You've Got To Be Sh*ttin' Me

All jokes aside.  There is potential to develop energy from waste, both, reducing methane gas emissions from both swine manure lagoons and waste landfills.  This eliminates rising emission problems from two large industries, as well as helps to fight global warming by lower the total methane emission rates.  Studies have shown that methane is around twenty times more dangerous of a greenhouse gas than CO₂.  We could potentially kill two birds with one stone by creating an alternative energy source and severely reducing the dangers of methane gas emissions on global warming.  Methane (CH₄) gas can be captured from swine manure lagoons and landfills and stored then burned to heat water to steam spin a turbine to create energy.  The chemical equation of the combustion of methane gas is as follows: CH₄ + 2O₂ à CO₂ + 2H₂O.  Burning the gas simply reduces the methane to water and carbon dioxide, which can then be properly emitted back into the atmosphere and produce energy to run the plant and surrounding areas. 

This technology seems like such as smart idea to me that it frustrates me that you don’t hear more about it or it is not getting the exposure you think it would.  I still need to further research the potential of the technology itself, however, from what I have read there seems to be no downfalls.  You are creating an alternative energy source and eliminating pollution problems from two other industries. 

There have be some studies done on the future and potential of this technology being done at swine manure treatment plants in Chile.  I think there are also a few studies being completed by various universities around the United States.  However, I was unable to find and/ or fully interpret and understand the results I did find.  But, I could not find any arguments against the idea of this new technology either.  So, I say we getting the wheels rolling on some large scale plans to improve our environment and our quality of life.  

Environmental Injustice in Grand Bois

In 1994 in Grand Bois, Louisiana waste from oil spills was driven through this small town to be dumped into the ground at a Campbell Wells Toxic Dump site. This was toxic waste that seeped into the ground, the water supply and polluted the air. The workers who brought in the waste wore protective clothing, and masks. The smell was so bad that the whole town was gagging when they went outside. Reports from people in the community stated that "children were getting off the school buses with shirts over their mouths". People reported sore throats and burning eyes. The towns people were being forced to endure dangerously high amounts of air hydrogen sulfide and they got very sick. Childern were examnied by doctors and were found to have unusually high blood lead levels, respiratory and gastrointestinal problems. The towns people were never warned of any hazardous that came with the waste. They were not told to take any percautions, even though the men handling the waste did. This oil company was allowed to do this becuase most waste from oil is unregulated. They were just allowed to dump it and no one could do anything about it. The members of the community in Grand Bois went through a very lengthy and expensive law suit but the oil company was eventually cleared of any charges.
This is a clear case of Environmental injustice. Not only is Grand Bois a very small community, only about 250 people live there it is also made up of mostly blue collar workers. They happen to be mostly Native American as well. The oil company assumed that these people would not cause any problems. Of course they would notice the smell, and the trucks but its not like these people of Grand Bois have the money to do anything about it. I feel that the oil company willing took advantage of these people and then pretended as if they did nothing wrong. The significance of these events is that they prove environmental justice is real, the huge oil company took advantage of this small town. The most amazing part is that the oil company did not actually break any law, becuase up until this point the waste was unregulated. Cases like this are significant in regards to changing laws to better protect people.

US helps declare first national park in Afghanistan

In hopes of attracting international tourism, obtaining World Heritage Status and protecting land, Afghanistan has declared its first internationally recognized national park. Coinciding with Earth Day, celebrated worldwide every year April 22, officials signed a decree to create Band-e-Amir National Park, encompassing six mountain-fed lakes held back by natural calcified dams. Band-e-Amir translated to mean, "Dam of the Amir" is a spectacular series of six deep blue lakes separated by natural dams made of travertine, a mineral deposit. Travertine systems are only found in a few locations around the world and are all considered World Heritage sites as well as major international tourist attractions. Band-e-Amir has been a tourist destination since the 1950's but was absent as such due to increased violence in the late 1970's through 2001. It is visited by thousands of Afghan tourists as well as religious pilgrimages and international tourists in country each year. Planning for the park has gone on for decades but was launched in 2006. "The park will draw people from Herat to Kabul to Jalalabad... to be inspired by the great beauty of Afghanistan's first national park, Band-e-Amir, " said Mostapha Zaher, NEPA's director-general.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) helped to fund the creation of the park as well as identify and delineate the boundaries. The WCS also helped performed preliminary wildlife surveys and aided the government in hiring and training local rangers, developing the management plan for the park, and providing assistance to the government to craft the laws authorizing the park’s creation. The National Environment Protection Agency (NEPA) of Afghanistan will manage the park, along with the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock, and the Band-e-Amir Protected Area Committee.
Band-e-Amir has lost much of its wildlife due to human degradation, but the WCS surveys indicate that it still contains ibex (a species of wild goat) and urial (a type of wild sheep) along with wolves, foxes, smaller mammals and fish, and various bird species including the Afghan snow finch, which is believed to be the only bird found exclusively in Afghanistan. Also snow leopards once inhabited the area but are no longer present due to hunting. The park may be the creation of an Afghan Protected Area System which would share borders with other nations that contain a rich diversity of wildlife.
Conservation of land and the creation of national parks has become a topic on many peoples mind in the last few decades, and it is refreshing to see a step in the right direction from a country plagued with violence. For me when I think of Afghanistan, national parks with beautiful blue lakes does not immediately come to mind. Hopefully now Afghanistan will get some recognition for taking the step to declared Band-e-Amir a national park. It is important that agencies of United States are able and willing to help establish programs like this one to not only help that country but to help on a global level. Environmental issues are not restricted to our country and I think the establishment of this park sets a precedent which needs to be repeated in other countries.
With the introduction of this park, improved knowledge and interest in the environment is almost guaranteed to those in the area. We need more people to become aware of the benefits of national parks and conservation and hopefully this project will spark something to that effect. I imagine that with the success of Band-e-Amir there will be a push to create new policies and environmental laws in the region, which could drastically change the way land is managed and possibly save land and species which are already in danger.

