Clean Rivers in Maine Lead to Black Fly Swarms

Maine struggled with polluted rivers for years, and it took a lot of effort to get them cleaned up. After the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, the clean-up tasks in rivers such as the Penobscot and Kennebec began, and now Maine residents are enjoying dozens of species that weren’t seen while the rivers were polluted. Unfortunately, they’re also dealing with an infestation of black flies, which are very sensitive to pollution and thrive in pristine flowing waters.

From Boston.com:

It’s an unintended barometer of good ecological health, but Maine officials are adamant they will not mess with nature in any way to provide relief.

“They can be so thick you breathe them in and they get stuck in your throat. They even get under your eyelids,” said Julia Brilliott, an Eastport resident who showed off four lumpy red welts on the back of her neck after climbing Mount Katahdin in Baxter State Park last week.

For the uninitiated, black flies are blood-sucking insects with a menacing reputation worthy of a late-night science fiction movie. Not all bite humans - some feed on other mammals and birds - but those that do are relentless daytime feeders. Even the nonbiting flies are often despised because they emerge by the millions in warm months and, lured by the carbon dioxide we exhale, swarm around people.

Situations like this require a tricky balance. Obviously, it’s better for the rivers to be clean so that more species can thrive – and animals like birds and trout feed on the flies. Though other states like Pennsylvania use chemicals to kill the fly larvae, which they claim are safe for the ecosystem, Maine officials refuse to use them, having the foresight to realize that a substance that’s toxic to one organism will likely be toxic to others as well.

Hopefully Maine officials will find a solution before residents decide that they’ve had enough of the black flies and get back to pollutin’.

Link [Boston.com]
Photo credit: Flickr user Benimoto

Climatologist Renews Call to Act on Global Warming

20 years ago, climatologist James E. Hansen addressed the Senate with a dire warning about global warming: it was time to act. The climate was already changing, and the heat-trapping blanket of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere was accumulating fast.

Since then, little real action has been taken; if anything, things have gotten much worse. We’ve continued to release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere as we stubbornly cling to an era of fossil fuels and free-flowing pollution. Now, Hansen says, it’s almost getting to be too late: we’re approaching the red line, and soon there will be no going back.

From The New York Times:

“If we don’t begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next several years, and really on a very different course, then we are in trouble,” Dr. Hansen said Friday at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, which he has directed since 1981. “Then the ice sheets are in trouble. Many species on the planet are in trouble.”

Dr. Hansen said the natural skepticism and debates embedded in the scientific process had distracted the public from the confidence experts have in a future with centuries of changing climate patterns and higher sea levels under rising carbon dioxide concentrations. The confusion has been amplified by industries that extract or rely on fossil fuels, he said, and this has given cover to politicians who rely on contributions from such industries.

Dr. Hansen said the United States must begin a sustained effort to exploit new energy sources and phase out unfettered burning of finite fossil fuels, starting with a moratorium on the construction of coal-burning power plants if they lack systems for capturing and burying carbon dioxide. Such systems exist but have not been tested at anywhere near the scale required to blunt emissions. Ultimately he is seeking a worldwide end to emissions from coal burning by 2030.

Since the time to act was decades ago, it makes it all the more urgent to make swift, far-reaching, dramatic changes to the way we live in order to preserve the planet – and the species that live upon it.

This makes me want to shake global warming skeptics. We’ve seen enough of them drop by EarthFirst and leave comments to the effect of, ‘it’s too expensive to change’, ‘I don’t want to give up my lifestyle’ or ‘I just don’t believe that global warming is caused by humans’. Are you really that selfish and naïve? Do you really believe that you’re so entitled to your current lifestyle of driving an SUV, living in a needlessly large house, profiting off of oil industry stock and whatever else it is that’s so precious to you, you refuse to give it up? What about your grandchildren – what kind of a world are they going to live in? You’re leaving behind a legacy of death and destruction because you’re set in your selfish ways.

Here’s the thing: deny that global warming is caused by humans all you want, or even that global warming isn’t real, as unbelievably stupid as that is. What it comes down to is our way of life is putting a huge strain on our planet. We’re using up precious resources at an alarming pace, removing mountaintops to get to coal, spewing pollution into the atmosphere, killing millions of species, dumping trash in the oceans, creating mountains upon mountains of toxic refuse. We’re poisoning our bodies, our soil, our air, our water, the animals around us – everything that we depend upon to survive. These actions will have consequences, whether you want to face it or not. It’s time to move forward into the 21st century, and take responsibility.

Link [The New York Times]
Photo credit: Flickr user ximenatapia

Giant Dead Zone in Gulf of Mexico to Grow Larger After Midwest Floods

Everything is fine, pay no attention to the GIANT DEAD ZONE in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. At least, that’s the stance the government seems to be taking. The EPA has released a ‘plan of action’ to tackle the problem, but no funds have been allocated to the inevitably very expensive project and a tangle of federal agencies involved in the plan ensures that they’ll all just be running around bumping into each other like dumbasses while nothing gets done.

