Renewable Energy Power Lines

A proposed project will challenge environmentalists to pick where their loyalty lies. A proposed power line would stretch 460 miles from New Mexico to Arizona. However, this wouldn't be a normal power line. It would transport solar energy from the desert and wind energy from the plans. This sounds like a great news! You would think It would be an environmentalists dream, but don't make your decision until you hear all the facts. The power line would cross grasslands, skirt two national wildlife refuges and traverse the Rio Grande, all of which are habitats rich in wildlife. "The graceful sandhill crane, for example, makes its winter home in the wetlands of New Mexico's Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, right next to the path of the proposed power line. And much of teh area falls under the protection of the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM)." The state of New Mexico loves the sandhill crane and would hate to see any harm come to it.
Many environmentalists find themselves questioning which side of the plan they belong on. Should they use green energy and risk the wildlife or should they save the wildlife and continue to pollute the earth by burning coal. One concern is that Renewable-energy projects often take up more land than conventional sources of energy. For example, "it can take 300 times as much land to produce a given amount of energy from soydiodiesel as from nuclear power plant. Regardless of the climate policy the nation adopts, the paper predicts that by 2030, energy production will occupy an additional 79,537 square miles of land." Some govenrment officials are beginning to wonder if this projects and its use of renewable energy is in fact green.

Just like the environmentalists I'm torn about this issue. I feel like it is the beginning of change, but I think they should mavbe map out a new path for the power lines and/or invest in trying to find new technology that would take up more space. Renewable energy is great, but it shouldn't distroy the land and the environment becasue if it does it's just as bad as our current sources of energy.

Highway in the Mountain

Along the Route 52 corridor in West Virginia, a revolutionary construction partnership is utilizing work currently being done by coal companies to bring lasting economic impact into an impoverished region. West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT) is working in partnership with coal companies who practice mountain top removal to build the King Coal Highway. The King Coal highway will stretch from Bluefield to Williamson, and eventually be part of Interstate 73 and 74, which will connect Myrtle Beach, SC to Detroit, MI. Even though this interstate will bring a much needed economic boost to the area, it may have costly environmental implications.

Mountain top removal is a controversial form of coal mining where the ground is blasted away to expose seams of coal, the coal is then removed, and then the ground is resurfaced to balance the cut and fill from the remaining blasted material, usually leaving a piece of flat land. For the King Coal Highway partnership, WVDOT required the coal companies to level the road to rough grade during the resurfacing process, such that WVDOT could come in and pave the road with minimal work. So far, 7 of the 90 miles have been brought to rough grade by one of the partner companies, Alpha Natural Resources, at the Premium mine site near Red Jacket, WV.

From the economic standpoint, this project holds many benefits. It is estimated to have saved the state of West Virginia an estimated $150 million in construction costs on the already constructed 7-miles of road in Red Jacket, bringing the price down to $90 million. More importantly than saving the state money, this will create a major bypass through impoverished counties (such as Mingo, Wyoming, and Mercer), inevitably bringing them much needed tourism, retail, and industry. The major thoroughfare between these counties, Route 52, is currently a dangerous two-lane route being used by everyone from coal trucks to ambulances; however, the construction of this highway should help to relieve this problem.

Even with all the economic good, this mining and construction can have drastic environmental effects. While the permits obtained for this type of work are usually mining permits, the permits being obtained by these companies are road construction permits. Road construction permits are easier to obtain and have less environmental regulations; in fact, a judge halted all valley fill permits unless they are used for construction purposes. To note though, even with lesser regulations, an Environmental Impact Statement was filled and approved before any mining took place. Also through the mining process, trees are removed and previously compacted soil disturbed, which can lead to enormous erosion and flooding during heavy rains. Along with that, many valleys and streams are permanently filled, often times in violation of the Clean Water Act.

The King Coal Highway is a classic example of having to balance economic benefit with environmental impact.

The "Right to Know": EPA Reinstates Full TRI Reporting Requirements

This April Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa P. Jackson signed a final rule to reinstate more rigorous reporting requirements for facilities, both industrial and federal, that release toxic substances posing a threat to human and environmental health. All U.S. citizens, by the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, have the right to know about toxic chemicals released into their communities. Or as Ms. Jackson stated, “People have a right to information that might affect their health and the health of their children -- and EPA has a responsibility to provide it.” She hopes that the newly reinstated rule will be a “crucial tool for safeguarding human health and the environment in our communities”. The Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI, is a publicly available EPA database containing information reported annually by industries and federal facilities regarding toxic chemicals released and waste management procedures.