Saving the Salton Sea

The Salton Sea has had many different names since being discovered by the Spanish in Southern California; the Colorado Desert, Valley of the Ancient Lake, and eventually became associated with the name Salton. Salt mining in the area traces back to 1815 and became a large scale operation feeding the Los Angeles area by 1884. This enormous basin was never actually a "sea" however in 1905 the swelling Colorado River overflowed the Imperial Dyke and for two years fed water into the basin, filling it into a salty inland sea.

Currently, the Salton Sea is a birdwatching paradise, and has been home to over 400 species of birds. It supports a high population of the American White Pelican and is a resting area for many birds on the Pacific Flyway. The Salton Sea is susceptible to bacteria and pesticide influxes from the New River (of Mexico) and due to having no outlet and high salinity, the Sea acts like a cesspool for fish and aviary diseases and epidemics. Since 1980, there have been numerous fish die-offs and aviary versions of botulism, cholera, and Newcastle Disease have all been discovered in the Sea. Currently, Tilapia are the only fish that live in the water which has a salinity of 4.4% (almost 25% more than sea waters 3.5%).

There have been hundreds of proposed plans for saving the marine life and ecosystem in the Salton Sea and in 2000 the Salton Sea Authority proposed a plan to save the Sea using a combination of Dams throughout the Sea to partition the salt areas from the freshwater areas. This was met by opposition due to the lack of stable land from the San Andreas Fault and the partitioning of the ecosystems.

Finally a California State Government Ruling (official player), involved with the local government and geological researchers developed a plan that would create a large salt basin in 60% of the current Sea and would retain the rest for ecological and environmental purposes. Had the Salton Sea been left as is, more outbreaks of avian viruses could be possible and further environmental destruction. Some of the plans though were just too expensive , including the possibility of piping fresh seawater into the basin and saline water out. This is the right decision considering the government of California was put in a position where no action causes the end of the Salton Sea and too much action might cause the same thing. It is an example of the government deciding to spend the money (9 Billion dollars to save the Sea) that is taxpayers dollars to save an ecological and environmental landmark that humans helped create. It might not be the best solution but with the information that we have now, and influence from both official and unofficial actors, a decision was made and implemented (starting in the year 2011). Also, the government has used this to its advantage adding a saline habitat that will be a major tourist attraction and will generate revenue for the state.

Permanent Pipeline Construction Will Aid Sabine Marsh Restoration

Earlier this month, the US Army Corps of Engineers awarded $9 million to contract Wilco Pipeline Contractors of Rayne, Louisiana in order to construct a 3.6 mile permanent pipeline that will be used to carry dredged material from the Calcasieu River Ship Channel to the marshes in Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes. Dredging is the act of removing sedimentation from shallow sea areas or freshwater and moving it to a different location. This process has been the most effective technology for cleaning up contaminated sediments, as well as reducing the concentration found within the sediment.

The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act project (CWPPRA), along with federal agencies and the state of Louisiana, have been constructing this plan since 1999, and have already restored 907 acres withing the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. This site in particular is experiencing degradation from saltwater intrusion, as well as freshwater loss. "The project is intended to strategically create marsh in large, open water areas to block wind-induced saltwater introduction and freshwater loss. It will also increase nourishment in adjacent marshes while reducing open water fetch and the erosion of marsh fringe." Other alternatives have been the No Action Plan, or using projects developed only under the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Program (BUDMAT). Over the past 17 years, CWPPRA has constructed and designed 147 projects, and have helped to restore over 120,000 acres of coastal wetlands. By the end of the project, they hope to restore approximately 2500 acres of marsh using dredged materials.

I feel this is an important subject matter that needed to be addressed due to the significant amounts of shore and marshland that are being destroyed every year. The amount of freshwater available is being lost, as well as increased erosion being caused by the wave fetch in the area. Not only will waterways continue to be navigable, but hundred of acres of new habitat will be available for community wildlife and other plant species. The greatest economic benefit of the plan is that it has been proven to be a somewhat simple process, as well as less expensive to restore marshes.

California Tackles Invasive Fish Problem

Lake Davis in California has been encountering problems with Northern pike, a nonnative invasive fish species that threatens California’s aquatic resources. Northern pike are top predators built for speed and camouflaged for an edge in hunting. Pike are also highly reproductive making their presence in Lake Davis an even larger problem to control. The Lake has undergone treatment for this problem in the past but unfortunately treatment failed and the problem persists.

The Department of Forest and Game conducted an environmental review process with the U.S. Forest Service in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act. After extensive public outreach and input, several pike elimination alternatives were evaluated. The Department of Forest and Game determined that rotenone, a naturally occurring compound, is the piscicide that had the fewest environmental impacts so in turn will be used to kill off the species. It has also been approved for fishery management use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. The Department of Fish and Game will also be setting up checkpoints at Lake Davis in order to help educate the public about laws and regulations and allow for the detection of violations of fish and game laws, as well as facilitate the gathering of biological and statistical data related to the pike problem.

According to Ryan Broddrick, director of the state Department of Fish and Game, "It's imperative this eradication project quickly moves forward. Given the ever-increasing pike population, the increasing incidence of anglers catching moving live pike, and the potential for spilling of the reservoir in extremely wet years, it is critical to minimize any delay." The goal is to finish the eradication of Pike in the lake and begin restocking the lake with trout. The eradication of this ambush predator is important in maintaining the unique ecology of Lake Davis. The Pike are growing in number and in turn adversely affecting the ecology of the reservoir. The species are highly tolerant and adaptable making it easy for the Northern Pike to overtake other species. Many steps are being taken to remove the species from this lake as well as preparing legislation to ensure that the species doesn’t spread to other areas of California.

Interstate 3 - Needed Economic Boon or Unnecessary Ecological Burden?

