A comment by someone on my post about the death of the Armenian PM got me thinking about export death and tobacco. I did a little reading and searching and ran into a Trade and Environment Database (TED) report called Zimbabwe Tobacco Exports (ZIMTOBAC Case). I think it’s from 1994 and it has some interesting claims. Consider, for example, this little nugget in the Description section:

Tobacco smoke is the most widespread of known pollutants. In developed countries, ethanol and tobacco are the two principal causes of avoidable death.

Based on what? More than lead? More than mercury? And what’s that about ethanol?

A little more reading and it appears it has been flagged by the EPA. Here is a revealing story from 2002:

Factories that convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels “many times greater” than they promised, the government says.

[…]

States started measuring VOC emissions at ethanol plants about a year ago following complaints of foul odors. One small facility in St. Paul, Minn., had to install $1 million in pollution control equipment to reduce the emissions.

“To the extent that this new test procedure is identifying new VOC emissions, the industry has certainly agreed to address those,” said Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, the recipient of EPA’s letter.

Is that ethanol pollution or ethanol plant pollution? A study from 1997 speaks directly of pollution from ethanol fuel:

A recent field study in Albuquerque, N.M., published this month in Environmental Science & Technology, showed that use of ethanol fuels leads to increased levels of toxins called aldehydes and peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN).

[…]

PAN is highly toxic to plants and is a powerful eye irritant. It has been measured in many areas of the world, indicating that it can be carried by winds throughout the globe.

“Although these pollutants are not currently regulated,” said Argonne chemist Jeff Gaffney, “their potential health and environmental effects should be considered in determining the impact of alternative fuels on air quality.”

Incidentally, Dinneen’s comment reminds me of a discussion I had recently with a guy in charge of thousands of servers running all over the world. He had the classic “tell me what’s wrong, but don’t tell me anything I don’t want to know” approach to risk management. Yes, it’s contradictory. Or maybe I should say he did not seem to fully appreciate the opportunity to review a comprehensive list of issues in order to prioritize risks to his environment. Even my basic tests revealed important risks, but he slipped into denial and then anger when a messenger brought the message. Eventually he agreed to a Dinneen-like position — to address things brought to his attention. More on that later.

Back to the ethanol, it turns out that a million dollars spent on emission controls is just the beginning of the story on the Minnesota plant. Data released by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the US Department of Justice showed that there were to be impressive results:

The agreements announced today will ensure each plant installs air pollution control equipment to greatly reduce air emissions such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by 2,400-4,000 tons per year and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions by 2,000 tons per year. In addition to contributing to ground-level ozone (smog), VOCs can cause serious health problems such as cancer and other effects; CO is harmful because it reduces oxygen delivery to the body’s organs and tissues. The settlement also will result in annual reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 180 tons, particulate matter (PM) by 450 tons and hazardous air pollutants by 250 tons.

This of course was the tail end of the Clinton EPA and the start of the Bush and Cheney policies to remove regulation of harmful emissions, as a Washington Post story explains with regard to coal:

The case against Duke Energy was one of many initiated by the EPA across the country in the waning days of the Clinton administration.

The Clinton crackdown was bitterly opposed by utilities, and the Bush administration promised to change EPA enforcement policy.

But the EPA continued to press cases that were already pending when the administration took office in 2001, so the Bush EPA and Environmental Defense had been on the same side of the Duke Energy case until the 4th Circuit’s ruling.

That soon changed. I’m certain Cheney or one of his minions thinks it is best for the industry to shoot messengers who bring the wrong messages instead of spending efforts on innovation and research to solve the actual problems. Solving problems requires that he acknowledge they exist and address them.

So, with the high profile of this coal case and the number of deaths cited I am curious if ethanol actually has a higher risk?

Environmental Defense says that about 17,000 facilities are covered by the rules, and it cites studies that show 20,000 premature deaths per year traceable to pollution from coal-fired plants.

The decision on coal is apparently due this July. Wonder if it will set a precedent for other energy companies, especially as the Bush administration appears to want to pander to the corn lobby with bold invitations into the fuel industry.

Still looking for data on ethanol-related deaths in industrialized countries…

Well, we all survived the DST patch, eh? Talk about a lot of fuss about nothing. I can’t tell you how many times I have worked in environments where the concept of time protocol management and standardized clocks are entirely alien to their system managers. You can beg, plead, wail, evangelize…whatever, and they will turn a blind eye to the need for ensuring time accuracy when it’s a security issue. Then the lowly DST patch comes along and suddenly I’m asked to sit on a dozen conference calls with action plans and contingency teams, and everyone and his brother gets in a fuss about the need to have someone close to the hardware when the time hits the fan. So our new DST deadline has passed and now it’s back to the usual routine.

