Effect atmosphere in U.S. (P.A 5351 Policy paper) By

           Effect ofCarbon monoxide EmissionFromTransportation in the atmosphere in U.S. (P.A 5351 Policy paper) By Ayodamola Olanipekun  A04780571                                          INTRODUCTION     CARBON MONOXIDE FROM TRANSPORTATION     Carbonmonoxide is being emitted from vehicles as a result of incomplete combustion ofgasoline in engine cylinders.

Combustion is the conversion of the fuel tolower-molecular-weight intermediate hydrocarbons (including olefins andaromatics) and their conversion to aldehydes and ketones, then to Carbonmonoxide. Outdoor concentrations of Carbon monoxide tend to be higher in urbanareas and to increase with the density of vehicles and miles driven. EPA 2000Asays the highest concentrations of carbon monoxide generally occur on weekdaysduring the commuting hours of 7:00–9:00 a.m. and 4:00–6:00 p.m. A lot ofAmericans die each year from carbon monoxide poisoning.

Between 1979 and 1988,11,547 deaths due to accidental CO poisoning were recorded in the UnitedStates. Of these, 6,552 (57%) were due to exposure to motor vehicle exhaust.Increase in vehicles in the 1960s on the road led to increase of carbonmonoxide emission in U.S. Higher level of carbon monoxide emission happens inplaces where there is traffic congestion. Carbon monoxide concentration isusually higher near intersections where traffic volume is highest and vehiclesare more often in an accelerating state leading to higher emissions.  This policy memo will provide furtheralternatives to the Texas state government in designing the stateimplementation plan to meet up the emission requirement by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency to reduce the emission of carbon monoxide fromtransportation.

The responsibility of clean air in U.S is saddled with thestate government. The federal government funds this through the EnvironmentalProtection Agency.    POLICY PROBLEM   The Environmental Protection Agencyreported in 2015 that transportation accounts for 27% of the total sources ofgreenhouse gas emission which is the second most common source of emission. Lightweight vehicles represented the largest percentage (60%) of the total out ofthe 27%. Carbon monoxide from transportation contributes greatly to the badquality of air in the environment which has a life-threatening effect on thepublic.

       HEALTH EFFECTS OF CARBON MONOXIDE      Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless,toxic gas that is a product of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons Carbonmonoxide is one of the harmful substances of the harmful substances emittedmajorly through transportation Breathing in carbon monoxide can causeheadache, dizziness, unconsciousness, nausea and finally death.  High level of exposure to carbon monoxidecauses heart diseases. Emissions from transportation sources contributes greatly to theasthma which has made asthma  a seriousproblem in the United State. Incidences of asthma has been on the increasesince 1980.Over 3,300 people died of asthma in United states in 2009. Asthma is a serious problemin the United States. WHO 2000 says Severe hypoxia due to acute carbonmonoxide poisoning may cause both reversible, short-lasting neurologic deficitsand severe, often delayed neurologic damage.

 The issueof carbon monoxide in the air cannot be over emphasized. U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency, 2012 says vehicle exhaust contributes to 75%of all carbon monoxide emissions in the US and up to 95% of all emissions in UScities. Study shows that vehicles emit carbon monoxide faster when travellingat a low speed. Carbon monoxide poisoning occur majorly during winter.  The diseases attributed to air pollutionposes threat to humanity.

 The quest for improved standard of living hasalso made the issue important. In the United States, according to Schaplowskyet al., 1974 a report from the early 1970s suggested that more than 3800 peopledied annually from accidental and intentional carbon monoxide poisoning.   Schaplowsky et al.

(1974) estimated thatmore than 10?000 people per year in the United States required medicalattention or missed at least 1 day of work in the early 1970s because ofsublethal exposures to Carbon monoxide. A recent study (Hampson, 1998)estimated over 40?000 emergency department visits annually for recognized acutecarbon monoxide poisoning in the United States. Kao, 2005; Iqbal, 2012  argued that carbon monoxide carbon monoxideemission  continues to be the leadingcause of poison-related mortality in the United States. This pollutant ishighly detrimental to the health of the public.    HOW HAS IT BEING OVERTIME?  The rate of car ownership or number of motor vehicleson the road in US has led to the increase in transportation related  emissions. EPA estimates that as at 1998,automobiles contributed 60% of the carbon monoxide, mission controls haveimproved over the past 30 years resulting in a 79% decrease in carbon monoxideambient concentration.

Despite the effort of the EPA to a reduce the emissionof carbon monoxide, some locations still experience concentrations that exceedsthe  health standard. EPA 2001 says thatwith the introduction of emissions controls, particularly automotive catalysts,estimated Carbon monoxide emissions from all sources decreased by 21% from 1980to 1999.       fig 2     EXISTING SOLUTION  Since the 1960’s various strategies have been employed tocontrol automobile emissions in the United States. In 1970, Congress adoptedthe first major Clean Air Act and established the U.S. Several attempts havebeen made to reduce the rate of  emissionsthrough transportation. The Clean Air Act was set up in 1970 to control airpollution in U.S.