The dead zone in the Gulf has been caused by chemical-laden runoff from farms in the Midwest, which flows down the Mississippi and pours millions of tons of nitrogen, phosphorous and other fertilizer into the Gulf of Mexico. What results is a ‘hypoxic event’, where the fertilizers cause algae to bloom out of control and suck all of the oxygen out of the surrounding waters, causing the water to become barren, killing sea life in the area.

The dead zone is getting ever-larger and recent flooding in the Midwest promises that it will be much worse this year. While this should be a major priority for the government, TIME Magazine reports,

A 2007 report by the National Research Council called for more aggressive leadership by the EPA to coordinate and oversee state activities along the Mississippi, but the agency doesn’t seem ready or able to seize that role. The plan itself reports that “resources are insufficient to gain the goals” of the task force. “We seem to be going in the opposite direction,” says Donald Scavia, a professor of natural resources and the environment at the University of Michigan. “We don’t seem committed to fixing the problem.”

Not that it’s an easy one to fix. Most of the nutrient pollution that ends up in the Gulf comes from the hundreds of thousands of farms in the Midwest. The only sure way to shrink the dead zone is to reduce the amount of fertilizer running off those farms. But thanks in part to the push for corn-based ethanol and the skyrocketing price of food crops, U.S. farmers are planting more acres for corn than they have since World War II — including 15 million more acres last year than in 2006. Although there are measures farmers can take to limit fertilizer runoff, those changes are expensive, and there’s little federal funding to support such conservation. The just-released action plan relies mostly on voluntary activities. “We need Congress to act as if this is going to get done,” says Doug Daigle, a member of the task force. “The state governments will contribute, but this has to be initiated by the Federal Government.”

The dead zone in the gulf is one of 150 in the world. Clearly, we as a nation need to change our agricultural policies, which have allowed this problem to occur in the first place. Hopefully, experts will find some way to alleviate the problem before it wipes out all life in the beautiful Gulf of Mexico.

Link [TIME Magazine]
Photo credit: Flickr user blmurch

The Citarum - Dirtiest River in the World?

What happens when nine million people throw their trash in a river, and corporations use it to dump hazardous waste? It becomes like the Citarum in West Java, Indonesia – choked with plastic, loaded with chemicals and human waste. A generation ago, the Citarum River was a peaceful waterway where wildlife enjoyed the clean, fresh water and villagers caught fish and made a living off the rice paddies.

The villagers can’t make money off of fishing anymore, so they’ve turned to picking through the trash that floats on the surface to find items that can be sold or traded. Rapid industrialization in the ‘80s is what led to this: more than 500 factories line the banks of the 200-mile river, many of them leaking textile treatment chemicals into the water. The trash that floats on top is the result of the lack of a trash pickup service in the area. All of the houses, factories, and other buildings along the river pour human waste into it for lack of anyplace else to put it.

Many people who live in the area still collect the water to drink, cook with and wash their clothes – they don’t have much choice, as it’s the only nearby source of water.

It’s unknown whether the Citarum really is the most polluted river in the world, since no study has ever been done to conclude such a thing. There are many other rivers that are also incredibly polluted, and many of them are located in Asia. Part of the problem is that wealthy countries like America pay poor Asian countries to take huge barges of our trash to dispose of. Electronics make up the bulk of it, and as today’s equipment becomes obsolete and we purchase tomorrow’s to replace it. Many of the world’s rivers may see fates similar to that of the Citarum River if we don’t begin a major overhaul of our sanitation systems, and help other countries with their waste management as much as we can.

Link [Environmental Graffiti] + [The Daily Mail]

Activists Take Junk Journey Through ‘Plastic Soup’ in Pacific Ocean

When you picture the Pacific Ocean, you probably imagine cool breezes, deep blue waves cresting in cascades of white foam, dolphins surfacing playfully and birds flying overhead. Unfortunately, that cheery picture is becoming naught but a memory as the ocean is increasingly polluted by astonishing amounts of trash.

On a voyage with the Algalita Marine Research Foundation, sailors Markus Eriksen and Joel Paschal were sickened by what they saw in the Pacific: continent-sized patches of plastic litter. They discovered pollution to a shocking extent in the waters leading up to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a ‘swirling mass of plastic debris some estimate to be as large as the United States’. Tests done on the water show that plastic outnumbers plankton 48 to 1. On the surface, the water looks clean, but when you pull up a sample from beneath you get what Algalita’s education advisor Anna Cummins describes as ‘plastic soup’.

The Green Tech Blog has more:

Algalita researchers said the floating, soupy landfill isn’t well understood because satellites can’t spot the translucent particles. And although efforts by scientists to explore plastic in five gyres around the world have been lacking, interest is expanding as the public learns more.

“No one really knows what’s out in the other gyres,” Cummins said. “In the north Pacific alone there’s Capt. Moore with his research boat. We are a small organization with five or six paid staff members.”

Eighty percent of the plastic comes not from ships but from land, where tossed consumer goods eventually travel from beaches and rivers into the ocean, according to Algalita.

Plastic concentrates poisons such as PCBs at levels a million times higher than found in the water, according to Japanese researchers.

