Tag Archives: pollution

Ozone Pollution More Dangerous than Previously Thought?

We’ve all heard about the ozone layer, but I reckon that most people know very little about ozone. I knew pretty much nothing about it until I read an article published by the National Bureau of Economic Research which tied ozone levels to reduced worker productivity.

It turns out that ozone is a molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms. It also turns out that ozone is known to cause respiratory problems. It is chock full of free radicals, and ozone doesn’t react well with cells in your lungs. Yuck. Health organizations (EPA, WHO, etc.) set exposure standards levels that should prevent long term effects. Of course, those standards are based on the science at the time of promulgation, and science can change, as is true for all health regulations.

However, as the NBER article shows, sometimes economics can reveal patterns that medicine doesn’t. Economists from UCSD and Columbia studied ozone levels in California’s central valley (a huge farming area) and compared those levels to farmworker productivity. It turns out that increased ozone levels are correlated to decreased productivity. Moreover, this productivity impact happens at levels well below the federal safety standards. So maybe the standards are wrong, and ozone is more toxic than people think.

I admit that this study is a little on the Freakonomics side of things: it runs a regression, sees a correlation and assumes causality. I have been critical of Freakonomics in the past (although not on this blog), because I don’t think you can just regress a boatload of data and then decide that you know why result A happened. There could be all kinds of other factors at play in this data; for example, maybe ozone levels are high when the weather is really hot, and farmworker productivity was down because of the heat, not because of the ozone at all. Hopefully the economists doing the study adjusted for that sort of thing, since zeroing out the noise of exogenous variable is a standard procedure in studies like this, but the article doesn’t say. Any way you look at it, this certainly is an interesting correlation that could bear further study.

As an aside, here is a critique of Freakonomics from the American Scientist; they are more qualified than I am.

Advertisements

Ranchers to City Folk: Screw You

According to a recent WSJ article, each year ranchers from throughout the middle of the country take their cattle to Kansas to feed on the lush prairie grass that grows during the summer. As is often the case in plains and prairies, the grass is only lush if they burn out the brush, which the ranchers do each spring. This sends smoke with the wind, which sometimes takes the smoke to Wichita or Kansas City. As a consequence, those cities sometimes violate EPA clean air standards.

The EPA is trying to work with the ranchers on a way to avoid having their smoke drift over populated areas, primarily by only burning when the winds are travelling in the other direction. But the EPA is threatening stronger measures if the voluntary methods don’t work.

The ranchers are pushing back. They don’t want to change their ways. Why? Because it will cost them money. They are valuing their income above the health of strangers. Lots of strangers. Kansas City has more than 2,000,000 inhabitants.

Rancher Mike Collinge says “People in Wichita and Kansas City, they’ll complain a little. So will my wife. But I don’t think it’s causing huge air-quality problems.” He doesn’t think it’s causing problems. Of course, he doesn’t live in Wichita or Kansas City. He has no idea what it’s really like there. What he thinks is completely contrary to what the scientists say. That is what Stephen Colbert calls “truthiness.” In other words, and appropriate to this post, BS.

According to the article, the burning and subsequent lush grass gets ranchers about $40 more per head of cattle. Depending on how much cattle you have, of course that could add up. But let’s put it into context. The current market price for beef cattle is about $110 per 100 pounds. It’s unclear why they quote cattle prices in hundredweight and meat prices per pound, but that’s how it’s done. An average cow weighs about 1,200 pounds, which means it’s worth $1,320. That $40 savings is 3% of $1,320.

So these ranchers are willing to risk the health of millions of people, just to increase their income by 3%. That’s nice. Apparently the cowman and the farmer can’t be friends.