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set national ambient airquality standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide. EPA also review the standards toconfirm that they protect the environment. The clean air act has been asuccess. Despite its success, there is still a substantial amount of carbonmonoxide in the air.   EPA has setemissions standards for passenger cars and trucks, on road heavy duty trucksand buses.

Since 1970, EPA has set and implemented emissions standards tocontrol carbon monoxide from passenger vehicles, heavy duty trucks andbuses.  These standards are a part of theprogress and improved air quality they have achieved. Two main strategies arebeing used in the reduction of carbon monoxide. First, authorizing  the Environmental Protection Agency to set national ambient air quality. The secondstrategy was to establish emission control standards in order to bring theiremissions below certain levels, thus allowing attainment and maintenance of theambient air standards.

The act was adjusted in 1977 and further amendment was madein 1990 to tighten the vehicle emission requirement.   Each state is required under the Clean Air Act to submit a StateImplementation Plan (SIP) to the EPA detailing what the state will do to cleanup areas that have been designated as non-attainment, or exceeding pollutionlimits. Included in the SIP are estimates and projections of mobile sourcepollutant emissions inventories.

EPA vehicle emissionsstandards directly sparked the development and implementation of a range oftechnologies.  Emissionsstandards led to the adoption of many modern automotive technologies—computers,fuel injection, and on-board diagnostics—resulting in cars that are not onlymuch cleaner, but also higher quality, more reliable, and more durable.    WHAT MORE CAN BE DONE?           An effective public transportation systemcan be utilized in reducing the number of cars on the road. Investing inpublic transport could serve as a capacity building tool in policy making asregards reducing carbon monoxide emission. Apart from the fact that anefficient system of transportation can reduce the emission of carbon monoxide,Simon 1996 argued that the creation of strong transportation infrastructure is anessential aspect of a community’s development, both in terms of economicactivity and the opportunities available to community members. This policy willencourage more people to make use of the public transit infrastructures.

Investing inpublic transportation system has a cost benefit analysis.According to EPA, for every one dollar spent on programs to reduce emissions,the American people receive nine dollars of benefits to public health and theenvironment. Following the concept of cost benefit analysis, investingin public transportation as a way of reducing their emission of carbon monoxideshould be politically accepted since the gains exceeds the losses which mightbe incurred in the process. Fuel tax andvehicle tax increase is another method of reducing the emission from vehicles. Increasing fuel tax can help in discouragingcar ownership.

         This method is politically practicablebut will seem uncalled for by the public because it might be seen asexploitation by the government. The severity of the issue justifies thisalternative. This alternative is feasible because the benefit supersedes thecost. (IMF 2015; Merrill, et al.

2015 argued that researchers estimate thateliminating fuel subsidies could reduce global greenhouse emissions 11% to 18%.Encouraging the purchase of hybrid vehicles: Hybridvehicles use more than one source of power. Reduction of registration fees forthis type of vehicles will encourage people to buy more of it.  This willconsequently reduce the combustion of fuel and ultimately reduce emissionthrough transportation. Smart growthprinciple of mixed land uses: smart growth refers to developmentpractices that result in more, mixed assessable, multi-modal communities wheretravel distances are shorter, and people have more travel options bike friendlyroads. Smart growth policies reduce per capita vehicle travel and fuelconsumption by 10-30%.

Thisalternative may be quite expensive and may take time. Supportfrom public stakeholders may facilitate the political feasibility of thisalternatives.CONCLUSION           Increase in the number of vehicleownership has compounded the problem of how dirty the air is.

There are manypossible ways to reduce transportation emission. This policy paper proposesseveral policy alternatives for the abatement of emission throughtransportation. Combination of two or more alternatives seems to the best wayof reducing emissions through transportation. The world car free day is an event thatencourages people to move around without their personal cars. Walking ,biking,mass transit are the alternatives used on this event.

Everyday can be a carfree day in U.S if the public transportation is more efficient and                             Reference   1.          Hendryx, Michael; Fedorko, Evan; Halverson, Joel.Pollution Sources and Mortality Rates  across Rural-Urban Areas in theUnited StatesJournal ofRural Health, v26 n4 p383-391 Fall 2010   2.          JohnC.

Soet . The Air Pollution Problem Author(s): Source: Sewage and IndustrialWastes, Vol. 23, No. 7 (Jul.

, 1951), pp. 906-908 Published by: WaterEnvironment Federation Stable.  3.

          Wilkinson,G. H. (1954). Air pollution control in the U.

S.A. practices in three areas, andlegislation.

