(Go read the first two parts so that this makes sense.)
OK, here's the email I received from one Jennifer Foulds at Pollution Watch, which I might need some time to digest so anyone who's an expert here, feel free to jump in. From Ms. Foulds, explaining where those values came from:
The data comes from the Taking Stock report from the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).
The CEC numbers are:
(1) National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) Facilities (Canada) VS Toxic Release Inventory Facilities (TRI) (U.S.)
NPRI facilities are lagging behind TRI facilities in reducing air emissions
• From 1995 to 2002 NPRI facilities reported a decrease of 2% in air emissions vs. TRI facilities that reported a decrease of 45% (based on CEC’s Taking Stock core chemicals that match NPRI and TRI pollutants and reporting facilities over time).
• Taking Stock also shows that the same trend holds true for a more recent time period. From 1998- 2002 NPRI facilities increased their air emissions by 8% compared to a decrease of 21% for TRI facilities
And here's the link to the report. Anyone want to translate it into English? It's been a long week and, frankly, it's your turn to do a little work. It sure does look like those values are comparing apples and oranges, doesn't it?
6 comments:
The Key is to scroll all the way to the right of the report, taking note of some of the other changes reported during this time. There are a lot of categories included in this report, many of which show massive changes. For instance, the "off site releases" category showed a 13.9% decrease for Canada, and a 49.1% increase for the US.
It's pretty clear that given the ridiculous amount of variation in the categories, there is a lot of re-labeling and re-categorizing going on here. Given that the individual numbers are completely suspect, the statistician in me is loath to point to the overall total, but it might be a better overall picture. Canada, down 8.7%, US down 6.8%. Sounds a little more reasonable, yes?
I have no idea if the chemicals here are at a national level, industry, selected industry or whatever. Or even what they are. Or if they are supposed to be a complete list of something meaningful.
Yeah, that makes sense, I never took the time to read all the way over. Time for a summary of all this, I think.
Looks like they are only talking about industrial pollution, anyway. When you factor in auto emissions, the US probably went UP in air pollution during that time.
A reduction in pollution for the "top 12 polluters" might only mean some diversification in those companies (outsourcing). Another example of how you can make statistics say anything you want.
No matter which way it went, there's no way Dubya can take credit for anything that happened before 2001.
1) the report is based on a set of 152 chemicals which is the same for both US and Canada. In this sense it is an apples-to-apples comparison. How representative or important a set of chemicals this is would require a technical expert. More importantly, the relative proportions of each chemical released is unknown – so it could be that a relatively harmless chemical accounts for much of the change. We can’t tell.
2) the figures reported upon in the media refer to the release of these chemicals into the air, at the site of a manufacturing or production facility. So, in fact, the US seems to have reduced the release of these chemicals into the air, on-site, by about 45% between 1998 and 2002, while Canada has reduced the release of these chemicals, on-site, by about 2%. Again, we can’t tell which chemicals account for the difference between 1996 and 2002. In 2002, Canada released only 23% as much of the chemicals as the US.
3) This is only a small part of the report, however. For instance, it also reports releases into water. In this case, the release of this particular set of chemicals into surface water decreased in Canada by almost 50% but increased in the US by 16%. There are many other figures in the report, each section deals with the release of this set of chemicals into air, water, moved to waste disposal sites, etc. (On-site air emissions, On-site surface water discharges, On-site underground injection, On-site land releases, On-site releases, Transfers to disposal (except metals), Transfers to disposal of metals, Off-site releases, Total releases (on-site and off-site), Transfers to treatment (except metals), Transfers to sewage/POTWs (except metals), Total other transfers for further management, Total releases and transfers).
4) So, you are right and you are wrong. Is the story correct? Yes, but it is only a small part of the report. Is the story misleading? Absolutely. It would have been just as correct to say that Canada has decreased water pollution by 50% while the US has increased it by 16%. Both stories would be partly right, but the real story is much more complex. Does this report discuss the most representative or important set of chemicals being released into air or water? We have no idea – it’s simply a set that is accessible in the data from both countries.
All of this research took, what, 10 minutes, half an hour? The conclusions are clearly far different than the news report made. And yet, it was reported on YAhoo, CBC, the Sun newspapers, CTV, and doubtlessly other places as well. Did anyone, and I mean a single news editor at any point, stop and think that the report needed to be checked and verified? Or put in context?
So CC, I'd have a hard time nailing whathisname to wall on this one. At least not on his own. Media (newspapers especially) need to slow down and start checking stories. You can't beat the internet for reposnse time, stop trying! If they provided verifiable and useful information, maybe bloggers would stop making them look so stupid.
So CC, I'd have a hard time nailing whathisname to wall on this one. At least not on his own.
Normally, I'd agree but, as I pointed out, the claim was so ridiculously implausible on its face that anyone who took it seriously and continued to publicize it deserves all the scorn and ridicule you can heap on them.
But that's just me.
Post a Comment