|
An introduction to basic
Environmental Topics and links to in-depth
resources
Water
Quality and Watersheds
Climate
Change
Energy
Biodiversity
and Endangered Species
Recycling
Pollution
and Toxic Materials
Air
Pollution and Air Quality
Economics
and Sustainability
Environmental
Justice
Environmental
Laws and Regulations
Environmental
Education
Water
Quality and Watersheds
Water - from
MU
Environmental Network News December 1998
In the water cycle,
moisture is evaporated into the air from large bodies of
water like lakes, reservoirs, and oceans. Sometime later,
it condenses and falls as rain on land and sea. On land
it drains into streams and then rivers, eventually to be
carried out to the sea, or it percolates into the soil to
underground channels where it may be stored for millions
of years as 'fossil water' until it is tapped by wells.
Or sometimes the underground water finds its way to the
surface and emerges as a spring that feeds into the water
flowing back to the ocean.
Along the way, water is
taken up by plants, animals and humans to be used for
maintenance and growth. Humans annually withdraw 8% of
the water in this global water cycle. On average, 8% of
that water is used domestically, for drinking, cooking,
bathing, washing, disposing of wastes, watering lawns and
filling swimming pools. Twenty three per cent is used for
industry, and 69% is used for agriculture. Developed
countries use a larger percentage of the withdrawals for
domestic and industrial use than developing countries do,
but the changes come from increasing withdrawals, not
from reallocating available water. While the average
annual flow of rivers and the recharge of ground water
generated by rainfall equals about 7,000 cubic meters per
person, the water is not distributed uniformly over the
planet, so some countries have less than 100 cubic meters
per person while others have over 100,000.
Water shortages are so
serious in parts of the globe that some rivers no longer
reach the ocean because of withdrawals. The Colorado
river is so depleted at the US - Mexico border, that the
US pumps ground water into the Colorado to refill the
river in order to meet our treaty obligations with Mexico
- which promptly withdraws the water to meet its needs.
The Yellow River in China also runs dry before it reaches
the sea most months of the year, so the farmers in
Shandong Province no longer have a reliable flow of water
to irrigate their crops. Bangladesh and India feud over
how much water is left in the Ganges when it crosses the
border, and the only flow from the Nile into the
Mediterranean is recycled irrigation water.
As agriculture expands to
feed growing populations, and industry expands to fuel
economic growth, local water shortages are bound to
become even more serious. The way water is used may
aggravate shortages. In China, up to 11% of the rivers
are so polluted by industry they are technically no
longer suitable for irrigation. However, farmers may have
no other water, so they use industrial waste water, and
as a result rice and cabbage in some parts of China end
up dangerously contaminated with lead and cadmium.
Agriculture itself contributes to water pollution.
Although banned or strictly regulated in developed
countries, pesticides like DDT, lindane and toxaphene are
manufactured and exported to developing countries for use
in their agriculture, where they can contaminate local
watersheds. And in developed countries, fertilizer and
animal waste contaminate water with excess levels of
nitrogen.
Domestic uses can also
cause problems. Untreated or poorly treated human sewage
discharged into streams or rivers may contain pathogens
or parasites that cause dysentery, cholera, typhoid or
other diseases. Not only is the water unsuitable for
drinking, but in some cases, it may not even be safe for
irrigating crops. Nevertheless, because of local
shortages of water, sewage is used and has been
associated with endemic infestations of parasitic worms
and with outbreaks of cholera and typhoid. Thanks to the
water cycle, there will never be a global shortage of
fresh clean water, but the ways we use and abuse water
will continue to affect the local availability of usable
water for hundreds of millions of people.
Poop, Pathogens and the
Future of Free Flowing Waters - from MU
Environmental Network News June 2003
The average human
produces about a quarter of a pound of feces each
day.Ê The state of Wisconsin has over 1.4 million
camper days per year in its state parks.Ê
Multiplied by 50 states, that comes to 70 million camper
days per year.Ê Double it to account for campers in
national parks and then divide by 4 and you get 35
million pounds of poop each year deposited in the less
refined facilties typically provided by your average camp
site.
Since feces are not
simply the undigested remainder of our bran flakes, but
also the repository of all sorts of intestinal microbes
we carry around with us, we have been innoculating the
wilderness with dozens of human microbes, some of them
lethal. Prior to the 1970's it was quite common to assume
headwaters and springs were reliable sources of safe
drinking water. No more. The pathogenic protozoans
Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia are now
widespread in U.S. surface waters and even in springs
influenced by surface waters (if a spring is directly
recharged by rainfall, there may not be enough time for
the cysts of the protozoa to die).
These pathogens have two
stages, an active growing stage that lives in the
intestine and a cyst stage that is shed in the feces and
which can persist for months under the right conditions.
Furthermore, both can be found in animals, both domestic
and wild.Ê This means that careless pooping in
nature can lead to the rapid spread ofÊ Giardia or
Cryptosporidium in animal populations. Once established
in beavers or muskrats or rabbits or dozens of other
animals, they can persist in an area indefinitely, even
without infected humans.
Both protozoans can cause
diarrhea, cramps, nausea, vomiting, headache and
low-grade fever within a few to 10 days of infection.
This may clear up or may settle into a chronic or
relapsing condition resulting in severe debiliation and
weight loss. For children, the elderly or immune
compromised individuals there is even the possiblity of
death. Some people can carry Giardia and Cryptosporidium
without exhibiting any symptoms. So even symptom-free
persons can contaminate water supplies.
And it is not just
campers and backpackers that have to worry about
filtering their water either. In Milwaukee in 1993, a
Cryptosporidium contamination of the city water system
sickened 400,000 people and killed 100. Many if not most
public water systems have had to upgrade their treatment
protocols specifically to handle Cryptosporidium, which
is resistant to chlorine. This has placed a very
expensive burden on small rural water supplies which now
require special filtration systems.
