Sunstar Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 By ERIC BERGERCopyright 2004 Houston ChronicleHere's the good news: Houston is beating Los Angeles. The bad news is that we're not talking about the Rockets and Lakers.With just weeks left in this year's smog season, Houston appears set to reclaim the mantle of worst air quality in the nation. Through September, Houston has eight more days of bad smog than Los Angeles and appears unlikely to give up its lead, air-quality experts say.Thursday put an emphatic stamp on Houston's smog season when 95 percent of the region's air-quality monitors reported unhealthy ozone levels. Bad smog levels haven't been that widespread in the Houston area since at least 1998."This year, and this week in particular, shows how far we are from achieving our air-quality goals," said John Wilson, executive director of the environmental group Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention.Ozone, an odorless, colorless gas, is a primary component of smog. It is closely watched because in high-enough concentrations it is harmful to the lungs. Ozone also is a good indicator that other chemicals, such as hydrocarbons, are present in the atmosphere.The most common measure of air quality is the number of days a year that ozone levels exceed federal standards at one or more monitoring sites in an area. Levels this year exceeded that standard, 125 parts per billion for at least one hour, on 35 days. Los Angeles has had 27 such days.By this measure Houston had worse air than Los Angeles in 1999 and 2000, bringing national scrutiny and worrying business leaders trying to attract companies to the area.Smog season generally ends after October in Los Angeles and after November in Houston.Yet simply measuring the gross number of days that an area measures at least one air-quality violation is a "poor statistic," said Bryan Lambeth, a senior meteorologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality who tracks ground-level ozone.Lambeth said the health concern is regular exposure to ozone, and it is less critical if one site in southeast Houston measures unhealthy levels one day, and a site in northwest Harris County the next."It is also very important to mention that the areawide statistic is heavily influenced by the number of monitors," Lambeth said.Indeed, although the number of bad smog days has remained relatively constant in Houston for the past four years, the number of air-quality monitors has nearly doubled to 45, he said. Los Angeles has 35 monitors in a four-county area.Lambeth said a better way to measure air quality is the number of days air quality exceeds federal standards at a particular site.The worst location in Houston this year is near Tom Bass Park, in south Houston, where there have been eight air-quality violations.Yet even by using this statistic Houston remains a long way from its goal of meeting federal clean-air standards by 2007, Wilson said. Any monitor in the Houston area can't have more than one violation a year to meet the Clean Air Act requirements, he said.By most measures, however, Houston isn't having a terribly bad smog season. It now has the same number of days as last year and is below late-1990s levels, when the city averaged more than 40 bad smog days a year.It is the improvement by Los Angeles that will likely vault Houston back into the position of having the worst smog in the country.Los Angeles has seen a dramatic fall-off from 2003, when it recorded 68 bad-air days. Air-quality experts don't credit pollution-control measures with that city's success this year.The city has had cooler temperatures and windier conditions this season, both of which lead to cleaner air. Sunshine helps ozone form, and calm winds allow the chemicals to accumulate over a particular area."This has been a very clean year for us," said Joe Cassmassi, a senior meteorologist with California's South Coast Air Quality Management District. "It's been one of those years where the weather conditions have lent themselves to keeping the smog levels down."It's just the opposite of last year." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VelvetJ Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Yeah, it's about time for some more bad publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 This kind of news is terrible for our reputation. It hurts our ability to draw new businesses and residents. I understand the reasons, such as presence of a lot of refineries here, but I think a lot of people just see the headlines and figure we're the smog capital of the country, even though we are a lot smaller than LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamtagon Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 This kind of news is terrible for our reputation. It hurts our ability to draw new businesses and residents. I understand the reasons, such as presence of a lot of refineries here, but I think a lot of people just see the headlines and figure we're the smog capital of the country, even though we are a lot smaller than LA.