In December of 2006 the TRI Burden Reduction Final Rule changed requirements to allow non-persistent, bio-accumulative, toxic chemicals of up to 5,000 pounds. It also allowed for the first time PBT chemicals under certain circumstances. However, this rule resulted in a lawsuit by 12 states to restore the TRI form to its rules prior to 2006. This outcry was due to a widespread concern that it did not meet the required information under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. On March 11 of this year President Obama signed the 2009 Omnibus Appropriates Act, mandating that TRI reporting requirements must be reestablished as per prior the TRI Burden Reduction Rule of 2006.

The new rule will apply to all TRI reports due on July 1, 2009. It requires that all reports on dangerous PBT chemicals must be listed on a more detailed form of the report, Form R. The shorter, less thorough Form A can only be used for other chemicals if the yearly reporting amount is 500 pounds or less and less than 1 million pounds were created or used during that same year.

I believe TRI reports are an important step to improving public knowledge of potentially hazardous chemicals, therefore improving public and environmental health. There has also been evidence to show that it has encouraged industries to reduce its use of hazardous chemicals. However, it is questionable as to how beneficial TRI reports actually are after they are made public. As new chemicals are discovered to be harmful and added to the TRI list, the progress to deter them has seemed less impressive in recent years. The Toxic Release Inventory as administered by the EPA is an example of an “indirect regulation”. This means that although the government requires the revelation of certain information, it depends wholly on citizens to use that information to force businesses and industry to operate safely.

What it comes down to is public concern and willingness to take action against industry. The average citizen has never heard of a TRI report, let alone know how to access it and what to do with the information. Therefore, before this legislation can be effective I believe there needs to be grassroots movements across the country to inform citizens. Google Earth has recently added a feature to graphically show where Toxic Release Inventory facilities are in a certain area. This feature could be an important tool for citizens, giving them a more tangible idea of where these hazardous lay in relation to their homes, schools, and places of work. The EPA’s website also has a page to look up TRI information state-by-state. As environmental awareness spreads through communities across the country hopefully TRI reports can be utilized to their full potential, helping the environment and improving the quality of life for all.

Should Hemp be Legalized for the Purpose of Paper Manufacturing?

Ever since the US government passed the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, US production of hemp has essentially been made illegalized. Prior to this event, hemp had been grown for the past 12,000 years for food. Also, when the Japanese blocked US sources of “Manila hemp” during WWII, the US Army and the Department of Agriculture promoted the “Hemp for Victory” campaign to grow hemp in the US. The United States is the only developed nation in which industrial hemp is not an established crop. In fact, not only is it an established crop in the European Union, but the government also subsidizes it! Many people oppose the ability to grow hemp due to the fact that fields that grow it could supposedly be used to cover production of marijuana. Unfortunately, this blocks the US from reaping the substantial benefits that occur from using hemp paper rather than paper produced from wood pulp.

            Hemp paper is a much higher quality, less environmentally degrading product than paper made from trees. First off, hemp is a quick growing weed that actually improves soil structure and clean toxins in the ground (phytoremediation). Also, it does not require the use of herbicides and pesticides. A large advantage of hemp is that it could reduce the devastation of deforestation immensely. For every four acres of trees required annually to make paper, only an acre of hemp is required. The ability to stop deforestation for the purpose of paper manufacturing could actually reduce the affects of global warming. In addition, due to the higher quality of fibers in hemp paper as compared with paper made from trees, hemp paper can be recycled up to seven times while paper made from wood pulp can only be recycled approximately three times. Also, due to the low lignin content of hemp, hemp can be pulped using less chemicals than wood. Lastly, its natural coloring cancels out the need for chlorine bleach, which means less pollution in lakes and streams coming from centers of production.

             Finally, in February 2004, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Drug Enforcement Administration “cannot regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana,” in the case Hemp Industries Association v Drug Enforcement Administration. They noted that due to the trace amounts of THC in hemp paper it is impossible to get high from it. David West, PhD, also supports this point of view. In fact, he states that the high percentage of CBD in industrial hemp actually blocks the marijuana high. Therefore, the United States should legalize the use and production of hemp for paper manufacturing within US borders.  