Campers may have been
responsible for the initial spread of these pathogens in
nature, but unregulated treatment of animal waste from
confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) may pose a
much larger threat in the future. Hogs and other
livestock can also carry Girardia, Cryptosporidium and a
host of other infectious pathogens that they shed in
their feces, and some operations can produce as much
sewage as Kansas City. In order to reduce the spread of
pathogens, K.C.'s sewage is required to undergo settling,
aerobic digestion and anaerobic digestion before the
remaining sludge can be land applied. The manure from a
CAFO, on the other hand, is stored in lagoons until it is
sprayed on nearby fields. Depending on environmental
conditions, the pathogens may or may not have died before
the next rainfall carries them into the nearest
watercourse and from there into a local water
supply.
If the popularity of
backpacking did contribute to the spread of human
pathogens in the wild, it was an unintended consequence,
one which Kathleen Meyer in her book "How to S**t in the
Woods" and the outdoor travel industry are now trying to
address by teaching backpackers how to dispose of their
wastes responsibly. Maybe it's time for a similar book
for CAFOs. More fundamental than the right to use one's
property as one wishes, is the responsibility not to
impair someone else's use and enjoyment of their
property. Knowing what we know now about Giardia and
Cryptosporidium, we won't be able to plead ignorance if
the free-flowing waters that belong to all of us become
not just undrinkable, but unsafe even for swimming or
wading because of the burden of pathogens contributed by
insufficiently treated animal waste.
Climate
Change
The Physical Science Basis
for Climate Change - from
MU Environmental Network News March
2007
Conclusion 1: The
evidence of global warming is unequivocal
Temperature: Global
temperature increased from 13.60 °C [56.5
°F] to 14.36°C [57.8°F] or
0.76 °C between 1850 and 2005. Urban heat island
effects are local and miniscule - 0.006° C on land
and zero on the ocean. New analyses of satellite
measurements show warming trends similar to the surface
temperature measurements. [periods over which
temperatures are compared are chosen based on available
data - not to fit a preconceived
hypothesis]
Rain : There is increased
precipitation in eastern North and South America,
northern Europe and northern and central Asia. There is
decreased precipitation in the Sahel, the Mediterranean,
southern Africa and parts of southern Asia. The frequency
of heavy precipitation has increased over most land
areas, and droughts are more intense and longer in the
tropics and subtropics.
Wind: There is evidence
for an increase in hurricane intensity in the North
Atlantic since 1970, but no clear trends in frequency.
Observed changes in the Northern Hemisphere circulation
are larger than predicted by the models.
The Sea: The global ocean
to depths of 3000 meters is warmer than in the 1960s,
because the ocean has absorbed more than 80% of the heat
added to the climate system. Sea level has risen an
average of 1.8 mm per year between 1961 and 2003, and 3.1
mm per year between 1993 and 2003. Total sea level rise
over the last century is 171 mm.
The Poles: The Greenland
and Antarctic ice sheets have lost ice mass, though
Antarctic sea ice shows no trend. Average Arctic
temperatures are increasing at twice the rate of global
temperatures, but they vary substantially from decade to
decade. Arctic ice has shrunk by 2.7% per decade. Frozen
ground has shrunk by 7% in the Northern hemisphere since
1900.
Paleoclimate: The warmth
of the last 50 years is unusual relative to any other 50
year period in the last 1300 years. The last time the
poles were this warm for an extended period, 125,000
years ago, sea level was 4 to 6 meters higher.
Conclusion 2: There is a
90% likelihood that this warmth is due to human produced
greenhouse gases.
Six of the seven
continents show patterns of warming over the last 50
years that match what is predicted when carbon dioxide
and other green house gases are added together with
natural forces. They do not match what is predicted when
only natural factors are used. Antarctica's temperature
has remained within previous ranges.
Without the cooling
caused by pollution [especially between the 1950s and
1980s before Clean Air Act Regulations had an effect]
and volcanoes, it would be even warmer.
For the next two decades,
a warming of 0.2°C per decade is projected given
current production of greenhouse gases. Even with
greenhouse gases stabilized, because of time lags and
feedback loops within the climate system, current trends
are likely to continue and intensify for some time.
Failure to reduce emissions is likely to result in
temperature changes of 3.5°C over the next hundred
years.
Who's Who on Climate
Change
World Meteorological
Organization - WMO - An intergovernmental organization
with 188 member states and territories established in
1950, which became a specialized agency of the UN in 1951
dealing with meteorology (weather and climate), hydrology
and related geophysical sciences.
United Nations
Environment Program - UNEP - Provides leadership and
encourages partnerships in caring for the environment by
inspiring, informing and enabling nations and peoples to
improve their quality of life without compromising that
of future generations.
Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change - IPCC - Established by the WMO and the
UNEP in 1988 to assess on a comprehensive, objective,
open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and
socio-economic information relevant to understanding the
scientific basis of risk of human caused climate change,
its impacts and options for adapting. The assessment is
based on existing peer reviewed and published scientific
papers. It is open to all UN and WMO members.
Energy
Biodiversity
and Endangered Species
The Endangered Species Act -
from MU
Environmental Network News September 2004
The ESA was passed
in 1973 with the goal of protecting species, subspecies
and distinct populations of plants and animals (including
invertebrates) from extinction. At the time, serious
declines in large vertebrates like the Bald Eagle,
focused strong public support on the need for national
protection of the country's wildlife.
When a species is
nominated for listing, only scientific information can be
used to determine if it is threatened or endangered. Once
it is listed, its critical habitat also has to be
designated. Critical habitat is the geographic area with
physical or biological features essential to a listed
species. While the decision to list a species can only be
based on scientific data, the designation of critical
habitat can consider economic and social impacts. (So the
ESA has always provided for a balance between the needs
of species and of humans.)