The amount of plastic produced in the United States has nearly doubled in the past two decades, according to the American Chemistry Council.

“Recycling isn’t the solution,” Cummins said. “We think there absolutely needs to be a reduction in the overall use and consumption of plastic.”

The activists are going on a journey sailing more than 1,000 miles from California to Hawaii to further explore the problem, traveling on a motorless craft made from recycled materials including 15,000 bottles, fishing nets and the cockpit of a Cessna. They’ll have GPS units, VHF radios, a Coast Guard beacon and three months’ worth of food and water. You can follow their journey on the blog JUNK.

Link [Green Tech Blog] + [JUNK]
Photo credit: Peter Bennett/Ambient Images Inc.

Environmentally Friendly Bombs on the Way

It sounds like the worst contradiction in terms: environmentally friendly bombs. And no, it’s not a story from the Onion this time around. Calling something green that’s designed to blow up its surroundings when it hits its target is just – well – dumb. Yet, scientists are working on a bomb that would create less environmental fallout via toxic gases and polluting debris. I guess if we’re going to slaughter people with high impact explosives, we might as well do it in a greener way.

From Yahoo News:

TNT, RDX and other explosives commonly used in military and industrial applications often generate toxic gases upon detonation that pollute the environment. Moreover, the explosives themselves are toxic and can find their way into the environment due to incomplete detonation and as unexploded ordnance. They are also extremely dangerous to handle, as they are highly sensitive to physical shock, such as hard impacts and electric sparks.

To make safer, more environmentally friendly explosives, scientists in Germany turned to a recently explored class of materials called tetrazoles. These derive most of their explosive energy from nitrogen instead of carbon as TNT and others do.

Tiny bombs were made from two promising tetrazoles with the alphabet-soup names of HBT and G2ZT. These materials proved less apt to explode accidentally than conventional explosives.

In initial experiments, G2ZT and HBT produced fewer toxic byproducts than common explosives. Still, they did generate some dangerous hydrogen cyanide gas. But mixing these compounds with oxidizers not only avoids making hydrogen cyanide, but also improved performance, Klapötke said.

While we could just, you know, stop bombing each other, considering that humans can’t seem to stop getting into deadly conflicts, that’s not likely to happen. So, it would certainly be best to try to limit the amount of environmental damage a bomb will do once it’s dropped.

Boom.

Link [Yahoo News]
Photo credit: Flickr user jaqian

Biofuels and Carbon Credits: Greening Up the Concert Industry

The music industry is renowned for its excess. More often than not, you can see some really stunning examples of wastefulness during the concerts themselves, backstage and in every facet of preparation and production. It’s not just wasted energy – pollution and trash are huge factors as well. Many musicians have been willing to participate in efforts to raise awareness – like the Live Earth concerts – but not to actually make changes in their own lifestyles or even their regular performances.

The Economist has it:

According to National Geographic’s Green Guide, a typical stadium concert releases 500 to 1000 tons of carbon dioxide, which is between 25 and 50 times more than the average American produces in a year. That number does not even take into account fans’ transport, the immense amount of garbage produced or any fire-spewing Kiss-style pyrotechnic displays. Reverb, an advocacy group promoting environmentally responsible music tours, estimates that fans’ commutes can quintuple the carbon cost of a show.

Despite these costs, tour schedules are growing longer and more intensive. Consumers are downloading (both legally and illegally) more individual tracks and buying fewer complete albums; bands need to make their money somewhere.

Some bands and concert organisers have taken strides to minimise touring’s environmental impact. Festivals such as Lollapalooza, an American summer institution, and Britain’s massive Glastonbury Festival have switched to biofuel-powered generators. The organisers of last summer’s Osheaga Festival in Montreal went one step further: they hired Hydro Quebec to supply their main stage with emission-free geothermal energy. Reverb has encouraged organisers to offer reusable aluminum canteens rather than plastic water-bottles, and also set up “Eco-Villages”, with information on how to minimise one’s carbon footprints, outside concert venues.

Since so many bands are mostly all talk and no action, there’s still a lot of waste going on despite efforts to curb it. Some bands claim to be green and then go and schedule a concert at places like the Gorge Amphitheather, which is 150 miles east of Seattle and far from any public transportation. In order to make a real change, bands would need to commit to scaling back their shows and holding them at venues accessible by public transit. Maybe that could help us take concerts back to their roots – intimate experiences enjoying the music you love played live right in front of you, not giant impersonal productions where the band is a football field away.

Fans now have the option of carpooling to and from shows thanks to Reverb partnering with PickupPal. The service, which we told you about last month, provides a venue for passengers to be matched up with drivers to cut back on the number of vehicles on the road. Reverb is also currently working with acts like John Mayer, Norah Jones, Kelly Clarkson, the Blue Man Group and Ben Folds to reduce the carbon footprints of their tours.

