Water Privatization

Every human in the world relies on water in order to survive. Clean, drinkable water is as necessary to human survival as air. Recently, large corporation such as Nestle and Suez have begun to privatize water and sell it in bottles, marketing it as fresher and cleaner than tap water, in order to make a profit. This privatization is occurring all over the planet, not just in the United States, and has been pushed forward by politicians and the World Bank. Water is now the third most profitable industry in the world worth approximately 400 billion dollars. Water privatization can be very harmful to the people of the world and cause a vast gap in human rights as people of different nations vary in their ability to receive clean, accessible water.

            Many people are against the privatization of water, a good that is typically provided by the government through citizens taxes. By privatizing water, industries are selling water for profit to nations. This is resulting in the world’s poorest nations not being able to provide free, clean water to its citizens, thus destroying the peoples faith in it’s government to  protect them. Frequently, the governments that must charge its people for the use of water are poorer. When these citizens divert their money to water, they are losing their ability to pay for food and shelter. This means that they often use water from lakes and streams that are used for industrial waste, causing them to become sick, and sometimes even die. The United Nations estimates that $30 billion extra dollars a year would be necessary to provide everyone in the world with clean water. Last year alone, the world spent three times that amount of money on bottled water.

            Also, companies in the United States are depleting water sources from local communities by pumping unsustainably. This is destroying local water sources, creating mud pits and sinkholes. Nestle can pump water at approximately 450 gallons per minute, all while not paying for these natural resources. In fact, not only does Nestle not pay for the water that they retrieve from the communities, but rather they actually receive ten million dollars in tax abatements over a ten year time frame. Therefore, not only are they depleting communities of their precious water systems, but they are receiving government money to support these actions. The world's leaders need to combat these problems in order to help regulate some of the environmental and regulatory problems associated with selling a natural resource as valuable and vital as water. 

            

Funding the rail system

With increasing population arise the problem of having more and more congested roads and highways. In order to reduce amount of traffic congestion, we should develop more mass transit systems such as train and buses. That’s exactly what Virginia has decided to do. Recently, The Commonwealth Transportation Board decided to fund Amtrak to run two new passengers train from Richmond and Lynchburg to Washington D.C. The newly proposed funding allowed Virginia to pay Amtrak with $25.5 million in which $17.2 million of it will be used to cover operating cost of the new trips and $8 million to improve the cars. The decision was based on Rail Enhancement Fund, a legislation signed by Governor Mark R. Warner in 2005 to improve rail transportation systems and infrastructure.

The focus of this funding is to clean up traffic on interstate Highway I-95. I-95 runs parallel to the rail route from Washington D.C. to Richmond. Traffic on I-95 is heavily congested with cars, buses, and trucks. It normally takes about two hours to make a trip between Washington D.C. and Richmond. During rush hour, the trip is prolonged by heavy traffic. On top of that, population in the region is expected to reach 3.5 million in 2014 from 2.8 million which mean more cars on the road. The plan to reduce traffic on I-95 is to take away as many daily car drivers off the road and encourage them to use the train service, instead. To attract more riders, Virginia is planning to cut the trip time on train between those two cities to 90 minutes. The fund will able to provide improvements to the rail tracks so that trains will have the ability travel with their maximum speed of 90-110mph which will cut the duration of the trip. By doing so, Virginia is hoping to attract more riders which in turn will reduce traffic congestion on I-95 between Washington D.C. and Richmond.

I believe turning toward mass transist system is great way to meet our transportation need without putting too much strain on resoures and environment. The current plan of funding the addition of new trips operate on already existed railroad tracks. With little improvements in condition of railroad tracks, we can fullyt take advantage of train system to overcome our need for transportation. The best part of the plan is that the state will receive the profit made from tickets sale between the two new trips.

Effects of Rapanos Decision

Michigan developer John Rapanos planned to construct housing complexes on wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers, however, declared jurisdiction over the wetlands under the Clean Water Act because ground water on Rapanos' property connected the wetlands to “navigable waters.” Two years after the 4-1-4 split decision in favor of Rapanos a settlement has been reached. The federal government filled a separate suit claiming different jurisdiction over the wetlands and Rapanos conceded and agreed to pay $150,000 in civil fines and $750,000 more to mitigate the 54 acres of wetlands that were filled without a permit. The decision applies to both the § 402 NPDES permit program of the CWA and the § 404 dredge and fill permit program because both sections utilize the same definition of “navigable waters.”

