1.5 millions of Americans diagnosed with cancer

The President’s Cancer Panel is a group established in 1971 by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a group of experts who review America’s cancer program and report directly to the president. On May 6 2010, the Cancer Panel released its annual report and stated that in 2009, 1.5 million Americans were diagnosed with cancer, and 562,000 died from the disease, while recognizing that cancer resulting from environmental and occupational exposures could have been prevented through appropriate national action.

The Panel recognized that “environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated” and 80,000 chemicals on the market, used by millions every day are “ understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread ”. The panel stated that chemicals during pregnancy are the greatest and 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, furthermore the Panel reported the nation needs a comprehensive, cohesive policy agenda regarding environmental contaminants and protection of human health.

Environmental hormones are a danger to developing human embryos, industrial and agricultural chemicals, the are named endocrine disruptor. From the schoolchildren in Minnesota that discovered frogs with extra legs and eyes on their shoulders at their local pound after pesticides was dumped. Or, the Alligators of the Lake Apopka almost all dead, the only survivors showing feminine characteristic, the phenomena has long been observed. Nowadays, the argument seems more political than scientific; against or for environmental regulations.

The purpose of environmental legislation is to protect human health and the environment from pollutants; however, chemical regulations of the federal government are challenged by strong business incentives represented by lobbyists. If it was not about economical interest in the commercialization of chemicals, the precautionary principle should have been applied, anticipating instead of reacting.

Endocrine disruptors had represented a great danger for many years and it should be proved safe instead of the sickness of people proving that it is harmful. In addition, here is a notion of environmental justice that must prevail on political believes or unclear scientific skepticism. In 2006, the American Cancer Society noted that “significant number of annual cancer deaths in the U.S. is caused by environmental pollutants and occupational exposures; lower-income workers and communities are disproportionately affected by these exposures”.

Fortunately, Congress has enacted numerous statutes in the last thirty years, such as, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) regulating pesticide production; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) that regulates pollutants discharged into waters.

Addressing environmental issues and ethics necessitate the use of science for long-term environmental sustainability since safer alternatives to currently used chemicals are urgently needed such as green chemicals and the development of a green industry, while stronger regulation should limit all environmental contaminants.

References:

National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute. 2008–2009 Annual Report President’s Cancer Panel. http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf

Berg, L.R., & Hager, M.C. (2009). Visualizing environmental science (2nd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

National Cancer Institute. 2008-2009 MEETING SERIES Environmental Factors in Cancer http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/glance/At-a-Glance_Environmental.pdf

Climate negationists are financed by industry Lobbyists

The Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, which led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming. In 1997, the year of the Kyoto Protocol, the budget of the Coalition totaled $1.68 million much more than the 1.9 Millions allocated to the EPA programs.

Throughout the 1990, the coalition conducted a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign challenging the merits of an international agreement, policy makers and pundits were fiercely debating whether humans could dangerously warm the planet. By questioning the science on global warming the Global Climate Coalition were able to dulled public concern and delay government action. The coalition disbanded in 2002, but some members from the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute, continue to “lobby against any law or treaty that would sharply curb emissions”.

  

Far from special interests, the IPCC is a scientific body of 2,500 scientists from all over the world committed to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis and an intergovernmental body endorsed by 194 governments and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel. The IPCC believes than 90 percent of human activities, namely fossil fuel burning, explained most of an indisputable warming of the planet in the past 50 years. The panel said temperatures will likely rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 Celsius (3.2 and 7.8 Fahrenheit) this century.

Today, the rapid degradation due to climate change highlights the urgency of changing laws and regulations without further delay. The visible degradation of our planet required more flexible, adaptable policy and regulation than the one shaped so far by our industries. We are now seeing the first environmental refugees in the South Pacific, an entire country is slowly disappearing; Bangladesh. We have experienced an another winter of record-setting cold in many parts of North America. The list of critical issues is long, the global climate is out of control.

We are the last generation on earth that would be able to curb current and future emissions, we are collectively responsible and we have to stop pretending that we are not warned. Researching the topic of global climate change I realized that science and technology are ahead of economics, politics and people consciousness.


References:
 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved April 24, 2010 http://www.ipcc.ch/

How can we get digital cable and Internet in our homes, but not clean water?

