Dear Citizens,

As citizens of London, you have an opportunity to voice your concern for our shared natural environment.  The startling stats can be found below.

The City of London will be making changes to our idling bylaw which was introduced in 1999.  City staff have recommended a one minute anti-idling bylaw with exemptions for temperature only for severe temperatures.

Proposed Amendments June 1st 2009

On June 1^st it was amended to three minutes by ETC (Environment & Transportation Committee) and our current temperature exemptions were added back in.  Currently – Toronto is looking at ten seconds.  Burlington is 60 seconds with no temperature exemption.

If you missed the deadline today at 9am for the agenda – you have until the June 15^th, 9am, for your comments to be added on as ‘added’ communications.  On the 15^th the recommendation will go to council.  On the 22^nd – there will be a public participation meeting.

Lastly – please engage your family and friends to write in a brief submission or call our elected officials in support of the one minute bylaw as presented by city staff. (Removing the amendments made at ETC which made it much weaker).  Our councillors want to hear from us.

Thank you in advance for your care and concern for we all breathe the same air.

It is our hope that sooner rather than later municipalities across Canada and the world will find the political will for a 10 second maximum tolerance on idling, as well addressing the infamous drive-thru issue.  Drive-thrus continue to proliferate as climate change escalates and air pollution becomes more and more dire.  For more information contact Canadians for Action on Climate Change: canadianclimateaction@gmail.com

Email addresses | Copy & Paste:

adecicco@london.ca,

bmacdona@london.ca

barmstro@london.ca,

bpolhill@london.ca

cmiller@london.ca

councillors@london.ca

dwinning@london.ca

gbarber@london.ca

ghume@london.ca

husher@london.ca

jbaechle@london.ca

jbryant@london.ca

nancy@nanbran.com

paul@paulhubert.ca

pvanmeer@london.ca

rcaranci@london.ca

sorser@london.ca

seagle@london.ca

tgosnell@london.ca

wloncc558@rogers.com

Please Cc:

Kevin Bain (City of London Clerk) kbain@london.ca

Linda Rowe (City of London Secretary) lrowe@london.ca

The Numbers:

• Ontario’s smog causes 9,500 deaths per year, medical association says.  Of these 1,000 occurred immediately after times of intense pollution.
• The research on the human costs of pollution and pollution-related diseases estimated that around 21,000 people in Canada will die from breathing in toxic substances drifting in the air this year with 3,000 of those deaths due to short-term exposure to smog.
• By 2031, short term exposure to air pollution will claim close to 90,000 lives in Canada, while long-term exposure will kill more than 700,000, the report said.
• Ontario and Quebec residents are the worst hit Canadians, with 70 percent of the premature deaths occurring in Central Canada.
• In the past 15 years alone, there has been a fourfold increase in asthma in children under 15 in Canada.
• OMA estimates for annual premature deaths (2130) due to smog in Toronto alone were almost three times the number of deaths (831) Health Canada attributes to secondhand smoke exposure for the whole of Canada.
• In 2008, 80 per cent of those who die due to air pollution will be over 65.
• 25 Canadians under 19 will die from short-term acute pollution exposure this year.
• Children are the most vulnerable breathing 50% more air per pound than adults.
• A child’s breathing zone is lower than adults so they are more exposed to vehicle exhausts and heavier pollutants that concentrate at lower levels in the air.
• In 2008 there will more than 9,000 hospital visits and 30,000 emergency room visits, and 620,000 doctor’s office visits, stemming from air pollution.
• Eight thousand people a day die from air pollution. There are 3 million annual deaths, worldwide.
• Emissions from an individual idling a car in London, will emit nearly the same amount of emissions volume as the total annual emissions from an individual in Bangladesh.
• More than 20 million people have been displaced by climate-related sudden-onset natural disasters in 2008 alone, according to a new study by OCHA and the Norwegian Refugee Council’s (NRC) Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre.
• The total number of people affected by natural disasters due to accelerating climate change has risen sharply over the past 10 years, with an average of 211 million people directly affected each year, nearly five times the number impacted by conflict in the same period.
• April 2009: CO2 hits 800,000-year high at Mauna Loa Observatory Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (USA) Atmospheric CO2 reached 389.47 parts per million (ppm).
• Wednesday June 10^th – co2 went up again.  It is now at 390.18
• The human respiratory system can only handle an upper level of 426 ppmv before the blood begins to become acidic after long-term exposure.

The Costs:

• The national economy: air pollution will top eight billion dollars in 2008, and by 2031 it will go over 250 billion.
• The Ontario Medical Association estimated that health care costs caused by poor air quality in 2000 would amount to nearly $630 million, not to mention the $566 million in costs due to workers taking sick days.
• In Ontario alone, lost productivity will cost Canada $349,400 this year. By 2031 that will total over $9 million in damage.
• Healthcare costs in the province will be $221,800 this year, up to almost $6.5 million total by 2031.
• Economic damage to quality of life will hit $194,100 in Ontario in 2008, up to $265,000 in 2031 and totalling almost $5.5 million by that time.
• Economic damage due to loss of life will cost $3,644,100 in 2008, rising to $6,367,200 in 2031, and totalling $115,674,500 by 2031.

Air Releases of Carcinogens by Province

Rank	Provinces	Air Releases of Toxics of Carcinogens (kg)	Percentage
1	Ontario	2,736,369	38. 18 %
2	Alberta	1,283,727	17. 91 %
3	Quebec	1,261,851	17. 61 %
4	British Columbia	797,639	11. 13 %
5	New Brunswick	392,403	5. 47 %
6	Manitoba	369,686	5. 16 %
7	Saskatchewan	115,839	1. 62 %
8	Nova Scotia	97,280	1. 36 %
9	Newfoundland	65,029	. 91 %
10	Northwest Territories	29,103	. 41 %
11	Prince Edward Island	18,325	. 26 %

http://www.pollutionwatch.org/

Think drive-thrus are insignificant?  Think again …

idling-report-markham1

We have used the calculations provided to us in this study (idling times are completely in line with Tim Horton’s own study (3-4.5 minutes) & with the national average of 3.84 seconds) to produce a very conservative number for the total number of emissions, etc. produced in London drive-thrus.

