Heightened Urban Temperatures Good for Trees

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120424154341.htm

A strange phenomenon has been called to tree physiologists attention. They have found that Red Oaks in New York's central park grow faster than in rural areas due to the increased temperatures that are caused by an urban environment. Due to the prevalence of pavement, numerous metal infrastructures, and gas emissions, the temperature in urban areas can be from 4 to 8 degrees higher than in more wide open, country environments. In this heightened temperature, trees are able to photosynthesize at a faster rate, causing for trees in urban areas to have on average 8 times more biomass than their rural counter parts. Another possible contributing factor to this sped up growth is the increased fallout of airborne nitrogen from pollution, which acts as a fertilizer.

Now, of course, this is not to say that urban pollution should be viewed as something that should continue but, this new discovery is interesting because rarely do we see advantageous side effects of urban evniromentents. This new information could change a lot in respects to urban planning pertaining to what vegetation is planted. Who knows, maybe this could be the first step in greening our brownfields.

Invisible Plastic in Our Oceans!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120425192843.htm

When I hear of the problem of plastic in the ocean, I immediately think of, what has been appropriately titled, the Giant Pacific Garbage Patch- the land mass sized island of plastic debris that has collected in the Pacific Ocean. This plastic island and plastic collected around it may effect a size twice that of Hawaii. While this huge plastic mass is a very visible, daunting reminder of the detrimental effects of our manufactured waste. The terrifying reality is that this is only the "tip of the ice berg, "for according to oceanographer, Giora Proskurowski, there is much more to be accounted for that our eyes cannot see. She has discovered that there exist tiny plastic particles beneath the surface of the sand that are made invisible by high winds. This new information has huge impacts on previous studies conducted to measure the amount of plastic in our oceans because we know know that there is a huge amount that has not been accounted for. The implications of this new discovery are that the methods used to collect plastic waste are now going to take wind into account. This has impacts on environmental policies at the governmental level.

Plastic in our oceans is not only unsightly, but extremely harmful to the ecosystems that thrive within them. These miniscule pieces of plastic are easily ingested by fish and wreak havoc on their digestive systems. What actions can we take to remedy this problem? The problem is already too massive for prevention to do much good, although measures should absolutely be taken to prevent further waste, there needs to be a very aggressive cleanup operation. Where should could this waste be relocated? Do you see this problem ever being remedied? 

Radioactive ecotourism anyone?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/travelnews/2012/01/photogalleries/120105-nuclear-resort-philippines-power-plant/

This is a good, bizarre ending to our semester's blog.  It brings together many of the things we have discussed--radioactivity, ecotourism and authenticity, money and power--but presents it in a bizarre way.  So, what is your next destination: The DMZ, a nuclear reactor/turtle sanctuary, or Chernobyl?

Population and consumption key to future, report says

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17829665

Is this environmental justice?  We are finally acknowledging the need to use indicators besides GDP as a method for estimating development and wellbeing, and we’re admitting that there is a massive overconsumption problem in many developed states. But this article did not seem to give quite the solutions one would expect.  While the article did highlight the need for developed nations to decrease their consumption while at the same time “not affect living standards”, and to “reduce the world’s footprint without reducing the prosperity of its citizens,” it also calls mostly for the use of increased empowerment to reduce the number of children in third world countries, who make up only a fraction of a developed country’s consumption.  Is that justice to pawn off much of our “sustainability” needs on them? 

We are obviously living beyond our means, and it is important to recognize that.  But is it fair to start to tell people what they can and cannot consume, even if it is going to help their personal physical health as well as their overall footprint?  And is giving developing nations an equal share in the “cutting back” process fair as well?  They are not the ones who are facing an “epidemic” of obesity. 

Is there a fair way to save our planet?  Is it possible that we can really reduce our footprint while maintaining—if not enhancing—the prosperity of all Earthlings?  What cost will it come at, since there really is no such thing as a free lunch? Are we expecting this to fix everything, and if so, who will be the ones most effected by whatever plans to go green

This article also goes into detail about how a lot of what is affected by our overconsumption and environmental degradation cannot be measured in a strictly monetary cost-benefit analysis like the GDP measures they have been using.  They cite bee populations as a primary example.  It’s refreshing to see that non-financial effects are finally receiving their due recognition, but will this be enough to convince people that they need to alter their behaviors?  Summer blogged about how people are better about looking at—and cutting back—their consumption when they can see the direct costs and benefits to them.  Are we able to do this when this article is claiming that we’re eating too much and generally over consuming while having copious amounts of babies? 