“19.5 million Americans fall ill each year from drinking water contaminated with parasites, bacteria or viruses and this number does not include illnesses caused by other chemicals and toxins” , declared the scientific journal Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, that an estimated.


The New York Times has compiled data on more than 200,000 facilities that have permits to discharge pollutants from the Environmental Protection Agency. These hundreds of thousands of water pollution records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act regarding violation of Safe Drinking Water Act and publishes a series of editorials and investigations on a blog called “Toxic Water; a series about worsening pollution in America’s water and the regulator respond".


- Find Water Polluters Near You
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/polluters
- What’s in Your Water
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants
- Clean Water Act Violations, check enforcement record
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/09/13/us/0913-water.html


An example of water pollution and environmental injustice:

In a remote corner of Appalachia in West Virginia, 10 years ago, a terrible smells began coming from local taps, and water was sometimes gray, cloudy and oily. Bathtubs and washers developed "rust-colored rings that scrubbing could not remove and industrial water filters turned black". Tests showed that their water contained toxic amounts of lead, manganese, barium and other metals which can contribute to organ failure or developmental problems.

At the same time, closed coal companies started pumping industrial waste into the ground, to wash their coal to remove impurities. A black fluid containing dissolved minerals and chemicals was disposed in vast lagoons into dumped mines, then the liquid flows into water supplies. Coal companies have injected more than 1.9 billion gallons of coal slurry and sludge into the ground since 2004 and millions more gallons have been dumped into lagoons. This pose serious health risks in violation of state regulations and the Safe Drinking Water Act and are illegal concentrations of chemicals including arsenic, lead, chromium, beryllium or nickel. Nationwide, polluters have violated the Clean Water Act more than 500,000 times.


These chemicals contribute to cancer, organ failures and other diseases; nevertheless, these companies were never fined or punished for those illegal injections, according to state records. They were never even warned that their activities had been noticed. Worsening symptoms, like gall bladder diseases, fertility problems, miscarriages and kidney and thyroid issues became common. The community sued in county court, seeking compensation. That suit is pending. Until now the community gets regular “deliveries of clean drinking water, stored in coolers or large blue barrels outside most homes”. The construction of a pipeline bringing fresh water to the community is on the way, however, most residents still use polluted water to bathe, shower and wash dishes.


“How can we get digital cable and Internet in our homes, but not clean water?” said Madam Massey, her son has scabs on his arms, legs and chest due to bathwater and many of “his brother’s teeth were capped to replace enamel that was eaten away”.


Reference:
Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost in Suffering. (2009, September 12). New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?pagewanted=4

Obama saves the Endangered Species Act endangered by Bush

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) passed by the United State Congress in 1973 for the protection of endangered animals and their habitats was attacked in 2004 by the Bush’s administration. They act was untouched since 1982. In December 2008, the Bush administration changed this longstanding practice under the Endangered Species Act by issuing rules that allowed agencies to move ahead with projects and programs without seeking an independent review by either the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Obama Administration’s policy on ESA  is to restore rules obliging U.S. agencies consultation with independent federal experts to determine if their actions might have harmed and threatened endangered species. By March 2009, Obama had signed the memorandum to help restore the scientific process to its rightful place in the working of the Endangered Species Act and the selection of candidate species. By reversing Bush's attempt to deregulate the consultation process, Obama restored oversight and balance, therefore, endangered species have now a chance to survive. 

References:

New York Time. Greenwire. September 9, 2009 Obama Admin Confronts 'Candidate Species' Backlog http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/08/08greenwire-obama-admin-confronts-candidate-species-backlo-22609.html?scp=3&sq=obama%20Endangered%20Species%20Act&st=cse

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/history_ESA.pdf

Offshore drilling in the Artic or the polar bear; we must make a choice

Oil industry’s wanted to drill offshore in the Arctic for 20 years. A United States Geological Survey report released last November; cut by 90 percent the agency’s estimates of onshore oil in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, after environmentalists successfully challenged a decision to grant the company air-quality permits , throwing Shell's exploration program into disarray. This is a victory especially for the polar bears as the oil and gas development was planning to drill in America’s most important polar bear habitat. The polar bear is not a small species is the representation of an entire ecosystem. Additionally, large carnivores are sensitive indicators of ecosystem health; WWF has identified the polar bear as a unique symbol of the complexities and inter-dependencies of the arctic marine ecosystem.