The Rapanos case characterizes opposition between environmental protection and private property rights but with two different jurisdictional tests. The court plainly rejected the government’s claim of authority over virtually all waters and land in the Nation. This is a significant victory for landowners because of the prevalence of water bodies on private lands. Rapanos greatly alters the scope of federal authority under CWA. The decision in favor of limiting federal government regulation on private property has left us with a problem. Who will protect our nation’s wetlands? Wetlands not only provide an obvious source of usable water and habitats for wildlife, but store floodwater to reduce the effects of floods, control erosion, and filter pollutants from surface and ground water. For instance, if more coastal wetlands surrounding Louisiana had been preserved, the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina would have been lessened. Rapanos also limits cross-boundary issues between states. The CWA is primarily enforced by the states but now in the case of wetlands, the federal government has little to no jurisdiction. It is up to the states to adopt policies to narrow the two broad and dissimilar tests issued by the court.

Two years later, the lower courts have interpreted the decision inconsistently. Over a 17-month period more than 500 enforcement cases were lost in court, not pursued, or lowered in priority due to the confusion of the tests. This has had a significant impact on both federal and state enforcement. Recently the Department of Justice (DOJ) petitioned the Supreme Court for clarification but the request was denied. Conservation groups are hoping that the Obama administration and Congress will deliver new guidance to resolve the confusion provoked by Rapanos.

Small Wind Turbines

Energy sustainability is one of the most predominant concerns of our nation. There are multiple forms of sustainable energy such as solar power, wind power, wave power, tidal power, and geothermal power. In the United States, we have the potential to produce 20% of our nation’s electricity needs solely based on wind power by 2030. I feel that wind power is often times overlooked as a dependable renewable resource. Right now the U.S. wind energy installed capacity has grown to 26,274 MW making wind an economic useful resource.

A relatively new emerging industry in wind power is small turbines. These 10-kilowatt turbines stand 120 feet tall and can produce enough electricity to fulfill the needs of an average sized home or small business. These turbines are a great way to cut energy bills and help protect the environment. The U.S. leads the world in the manufacturing of small wind turbines. President Obama’s new economic stimulus bill provides a 30 percent tax credit incentive to small turbine buyers. Due to this federal subsidy, the American Wind Energy Association predicts a 40 to 50 percent increase in the market of small turbines. This use of clean energy is what our nation is striving for and small wind turbines are a great way to help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Virginia has established its own state incentive program for wind power to encourage reliable and affordable sustainable energy. The Virginia Small Wind Incentives Program (VSWIP) managed by the James Madison University Office of the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative (VWEC), offers grants to Virginia landowners to purchase and install small wind energy systems. The cost of these systems varies from size, application, and manufacturer agreements but most cost between $1,000-$5,000 per kilowatt. The total installation cost of a small turbine is still much less than the cost of photovoltaic solar panels. With the help of grants and tax credit incentives a small wind turbine is a wise economic investment and in time will pay for itself while keeping the environment clean and free of emissions.

Implementing a Federal Energy Efficiency Resource Standard

We all hear about the proposed benefits of purchasing energy efficient products for our home and how much we can save by doing so. Most people figure I can save money and save the environment at the same time. Unfortunately this may be a stretch; studies are showing that people who purchase energy efficient products such as washing machines actually use the product more thus not saving energy or money. "Just as dieters might binge on Snackwell's low-calorie cookies, people who buy energy-efficient items for their homes sabotage their efforts to save power — often by using the appliances more heavily". This effect could possibly take away from the new programs established by the Obama administration.

The $787 billion stimulus package signed by Obama last month includes $5 billion for weatherization programs and $300 million in rebates for energy-efficient products. A solution to this could be the establishment of a national standard for energy efficiency. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) says in a study published this month (March) the introduction of a national Energy Efficiency and Resource Standard (EERS) would not only save billions but create jobs and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Other benefits include 220,000 net permanent jobs and 390 power plants that won’t need to be built. is aimed at creating incentives for the introduction and installation of energy saving initiatives and devices and includes rebates on measures such as efficient air conditioners, water heaters and lighting systems.

Creating this national standard would be an effective way of regulating energy efficiency of products as well as consumers. This would help to limit the problem of overusing energy efficient products in the home. The standard would require natural gas and electric utilities to meet energy saving targets or face penalties in a bid to drive them to help consumers reduce energy use. This is a good way to maximize efficiency and provide benefits to consumers, such as rebates and incentives. The new Save American Energy Act in a proposal for federal energy efficient standard states "Expanding investments in energy efficiency programs at the national level will save consumers money, promote economic development and reduce emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming." If the standard is adopted it should be a successful means of reducing energy while benefiting the consumer in more ways than one.

Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage Facility

There are 66,000 tons of radioactive waste in storage in the United States ( The Salt Lake Tribune). What to do with so much hazardous material? This is a massive problem, with no easy answer. One possible solution that has been in the works since 1987 is a proposed containment facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.


It started with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, giving the federal government responsibility for finding a place to store America’s waste. Yucca mountain was selected for in-depth study in 1987. ( Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)) Since then, the government has spent billions of dollars on analyzing the site and planning for the most advanced waste containment methods possible. The site is at the center of a huge controversy.