Link [The Economist]
Photo credit: Flickr user monkeyatlarge

Coal is Clean! Get the Real Facts About the Coal Industry

As oil gets scarcer and more expensive, the coal industry is revving up their ad campaigns and propaganda to portray coal as a clean, patriotic energy source. So, when you visit the website Coal-is-Clean.com, you may not be too surprised to see images like that of a young boy in overalls and a cowboy hat waving an American flag, and headlines like ‘The Future of America’s Coal-Based Economy and National Security Depends Upon You’. Sick, right? Well, keep reading.

You may then notice ‘Health Workers for Clean Coal’ and ‘From Coal Mine to Golf Course’. Hmm. Then you’ll see ‘Move over java, it’s time for Hot Coal-Cappuccino!’ and ‘Check out what Dr. Coal has to say about the health benefits of coal for you and your family!’ If you’ve ever read The Onion, you know where this is going.

Click on any of the links on the page and you’re taken to Coal-is-Dirty.com, where everything is suddenly all flip flopped around on you. Coal is Dirty has gathered all of the straight facts about coal energy and put them together on one website where you can get info about how coal pollution is threatening our national parks, negative health effects of coal and how the coal industry has turned the greenwashing dial to 11 to convince Americans that it’s a clean source of energy.

The article ‘Clean Coal = Greenwash’ explains it perfectly. Here’s a snippet:

But in 2008 they are going primetime. Having tapped coal companies and utilities for money, the groups launched a $45 million TV, print and online advertising campaign to re-brand coal as clean and patriotic- trying to greenwash one of the dirtiest sources of energy on earth.

ACCCE’s campaign spin has taken over the election season, blitzing key state presidential primaries with clean coal propaganda in the form of billboards, advertisements and a blue sky painted “Power Van” driven by “volunteers” all over the country to political rallies and debates and loaded with clean coal propoganda handouts, t-shirts, hats etc…

Along with their print ad campaign and billboards, ACCCE paid CNN $5 million to be one of the main co-sponsors of six presidential debates, which gave them saturation advertising during the debates on television and on the CNN webpage. Grist noted the irony that during these debates, no questions have been asked about climate and specifically about coal.

Some startling figures really put it all into perspective. You may not have known that 24,000 people die every year from pollution from coal-fired power plants, or that smokestack emissions from coal fired power plants are the primary source of mercury pollution in the U.S. These are just a few of the facts you’ll find on the Coal is Dirty website, which is a joint project managed by The DeSmog Project, Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace USA.

Once you’re done reading all of the sobering facts about dirty, dirty coal, check out the video ‘Clean Coal’ for a laugh that might help brighten up your mood a bit. Then pass on the link to everyone you know.

Link [Coal is Clean]

We Can’t Offshore Our Pollution to China Anymore – It’s Coming For Us

A common refrain among conservatives regarding pollution produced by American companies is, “Let China deal with it”. Apparently, the prevailing opinion is that if Chinese people need work and Americans are giving it to them, they should be grateful for it regardless of the fact that we’re only adding to the air quality problem in this heavily populated country. A staggering 300,000 to 400,000 Chinese die prematurely each and every year due to the effects of outdoor air pollution, but that doesn’t change the minds of global warming deniers who refuse to take any culpability for the problem. The thing is, folks, that pollution isn’t going to stay in China: it’s starting to march toward the skylines of Californians.

From The New York Times:

In short, roughly as many Chinese die every two months from the air as were killed in the earthquake. And the problem is becoming international: just as Californians can find Chinese-made shoes in their stores, they can now find Chinese-made haze in their skies.

This summer’s Beijing Olympics will showcase the most remarkable economic explosion in history, and also some of the world’s thickest pollution in both air and water. So I’ve returned to the Yellow River in western China’s Gansu Province to an isolated village that has haunted me since I saw it a decade ago.

Badui is known locally as the “village of dunces.” That’s because of the large number of mentally retarded people here — as well as the profusion of birth defects, skin rashes and physical deformities. Residents are sure that the problems result from a nearby fertilizer factory dumping effluent that taints their drinking water.

None of this is surprising: rural China is full of “cancer villages” caused by pollution from factories. Beijing’s air sometimes has a particulate concentration that is four times the level considered safe by the World Health Organization.

If you’re truly naïve enough to think that this problem is never going to reach America, you’ve got some growing up to do – or perhaps you just need a reality check to shake you out of your greed-induced fog. There is no hiding from this problem. America is not protected by a magic bubble put there by Jesus to protect bible-thumping conservatives who believe the world owes them something. You shake your fists at realists who can see these problems coming, literally, from miles away and yet your precious ‘American lifestyle’ is going to be the undoing of us all. We can’t offshore our pollution to China anymore. It’s coming for us.

Link [The New York Times]
Photo credit: ABC News/Reuters

Welcome to the Black Hole of Despair: High Oil Prices Cause Resurgence in Coal Mining

Sigh. This is not good, people. Just when you think the high price of oil will force people to turn to greener sources of energy, they turn back to the tried and true. As if afraid to give new forms of energy a shot, demand is back up for dirty, dirty coal. This is not going to be easy.