The environmental problem associated with oil is also the burning and the transport that contribute to global warming. The Arctic sea-ice, the Polar Bear Habitat may be reduced if Greenhouse gas emissions are stabilized (USGS, 2010). In addition, according to the journal, Nature, habitats essential to polar bears would benefit if global greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced. Due to Oil and gas activity, and shipping, the Arctic between September 2006 and September 2007, has a loss of sea ice equaled the total amount of ice lost during the previous 27 years (USGS, 210). This exponential loss of ice in such a short time was one of the reasons why so many scientists were concerned that there “might be a tipping point beyond which sea ice would be irreversibly lost” (USGS, 2010).

One aspect of increasing fossil fuel costs is to try to drill at any price the last fossil fuel world’s reserves regardless of the terrible consequences for the environment. Offshore oil drilling is a good example of what human can do to an already highly polluted ocean when huge financial interests are involved. Oil spill can spoil the ecology and economic value of a region for decades. Offshore drilling jeopardizes our natural richness for short term economic profit for Multinational Corporations which pays taxes also offshore, thus, do not contribute to the local economy and do not including the cost of environmental damages into the equation. The oil industry’s benefit is at the opposite of the long term perceptive that concerns the environment and social, health, ascetic, educational, environmental and natural heritage. Furthermore, environmental damages can be irreparable if animal species or coral reefs are harmed.

The oil companies can drill and make us pay the high price of any non-renewable declining commodity, a clean cut benefit for them. Some scientists estimate that the reserve of oil will be depleted within 50 years, thus, our children will live in a world without fuel. Even with technological advances, the most optimistic predictions are for global oil production to peak around 2035 (Murck, Skinner, 2010). We are the last generation to be able save what left of the Arctic and the world’s biodiversity. While the discussion of drilling in the Arctic is ongoing, the technology in photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, biomass and some many innovative scientific technologies is only waiting for a little investment. 

 
References: 

Murck, B. W., Skinner, B. J., & Mackenzie, D. (2010). Visualizing geology, 2nd ed. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. USGS. Press release (2010) http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2666&from=news_side New York Times. Editorial (2010). http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/u-s-firms-up-critical-habitat-for-polar-bears/?scp=4&sq=offshore%20drilling%20Arctic%20National%20Wildlife&st=cse VANISHING KINGDOM, The Melting Realm of the Polar Bear. (n.d.). [Brochure]. Retrieved from
http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/Publications/WWFBinaryitem4928.pdf

Sustainable agriculture for an environmentally and social responsible future

©Yann Arthus Bertrand

A pressing demand on the agricultural sector for production, are increasing needs for cultivation and agricultural sustainable practices. Increases in production and the use of intensive agricultural techniques lead to  dependence on fertilizers and overuse of water that can degrade soils and water resources.   

The three major nutrients; nitrate, phosphate and potassium leach into ground water or surface water and generate pollution. Many alternatives to modern agriculture are available to enhance sustainable agricultural systems and management practices such as the promotion of mixed agricultural systems like rice-fish farming and agroforestry, integrated pest management, pollination management, soil and water conservation and management options of grasslands and forage resources. Biodiversity for food and agriculture can be managed to maintain and enhances ecosystem services (FAO).   

The ability to enhance these soil biological processes can increase nutrient availability and efficiency and available soil nutrients to reduce the need for mineral fertilizer and minimize the cost of inputs and the environmental footprint of crop production. The conservation of biological diversity for agriculture and sustainable use are necessary for providing food and create subsistence and sustainable economy, as well as social and environmental improvement.  The conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in cropping systems are part of the foundation of sustainable farming practices (FAO). 

The growth of  healthy crops with the least possible disruption to ecosystems including crop rotation, inter-cropping,  conservation tillage,  balanced soil fertility and water management, optimum use of organic matter; prevent spreading of harmful organisms, protection and enhancement of important beneficial organisms and ecological infrastructures.

In addition, meeting consumer needs for quality products that are safe and produced with respect of the environment and in a socially responsible is leading the developed world to invest and research organic farming and the impact of climate change by developed nations is creating the need to rethink agriculture by promoting ecosystem-based approaches.

References:

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).  Sustainable Crop Production Intensification. http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/spi/en/.

Nuclear energy, is it worth it?

