http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2056693 Study: Houston breathes easier than some cities By DINA CAPPIELLO Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Environment Writer REPORT: BAD AIR Houston ranked ninth out of 50 major metropolitan areas for the number of days in 2000-2002 when air quality was unhealthy. Rank Metro area Unhealthy air days 2000-2002 1. Riverside-San Bernardino, Calif. 445 2. Fresno, Calif. 421 3. Bakersfield, Calif. 409 4. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif. 255 5. Sacramento, Calif. 163 6. Pittsburgh, Penn. 134 7. Knoxville, Tenn. 109 8. Birmingham, Ala. 100 9. Houston 94 Source: Surface Transportation Policy Project When it comes to smog, everyone knows that Houston ranks among the smoggiest American cities. But factor in soot, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, and Houston's air quality is better than Pittsburgh's and Birmingham's and six other cities', according to a report released Tuesday by the nonprofit Surface Transportation Policy Project. The report urges the government to think of air quality when it makes transportation choices. Houston had 94 days in 2000-2002 when the Air Quality Index exceeded 100, the level at which air pollution becomes unhealthy for active children and adults, and people with respiratory illnesses, the report found. Five cities in California, as well as Knoxville, Tenn., and Pittsburgh had more days when air quality reached unhealthy levels -- which doesn't mean the cities violated federal air quality standards or beat Houston in the number of days that ground-level ozone, the main component of smog, was exceeded. Houston has until 2007 to meet an older, federal standard for ozone. "It's possible that Houston has fewer days when (the index) was at 100, but their days could be more severe," said Michelle Ernst, one of the report's co-authors, explaining Houston's better ranking. "Particulate matter is a big part of the problem" in other cities. Jane Laping, executive director of Mothers for Clean Air, also said the report's analysis masks Houston's air pollution problems, which are caused primarily by industry. "Counting the number of days over 100 doesn't show the severity of the problem here," Laping said. The report was based on federal data that tracks the number of unhealthy air days caused by five separate pollutants: particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ground-level ozone, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Some of these pollutants are emitted directly from industry and automobiles; others, like ground-level ozone and some particulate matter, are formed by chemical reactions after they are released. Nationwide, STPP estimates that 133 million people are still breathing bad air, and that transportation remains a significant part of the problem. In 1999, according to its calculations, 47.4 percent of Houston's air pollution came from mobile sources -- a smaller percentage than Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth-Arlington and Dallas
So, are you saying someone like me should move back to Houston from Austin?? Seriously, I'm allergic to the pollutants from the armpit of the Houston area... the Ship Channel. I'm not sure if that article addresses those types of pollutants. And it's no coincidence that Houston has, arguably, the top medical center in the world... and that cancer treatment and research are one of the things that the Medical Center is most famous for.
I only see our pollution problems getting worse since Bush has nominated Utah's Governor Mike Leavitt to serve as the new Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. He has a terrible track record protecting the environment. http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2003-08-13a.asp He doesn't seem to have the experience, expertise, and the right frame of mind to be EPA chief. It seems to be that his number 1 priority is what is best for business, not what is best for the environment. And I don't think that is the job of the EPA. The EPA should not be the agency determining the best balance between industry development and environmental protection. The EPA's job is to protect the environment.
I'm glad to see that Houston is only the ninth most-polluted metropolitan area in the country, but why are we relieved? That we're not worst? That's setting the bar pretty damn low. How many more years until we can't see the Houston skyline from outside 610?
i agree...but: 1. we are the energy capital of the world. and a port city to boot. comparatively, we should be at the bottom. 2. a lot of the doom and gloom assumes no technological advancements will produce more efficient and cleaner systems. cities, particularly in the rust belt, are far less polluted today than they were during the 70's and 80's.
Good points. Settling for "At least we're not last" makes me very uncomfortable. We need to be realistic, true, but aspiring to air we can actually breathe seems to be a reasonable goal. Right now, most Houston kids can't even have outside recess because of the air quality. And, not to belabor a point, but the Rust Belt is less polluted now because a lot of the industry is gone. You're right, though: many advances have been made in pollution control. Sadly, they haven't kept up with the sheer volume that we spew into the atmosphere.
is that true about recess?? my wife taught 1st grade in the Alief school district and i know they had recess...she retired year before last, though. good point about the Rust Belt...i guess i'm just optimistic that technology will bring cleaner systems.
3. I'd also point out that some places are geographically more inclined to air pollution than others. In some areas, pollution is blown off quite easily (Chicago, for example) while other areas, in effect, form a dome of pollution (Houston and LA).
I agree...We also know that Galveston, the catchers mit of the Gulf would be a lot cleaner without the oil platforms, etc...
It would also be a whole lot cleaner without that pesky Mississippi River making the water all brown and yucky
