Since today is the day that I officially write off the Nobel Peace prize as a lost political cause that panders to pop culture and junk science, I thought it would also be a good day to slap the American Lung Association around as well.

Whatever the ALA once was, it is no more. It has become nothing more than a tool to strong arm government into getting its way by using “public health” issues as striking points. Among other things, they have used this tactic with smoking, and are currently instrumental in pushing for a Wisconsin smoking ban, and they are also now working with the greenie movement. While they have always been a part of the environmental movement for promoting clean air, I think they have jumped on the wrong bandwagon this time.

So backing up for just a second, I went to the ALA website and looked up their mission statement on environmental health:

“Lung disease can be caused or aggravated by air pollution, both indoors and out. The American Lung Association is active in the pollution control arena and has become the leading public advocate for clean air, as well as the chief source of information and public education on the health hazards of air pollution.”

Ok, that makes sense, and I would agree that controlling toxins in the air is probably a good cause. After all, toxins spewing forth from factories can be bad news. Remember Union Carbide disaster in India? It’s probably a pretty good idea to keep toxins out of the air.

However, the amount of sense that the ALA makes disintegrates a bit when it comes to their support for pop culture environmentalism. For instance, the ALA just issued a press release praising Wisconsin Governor Doyle for hosting an energy security and climate change summit. While this doesn’t have an ominous ring to it on the surface, look deeper:

“‘We thank the Governor for his efforts and leadership on renewable energy, biofuels, and cleaner air,’ said Dona Wininsky, Director of Public Policy and Communications for the ALA-WI. ‘This summit can highlight that energy security and global warming efforts like biofuels can reduce asthma and other respiratory diseases that threaten our health.‘”

I added the bold emphasis to point out the confusing part of this statement. Biofuels reduce asthma and respiratory disease? But it gets worse as the ALA shows its support for biofuels using Minnesota as their example:

“‘Minnesota offers many programs we can learn from in Wisconsin like requiring more biofuels and investing in more clean, renewable energy,’ said Wininsky. ‘Now is the time for the Legislature to pass measures to promote biofuels…’”

So the ALA is on the bandwagon, hook line and sinker. This is not only concerning, it is downright confusing. Does the ALA not do its homework? It wouldn’t seem so, and what’s worse is that they seem to be calling their own opinions fact and using them to push for government legislation. That is bad. That’s part of the reason that we are having smoking bans thrust upon us and is certaliny not helping to cool the biofuels craze. But this time the ALA is really propagating some bizarre and incongruent fallacies, and here’s why:

From their own website, here is what they say about second hand smoke:

“Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.”

Since this post isn’t about smoking, I will let you decide about the second-hand smoke topic (read yesterday’s post for an in-depth look). What is notable, however, is that they tag these things as bad and use them as ammo in their war against smoking. However, here is what we are two examples of what we are now finding out about biofuels:

From Scientific American:
Regarding switching to E85… “Under the latter scenario, levels of the cancer-causing agents benzene and butadiene dropped, whereas those of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde rose: In other words, it was a wash.”

From CBS News:
“Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) being released by the ethanol plants include formaldehyde and acetic acid, both carcinogens. Methanol, although not known to cause cancer, also is classified as a hazardous pollutant.”

Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture? The very same pollutants that the ALA are using as their arguments against second hand smoke are the same pollutants that are being spit out by biofuels. I’m starting to smell a disparity here. But let’s look at some of the other disparities, shall we.

Here’s some information from a Stanford University study:

“A new study out of Stanford says pollution from ethanol could end up creating a worse health hazard than gasoline, especially for people with asthma and other respiratory diseases.

‘Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution,’ Mark Z. Jacobson, the study’s author and an atmospheric scientist at Stanford, said in a statement. ‘But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage.’”

I emphasized the important line for you. Now, if we go back to the ALA’s press release where I also emphasized the important line, they specifically say that: “global warming efforts like biofuels can reduce asthma and other respiratory diseases that threaten our health.” Remember that? Whoa now, who forgot to do their homework on this one? Somebody’s face should certainly be red.

But if you think it’s just a conspiracy, don’t just take the atmospheric scientist’s word for it:

“The study also attracted the attention of environmental scientists.

‘The basic principles of Jacobson’s paper are sound,’ said David Pimentel, an ecology professor emeritus at Cornell University in an e-mail.

‘The burning of ethanol releases large quantities of ozone, a serious air pollutant,’ he said. ‘In addition, the use of ethanol as a fuel releases formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, plus benzene and butadiene. All of these are carcinogens and are a threat to public health.’”

Yet, isn’t the ALA telling us different stories here? Aren’t we being told that biofuels are not only good for the environment, but also for the health and well-being of your lungs? Interestingly the ALA in St. Paul, Minnesota refuted the findings in the Scientific American study, claiming that they ran a few E85 cars on a dyno and measured the emissions and found that they weren’t so bad. But then again, it’s the ALA versus university scientists. Which study holds more water?

What’s even more shocking here is that the push for biofuels has actually forced the EPA (and the ALA by proxy) to allow relaxed pollution standards for ethanol plants! Here is some information from the Environmental News Service:

“The federal government said today that it will permit corn milling facilities that make ethanol for fuel to emit more than double the amount of air pollutants previously allowed. The new rule is expected to increase the amount of ethanol available for fuel.”

And where is the ALA on this? Can you imagine the fallout if the rules were relaxed for an industry that was part of the sexy pop culture? Yet not only are they allowing for relaxed pollution standards, they are promoting biofuel as a solution to lung disease! Something here just doesn’t add up. By the ALA’s logic, smoking is bad because second-hand smoke is bad for people and air quality. BUT, biofuels are good because they are better for people and air quality… Yet not only is that information not necessarily true, the fact of the matter is that ethanol plants produce many of the exact same hazardous chemicals!

I’m all for good health, but the ALA is way out of line here. They have abandoned their real cause and jumped on the wrong environmental bandwagon here. They are promoting Al Gore-style environmentalism over health, and using their influence and money to push for legislation that very well may have even more deleterious health effects. Shame on them.