What do you think?  Is there a fix-all to solve all the problems in this article?  Or are we trying to do too much at one time?  Do you think that all the aspects they cited are what really needs to happen?  Is that justice to try to curve behaviors in what might be a disproportionate, those-who-can-afford-it-get-to-keep-it manner?  Or will some other way need to be looked into?  Maybe a little bit of both?

Coal-fired Power Plants Disproportionately Affect Hispanics in Texas Too!

http://texasvox.org/2011/06/29/air-pollution-an-environmental-justice-issue-for-hispanics/

This Article addresses health risks facing many Hispanic communities in Texas whom are disproportionately affected by poor air quality. The author lists two primary sources of this pollution--diesel engines and coal-fired powered plants.  Although the article is not published in a mainstream media source, it does attempt to cumulatively assess the environmental and health impacts of coal fired power plants and diesel engines on Hispanic populations in Texas. Both the employment and housing situation in Texas brings Hispanic populations into areas with poorer air quality than other ethnic groups. Without coincidence the rates of asthmatic death for non-white peoples in those communities--and across the country--is generally higher. A community’s proximity to a coal-fired power plant obviously endangers their health by polluting the air with carbon emission related particles, and the post cites demographic statistics that include the following excerpted facts: “65 percent of Hispanics live in areas where the air fails to meet federal standards. According to the Clean Air Task Force, Hispanics take in approximately one-and-one-half times the levels diesel exhaust of the average American, resulting in anywhere between 2,000 to 5,000 premature deaths in the Hispanic community annually. Additionally, Hispanics are 3 times as likely as whites to die from asthma.” The post also mentions a statistic that 15% of Hispanics live within 10 miles of a coal-fired power plant. There is much evidence indicating the dangers of elevated mercury released into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants, and cites a report from the Sierra Club which “indicated that mercury—emitted from coal-fired power plants—is present in high levels in rivers and streams that Hispanics fish. Pregnant women are especially susceptible to the harmful effects of eating contaminated fish because mercury poisoning contributes to babies being born with learning disabilities, developmental delays and cerebral palsy.”  The post has a link to A 2007 University of Texas study that found children living within a 2 mile radius of the Ship Channel in Houston had a 56% higher likelihood of developing leukemia that other children and that area of the city is predominantly Hispanic. Although the EPA sets air quality standards for these plants that enforce limits on air pollution for contaminants like lead, ozone, particles, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide, these standards are skirted by local governments through local and state regulation regarding the zoning and permit practices that fail to asses cumulative impact. The post explains how when the companies behind these plants seek to renew or receive permits, the environmental impact of any proposed ‘polluter’ is not assessed properly: “when a polluter applies for an air quality permit, the state environmental agency (the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality – TCEQ) looks only at projected air emission levels from that specific plant.  There is no requirement that they look at the cumulative impacts on air quality and efforts to address cumulative impacts failed to pass in the Texas legislature this past session.” These laws must change and the Texas Commission for Environmental quality obviously need to be reformed in their analytical methodologies that should be designed to protect people, but are obviously protecting profits and industry. This post speaks to the ways that environmental problems intersect issues of race and ethnicity, and is submitted in blog form anonymously. As the internet provides a medium for people of all walks of life to engage with environmental justice issues and learn the relevant ways that these problems are perpetuated, it provides a gleam of hope that science can no longer mislead or minimize the cumulative toxic impacts on communities. It provides citizens access to information on their communities and hopefully with a voice that speak to and bring about changes. 

Coal-fired Power Plants Finally on a Path Toward Closure?