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hopefully, the dubious title will lead to action. Really, 'the powers that be' should be compelled to correct the problems out of concern for public health, but if a black eye gets these folks moving, then all the better.Regarding the clamor and competitive expansion generated by a handful of sunbelt metros striving to impact American society and business on a national level, the first metro to gain control over pollution will become the prefered destination. If Houston, Dallas and Atlanta cannot get a handle on the pollution problems, the decades of growth will level off as less polluted metros like Birmingham, Nashville, Austin or San Antonio become the better relocation destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Got to agree with Tamtagon. It kind of bothered me when the "most polluted city" stories came out that Houston's reaction was a bit defensive. You know, "it's because of the refineries, and we should get credit for that, and it's only ozone and not other pollutants, and it was due to the weather, etc etc etc, bla bla bla." While a lot of that is true, it just bothers me because most people will never get beyond the "most polluted city" headline. Wouldn't it be better for our reputation if instead of trying to claim it was all wrong in the fine print, for our city's leaders to come out and pledge to do what it takes to improve our air quality within a fixed number of years, without excuses? It's going to take some bold action. We already lost a new Toyota plant because of environmental issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Quite frankly, I don't give a crap about our reputation. What I do care about is that our air is harmful to breath. Yeah, a lot of it is from our refineries, but that excuses nothing. We have the technology today to clean up factories but our current administration in Washington has rolled back the tougher standards and is allowing the energy industry decide what consitutes "cleaner air." That should matter more than our bad reputation. Additionally, we also know that how we choose to develop directly affects our air quality. Yet, we still continue to widen roads, clear cut property for master planned communities (i.e. sprawling development away from the core), build strip malls on every corner, and other assinine things. AND, if I see another Hummer pulling into a Whole Foods Market, I think I will start shooting. Mark down one good outcome of the concealed weapon law! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Everyone know that if you shop at Whole Foods you MUST drive a Volvo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 It kind of bothered me when the "most polluted city" stories came out that Houston's reaction was a bit defensive.Wrong. Lee Brown and the Democrats sat back and let their party rip Housotn a new one in 2000. I never say ANYONE get defensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Whate else is new? Watching web cams all over Houston (Thanks Weather Bug!) it didn't seem too smoogy. Infact, Talking to my friend who lives in the Heights, said that Sunday, and Saturday afternoon where beautiful, clear days. So, honestly, I don't think the smog has been THAT bad. I remember a few years ago, driving into town, you could barly see the skyline. It was yellow, brown, and thick. Now, barly nothing. How could we beat Los Angeles, they where so far ahead of us a month or so ago. I think somthing is up, because the Astro's just won. This is not the last of bad publicity for Houston. Watch and learn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 i want to buy a hummer and slap a greenpeace sticker on the back of it. woo hoo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VelvetJ Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Wrong. Lee Brown and the Democrats sat back and let their party rip Housotn a new one in 2000. I never say ANYONE get defensive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And how have Tom Delay, John Culberson, and the Republicans affected our air quality? Talk about writing the book on "Business and Profit Before ALL Things, Including People". If action had been taken earlier, maybe "a new one" wouldn't have had to be ripped for Brown and the Democrates to "let" happen. Besides, were the ads incorrect? Never ceases to amaze me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Brown is the mayor, not Delay, etc. At least Mayor White said this year that "Houston will not get dragged throught the political mud this year". And those plants were grandfathered in the 70s before any of those bozos held office. Like they say about our pollution, "it smells like money to me".I was in Seattle and saw those ads. Sad. Even the LA Times wrote an article about how you can't see the stars in Houston. Brown just sat there, then boarded a plane to Tokyo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Yes, as a matter of fact, the ads were incorrect, as were the Chronicle's headlines both then and now. Houston does not have and never has had anything approaching the nation's "dirtiest air." Air pollution is comprised of a number of components (I think 5 or 6). The ozone count is only one of those 5 or six components, and the ozone count is the ONLY component for which Houston's air has an issue. Many other cities have issues with more than one component, and while it is very hard to come up with a conclusive answer to the question of which city has the nation's dirtiest air, I believe most experts agree that it is not Houston. Atlanta is a better candidate and I believe Dallas is at least as good of a candidate. quote=VelvetJ,Tuesday, October 5th, 2004 @ 10:52am] And how have Tom Delay, John Culberson, and the Republicans affected our air quality? Talk about writing the book on "Business and Profit Before ALL Things, Including People". If action had been taken earlier, maybe "a new one" wouldn't have had to be ripped for Brown and the Democrates to "let" happen. Besides, were the ads incorrect? Never ceases to amaze me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 I forgot about those Chronicle headlines. Never ceases to amaze me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VelvetJ Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Brown is the mayor, not Delay, etc. At least Mayor White said this year that "Houston will not get dragged throught the political mud this year". And those plants were grandfathered in the 70s before any of those bozos held office. Like they say about our pollution, "it smells like money to me". I was in Seattle and saw those ads. Sad. Even the LA Times wrote an article about how you can't see the stars in Houston. Brown just sat there, then boarded a plane to Tokyo. