PDA

View Full Version : DFW Air Quality



gc
14 September 2003, 09:50 PM
Why hasn't D-FW cleared the air?
Politics, lack of commitment add to stagnation, experts say
09:19 PM CDT on Saturday, September 13, 2003
By RANDY LEE LOFTIS / The Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/091403dnmetsmog.d5db9.html

A child born in Dallas in 1990, the year Congress ordered a crackdown on smog, breathed dirty air.

That child is 13 now. She still breathes North Texas' dirty air.

Deadlines have come and gone, but the record remains unbroken: Not once has the state written a smog-cleanup plan for North Texas that actually cleaned up the smog to legal levels. The result: a decade-long stall that has millions of people continuing to breathe dirty, harmful air. And they'll keep breathing it for the foreseeable future. There's a plan on the table, but its chance of success by the next deadline, 2005, appears to be virtually nil. After that, the goal would be 2010, when the child of 1990 is halfway through college.

Why has nothing worked?

"I don't really know," said Tom Diggs, who for years has been the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official responsible for checking Texas smog plans.

But like many others, he has an idea: Rapid growth in the 1990s, pushing suburbs and sport utility vehicles far into the former farmland, boosted emissions from cars, trucks, construction equipment, power and cement plants and a host of other sources. Figures show that more people are driving bigger cars longer distances than ever.

"When you go from a population of 3 million to 5.5 million, that's pretty significant," Mr. Diggs said.

Still, the federal Clean Air Act requires that smog plans succeed despite economic growth. That leads others such as Ken Kramer, longtime director of the Sierra Club's Texas chapter, to conclude that nothing has worked because Texas officials have never gotten serious enough about clean air.

"They understand that they are under legal obligation to submit something," Dr. Kramer said. "They understand that they at least have to put on a show of trying to do something. But they've never been willing to take the aggressive action necessary to achieve the results."

A Dallas Morning News review of more than a decade of Texas clean-air decisions found that policy choices and political decisions – including a history of resistance to strong clean-air actions – all have worsened air quality in North Texas or at least led to a smog stalemate. Among the problems:

• Although Texas officials have taken tougher steps on smog in recent years, sometimes they did so only after stripping earlier plans of their muscle. Even then, some replacement plans were missing key elements that might have made them stronger.

• Incomplete science has led to dramatic shifts in strategy, sometimes letting big polluters delay for years major emissions cuts now seen as crucial to fighting smog.

• Under pressure to produce plans that promised success, planners sometimes embraced the rosiest possible predictions – which often went bust, but ironically, wound up buying the state more time in the absence of tough federal enforcement. EPA threats have gotten the state's attention, but no federal action has resulted in legal, clean air.

• A combination of traditional Texas resistance to federal requirements, reluctance to buck powerful economic interests and big-money political influence has frequently led Texas to do less than it could to make the air clean.

Factors far beyond Texas' control are important, too. Some pollution blows in from other states, but whether it's enough to skew Texas' numbers is in dispute. And decisions by the White House, federal agencies and Congress on matters from industrial pollution to energy efficiency directly affect North Texas.

Individuals also make a difference – buying a big or small vehicle, driving to work or taking a bus or train, or getting electricity from the dirtiest or cleanest utility.

The success or failure of all those smog plans is more than a bureaucratic or legal matter. The outcome dictates how much it costs to do business in North Texas – whether it makes sense to open or expand a factory or replace a company vehicle fleet. In February, dirty air led Toyota to reject North Texas as a place for its new truck plant. The winner of the $800 million factory was relatively cleaner San Antonio.

The clean-air outcome also helps keep children happy and healthy or spells potentially fatal asthma attacks. The elderly and the infirm also are at special risk. On some days, even the healthiest people are warned to stay indoors.

"I think we tend to forget the impact on health," said Tessie Holloway, regional director of the American Lung Association. "And certainly it's hurting everyone's pocketbook."

The front-to-back rewrite of the Clean Air Act that President George Bush championed in 1990 ordered every area with a smog level like Dallas' to meet federal standards by 1996. Most did; Dallas-Fort Worth didn't.

Since then, the amount of ozone – smog's main component, a mutant oxygen molecule that prematurely ages lungs, triggers asthma attacks and even harms crop growth – in North Texas has gone up at as many monitors as it's gone down, according to a News analysis.