Municipal Journal, Public Works Engineer and Contractors’ Guide,62  4.          Giles, Luisa V., et al.

“From Good Intentions to ProvenInterventions: Effectiveness of Actions to Reduce the Health Impacts of AirPollution.” Environmental HealthPerspectives, vol. 119, no. 1, 2011, pp. 29–36.

 5.          Medina-Ramón, Mercedes, et al. “Residential Exposure toTraffic-Related Air Pollution and Survival after Heart Failure.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol.

116, no. 4, 2008, pp. 481–485.  6.          Albrinck,B. M.

(2010). An exploratory study of urban transportation and air qualityissues using CO as an indicator (Order No. 1491692).   7.          Bernard, Susan M., et al.

“The Potential Impacts of ClimateVariability and Change on Air PollutionRelated Health Effects in the UnitedStates.” Environmental HealthPerspectives, vol. 109, 2001, pp. 199–209.

  8.          Gwinn, Maureen R., et al. “Meeting Report: Estimating theBenefits of Reducing Hazardous Air Pollutants—Summary of 2009 Workshop and Future Considerations.”Environmental Health Perspectives,vol.

119, no. 1, 2011, pp. 125–130.

  9.          Morriss, Andrew P., et al. “REGULATING BY LITIGATION: THE EPA’SREGULATION OF HEAVYDUTY DIESEL ENGINES.

” AdministrativeLaw Review, vol. 56, no. 2, 2004, pp. 403–518.    10.

       Kreplin, KarlW. “ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AS LEGITIMATION: THE SYMBOLIC POLITICS OF AIRPOLLUTION CONTROL.” Humboldt Journal ofSocial Relations, vol. 8, no. 2, 1981, pp. 11–47.

   11.      Hagevik, George. “Legislating for Air Quality Management:Reducing Theory to Practice.” Law andContemporary Problems, vol. 33, no. 2, 1968, pp. 369–398.

 12.      ROSENBAUM, WALTER. “Greenhouse Regulation: How Capable Is EPA?” Greenhouse Governance:Addressing Climate Change in America, edited by Barry G. Rabe,Brookings Institution Press, 2010, pp. 286–310.

  13.       Buckley, Sarah.”CLEAN AIR POST-HEALTHCARE: THE FEDERALISM LIMITS OF THE SPENDING POWER AND THEFUTURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION.” VirginiaLaw Review, vol. 101, no. 3, 2015, pp. 807–848.

   14.      Dominici, Francesca, et al. “Health Effects of Air Pollution: AStatistical Review.” InternationalStatistical Review / Revue Internationale De Statistique, vol. 71, no. 2,2003, pp.

243–276.    15.      Agnew, W. G. “Automotive Air Pollution Research.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.

Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 307, no. 1489, 1968, pp.

153–181. 16.       Kean,Andrew J. Effects of Vehicle Speed andEngine Load on Emissions from in-use Light -Duty Vehicles, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, Ann Arbor, 2002.  17.      Graber, Judith M.

, et al. “Carbon Monoxide: The Case forEnvironmental Public Health Surveillance.” PublicHealth Reports (1974-), vol. 122, no. 2, 2007, pp. 138–144.

 18.      Samoli, Evangelia, et al. “Short-Term Effects of Carbon Monoxideon Mortality: An Analysis within the APHEA Project.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 115, no. 11, 2007, pp.1578–1583.

Raub, James A., et al. “Carbon monoxide poisoning—a public healthperspective.” Toxicology 145.

1 (2000): 1-14. 19.       Dutra, Frank R.”Carbon Monoxide Poisoning from the Exhaust Gases of Motor Vehicles.” The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology,and Police Science, vol.

48, no. 3, 1957, pp. 333–338.   20.       Transportation Research Boardand National Research Council. 2002.

The Ongoing Challenge of Managing CarbonMonoxide Pollution in Fairbanks, Alaska. Washington, DC: The National AcademiesPress.    21.      SANTINI, DANILO J.

“Designing for Reduction of Public Exposureto Carbon Monoxide.” Journal ofArchitectural Research, vol. 6, no. 3, 1978, pp. 13–18.   22.      Miller,P.

B. V. (2014). Sustainability and public transportation theory andanalysis(Order No. NS22992).   23.

      SANTINI,DANILO J. “Designing for Reduction of Public Exposure to Carbon Monoxide.”Journal of Architectural Research, vol. 6, no.

3, 1978, pp. 13–18.     24.      McIntosh, Hugh. “Catching up on the Clean Air Act.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol.101, no.

3, 1993, pp. 226–229.  25.      Varon,Joseph, et al.

“Carbon monoxide poisoning: a review for clinicians.”The Journal of emergency medicine 17.1 (1999): 87-93.  26.

      www.epa.gov