About 44 years ago, a plan for Interstate 3 was drafted. It can be basically summed up as a four lane interstate cutting through a mountainous area in southern Appalachia called Corridor K. Controversies rage over the plans, as current traffic through the area is well handled by existing roads. Proponents claim that it will add almost seven thousand jobs to the area within five years, greatly boosting the economy. Opponents voice other concerns - in this limited economy, the money already badly needed for resurfacing worn, oft-used roads should not be diverted to build a forseeably extraneous new road , especially one that would cut through miles of fragile Appalachian mountain ecosystems.
Local public opposition to the interstate is high. Resolutions against I3 have been passed in seven North Carolina counties, five Georgia counties, and one county in South Carolina . Current traffic between Chattanooga and Asheville is well handled by existing routes (mainly US 64 and US 74), and all possible routes for I3 cut through some portion of either the Nantahala National Forest or the Cherokee National Forest, which is inappropriate for several reasons. Firstly, from personal experience, the economies of most areas in Corridor K depend on tourism, which is high due in great part to the remoteness and general pristine nature of the area. By building an interstate through these areas, rather than open the area to more visitors, fewer tourists will be inclined to visit. Alternately, the influx of too many tourists may lead to “tourist traps,” which further harm the environment and drastically change the character of the small rural towns currently pervasive in the area. Additionally, the national forests that would be disturbed are critical for water quality and species habitat. Several of the areas have large streams and rivers as well as significant annual rainfall, making their water quality a great influence on that of the entire watershed. Were a road to be built through the area, sediment pollution would be a great problem, as would buried streams due to road leveling. Lastly, the expense of such a road is unjustified. Mountainous roads such as the proposed I3 can cost over $25 million per mile, resulting in an almost $4 billion cost total to build I3. The 7000 new jobs promised by the Tennessee DOT sound good, but even if all of them were 30,000 a year only $210 million per year in personal income would be created. At that rate, even with no upkeep costs, it would take over 19 years to pay for itself, assuming that detrimental economic effects are zero. It also doesn’t pay when one realizes that with the end of cheap oil near, increased commercial transport by semi trucks is no longer a future opportunity, and any road created with such a scenario in mind is ignoring the prices at the gas pump. Instead, we should be looking into things like Obama's new high speed rail system for increased transit, but that is a blog for another day.

Stricter Standards for Non-road Engines

Most people do not associate air pollution with mowing the lawn or recreational boating. Yet they are a significant source of pollution. They emit high levels of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas. They also emit hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone. Ozone occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere and shields the earth from harmful radiation, but ozone at ground level is a toxic pollutant. Ground-level ozone is a key element of smog and impairs lung functions. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set new strict regulations for gas-powered lawn equipment and marine engines. This is a public health issue and an effort by EPA to reduce the pollutants emitted from a wide range of non-road engines. These standards will take effect in 2010 and 2011.

EPA concluded that when these regulations take affect they would yield annual emission reductions of 600,000 tons of hydrocarbons, 130,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 5,500 tons of direct particulate matter, and 1.5 million tons of carbon monoxide (CO). They also expect that the new standards will save approximately 190 million gallons of gasoline per year. To meet these new exhaust emission standards, manufacturers will likely use catalytic converters in small watercraft and lawn and garden equipment. According to EPA analysis, the small engine regulation will increase the cost of equipment by an average of $5-7 per unit, but durability and fuel efficiency will improve for most small engines. These improvements in engine technology and reduction of fuel may offset the overall increase in cost.

Non-road gasoline-powered engines, such as those used in lawn and garden equipment, will see an additional 35 percent reduction in smog-forming hydrocarbon and NOx emissions. The updated engines will also achieve a 45 percent reduction in fuel evaporative emissions. Recreational boats powered by gasoline engines will have a 70 percent reduction in hydrocarbons and NOx emissions, a 20 percent reduction in CO and a 70 percent reduction in fuel evaporative emissions. This is a good step by EPA to regulate many greenhouse gases and limit overall exposure to many pollutants coming from non-road engines. Each year, Americans spend more than 3 billion hours using lawn and garden equipment and more than 500 million hours in recreational boating. The emission reduction has a total estimated public health benefit ranging from $1.6 and $4.4 billion by 2030. These benefits outweigh the costs and reductions will prevent an estimated 300 premature deaths, 1,700 hospitalizations, and 23,000 lost workdays annually.

Yucca Mountain: The Reason Nuclear Waste Might End Up In Your Backyard After All

Yucca Mountain has been hailed as the perfect solution to our nuclear waste problems.  It seems sturdy enough, it’s underground, and it’s far away, so hey, you don’t even have to look at it! Situated 150 kilometers northwest of Las Vegas, Yucca Mountain is a volcanic mountain made of permeable soil perched atop 32 different earthquake fault lines.  These combined factors make it very vulnerable to the possibility of waste leaks from the metal canisters it is being contained in.

Paul Craig, an engineering professor at the University of California, has studied the probability of waste escaping from the containers.  He noted that the scientists who designed the holding facility in Yucca Mountain failed to take into account ‘deliquescence’, which occurs when salt in a surrounding area tends to liquefy and corrode metals.  Craig states that deliquescence would undoubtedly occur due to the fact that the dump will be operated at about 200 degrees, causing the metal containers holding waste to corrode.

Critics have also focused on transporting waste to Yucca Mountain.  Various Native American tribes have rejected the Department of Energy’s request to use their lands for the shipping of nuclear waste, leaving the DOE to default on one last option: the Caliente corridor.  The Caliente corridor is not only uncomfortably close to where hundreds of thousands of people work and live, it is incredibly vulnerable to flooding.  In the past floods have swept across the corridor, and research shows that it is likely to happen again, creating risk for a ‘Mobile Chernobyl”.  And every single proposal to store nuclear waste in North America targets Native American groups on poor reservations with little political power- a prime example of environmental injustice.

            While recent news has shown that Barack Obama has very little interest in pursuing Yucca Mountain as a containment site for nuclear waste, the issue still remains that there is nowhere to put nuclear waste.  How can we sustain an industry that cannot clean up after itself?  To me, the lack of an ability to dispose its waste is a deal-breaker.  Instead, we need to explore what other alternative energies are available that have no waste to dispose of, such as solar and wind power. With the fragile economy at stake, we need to move forward with technologies that will sustain themselves without having to be shoved down a deep hole at the end of their life cycles.