That it isn't even worse after the 1990s boom years is a testament to efforts so far, said Ralph Marquez, who was appointed by Gov. George W. Bush in 1995 to oversee clean-air policies.

Mr. Marquez pleaded for patience. Cuts in emissions from power plants and cement kilns just began this spring, he said. So did expanded car-smog checks, said Mr. Marquez, in his second term on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

"We are on the right track," he said.

However, any hope that those cuts would ease this summer's smog are gone. May and August brought three violations of the current, less-strict limit on ozone – as many as the law allows in three years. Under the new, tighter standard that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is phasing in over the next 18 months or so, things are even worse: illegally high ozone levels on 26 days since mid-May. Planners expect the region to take seven more years to meet the new standard.

Barry McBee, who chaired the environmental commission under Gov. Bush, said he wouldn't call the state effort a failure.

"Progress has been made," said Mr. McBee, now Texas' first assistant attorney general. "Is there still progress to be made? Yes."

But Dr. Neil Carman, a former Texas air enforcer-turned-Sierra Club clean-air expert, said the failures were real – and predictable.

"I knew that a lot of this stuff was ready to blow up," he said. "It was just a matter of time."

Emission checks halted


Under Mr. Bush, Texas expanded the geographic reach of pollution control efforts in 1998 to cover industries and gas stations in most of East Texas – a move that clean-air advocates welcomed. But the policy change came only after the governor and the Legislature killed comprehensive car-emissions checks for Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston in 1995, just a few days after the program started.
That meant there were only limited inspections of car emissions in North Texas in 1995 – which turned out to be the worst smog year during the last decade – and most of 1996.

The "Motorist's Choice" plan that Mr. Bush later unveiled to replace the scrapped emissions checks was less stringent than the program he killed – and didn't really offer motorists the choice of voluntarily getting a more comprehensive inspection, as its name promised. It also required smog checks only in Dallas and Tarrant counties, leaving out Denton and Collin – the commuter counties that led the region's suburban boom in the 1990s.

The state didn't get back to requiring tougher emissions checks comparable to the ones Mr. Bush killed until seven years later, in 2002 – now covering all four counties once more. This year they expanded again, this time into outlying counties.

In the meantime, the company that built inspection stations for the state under the canceled program collected $140 million in a lawsuit settlement. That money was supposed to make the difference in helping North Texas meet the 1996 federal deadline; instead, it reduced no pollution and slashed funds for other Texas clean-air programs and toxic-waste cleanups.

The stated reason for killing the inspections was public anger over long lines and bureaucratic hassles at centralized testing stations.

"We were nearly lynched," said state Rep. Ray Allen, R-Grand Prairie.

But Patrick Crimmins, former media relations manager for the environmental commission, said there were no long lines across the state.

"The switchboard didn't light up," said Mr. Crimmins, now a communications consultant in Austin. "It really didn't get canceled because of its inconvenience. It was never given a chance."

Changing priorities


Through most of the 1990s, smog plans for North Texas focused exclusively on reducing compounds called volatile organics, one of the two types of pollutants that combine and cook in the air to make ozone. That put the emphasis on chemicals, factories and certain kinds of car emissions.
Although the Clean Air Act requires controls both on volatile organics and the other ozone ingredient, nitrogen oxides, the EPA gave Texas and other states waivers letting them ignore nitrogen oxides in smog planning.

The theory was that states could beat smog by cutting just one pollutant, just as removing fuel, heat or oxygen will put out a fire. By the late 1990s, however, planners decided that nitrogen oxides, or "NOx," were North Texas' main problem after all. They switched strategies, targeting coal- and gas-fired power plants, cement kilns and other kinds of car exhaust.

Today, scientists are switching again, this time to controlling both pollutants. Some smoggy North Texas days are driven by NOx, others by volatile organics, said Pete Breitenbach, who does computer simulations for the environmental commission.

Current plans haven't caught up with the new thinking, he said.

The flip-flops blocked industrial cleanups for years, letting some big NOx emitters argue that they didn't need to cut pollution. As late as 1998, a TXU spokesman predicted that studies would prove that the Dallas-based electric company – Texas' biggest NOx emitter – didn't add to local smog.