Yucca Mountain is on federal land and scientists mostly agree that the geology of the area – the make-up of the terrain, depth of the water table, and other things – would keep the waste safe (US EPA Radiation FAQ). Other experts say, though, that there are dangerous fault lines and earthquake risk. Recent studies have also shown that water moves through the mountain faster than originally thought, raising questions about potential contamination of the groundwater. ( LA Times) This scientific conflict is one problem facing the plan. The government says the site is safe for the waste; others disagree. The US DOE seems firmly in favor of the plan, but the new president and his Secretary of Energy are against it. In President Obama’s budget proposal, he is asking for the minimum amount of funding for the Yucca Mountain Project to keep it just barely afloat. ( U.S. News & World Report)


There are other options for dealing with the waste, including short term storage facilities, a central storage facility in another location, or reprocessing the waste to make weapons-grade plutonium. I believe that the best option would be to create a Yucca Mountain-like repository in another location. The need for some high tech long-term waste storage is apparent, a facility served and protected by the best that our science has to offer. The waste would also be safer in a top-of-the-line facility rather than wherever the companies can find space for it, spread across the country.


Although Yucca Mountain seemed to be a feasible site when it was chosen in 1987, new geological and scientific discoveries have put that choice in question. The main problem, though, in my opinion, is the maelstrom of public conflict over the site. This sort of facility, no matter how well protected, would be vulnerable to the vagaries of time and geological change. It should not be forced onto a community that doesn’t want it. There have been effective waste storage facilities, successfully sited in amenable communities. ( U.S. News & World Report) There has been so much conflict over Yucca Mountain already, I don’t believe that the community will ever accept the facility.

And yet, there needs to be some kind of solution. We (as a country) are planning to build more than 30 new nuclear reactors. The problem is only going to get bigger.
I believe that it is time to cut our losses in Yucca Mountain, and turn our attention to a new solution that could be better sold to the public.

EPA Clean Air Act Changes

Recently the Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, decided to try to declare greenhouse gases as pollutants that cause danger tot he public's health and wellbeing.  This would allow for greater federal regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.  The Supreme Court had previously ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases did not qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  If this ruling is overturned and the EPA can prove that greenhouse gases do cause or contribute to pollution that endangers, it would be called an endangerment finding and could allow the government to have great control over vehicle emissions, factories that emit these gases, and other polluters that could potentially even include dairy farmers whose cattle emit methane gas.

This proposed change could have significant impacts on pollution and global warming.  Added federal regulations could provide incentives to clean up industry, and this could help eliminate large portions of emissions.  The Clean Air Act had already significantly impacted emissions of over two hundred pollutants, and the addition of greenhouse gases could prove positive in the fight to end global warming.  Because the primary goal of the Clean Air Act is to provide clean, safe, breathable air for the public, the EPA has every right to expand the list of pollutants it would like to control, especially since greenhouse gases are proven causes of global warming.  The Natural Resources Defense Council defends the EPA's stance on this issue, and provides much information about the health problems caused by greenhouse gases and global warming.  Heat waves, allergies, asthma, disease, and dangerous weather patterns are all potentially harmful to the public, but more federal control over emissions could help reduce some or all of these problems.

The EPA is currently working on a project to collect data and analyze carbon dioxide emissions in various regions across the nation.  By gathering information about greenhouse gases, they can determine the positive, negative, or neutral effects of greenhouse gases on the public, which is important research that will certainly impact this Supreme Court case.

Because greenhouse gases do contribute to global warming and have been shown to cause health problems, the EPA should have the right to expand its control to cover greenhouse gases.  This could have significant positive impacts on our nation and the world.

Streamlining Liscening for Offshore Renewable Energy Projects

An agreement between the FERC (Federal Energy Regulation Committee), and the Department of the Interior will minimize the notorious bureaucratic red tape hindering development of offshore renewable resources. The two agencies, which both have jurisdiction over energy development on the outer continental shelf area, will cooperate to develop procedures for permitting the innovative projects.

The FERC has jurisdiction over hydrokinetic power, which harnesses wave and tidal forces in the ocean. Several methods are being studied and evaluated for environmental impacts. The first license distributed by the FERC in December 2007 was for the Makah Bay Offshore Wave Pilot Project, which uses buoys to convert wave power. Few other projects have been approved, because of the large amount of background research needed to pass current federal laws. A new system would undoubtedly increase the number of projects, on the outer continental shelf around the whole country.

The Department of the Interior has jurisdiction over off shore wind power. The most hotly contested project is Cape Wind, which proposes wind turbines off the coast of Nantucket. Complaints from local businesses about the eye-sore slowed down the permitting process. As the NEPA process draws to a close, however, proponents are hopeful for a close construction date. When the Department of Interior creates its permitting method, this process will become easier for other offshore wind projects.