Greening Wal-Mart

In 2005, Wal-Mart adopted a slate of environmental initiatives aimed at "greening" the company's image and saving money. Some of the goals included reducing the company's total greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2012 (from 2005 levels), using a more energy-efficient fleet of trucks, and working toward being waste neutral. Wal-Mart used its massive influence to push its suppliers into using more recycleable and sustainable materials, as well as pulling other large corporations into the race to be environmentally sustainable.

How has Wal-Mart done in the four years since it resolved to help save the world?

It's hard to tell, actually. Certainly they have made some progress: the company builds new stores with sustainable elements like white roofs, daylight harvesting systems, and high-efficiency faucets (download Wal-Mart's "Sustainable Buildings" PDF Factsheet). The company's "2009 Global Sustainability Report" (PDF download) is filled with glowing reports of Wal-Mart's environmental successes and normal people who are saving money by buying more sustainably. All of these advances are valuable -- to a certain extent, any advance is valuable. But Wal-Mart operates more than 4,000 retail locations in the United States alone, not all of which are "sustainable" buildings. They open new stores every year. I think that simply making small changes while still expanding so much will not equal out. That is, how much will a white roof (or a hundred white roofs) really do to offset the pollution of the entire Wal-Mart operation? Not enough, I think. The amount of changes becomes very small in comparison to the scale of the company.

The store chain's biggest change has been in public perception. With a new logo, a new slogan, and even older stores getting a new (greener) look, Wal-Mart is popular again. Sales were falling off before the green campaign; today Wal-Mart is stronger than ever. The store is seen as working tirelessly for sustainability, regardless of the truth of the situation.

True, Wal-Mart has brought awareness of environmental issues to the general public and increased the availability of low-cost sustainable products. However, buying CFLs at the new "green" behemoth (for example) lets the public think that they are saving the world without actually making many of the serious lifestyle and consumption changes that will be needed to make our society truly sustainable. Too, the company could push more of its suppliers to make their products more sustainable.

In the end, Wal-Mart's pursuit of the bottom line -- hey, sustainability pays -- has helped the environment in small ways. It is still working toward its larger goals, set back in 2005. For example: Wal-Mart has already made its transportation 25% more efficient. These measures are saving the company money. But they could be doing more -- and should be. I am interested in seeing how the movement toward greater corporate responsibility, rising from a public perception of corporate recklessness and greed that caused this recession, affects environmental action. We are starting to believe that corporations should consider the common economic good. Why not the common environmental good as well?

Water Privatization

Water shortages around the world have centered global attention on ways to accommodate needs for the future. Many governments have turned to water privatization as a way to meet a growing demand for this precious resource; however, the privatization of water has created an ethical dilemma as to whether or not access to clean water is a fundamental right to all mankind. While privatization proves to be effective in promoting efficiency in some sectors of the world's economy, it denies millions the right to a basic necessity. An article from the New York Times points out that "already, corporations own or operate water systems across the globe that brings in about $200 billion a year, yet they serve only about 7% of the world's population." Government management and technological strategies may better conserve and provide clean water to the global population in the future rather than privatization.

Placing the availability of water in the hands of corporate shareholders has many perverse impacts. The World Development Movement argues that private companies follow a privatization ideology that holds money as the ultimate objective, in which case "it is the government of the poor country left to pick up the pieces of failed privatization projects". Privatization also contends with democracy and soaring water prices will leave those in poverty without. The site also claim that profits from a "private company may be siphoned off elsewhere (most often to another country) to their shareholders, instead of being reinvested back into the system itself."

Alternatives to privatization include water management and conservation through government regulations and sustainable technology. Current legislation is in motion under the 4^th World Water Forum that seeks to declare water a human right, devise national strategies for water and sanitation, and develop a global action plan in the event of a crisis. According to Maude Barlow, author of Blue Gold, 36 states in the U.S. have been declared water distressed and water as crept up in priority under the U.S. National Security Council. The United States will be forced to improve efficiency in water use, particularly in its industrial and agricultural sectors, by implementing water conservation laws.

Aside from government policies, one technological solution to water conservation is through rainwater harvesting. Rainwater harvesting in urban areas captures water in underground storage tanks that is typically lost as runoff. Storing rainwater provides a source of water in areas that have a poor groundwater supply, prevents water from flowing into sewer and storm drains, and reduces urban flooding.

So, what can you do? The EPA has an interactive website that suggests ways individuals can conserve water at home or at work.

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs: A Good Investment or Not?

Today in our economy we are faced with making many everyday decisions concerning finances. Even our daily essentials can seem like a big task when making small purchases; we try to cut costs and save money where we can. This is where energy efficiency and conservation come into play. One product that promotes both these aspects is Energy Star’s compact fluorescent light bulb. These light bulbs have both positive and negative aspects to them so the real question is, are they a good investment or not?

A positive aspect of these light bulbs is every bulb will save an average of about $30 dollars over its lifetime and pay for itself in about 6 months, resulting in 10,000 hours of light per bulb unlike most equivalent incandescent bulbs that last 1,000 hours. These light bulbs are very energy efficient and use about 75 percent less energy and will last 10 times longer than the average incandescent bulb. If every home in America switched one light bulb for a compact fluorescent bulb, combined as a nation we “would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs.” Another positive aspect is that since compact fluorescent light bulbs require less energy to emit light less coal would be burned therefore reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the air.

On the other hand compact fluorescent light bulbs have a negative side too. They contain small traces of mercury making their disposal troublesome. If the bulb is broken this heavy metal is very hazardous and could cause great harm to humans and the environment such as leaching into the water table causing lead poisoning or contamination of soils. The recycling and disposal options for these bulbs are very limited and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency program agrees “that not enough has been done to urge people to recycle compact fluorescent bulbs and make it easier for them to do so.” Also another negative aspect is the higher cost of these bulbs which can be an automatic turn off for the average consumer.

Overall, when weighing the positives against the negatives I believe compact fluorescent light bulbs are a good investment. They will help reduce energy costs and consumption while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Even though they maybe more costly than the normal incandescent light bulb they are much more beneficial in the long run, and that is what consumers need to focus on.