London has 156 drive-thrus – so we have based our amounts on (29 x 5) 145 as opposed to 156 to keep our results conservative.

Here are the results: (City of London only)

• Idling time: 108, 795, 760 minutes.
• Fuel Wasted: 2, 175, 925 litres of fuel wasted.
• Emissions: 590 tons of carbon dioxide & other pollutants.
• To offset this amount of pollutants in one year we would need to plant 29,220 trees.
• Fuel wasted – enough for an average car to circle the globe 425 times.

And this is ONLY London based on only 150 drive-thrus. Imagine the result from all cities in Ontario, in Canada, in North America, in the world.

For more info. on this study (data) please contact us at councilofcanadians.london@sympatico.ca

We thank Dave De Sylva for taking the time, effort, (out of pocket) costs and conviction to produce this report.

http://drivethrulies.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=309

Idling at drive-thrus creates health problems  | Beverley J. Anderson is the air quality educator for the Williams Lake Environmental Society, in partnership with the Williams Lake Air Quality Roundtable

Published: June 05, 2009 7:00 PM

People like drive-thrus.  So do fast food chains, since drive-thrus supply more than half of their business.

Banks have now gotten into the act, and there are even plans for drive-thru pharmacies.

You can enjoy a donut and coffee, burger and fries, transfer funds to your chequing account, and fill your prescriptions without ever leaving the car.  No problem.

Except, that is, for a little environmental problem caused by people idling their cars in drive-thru lineups.  Idling is when the motor is running but the car doesn’t move.

Forty-five seconds of idling burns the same amount of fuel it takes to drive one kilometer.

Calculations drawn from a Canadian survey (NRCan’s website) of driving habits and behaviour suggest that many Canadian motorists idle their vehicles for about eight minutes a day (especially in the winter) resulting in a combined total of more than 75 million minutes of idling a day.

This day alone uses more than 2.2 million litres of fuel and produces more than five million kilograms of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and is equal to the amount of fuel required to drive more than 1100 vehicles for a year or to idle one vehicle for 144 years!

The popularity of drive-thrus means longer lines and longer wait times, which means more idling.  Environmentalists, city governments, and TV reporters have noticed.

A CBC news team recently staked out a restaurant drive-thru in Winnipeg for one hour, and not long before that natural resource economists from the University of Alberta observed a restaurant in Edmonton for 54 hours.

In both cases the average wait for every car was just over 5 minutes.

Their study also found that motorists in Edmonton spent almost 5,000 hours idling at drive-thrus annually; it was also estimated that, at a single fast-food outlet outlet, the carbon dioxide emissions were 385 kg per day, or about the same amount of emissions as 17,300 SUVs create on the road.

And what about the potential health hazard to drivers essentially bathing in fumes while waiting in line or the staff who are serving at the windows and have no choice but to breath this in?

The provincial health officer has identified fine particulates (one of the pollutants in vehicle emissions) as the most serious form of air pollution in B.C. when it comes to direct impacts on people’s health.

To top it off, idling for just 15 minutes a week (say, two minutes and a bit for a coffee every day) burns through an extra $60 to $100 of fuel a year, and with the rise in fuel costs we are seeing these days, this will only increase.

If this were in Toronto, London, Niagara Falls, Richmond or any other Canadian city with anti-idling rules, they would also be breaking the law.  Idling bylaws usually make three minutes the legal cutoff.

Other sources such as Natural Resources Canada division of the federal government recommend cutting the engine after 10 seconds.  After that you’re wasting more gas than you would use to restart your car. They focus heavily on what is good for your vehicle — and your wallet.

They report that restarting your car has little impact on the starter and fuel pump: http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/dont-drive-through.

Any wear and tear incurred is more than made up in the fuel savings.

More than anything, cars and trucks are not designed to idle.

Excessive idling can cause grease, grime and other build-up to accumulate on other engine parts.

Plus, if every Canadian motorist avoided idling for just three minutes every day of the year, carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced by 1.4 million tonnes annually. This would be equal to saving 630 million litres of fuel and equivalent to taking 320,000 cars off of the road for the entire year.

Eliminating unnecessary idling is one easy action that Canadians can take to reduce their GHG emissions that are contributing to climate change

Everyone agrees, however, that idling comes down to every driver’s choices. So, next time you’re in a rush to get a coffee, why not beat the smog-filled line-up snaking around the building and just park.

Chances are you’ll be in and out faster than you would if you were still waiting in the drive-thru.

Beverley J. Anderson is the air quality educator for the Williams Lake Environmental Society, in partnership with the Williams Lake Air Quality Roundtable.

Phone 250-392-5997 or e-mail bevanderson09@gmail.com for more information.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/williamslaketribune/lifestyles/47007192.html

Pollution Can Change Your DNA in 3 Days, Study Suggests

Ker Than
for National Geographic News

May 17, 2009

Breathing in polluted air may wreak havoc on our DNA, reprogramming genes in as few as three days and causing increased rates of cancer and other diseases.

So says a new study that tracked DNA damage in 63 steel-foundry workers in Brescia, Italy, who, under their normal factory conditions, were exposed to particulate matter.

• Cleaning Big Cities’ Air “Not Rocket Science,” Expert Says
• Chinese Air Pollution Deadliest in World, Report Says
• The Dirty Dozen: Pollution Quiz

The same damage may occur in city dwellers exposed to normal air, the researchers say.

Particulate matter includes suspended, tiny bits of dust, metal, or soot in the air, which can lodge deep in the lungs. Exposure to the substance has been linked to respiratory diseases, lung cancer, and heart problems.

Scientists know little about how inhaling particulate matter can cause health problems, according to lead study author Andrea Baccarelli of the University of Milan.

But they did find that exposed workers’ DNA was damaged by a slowed rate of “methylation,” a biological process in which genes are organized into different chemical groups.

Fewer groups means that fewer genes are expressed—or made into proteins—a crucial process in the body’s regular maintenance.

(Learn how DNA works.)