Operators of cement plants, which emit huge amounts of NOx by burning fuel in giant kilns, made similar arguments. Now, cuts from those sources are seen as vital to the region's smog plan, and the industries say they're well on the way to meeting newly imposed requirements: 30 percent cuts for the cement plants, 50 percent for power plants outside the central urban area and 88 percent for plants in town. But environmentalists say the need for those cuts was clear decades ago.

"The leadership doomed it," said Jim Schermbeck, a veteran Dallas-area environmental activist.

Mr. Diggs of the EPA said the choices of pollution targets – which the federal government virtually dictated to the states – were based on the best science at the time.

"The science is better now," he said.

Former EPA regional administrator Gregg Cooke went further: Past plans "were fundamentally scientifically flawed," he said, "so they didn't really have any hope of success."

The EPA has repeatedly accepted Texas clean-air forecasts that later were proved wrong. Some underestimated current and future pollution. The prediction of urban growth from 1990 to 1996, for example, was too low by one-third; the mistake helped doom a 1994 smog plan.

"Growth fooled everyone," said Mr. Marquez, the environmental commission member.

Planners also have missed by thinking too highly of their own strategies for cutting pollution, acknowledged Randy Wood, a deputy director of the environmental commission.

The dubious reliability of such forecasts has been an open secret for years. There are myriad ways to put the best spin on them to meet the goal, said Alan Hansen, a nationally known expert on air pollution modeling with the Electric Power Research Institute, a utility-backed group.

"Nobody intentionally fudges the numbers," said Dr. Hansen, who has worked on Texas' problems. "It's just that everyone wants a successful outcome."

Resistance

A resistance to taking the toughest action runs through the Texas smog saga as far back as 1973, when the state unsuccessfully sued the EPA to block federal enforcement on ozone. Well into the 1990s, federal smog requirements were greeted with what Collin County Judge Ron Harris now calls "a reflex instead of an acknowledgement."
"I think it just took us – me – a long time to even acknowledge that there was a problem," said Mr. Harris, who now coordinates North Texas' smog planning. "Now I am a believer and am working accordingly."

gc
14 September 2003, 09:51 PM
Richard E. Greene agreed. "We didn't start soon enough," said the former 10-year Arlington mayor, now in charge of EPA programs in Texas and four adjacent states. "We should have paid more attention 20 years ago. We should have been more visionary about the future. Instead, we said, 'We'll worry about that tomorrow.' "

Mr. McBee, the former commission chairman, said Texas had resisted only needless, too-costly measures – such as, he contended, the centralized car-emissions checks that Mr. Bush killed. Mr. Bush's orders came with a philosophical bent against such rigid, top-down regulation from Austin, he said.

There's a limit, however, to what local efforts can accomplish without strong state and federal backing. Even the current Dallas-Fort Worth plan, hailed as an example of home-grown initiative, gets just 3 percent to 4 percent of its projected pollution cuts from measures the state defines as local – despite campaigns urging people to ride mass transit or take other personal steps.

North Texas leaders have sometimes gone the extra mile, as when the area opted into federal clean-gasoline rules and expanded car emissions checks into outlying counties.

And for years, business groups and local governments have teamed up to encourage car-pooling, avoiding early-morning gas fill-ups and other such steps. Those moves reduce emissions and, perhaps more important, help build local support for clean air.

But the local effort at reducing smog is virtually silent on the other big local pollution source: industry. Power plants and other industrial sources account for 55 percent of the state-ordered cuts in the current plan; gasoline-powered vehicles would provide 30 percent, mostly through the toughened inspections.

That doesn't count federal action on cleaner vehicles and fuels.

The North Texas Clean Air Coalition, put together by chambers of commerce, transit agencies and other groups, has a major corporate sponsor with a direct stake in government regulation of industrial pollution – TXU – as well as much smaller local emitters such as Bell Helicopter Textron, Lockheed Martin, Occidental Chemical and Raytheon.

But coalition chairman Howard Gilberg said the sponsorship doesn't steer the message. The group focuses on cars, he said, because that's where local efforts can do the most good.

"We focus on the mobile sources because they're the main problem in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and because they're really a local matter, a matter for local people to control by changes in their habits," said Mr. Gilberg, a longtime local clean-air leader and Dallas environmental lawyer.

Others counter that the region should campaign against all pollution sources.