 Nuclear fusion

The combustion of coal to produce electricity is responsible for more than one-third of the air pollution in the United States and contribute to acid precipitation and climate change, while, nuclear power emit only few pollutants into the atmosphere. However, nuclear energy “generates radioactive waste in the form of spent fuel”, and nuclear plants produce radioactive material. These wastes are radioactive, thus, extremely dangerous and pose a major hazard for the environment and health of people.

Storage of nuclear waste is a major problem that did not find solution yet. In producing nuclear waste our generation has to think that this waste will be the heritage of future generation and our grandchildren would have to find solutions. Scientists opposed to nuclear energy contend that the replacement of coal-burning power plants with the replacement of nuclear power plants would not reduce climate change because “only 15% of the greenhouse gases come from power plants. Auto emissions and industrial processes produce most of the greenhouse gases and neither is affected by nuclear power”.

The nuclear industry must develop appropriate, long-term technology solutions to geological concerns about the development of nuclear energy with the use of uranium reserves, the storage of wastes, and economical parameter such as the cost of plants and equipment and transport, but there is also a social concern on the issue. Environmental Justice researchers had shown that Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) are located unfairly and that there is a “geographic association between race, ethnicity, economical indicators and area that contain hazardous substances”. Nuclear organizations must prove governments and the public that waste can be disposed safely and where.

Nuclear power is in competition with other energy sources, safer, cleaner and less dangerous. A balance of safety and cost must be found for regulation of the nuclear industry before any further development. The weaknesses in environmental regulations that the BP oil spill had revealed are bugs in the system that if happening on nuclear regulation can lead to enormous risks. Additionally, the use of nuclear fission is involved not only in the production of energy but also in the fabrication nuclear weapons, thus, increase terrorist threats because it only takes several kilograms of plutonium to make a nuclear bomb.

The position of the International Energy Agency (IEA) is that nuclear power has the potential to be a sustainable energy source of tomorrow but that there are no fundamental energy supply. Member countries of the IEA have stated they want to maintain nuclear power as an energy option for the future (IEA, 1998). Furthermore the IEA believes that nuclear power could make an important, contribution reducing carbon dioxide production for energy use because in developing countries, where electricity demand is growing, nuclear power could help in the search for a model of sustainable development (IEA, 1998).

References:
Berg, L.R., & Hager, M.C. (2009). Visualizing environmental science (2nd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dr. John Paffenbarger of the Energy Diversification Division, working. IEA. Nuclear Energy Report (1998). http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/1990/nuclearpower98.pdf
Ronald G. Burns, Michael J. Lynch and Paul Stretesky, Environmental Law, Crime, and Justice (2008).

The Story of Cap & Trade

Birds victims of the insufficient investment in wind power technology

The Fish and Wildlife Service and Wind Energy Development have established the Project Planning Program that reviews potential wind energy developments on public lands through the National Environmental Policy Act.  Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Service has established a Wind Turbine Siting Working Group in 2002, to “develop a set of comprehensive national guidelines for siting and constructing wind energy facilities”. The purpose of the guidelines was to help protect “wildlife resources streamline the site selection and design process.

Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today. The wind is an affordable, inexhaustible energy that provides jobs, powers the economy without causing pollution. Wind energy is clean generating no hazardous wastes or depleting natural resources. Wind towers can revitalize the economy of rural communities, providing income through lease or royalty payments to farmers and other landowners.Service Program Roles in Wind Energy Development is required by the Endangered Species Act to assist other Federal agencies in “ensuring that any action they authorize, implement, or fund, including wind energy developments, will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally endangered or threatened species”. 

However, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), a not-for profit organization whose mission is “to conserve native wild birds and their habitats throughout the Americas”. They analyzed the recent U.S. studies and concluded that bird mortality at wind turbine projects varies from less than one bird/turbine/year to as high as 7.5 birds/per turbine/year. This means that between 10,000 and 40,000 birds may be killed each year at wind farms across the country and about 80% of which are songbirds, and 10% may be birds of prey. Bats are also subject to high mortality at wind farms frequently at considerably higher rates than birds.Bats are also impacted; a good illustration is the West Virginian dispute, a wind developer called Beech Ridge Energy applied to build a 122-turbine project along an Appalachian ridgeline in Greenbrier County. The county is home to the Indiana bat, which the federal government listed as endangered in 1967. A federal judge’s ruling that stopped the construction to protect an endangered bat “underscores the growing conflicts between green energy and imperiled wildlife”. In this case, an assessment of the project had estimated that it would annually kill 6,746 bats of all kinds.