Reduced-size gene groups like the ones observed in the new study have also been found in the blood DNA of lung cancer patients.

Widespread Damage

In the study, the workers’ blood was sampled on the morning of the first day of their workweeks—before they were heavily exposed to the foundry’s air—and again a few days later.

Comparisons between the two samples revealed significant changes in the methylation of four genes that may suppress tumors, said Baccarelli, who presented his research May 17 at the International Conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego, California.

You might not have to be a steelworker to sustain this kind of genetic damage, Baccarelli added.

It’s true that air near the steel foundry contains about ten times more particulate matter than ambient—or normal—air, and a larger fraction of foundry-air particles are metals.

But the team speculates that the same damage can occur in city dwellers—the effects, however, take weeks or months to show up.

For instance, Baccarelli has done previous research that shows elderly people in Boston had DNA damage from breathing in particulate matter.

But Baccarelli added that “our results need to be confirmed in air pollution studies before they can be extended to the general population.”

(Related: “Scentless Spring? Flower Smells Blocked by Pollution.”)

Take Your Vitamins?

John Heffner is professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University and a past president of the American Thoracic Society.

The new study strengthens the link between particulate inhalation and lung cancer, said Heffner, who did not participate in the research.

“Other investigators have shown that inhalation of particulate matter affects DNA through the methylation process,” he said.

“What these investigators have done is show that the genes affected are ones that are known to be related to the development of lung cancer.”

Related work by Baccarelli’s team also raises the possibility that methylation damage from particulate matter can be slowed or even reversed with folic acid, a vitamin naturally found in many foods.

The vitamin “may make methylation machineries more efficient,” lead study author Baccarelli said.

“We found that subjects with higher intakes of methyl nutrients were protected from some of the cardiac effects of particulate matter.”

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090517-pollution-changes-dna_2.html

Filmmaker Jonathan Ng turns the notion of otherness on its head in his semi-autobiographical animated short about young, whimsical, asthmatic Winston. As a result of his illness, Winston is unable to participate in the everyday activities of his peers and classmates. But thanks to his artistic ability Winston learns to use his imagination to escape his real life existence.

As a Canadian, I am absolutely ecstatic when the warm weather FINALLY arrives.  The past month has been beautiful with sun & perfect temperatures of 15-20 degrees Celsius.  It is not totally bizarre that already at least half of the drivers have their windows closed tight with the air conditioning on?  The drive-thru line ups have never been longer.  Even when the weather is so incredibly beautiful – we still somehow cannot get our big, fat, lazy asses out of our vehicles.  As obesity rates skyrocket, as our smog days increase, as more and more of our children develop asthma and as the last of our arctic sea ice disappears … we are our own worst enemy. Idling Canadians spend over 630 million bucks a year going nowhere while belching CO2 and asthma-causing pollutants into the same air we like to breathe. In the grand scheme of things – drive-thrus may be a small contributor to climate change.  But make no mistake – they do contribute & they do contribute to pollution and sickness.  The sad truth is – they are nothing more than a ‘convenience’ to 99% of the population – something we should easily make a choice to give up.  And yet we don’t and we refuse to do so. Because it is ‘our choice’ to pollute others and harm our ecosystem.  Our ‘choice’ has superceded our oldest natural instinct in the world – to protect our children.  How messed up is this?  This is a disturbing and frightening commentary on our society and our values.  A society gone mad.

CO₂ hits 800,000-year high at Mauna Loa Observatory

Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii  (USA) Atmospheric CO2 reached 389.47 parts per million (ppm) in the month of April 2009.

Here is another report:

lancet-climate-change

Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission

Managing the health effects of climate change

Executive summary | Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century

Effects of climate change on health will affect most populations in the next decades and put the lives and wellbeing of billions of people at increased risk. During this century, earth’s average surface temperature rises are likely to exceed the safe threshold of 2°C above preindustrial average temperature. Rises will be greater at higher latitudes, with medium-risk scenarios predicting 2–3°C rises by 2090 and 4–5°C rises in northern Canada, Greenland, and Siberia. In this report, we have outlined the major threats—both direct and indirect—to global health from climate change through changing patterns of disease, water and food insecurity, vulnerable shelter and human settlements, extreme climatic events, and population growth and migration. Although vector-borne diseases will expand their reach and death tolls, especially among elderly people, will increase because of heatwaves, the indirect effects of climate change on water, food security, and extreme climatic events are likely to have the biggest effect on global health.

A new advocacy and public health movement is needed urgently to bring together governments, international agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), com-munities, and academics from all disciplines to adapt to the effects of climate change on health. Any adaptation should sit alongside the need for primary mitigation: reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and the need to increase carbon biosequestration through reforestation and improved agricultural practices. The recognition by governments and electorates that climate change has enormous health implications should assist the advocacy and political change needed to tackle both mitigation and adaptation.

Management of the health effects of climate change will require inputs from all sectors of government and civil society, collaboration between many academic disciplines, and new ways of international cooperation that have hitherto eluded us. Involvement of local communities in monitoring, discussing, advocating, and assisting with the process of adaptation will be crucial. An integrated and multidisciplinary approach to reduce the adverse health effects of climate change requires at least three levels of action. First, policies must be adopted to reduce carbon emissions and to increase carbon biosequestration, and thereby slow down global warming and eventually stabilise temperatures. Second, action should be taken on the events linking climate change to disease. Third, appropriate public health systems should be put into place to deal with adverse outcomes.

While we must resolve the key issue of reliance on fossil fuels, we should acknowledge their contribution to huge improvements in global health and development over the past 100 years. In the industrialised world and richer parts of the developing world, fossil fuel energy has contributed to a doubled longevity, dramatically reduced poverty, and increased education and security for most populations.

Conclusions and recommendations

This report raises many challenging and urgent questions for politicians, civil servants, academics, health professionals, NGOs, pressure groups, and local communities. Climate change is potentially the biggest global health threat in the 21st century. Our response requires a new public health movement that is multidisciplinary and multisectoral, and that leads to coordinated thinking and action across governments, international agencies, NGOs, and academic insti-tutions. Any adaptation interventions must sit alongside the need for primary mitigation: reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, recognition by governments and electorates that climate change has enormous health implications should assist the advocacy and political change to tackle mitigation and adaptation.