Federal agencies, states
and private land owners are enjoined from activities that
could result in harming a listed species or in making its
critical habitat unsuitable. The rationale is that
species belong to the citizens of the U.S. and not to the
owner or manager of the land, regardless of whether it is
a federal agency, a state, or an individual. It is an
extension of the idea that you have to have a permit to
fish or hunt certain species, even if the animal is on
your property. So really the conflicts, when they occur,
are not between humans and some endangered species, they
are between a group of people whose economic activity may
be harmed by protection of a species and the rest of the
people in the U.S. who have an interest in the continued
existence of that species.
In 1978 the Tellico dam,
a project of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), was
halted by the presence of the snail darter, a rare minnow
found (at the time) only in streams that would be flooded
once the reservoir behind the dam began to fill. Because
the Supreme Court ruled that filling the reservoir would
violate the ESA, Congress passed an amendment
establishing the Endangered Species Committee, which
would have the authority to exempt specific projects from
the Endangered Species Act. Because of their life and
death power over listed species the Endangered Species
Committee was nicknamed the God Squad.
The "God Squad" consists
of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the
Interior, the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors,
the Secretary of the Army, the head of the EPA, the head
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and a state representative. By a vote of 5 to 2, the God
Squad, also known as the Endangered Species Committee
(ESC), can decide to exempt a federal project, a state,
or a federal licensee or permit holder from the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
Ironically, in their
first decision the God Squad ruled against the TVA. Not
because the project didn't meet any of the necessary
tests for exemption: being of regional or national
significance, having a benefit that clearly outweighed
the loss of species, and there being no reasonable or
prudent alternatives; but because the project itself was
not cost effective, regardless of its impact on the
darter. Tennessee's congressional delegation saved the
project by inserting an exemption as an amendment into a
must pass piece of legislation. Fortunately for the
darter, populations were later found in other
streams.
Since then the God Squad
has been called on two other times. In the case of
Nebraska v. REA and Nebraska v. Ray, they ruled in favor
of granting an exemption for the Grayrocks dam and
reservoir, even though it would affect Platte River
habitat critical to the Whooping Crane. However, they
required changes in the project to help protect the
crane. The third case was the Northern Spotted Owl. In
the early 1990s the God Squad decided to exempt timber
sales on thirteen tracts of Pacific northwest forest that
the Fish and Wildlife Service had determined were
critical habitat for the owl. However, the Sierra Club
Legal Defense Fund sued claiming the God Squad had been
unduly influenced by the Whitehouse (George Bush Sr). The
Ninth Circuit Court ordered hearings of fact, but when
Bush lost to Clinton the request for exemption was
withdrawn.
Clearly the amended ESA
and the "God Squad" provide a remedy for those times when
protecting a species will have too great a cost in human
terms. The fact that the remedy has only been applied for
three times in 31 years suggests that very few cases meet
the test of significance, benefit, and no alternative,
required for exemption from the Endangered Species
Act.
* A goal of the now
defunct National Biological Survey was to identify all
populations of endangered species, because better
information about their populations might allow them to
be taken off the list - allowing projects to go forward.
Unfortunately it became a political hot potato (on both
sides) and had to be abandoned.
Recycling
Is Recycling Garbage?
from
MU Environmental Network News January 1998
A Forbes (Nov 17,
1997) article by Dan Seligman, 'Why Recycling is Garbage'
and an earlier article in the New York Times Magazine
(June 30, 1996) by John Tierny, 'Recycling is Garbage'
(well, at least they recycle their titles) argue that
recycling is a waste of time and money, and that it is a
'feel good' gimmick that addresses a problem that
doesnÍt exist. So, what are their main points -
and is there any truth in what they have to say?
There is no shortage of
landfill space. This is literally correct. At current
rates of garbage production, it would take all the U.S.
garbage 1000 years to fill a hole 35 miles on a side and
100 yards deep. However, landfills are increasingly
difficult to site because of public perception of the
risk of living near a landfill. Whether modern landfills
deserve this reputation or not, Nimbys (Not In My
Backyard) don't want to live near them and Nimtos (Not In
My Term of Office) don't want to waste political capital
on them. In addition, a growing environmental justice
movement has produced a crop of Bananas (Build Nothing
Anywhere Near Anyone) and Nopes (Not On Planet Earth) who
argue that paying other communities to take your garbage
is economic blackmail.
There is no shortage of
raw materials. The reasoning here is that if raw
materials were in short supply, their inflation adjusted
price would be going up. Instead prices are falling,
therefore there is no shortage. But why exactly are raw
material prices so low? Packaging is smaller, thinner and
lighter. Whether inspired by the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
mantra, or by costs, packagers now use less material than
they did even a decade ago. Also, much of the material
they use is no longer 'raw', it is recycled. For example
the renaissance in the U.S. steel industry came from the
growth in mini-mills that process steel scrap instead of
raw ore. Recycled materials in every respect but one
(water used for deinking newsprint) use less energy and
less water in their production than raw materials, which
means they are less expensive to produce.
There are no markets for
recycled materials. The volume of recyclables sold has
increased steadily in domestic and foreign markets, even
though prices have fluctuated. Scrap metal and used paper
are the largest exports form the Port of New York, and
U.S. pulp paper manufacturers are projected to spend $10
billion by the end of the decade to expand the capacity
of their recycled paper mills.
Recycling shouldn't be
subsidized. 1) Ok, but no subsidies for other industries.
