No, reducing GHG emissions from asthma inhalers is not going to solve global warming

Sometimes, in an effort to attract viewers/hits/attention/whatever, professional journalists write headlines that make little problems seem big and ignore the bigger problems. 

Recently, CBS published a story online about GHG emissions from inhalers that people use to treat asthma and other respiratory problems. Referencing an article from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), CBS' headline was, "Inhalers produce as much carbon emissions as over 500,000 cars per year, study finds"

Photo Credit: Cnordic Nordic

Wow! That's a lot! That's concerning!! Someone should do something about that!!! We should take away all of those inhalers from those sick people who are using them and give them something else to use so that we can save the environment!!!!!

Oh geez! Please stop!

This always comes up every couple of years and diverts attention away from controlling/reducing the major sources of CO2 equivalent by focusing on what, in reality, are trivial emissions on a worldwide scale.

According to the CBS/Jama report, inhalers in the USA produced about 24.9 MILLION metric tonnes of CO2e TOTAL over 10 years. That's an average of 2.49 million tonnes per year. 

HOWEVER, total CO2e emissions in the USA are around 4.8 BILLION metric tonnes per ONE year! (Ref: Statista )

If these numbers are correct, that means inhalers contribute only 0.05% of total CO2e emissions. In other words, less than 1 tenth of a percent comes from inhalers and they're worried about them and not all of the major sources of greenhouse gases (GHG)? 

Are you kidding me?

You could eliminate all of the inhalers in the world and it wouldn't make a dent in reducing global warming! 

It's nonsense like this that prevents progress from being made to reduce emissions from significant sources of GHG. 

NAS report rips to shreds Trump's EPA's claims that existing greenhouse gas regulations should be rescinded.

President Trump and his EPA appointees have proposed rescinding a 2009 regulation in which EPA had previously determined that greenhouse gas emissions were harmful and needed to be regulated more stringently. The Trump administration claims that the data was inaccurate and wrong based upon evidence since then that they claim shows otherwise.                             

                                Photo attribution: NASA

HOWEVER, today the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) released a new study which reviewed that past determination and the scientific information since 2009 and concluded that not only was EPA correct in 2009, but also, the most recent peer reviewed data shows things are getting worse. (Please note that this NAS study itself was peer reviewed.)

The new report "... says the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute."

The report says "EPA’s 2009 finding was accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence. Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 has now been resolved by scientific research."

 

“This study was undertaken with the ultimate aim of informing the EPA, following its call for public comments, as it considers the status of the endangerment finding,” said Shirley Tilghman, professor of molecular biology and public affairs, emeritus, and former president, Princeton University, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. “We are hopeful that the evidence summarized here shows the strong base of scientific evidence available to inform sound decision-making.”

In short, NAS basically ripped to shreds Trump's EPA's claims that the regulation should be rescinded.

How will the Trump administration impact California's Environmental Regulations?

There's a new (well, an old actually) Sheriff in town. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump has never been a President that favors stringent environmental controls on business and industry.

President Donald Trump, Official Portrait  Ref: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Donald_Trump_portrait_official_2025.jpg

On the opposite end of the environmental spectrum lies California, led by Governor Gavin Newsome, who clearly has a different view of these things than the current President of the United States.

Rather than write a detailed analysis of what we at California Environmental News /Environalysis think might happen, we pose the question to you, our readers:

What do you think Trump will try to do, what do you think he will succeed at doing, and what do you think he will never succeed at doing?

Please leave your comments below.

CARB Approves Unprecedented Climate Action Plan

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just approved the unprecedented climate action plan that was described here in a previous article.

The next steps will require the adoption of specific rules and regulations to implement the plan, which aims to reduce fossil fuel emissions in the state to negligible levels by 2045.

Photo Credit: California Air Resources Board

So, what do you think? As I asked before, will it be successful or just a pipe dream? Ref: CARB approves unprecedented climate action plan to shift world’s 4th largest economy from fossil fuels to clean and renewable energy

More info at: Frank's Environment Space

By ignoring wildfire emissions, is CARB painting too rosy a picture about statewide GHG reductions?

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just released its greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory data report for 2019. CARB said the data shows that GHG reductions in the state are being reduced significantly more than the reductions that have been targeted by law.

However, buried within the press release and the report is information on another source of GHG whose numbers are not included in the inventory of reductions that CARB is praising.

Wildfire emissions.

Photo Credit: California Air Resources Board

CARB's latest data shows that GHG emissions statewide, exclusive of wildfires, went from 425 million metric tonnes in 2018 to 418 million metric tonnes in 2019. 

However, what CARB doesn't report is the increase in wildfire GHG emissions. Although wildfire CO2 emissions declined from 2018 to 2019 from 39.1 to 4.8 million metric tonnes CO2, in 2020 they increased to 106.7 million metric tonnes. And that latter number may be approached in 2021 as well considering the number of wildfires that have happened and are happening at this very moment throughout the state - and the normal wildfire season hasn't even officially started yet.

CA Wildfire Emissions, by Year - CARB

CARB and others have tried to dismiss concerns over wildfire CO2 emissions by referring to them as part of the natural carbon cycle. But the fact remains -  CO2 is CO2. The world and the physical climate change processes that result in the increasing temperatures of global warming do not care from where the CO2 comes. 

One can brag all one wants about reducing GHG emissions from transportation and industrial sources, but, the ship is still going to sink if you only bail out part of the water that is filling your boat.

What do you think? Please leave your comments below.