Incidentally, I’ve had more than one person comment that the DST change was a feeble attempt by Congress to do something about energy inefficiencies. Interesting point that I haven’t had a lot of time to look into.

Speaking of energy, seasonal changes, and measurements, I recently noticed some folks grumbling about petroleum companies fighting against installing more accurate pumps. Apparently old pumps fail to adjust to increased temperatures, at least according to the Kansas City Star. The solution is new technology, naturally, but for some reason the oil companies are resisting new pumps that would cost extra money to deploy and also reduce their revenue in the US.

…it’s perfectly legal, because even though your local filling station measures out your gas as if it were stored at 60 degrees, no law requires retailers to adjust the pump to reflect the expansion of hot fuel.

In other words, no law ensures you get what you pay for.

[…]

Big Oil has argued successfully for decades that it would cost too much to retrofit the nation’s fuel pumps, particularly for independent retailers that now sell the majority of the nation’s fuel. The industry also argues that consumers simply wouldn’t understand fuel pumps that adjust for temperature change.

You just have to love this line of reasoning by the “industry” — the dumb consumer doesn’t deserve to keep their money.

“The consumer doesn’t necessarily want to be confused,” contends Prentiss Searles, a senior associate for marketing issues at the American Petroleum Institute (API), a Washington, D.C.-based group that represents the industry. “They’re thinking, ‘I just want a gallon.'”

Feeling insulted yet? Oh, it gets better. The Kansas City Star also quotes a Shell representative who says big oil won’t budge without a regulatory requirement, and yet it turns out the industry actually fought for regulation in cold climates. Why? Canadians like to be confused? No, it’s because it increased profits for oil companies.

Dan McTeague, a member of Canada’s Parliament, says the way the industry has handled the fuel temperature issue is a classic case of situational lobbying. In Canada, the industry makes more money by adjusting. In the United States, the industry makes more money by not adjusting.

“It’s like one of those Norman Rockwell paintings where the kid has his finger on the scale,� he says.

I could go on, but there are plenty more references on the net to get your temperature up, including reports that a little-known loophole in US federal law that allows gas station operators to profit from manipulating wholesale fuel measurements.

[NIST] data found that the average temperature in Texas storage tanks was 78 degrees. That meant that about $29 million in state fuel taxes were being lost each year in the state.

Of course if they tried to collect those taxes, I’m sure the oil companies would just relocate to some country like Dubai and thumb their nose at the foolish Americans who try to run their country without a more Cheney-esque (elite-friendly) model of government.

Halliburton Co.’s decision to relocate its chief executive and corporate headquarters to Dubai has scratched one of Congress’ most sensitive sore spots — suspicion that U.S. corporations are restructuring their operations to shirk domestic taxes.

[…]

Terrence Chorvat, an associate professor in international tax law at George Mason University, says those tax advantages will help if the company grows its business in Dubai.

“I think there is some truth in the initial argument that they’re going to Dubai because that’s where the action is, but I think there’s also somewhat of a U.S. tax-play,” he said.

Strange that no-one has commented on Halliburton’s intentions to move its headquarters to a country caught up in a child slavery controversy, as reported by the US State Department in 2006. Avoiding taxes, child abuse, slave labor, over-billing, bribes, contamination…what comes to mind for you now when someone says Halliburton?

When you look at the paths forged into government by the oilmen Bush and Cheney, it literally makes people physically ill.

Even if the idea was to improve services and cut costs, the record of IAP’s top leaders while working at Halliburton in Iraq should have given them pause before inking the contract. Neffgen, for example, was a senior executive with Halliburton when it was serving contaminated food at military dining halls and providing the troops in Iraq with bathing water soiled with human fecal matter. Nevertheless, in January 2006, the army gave Neffgen’s company a $120 million “cost-plus” contract for support services and facilities management at Walter Reed hospital.

[…]

The appalling conditions at Walter Reed — the supposed “crown jewel” of veterans hospital facilities — not only punctures for good the Bush/Cheney high-handed claim to “support our troops” but like Iraq and New Orleans, reveals what’s more important — helping their friends make money off others’ misfortune.

So much for national security.

Anyway, I digress. My point of this post was really to mention that Microsoft cunningly announced in advance that there would be no security patch this month. And just as you are about to celebrate and say hallelujah, they quietly release a Critical Update today called…Service Pack 2 for Windows Server 2003. Uh, can you say jumbo patch? Surprise!

Altogether, it seems like there is a lot of strange and unnecessary “fudging”, if not deception, by these large companies.

Here is a good representation of the Karthala lava that has been the subject of recent news. The image has been floating around the net and someone just pointed out to me that if you look carefully there is a hint of who or what took the image. Free rock of lava goes to the person who can guess correctly.