In the northwest, the U.S. Forest Service spends $91
million more maintaining roads than it makes from selling
trees to the timber companies that use the roads. Energy
subsidies for aluminum smelting cost northwest homeowners
an extra $2 a month. Federal compensation for mining on
public land in the west is governed by an 1872 act that
allows a company to mine for $5 an acre. 2) Why not? We
subsidize landfills and incinerators. 3) In many
communities, particularly on the east coast, where
suitable space for landfills is scarce, or on the west
coast where foreign markets for recyclables are strong,
recycling more than pays for itself. Even in the Midwest,
avoided landfill costs make recycling a money saver.
Recycling wastes time. Oh
come on. Tierny estimated that recycling took 8 minutes
per week and a square foot of kitchen space, as if an
individual wouldnÍt have to spend time and space
dealing with an equivalent amount of garbage. Sitting in
traffic wastes time - recycling, by extending landfill
life, reducing pollution, and conserving resources gives
us a future.
Pollution
and Toxic Materials
Nitrogen Fertilizer - from
MU
Environmental Network News October 1997
Every living thing
needs these four elements in large quantities: carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. While nitrogen isn't
needed in the same amounts that the others are, it is
essential for DNA, the molecule that stores genetic
information, and for proteins, the molecules that make up
the muscles and catalysts that give our bodies their
shape and that allow them to function in real time.
Unfortunately, 99.9% of the nitrogen on this planet is
locked up as nitrogen gas (N2) in the atmosphere. The
remaining 0.1-0.2% is available to living organisms as
ammonia (NH3), and ammonium (NH4-), nitrite (NO2-), or
nitrate (NO3-) ions, or is tied up in biological
molecules.
Atmospheric nitrogen is
converted to the usable forms by lightning or by the
action of nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soil or in
plants. Nitrogen in living matter is converted back to
ammonia by decomposition. Some nitrogen is released by
the erosion of nitrate-rich rocks. At the same time,
bacteria in anaerobic conditions (without oxygen) in
bogs, lakes, and at the bottom of oceans, returns
nitrogen to the atmosphere as N2. This biogeochemical
cycle dictates the amount of nitrogen available in soil
for plants. This movement of nitrogen between the
atmosphere and soil, water, and living things is a
biogeochemical cycle, and the rates of movement dictate
the amount of nitrogen available to plants.
Until the turn of the
century, the nitrogen actually available for plant growth
limited farm productivity to an amount sufficient to feed
5 people per hectare. Then Fritz Haber and Carl Bosh
invented a method of converting N2 to NH3 by combining
nitrogen and hydrogen gases at a pressure of 200
atmospheres and a temperature of 500¡ C. Between the
1940s and the 1990s consumption of ammonia fertilizer
increased from 10 million to nearly 80 million tons per
year. This artificial fertilizer doubled the amount of
nitrogen available to plants, and significantly increased
the productivity of the average farm. Countries whose
population densities had been relatively stable for 100
years (Netherlands, Java, China, Egypt) tripled their
populations. And of course, once populations increased,
so did our dependence on nitrogen. Presently one third of
the protein in our diets comes from the Haber-Bosch
process.
Unfortunately, only about
half of the fertilizer applied to fields is actually
taken up by plants. The remainder is wreaking havoc on
the planetary ecosystem. The most well known effect is
algal blooms in rivers and lakes. When fertilizer is not
taken up by plants, it is washed off of fields into
waterways where it increases the growth of algae. When
the nitrogen is used up, the algae die, and their
decomposition uses up the oxygen in the water, leading to
the suffocation of fish and crustaceans. The effect is
not just local either. The Gulf of Mexico has a dead zone
of 18,200 square km which appears to be linked to the
thousands of tons of nitrate flowing in daily from the
Mississippi. Fertilizers can also migrate into water
wells and make the water undrinkable, they can acidify
the soil so that it actually becomes less productive, and
they can be converted to nitrous oxides (NO, NO2) that
destroy ozone and are 200 times as potent as carbon
dioxide in trapping heat.
Barring stabilization of
population growth and mass conversion to a vegetarian
diet, the most promising way to deal with our nitrogen
dependence appears to be using it more efficiently. When
farmers monitor soil nitrogen to find the optimal time
for fertilizer applications, runoff is significantly
reduced. So, could farmers save the planet -- and save
money and time -- by reducing fertilizer
applications?
- Global Population and
the Nitrogen Cycle. Vaclav Smil. Scientific American July
1997
A Brief History of Lead -
from MU
Environmental Network News June 2002
Lead is a silvery
metallic element that is soft, dense, malleable, and
resistant to corrosion, making it ideal for a number of
uses. Its primary use (70%) is in lead acid storage
batteries like those in cars. It is also used extensively
in lining or covering less corrosion resistant surfaces
on roofs, in acid baths, on power cables, or in pipes
carrying corrosive materials. It is used extensively in
industrial paints for its anti-corrosive qualities and
its ability to provide an optically bright white. Its
high density means that it blocks sound and high energy
radiation, so it is used for sound proofing in industrial
situations, in lead aprons, as shielding around
radioactive components, and even in the cathode ray tubes
(CRTs) in TV and computer monitors to block
X-rays.
Lead has been known since
ancient times and reached the pinnacle of its use in
preindustrial times with the elaborate plumbing systems
built by the Romans. Also known since ancient times, were
lead's toxic effects. It acts by inhibiting oxygen and
calcium transport, and by altering nerve transmission. In
modest doses ~ 10 mg/dL (micrograms per deciliter blood
levels) it causes stomach cramping and vomiting. Higher
doses in adults can lead to stroke, and can damage the
heart, reproductive system, liver and kidney. Very high
levels (70 mg/dL) can cause seizures, coma and death. In
fetuses and children, lead has severe neurological
effects and has been shown, even at doses lower than the
10 mg/dL federal standard, to be associated with mental
retardation, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
hearing loss, and a tendency to violence. Lead can be
taken up from the environment by breathing or by
ingestion and then be accumulated in soft tissues like
kidneys, liver, bone marrow and brain, and in hard
tissues like teeth and bones. Adults may take up 10-15 %
of ingested or inhaled lead, but children can take up as
much as 50% of the lead they are exposed to.Ê And,
since lead accumulates, every new exposure adds to the
risk.
