of getting cancer breathing Portland Air only 9,000 times more likely than winning Powerball?

    Will the decrease in carcinogenic emissions be offset by the increased fuel consumption resulting from the lower fuel economy that results from E90? Not to mention the pollution resulting from all that new corn production: even the Greenies in France are skeptical on biofuels.

    How do the odds of getting cancer breathing air in Portland improve if I got every number except the Powerball? Is that really a valid metric? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask how many voters can dance on the roof of Randy's RV?

    Does enviropandering persuade the informed environmentalists (Lin Qiao: please chime in!), or is the biofuels ordinance simply intended to impress the uninformed?

    Make Portland Weirder (more weird)?

  • (Show?)

    So.... if the city doesn't have a gas tax, we can't exactly lower it.

    We could, of course, create a new gas tax - but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't make Paul happy.

    While I'm all for market-based incentives for good behavior, I think there's also a place for basic regulation. For example, no one would suggest that we should simply reduce taxes on pharmaceutical companies that had lower death rates from their products. No, we regulate. (This isn't nearly the same thing, but you get my drift.)

    By the same token, the challenge with ethanol and biodiesel is that the market has a chicken-and-egg problem. No one will buy biodiesel until enough people are selling it. No will sell biodiesel until enough people are buying it.

    The way out is to force the initial creation of a market. Tri-Met's biodiesel move is a good start (though 5% isn't enough), as are the moves on the city's fleet. But the big kahuna is Randy's biofuels regulation. By simply passing the new rule, there's a guarantee of a small market - enough to allow willing producers to get funding to invest in machinery and systems.

    Is there anybody out there arguing that a movement to biofuels won't be good for our environment, our economy, and our foreign policy?

    If we can agree that a shift to locally produced no-war fuel is a good thing, then why not give it the jumpstart it needs to break out of the chicken-and-egg paradox?

  • The Farmer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Randy,

    I want to commend you on your foresight and political intelligence. Ethanol and biodiesel mandates is the only way to open up a market for farmers who have struggled for over 80 years against the oligopolistic competitive forces of the crude oil industry. Big Oil companies who pay Oil lobbyists have one goal: gain 100% market share for the crude oil industry. Given that farmers are the only other competitor to Big Oil, it makes since for an oil lobbyist to be an Ag lobbyist. I suspect this is the reason why Oregon can't seem to pass renewable fuel legislation in Salem.

    For those who were sleeping in the class room: OPEC is a cartel - they can turn off the spigot and you have to pay $50, $100, maybe someday $500 per barrel for your fuel. What keeps you from paying $500 per barrel? Hello - the US Military involvement in an area with over 83% of the known crude oil reserves. We have to pay tribute through extortion by these regimes. Just wait until the West will have to pay a good portion of our treasury to OPEC countries when Iran gets the weapon thanks to our Russian and Chinese pals. Atilla the Hun used the same extortion tactics to bring about the fall of Rome! And you fools out there whine and complain about the misinformation from Big Oil - ethanol is a net energy loser. Well I hate to break it to those who didn't listen in chemistry class - all energy that is transformed into one state to another state loses energy in the conversion process! You get 78% of the energy out of a barrel of crude because you have to use energy from the same barrel to break it down into components. But because Big Oil has 150 billion in profit reasons to pick your pocket you don't here any facts about their industry.

    Hello out there - ethanol and biodiesel to put simply is a collection of solar power by food and fiber plants - plain and simple. I don't hear about the energy conversion ratio to make your bread! Now to make the bread energy ratio better, you folks just need to grow your own wheat, grind it, and cook it yourselves. In this way you will not use any liquid energy to make bread except from your inefficient brain that could be utilize doing something more efficient like figuring out a way to make ethanol from wood so you don't get extorted by your money hungry anti-Christian enemies.

