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…