Weekly John Locke Foundation research division newsletter focusing on environmental issues.

The newsletter highlights relevant analysis done by the JLF and other think tanks as well as items in the news.

1. DAQ points to mercury emissions reduction as result of the Clean Smokestacks Bill

The North Carolina Division of Air Quality (DAQ) announced last week that mercury emissions in North Carolina are down by 70 percent. According to The News and Observer:

State officials attribute the decreased presence of the emissions to the 2002 Clean Smokestack Act that forced the state's 14 coal-fired power plants to reduce their nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions by about three-fourths over a period of 10 years.

For those who have followed these issues, these claims should sound familiar. A few years back the DAQ said the following with respect to reductions in ozone levels in North Carolina:

The decline in high ozone days goes hand-in-hand with ... The Clean Smokestacks Act, adopted by the legislature and signed by Governor Mike Easley in 2002. ...DAQ data show that power plant emissions are declining significantly from new controls being installed.

The problem is that B following A doesn't necessarily mean that B was caused by A. And, as it turns out, the reductions in ozone were experienced equally by all of our neighboring states, none of whom adopted the costly regulations of the Clean Smokestacks Bill. (Go here for our JLF report on the subject.)

Now the 70% reduction in mercury emissions may or may not have been due to the Clean Smokestacks Bill (CSB). Some questions that need to be answered, but apparently have not been, or at least were not reported on by the N&O, are:

• What would have been the reductions in mercury emissions if the CSB had not been adopted?
• What was the rate of mercury reduction prior to the adoption of the CSB as compared to after its adoption?
• What have been the reductions in mercury emissions in North Carolina compared over the same time period to our neighbors who do not have such a law?

When these questions are asked and answered, they may very well show that the CSB is substantially responsible for reductions in mercury emissions. But until these questions are answered, the extent of the causal effect cannot be established. It is important to know what proportion of the 70% reduction is due to the CSB; it is very unlikely that the full 70% reduction is due to these regulations, i.e., that there would have been no reduction otherwise. In determining whether the CSB was worth the billions of dollars its implementation has cost rate payers, it is important to know whether the CSB was responsible for 5% of the reduction or 95% of it.

And finally, the ultimate question that needs to be asked and answered is whether these reductions in mercury generated the expected benefits in terms of health effects. Do the fish caught out of North Carolina's waterways contain less mercury and, more importantly, are the positive health effects that are supposed to be associated with the reductions actually materializing. If the answers to these questions cannot be determined using actual public health data, then it also cannot be demonstrated that this 70% reduction means much at all.

2. "Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within 5 Years?"

This was the headline of an article by well-known AP environmental reporter Seth Borenstein in National Geographic. When was the article published? December 12, 2007. And of course, as is typical of NG's approach to all things climate change, the headline did not reflect an honest inquiry on the part of the author but a prediction that he was seeking to validate. As part of the article, there was not a single voice heard or opinion expressed that didn't support the idea that summer sea ice would be gone by, well, now.

Bordering on the hysterical, the article opened with the following:

An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer -- a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. "The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.

This was followed up by the big prediction.

Just last year two top scientists surprised their colleagues (emphasis added) by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions...The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming,"

Of course, if this were real journalism, the author would have sought out some of the "colleagues" to query them about their "surprise." But, as is typical of all agenda-ized  journalism, there is no genuine curiosity, only a relentless pursuit of the agenda.

So what has happened to summer sea ice since 2007 when this prediction was made? Here's the graph that tells the story. And in case you're having trouble following the lines, the answer is it's pretty much unchanged.

3. Ozone Report

The heat last once again affected high ozone readings.

The 2012 ozone season began on April 1 and each week during the ozone season this newsletter reports how many, if any, high ozone days have been experienced throughout the state during the previous week, where they were experienced, and how many have been recorded during the entire season to date. The ozone season will end on October 31. All reported data is from the North Carolina Division of Air Quality, which is part of the state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

During the period July 9 to July 15 there was 1 reported high ozone reading. It was recorded on the monitor in Union County. Since the beginning of the ozone season there have been 105 high ozone readings on North Carolina monitors.

Click here for the Environmental Update archive.