The EEA (European Environment Agency) says air pollution cost up
to €169 billion in 2009.
Carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions contribute the most to the overall damage costs, approximately
€63 billion in 2009. Air pollutants, which contribute to acid rain and can
cause respiratory problems - sulphur dioxide (SO2), ammonia (NH3), particulate
matter (PM10) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) - were found to cause €38-105 billion
of damage a year.
Okay, these are
made up costs so we don't need to treat them seriously. What we need to take more seriously is the extent to which air pollution may be used as yet another publicly-funded scam. Below are Defra's National
Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) charts for sulphur dioxide, ammonia,
particulate matter (PM10) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) plotted annually. In the
UK, all but ammonia are declining significantly and even ammonia is sloping
downwards as we raise fewer cows. I'll ignore CO2 as it isn't a pollutant. As
the basic biosphere nutrient, higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are more
likely to be beneficial than harmful.
As for the more
genuine pollutants, well the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee
report for 2009/10 had this to say about UK air pollution:-
Poor air
quality reduces the life expectancy of everyone in the UK by an average of
seven to eight months and up to 50,000 people a year may die prematurely
because of it. Air pollution also causes significant damage to ecosystems.
Despite these facts being known air quality is not seen as a priority across
government and the UK is failing to meet a range of domestic and European
targets.
So that's seven to
eight month knocked off your stint in a care home is it? Not quite disaster
territory I'd say and presumably the health effects are going in the right
direction.
Air quality is obviously important, but what's the real game being played here, the one behind the idiot headline? It seems pretty obvious that these fantasy costs and exaggerated health issues are connected with propping up the green energy game by conflating it with air pollution control measures. Yet even the official figures show that air quality improvements already achieved can hardly be due to wind turbines or electric vehicles. But the EU has invested a lot of money and kudos in climate politics, as has the UN. One worth watching I think.
Sulphur dioxide |
Ammonia |
Particulates (PM10) |
Nitrogen oxides |
4 comments:
Strange. Didn't I see this somewhere else, by an AKH?
JH - crikey he must have nicked it.
... is not seen as a priority across government ...
Ooh one of my favourite phrases, "a priority". It's meaningless. Departments can have hundreds of them. An objective being simply "a priority" is meaningless. It's PR talk. No committee which wants to have an effect should write that way.
JP - I agree, but what would they do without meaningless phrases?
Post a Comment