Carbon Footprining of EMS

[thegreypilgrim]

A report on EMS's contribution to anthropogenic climate change. Keep in mind this was a convenience sample:

ABSTRACT

Objectives. This study was undertaken to characterize the carbon emissions from a broad sample of North American emergency medical services (EMS) agencies, and to begin the process of establishing voluntary EMS-related emission targets. Methods. Fifteen diverse North American EMS systems with more than 550,000 combined annual responses and serving a population of 6.3 million reported their direct and purchased (Tier 2) energy consumption for one year. We calculated total carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions using Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Information Administration, and locality-specific emission conversion factors. We also calculated per-response and population based emissions. We report descriptive summary data. Results. Participants included government third-service (n = 4), public utility model (n = 1), private contractor (n = 6), and rural rescue squad (n = 4) systems. Call volumes ranged from 800 to 114,280 (median 20,093; interquartile range [IQR] 1,100.55,217). Emissions totaled 46,941,690 pounds of CO2e (21,289 metric tons); 75% of emissions were from diesel or gasoline. For systems providing complete Tier 2 data, median emissions per response were 80.7 (IQR 65.1.106.5) pounds of CO2e and median emissions per service-area resident were 7.8 (IQR 4.7.11.2) pounds of CO2e. Two systems reported aviation fuel consumption for air medical services, with emissions of 2,395 pounds of CO2e per flight, or 0.7 pounds of CO2e per service-area resident. Conclusion. EMS operations produce substantial carbon emissions, primarily from vehicle-related fuel consumption. The 75th percentiles from our data suggest 106.5 pounds of CO2e per unit response and/or 11.2 pounds of CO2e per service-area resident as preliminary maximum emission targets. Air medical services can anticipate higher per-flight but lower population-based emissions.

Blanchard, IE and Brown, LH. (2011). Carbon Footprinting of North American Emergency Medical Services Systems. Prehospital Emergency Care, 15, 23-29.

 

[usalsfyre]

This is one of the most useless EMS studies I've seen to date...

 

[thegreypilgrim]

This is one of the most useless EMS studies I've seen to date...

Quantifying carbon emissions is useless?

 

[bigbaldguy]

Thanks for posting this. I try to be very conscious of my carbon foot print in my day to day life and even buy carbon credits to offset a portion of it. I would be interested in knowing if there are any countries that use "green" practices in EMS, including higher efficiency vehicles, recycling, renewable energy ect..

 

[usalsfyre]

Quantifying carbon emissions is useless?

Considering the current environment in EMS has no intention of stopping the practice of providers spending a significant amount of time sitting in their units, yes, it's pretty damn pointless.

I won't get into my other feelings on this.

 

[thegreypilgrim]

Considering the current environment in EMS has no intention of stopping the practice of providers spending a significant amount of time sitting in their units, yes, it's pretty damn pointless.

I'm not following your logic here. Since the environment (I suppose by "environment" you mean something like political culture) is not receptive to changing practices, objective data such as the above are pointless efforts to raise awareness or perhaps even change such practices? I'm not following.

I won't get into my other feelings on this.

I would be interested in hearing these if it's not much trouble.

 

[TransportJockey]

I'm not following your logic here. Since the environment (I suppose by "environment" you mean something like political culture) is not receptive to changing practices, objective data such as the above are pointless efforts to raise awareness or perhaps even change such practices? I'm not following.



I would be interested in hearing these if it's not much trouble.

Most services will not spend the money to build permanent stations no matter what these kind of studies show. They will continue to use SSM or a form of it.

 

[thegreypilgrim]

Most services will not spend the money to build permanent stations no matter what these kind of studies show. They will continue to use SSM or a form of it.

Again, I'm not seeing how this is relevant towards supporting the conclusion that such studies are "pointless". That conclusion does not follow.

EMS organizations may choose to ignore such data, and in doing so they expose themselves to whatever penalties from the EPA (or state surrogate) are in place in their jurisdiction.

That says nothing in regard to the value of the study itself, however.

 

[bigbaldguy]

Most services will not spend the money to build permanent stations no matter what these kind of studies show. They will continue to use SSM or a form of it.

Very true and admittedly when you factor in the cost of hiring additional providers building additional stations ect I can see that it would be cost prohibitive in the short and medium term. I do however think that there are allot of less drastic things that could be done at most outfits to make differences in the shear amount of environmental impact EMS makes. Just because we can't change the big causes doesn't mean we can't change the little ones. Bear in mind that I earn my money working for an airline, and airlines are one of the biggest contributors to carbon output so I'm not preaching here.

 

[usalsfyre]

JT covered what I meant nicely. The only "green" 90% of EMS administrators care about has dead people printed on it. As long as it's cheaper to burn fuel on a street corner rather than back the truck in a bay the trucks will continue to idle all the time.

My personal feeling is that a casual relationship between carbon emissions and warmer weather patterns has been sold as gospel. Truthfully we don't have a friggen clue what role carbon plays in climate, and won't for a few hundred years.

 

[TransportJockey]

Very true and admittedly when you factor in the cost of hiring additional providers building additional stations ect I can see that it would be cost prohibitive in the short and medium term. I do however think that there are allot of less drastic things that could be done at most outfits to make differences in the shear amount of environmental impact EMS makes. Just because we can't change the big causes doesn't mean we can't change the little ones. Bear in mind that I earn my money working for an airline, and airlines are one of the biggest contributors to carbon output so I'm not preaching here.

