Environmental Capital - WSJ.com : Green Grunts: Pros and Cons of Military's Alternative-Fuel Quest
2. If our air quality is now significantly better than it was in 1980, should we still panic about air pollution?
Take the U.S. Army’s decade-long search to find new ways to power land units, from jeeps to tanks. One of the centerpieces of those future combat systems is “hybrid electric drive,” which would replace traditional diesel engines with quieter and more efficient electric hybrid motors.Guess what gets blamed: Tree Deaths Allegedly Double in Western U.S. Forests
The upside, Jane’s says, would be lighter vehicles with better fuel efficiency, better crew protection, and built-in electric power to run all kinds of things from field hospitals to new weapons systems. The downsides? None of the proposed new technologies have the proven track record and durability of old-fashioned diesel engines; the battery question in particular still vexes military minds.
That’s one reason the U.S. Army’s replacement for the Hummer will probably stick to regular diesel engines after all (and not, as we suggested earlier, some sort of hybrid.)
Trees in western U.S. forests are dying at twice the rate they were a few decades ago, a new study finds. Researchers think the most likely culprit is the regional impacts of global warming.US air pollution rules allegedly gave Americans an extra five months to live
If this trend in tree deaths continues, it could change the very nature and structure of the forests, with impacts on ecosystems and western communities. It could also further exacerbate global warming, by reducing the amount of carbon stored in the forests.
"When the trees across the West appear to be dying at twice the rate they used to, that's not a good sign," said study team member Mark Harmon of Oregon State University.
Americans have on average an extra five months to live, thanks to environmental regulations that have been cleaning up air pollution.1. How, exactly, could anyone reliably calculate this number?
Between about 1980 and 2000, reductions in fine-particulate air pollution have helped add that much extra time to the average life expectancies of people living in 51 cities nationwide, a new study finds.
In cities that were the most polluted and were cleaned up the most, life expectancies were boosted by about 10 months, according to the study, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.
2. If our air quality is now significantly better than it was in 1980, should we still panic about air pollution?
Posts
3 comments:
People are living 3 years longer in Sweden too.
www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____25831.asp
Except for the people who live in the cold parts of Sweden, they die off earlier and drag down the average.
www.scb.se/templates/pressinfo____194523.asp
Sweden didn't adopt US auto emission standards until the 1989 model year.
www.sae.org/technical/papers/871081
That applied to new cars only, old cars went on polluting well into the 90's.
Yet somehow the Swedes managed to extend their life expectancy 2.8 years between 1970-90, without CAFE standards.
Go figure.
Sorry about the over long weblink - I couldn't get the < a > tag to work
yes and Canadians are living longer too.
Link
They never have had much air pollution up there in the Great White North.
Why are we living longer?
Tuljapurkar et al. examined mortality over the period 1950-1994 in the G7 countries - Canada, France, Germany (excluding the former East Germany), Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
What was found: The authors found that "in every country over this period, mortality at each age has declined exponentially at a roughly constant rate."
Tom, I think I found that co2 science link on your site.
Don't remember though.
Post a Comment