"People's lungs don't care which pollution they're breathing," said Katy Hubener, head of the Blue Skies Alliance, a North Texas clean-air advocacy group.

Strategy questioned


The head of Texas air pollution policy, Mr. Marquez of the environmental commission, has questioned whether the national smog strategy was misdirected. Six months after Mr. Bush appointed him in 1995, he told a U.S. House subcommittee that it was time to change priorities.
"It's a question of how much benefit will we receive in the future by continuing the path that we're on," Mr. Marquez said then. "After all, ozone is not a poison or a carcinogen. It is a relatively benign pollutant compared with other environmental risks."

His comments came just after a smog season with violations on 15 days, including the fourth-highest reading in the last decade: 159 parts per billion on July 13 in Denton.

Mr. Marquez says he was advocating not an abandonment of efforts, but a shift toward reducing long-term, low-level exposures – an approach the EPA embraced two years later. And although he has stuck with his view of the health risks – ozone isn't as dangerous, he said, as another common pollutant, tiny airborne particles of soot and other matter – Mr. Marquez said he has worked hard to clean up the smog.

"I'm not running for office, and I'm not trying to pad my résumé," said the former chemical-company engineer and lobbyist.

As the new chairman of the House environmental committee, Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, had instructions from House leaders to get an air-pollution funding bill passed. Without it, the EPA would be forced to reject smog plans for North Texas and Houston.

The bill was off-track for a while, but in the end Mr. Bonnen got it done – while making no secret of his dislike for it. Even as he pushed for his bill, he told fellow House members on the chamber's floor that some say environmental regulation has gone too far.

"The people of Texas demand that the state do no more or less than required," he said.

'A gun to our head'


Later, in an interview, Mr. Bonnen said environmentalists, including Democrats in Congress, had used claims about Texas air pollution's health risks as a smoke screen to steer economic development from the Sun Belt to the more Democratic Northeast. So why pass the Texas clean-air bill? "There is a gun to our head, and it's fully loaded and ready to be fired," he said, referring to federal mandates. "It's not a choice that we've made."
Like all Texas lawmakers, Mr. Bonnen has received campaign money from donors with business before the Legislature. Since 2000, when Texas began computerizing donation reports, he has reported $170,479 in donations. Of that, $96,302, or 57 percent, came from people or industries with environmental interests that the Legislature could affect.

Among those, the biggest donors were law firms or lobbyists representing environmentally regulated industries – nearly $25,000. Oil, gas or chemical companies followed with $19,300. Electric utilities and cement companies, the biggest industrial air pollution sources in urban North Texas, also donated.

In an interview, Mr. Bonnen said no donor's special interest has ever steered his positions. He said donors from industry – in his district, that's big chemical companies – properly look for like-minded legislators who will balance the state's environmental policies. The chemical industry "is what makes my communities exist and grow and prosper," he said.

Contributions from regulated industries to governors, lieutenant governors and House speakers – and to candidates for president, as Mr. Bush was in 2000 – are always even bigger than those for legislators. But Mr. McBee, the former environmental commission chairman, said no electoral interest or contributor's wishes ever swayed the agency's decisions while he was there.

"No," he said. "The only thing I can answer in one word."

Still, Mr. Wood, the commission's deputy director, said it's impossible to keep politics out of clean-air decisions; if there are two possible choices, he said, one might not pass muster.

"Do the policies and politics influence what is acceptable in the strategy? Yes," he said.

Mr. Crimmins, the former commission spokesman, said everyone always knew where the governor's office wanted policies to go.

"It's simply that there is an understanding," he said.

Tom "Smitty" Smith, a longtime environmental lobbyist and Texas director of the nonprofit group Public Citizen, said big-business influence has run through many major clean-air policies. "Bush typically responds to his contributors first," he said.

But Dr. Kramer, the Texas Sierra Club director, said he doesn't think donations always show up in specific clean-air decisions. It's more a combination of a hands-off philosophy, industries that are happy with like-minded people in office and a public not yet willing to demand changes, he said.

"I wish I could buy into the conspiracy theory," Dr. Kramer said. "That way, you could have some more optimism that if you could just change the politics, you could change the approach to clean air.

"Unfortunately, that's not the case."

E-mail rloftis@dallasnews.com

gc
14 September 2003, 09:52 PM
Here is the corresponding picture for the article...