The New York Times has it:

But after decades of seemingly terminal decline, Japan’s coal country is stirring again. With energy prices reaching record highs — oil settled above $135 a barrel on Thursday — Japan’s high-cost mines are suddenly competitive again, and demand for their coal is booming. Production has jumped to its highest in nearly four decades, creating a sensation rarely felt in these mining communities: hope.

Soaring commodity prices have had distorting effects across the global economy, driving up food prices and prompting fears of future energy shortages. But they have been an unanticipated boon to the coal producing regions of countries like Japan that had written off coal mining as a relic of the Industrial Revolution.

Please, Oh Flying Spaghetti Monster, don’t let this turn into a worldwide trend. This would send us backward in our progress toward a greener planet. Where high oil prices could have spurred increased funding and interest in wind energy, solar power and other renewable forms of energy, we’re increasing carbon output. How incredibly stupid. Perhaps the human race is hell-bent on destroying itself, after all.

Link [The New York Times]
Photo credit: Flickr user mangpages

Does Your College Have Lead-Laden AstroTurf Fields?

Hundreds of colleges and universities across the country have chosen AstroTurf as a low-maintenance, supposedly eco-friendly alternative to live grass. Athletes roll around on it every day, and no doubt fumes and microscopic particles are kicked up into the air during games and practice. Recently, it’s been found that there are disturbing amounts of lead in this bright green synthetic turf.

From Plenty Magazine:

Four New Jersey artificial playing fields have registered high levels of lead, the neurotoxic heavy metal, and the U.S.Consumer Product Safety Commission is investigating, according to the Washington Post . And not only that, but the recycled crumb rubber fill used as padding has been found to release toxic volatile organic compounds (VOC)s. These include styrene-butadiene, classified by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen, and whose inhalation can produce irritation of eyes, nose, throat and lungs. Another VOC in the fill, ethylene-propylene, is on EPA’s hazardous air pollutants list.

If your college has an AstroTurf field, it might be a good time to push for an alternative. Of course, you don’t want your school to tear up the fake stuff and replace it with grass they’re gonna pour pesticides and herbicides onto. Push for an organic lawn. If it can be done on golf courses, there’s no reason it can’t be done on your home team’s playing field. You can get more info at SafeLawns.org.

Link [Plenty Magazine] + [Safe Lawns]
Photo credit: Flickr user D. de la Peña

Climate Change Attacking All the Cutest Animals

Go look at your favorite storybook from when you were a child and find your favorite animals. Now, get ready, cause they’re next. Global warming seems to be targeting all the cutest creatures in the animal kingdom – first it was honeybees, then bats, penguins and polar bears… now koala bears are threatened! For the love of all that is holy, river otters better make it through this, because they are the cutest things EVER.

From Celsias:

According to MSNBC, Professor of Biology at Sydney University, Ian Hume, has found that CO2 pollution reduces the nutrients in eucalyptus leaves and raises their toxicity, thereby adversely affecting the koalas main source of food. Basically, not only are the koalas getting less nutrients from their food, they are also getting toxins that interfere with nutrient absorption when they feast on their regular diet of eucalyptus leaves. The results may be less available food as eucalyptus species die out from temperature changes, less nutritious feed, a lot of emaciated koala bears, less koala babies and a drastic reduction in their numbers over the next 5 decades.

Koalas already have it rough. Eucalyptus leaves are not particularly nutritious, so they have to eat a lot and sleep even more to save their energy. Eucalyptus trees, their main source of food, are also very susceptible to temperature changes. Koalas breed only once a year and have just one joey at a time. In recent decades, they have been displaced from their native habitats in Australia by suburban growth and agricultural developments.

Sad! Whatever your favorite animal is, join or start some kind of group to save it. I’m lookin’ at you, wallaby lovers.

Link [Celsias]
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

WTF: Pollution Sensitive Dress Wrinkles On Smoggy Days

Wow, this sure is a conversation piece. Designer Stephanie Sandstrom has created a dress that responds to bad air – literally. It wrinkles up when you enter an area with bad air quality. The ‘EPA Dress’ isn’t just pretty and fashion-forward, it’s a way to avoid health hazards.

Inhabitat has it:

Designer Sandstrom has embedded her EPA dress with sensors that are able to intelligently read the surrounding atmosphere and in turn create telling kinks in the fabric’s surface. On days when the air quality is particularly poor, the EPA dress looks as if it has been pulled out of the laundry bin or from the back of one’s closet. It’s a scary prospect to think that our clothes might take on a texture of their own, but if this is a viable way for us to see our true selves or rather the state of our environment, well then, we are all for it!

Now you’ll always have an excuse on those days when you sleep in, run out of your apartment with your shoes in your hand and your toothbrush in your mouth trying to catch the A-train before you’re late for an important meeting and walk in looking like you slept in your clothes. You can just tell them you’re an eco-fashion warrior way ahead of your time!

Link [Inhabitat]
Photo credit: Will Meeker

There’s Rocket Fuel in Our Water, and the EPA Says “Too Bad for You!”

In a world where we’re increasingly exposed to dangerous chemicals on a daily basis, thank goodness we have the EPA to protect us. After all, as their website states, their main goal is to protect human health and the environment. So when the EPA says that they’re not too concerned about a known toxic component of rocket fuel that harms fetuses and causes thyroid dysfunction being present in our water, I guess that means we’re in the clear, right?