Greensburg GreenTown

On May 7, 2007, the 65-mile-wide city of Greensburg was destroyed by an F5 tornado, leaving only two buildings standing. On top of obliterating every home, tree and business, 12 residents lost their lives that day and displaced 1,400 residents. Looking on the bright side of things, the residents have made "green" its rebuilding mantra, proclaiming itself a “national model for environmentally conscious living” and winning attention and resources in the process." According to Mayor John Janssen of Greensburg, "The tornado was one of the biggest blessings to hit our town; we were like every other town in the Rust Belt and the Midwest. We were dying a slow, agonizing death. Suddenly, we don't have a town. So we're rebuilding a new green town." Since this pledge was made, Greensburg GreenTown, a grassroots community-based organization has worked closely with city and county officials, business owners and local residents to include sustainable principles into their renovation process.
Even though it came at a price, it is good that the town of Greensburg is able to start over in a more eco-friendly way. I agree with their plan to go green and make all buildings have “energy-efficient appliances, high-grade insulation and thermal-pane windows that can cut heating and cooling costs.” This is the direction the whole United States needs to move towards and it should not have to take a devastating tornado to do so. If all cities applied these energy efficient homes, whether it included solar roofs, green roofs or better insulation, money could be saved and pollution lessened. About 43 miles from Greensburg is a new wind farm in Spearville, Kansas. It is said that one of the turbines on the wind farm would be plenty to power Greensburg on most days. With all of this potential, how can this going green method be ignored by the rest of the U.S.? The rest of U.S. citizens need to educate themselves on the huge impacts of living more sustainable and using eco-friendly planning to construct a new and healthier life. Hopefully, this rebuilding will make citizens move to Kansas because Greensburg will not just be using environmental planning practices, they will be sustainable, produce their own power, be energy efficient with buildings as well as have residents who are well educated and prepared to practice sustainability on a daily basis.

Plans for the Worlds Most Eco-Friendly City

Imagine a city with no carbon emission, zero-waste, and car-free. Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates is aiming for this goal. The project is called the Masdar Initiative, and it’s purpose it quiet simple: to build the greenest, most eco friendly city in history. The city is located next to the Abu Dhabi airport on a currently deserted patch of land. Set for completion in 2018, Masdar City is designed to completely eliminate the need for cars by building a walking and biking accessible city for a population of 47, 500. When a location is too far for either option, the Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) acts as a personal eco-friendly subway. 

Dependent on only solar and wind power, the city will be carbon emission free. Buildings will be close together to create shade and prevent the need for air conditioning, and the city has been designed to make the most use of local wind patterns and sea breezes.  The goal is to reuse 80% of water resources, recycle close to 100% of human waste, and eliminate as much of the carbon footprint of construction by planting trees.  There is also a vast agriculture system planned to allow for locally grown food supplies, and help filter air pollution. Watch a video here. 

Although skeptics are numerous, and the goals are lofty, Masdar City is definitely worth a try. Even if just a few tactics used by the city engineers is adopted into common international city development, it could make a positive impact on how the world becomes eco-friendly. It hopes to become a center for research, testing, and development, which means their failures, and successes, could help determine how we approach environmental building in the future. The project also gives publicity for environmental concerns and solutions, and is ironically coming from an oil-supplying country. I say, if Abu Dhabi has the drive and resources to complete such a dramatic project, why stop them. 

EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare / Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling



Finally, the EPA has deemed that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose an elevated health risk and must be regulated in some manner. This move represents a major turnaround from the days of the Bush administration where the environment took a backseat to every other issue. Under President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy, the reduction of carbon dioxide is very promising. The idea of labeling carbon dioxide as a harmful substance to the human race, stemmed from a 2007 scientific review ordered by the US Supreme Court. The review process centered around six main gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride all of which were deemed hurtful to human health and the world’s ecosystems.

This is a very significant issue because it is the first time in history and policy has been aimed at stopping carbon dioxide because we have finally realized that it is damaging human health by warming our climate to a point of heat waves, increased storm activity, and a higher impact on the world’s poor. This occasion also shows that we are able to change to a low carbon economy that Obama has promised and it shows that we care for the only planet that we are going to get. I think much policy is involved in this issue since it is going to require vast amounts of regulation on all sectors of our economy ranging from transportation to energy. It will require cooperation from state and local governments in the forms of regulation of business, stricter efficiency standards for vehicles, and an acceptance to the fact that our lively hoods must change if this proposed action is going to succeed.

Another area where this new direction will help is in the green industry sector. Will more emphasis on reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there will ultimately be a stronger push for a green industry economy. One example of this is a company called Powerspan which works at removing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants and sequestering it underground in large storage tanks. Also, forcing a reduction of carbon dioxide has also led to the EPA to talking about forcing utility and car companies to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that they release, but President Obama really wants to rely on legislation before forcing companies in a certain direction. This new direction in my belief is the starting point to us finally realizing that we actually do impact this planet and we only have one more chance to save it.

Mandatory Green Roofs in Toronto? Maybe.

Recently there has a been a wave of enthusiasm in Toronto to mandate the implementation of green roofs on new buildings. The city has basically acknowledged the fact that green roofs provide many positives including reducing the urban heat island effect, reducing storm water runoff by reducing impervious surfaces, increasing insulation and roof longevity. Now the question obviously becomes whether or not to use market-based strategies or to simply use regulation.