Whichever mitigation strategies are chosen by governments or agreed at the Copenhagen conference, the move to a low-carbon economy will have global health benefits and these must also be emphasised. More research is needed on win-win solutions, which are equally important in developed and developing countries.

We have proposed a framework for responding to the health effects through adaptation strategies, which in turn embeds mitigation strategies to improve human health worldwide.

This framework raises several important issues for action:

• Climate change mitigation and adaptation are essential elements to overall development policy. They are not separate issues that can be divided from the agenda for poverty alleviation or for closing the gap on social inequalities and health.

• The most urgent need is to empower poor countries, and local government and local communities everywhere, to understand climate implications and to take action. Health professionals and university academics have an important catalytic role. Multi-disciplinary groups from higher education institutions can have a forceful role in engaging with community leaders, civil society organisations, and students in these debates. There is a need for new financing for global links between developed and developing countries that create a two-way dialogue. Developed countries can help to strengthen capacity for high-quality research and information collection in developing countries, and developing countries can strengthen the ability of developed countries to understand sustainability and low-carbon living. Empowerment is as much about community mobilisation as high-level political action. The empowerment process is likely to be pluralistic and chaotic, but health and academic communities can do much to support and catalyse these processes.

• An agenda for developing countries must be developed through global cooperation. Representation on global task forces to assess the health effect of climate change is heavily skewed in favour of institutions in developed countries. In poor countries, health assessments and high-level climate science and health surveillance research are a priority. New research and advocacy groupings in Africa and south Asia are needed, and the academic community of developed countries must have a role in lobbying for resources and support. Food and water insecurity are early effects of climate change and will be a high priority for poor communities. Distilling academic findings into simple language, policy briefs, and user-friendly media is essential.

• Climate change should be integrated into the entire discourse of our present and should be taken into consideration for all governance actions. An advocacy movement must ensure that the health effects of climate change are placed high on the agenda of every research and development funder, philanthropist, academic journal, scientific conference, professional meeting, and university or school curriculum. Academics should lead advocacy within their own spheres of influence.

• Accountability mechanisms are crucial. We hope that this report will initiate or stimulate new funding and networks to monitor what is happening in government, civil society, academia, local government, and communities, especially in the most vulnerable populations. Accountability indicators should be monitored by the academic community and civil society organisations. It should be possible to agree upon health and climate change goals and targets for the processes of engagement and empowerment. Global and regional conferences and working groups to develop these outputs would be valuable in the same way that previous reports published in The Lancet have stimulated action on child survival, nutrition, and maternal health through the countdown to 2015. A biennial review of progress towards agreed targets would help to accelerate progress through celebration of success and identification of areas where progress is lagging.

• Awareness of health risks can have an important role in strengthening carbon mitigation debates and targets. Joint statements from national institutes of medicine, representative bodies such as royal colleges, journal editors, organisations such as the Climate and Health Council,175 and university leaders worldwide, drawing upon a growing evidence base, can create a solidarity and authority that politicians will find hard to resist. The priority is to send clear messages to the Copenhagen conference in December,

www.thelancet.com Vol 373 May 16, 2009 1729 2009, emphasising the health consequences of climate change, even with a 2°C increase in temperatures (which is now broadly accepted as inevitable), with estimates of the severity of health effects at warming up to 4°C. Public and policy maker recognition of the profound meaning of the existence of threats from climate change to nature’s life processes, to the productive and stabilising ecosystems upon which we depend, and hence to human health and survival, will have great effect on the seriousness and urgency with which we approach this unprecedented challenge.

• The frequently observed state of fragmented health systems, with little attention paid to long-term sustainability, must give way to the development of coherent, population-based, and bottom-up health planning. Health systems must not act only as a platform for the delivery of clinical services but also provide the foundation for an effective public health response to the many climate-induced threats to health. This action will require more attention being paid to the organisational and management deficiencies of ministries of health, including subnational health governance and management structures. Long-term strategies and investments will be needed to develop the clinical and management human capacity of health systems. Some countries will also need to address the currently unregulated and disorganised private sector to harness existing resources to better serve the public interest. Many countries currently lack any coherent long-term and sustainable development agenda for their health systems. This needs to change.

• The move to a low-carbon economy will have global health benefits from both a reduction in the health effects of climate change and improvement in human lifestyles, and these must be emphasised. There must be more research on win-win solutions, which are equally important in rich and poor countries. For example building new green cities in the developed world, which minimise the need for cars and maximise exercise, will contribute to the fight against obesity. In poorer countries, developing water and energy systems, which are operated by local renewable sources of power, cuts reliance on imported fossil fuels and empowers local community groups.

• Building low-carbon and climate-resilient cities in emerging economies that adapt to continuing rural–urban migration, driven both by economic development and climate effects, is important. More than a third of the world’s population now live in urban areas in low-income or middle-income nations. Even Africa has 40% of its population in urban areas, a number that is larger than that in North America. Worldwide, the numbers of people injured or killed by storms and floods, and the amount of economic damage caused and insurance claims made, especially in these urban areas, have increased.

• Three priorities for action in urban areas are to improve the capacity and accountability of local and municipal government, to change their relation to informal settlers, and to ensure that government policies encourage rather than hinder the con-tributions to adaptation made by individuals, community organisations, and private enterprise.70 Urban developments could use climate-resilient engineering on sites at low risk of water or food stress, and provide sustainable low-carbon transport and other infrastructure. A new approach to urban planning to ensure healthy food supplies, adequate exercise, clean air, clean water, devolved health service structures, and education might provide a model of what we mean by a climate-adapted public health response.

High-income countries have caused almost all the anthropogenic climate change that has occurred to date, and they must now face extremely challenging political and economic choices if climate change mitigation is to be achieved. The UCL Lancet Commission has recognised Antonio Gramsci’s pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will in tackling this issue. The academic community has a crucial role in facing up to the challenge of climate change, the health consequences we shall bequeath to our children and grandchildren (panel 7), and in helping to inform and support a policy process that will challenge us all.