Envirowonk has it:

However, they may issue a bulletin telling you that it might harm your unborn children, just so you know. At least it works out OK for the poor, impoverished Department of Defense, who’d have to fund the cleanup.

The EPA’s assistant administrator for water, Benjamin Grumbles, said he knew that perchlorate was toxic, but questioned whether regulation of drinking water was feasible or effective. He cited a Food and Drug Administration study released in January that found 81 percent of perchlorate intake by infants comes from baby foods and dairy foods, and that 74 percent of the 285 distinct foods tested contained the chemical.

Grumbles’ point that drinking water isn’t the only source of perchlorate intake is well-taken, but we’d rebut that by noting that the study he cited only dealt with infants, not adults, who are more likely to drink significant amounts of tapwater. Also, given the EPA’s jurisdiction over water pollution in all forms, not just drinking water, the fact that it’s present in food doesn’t seem to be a barrier to regulating its presence in surface and groundwater used for irrigation and livestock watering too.

Oh, I see. A bulletin warning us is enough to protect us. Plus, if it’s already in baby food and dairy, then why not just give up? We’re screwed either way, right?

Thank you, EPA. Thank you for doing your job – the job that millions of Americans take for granted that you do thoroughly and correctly. I mean, it’s only our lives on the line. And, the lives of our children. When my baby comes out looking like Sloth, I know who to call.

Link [Envirowonk]
Photo credit: Warner Bros

Polluted Picher, Oklahoma Turned into a Ghost Town by Mining

A city in Oklahoma is left with just a tiny fraction of its population as residents move away from the site of mining gone wrong. Picher began as an Old West mining town that sounds like it could have been a movie set: saloons and movie parlors lined the streets, and at its peak it boasted nearly 20,000 residents. Now, only a few dozen remain in a town with no city water and no police, with a backdrop of barren, lead-laced hills.

From MSNBC:

Picher’s mines closed around 1970; the wounds they inflicted on the people and land never healed.

Today, Tar Creek runs orange with acidic water that flooded the mines. Cave-ins and sinkholes threaten; a mine collapse in 1967 took nine homes.

Bleak, gray mountains of lead-contaminated chat, or mine tailings, loom around town. Some rise 100 feet and look like sand dunes. They have names like Sooner, St. Joe and Golden Rod 8.

For years, before most knew better, the gravel-coated piles doubled as sledding hills for kids, a Lover’s Lane for teenagers and a makeshift proving grounds for dirt bikes and the high school’s track team.

It will take at least 15 more years to haul the stuff off, for use in highway construction projects, but that’s not soon enough.

The polluted dust that blows through every nook of this place has already affected a generation.

The federal government has started a buyout program and is helping residents move elsewhere. Those who plan to stay behind say they don’t care if it’s a ghost town; they won’t leave – they feel like they’re losing their heritage. One resident compared it to a death, and said they cried every day.

Something about this is so foreboding; the ghost of America’s future. It seems like what could happen to our country on a large scale if we sit back and do nothing about climate change. If we just allow the pollution to continue. It seems as though Picher, Oklahoma is a warning to us all: this could happen to your hometown, too. Maybe not from mining pollution, but from global warming-exacerbated natural disasters, a lack of water or severe food shortage. The time to act is yesterday, and we’d best do all we can to catch up.

Link [MSNBC]
Photo credit: Charlie Riedel / AP

The 5 People Responsible for Mankind’s Most Toxic Inventions

Just like the men whose inventions caused their own deaths, those who conceived the biggest man-made threats to the natural world had no idea what they were doing when they began. Men like Thomas Edison and Karl Benz likely saw fame, money and possibly even the good of mankind as the benefits of their innovative creations. Unfortunately for all of us, their inventions have instead damaged the environment possibly beyond repair and have the potential to continue making things much, much worse. As in, end of the world worse. Here are five guys who thought they were making something way cool, but whose ideas have turned out to be some of mankind’s most destructive inventions of all time.

Plastic- Invented by Leo Baekland

Leo Baekeland invented Bakelite, the first truly synthetic plastic in 1905. A combination of formaldehyde and phenol, Bakelite set the stage for all of the plastics that were to come. In the first few decades of its existence, plastic was hailed almost as a miracle substance – ads touting the wonders of ‘fantastic plastic’ made it appear to be the path to a futuristic world. Certainly, the world has never been the same since. While it undoubtedly made life more convenient, it has also become one of the most polluting substances known to mankind. Plastics contain chemicals like dioxin and pthalates, which are known to be harmful to humans and the environment. One frightening fact about plastic is that nearly every single piece ever produced still exists today. Plastic bags and bottles litter the earth in staggering amounts that multiply daily. To get an idea of how bad the situation really is, check out “World of Waste: America’s Mass Consumption in Images” at Eco-Chick.