By little ones what do you mean? If you mean shutting the trucks off while on post, hell no I'm sorry but if I'm posting on a corner in 110* weather or down below 40*, the truck stays on.

 

[usalsfyre]

By little ones what do you mean? If you mean shutting the trucks off while on post, hell no I'm sorry but if I'm posting on a corner in 110* weather or down below 40*, the truck stays on.

Not even including my comfort (which obviously my bosses don't give two bowel movements about if I'm sitting on a street corner) it would make the patient compartment untenable and adulterate my meds to shut the truck off in extreme tempatures.

 

[thegreypilgrim]

JT covered what I meant nicely. The only "green" 90% of EMS administrators care about has dead people printed on it. As long as it's cheaper to burn fuel on a street corner rather than back the truck in a bay the trucks will continue to idle all the time.

That may very well be true, but as I said that does not negate the value of such studies...in fact it seems to reinforce there ongoing need more than anything.

My personal feeling is that a casual relationship between carbon emissions and warmer weather patterns has been sold as gospel. Truthfully we don't have a friggen clue what role carbon plays in climate, and won't for a few hundred years.

:huh:

The scientific consensus on the causal role of carbon dioxide in global warming regards it as the most important of the greenhouse gases contributing to the phenomena.

 

[Veneficus]

I think if people in EMS really wanted to attempt to be more environmentally friendly, as well as safer, and more cost efficent, there would be a more definitive push towards building smaller units than the current US trend of building ever growing units.

I think eventually it will be cost that drives all forms of efficency in not only EMS but all forms of emergency service as the price of fuel continues to climb as more and more nations create more demand for a finite resource.

agencies may not "want" to go green, they may be forced to by basic economic principles.

I think the relationship of atmospheric carbon and climate change is rather well established.

What I think remains to be seen is whether or not humans can actually do anything to meanigfully alter it, or if we will just have to react to the consequences of it.

Whether or not fault can be assigned to mankind is absolutely irrelevant and a complete waste of time.

 

[Asimurk]

There's an extended length Prius coming out. Rework one of those and enjoy crouching. Hey, 50 miles to the gallon going down to 20 because of the idling is still better than a box, right?

 

[usalsfyre]

That may very well be true, but as I said that does not negate the value of such studies...in fact it seems to reinforce there ongoing need more than anything.



:huh:

The scientific consensus on the causal role of carbon dioxide in global warming regards it as the most important of the greenhouse gases contributing to the phenomena.

A position paper from a commission convened to adress the impact of climate change...gee no chance for bias there...

I'm not a denier. I think in time it will be realized things are generally warmer and carbon and other greenhouse gasses probably contribute to that. But I also think the current hysteria is just that, hysteria. I remember something similar in the early 90's, back then New York and Miami were supposed to be underwater by now.

I agree with Veneficus that economics, not desire to be "green" will drive change in EMS.

 

[Shishkabob]

I don't know about you, but I'm not too content at riding bikes to my calls in a rural area.

 

[firetender]

A position paper from a commission convened to adress the impact of climate change...gee no chance for bias there...

I'm not a denier. I think in time it will be realized things are generally warmer and carbon and other greenhouse gasses probably contribute to that. But I also think the current hysteria is just that, hysteria. I remember something similar in the early 90's, back then New York and Miami were supposed to be underwater by now.

I agree with Veneficus that economics, not desire to be "green" will drive change in EMS.

When we finally get around to re-building EMS, if we do it intelligently and responsibly, one of the things we WILL be looking at is our carbon footprint. In the process of attempting to save lives, how many lives in future generations are we jeopardizing?

I moved to California in 1978 on a motorcycle. I had to re-build its carbs for the inhalation of soot -- visible FLAKES of it! -- from smog. There were "Air Quality Alerts" going off all the time, urging people with respiratory problems to stay inside. A few days each MONTH, people were hurting and dying from the air they were breathing. Its primary source? Emissions from cars.

...and then, within about 15 years, most of it went away.

Why? because CA initiated firm limits and boundaries on what goes into our vehicles and how it is utilized by them. In my lifetime, this has been one of its most astounding miracles; that Government regulations based on hysteria of the populace actually made a difference!

So if I tell you that NOT responding fire trucks to medical emergencies and NOT having standbys at idle and NOT relying on bigger but seeking efficiency in vehicles can make a difference in your children's lives -- Global Warming be damned! -- it is based on experience.

 

[bigbaldguy]

By little ones what do you mean? If you mean shutting the trucks off while on post, hell no I'm sorry but if I'm posting on a corner in 110* weather or down below 40*, the truck stays on.

No not at all, besides the fact that the truck would get hot causing possible effects on medications, patient comfort and of course making us miserable the truck might not start up again. I'm talking more along the lines of recycling soda cans, high efficiency water fixtures, florescent lighting. Basically all the stuff that many companies already do.

Nobody wants a sweaty medic

 

[dmc2007]

Although from a crew comfort POV, it would be better to have base stations vs. street corner posting, I'm not sure that it is actually more carbon efficient to do so. While leaving an ambulance idling burns a ton of fuel (the engine is built to do way more than heat or cool the cab, and burns way more fuel then is needed as such), there is still a carbon footprint to heating or cooling a base station, and that doesn't include electricity or construction.

Medicine on the whole, I would imagine, has an extremely high carbon footprint by nature, especially in the US with its love of defensive medicine. Think of all the supplies the field uses on a daily basis-the ones that have to be manufactured and sealed using special procedures to ensure cleanliness, then thrown out after a single use before being disposed of in a special way to prevent contamination. All of that requires carbon.