Many innovations must be made in the near future to mitigate the negative effects of wind farms on wildlife. New generators could be built to standards that minimize the potential for bird kills. Wind is a new technology and not enough investment has been made so far. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu announced recently the selection of 53 new wind energy projects for up to $8.5 million in total DOE funding. These investments will lead progress on the technology employed to develop wind energy, but also in the science to assess its potential impacts to birds and bats. A Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee composed of 22 members appointed by the Secretary established guidelines for, siting, operating, and preventing avian and other wildlife impacts that have been issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

References:

The Fish and Wildlife Service and Wind Energy Development http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/wind.html

Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines. http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/Service%20Interim%20Guidelines.pdf

 American Birds Conservancy. http://www.abcbirds.org/conservationissues/threats/energyproduction/wind.html

New York Times. Green Inc., December 10, 2009. Judge Halts Wind Farm Over Bats. http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/judge-halts-wind-farm-over-bats/?scp=2&sq=wildlife&st=cse

Watch Blue Gold: World Water Wars

Blue Gold: World Water Wars is an award-winning 2008 documentary by Sam Bozzo, based on the book Blue Gold: The Right to Stop the Corporate Theft of the World’s Water by Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke 

210,000 gallons a day of toxic mining waste into 23 acres lake in Alaska

On Monday June 24, 2009, the Supreme Court hurt the Clean Water Act in a court decision by opening the door to industrial dumping into our water. An American gold mining company was allowed to discharge 210,000 gallons a day of potentially toxic mining waste into 23 acres lake near Juneau in Alaska. 

This decision was made possible by an amendment pushed by the Bush Administration and voted on May 9, 2002. The Wetland page on EPA’s website explains “the Federal Register published a final Corps and EPA rule reconciling their previously differing Clean Water Act section 404 regulations defining the term "fill material" and amended their definition of "discharge of fill material”. While working on infrastructures such as bridges or levees, the Army Corps of engineer was the only institution using the right of discharging “fill material” in water. Bush Administration enlarged the definition to include contaminated mining in the “fill material” to serve the interest of the Mining industry. “This is the same regulatory trick the corps relies on to allow coal mining companies in Appalachia to dump the waste from mountaintop mining into the valleys below — a practice that has obliterated 1,200 miles of streams.”

NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) requires Federal Agencies to allow public participation on their actions involving the environment. The intent is to have the public engaged into Federal decision-making process and be better informed on environmental matters. Federal agencies when conducting environmental reviews determine the level of documentation and actions needed. Therefore, they conduct an analysis to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement, (EIS) and an Environmental Assessment (EA) would be necessary. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines CEs as "a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment." (40 C.F.R § 1508.4), and for that reason, do not require the preparation of an EA or an EIS. The purpose of CE is to save agency resources when certain activities have a limited environmental impact. However, CEs are also directly responsible for public involvement, if an agency agree on a CE, no environmental review or public participation are mandatory.

Federal agencies like the BLM have utilized CE beyond their intended purpose and this extensive used can have a negative environmental impact. The goal of the NEPA and the idea of the entire process are to have better qualified and improved Federal agencies. Conversely, the abuse of CE can lead to incomplete analysis and harmful activities and can affect communities, as public concerns are not including into their decisions. The GAO investigation found that BLM illegally approved some oil and gas drilling applications on public lands from 2006 to 2008”. BLM used categorical exclusions to approve more than “a quarter of applications during those years about 6,100 of 22,000 and to modify hundreds of existing permits”.  

In this case and other involving CEs, the BLM decided that environmental analysis where not necessary neither the public participation nor eventual examination of extraordinary circumstances that might have conducted to further analysis. Science and full public participation provide a foundation for equitable and sustainable development and CE an instrument to serve political and economical special interest.   

References:
Final Revisions to the Clean Water Act Regulatory Definitions of "Fill Material" and "Discharge of Fill Material" http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/fillfinal.html
NEPA, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970. Sec. 1508.4 Categorical exclusion. http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/Nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm#1508.4

New York Time. Editorial. June 24, 2009. One More Threat to Clean Water. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/opinion/25thu2.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Clean%20Water%20Act%20&st=cse

Market price fails to reflect costs of negative external impacts leading to excessive production and consummation of goods.