Chronic Wasting and Us

Chronic Wasting is a wasting disease that is affecting our nations elk and deer herds. It is very similar to mad cow disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathy which is a brain wasting disease that affects Mule Deer, White Tail Deer, Rocky Mountain Elk, and Shiras Moose. Currently it is unknown whether it can infect cattle or humans but this is a possibility. The main worry with this disease is that it will eventually mutate and start to cross over from wild animals to domestic animals and humans. Especially with disease like the new strain of Swine Flu we need policies in place that can protect the populous from new diseases that could potentially kill tens of thousands of people.

Chronic wasting is worse than some other forms of brain wasting diseases because wild animals are free to roam wherever they like, unlike mad cow which can be contained in a certain area with all exposed animals be destroyed. This is much worse because the disease can spread very rapidly from one group of animals to another infecting a large range of animals over a rather short amount of time. Also if these animals come in contact with domestic animals and the disease mutates and jumps species it will rapidly infect the human food supply and potentially decimate our food sources. Right now they are not sure if the disease can jump to humans.

We are speeding this spread along by manipulating these species through concentration in artificial habitats such as food plots. These will concentrate game species in unnatural numbers and support a larger number of animals than would typically live in a given area. This close proximity not only increases predation rates but also increases the likelihood that disease will spread through herds, which in turn increases the likelihood that it will come in contact with domestic herds.

Limiting trips to Antarctic

Recently, US proposed a resolution to limit the size of cruise ships and number of tourists visiting ashore to countries of Antarctic Treaty in order to protect sensitive ecosystem and environment. The proposed agreement was the result of rapid increase in number of visitors and cruise ship accidents in Antarctic region. The proposed agreement will prevent ships with more than 500 passengers and maximum of 100 passengers are allowed to be onshore at any given time. Other resolutions discussed at the meeting include putting more safety requirements on ships operating in Antarctic region and requiring minimum of one guide for every 20 tourists. The resolution will become legal when 28 nations in Antarctic Treaty ratify it.

Imposing restrictions on tourism in Antarctic region is necessary because of the rapid increase in number of visitors to the region. According to The International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO), visitors to Antarctic increased from 6,700 in the 1992-93 seasons to 29,500 in the 2006-07 season and 45,213 in 2008-09. Increase in number of visitors lead to increasing in trips to Antarctic by ships and other means. It became urgent issue when two ships ran aground and spilled gallons of toxic material into the ocean. The most distinct of the two incidents was the sinking of M/S Explorer cruise ship on 23 November, 2007. When M/S Explorer sank, it brought down approximately 185000 L of diesel, 24000 L of lubricants, 1200 L of gasoline along with it. The result was catastrophic. Oil spilled covered 1.5 km of the ocean surface. There are approximately 2,500 penguins nearby area. Contacts with oil spill may reduce buoyancy of birds and aquatic organisms. Ingestion of toxic waste can alter behavior of fishes which may lead to death. Most importantly, disruption in one level food chain affect entire ecosystem. Cleaning up oil spill in extreme weather conditions makes it impossible to carry out proper treatments.

In my opinion, it is essential to have restrictions on tourism to Antarctic. Antarctic region is considered as a natural reserve. It should be treated jus the same as many natural reserves. Visitations to the region should keep it to a minimum as not to disturb and interfere with wildlife. Especially in extreme condition place like Antarctic, little disturbance can have huge impact on the environment and surrounding areas. Although the proposed resolution can be seen as positive gesture, there are other important items missing. I believe any regulations must accompany with enforcements or penalties. The resolution lack enforcement tools. However, it will make a huge difference if proposed agreement is ratified into legal system.

New Climate Bill Possible

In an effort to come to a compromise on greenhouse gas emissions some of the more moderate democrats in the House of Representatives have begun to circulate a "watered down" climate change prevention bill. Representative Rick Boucher, our local representative and moderate democrat, is circulating a list of amendments designed to relax regulations outlined in the climate bill pending in committee. Representative Boucher also met with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, to discuss the legislation.

This piece of legislation is extremely important because it proposes broad new climate change laws. One of the proposals that the new legislation makes it that electric utilities would be given 40% of the allowances created through a cap-and-trade system. This would require companies to hold one allowance for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit. One of the relaxed regulations in the bill Boucher is circulating removes a provision that would have allowed citizens to sue the government based on harm, or potential harm, from climate change. This is probably a very good idea and will bring both sides into agreement on the bill and end some of the partisan bickering over it. Another attachment to the bill that I like is the giving of bonus allowances to companies that adopt clean coal technology "early".

Not all lawmakers are giving their support to the new bill however. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said he won’t compromise on his proposed 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the next decade. Critics of Waxman's proposal say that it will hurt the already fragile economy. According to an analysis by the EPA, the Waxman-Markey climate change prevention bill would cost U.S. households between $98 and $140 if the revenue from auctioning off carbon permits in a cap-and-trade were returned to consumers. This would cause electricity rates to rise 22 percent by 2030. This partinship is what will be the biggest problem in passing the climate change prevention bill. Unwillingness to compromise like what is being seen from Waxman will deny us yet again a chance at curbing climate change.

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's.....pollution!

A source of pollution and global warming that most people seem to overlook is the emissions created by commercial air travel. According to several scientists, the aviation industry and the environment are on a collision course. It is only a matter of time until significant environmental damages will be proven to have been caused by aircraft emissions. The number of airline flights in the world today is expected to skyrocket in the coming decades. By the speculation of some British scientists, it will become one of the largest contributors to global warming by 2050. More and more is being discovered each day about the link between climate change and aviation. Currently, aircraft emission accounts for 3% of green house gas emissions. This figure will surely rise in the coming years if steps are not taken towards environmentally friendly jet engines.

The notion that jet emissions in the upper atmosphere cause amplified effects in ozone composition have startled environmentalists around the globe. While having an awareness of the damage currently being done and also knowing that a commercial aircraft expels 840-1660 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger, great concern is necessary. This measure of carbon dioxide is equivalent to how much carbon dioxide a sport utility vehicle would release into the atmosphere if it were running for a straight month.