    Now we have the Portland economic engine humming with dino petro from the Middle East and Venezuela. I ask, where is Portland heading without the dino fuel from OPEC and Big Oil? Bloody extortion from our treasury. Yet, right now we continue to pay farmers in Oregon and Washington State to grow nothing on 2 million acres of farm land.

    Randy Leonard is the only politician with enough brass to save your sorry *?!#. You better listen to the 'ol boy and stuff your mouth with that cheap bread you currently don't have to labor over. I said cheap bread which given an analysis of the cost, dino fuel is currently the largest cost of getting the bread to your store. Gee, I bet you didn't even realize that we eat energy from the Middle East as well. Scary isn't it? Oregon with no oil wells, Portland citizens paying Oregon farmers to let their ground grow weeds, an then breath all that toxic air from all that overpriced fuel from Big Oil companies who's profits hit the moon. Scary as hell itself! Happy Halloween, Portland. If your stupid enough not to follow Randy's leadership, then you deserve the very hell you've created for yourselves. Your enemies will not be kind to you nor your women.

    No. The best direction is to make our own energy, bring our fighting boys back, and use simple diplomacy with our enemies. Tell OPEC countries what the new reality is - we don't need your bloody oil and you don't need our bloody wheat. With the proper diplomatic leverage that our biofuel program will give us, I'm sure our enemies will come to an understanding with us given their empty stomachs and no money to buy their weapons. That's the power of ethanol and biodiesel mandates. Now we just have to get the money whores from NYC to believe that the ROI is just as high for biofuels as it is for investing in Big Oil. Unfortunately for the money whores, ROI's are lower given that farmers work in perfectly competitive markets and have no incentive to cheat and distort markets like the Big Oil boys who sleep with OPEC.

  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ethanol is a ecological loser: the only reason it remains the biofuel of choice is the powerful congressmen from the Corn Belt and their mega-corp farm interests. It is possible to make a coherent argument in favor of incentivizing the market to produce local biodiesel. But a mandate?

    If the goal is to clean up after ourselves (environmentally speaking), we can't just stop with the air we breathe. Why not a mandate that all milk sold in Portland must be organic milk? That would level the playing field for those dairymen who aren't certain they could compete with non-organic producers.

    Or how about a requirement that every box of disposable diapers must include an equal number of cloth diapers? Sure it will drive up diaper costs on new parents (the selfish can sell the cloth diapers on E-Bay), but a large number of them will eventually switch over to cloth diapers (if the City Council will simply give them a nudge in the right direction)....Imagine the tens of millions of poopie diapers that we can divert from a landfill, just by taking a principled stand here in Portland.

    What's important is to send a message. That message is: Commissioner Leonard is running for reelection (if not for Mayor).

  • Sid Anderson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Shouldn't Christine and Ted be getting together and suing the Feds on the benzene issue? The fact that Washington and Oregon don't have the right to pass regulations that would force the local refineries in Washington state, or any other place that is selling petrol to WA and OR, to refine the cancer causing benzene out of the fuel is outrageous. The whole "buying pollution credits" deal is the biggest scam ever, and people shouldn't stand for it.

  • (Show?)

    It is possible to make a coherent argument in favor of incentivizing the market to produce local biodiesel. But a mandate?

    I'll refer you to my comments above (which you clearly didn't read) and add one more thing:

    When you're talking about trying to create a market, you can do one of two things. Either you can create a mandate that kickstarts the demand side of things -- or you shovel a bunch of money at the supply side, and basically subsidize production.

    On ethanol, the feds have been doing the latter for years. People grown corn, produce ethanol, cash the checks - and nobody uses the stuff.

    Instead, Randy's idea is to do a SMALL mandate that will generate a market. Then, the supply will materialize through the power of Adam Smith's invisible hand. By creating demand, we produce the incentive for venture capitalists to invest in producing supply. "Look! Customers! Quick, sell 'em something!"