In regard to impacts of pollution we may not be able to measure all relevant costs and benefits in economic terms.  A good example is the automobile industry with the enormous cost on pollution and human health that is not part of our economical indicators. Environmental regulations aim to set the optimal level of pollution because corporations do not take responsibility for the marginal social costs. They produce pollution at a level that is scientifically and socially unacceptable and irresponsible in terms of damaged to the environment.


Market externalities must be taking into account, when a company pollutes, it produces a negative externality on the ecosystem, the health of the people, the sack of future generation, and we all are affected negatively by the polluters. To guarantee the future of our planet and our own survival, we need to accept market failure and take into account in our economical approach all negative externalities.  “One approach to pollution control is to internalize external costs by a system of green taxation or other instruments that requires producers and consumers of the polluting good to take these costs into account”.


Reference:
Harris, J. M. (n.d.). Environmental and Natural Resource Economics (Second edition ed.). USA:
Hougthon Mifflin Company. (Original work published 2006)

Carbon emissions are expected to post their biggest drop in more than 40 years

The International Energy Agency will announce this month that global carbon emissions are expected to post their biggest drop in more than 40 years. The reason behind this drop in carbon emissions is the decrease of industrial activity and trade around the world due to the economical downturn as well as some government’s action. IEA expects to see global carbon emissions fall 2.6 percent this year. However, an improving economy is expected to increase domestic carbon dioxide emissions 0.7 percent next year. According to the Energy Information Administration, Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of energy sources account for 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.


This news shows how human activity is decisive to climate change and how humans have the solution in their hands to make the economical changes needed. Economically as well as scientifically we have the tools available to resolve the problem of global warming or at least lighten the effects. We must start efficient production of renewable energy we will have to stop subsidizing the fuel industry and have the price of fossil reflect his real cost including health, environmental and military costs. Fuel prices must go up; our market economy is driven by short term-financial incentive while an alternative economy based on renewable energy would require efficient inter-temporal resource allocation. The massive investments made in fossil fuel infrastructures, the low cost policy of government to encourage industrial growth must be shift to break the unsustainable and uneconomically path of fossil fuel dependence.


The obligation and responsibility of governments is to signed international treaties to reduce emissions and create global institutions to deal with the emergency. There is a terrestrial dimension to climate change that we can’t ignore any longer. Human well-being is better served by controlling the accumulation in the atmosphere of Carbone dioxide and trace gases than letting climate becoming out of control.


Climate refugees, tribes in Amazonia, Inuit women infect by PCB and so much more challenges are to be addressed immediately. Global climate challenges are waiting for our policies to adjust. History will judge our actual governments on their action today because the actual changes made to climate by humans are unsustainable and are directly related to human health and well-being as well as the survival of future generations.


References:
Emissions of CO2 Set for Best Drop in 40 Years. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/earth/22emissions.html
Harris, J. (2006). Environmental and resource economics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Berg, L.R., & Hager, M.C. (2009). Visualizing environmental science (2nd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Our children will have to live in a world without fuel so why are we still drilling?

We a choice, offshore oil drilling near coastlines and drilling in general  or a clean energy economy that would stop global warming. A sustainable and clean future instead of pursuing false solutions that jeopardize our natural richness. The solutions for our future can't be analysis with short-term projection based on cost/benefit analysis.


The issue of drilling involved not just risks but also total incertitude on the after drilling, "placing a price tag on the environment involves serious ethical and philosophical consideration". Natural capital is a large part of the national economic wealth and should be counted like human capital in economical analysis.


Drilling along Florida coast is analyzed by his supporters with a cost-benefit analysis approach. The problem of this calculation is that the benefit is only the one of oil companies and they are at the opposite of the people benefit.  The monetary benefit of oil companies and the long term benefit of people and future generation is not the same.The cost of drilling for an oil company is a matter of monetary investment, for people the cost is not measurable in dollar but in social, health, ascetic, educational, environmental and natural heritage parameters. As a scientific fact, “the reserve of oil and gas will be largely depleted within 50 years”


The oil companies can drill and make us pay the high price of any non-renewable declining commodity, a clean cut benefit for them. Oil companies do not even create good jobs for the local community because they consist on short-term job market just for the time of the drilling operation. At the opposite, the environmental damages are not going to be eliminated as fast as the jobs or the drilling platform, environmental damages can be irreparable if animal species or coral reefs are harmed. The failure to add the price of environmental damages of oil drilling to the cost/benefit analysis is part of a short-term approach that can cost unknown monetary sum to future generation.