Before the 1920's there
was relatively little human generated lead in the
environment (though still much more than background
levels).However, at the beginning of the automobile age,
GM, DuPont and Standard Oil (now Exxon) formed Ethyl
Corporation for the express purpose of producing
tetraethyl lead (TEL) as a gasoline additive to reduce
knocking in car engines. Although their own research had
shown that ethanol was a cheaper, safer and more
effective additive, and their British subsidiaries
marketed it as such, these corporations aggressively
marketed TEL because it could be patented. At about the
same time, paint manufacturers were actively promoting
leaded paint for residential uses because of its superior
aesthetic and preservative qualities.
Leaded paint was banned
in 1978 and leaded gasoline was banned in 1986, but
decades of use left a thin layer of lead contaminated
soil, dust and paint chips that affects children's health
even 25 years later. Herbert Needleman, who pioneered
studies of lead's sub-lethal effects on children,
estimates that 1 in 30 children are still affected and
that even children with blood lead levels less than 10
mg/dL score 11 points lower on the Stanford-Binet IQ test
than children with no lead. The good news is that average
blood lead levels in U.S. children have dropped from 16
mg/dL to 2 mg/dL, primarily as the result of keeping lead
out of gasoline. As long as children don't come in
contact with old paint or live near a smelter, blood lead
levels should continue to go down.
The bad news is that as
older sources of lead exposure are identified and dealt
with, new ones appear. The EPA estimates that the cathode
ray tubes in discarded computers and TVs contribute 13
million lbs of lead to landfills every year. Because this
leadÊ and other hazardous materials in computers
can migrate into the water supply, California and
Massachusetts have banned them from land fills.Ê
Fortunately monitors can be recycled. The CRT can be
crushed and smelted just like a car battery to recover
the lead and other materials.However, the U.S., alone
among developed countries, allows hazardous materials
like these to be exported for recycling. The problem with
this is that countries accepting them for recycling don't
necessarily have the resources to do it safely. In Guiyu,
China (PRC) workers "recycle" computers by smashing them
with hammers, burning and washing the pieces in acid to
recover valuable metals and then dumping the busted
components in the nearest low spot. The water is so
polluted that drinking water must be trucked in.
Hopefully the lessons learned in protecting our own
children from lead will be applied to protecting other
people's children. And hopefully, we won't wait 60 years
to take action.
Air
Pollution and Air Quality
Economics
and Sustainability
Lies, Damn Lies and
Accounting - from MU
Environmental Network News July 2002
With apologies to
Mark Twain/ Benjamin Disraeli, there are lies, damn lies,
and accounting. Anyone who has followed the fortunes of
Enron and World Com and their accounting firm Arthur
Andersen knows that how things are accounted for can
dramatically alter the apparent costs and benefits of a
particular choice. The recent proposal to add wind power
to a community's energy mix can be used to illustrate how
the cost/benefit ratio of wind power changes when
environmental accounting is used.
Environmental accounting
has three guiding principles. Benefit/Cost evaluations
should consider: 1) indirect as well as direct costs; 2)
long-term as well as short-term time frames; and 3)
non-local as well as local impacts.
Traditionally accounted
for, the direct cost of adding 5 megawatts of wind power
to a community's energy sources will add 1% to each
household bill or $36 a year for a bill averaging $300 a
month. However, there are indirect costs that could also
be considered. Nuclear power and fossil fuels have
received federal subsidies of over $100 billion since
1948, dwarfing any subsidies for alternatives like wind.
Taxpayer watchdog groups estimate taxes are up to 16%
higher because of these and other subsidies. Even a
family with a modest income may be paying $60 to $100 a
year for energy subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels
alone.
Another indirect cost is
air pollution. Burning coal produces sulfur and nitrogen
compounds, particulate matter (PM) and mercury. The
sulfur, nitrogen, and PM can increase cases of asthma and
hospital admissions due to respiratory and/or cardiac
distress, cause lung tissue damage, and promote cancer.
For the province of Ontario, the local Medical
Association estimates that there are 1900 premature
deaths, 23,000 hospital visits and 46 million illnesses
annually due to air pollution. All of this adds up to $10
billion in economic losses from decreased worker
productivity and health care costs or a cost of $869 per
person. The mercury, which occurs naturally in coal and
is released when it burns, can cause damage to the brain,
kidneys and to developing fetuses.
Long -term time frames
would include costs of disposal of the radioactive waste
and decommissioning of the nuclear plants at the end of
their useful lives (at an average cost of $300 to $400
million). Companies must set aside money in a trust fund
to pay for decommissioning; however, the estimates depend
on the federal government assuming responsibility for the
spent reactor fuel and transporting it to a facility like
Yucca Mountain. Even if Yucca Mountain is approved - and
DOE has not demonstrated the radioactive material can be
safely stored for 10,000 years as required by EPA, plus
Nevada has challenged the decision to store the waste at
Yucca Mountain - it is not designed to handle all current
waste and waste that will continue to be generated over
the next 20 years. Therefore, we should plan on
additional federal subsidies for nuclear power to build
another Yucca Mountain.