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If Portland wants to use ethanol mixed gasoline, I don't mind. If they'd like to tell themselves they're doing something ecologically sound, they're wrong. If the issue is carcinogens, let's start out with the actual risk factor before we start talking about risk factor increase multiples. This is one of the oldest statistical BSs going. A huge factor increase can very easily be factually nearly imperceptible. I don't have the numbers at hand to parse them out, but I'd sure rather see them ebfore I start going ga-ga.

    Ethanol/gasoline mixes can have serious consequences for a gasoline engine. This is especially true of highly tuned computer driven engines designed for high fuel economy. I seriously doubt the wisdom of doing something because it feels good, I applaud the wisdom of doing things that are backed by science and engineering. The object is to improve the situation rather than aggravate it. Setting up a situation of decreasing milage and interfering with the tune of an engine is a recipe for more crud per mile traveled, I don't think that's the object.

  • Art Lewellan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Automobile technology has advanced beyond which fuels simply burn cleanest. The state-of-the-art is the hybrid that can be converted into a Plug-in Hybrid by adding a larger battery pack. Toyota and Ford hybrids are of this catagory. GM hybrids, the Silverado and Saturn VUE, cannot convert to Plug-in Hybrid. It's a shame that Ford's lead in automobile technology is losing to GM's inferior product.

    The battery pack offers many advantages. Their weight lowers vehicle center-of-gravity to improve stability and handling, a major safety factor. The Plug-in can run electrically for more miles and moderate speeds, especially beneficial in neighborhood urban settings. Electric cars are generally less prone to speeding, another safety factor.

    The batteries are a perfect match with rooftop photovoltiac solar panels, forming a homepower source that will prove invaluable in an emergency to say the least. When thousands connect a hybrid power system to the grid, how far from public power is that?

    In fact, plug-in hybrids offer more benefits, advantages and applicabilities than hydrogen fuel cell. Plug-in hybrids have the advantage on land-use and development. Since their electric-only miles is still limited, they encourage short drives to patronize local economies which over time develop more destinations that become accessable without having to drive; walking and bicycling become more an option, and mass transit more practical to structure.

    Fuels schmuels. The Plug-in Hybrid in effect achieves 500+MPG.

  • bluetick (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I would like to know more about the methodolgy behind the study. Last time I heard DEQ's major site for reading air quality was on Sauvie Island, which is in the flight path of aircraft taking off from PDX as well as right on the ship channel. So vapors from both of those sources may effect this study. We don't know, but we do know that both ships and plane give off much more exhaust than cars do. How much of that is benzene. We are not being told. Secondly if cancer is the problem then maybe we should look at chlorinated by-product in tap water. According to an EPA study chlorinated by-products in tap water may cause anywhere from 2 to 18% of bladder cancers plus a host of other medical problems.

    <h3></h3>
  • (Show?)

    This confirms what I have felt at gut level the first week I spent in Portland six years ago. The air here is polluted as ****.

    Everyone always poo pooing me saying, "oh NO it is so much WORSE in (fill in city here). I feel like I'm choking on car exhaust much of the time walking around, ANYWHERE in this town. Though I'm originally from Humboldt Co, I've never had such a hard time breathing the air in any other city I've lived in (Minneapolis, Las Vegas).

    I love so much about Portland, but reading this, plus the fact that I know my home is at action levels for radon pollution, I really am increasingly afraid for my long-term health and that of my daughter.

    Everyone here debating the fine points of this and that... I just feel like, it's confirmed what I've felt the whole time here: the air in Portland is polluted as ****.

    This is what I want to know: HOW DO WE MAKE IT STOP??? quickly. radically. thoroughly.

    seems to me like it is something that needs to be attacked HARD on several fronts.

  • STeve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Some argue that it is none of the Portland City Council’s business to regulate fuel sold within our city."

    FIrst off, we have a Police Retirement fund bleeding the city dry, potholes in the roads, water/swer bills that are the highest in the country, schools needing funding, way too many condos with tax exemptions and you decide fuel mixture is important.