In economics, "value is considered to flow from our desires and preferences", thus, the question is, are we talking about desires of oil companies and preferences of politicians for their campaign funding? Or, are we analyzing people and future generation health and sustainable future?   It seems inconsistent to alter our assessment of long-term environmental problems based on current interest rate fluctuations arising from financial markets that have little to do with the environment”.




References:
Harris, Jonathan (2006). Environmental and Natural resource economics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

9 billion people, why not?

The problem is not only the world population but also the amount of earth a population consumes! In a world with half of the actual population, if each person has the ecological carbon footprint of the USA the problem would be the same. We are consuming too much. This phenomena is called  Consumption overpopulation and  its a challenge because “Highly Developed Countries nations represent only 20% of the world population, yet they consume significantly more than half of its resources”


In Highly Developed Countries, we could do so much for the environment with a collective and responsible attitude such as sustainable consumption and mandatory environmental ethics in school at an early stage of the educative system. The adoption of a deep ecology worldview, voluntary simplicity as well as environmental justice and social ecology can achieved a lot in the social sector. 

A radical change in our economical development based on productivity and consumption for a sustainable and long-term development including natural capital preservation, use of renewable energies, waste management and pollution control and so much more…If we all change the way we live and think and teach it to our children, we will prepare a world where more than 9 billion people could live in peace and harmony with the environment.


Reference:
Berg, L.R., & Hager, M.C. (2009). Visualizing environmental science (2nd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

1.6 million tons of Household Hazardous Waste are generated per year

HHW includes corrosive, toxic, ignitable, or reactive ingredients. Products such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, electronics, and pesticides that contain potentially hazardous are considerate HHW. The average American home amasses 100 pounds of HHW in their basements and between 1960 and 2007; the amount of waste each person creates has almost doubled from 2.7 to 4.6 pounds per day.

The most effective way to stop this trend is by preventing waste in the first place. Reduction is the key and it based on consumerism pushing people to purchase products that contain no hazardous ingredients. Communication and education are vital to push consumers to use alternative methods or products. People need to learn and realize how armful their wastes are to the environment and the impact of their daily life on the environment. Government must encourage new social behaviors with economic incentive, education and awareness. Being environmentally literate should be part of our civic duty as citizens.

The second option is collection. How many of us know the designated days in our area for collecting solid waste, the permanent collection site address or the special collection day to drop off?Municipalities and local governments must reuse, recycling, and proper disposal. Widespread campaigns on TV and advertising should guide us and explain us why, where, how and when to recycle. In addition, corporation should be involved in the process and give financial incentive to people returning hazardous waste products and create profitable programs for consumers and companies that could recycle and utilize a part of the returned waste.

By the way, what are you going to do about your old cell phone?...WATCH THE VIDEO

Reference
EPA. Household Hazardous Waste http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/hhw.htm

Access to water; a fundamental and universal right

An example of water privatization is the Coca-Cola's bottling plants in India which was accused to create severe water shortages and pollution. Coca paid for the land then gets the water for free, It was a private-public partnership in the state of Kerala “in a region that has such high rainfall that region has never had water scarcity, within one year of a Coca Cola plant coming, pumping up 1.5 million liters a day for bottling water, three lakes went dry, rivers went dry.” 

An illustration in the USA, is Southern California, where water has been drawn from the aquifer. In the California Mojave Desert water is such a valuable commodity that agricultural companies purchased the desert not to farm but to gain right water. Tucson, Arizona and surrounding areas supplies 700,000 residents and 30 golf courses with water pump from an aquifer that took thousands of years to form. The only way now for the city is to purchase water rights to private owners.

Reasoning in ecological model, you value water but you can’t price it because it is priceless. In a market theory you price water but you don’t value it, you get somewhere first, you buy and have absolute rights to exploit in unsustainable manner, to pollute, to destroy then, just leave. The end to the privatization of global water resources is a fundamental universal right. Water has to be governed by natural law, not by the market because water is not property of the state or corporations, water belongs to the people of earth.