Non-local impacts are
environmental and health costs born by populations that
are out of proportion to the benefit they receive. For
example, to reduce costs, coal companies mining in West
Virginia want to remove the top of mountains to reach the
coal, and then dispose of the mountain tops in the
streams draining the mountains. The people benefiting
from the reduced cost of coal do not have to live with
mountain top removal or with the pollution of local
streams and rivers. Likewise, the money local electric
utilities have saved by not fixing pollution problems
when plants were modernized, ends up costing communities
downwind of plants in terms of increased sulfur,
nitrogen, PM and mercury. That is why the Justice
department was suing 25 utility companies in seven states
for failing to install pollution controls when the plants
were upgraded.
(Other concerns about
wind are that it is unreliable and that the blades may
harm birds. Wind currently supplies 3.5% of Germany's
power needs and over 10% of Denmark's, and is the fastest
growing - 15% - energy technology world wide. The global
market doesn't appear to be concerned about wind's
reliability. Furthermore, new technology in batteries and
fuel cells should make wind power even more viable.Most
bird studies have shown that birds adjust fairly quickly
to wind turbines, especially the newer models with
larger, slower blades. Actually, many more birds are
killed now by existing transmission lines, cats and
collisions with cars.)
So Missourians can choose
wind power for possibly an extra $36 a year, or we can
continue with "cheaper" coal and nuclear for up to $100
in annual federal subsidies, increased health costs of
nearly $900 per person per year, unknown long-term costs
of nuclear waste disposal, and unknown liabilities for
environmental and health damage for down wind states -
not to mention what coal mining is doing to the
communities that have to live with it.Ê If the
extra 1% is that much of a drawback, maybe the city can
partner wind power with encouraging people to take
advantage of its energy conservation program to reduce
their energy use by 1%.Ê The individual consumer
will break even, the city willÊ need less power and
the "impractical" environmentalists will finally get to
use wind power.
Environmental
Justice
NNIMBY to NOPE: A Clean
Healthy Environment for All- from MU
Environmental Network News February
2007
In 1987 the United
Church of Christ released a study of five variables
related to the siting of hazardous waste sites - 1) per
cent minority population, 2) mean household income, 3)
mean value of owner-occupied homes, 4) number of
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites per 1000 persons, and
5) pounds of hazardous waste generated per person. Of the
five factors, the single most predictive factor was per
cent minority population, followed by income and value of
homes. Neither the number of uncontrolled waste sites -
used to assess geographic or historical factors affecting
siting, and waste generated - used to assess importance
of proximity to the waste producers, were significant.
What mattered was race and class, and race mattered
more.
In response to the
revelation that minorities and low income communities
were bearing an unfair share of the burden of hazardous
waste produced in the U.S., President Clinton issued
Executive Order 12898 on February 11, 1994: Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations. As defined by the
EPA, Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race,
color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair
treatment means that no group of people should bear a
disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences of industrial, municipal, and commercial
operations, or the execution of federal, state, local and
tribal programs and policies.
So how is that working?
Hard to tell. In 1991, two years before Executive Order
12898, Louisiana Energy Services (LES) applied for a
permit to build a uranium enrichment facility in Homer
Louisiana, 49% African American. Only, it wasn't exactly
going to be in Homer, Homer officials nominated two tiny
communities five miles away for the actual site of the
plant, Center Springs and Forest Grove, both almost
entirely African American. Aside from all the other
issues with nuclear enrichment, the low level radioactive
waste, mainly uranium hexafluoride, would have been
stored on-site. It would come to 400 14 ton canisters a
year of stuff that turns into hydrofluoric acid if it
gets exposed to moisture. So you would have an acid that
eats through almost anything paired with low level
nuclear waste for at least the life of the plant. And
where would this waste eventually go? Louisiana Energy
Services said that the Department of Energy would have to
take it, but that begs the question of where DOE would
put it, since DOE still doesn't have a site for its own
waste.
Once the Environmental
Justice order kicked in, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission was required to consider racial and economic
factors in the selection of the plant site and a fierce
legal battle over the site selection criteria ensued,
including the fact that Homer nominated Center Springs
and Forest Grove. Eventually, LES withdrew the
application and went looking elsewhere, to....Trousdale
County Tennessee.
In 2003, LES, now a
subsidiary of URENCO, a European consortium, tried to get
the facility built in Trousdale County. The county is 89%
white, more white than Tennessee, so a charge of racial
bias could be clearly avoided. However, per capita income
was $15,838, about $3,500 less than the average for
Tennessee, only 9% of its residents had bachelor's
degrees, half the average for the state, and non-farm
employment had dropped 18.5% between 2000 and 2004. (for
comparison, the U.S. is 25% minority, per capita income
is $21,587, and 24% have bachelor's degrees). From one
perspective, the billion dollar plant providing 200
permanent jobs might be a huge boon to an economically
desperate county, but it might not (see Port Gibson
below). So, as insurance the county commission required
that LES remove the nuclear waste every 90 days so that
Trousdale would not become a defacto nuclear waste
facility. With that deal breaker, LES withdrew the
application and went looking elsewhere to ... Eunice, New
Mexico.
In 2006, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission finally gave LES permission to
build a facility in Eunice. The town's population is 40%
Hispanic, per captia income is $14,373, and 9% have
bachelor's degrees. What sealed the deal for the
community was a requirement negotiated by the State
Attorney General that LES limit its storage to 5,000
cylinders, and that they be disposed of outside of New
Mexico. You just have to wonder how bad off a community
has to be before it will willingly accept becoming a dump
site for someone else's nuclear waste.
When environmentalists
and civil rights activists fight the location of things
like nuclear plants in minority and low income
neighborhoods, some folks argue that outside groups are
denying poor minorities the opportunity to make a decent
living. It would be instructive to see if poor minorities
automatically benefit from having these projects located
in their communities.
Grand Gulf Nuclear Power
Plant went on-line in 1984 in Port Gibson, Mississippi.