    This is after the Feds and State are already addressing it. Your priorities are really interesting, maybe if you took time out from reading a couple of alternative fuel books and watching an Al Gore movie or two and actually looked at what affects the citizens of Portland, you may be surprised.

    Alternatively, why not have City Council pass a resolution on benzene emissions - that will fix it.

  • IndependentAndy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Leonard,

    Here is a quiz for you...think quick. Question: What is the most common tree in Portland (or any other Oregon city for that matter)? Answer: the Douglas-fir that graces our license plates. Sad but true. Don't whine about the quality of our air until you and the rest of the politicos are willing to step up and invest funds in tree planting that can help clean our air. Pollution from automobiles is a sacred cow in this state...no one wants to touch it. Planting trees is an easy, and relatively cheap (compared to other options) step we could take right now...if only we could find some politicians with backbones instead of lousy TV commericals and questionable ethics.

  • (Show?)

    Sorry, I'm a stupid American and busy post-halloween party and tonight's a school night... WHY again don't we have the type of gasoline in Oregon they use in CA? Given... CA blew it with MTBE... but ok, reading here:

    Since January 1, 2004, California's gasoline has been blended with ethanol instead of MTBE (methyl-tertiary butyl ether) as an oxygenate to help the gas burn more cleanly. During the summer of 2006, other states are also changing to MTBE-free gasoline because of the problems that additive has caused in water supplies...
    Shoot, I'd pay $4 a gallon and/or ride my bike, if it meant my family was significantly less at risk for cancer.

    I seriously feel like the whole concept of Portland as a "green city" -- is crap.

  • JB Eads (unverified)
    (Show?)

    IndeAndy-- I'm all for planting trees -- just planted one last week -- but there is political will to go after auto pollution, which is what the Governor's tailpipe regulations were all about.

  • (Show?)

    how much air does a tree actually clean?
    a sapling?

    how about turn downtown into a car-free area (like in European cities), increase public transporation, create a network of safe off-street bike paths, tear up parking lots, and THEN talk about planting trees?

  • Buzz (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Only 24 comments before Erika suggested we BAN THE DEVIL AUTOMOBILE. Not quite a BlueOregon record, but representative of why having everybody play Left Field is bad for the game.

    First, they came for my Fois Grois, and I said nothing. Then, they came for my French Fries, and I merely watched. Finally, they came for my automobile, and it was too late.

  • (Show?)

    Actually, Erika didn't propose "ban[ning] the devil automobile." She suggested a model that's common to many of the world's great cities -- a small area of town where our public spaces are for people, not dominated by through traffic that adds noise, pollution, etc.

    Get out of cyberspace and go visit Europe, or Bogota, or many other places. Often, those are the lowest vacancy areas of town, because they're the most desirable. Then come back and tell us whether you'd like that sort of vibrant urban space for Portland.

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As I recall from the article, one major source of the problem is that the Alaskan oil we use on the west coast (and that the Prez wants to increase production of) is naturally higher in benzene, a substance so carcinogenic it required a special training for handling back in my lab rat days.

    The article went on to say that the benzene CAN be removed--but that it costs money at the refineries to do so, i.e. oil companies oppose shouldering the expense. Finally, according to the article, programs that allow polution "swapping" allow polluters to put all their toxins into single markets, like Oregon/Washington, by showing they are below federal standards overall, i.e. we get screwed.

    I'm generally supportive of alternative fuels, especially if they help farmers and take $$$ away from the middle east, but another solution seems suggested here: create minimum national standards for benzene and force the oil companies to meet those standards by taking it out at the refinery. If the Feds won't protect us, create state or city minimums. Given the record profits of late, the oil giants can certainly afford it.

    So how about it?