The right to access clean water without discrimination is a matter of life and death. Our short-term profitability economy is incompatible with natural cycles, the geologic cycle, the hydrological cycle and renewability. There is a biosphere we inherit and a technosphere of our creation.


References:
Paget-Clarke, N. P.-C. (2002). Interview with Vandana Shiva. Discussing “Water Wars” Retrieved
from http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/vshiva3.html#Anchor-Corporate-23240

DTT will not cure Malaria

In 2008, the National Geographic reported that Heidi Geisz, a researcher at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science declared "we were surprised to find that levels had not declined but had stabilized”. Scientists discovered, when studying the melting ice of the Arctic, that a high level of DDT in the fat and eggs of penguins. In the past, researchers had found different results and made interpretations on the toxicity of DDT, however, since it was first used after WW2, DTT effects have been observed by scientists with years of studies and observations identifying side effects of DDT; bio-accumulation in animal fats and the ecosystem as well as by the resistance of mosquitoes to DTT. After more than 50 years of utilization, scientific observations have proved the supporters of DDT wrong.

The publication of “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carlson in 1962, started a debate between scientists on the use and ban of DTT. Doctor R. Roberts, critics of the ban on DTT echoing a publication on the Science Magazine stated that critics of DTT were “phantasmagorical allegations” and declared that “history has shown that each and every one of these claims and predictions were false"(Easton 311). The first point advanced is that DDT degrades from living creatures. However, DDT has been observed in animal fats for years but this fact could not be measured immediately. According to the EPA “even though DDT has been banned since 1972, it can take more than 15 years to break down in our environment. Fish consumption advisories are in effect for DDT in many waterways including the Great Lakes ecosystem.” The second argument is that DDT cannot reach concentrations in water (Easton 311). 

Nevertheless, the phenomenon observed in the Great Lakes according to EPA, indicates “atmospheric deposition is the current source of new DDT contamination in our Great Lakes” leading to dangerous fish consumption for humans. The third argument is that DDT has no effect on animal population number (Easton 311). Yet, EPA has established the Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) and places “geographically specific use limitations on pesticides in order to protect endangered and threatened species from pesticides”. If this programs had been launched is because along the year it has been observed that DTT and other chemicals can poison plants and animals if they are not used correctly. The Fourth assumption is that there are no evidences that the Sea Lions’ population was affected by DTT. However, the Environmental Health Perspectives published in 2009 the result of a study where the observation on sea lions “demonstrate that embryonic exposure to DDTs leads to asymptomatic animals at completion of neurodevelopment with greater sensitivity to domoic acid–induced seizures,” furnishing the evidences needed to DTT opponents.

Theories on DDT are verifiable by more than half centuries of observations and scientific evaluations of DTT and most of them had shown that insects are resistant to DTT and that the long term damaged on the environmental are and will be present for years to come. However, both side agree of the urgent necessity to invest more in researches to combat malaria and that the developed countries cannot let millions of people dying around the world while simple sanitary measures such as bednets, the eradication of stagnant water in slumps and the education of women can make a difference. Malaria will not only be cured by spreading insecticides but buy improving living standards and education. The problem of malaria is not just toxicological problem but also a humanitarian and social problem.
 

References:

Stemp-Morlock, G. (2008, May 12). Antarctic Melt Releasing DDT, Tainting Penguins. National Geographic News, 1. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/ 080512-penguins-ddt_2.html
Taking Sides: Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues, 13th Ed.
Publisher: McGraw-Hill. Paperback,
N.d. (n.d.). Pesticides: Endangered Species Protection Program [Learn more about Threatened and Endangered Species]. Retrieved from Evironmental Protection Agency database.
N.d. (n.d.). Pesticides: Topical & Chemical Fact Sheets [DDT - A Brief History and Status]. Retrieved from Evironmental Protection Agency database.
Tiedeken, J. A., & Ramsdell, J. S. (2009, January). DDT Exposure of Zebrafish Embryos Enhances Seizure Susceptibility: Relationship to Fetal p,p′-DDE Burden and Domoic Acid Exposure of California Sea Lions [Marine Biotoxins Program, Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratio. Environmental Health Perspectives, v.117(1) . Abstract retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC2627867/

Video presentation of Ecological view

 PLAY VIDEO

Create your own video slideshow at animoto.com.