CTroyMathis
14 December 2003, 04:58 AM
Why does the air apparently suck in DFW?

Well,
Sprawl is in everyones vocabulary. It's not as bad as it could be in DFW, but, evident.
So is the term SUV (in everyones vocabulary and evident.) Well, plenty of those things around.
Those 'usual suspects' mentioned above, among other things... are obvious and not as obvious.

It sure seems every local town has a hard-on against scooters lately - it's Christmas time, eh. (It's all over the secondary news...)
How about hard-core and wasteful gas-powered lawn equipment?

But,...really.

You know what seriously isn't helping the big cause?
Something that is providing the consistent flowing energy to every home. DFW is powered off old crap. A very quiet dilemma.

It's apparently faster to build a power plant, but, less expensive - yet more time-consuming to build transmission lines to suffice the power generation transfer needs of 5.5 million plus. Blah, blah. It's all in the DBJ recently... More to it than just the read. dig. version in this paragraph.

But, if a modern-equiped and built power plant can take an equivalent of just under 1 million automobiles-worth of pollution out of the air - compared to the existing dated crap in current use - wouldn't you think more than a random interntet forumer's eyebrows would be raised? Multiply that by every one of those incessant wasteful machinations, and, Denton might see downtown Dallas clearly as if it were 1984 again...

And, DFW might not be in serious shit in the next year or two when all the lovely fed funds stop rolling in - re: transit. We'll lose out hard. TXU has no obligation to spend on better sources of power, read: possible Trinity River mega-power lines...

But, where's the common sense in the EPA federal mandate regarding air quality. If it's obvious that DFWs largest contributor of pollution seems to stem from power-generation related facilities - where's the compromise (if there even is one) going to swing? Politicians going to work this?
Late night rant, sorry. But, after thought - even a thorough bus & rail system can't claim the equivalent of just under one million automobiles-worth of pollutants off the road. Especially when multiplied by each old gas-fired power plant that is/could be replaced by a more tech-sound modern version that's less wasteful all-around. Does the EPA and the FTA work together?

texcolo
22 December 2003, 01:22 AM
A sizable portion of our air quality problem stem from the fact that there are no less than 5 cement kilns just south of Dallas in Midlothian.

TXI and Holcim Cement are the worst offenders of air quality in the D/FW area.

In fact TXI puts out the same amount of pollution that 100,000 cars do, everyday.

Read more about it at these websites:

Blue Skies Alliance (http://www.blueskiesalliance.org)

Downwinders At Risk (http://www.downwindersatrisk.org)

mikedsjr
19 May 2004, 07:10 PM
I have a question for anyone who is a whiz on this subject.

Why is the air quality in areas like DTD better than areas like the city of Denton? In fact if you go to the air quality site for North Texas (http://www.dfwcleanair.com/aq/index.asp), you will find that even Johnson county has a higher reading. If cars are such a problem, then why isn't DTD's reading like 1.5 times as high as the reading in Johnson county?

Foucault
19 May 2004, 07:20 PM
My guess would be power plants.
Did you know that the current Secretary of the Interior once talked about a "right to pollute"?

JBB
20 May 2004, 12:56 AM
According to Jessica Simpson, she's in charge of decorating the White House and she's done a great job.

vcross
20 May 2004, 01:38 AM
During the summer, the prevailing wind direction is generally south or southwest. My guess is that most of the air polution is blown from the congested core to the northern suburbs. It must peak there and dissipate further on.