What is a practical way to take the challenge forward? We call for a collation of global expertise on the health effects of climate change leading up to a major conference within the next 2 years, which will define the priorities for management, implementation, and monitoring. Representation from developing countries should be emphasised. The conference should bring representatives of all interested groups together to share experiences, and to discuss and endorse a set of key indicators and targets (climate and health adaptation goals developed by an international expert working group) for concerted global action. A key element of this action programme should focus on ways in which the poor nations can develop their own capacity to monitor problems, and to improve the evidence base for policy makers and planners. We believe a biennial review of progress towards agreed targets would help to accelerate progress through celebration of success and identification of areas in which progress is lagging.

Air Pollution Endangers Lives of Six in 10 Americans

WASHINGTON, DC, April 29, 2009 (ENS) – Six out of every 10 Americans – 186.1 million people – live in areas where air pollution endangers lives, according to the 10th annual American Lung Association State of the Air report released today.

Some of the biggest sources of air pollution – dirty power plants, dirty diesel engines and ocean-going vessels – also worsen global warming, the Lung Association says in State of the Air 2009.

As America deals with the linked challenges of air pollution, global warming and energy, the Lung Association urges Congress, the U.S. EPA and individuals to choose solutions that help solve all three challenges together.

Nearly every major American city is still burdened by air pollution, and the air in many cities became dirtier since last year, the report finds, despite “substantial progress” made against air pollution in many areas of the country and more attention paid to the environment by America’s growing green movement.

“This should be a wakeup call. We know that air pollution is a major threat to human health,” said Stephen Nolan, American Lung Association National Board Chair. “When 60 percent of Americans are left breathing air dirty enough to send people to the emergency room, to shape how kids’ lungs develop, and to kill, air pollution remains a serious problem.”

State of the Air 2009 includes a national air quality report card that assigns A-F grades to communities across the country and details trends for 900 counties over the past decade.

The report ranks cities and counties most affected by the three most widespread types of pollution – ozone, or smog; annual particle pollution; and 24-hour particle pollution levels.

The report finds that air pollution hovers at unhealthy levels in almost every major city, threatening people’s ability to breathe and placing lives at risk.

“The more we learn, the more urgent it becomes for us to take decisive action to make our air healthier,” said Nolan.

Many cities, like Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, Charlotte, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, and Baltimore have made improvements in their air quality over the past decade.

Only one city, Fargo, North Dakota, ranked among the cleanest in all three air pollution categories.

Seventeen cities appeared on two of the three lists of cleanest cities: Billings, Montana; Bismarck and Sioux Falls, North Dakota; Cheyenne, Wyoming; Colorado Springs, Ft. Collins, and Pueblo, Colorado; Farmington and Santa Fe-Espanola, New Mexico; Honolulu, Hawaii; Lincoln, Nebraska; Midland-Odessa, Texas; Port St. Lucie, Florida; Redding, Salinas, and San Luis Obispo, California; and Tucson, Arizona.

The three cities most polluted by ozone are all in California – the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area; Bakersfield, a center of agriculture, petroleum extraction and refining, and manufacturing in the San Joaquin Valley; and Visalia-Porterville, a San Joaquin Valley agricultural community.

Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pennsylvania tops the list of cities most polluted by 24 hour fine particle pollution, while the three California cities that top the most polluted ozone list are close behind in this category and also for year-round particle pollution.

Ozone

In March 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted a new, tighter standard for ozone pollution. The new standard showed that unhealthy ozone levels are more widespread and more severe than previously recognized.

Evaluating the most recent data against the new standard, the American Lung Association found that approximately 175.4 million Americans – 58 percent – live in counties where ozone monitors recorded too many days with unhealthy ozone levels, far more than the 92.5 million identified in the State of the Air 2008 report.

Sixteen cities making this year’s 25 most ozone-polluted list experienced worse smog problems than last year.

The Lung Association’s review found consistent improvements in ozone in some cities, such as Los Angeles, with its long-standing ozone problem.

But two cities, Dallas-Ft. Worth and Las Vegas, have higher ozone levels than 10 years ago.

Ozone is the most widespread form of air pollution. When inhaled, ozone irritates the lungs, resulting in something like a bad sunburn. The health effects of breathing ozone pollution can be immediate. Ozone can cause wheezing, coughing and asthma attacks. Breathing ozone pollution can even shorten lives.

“More than 175 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy smog levels — that’s 80 million more than we identified in last year’s report,” said Charles Connor, American Lung Association president and chief executive. “We at the American Lung Association believe that the new ozone standard is not yet strong enough to protect human health — an opinion nearly all scientific experts share.”

In March 2008, the EPA adopted a standard of .075 parts per million, ppm, after legal action by the American Lung Association forced the agency to complete a formal review. This standard is not as strict as the standard of .060 ppm recommended by the Lung Association.

The association, along with states, public health and environmental groups, has taken the EPA back to court in an attempt to force the agency to adopt the .060 ppm standard before its scheduled five-year review in 2013.

Particle Pollution

State of the Air 2009 grades counties for both 24-hour and year-round levels of particle pollution – a toxic mix of microscopic soot, diesel exhaust, chemicals, metals and aerosols.

“It is the most dangerous and deadly of the outdoor air pollutants that are widespread in America,” the Lung Association says in its report, warning that “breathing in particle pollution can increase the risk of early death, heart attacks, strokes and emergency room visits for asthma and cardiovascular disease.”

One in six people in the United States lives in an area with unhealthy year-round levels of fine particle pollution (termed annual average levels).

Nine cities in the list of the 25 most polluted by year-round particle pollution showed measurable improvement, including five cities that reported their best year-round levels since the Lung Association began tracking this pollutant: Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Atlanta, York and Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

The annual average level of particle pollution worsened in a dozen cities, including Bakersfield and Los Angeles, California and Houston, Texas.

Roughly three in 10 Americans live in counties with unhealthful spikes of particle pollution which can last from hours to days (termed 24-hour levels).

Thirteen cities had more days, or more severe days, of spikes than in last year’s report. Eleven cities have improved continually since the 2007 report.