Despite recent success in Chicago and Washington D.C., Toronto would be the first North American city to have a green roof mandate. Many programs already exist in countries like Japan, Germany, Switzerland, and France. While market-based strategies seem limited, Germany has implemented new storm water management taxes. By constructing green roofs, developers can avoid heavy costs, while making their buildings more desirable.

Green roofs have been implemented here at Virginia Tech. Many other universities, such as William & Mary, are considering implementing green roofs in their sustainability analysis.

One critique I have of the proposal is in the list of exclusions which includes schools, industrial facilities, low-income housing, and low- to mid-rise residential units. It would be foolish to dismiss these buildings for whatever reason. Green roofs on schools would provide extra green space for activities and learning. Since the government is normally subsidizing low-income housing anyway, why wouldn't the government want to get a better return on their investment and give extra private green space to those that can least afford it? Increasing green space on site at industrial centers can act as a filter for the emissions and pollution produced.

Coal: The Gas of Tomarrow

One might have a hard time believing that several major auto manufacturers are on the verge of bankruptcy with all the cars that are out congesting the roadways. With record numbers of cars on the roads, the demand for gasoline and petroleum in general has risen. This high demand mixed with political uncertainty in the Middle East has caused the price of petroleum reach record highs a year ago topping off at around four dollars a gallon. These high gas prices and the slowdown of the economy put a strain on the lower and middle class families, with more of their discretionary income going toward fueling their cars. During this time there was also a push to research more into finding an alternative fuel that could replace oil.
While many people are looking toward corn and other methods to generate fuel, the answer could have been under our feet the whole time. That’s right. Coal could be the answers to our dependency on foreign oil. The process is called coal-to-liquid and it takes coal and gasifies it and then it’s used to create a liquid fuel which is capable of powering our cars. With this technology we don’t have to depend on other countries for our oil supply. Also, another advantage of using coal is that we have plenty of it. Estimates say that here in the United States our coal deposits are more than that of all the world’s oil deposits combined. This means that the U.S. has the ability to produce a reliable supply of gasoline which will lead to stable fuel prices that are not affected by the whims of OPEC.
Although coal-to-liquid does have its benefits, the system is not perfect. Critics of the coal-to-liquid say that the burning this synthetic fuel is bad for the environment. They claim that burning these fuels emits about twice the harmful greenhouse gases that is produced burning traditional petroleum fuels. Also, if we were to use coal to fuel our cars we would have to mine more coal. This could have potential negative effects on communities where mountaintop removal and other destructive mining techniques are used.
I believe that using coal to produce fuels for our cars is a great idea. I would also help with the current economic state. Building these plants would be a costly venture, but in the long run would be well worth the money spent. Not to mention that the increased demand for coal would also provide jobs in communities who are already poverty stricken. It’s said that for every one job created in the coal industry, seven others open up in supporting industries. Although the fact that coal-to-liquid fuels may emit more greenhouse gases than petroleum based fuels the economic benefits outweigh the environmental cost.

The Problem of the Chesapeake Bay

It is well known that many of the restorative efforts being used today for the Chesapeake Bay watershed are failing. What is happening? Why is it that we spend millions of dollars to protect this important natural resource and yet no goals are being accomplished? Why do efforts never meet the set deadlines? Should we choose the well being of the Bay over the well being of the people who live there? To me this is a personal issue as my family owns a summer cottage on the Potomac River, part of the Bay watershed. I know what it is like to feel a connection with the bounty of the Bay. The River is an important part of my childhood and it has made me into the person I am today. I am not willing to stand by and watch it be destroyed.

For the year 2008, the Bay received a report card grade of C-. Unfortunately, this is the same grade the Bay received in 2007. Although C- may not sound so bad, many areas of the Bay tested as separate sections received failing grades of D or lower. With as much time and money that the nation spends on the Bay and its restoration, we have not been seeing the desired effects over time. It is not only the Bay waters that are being affected. All of the biodiversity that lives in and around the Bay are harmed by the Bay’s situation. Many populations have severely declined due to human effects of pollution and overharvesting. Two of the most popular examples of this, both only found in the Chesapeake Bay region, are the Blue Crab and the Chesapeake Bay oyster.

The motto of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, “Save the Bay,” needs to become more than just something seen on bumper stickers. The Chesapeake Bay watershed touches parts of 6 states and Washington DC, and influences the lives of countless people. Even people who never see the Bay are affected by its degradation. Restoring the Bay to healthy levels is important for the people who currently live there, but also for the future generations who will hopefully know the same Bay that we know today. I hope that with the appointment of a new representative of the Bay in the Federal government, more goals will actually be accomplished and a change will be seen.