Diesel Fuel- Invented by Rudolf Diesel

German engineer Rudolf Diesel began working on what would be known as the diesel engine in 1892. Diesel first designed his engine to be run on hempseed oil and other vegetable oils, which would have been a far better choice for the environment but is not as cheap as the petroleum distillate now commonly known as diesel fuel, or petrodiesel. Diesel committed suicide in 1913 due to financial issues. Although he didn’t live to see his engine implemented in motor vehicles, the fuel that we know as diesel fuel today was named after his invention.

Unfortunately, diesel fuel has proven to be one of the top sources of pollution - specifically, the dirtiest and cheapest type of diesel fuel available, bunker oil. Bunker oil is used to power large ships, which are quickly causing U.S. ports to be the top sources of pollution in the world. Petrodiesel is also responsible for the lovely thick clouds of black smoke you see streaming from the tailpipes of large vehicles. Poor Rudolf Diesel would probably not be too proud of the destruction that his invention spawned in the world and it’s rather ironic that he killed himself by jumping into the ocean from a large ship (albeit a steam powered one).

The Motor Vehicle- Invented by Karl Benz

Karl Benz is credited with the invention of the modern automobile after building and selling the first four-wheeled vehicle in 1893. He also designed and patented the internal combustion flat engine, and the Benz Patent Motorwagon became the first commercially available automobile in 1888. As they say, the rest is history, and motor vehicles now cover the earth and spew forth pollution like a biblical plague. The problem with automobiles isn’t limited air pollution; it’s also the strain on energy resources and contaminants that are left behind such as antifreeze, grease, oil and metals. The environmental destruction left in the wake of the motor vehicle affects our water sources and the soil in which we grow our food. The motor vehicle is the single easiest way to turn one human being into a polluting machine.

The Power Plant- Invented by Thomas Edison

One of history’s greatest and most celebrated minds, Thomas Edison, invented the first power plant in 1882. His invention of the incandescent light bulb three years previously had paved the way for electric power, causing him to form the Edison Electric Illuminating Company to build power stations in New York City. Pearl Street Station began generating electricity on September 4th of 1882, and ran on a single steam powered generator.

As the years passed, coal became a more common source of power, and by the 1920’s pulverized coal was the norm. The use of coal as fuel for electric plants has a wide range of environmental implications, not the least of which starts with coal mining, which causes severe erosion and results in the leaching of toxic chemicals into nearby waterways. Of course, coal mining has been going on for centuries, but has greatly accelerated in the past century due to its use in coal-fired power plants. Two-thirds of sulfur dioxide, one-third of carbon dioxide and one-quarter of total nitrogen oxide emissions in the U.S. are produced by the burning of coal. Asthma, respiratory diseases, smog and acid rain are just a few of the coal industry’s lovely side effects.

The Atomic Bomb- Developed by Leó Szilárd

Though many credit Albert Einstein with this invention, the person responsible is in fact Leó Szilárd, a Hungarian-American scientist who developed the idea of the nuclear chain reaction and created the Manhattan Project. Szilárd did enlist the help of Einstein in writing a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt encouraging the creation of a nuclear defense program, but that was the extent of Einstein’s involvement. This was during World War II, when the Nazis were known to be working on similar technology. As the war went on, Szilárd came to resent the way the military seized control of his invention and became deeply bitter about the use of the atomic bomb against civilians after Truman bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Though we haven’t yet experienced its full effects, the atomic bomb is perhaps the single biggest man-made threat to the environment. A small nuclear war would cause a global environmental catastrophe. A nuclear blast would create black smoke, firestorms and radioactive particles that would completely devastate the entire globe, and the immediate effects would create climate anomalies that would last at least 10 years. Nuclear weapons are far more dangerous to the earth than global warming, and as we speak, India and Pakistan are quietly ramping back up their nuclear programs. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would kill millions and unleash catastrophic health and environmental problems.

Link [Neatorama} + [Eco-Chick] + [Wikipedia] + [LiveScience] + [The Indian]

Photo credit: Time Magazine, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Commons

Simon I-Could-Give-A-Shit Cowell Tops List of Celebrity Polluters

Appalling and horrendous: not just the singing on American Idol (who watches that these days?) but also host Simon Cowell’s dirty habits that have made him the top celebrity polluter. Simon’s average carbon emissions are 457g/km.

Known for flying around in a private jet, he has said that he prefers to travel that way because, as the Guardian quotes him, “the champagne’s better and you can smoke, which is a rare pleasure these days at $36,000 feet”.

The rest of the list is, in descending order, Jay Kay (this guy has enough money to be a top polluter?), David Beckham (no surprise there), Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean? WTF!) and 50 Cent (again, no surprise). Bentleys, Hummers, Rolls Royce Phantoms and Ferraris are among the many vehicles they own. Apparently, one or two mega-expensive luxury cars isn’t enough for one person – they each own an average of four.

Surprisingly, 4 out of 5 of them are Brits, not Americans. I wouldn’t have pegged that! Americans are far more renowned for over-consumption of just about everything, so it seems natural that American celebrities would top the smog-peddler list. Learn something new every day! Time to step up the green education, Great Britain, you’re not looking too good.