Foucault
20 May 2004, 12:20 PM
Other fun facts:
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton: argued to weaken the endangered species act and wrote about a "right to pollute". She is in care of 500 million acres of public lands and national parks.
EPA Adminstrator Christie Tood Whitman (Resigned): "State of the Environment Report" replaced global warming data with a new study that questioned this science. Funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.
Deputy Secretary of the Interior J. Steven Griles: Touted as "an ally of the industry" by the National Mining Association, the ex-coal lobbyist still receives $284K a year from his former firm as payments for his client list.
Secretary of Energy Spencer "SUV" Abraham: Record holder for auto industry campaign contributions. Stumped hard for Alaska oil driling and fought raising m.p.g. standards. As Senator, this "Big Buddy of Big Oil" proposed three times to eliminate the position he now holds.
Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator John D. Graham: Argued that "environmental regulation should be depicted as an incredible intervention in society." Under his guidence, the EPA calculated the lives of senior citizens as worth 37% less than the lives of young Americans.
Resigned Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neil: Proposed eliminating not only corporate taxes, but also Social Security and Medicare. "Able bodied adults should save enough on a regular basis so that they can provide for the own retirement, and, for that matter, for their health and medical needs." As a former Alcoa CEO, his pension is over $900,000 a year.
Condi: On Chevron's board; had a tanker named after her (was renamed in 2001 lest it suggest some sort of connection
Dick Cheney facts:
$36 million: Halliburton's income in 2000
$60 million: estimated value of his severance package
$7 billion: Value of no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq
13,500: pages of energy documents Cheney refuses to give Congress
135: minutes Cheney was President during Bush's colonoscopy
Part-time Presidential Advisor Karen Hughes: Masterfully shaped Bush's public images. On Bush during the spy-plane hostage crisis: "He's very curious [interesting adjective!], and so he asked a lot of questions. Several times he asked, 'Do the member of the crew have Bibles?' 'Why don't they have Bibles?' 'Can we get them Bibles?' 'Would they like Bibles?'" According to one source, Bush's average reaction to a brief (which he demands be a short as possible) is a nod.
As Governer, Bush executed two mentally retarded prisoners. He never read executionary memos except for the 'Sign Here' part.
Dept. of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes II: Argued that prisoners from Afghanistan can be detained indefinitely even if acquitted in a military tribunal. A military law specialist said: "If I came out of the woods after 20 years and saw these rules, I'd think Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin wrote them."
John Ashcroft has anointed himself with Crisco upon performing official duties.
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao: Proposed allowing states to opt out of Federal minimum wage laws. "In all my years in labour, I've never seen a secretary of labour so anti-labour," said AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.

Fobulous
15 February 2005, 11:00 AM
Isn't Houston Air quality worse than DFW's?? especially in the Pasadena area??

The Great Hizzy!
15 February 2005, 12:37 PM
It is for smog, that is, ozone inhibiting pollution. It's barely registerable (and neither is Dallas-Fort Worth) relative to many other cities for other types of air pollutants. I was shocked by how bad particullate pollutants are in the Midwest and Appalachia region were in addition to California. I'm surprised by how little attention that that type of pollution gets, since it is said to be the biggest contributor to respiratory illnesses.

Some aggregious offenders for particulates that appeared in the Top 25 (I hope I'm using the correct term "particulates" ; USA Today talked about this past August):

Los Angeles
Cincinnati
Knoxville
Atlanta
Detroit
Pittsburgh

There was no Texas city (that I can recall) that made the Top 25. They went on to talk about how these cities all havve strong heavy industrialization and the exhausts from these plants get trapped in the mountains and hovers like an unseen blanket (although, Atlanta and Los Angeles struggle with smog as well).

Not that I'm saying that Texas doesn't have a serious problem with air pollution but that the public isn't being informed properly so that they don't go around thinking it's just a Los Angeles or Houston problem (or a Sunbelt problem).

dfwcre8tive
01 November 2011, 01:38 PM
Congrats... Dallas has now beaten Houston to become Smog Capital of Texas!

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2011/11/01/north-texas-is-now-smog-capital-of-texas/

cowboyeagle05
01 November 2011, 02:18 PM
My favorite part is this

Houston’s non-attainment area for smog has more than twice as many monitors spread over a much larger geographical area, and hosts a fourth of the nation’s petro-chemical industry, and yet “white collar” DFW was still able to record ozone levels worse than it.

So Dallas white collar areas produce more air pollution than the Petro-chemical driven Houston area. Guess some of the DFW crowd should rethink all those Hummers, SUVs and Trucks. Driving in your gas guzzler to Central Market to buy organic food is not being green its a start but your missing the point if your having to drive everywhere to do even the littlest of things.


Course later on the article explains it may have to do with the Barnett Shale drilling.

Schermbeck and other environmentalists think there’s a number of factors contributing to the inability of DFW to reign-in its chronic smog problem. One is what Schermbeck calls the state’s refusal to cut smog-forming pollution from Barnett Shale gas drilling. Despite estimating that gas industry sources now emit more Volatile Organic Compounds than all the cars and trucks in DFW, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality isn’t targeting these emissions in its proposed clean air plan for the region.