The aircraft industry is drawing on increased scrutiny since scientists have begun deriving disturbing predictions and figures about commercial aircraft pollution. Scrutiny is particularly strong in Europe, where the European Union is considering much stricter controls on aircraft emissions. Many environmentalist in the United States claim that pollutions standards for aircraft are not nearly strict enough. The growth of the airlines industry seems to be an uncontrollable entity at this point in time. China alone is planning the construction of almost forty new airports. The FAA also has predictions for the current 739 million airlines passengers to double to 1.4 billion passenger in the coming decades.

In my own opinion, I completely agree with the fact that commercial aircraft emissions are a concern in the mitigation of global warming. I can also see how people could be skeptical of the idea as well. Being that aircraft pollution only accounts for 3% of green house gases, I can understand how a percentage that small could cause the average person to be indifferent on the subject. Knowing that the rate of what seems to be an unstoppable population increase is in existence, the 3% of green house gases that aircraft emit will grow for sure. While we still have time to dig ourselves out of the hole we are already in, we need to begin thinking of more energy efficient and cleaner jet engines.

EPA Proposal Limits Mercury Emissions from Cement Plants

The EPA has proposed to significantly reduce mercury emissions from Portland cement kilns. These kilns are the fourth largest source of mercury air emissions in the U.S. and this proposal would set the nation's first limits on mercury emissions from existing cement kilns and would strengthen the limits for new ones. There has already been three times where federal courts have told the EPA to set emission standards to control cement kiln's mercury emissions since the Clinton administration. The EPA finally agreed with them in a fourth case brought by Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental law firm that protects the natural environment. Earthjustice attorny Jim Pew called the proposal "really significant. This is one of the most polluting industries in the country."

The majority of toxic emissions at cement kilns come from the burning of fuels and heating of raw materials. The EPA estimates that by 2013, mercury emissions will be at 11,600 pounds per year, which is a reduction of 81 percent. The agency also estimates that the benefits of the proposed rule will greatly outweigh the costs. "The rule would prevent between 620 and 1,600 deaths, according to the EPA, and produce annual benefits of between $4.4 billion and $11 billion while costing the nation's 100 cement kilns between $222 million and $648 million a year."

Mercury in the air eventually deposits into water, where it changes into a highly toxic form that builds up in fish. Americans are primarily exposed to mercury by eating contaiminated fish. According to a 1991 article in Science News, "it only takes 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury to contaiminate a 25-acre lake. Over 40 states have warned their citizens to avoid consuming various fish species due to mercury contamination." As time passes, the new EPA regulation will help make both freshwater and coastal marine fish safe to eat. Unfortunately, the new rule will not help decontaminate fish imported from other regions of the earth.

The final proposed rule, Portland Cement Manufacturing: Proposed Amendments to National Air Toxics Emission Standards can be found here.

Will We Succeed in Creating a Sustainable Earth?

As our population continues to increase at an exponential rate, the future for humans stands on trembling ground. Within a couple generations, we will see the end of the resources that our everyday lives depend on and will outgrow the 510,072,000 kilometers² of the earths surface. If there is anything to be done about this issue it must begin now and target our existing cities and way of life. Our communities must transform into sustainable developments and be able to accommodate the certain growth in population.

Cities must be targeted with priority for several reasons. First, the worlds urban population has blown up and an estimated 70% of people will live in cities by the end of this century. Also, most resources are consumed within cities and therefore, the most indirect and direct pollution in produced there as well. When looking at this particular problem however, our path splits. The problems that will be faced by developing nations will be tremendously different from those faced by the developed nations.

Focusing on developed areas, problems will occur with urban sprawl, increased resource use and the pollution that will follow. Concepts such as New Urbanism and Smart Growth emphasize anti-sprawl and sustainable growth techniques. A rewarding example of urban planning has occurred in Portland, Oregon where population has grown by 50% since the 1970’s, with only a 2% growth in land area.

The solution to this problem will not be solved by ingenious urban-planning alone. We must maintain a population size, as exponential growth will only lead to a catastrophic plunge and a finite amount of space cannot be expected to support an infinite population. We must develop and participate in a cyclical production-consumption-waste process. We must take ultimate advantage of our technology and renewable energy and focus on becoming as energy self-sufficient as possible. We cannot continue to destroy our natural landscape, we must preserve green space, wildlife habitat and employ the practices of permaculture.

The knowledge on how to fix the problems we have created is not the issue, it is the initiative. As prices of non-renewable resources climb and health decreases due to air pollution, water contamination and chemical pesticide, it use will drive even the most unaware to acknowledge the problem at hand. The problem that may eventually triumph may not be our disregard, or our incapability, or our lack of initiative but the fact that we have let so much sand slip through our hourglass.

Carbon Dioxide Transformed Into Methanol Fuel Source

In the world today, the issue about alternative fuels is a top priority, especially in environmental policy making. Recently, scientists in Singapore discovered how to convert carbon dioxide into methanol as an alternative fuel source. Basically, “the new process uses d N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs) as an organocatalyst, then adds hydrosilicane – a combination of silica and hydrogen – and water to make methanol."

However, one potential problem is capturing CO2, especially from coal-burning power plants. For years, companies have been trying to sequester CO2 in underground caves. No major CO2 capture-and-storage systems and large sequestration projects have ever been undertaken. Most likely, the costs to capture and store CO2 have led to companies’ lack of interests in these projects.

Furthermore methanol’s net energy is comparatively lower than gasoline’s. As well, the agriculture industry supports methanol’s family member; otherwise, known as ethanol. Even though methanol can be directly inserted into a fuel cell, ethanol still has more popular demand and political backing, especially by farmers.

Another issue is that capturing CO2 for methanol may decrease the supply of CO2 used by ecological systems. Oceans and forests are the main ecological systems that use CO2. Oceans store CO2 in the water known as carbon sinks while forests intake CO2 and produce oxygen. When altering the CO2 balance, the oceans and forests may be depleted of their natural supplies of CO2, which will lead to catastrophic effects in many ecosystems. As well, humans and many species depend on the forests to supply valuable oxygen; however, without the trees receiving CO2, the supply of oxygen cannot be maintained as easily.