New data show that women in their 50’s may be particularly threatened by air pollution and that diesel truck drivers and dockworkers who are forced to breathe exhaust on the job may face a greater risk of developing lung cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

California researchers have tripled their estimate of the number of people that particle pollution kills each year in their state.

“The science is rock-solid. We now know that air pollution can impair the lung function of even the healthiest people,” said Norman Edelman, MD, American Lung Association chief medical officer. “Air pollution worsens asthma and is a direct cause of heart attacks, which makes people living with lung and heart disease especially vulnerable.”

Dr. Edelman suggests that people living in areas of high particle pollution “must recognize that this is the fact of their lives, and they must be more careful about other life factors – stop smoking, eat well, exercise.”

In addition, Dr. Edelman suggests, people who live with particle pollution “must take action help us and other organizations to change the EPA regulations. It’s personal, it’s affecting them and their neighbors.” In addition, he said, they can take local political action to change regulations such as engine idling, and clean up diesel-powered school buses.

Low income people and some racial and ethnic groups often face greater risk from pollutants. Pollution sources like factories and power plants may be closer to their homes, the Lung Association points out. Many live near areas with heavy highway traffic or have poor access to health care, which makes them even more vulnerable. Some racial and ethnic groups have a higher prevalence of diseases like asthma or diabetes, which compounds the ill effects of air pollution for these groups.

“We need to renew our commitment to providing healthy air for all our citizens — a commitment the United States made almost 40 years ago when Congress passed the Clean Air Act,” Connor said. “After four decades, we still have much work to do.”

“America needs to cut emissions from big polluters like coal-fired power plants and ocean-going vessels,” Connor said. “We need to fix old dirty diesel engines to make them cleaner and strengthen the ozone standards to better protect our health. We also need to improve the decaying infrastructure of air monitors. America must now enforce the laws that help us improve our nation’s air quality.”

CLEANEST U.S. CITIES

Cleanest U.S. Cities for Ozone Air Pollution *Cities below had equal scores.

• Billings, Montana
• Carson City, Nevada
• Coeur D’Alene, Idaho
• Fargo-Wahpeton, North Dakota-Minnesota
• Honolulu, Hawaii
• Laredo, Texas
• Lincoln, Nebraska
• Port St. Lucie-Sebastian-Vero Beach, Florida
• Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Cleanest U.S. Cities for Short-term Particle Pollution (24 Hour PM2.5) *Cities below had equal scores.

• Alexandria, Louisiana
• Amarillo, Texas
• Austin-Round Rock, Texas
• Bismarck, North Dakota
• Brownsville-Harlingen-Raymondville, Texas
• Cheyenne, Wyoming
• Colorado Springs, Colorado
• Corpus Christi-Kingsville, Texas
• Fargo-Wahpeton, North Dakota-Minnesota
• Farmington, New Mexico
• Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado
• Grand Junction, Colorado
• Longview-Marshall, Texas
• Midland-Odessa, Texas
• Oklahoma City-Shawnee, Oklahoma
• Portland-Lewiston-South Portland, Maine
• Pueblo, Colorado
• Redding, California
• Salinas, California
• San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, California
• Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, California
• Santa Fe-Espanola, New Mexico
• Sioux Falls, South Dakota
• Tucson, Arizona

10 Cleanest U.S. Cities for Long-term Particle Pollution (Annual PM2.5)

• Cheyenne, Wyoming
• Santa Fe-Espanola, New Mexico
• Honolulu, Hawaii
• Great Falls, Montana (tied for 4th)
• Flagstaff, Arizona (tied for 4th)
• Farmington, New Mexico (tied for 6th)
• Anchorage, Alaska (tied for 6th)
• Tucson, Arizona
• Bismarck, North Dakota (tied for 9th)
• Salinas, California (tied for 9th)

MOST POLLUTED U.S. CITIES

10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Ozone

1. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, California
2. Bakersfield, California
3. Visalia-Porterville, California
4. Fresno-Madera, California
5. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, Texas
6. Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Yuba City, California-Nevada
7. Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
8. Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, N.C.-S.C.
9. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona
10. El Centro, California

10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Short-term Particle Pollution (24 Hour PM2.5)

1. Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pennsylvania
2. Fresno-Madera, California
3. Bakersfield, California
4. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, California
5. Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, Alabama
6. Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield, Utah
7. Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Yuba City, California-Nevada
8. Logan, Utah
9. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (tied for 9th)
10. Detroit-Warren-Flint, Michigan (tied for 9th)

10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Year-Round Particle Pollution (Annual PM2.5)

1. Bakersfield, California
2. Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pennsylvania
3. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, California
4. Visalia-Porterville, California
5. Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, Alabama
6. Hanford-Corcoran, California
7. Fresno-Madera, California
8. Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana
9. Detroit-Warren-Flint, Michigan
10. Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, Ohio

Visit www.lungusa.org to search local air quality grades by zip code.

City looks into limited drive-thru bans

April 08, 2009

The Hamilton Spectator

(Apr 8, 2009)

Hamilton’s planning staff continue to oppose a city-wide ban on drive-thrus, but are investigating restrictions for select neighbourhoods.

A full ban would likely be appealed and lose at the Ontario Municipal Board, staff told councillors on the planning committee yesterday. However, as part of the city’s official plan and zoning regulations, staff feel it’s possible to explore smaller bans around the city. For example, drive-thrus aren’t currently allowed in the downtown and business improvement areas, which are considered pedestrian-focused.

Councillor Brian McHattie said he would like the city to push further, arguing drive-thrus are “unnecessary.”

“It does promote a car culture,” he said. He favours a ban to reduce air pollution and promote healthier lifestyles.

The city plans to consult with the service industry and work with urban design staff before returning with recommendations in the fall.

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/545002

BETHESDA, Maryland, March 23, 2009 (ENS) – Scientific evidence is mounting that connects an increase in particulate air pollution with an increase in heart attacks and deaths. Research from the relatively new field of environmental cardiology includes a 16-year-long Harvard University study of six U.S. cities that found fine particulate pollution, even at levels below the federal health standard, can shorten lifespans by two years. A majority of these earlier deaths were due to heart disease.