The per capita income in 2000 averaged $13,000 for the
community as a whole, and $10,000 for African Americans.
The opening of the plant coincided with a population
decrease, mainly due to one third of the whites moving
out of the county (taking their $23,700 percapita incomes
with them). With the decline in the tax base, the county
lacks the infrastructure to deal with a nuclear event,
having only one fire station and 9 officers in the
sheriff's department. On top of the community's loss of
wealth, and its inadequate resources to deal with an
accident or a terrorist attack, the current plant is
slated to run out of storage space for its waste this
year, and there is still no facility up and running to
accept the waste for long term storage.
Louisiana Enrichment
Services just wanted to build an enrichment facility. If
the country turns towards nuclear power as a way to deal
with global warming, the problem of where to put power
plants that make high level waste will be even more
contentious. So far many of the new plants that have been
proposed have been proposed for communities that already
have nuclear plants (the defacto waste site thing), and
so Port Gibson is proposed as the site of second nuclear
power plant.
The modern environmental
movement sprang from a concern about the effects of
pollutants on our own individual health, and for years
the rallying cry has been NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard.
The logical consequence of this, in the absence of major
efforts to reduce the total amount of hazardous waste,
was that the pollution was just shifted into someone
else's back yard. And like all things undesirable, the
back yards belonged to those with the least power -
minority and low income neighborhoods. Depending on your
political or social orientation, this is either unjust or
it is stupid. That is because nothing guarantees
hazardous waste will stay where you put it. Thanks to
hubris, a systematic failure to commit resources to long
term maintenance and the operation of the laws of
physics, chemistry and biology, all stuff, including
hazardous stuff, eventually finds its way to your back
yard or your plate no matter where you live.
We need to be aiming for
NOPE - Not On Planet Earth. To achieve safety and health
for every human, minority as well as majority, poor as
well as rich, we have to stop creating hazardous waste.
We do not lack the technical expertise and wealth to
figure out how to make stuff in ways that minimizes or
eliminates hazardous waste. We lack the political will.
We can wait until the quantities of hazardous waste are
so vast that they permeate the air, water and food of
even the wealthiest and most insulated communities, or we
can decide now to direct our minds and our wealth to the
protection of every citizen.
Environmental
Laws and Regulations
A Primer on Environmental
Laws: NEPA, CEQ, EPA - from MU
Environmental Network News February 2001
NEPA - National
Environmental Policy Act. Passed in 1969 and signed into
law in 1970, the purpose of NEPA was "...to declare a
national policy which will encourage productive and
enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to
promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to
the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health
and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the
ecological systems and natural resources important to the
Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental
Quality." It required Federal agencies to use all the
means at their disposal, consistent with other important
considerations of national policy, to:
1)
ensure a safe, healthful and productive environment for
all Americans;
2)
develop the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degrading it;
3)
preserve historical, cultural and natural aspects of the
environment;
4)
seek a balance between population growth and resource use
that permitted a high standard of living;
5)
enhance the quality of renewable resources (like water)
and maximize recycling of non-renewables.
The act promoted an
interdisciplinary approach, sought the development of
methods for considering currently unquantifiable
environmental amenities, established the requirement for
Federal agencies to develop Environmental Impact
Statements for all actions that might affect the
environment, and set up the Council on Environmental
Quality.
CEQ - Council on
Environmental Quality. The CEQ was established in 1969
with the passage of NEPA. CEQ was a three person council
(+ staff) reporting to the President, that would help
prepare an annual report on the environmental state of
the nation. The report would:
1)
evaluate status and condition of natural, manmade and
altered environments (air, water, land, etc.);
2)
evaluate current and forseeable trends and effect of
those trends;
3)
evaluate adequacy of current resources;
4)
review Federal, State and local programs and their effect
on the environment;
5)
develop a program for remedying impacts on the
environment.
While the EPA took over
the research and standard setting responsibilities of CEQ
with respect to pollution, CEQ was envisioned as a top
level advisory group on all aspects of environmental
quality.
EPA - Environmental
Protection Agency. The EPA was established on December 2,
1970 on the recommendation of the President's Advisory
Council on Executive Organization. The CEO argued that
because of the cross-media (air, water, land) impacts of
pollution that the executive branch should establish an
agency to bring together all the information on
pollutants under one roof with the authority to research,
establish and enforce standards to protect human health
and safeguard the natural environment. Furthermore, it
had to be a new agency to avoid the natural conflicts of
interest that would arise if such a department were
housed in the Interior, Commerce or Agriculture
Departments.
Fifteen components from
five agencies were moved to EPA to administer a host of
laws passed in the 1970's and 1980's. These included the
Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act (CAA), Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA - also known as
Superfund), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA-Recycling), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), and Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)
Environmental
Education
Notes on
From Last Child in the Woods - From MU
Environmental Network News April
2007
In
his recent book, Last Child in the Woods (2005), Richard
Louv describes a new syndrome that has been affecting
kids since the mid-century: Nature Deficit Disorder.
Because of changes in American society, our kids are not
getting outside enough and there are serious costs to
their physical, intellectual, emotional and even
spiritual development. The book has gained a lot of
attention among those who teach about the outdoors,
animals, plants, nature and the environment. But concerns
about Nature Deficit Disorder should not be limited to
those folks. If you are starting to worry about the
impacts of the 21st century lifestyle on children -
obesity, lack of initiative, disappearance of creativity,
social isolation, etc. and if you want some ideas of what
to do about it, you should read this book. The summary
below outlines the main sections and chapters of the
book, just to get you started.