  • spicey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    speaking of bad air, anyone know how many medical waste incinerators there are in the City of Portland? I have heard of one, but if there are more, they should be shut down.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Erika how about turn downtown into a car-free area (like in European cities), JK: Why would we want to emulate lower income cities (compared to US averages). Be careful that you don’t emulate the things that cause their low income.

    Erika increase public transporation, JK: Public transportation does not save energy (pollution is caused by energy use) compared to small cars. See: See Table 2.10 of TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 25-2006. ( http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Edition25_Full_Doc.pdf )

    Then there is bus pollution: The truth is that Metro buses pour out much more air pollution than your average car and much, much more than new cars. According to numbers from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Union of Concerned Scientists (an environmental advocacy group based in Cambridge, Mass.), a modern diesel transit bus puts out over half a ton of smog-creating chemicals every year. Mile for mile, the bus pollutes nearly 60 times more than a new passenger car like a Ford Taurus or a Nissan Sentra. (From: http://www.seattleweekly.com/diversions/0322/diversions-bus.php )

    Would TriMet like to supply their pollution numbers, including the older buses that are still (or were last year) on the streets?

    Erika tear up parking lots, and THEN talk about planting trees? JK: That is a great idea - drive away the last of the customers from downtown, leaving only government workers. Then we can just ignore that terribly polluted area.

    Thanks JK

  • (Show?)

    JK, I don't know about high income vs. low income. I haven't lived in Europe for the past 20 years, so my memory is dated, but what I remember (in France, Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden) is a place where the food was excellent, the standard of living was high, vacation time was generous, and health care was free. Oh, and downtown of major cities was foot-traffic only (I believe bike traffic was allowed but restricted).

    Regarding public transportation: I hate bus exhaust also. It would probably be better to have more trains. And bikes. I did mention bikes, right? Also, have looked around Portland lately? Have you noticed how many great efficient new cars are driving around and how many HUGE SPEWING SUVS? What's in YOUR driveway? Parked next to your kid's school?

    If it were fast and easy to get downtown sans car, I doubt that "customers" would be driven away. Most of the time I drive downtown anyway, I'm kicking myself for doing so, as I'm crusing this way and that, trying to avoid busses, trains, and pedestrians as I'm looking for a parking space. But I'm as lazy and habitual as anyone.

    We are so stuck in the force of habit. It seems like the only way change is going to happen is if it is pushed HARD. Otherwise everyone just kicks and screams and whines about "I don't wanna change. The world is gonna fall apart if I have to change." waaah. waah.

  • (Show?)

    JimK--what kind of crazy metric compares bus pollution to car pollution? Of COURSE the bus puts out more! It's got a larger engine and weighs much more. So per-mile comparisons are pointless, unless you compare PASSENGER MILES.

    Let's rephrase the question, shall we? Does a typical Tri Met bus produce more or less pollution than 150 cars? (Tri Met claims they take the place of 254 trips; let's be conservative about the admittedly inconclusive way they figured that, and drop it to 150).

    And I'm wondering--did anyone donate to the troll fund on behalf of Jack Bog's mindless comment?

  • (Show?)

    one more thing. price of gas should be much higher than it is.

    Money from gas sales should fund the aforementioned revamp of the city. and also to help pay for the health care of those stricken with cancer, and to help pay for any other environmental destruction burning of fossil fuels creates.

    It is either pay now, or pay later. Seems like we want to have our cake and eat it, and live our "lifestyles" at the expense of our kids' health, and on everyone elses dime. That's pretty lame. How about, let's figure the REAL cost into the price at the pump. I wonder how much that would be.

  • askquestions1st (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Randy -

    While I remain hopeful that biodiesel can prove to be an important fuel, you and the more rabid advocates need to be fair that the jury is out on one particular aspect of biodiesel and air pollution. Some of us would like to see our elected officials more carefully address this issue before committing us fully to a biodiesel future.

    In my reading as a non-specialist I have found unrefuted arguments that currently available biodiesel fuels result in increased nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. Although advocates continue to promise a solution to this problem, unfortunately the science has not yet produced that solution.