A study in Salt Lake City found that when a steel mill shut down for a period of months, there was a four to six percent drop in mortality in neighboring areas. The mortality rose to previous levels when the steel mill reopened.

A study of 250 metropolitan areas around the world found that a spike in air pollution is followed by a spike in heart attacks.

The people who seem to be most susceptible to environmental pollutants are those who are already vulnerable, including the elderly and people with coronary artery disease. There is some evidence that diabetics, women and people who are obese may be at greater risk.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the industrialized world. In the United States, it kills approximately one million people per year, accounting for over 40 percent of all deaths.

To examine this emerging research in greater detail, Aruni Bhatnagar of the University of Louisville and Robert Brook of the University of Michigan have organized a symposium called Environmental Factors in Heart Disease, to take place April 21 at an Experimental Biology conference in New Orleans. The 120-year-old American Physiological Society is one of the sponsors of the annual conference.

Dr. Bhatnagar, from the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Louisville, will speak on environmental aldehydes exposure and cardiovascular disease. His research shows that the risk of having a heart attack increases in parallel with time spent in traffic the previous day.

In animal experiments, Dr. Bhatnagar has found that aldehydes – a toxic class of chemicals found in most forms of smoke, including cigarette smoke and car exhaust – increase blood cholesterol levels and activate enzymes that cause plaque in the blood vessels to rupture. When plaques rupture, it can cause a blood clot, which may block an artery and lead to a heart attack.

Aldehydes are present in high concentrations in smog and are generated during combustion of any kind of organic material coal, wood, paper, or cotton. “Direct exposure to high concentrations of unsaturated aldehydes is cardiotoxic,” writes Dr. Bhatnagar in a 2004 editorial in the “American Journal of Physiology.”

The evidence strongly supports the view that “exposure to environmental toxins significantly increases CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk, which contributes to the overall health burden of air pollution,” he writes.

Dr. Brook, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Michigan will speak on environmental pollution and hypertension. He has found that fine particles and ultra-fine particles entering the lungs can make their way into the blood vessels. Within 15 minutes of inhaling pollutants, there is a very rapid increase in blood pressure, he says.

Blood vessels react to the pollutants by producing an inflammatory response to attack the foreign particles. However, the inflammatory response itself can set off a complex physiological reaction that is harmful to the blood vessels, Dr. Brook says.

If you live in an area where pollution levels may be high, you can take steps to reduce the risk of air pollution, Dr. Brook advises. “During times when air quality is unhealthy, exercise indoors, because indoor air is filtered. If you exercise outdoors, particularly if you’re at risk for heart disease, do it when pollutants are at lower levels. Avoid peak traffic times,” he says.

Other speakers at the symposium include Araujo Jesus of the University of California, Los Angeles, who will describe the the effects of ultrafine air pollution of blood vessels, and Murray Mittleman of the Harvard School of Public Health will speak on the connection between air pollution and strokes.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2009/2009-03-23-092.asp

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2009. All rights reserved.

Every breath you take — air quality in Europe
Courtesy of European Environment Agency (EEA)
Originally published Mar. 2009

The characters in this story are fictional. However the data are real. The story is set on 27 July 2008 when an air quality warning was issued in Brussels. Anna is 37 years old and lives in the centre of Brussels. She and her young son Johan are planning a trip outside the busy city. Anna suffers from asthma and her doctor has warned of the dangers of air pollution, especially on hot summer days.

Anna has heard about the London fogs of the 1950s that killed 2 000 people in one week. She has childhood memories of evening news bulletins showing dead fish and dying trees as ‘ acid rain’ first came to popular attention in the 1970s.

Motherhood and a recent asthma attack have quite rightly brought air pollution back to mind. The fact is that emissions of many air pollutants have fallen substantially across Europe since Anna’s childhood. The air she and Johan breathe is much improved compared to the past, and air policy is one of the great success stories of the EU’s environmental efforts. In particular, EU policy has dramatically cut emissions of sulphur, the main component of ‘acid rain’.

In contrast, nitrogen — also a major component of ‘acid rain’ — has not been dealt with to the same extent and so continues to cause major problems. A significant proportion of Europe’s urban population still live in cities where EU air quality limits, protecting human health, are regularly exceeded. Each year, many more people die prematurely from air pollution in Europe than die in traffic accidents.

The European goal of achieving levels of air quality that do not damage people’s health or the environment has still not been reached. EEA analysis suggests that 15 of the 27 EU Member States will miss one or more of their legally binding 2010 targets to reduce harmful air pollutants.

Particulate matter and ozone
Two pollutants, fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone, are now generally recognised as the most significant in terms of health impacts. Long-term and peak exposure can lead to a variety of health effects, ranging from minor irritation of the respiratory system to premature death.

Particulate matter, a term used to describe a variety of tiny particles from sources such as vehicle exhausts and domestic stoves, affect the lungs. Exposure can harm people of all ages, but people with existing heart and respiratory problems are particularly at risk.

According to the latest EEA data, since 1997 up to 50 % of Europe’s urban population may have been exposed to concentrations of particulate matter above the EU limit set to protect human health. As much as 61 % of the urban population may have been exposed to levels of ozone that exceed the EU target. It has been estimated that PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) in air has reduced statistical life expectancy in the EU by more than eight months.

The EEA has noted that while emissions of these two key air pollutants have dropped since 1997, measured concentrations in the air we breathe have remained largely the same. As yet, we don’t know why there has not been a drop in ambient concentrations but it could be a combination of several factors: increased temperatures caused by climate change could be affecting air quality; perhaps we are on the receiving end of pollution from other continents or natural emissions of ozone forming substances released from trees, for example.

A day in the country
Anna is planning a day in the country with Johan. Before leaving her apartment she logs onto IRCEL, a government web service providing a host of regular information on air quality around Belgium. Using maps, Anna can scan readings and forecasts for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide among many others. The data are relayed to the web from monitoring stations around the country.