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Brown may have been the mayor but who is more powerful? More know Tom Delay than Brown... where was he? What did our fellow Houstonian, and once self proclaimed "environmental President", George H. Bush have to say about these "lies" about his hometown? If Lee Brown sat and "let" them do it, our Republican "powerhouses" should have stepped up the plate to dispute it if they knew it wasn't true. You never saw anyone get defensive.....no, not even the local Republicans. None of what you stated negated the role Delay and his "friends" have played in the quality of Houston's air. There was no substance behind Houston being "randomly chosen" for those ads, correct? It was out of pure coincidence Houston had been "chosen" as worst air in the nation those two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 It was LA last winter. They throw things around, for a time, we where #10, now where #1?! LA is surrounded by moutains, and they hold in the pollution. Just like Mexico City... So, unless they build those big tunnel wind systems early, I don't know how we could just jup the charts so fast. Its all publicity, bad for us... Besides, I can see the stars at night, just not a million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 VelvetJ,You obviously have a beef with Delay. So do I, but I don't expect him to clean our air.Come on now. I bet you voted for Al Gore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VelvetJ Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Houston19514 stated:"Yes, as a matter of fact, the ads were incorrect, as were the Chronicle's headlines both then and now. Houston does not have and never has had anything approaching the nation's "dirtiest air." Air pollution is comprised of a number of components (I think 5 or 6). The ozone count is only one of those 5 or six components, and the ozone count is the ONLY component for which Houston's air has an issue. Many other cities have issues with more than one component, and while it is very hard to come up with a conclusive answer to the question of which city has the nation's dirtiest air, I believe most experts agree that it is not Houston. Atlanta is a better candidate and I believe Dallas is at least as good of a candidate".Well, if I may quote Subdude, "Wouldn't it be better for our reputation if instead of trying to claim it was all wrong in the fine print, for our city's leaders to come out and pledge to do what it takes to improve our air quality within a fixed number of years, without excuses? It's going to take some bold action".And as we are bowing to recieve the coveted crown of "Nations Dirtiest Air" yet again, I hope our leaders (of all parties) as well as all of those experts you spoke of Houston19514, are eager to go to the national media to explain what you have just explained above, to dispute it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VelvetJ Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 VelvetJ,You obviously have a beef with Delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Haven't you heard of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act?The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require an attainment for Houston to be submitted before November 1994 and provides for attainment by 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Setting aside the political issue, it seems that in another couple of weeks we can all look forward to another set of national headlines proclaiming Houston as the nation's smoggiest city. My question is if anything can be done to help force through improved air quality at a local level. Do all environmental regulations have to come from the state and federal levels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 1/2 the refineries are not even in Houston. Pasadena, La Porte, Baytown, Texas City, etc.Just wait tonight for Edwards to bring up Houston and Halliburton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 We have too many trees polluting our skies, dammit. We need a Healthy Forest Initiative to clear them all out. Then we can all drown in mud when the hurricanes come, just like Jamaica did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamtagon Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Conventional wisdom asks, if we can put a man on the moon, why cant we have clean air in our cities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Houston Chronicle, October 5, 2004Eco-watch:WORST AIR. Houston has taken the lead in the annual race for the city with the worst smog, beating Los Angeles by eight days with 1 1/2 months left in the smog season. Several events last week supported Houston recapturing the title. On Wednesday, Houston was the only city in the nation where the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency forecasted an unhealthy air quality day. A day later, 95 percent of the region's air quality monitors reported unhealthy ozone levels, in part because ozone levels in the air coming into Houston were high. Bad smog levels haven't been that widespread since 1998. INCIDENT LOG. There were two accidental releases of pollution last week, according to state records. BP Products North America in Texas City released 59 pounds of nitric oxide, and Equistar Chemicals in Alvin released 606.2 pounds of 1,3-butadiene because of a leak.This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/2830681 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 improve public transportation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.