Lastly, methanol is not a “cure-for-all” fuel. “The fact is that methanol combustion results in substantial emissions, including oxides of nitrogen and formaldehyde, which is a probable human carcinogen and a highly reactive precursor of ozone smog.” As well, “methanol, when ingested or absorbed through the skin, is acutely toxic and can cause blindness or death.”

In my opinion, methanol is an improvement from coal, oil, and natural gas in terms of a fuel source. As well, the conversion of CO2 to methanol can help reduce the effects of CO2 in regards to global warming. Nevertheless, methanol is not a reasonable alternative fuel because of its dangerous side effects as well as its potential to damage the environmental systems that depend on a constant supply of carbon dioxide.

Kyoto going Local: Boulder Citizens’ Fight to Banish Coal and Meet GHG Reduction Goals

While the US federal government has yet to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and accept the international goals for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, localities have taken climate change into their own hands. Boulder, Colorado is one community on a mission to reduce GHG emissions. The city made a 2002 pledge to meet the Kyoto Protocol and has experienced a recent push from unofficial community actors to do live up to it.

In an effort to satisfy their city’s goal of reducing GHG emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, a group of local climate scientists, renewable energy experts, green-building consultants, land-use planners, policy specialists and zero-energy architects have joined forces to inspire Boulder leaders to adopt greener policies.

The Boulder Climate Action Network offers new, action-oriented solutions to GHG problems that they feel are necessary supplements the existing Climate Action Plan. One facet of improvements unique to the Boulder Climate Action Network’s approach is their emphasis on seriously increasing community involvement. Member Paul Sheldon of Natural Capitalism Solutions said of their intentions, “People are chomping at the bit to do something …we need an authentic social movement.”

One issue in which the Boulder Climate Action Network is heavily involved is a local effort to “hybridize” Boulder’s Valmont power plant. Much of the community supports the coal burning power plant hybridzing to reduce GHG emissions and other pollutants released by burning only coal and Boulder Climate Action Network wants to see it make very drastic changes. Instead of simply adding solar panels, the group is rallying to have the plant converted to run on biomass.

Boulder Climate Action Network is doing a great thing by fostering community based action to curb GHG emissions. Coal burning power plants play a significant role in the increasing threat of global climate change, and community action is a great way to influence policy as it relates to such dire issues. Our nation needs groups like this to challenge policymakers and planners to develop more tools to combat emission and inspire the entire nation to meet Kyoto standards.

The conversion of Valmont power plant to biomass does have its problems though. Burning biomass creates less energy by mass than burning coal. Significant costs are associated with converting the coal based plant for wood burning, as well.

The Endangered Bears

It is probably safe to say that most people in the world have never seen a bear outside of a zoo. While this is partly because wild animals tend to stay away from human populations if at all possible, it is also partly because 6 of the world's 8 bear species are threatened with extinction. The two species which are not threatened are the Brown Bear and the American Black Bear, due mostly to conservation efforts. These bear species however, face their own problems when in the wild.

One of the main reasons behind declining bear populations is human activities. In Asia and South America timber logging destroys acres of bear habitat daily. With the loss of habitat area comes food scarcity. Another way that habitat is lost is the encroachment of human settlements and development, which is happening to the brown and black bears as well. In New Jersey some communities are experiencing more and more bears entering neighborhoods. The bears experience food shortages and are lured into human settlements by the smell of outside trashcans and even domestic pets. On some occasions bears have even entered homes in forest areas searching for food, but usually encounter the owners. With increased bear encounters comes increased bear attacks, which

causes human populations to find ways to prevent them which usually includes destroying the animal. Bears in Asia and South America are also faced with poaching and over hunting. The sloth bear is killed for various body parts in India.

These bears are declining because and only because of human activities. But when the bears go about doing what they would normally do, humans see this as a nuisance and seek to remove or destroy the animals. This is not a solution to this 'problem'. People see the animals as a nuisance, but the animals were here first, before development began to sprawl out of the cities. We need to find a way to live with other species in our environment. We need to recognize their importance and that if we continue with development as we currently are they may be gone forever.

Car Culture

Car Culture

We are a car culture. Americans rely on their automobiles to carry out any task not within sight of their homes, but is this necessary? Our world has been separated into cities, towns, and areas that create unnecessary transport demands. The environment has been victimized as a result of this addiction of separation.

We are currently trying to avoid further problems with this by moving to efficient “green” vehicles and with better road planning but this is just prolonging and allowing the problem to continue. This can fall under the common environmental critique of treating the symptoms and not attacking the root causes. The problem that needs to be addressed is how to move away from this failing car culture into development of mass transit, better city planning, community development, and true freedom. There are alternatives to our current system of highways, traffic, individual car use, and waste and Individuals and groups have noticed this problem. But society in general continues with business as usual, and business as usual means cars. We as a nation need to realize that we need to change and we need to do it fast.

The problem of cars is not just a result of their pollution. Cars are responsible for damages in their production because of the high energy required and the resources that are necessary to create the multi ton machines that carry us around inefficiently. Cars create problems from their demand for roads, bridges, fueling infrastructures, and maintenance sources. A final grouping of the problems that cars cause is the wastes they allow. These wastes include frivolity, excessive actions, and just plain old resource waste as a result of the so called convenience and freedom that we have fallen in love with

Freedom is no longer an applicable term, because of in certain areas of our nation (see Los Angeles or D.C) traffic has become a hindrance. We are limited by the environment that we have created and the machines that we rely on.

People used to live in cities together, near their places of work, their stores, and their families. People did not need cars; there was public transport, railways, and of course walking and biking opportunities. The term alternative transportation, which we ridiculously have labeled walking and biking today, was nonexistent. We need a major shift back to this lifestyle, and I would rather this be voluntary and proactive instead of necessary and reactive as a result of environmental disaster.

Recovery Act Aids Superfund Cleanups

The Superfund program was established to clean up contaminated sites by making those responsible for the pollution pay for its cleanup; however, despite this the government is spending $600 million from the stimulus plan to work on Superfund sites around the country.  One such site is the Vineland Chemical Company plant located in New Jersey that is polluted with arsenic.  The Environmental Protection Agency says that this is important because the Superfund program has been under-financed ever since the tax that supported it expired in 1995. 