Section
1. Third Frontier
The book
begins with an introduction to America's Frontiers. The
first was the settling of the nation, formally closed in
1893 by historian Frederick Turner. The second frontier
romanticized the pioneers of the first, but closed in
1993 when the Census Bureau stopped counting farmers. We
are in the third frontier, characterized by: severance
from food's origins; blurring of the line between humans
and machines; intellectualization of our relationship
with animals; creation of synthetic nature experiences;
and invasion of suburbs by wildlife.
Section
2. Why Kids Need Nature
1. Body -
Kids need self activated autonomous play to develop the
body/brain connection. Unstructured time in nature
provides that stimulation as kids climb trees, explore
creeks, skip stones, build forts.
2. Mind -
Nature stimulates observation, and then because they need
to know which trees are good for climbing, which stones
are good for skipping, and which logs good for forts,
kids begin categorizing and pattern finding - higher
order thinking skills.
3.
Creativity - The degree of inventiveness and creativity
stimulated in children is directly proportional to the
loose parts available for them to play with, and nature
is the absolute biggest box of loose parts. (Not only
that, nature is scalable, so that a two year old can move
seamlessly from acorns to seedlings to trees to forests
as she grows in comprehension and
understanding)
4.
Restoration - Most of the things we do require voluntary
attention, where we have to keep reminding ourselves to
pay attention to reading a report, working problems,
listening to lectures, following directions, etc. This is
really exhausting, for kids as well as adults. Nature, on
the other hand, demands involuntary attention because of
its fascination. We don't have to work at it. It allows
us to give voluntary attention a rest, it refreshes and
restores us. As a result, workers, inmates, patients and
kids benefit from being in and around nature. Research
shows: less frustration, more enthusiasm in office
workers who have a view of nature; improved performance
on fatiguing tests when people take a nature break; 24%
improvement in mental health measures in prison inmates
who can see nature from their cells; faster recovery
after surgery for patients with a view of nature; reduced
symptoms in ADD kids who get to play outside in a natural
setting; and higher self worth ratings and 2x the friends
in kids who get to play outside.
Section
3. Why Aren't Kids Outside?
1. Time -
More families rely on two incomes, and both parents are
working longer hours. As a result, kids engage in more
structured activities and more activities that are
indoors (easier to structure the time)
2.
Commercialization of Play - Moving from pick up games to
organized sports has been a mixed blessing. While more
kids may be attending more games, the amount of time
actually spent running, jumping, catching and kicking for
the average kid may be down, especially if the team's
focus is on winning. Another problem is that adults are
making and enforcing the rules and schedules, so that
kids don't get the practice in negotiating social
conflict or playing times that they once got when getting
together on their own.
3. Loss
of Play Space - With the rise of the suburbs, there are
fewer vacant lots within walking distance and more
manicured back yards. Add concerns about liability and
lawsuits, and there are just fewer places for kids to
play outside.
4. Fear -
The relentless media focus on child abduction has
increased generalized fear of leaving kids unsupervised,
there is more and faster car traffic through
neighborhoods so riding bikes and crossing streets really
is riskier, and then if you add in cougars, mosquitoes
and ticks, parents are really anxious about letting
children play in the neighborhood without constant
supervision, and with the time squeeze, parents are just
not available to provide that supervision.
5.
Education - No one likes bad news, and kids are no
different. Education that focuses on the damage humans do
to nature, especially with children younger than Jr.
High, makes kids depressed and passive, inspiring
ecophobia or fear of nature. (It is bad practice to focus
on a problem without providing doable solutions - so no
telling five year olds that global warming is going to
wipe out the penguins!). A lot of curricula ignores
place, focusing on learning about rain forests and coral
reefs instead of ensuring kids know the species and
habitats of their own communities. The preoccupation with
math and reading in the abstract, without relation to
content, results in a focus on made-up stuff. This is
really vexing, because there are so many interesting
stories and math problems that involve local nature and
history. Silicon faith is a myopic focus on the ability
of technology to save education. Like the preoccupation
with math and reading in the abstract, there is way too
much attention being paid to the tools without applying
them to real life issues. Finally, with the shift in
biological sciences towards molecular biology and
genetics, natural history courses are disappearing.
College students end up knowing a lot about gene
expression, but don't grasp the concept that water flows
downhill.
Sections
4-5-6-7. What We Can Do About It? The Fourth
Frontier
Families
are the first front. Parents have to be enthusiastic
about getting kids outside and stop worrying about
getting it right. The kids, even two year olds, will be
able to figure out what to do once they get turned loose
in nature. Allow the kids to be bored so that their
imaginations can start working. Manage the hazards so
that kids can develop their own judgement about what is
safe and what is dangerous so that they can be safe once
you are gone. Model moral behavior - rescue turtles from
the road, pick up litter, collect and scatter seeds of
native plants, show concern for nature and action to
preserve and restore it.
Schools
and camps are next. Incorporate nature play into schools
on a regular basis. Paradoxically, taking some time away
from voluntary attention on math and reading and letting
kids interact physically with real things can help with
understanding. Add more real world learning - use the
local environment to teach social studies, language, math
- this has been shown to improve scores in a variety of
subjects. Ideas include: the square kilometer (or mile)
around your school, adopting a space, trout in the
classroom, square foot gardening, schoolyard habitat
(National Wildlife Federation), Projects WET, WILD,
Learning Tree, butterfly gardens, bird baths, trails,
streams, ponds, plants for picking, dirt to dig in.
Higher education should get natural history back into the
curriculum. And camps should get back in the nature
business, instead of being in the computer, art, music,
or sports business.
Cities
should rewild themselves with forests, discovery gardens
and adventure play grounds where kids can dig and climb,
and design for people instead of cars, using new
urbanism, clustered housing and local service areas to
guide development.
Religion
has to reconnect to nature, separating concerns about other
liberal social agendas (gay rights, abortion etc.) from the
responsibility to care for creation because it is the
creation.
|