Speeding up the permitting process is very important for the progress of alternative energy. The joint statement states that “our renewable energy is too important for bureaucratic turf battles to slow down our progress.” Offshore renewable energy is a very valuable resource that must be tapped, especially if the country wishes to meet President's Obama’s ambitious goal to double alternative energy output in three years.

Caution should not be forgotten when issuing licenses, however. Background research and public input are vital to projects of this magnitude. The technology is new, and possible adverse effects must be considered. The FERC and Department of the Interior are searching for a happy medium between the current red light and the green lights formerly given to the dirty energy production technologies which created the problem in the first place. The agreement between the two agencies will help ensure that the innovative companies working on these projects can focus on the project itself rather than gaining government approval.

Stimulus Plan?

The United States is in a very interesting economic era. President Barack Obama has created an $825 billion stimulus plan to try and deal with the issues we seem to be having in an ecompassing attack on economic downturn from multiple angles. The plan has many environmentalist supporters and many groups making sure that the stimulus is going in the right direction because this bill will affect environmental concerns and issues across the board and set up the future of environmental policy and planning for our country. The environmental issues brought up in Obama’s very first radio address as president brought up his ideas for alternative energy support, movement to more energy efficient buildings, and new mass transit systems. The stimulus plan is packed with incentive for environmental policy and planning support. It is loaded with billions of dollars being allocated for ideas like energy efficiency, weatherization, “smart grids”, carbon capturing, “green jobs”, along with tax credits and grants for other environmental projects. Is it going to work though? Do we, as environmentalists, want it to work?

Al Gore supports the package and urged Congress to pass President Barack Obama's “green-friendly economic recovery plan”. Gore’s main support came from his belief that “The solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well," he said. "The plan's unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas - energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy grid and the move to clean cars - represent an important down payment."

We cannot forget, however that this stimulus plan is mainly for the economy’s sake though, not the environment’s. For a good clip of Obama speaking of the stimulus’ environmental impacts followed by Korten’s perspective go to http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/26/david_korten_agenda_for_a_new.

David Korten is a critic with a very unique point of view that I respect and want to share. He says that our current economic system is failing but there are alternatives to trying to stimulate it. He has come to realize that our current system of economics has created environmental destruction, increased inequalities and augmented social failures. I unfortunately agree, and optimistically hope his ideas will catch on despite my understanding that this is unlikely. Korten’s understanding is that this economic crisis should be used to spur a transition into a reorganization of economic priorities. . His plan is to restructure and reorganize our current system into newer structures through a changing of values from financial success to the support of human and natural well being. Instead of our current consumption driven economics that is dominating the environment, Korten believes in finding a way for us to get into balance with the Earth. Korten just released his new book “Agenda for a New Economy; From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth" concerned entirely with these ideas.

Great Lake’s Ice Cover is Declining

According to scientists of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “ice cover on the Great Lakes has declined more than 30 percent since the 1970s, leaving the world’s largest system of freshwater lakes open to evaporation and lower water levels.” This is happening especially in the deepest, middle portions of Erie, Huron, Ontario and Superior. The ice is diminishing in these parts the most because the deeper the water is, the more heat it can store from the summer, which makes it freeze later than the shallow areas. The lack of ice increases solar input which makes the deep waters of the lake get warmer. This leads to less ice cover, which leads to more evaporation, which leads to shallower waters that warm faster and the cycle starts all over again.

The amount of ice cover can vary from year to year. It is said that, “global climate change and regional climate patterns are competing over the Great Lakes.” But the reality is that no one thing takes over. In fact, this winter had a very large and long-lasting ice cover at the Great Lakes but the overall trend is still showing a decline. Having the global climate change and regional climate patterns different makes it hard to separate the two. This might be why some people don’t believe global climate change is happening, even though it is. Proof of temperature elevation can be showed at Lake Superior. Researches found that the lake’s surface temperate has warmed by 2.5 degrees Celsius since 1979.

Ice loss can cause a lot of problems at the Great Lakes. Eggs of fall-spawning fish can be destroyed by winter waves from an open lake, which could affect certain species. Erosion of the coastal areas can also occur because the shore ice is unprotected. Less winter recreation on the lakes will have to take place. Just last month, a miles-wide ice floe broke off from Lake Erie’s shoreline. It trapped 134 fishermen offshore who had to wait for hours to be rescued by helicopters are air boats that can glide across the ice.

Even though the ice cover is different from year to year, the overall coverage on the lakes is decreasing more and more. This could certainly be an effect from global climate change so the research needs to continue on the lakes to help them before it is too late.

1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29842552/

2. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/08/134-fishermen-rescued-from-ice-floe/

3. http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1237797065279300.xml&coll=2

4. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426064.100-global-warming-is-shrinking-the-great-lakes.html

5. http://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/