Improvements in monitoring and availability of information on air pollution are another of the success stories of recent years. For instance, local data on ozone levels are now passed onto the EEA ‘Ozone web’ (1) service that provides an overview of the situation across Europe.

Anna scrolls across a map of Belgium, zooming in on a monitoring station in the centre of Brussels, less than two kilometres from her home.

The reading, taken minutes earlier, shows high levels of ozone in Brussels. Indeed the website forecasts that levels will exceed EU target values later that day and again the following day ( Figure 1).

Anna leaves her apartment building and makes for the nearest Metro station, a 10 minute walk away. Out on the street, the full impact of the city’s traffic problems are easy to see — and smell.

Exhaust emissions from cars in the centre of Brussels, and all major cities, irritate the respiratory tract and eyes and lungs. Anna and Johan turn into their local train station and head for the countryside.

Soon, Anna and Johan are entering a national park just outside Brussels. A sign tells them that they are visiting a Natura 2000 site — one part of a European-wide ecological network, set up to secure natural habitats and to maintain the range of plant and animal life.

Figure 1: The location and levels of ozone at air quality monitoring stations in Brussels on Sunday 27 July 2008

Nitrogen
But what’s that smell? A tractor is spraying liquid manure onto a field not far away. This is irritating, Anna thinks, but it’s also part of real country life which is shown in a rather more romantic way in Johan’s picture books.

The pungent smell is caused by as many as 40 different chemical substances emitted from the manure. Ammonia (NH3), a volatile nitrogen compound, is one of them. In very high concentrations NH3 is caustic and can damage the respiratory tract. However, the levels here are not dangerous for human health. Anna can breathe a sigh of relief, albeit a stinky one.
Nitrogen is an essential nutrient in nature. Reactive nitrogen forms are actually used by our bodies to produce proteins. However, excess nitrogen can lead to severe environmental and health problems.

‘Acid rain’ forms when high levels of sulphur and nitrogen oxides are present in the air. One of the great success stories of air pollution policy over the last decades has been the massive reduction in emissions of sulphur dioxide. The 32 EEA member countries reduced sulphur emissions by 70 % between 1990 and 2006. Nitrogen, on the other hand, has not been dealt with as successfully.

With sulphur emissions declining, nitrogen is now the principal acidifying component in our air. Agriculture and transport are the main sources of nitrogen pollution. Agriculture is responsible for more than 90 % of ammonia (NH3) emissions alone.

Suddenly Johan, who has been walking unsteadily loses his balance and falls into a clump of stinging nettles. Having picked him up and brushed him off, Anna notices nettles everywhere. She has vivid memories of them as a child in a neighbour’s garden. Then the nettles grew around a compost heap that was also used as a dump for poultry dung. That was no coincidence — the stinging plant is an indicator of high nitrogen concentrations in soils.

‘Eutrophication’ is the most likely cause of this explosion of stinging nettles surrounding Johan. It occurs when too many chemical nutrients (such as N) are available to an ecosystem either on land or in water. In water, excessive plant growth and subsequent decay occur, which in turn leads to further effects including oxygen depletion. Fish and other animals and plants ultimately suffocate as the oxygen supply is used up.

The abundance of the nettles here suggests that despite being a protected habitat, the Natura 2000 site is not immune from airborne nitrogen deposits. The fence protecting the area offers no defence — in fact building a greenhouse around the area would be the only way to protect it totally from airborne substances.

Looking ahead
Because air pollution pays no regard to national boundaries the problem needs to be tackled internationally. The United Nations Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP Convention) agreed in 1979, has been signed by 51 countries and forms the basis of the international fight to tackle air pollution.

In parallel, the EU has developed polices limiting the total emissions of each Member State, setting legally binding limits. The ‘ National Emissions Ceiling Directive’ (NECD) is a key EU policy. It sets ‘ceilings’ or limits for four pollutants: sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), and ammonia (NH3). Member States should meet these ceilings by 2010.

The EEA considers that further emission cuts are still needed in order to properly protect environment and health. An EEA analysis of the most recent NECD data (2) indicates that 15 Member States expect to miss at least one of their four ceilings; with 13 anticipating missing ceilings for the 2 nitrogen-containing pollutants NOX and NH3 (3).

In 2009 the European Commission plans to publish a proposal to revise the current NECD, including stricter ceilings for the year 2020. National limits are likely to be proposed for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for the first time.

The NECD is mirrored by air quality directives setting limit and target values for major air pollutants. A new one called the Cleaner Air For Europe (CAFE) Directive was adopted in April 2008. For the first time it sets legally binding limit values for PM2.5 concentrations (fine particulate matter), to be attained in 2015. The European Commission is also taking countries to task for having missed earlier limits and, where sufficient measures have not been outlined to improve performance, has begun infringement proceedings.

Later that evening Anna, while watching the evening news, sees that an air quality warning has been issued by the government in response to high ozone levels beyond the EU threshold. The warning advises people with breathing problems to take precautions such as avoiding strenuous exercise while the ozone levels remain high.

Climate change mitigation efforts will improve air quality

In January 2008, the European Commission proposed a Climate and Energy package to:

• reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 % by 2020;
• increase the share of renewable energy by 20 % by 2020;
• improve energy efficiency by 20 % by 2020.

The efforts required to meet these targets will also cut air pollution in Europe. For example, improvements in energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy will both lead to reduced amounts of fossil fuel combustion — a key source of air pollution. These positive side effects are referred to as the ‘co-benefits’ of climate change policy.

It has been estimated that the above package will cut the cost of meeting EU air pollution targets by EUR 8.5 billion per year. The savings to the European health services could be as much as six times that figure.

http://www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachArticle.aspx?cid=8909&codi=47906&loginemail=elle-provocateur@sympatico.ca&logincode=187521

Tailpipe emissions

These are the chemicals produced by a vehicle as it runs (1):

• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
• Hydrocarbons (HC)
• Sulphur dioxide (SO2)
• Particulate matter (PM10)
• Ozone (O3)

Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

Hydrocarbons (HC)

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

Particulate matter (PM10)

Ozone (O3)

http://www.climatechangeconnection.org/Emissions/Tailpipeemissions.htm