Link [Ecorazzi] + [The Guardian]

Photo credit: FOX

China’s Down to 12 Days Worth of Coal and Counting – What Does it Mean to Us?

What would it mean to the world if China went dark? What would it mean to America?

That’s what people are starting to ponder as news has hit that most power stations in China are down to just 12 days worth of coal, and some have less than a week. That’s three days less than a month ago. Coal provides China with 70% of its electricity, and while production is up this year, demand is rapidly growing in this country of nearly 1.3 billion people. This report, which came out of Beijing on April 23rd, doesn’t elaborate on the exact reasons for the shortage.

One reason reserves are low is the dark and cold winter that has just passed, and a hotter than average upcoming summer along with lower than average rainfall is going to continue the strain. This summer’s Olympic Games will also put a squeeze on the country’s coal and power supply, something the Chinese government is currently scrambling to manage without much luck; the figures involved just can’t seem to agree to a compromise. China started importing coal last year, but so far, it hasn’t made much of a dent in the shortage.

Never mind, for the moment, what this means to the environment, as coal is the dirtiest of all fuels that produce energy. Never mind that according to many estimates, pollution is the number one cause of death in China. Never mind that China has plans to build nearly one coal plant a week for the next decade, causing a huge increase in greenhouse gas emissions that might just completely undo the efforts of every other nation in the world. It’s on the tail of the United States, headed toward becoming the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Most of us are aware of just how pervasive Chinese-manufactured products are in our everyday lives. Trying to live entirely without anything that has been produced in China is likely to be fruitless, unless you’re living very low-tech out in the woods or the desert somewhere. The average American family couldn’t do it while maintaining their current lifestyle. What would happen if imports of Chinese goods temporarily stopped? Many American businesses rely on China for their daily operations. If they don’t have their China-made products, they don’t have anything to manufacture and/or sell. In an already damaged economy, this could be really bad news.

Not to mention the fact that China’s leaders aren’t exactly known for playing well with others. Constant expansion plus imperialism plus a desperate need for a particular asset in order to retain the current status quo could equal very, very bad news for the world. Who’s to say that, backed into a corner, China wouldn’t begin to wield its frightening potential for power as a weapon against the rest of us? The US-China trade deficit doesn’t exactly put us in a good position if such a thing were to happen. Our government has already allowed the destruction of our industrial base for the good of a communist country’s industrialization.

In the end, won’t there be a price to pay for the cheap goods and labor that Americans have enjoyed courtesy of the Chinese? We’re all so embroiled in a society of more, more, more. We are deep into a mess of dependence on China. Think about what’s in your own house. If someone suddenly came in and took away everything that was made in China, what would you have left? Not much.

Many are predicting that China will find a way to manage the situation fairly quickly, and it will all blow over. Americans will go on with their obsessive consumerist ways, constantly buying more than we need, and continuing to rely on China for a startling quantity of the products used daily in this country. I hate to say it, but, a close call won’t teach Americans anything – in fact, the vast majority of us probably don’t know about the coal situation in China and don’t care.

Some are of the viewpoint that China will soon realize that continuation of their current pace of growth is simply impossible, and they’ll be forced to slow down. This is a fairly optimistic take on the situation, and maybe – just maybe – we could see a change in daily life in America if that were to happen.

No one can accurately predict the consequences of this coal scenario; but one thing we Americans might want to consider is learning Mandarin – just in case.

Link [news.com.au]

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons + Wikimedia Commons

Pollution is a Bitch: Flowers Losing Their Scent, Bees Losing Their Way

A rose by any other name smells as sweet as umm… well… not much.

A new study suggests that flowers are actually losing their aroma due to pollution from automobiles and power plants. Some are also guessing that this finding might explain why bees are dwindling in numbers in some areas of the world.

Researchers at the University of Virginia have been studying how the scents of flowers travel in the wind, finding that the scent molecules bond with pollutants such as ozone. The result: floral aromas are destroyed. Pollution is actually chemically altering flowers.

“The scent molecules produced by flowers in a less polluted environment, such as in the 1800s, could travel for roughly 1,000 to 1,200 meters [3,300 to 4,000 feet]; but in today’s polluted environment downwind of major cities, they may travel only 200 to 300 meters [650 to 980 feet],” said study team member Jose D. Fuentes.

This means more than a lack of au naturel floral scents for us humans to enjoy. It could also have potentially disastrous fallout in the natural world. Bees depend on scent while seeking flowers out. If they can’t find the flowers, they can’t pollinate them - and guess what that means? Not just a decline in bee population. Bees are significant pollinators of many agriculture crops and native plants. The effects of flowers losing their scent could mean problems with food sources the world over. Scary indeed - do you need any more reasons to cut your carbon emissions?!

This news seems to provide a grim window into a sci-fi future that could have come from the mind of a literary great: one in which food has lost its flavor, and nature has lost its color. Sure, 1984 is my favorite novel and I’m known for gloom-and-doom paranoia, but is it not getting more and more likely?

Link [LiveScience]

Photo: Flickr user zaphodsotherhead

Next Page »