    NOx emissions from internal combustion engines are one important contributor to low-level ozone. The evolving science indicates that low-level ozone due to internal combustion engines may be a key cause of a host of health related problems currently believed to be caused by inflammatory processes in the body. Ask any one suffering from asthma (whose incidence has been dramatically increasing) about the life-threatening nature of inflammatory processes known to be directly and dangerously aggravated by ozone or, as the recent science indicates, artherosclerosis-based heart disease.

    I would like to ask, in all honesty out of a desire for more information, if you can point us to any literature which offers serious scientific discussion why the increased NOx emissions of biodiesel fuels should not be a worry right now? I have been disappointed in my brief scan of the literature that biodiesel advocates have largely framed their arguments by focusing on reductions in toxic particulate emissions and not discussing toxic (e.g. not greenhouse gas) gaseous emissions.

  • Randy Leonard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    AQ1- The EPA mandate effective January 1, 2007 for passenger diesel engines (referred to as "Tier 2 Bin 5") require the near elimination of the NOx emissions from diesel powered vehicles.

    Given the research you have done I am sure you are also aware that biodiesel produces dramatically lower green house gases than either gasoline or petroleum diesel.

  • Paul C (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "biodiesel contains two and one half times more energy that is used to create it" ...might I ask where this stat comes from? If true, we need to grow more canola oil here in Oregon and make our own biodiesel.

    We are fortunate enough to drive an '03 VW diesel powered Jetta that gets 50 to 55 mpg. We need to encourage the car makers to produce more of these vehicles.

    Try to buy a new or used car like the one we have. Nearly impossible. Have you heard of the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car"? How about "Who Killed the Small (Bio) Diesel Car"???

  • Randy Leonard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There are a number of studies of the energy output of biodiesel. In citing 2.5 times energy created in for every unit of energy consumed, I used a very conservative number.

    In an analysis done by the US Dept of Ag and the Dept of Energy, they actually reported that for every unit of energy used in the production of biodiesel 3.2 units of energy are created.

  • askquestions1st (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Councillor Leonard -

    I fail to see how your comment addresses my question:

    The EPA mandate effective January 1, 2007 for passenger diesel engines (referred to as "Tier 2 Bin 5") require the near elimination of the NOx emissions from diesel powered vehicles.

    Just because the EPA mandates it, doesn't have much to do with the physics or the fact it will happen on the ground. Do they mandate it such that vehicle makers reach this goal (what is "near elimination") when production engines run hydrocarbon diesel? How does the mandate address vehicles running biodiesel?

    What is the causal link between EPA mandates, and the practice of filling vehicles per PDX City Commission-passed city codes with biodiesel that actually insures that NOx emissions are nearly eliminated?

    January 1, 2007 is 62 days away. Has the technology been fully developed to accomplish this and will it be deployed on each vehicle PDX choses to run on biodiesel, with increased NOx emissions, by the time that vehicle starts running biodiesel?

    I haven't found anything substantive that answers these particular questions. And it would seem it would have been relatively simple and straightforward to address these questions about the day-to-day reality rather than pointing to an EPA mandate which may or may not have any meaning.

    Given the research you have done I am sure you are also aware that biodiesel produces dramatically lower green house gases than either gasoline or petroleum diesel.

    I think I at least hinted at an awareness of that fact in my question where I limited the question to toxic gaseous emissions. I'm as concerned about emissions that cause direct damage to human health (after all, that is the theme of your lead-off post) as I am about environmental damage. There is not necessarily a fair or appropriate trade-off between the two.

    I'm know your response plays well in certain circles in PDX. But frankly, I've never found critical thinking or wisdom to be the strong suit of PDX or many NW governing officials.