At this site and at many other sites, taxpayers are responsible for paying for cleanups because either no party was deemed responsible for the pollution or money from the original polluter has been exhausted.  Even though the stimulus plan comes from taxpayers' money, the EPA feels that using this money will help speed up the cleaning process and also provide job opportunities.  President Obama would prefer to restore the Superfund tax that once collected hundreds of millions of dollars every year to put towards Superfund site restoration so that taxpayers are not responsible for funding these efforts.  Until then, the stimulus package will continue to fund these efforts, and it nearly  doubles the available funds for these cleanups.

Reinstating this tax could provide much needed funds for Superfund site cleanups.  This tax would also hold the parties who created the pollution responsible for funding its cleanup.  Even though the American Chemistry Council opposes this tax because it would charge all manufacturers rather than only the guilty polluters, cleanup costs should not have to be the sole responsibility of the government.  Currently the government and taxpayers are charged with funding Superfund site cleanups, but this tax will help alleviate funding problems so that more sites can benefit.  It is also important that the Superfund program continue to name the polluters because if polluters are forced to take responsibility for their actions, they may have more incentive to clean up their manufacturing processes as to allow for less pollution overall.  The reinstitution of this tax will ultimately greatly influence the Superfund program and help clean up sites across the nation.

Super (bailout) fund.

Superfund is a program established by the E.P.A. to remediate toxic waste sites. $25 million of tax payer’s money is going to the Superfund site in Vineland, New Jersey. This is coming directly from the economic bailout stimulus plan. There is about 54 acres of soil and land that are still in need of dredging and cleaning. The company that was previously on the site responsible for the toxic waste is a pesticide manufacturing plant. The target pollutant left over by the plant that Superfund is after recovering and sending to landfills is arsenic. The E.P.A. says that the amount of arsenic in the area still poses a threat to human life. It is poisonous, and has been known to cause numerous types of cancer, and also kill those who ingest it. The arsenic has also entered the local water table and $120 million dollars has already been spent over the past couple of years to clean and treat millions of tons and gallons of soil and water.

The pesticide company that put the arsenic in the surrounding area was not responsible for funding the remediation of the site. It is deemed an orphan site, which means no one company or firm are required to fund the sites clean up. Superfund’s tax funded budget was dismantled in 1995. This led to many projects to fail to completely clean up the site due to the lack of funds and labor available. Since no one company is in charge of payment, the entire financial support for the cleanup is relied upon by the public. There are currently over 1300 Superfund sites throughout the U.S. Many companies are aware of how much cleanup projects like this could potentially cost them and opt to dump their chemicals anyway. They can use their influence and power to persuade local governments that they were not responsible, or just pack up and leave, in attempts to burden the public with the cleanup costs, knowing that it would be cheaper than properly disposing of the toxic substances in the first place.

This promotes companies to dump waste and toxic substances, which is typically much cheaper for the company, than disposing of the harmful waste properly. These wastes can contaminate the ground water and have many negative effects on the surrounding wildlife, human population, and can sometimes destroy the ecosystem. This illegal dumping also cost the U.S. more than $31 billion in tax payers money, including you and me.

Manhattan Traffic Problem

Urban planners have long considered Manhattan traffic congestion as a 'historic mistake'. The problem does not lay with the number of vehicles but rather in the number and orientation of the streets. Addressing the Commissioners’ Plan in 1811, Gouverneur Morris wrote, “…a city is to be composed principally of the habitations of men, and that straight-sided and right-angled houses are the most cheap to build and the most convenient to live in.” Manhattan is mainly composed of a rectilinear street grid and it's grid system is composed of many east-west streets and relatively few north-south avenues. The problem is indeed with the dominance of the east-west streets. According to an article, “The connections between “uptown” and “midtown” and “downtown” — the widely-spaced north-south avenues — began to clog, and the side streets with them. Manhattan’s shrinking commercial waterfront was separated from the island’s interior by highways that attempted to help move traffic north and south but ultimately added congestion to a street grid not built to service longitudinal movement”. Simply put the east-west streets are no longer facilitating the city's new needs after a century after their construction.

Two years ago New York transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan was recruited by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to revamp New York streets from Broadway to the Bronx; her main goal being to reclaim car space for pedestrians, cyclists and buses, as well as creating a renaissance for public plazas. In 1811 urban planners laid out Manhattan’s grid of north-south avenues met by east-west street forming an efficient system of right angles. However, planners left Broadway running diagonally through the city and that has caused immense traffic problems ever since. Building new road was proposed as an option but was subsequently scrapped as an alternative because the construction of new roads is an expensive endeavor and they generally become overwhelmed easily. Engineers acknowledged that building new roads usually makes traffic worse. “Congestion pricing” has been recommended as a better solution; in this instance there is a raised cost for driving in congested areas. The best-known example of this is the "congestion pricing" plan London implemented in 2003. Drivers now pay roughly $11 a day to drive in the central city. According to one study, the program has reduced traffic by 16 percent.

A traffic congestion study was conducted in 1998 and was commissioned by British transit engineer, Stephen Atkins. Researchers studied 60 cases of road reductions and found that when roads were closed down, drivers strive to avoid the area. Closing these roads ultimately deterred drivers and reduced demands. I found this research to be very interesting and considered it as a better solution than "congestion pricing". A proposal in early April unveiled the mayor's plan to close seven key blocks of the Great White Way. In this plan Broadway will be closed off one block above and below the intersection, coupled with a five-block no-drive-zone bordering Times Square it is predicted that congestion will reduce by 37 percent on sixth Avenue, 17 percent on Seventh and some 20 percent on Ninth. The result will hopefully yield simplified traffic patterns, longer green lights, and reduced travel time across Midtown. Other cities are also considering this type of plan. San Francisco has announced that it would study barring cars from a portion of Market Street in hopes of getting bicycles, buses, and pedestrians moving more quickly. I believe that this is the most plausible of options. Instead of building more roads to escalate the problem planners have taken a more simple approach by deconstructing roads. This particularly struck me as interesting because it goes to show that some times the best solutions are the simplest.