    And although I certainly am cheered by your comment that n an analysis done by the US Dept of Ag and the Dept of Energy, they actually reported that for every unit of energy used in the production of biodiesel 3.2 units of energy are created., how many square miles and what kind of cropland are needed to supply the biodiesel needed by the population of our state? If that cropland were put into biodiesel production, what would the impact be on the cost of other economic activities that require land (e.g. housing, cost of water if these crops had to be irrigated)?

    This is not a criticism of biodiesel because I haven't been able to find much that addresses these issues. But some of us would like to know these kind of numbers which address the reality of a biodiesel economy as we evaluate the role of biodiesel in our future.

  • Randy Leonard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The new Tier 2 Bin 5 regs for diesel emissions mean a 97% reduction in NOx emissions...the standard does not care what the fuel source is.

    Auto diesel engine manufacturers have ceased production of the current generation of diesel engines to reengineer their diesel engines and emissions/exhaust systems to what are now the highest and toughest standards in the world for diesel engine emissions.

    Your concern about NOx emissions of petroleum and biodiesel is a concern that all interested in this technology (myself included) have shared. Those issues have been addressed by the very tough new federal standards.

    If you still have questions I would urge you to spend some time reading the links in this and my previous post. Those links will lead you to yet other links that, if you are sincerely interested in answering your many concerns, should reassure you that biodiesel is better for the environment than either gasoline or petroleum based diesel.

  • (Show?)

    Kari,

    Actually, I'd support a gas tax. It's a good way to reduce consumption. And why not have a lower tax on gasoline/ethanol mix? That is precisely the kind of incentivized system that has been shown to work so well. I also agree with JB Eads--we need a mix of mandates and incentives.

    My worry about this proposal specifically is, from what I have read, it won't reduce emissions . This is critically important, and I'm happy to be corrected. But if vehicles have to use more total fuel to travel a given distance with a 90/10 mix, and the total amount of petroleum based fuel they burn is therefore equal or higher under this ordinance, I simply don't see the logic.

    If all this is about is increasing ethanol production, then Randy and I will have to politely disagree. The City of Portland is not in the business of promoting the production of ethanol in Iowa, Idaho, or rural Oregon (in my opinion). That's not why I vote for a member of city council.

    Randy wrote: As far as the mandate goes, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
    There has been no significant reduction in air pollution (from all sources), water pollution or more efficient engines without government intervention.
    The moneyed interests lobbying forces win out time and again over good public policy.

    This depends on what "government intervention" means. Setting up a system of incentives for companies and drivers to pursue more efficient vehicles and gasoline usage certainly involves government.

    The pollution tax credit system is that it has been a very successful way to reduce emissions from power plants, so much so that it has been incorporated into the Kyoto protocols.

    Reactions to that system initially were very similar to the posting from Dan Grady, but now much ofthe environmental community recognizes the contribution of market based incentives, along with government mandates, as a way of reducing emissions.

    == To Kari: this is only very loosely about biofuels, it is about ethanol. And yes, there are studies which show that the production of corn-based ethanol is a net energy loser, drawing particularly on petroleum products for fertilizer, production, and transport.

    To The Farmer: it will never happen. If OPEC tried to ratchet the price that high, one of the countries would defect in order to gain market share. OPEC has been unable to hold a firm line on oil production since its inception.

  • The Farmer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Leonard, never say never. An "Atilla of OPEC" could emerge and "coerce" the OPEC tribes together resulting in a global recession or even a "free fall" of the Western World economies. (Chavez who supplies 10% of the US fuel supply has done his best and gives his best kisses to the President of Iran!)

    However, for good humor and given my fantasy of OPEC's ability to shut off the spigot; we must thank Tri-Met for their decision to now use a 5% biodiesel fuel blend - at least 5% of the buses in Portland would still run (given upstream Northwest feedstocks as well as local processing of biofuels).

    But to be serious, Mr. Leonard, Portland needs your Renewable Fuel Standard as an insurance policy to mitigate the increasing risk of future fuel supply disruptions.

connect with blueoregon