Jose More Photography/Chicago News Cooperative

(above a picture of one of the coal-fired plants on the Illinois-Indiana border slated for closure)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/utilities-announce-closure-of-10-aging-power-plants-in-midwest-east/2012/02/29/gIQANSLEiR_story.html

This article discusses the closings of ten coal fired U.S. power plants. Two of which are in Chicago in the Little Village and Pilsen neighborhoods that have a predominantly Hispanic population. Critics have threatened that closure of the plants will raise energy costs, as environmental groups have applauded the decision. Midwest generation, the company that owns the plants has come under criticism from environmental groups as well as the communities situated near them for their contribution to growing health problems associated with toxicity. These plants not only pollute the air with high carbon emissions, but have also been linked to elevated mercury levels in the air, soil, and water of the surrounding communities. The EPA had responded in December with new rules regulating the mercury and other toxins that these plants release into the atmosphere. The plants are aging and Pedro Pizarro, standing president of the Edison Mission Group that owns Midwest Generation cited new environmental regulation and market influences as reasons that “simply do not give us a path for continuing to invest in further retrofits at these two facilities.” GenOn Energy, another power company announced closings of eight of their plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey for similar reasons, stating: “forecasted returns on investments necessary to comply with environmental regulations are insufficient.” The article quotes Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association: ““These announcements are further proof EPA has dangerously underestimated the impact of its unprecedented roll-out of rules on the reliability of the nation’s electricity grid, as the announced retirements of electricity plants already exceed EPA’s dubious estimate” As these industry representatives complain of the economic impact of these decisions, they are failing to assess the externalized costs for healthcare and other services that these plants create for the low-income, minority, and ethnic communities where they are often located.

In Chicago, the Fisk and Crawford plants have survived in those largely Latino communities since 1968, and 1958, respectively. NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous was quoted in response to the closings  “This agreement means a cleaner, healthier environment for the communities around these coal plants…For too long, Fisk and Crawford have been literally choking some of Chicago’s most diverse neighborhoods, and some of its poorest.”

The closings of these plants are a step towards decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels and will optimally be replaced with more natural gas and renewable energy sources. However natural gas requires pipelines be built which takes a few years, and wind power is intermittent according to Jeffrey Holmstead, a former head of the E.P.A’s air and radiation office under George W. Bush. While these concerns may suggest a temporary rise in fuel costs and the global trajectory suggests an inevitable rise in energy costs throughout the course of forthcoming decades, perhaps this is defensible in light of the health concerns and the need to develop our alternative energy resources. The Sierra club is working towards a goal of retiring 105,000 megawatts of coal-fired energy and replacing it with renewable sources by 2015, and currently mentions 106 plants slated for closure. I feel that coal power is probably the way of the past, and perhaps a squeeze on energy costs is necessary to stimulate innovation and systematic change. 

Walking for the Environment and your Health

http://www.sierraclubgreenhome.com/lifestyle/walking-for-the-environment-and-your-health/

The world, especially Americans, have completely underestimated the power of walking.  The US is home to the largest number of cars in the world, which means all the more carbon emissions and pollution.  Tom Vanderbilt of NPR explains that many parts of the United States are designed specifically for cars and not for pedestrians.  And we can certainly witness that in the intertwining highway systems and traffic-filled streets cutting through our society.  In fact, our dependence on cars is so high that the nonprofit America Walks reported that 41 percent of all trips in the United States are one mile or less, yet less than 10 percent of those are done by walking and biking.  Yes, we know that people are busy and have places to go, but there is too much incidence of Americans using cars when they just don’t need to.  In addition to reducing car emissions, walking has the added benefit to one’s own personal health.  In a country where about 35 percent of adults are obese and 12 million children are obese, taking a walk each day could mean that starting point to better health. 

I am an ardent supporter of walking or biking to locations of short distances.  I find it absolutely irrational to drive children to school if they are fifteen minutes away, and I would always opt to ride my bike to work if it were within 30 minutes away.  I’m happy to say that, recently, there has been a movement in employee wellness programs that reward employees who use some sort of transportation that includes physical exercise.  For example, Google, often commended for their environmentally friendly business practices and employees, have many employees who bike, kayak, and even pogo-stick to work!  Other than the health benefits of walking, I am just worried about our over use of car/motor vehicle transportation.  In examining how human society is relating with our environment, it does seem that much of our land is now used for motor vehicle transportation.  Perhaps our domination of the natural environment wouldn’t be so bad if our motor vehicles didn’t also emit carbon dioxide that pollutes our air.  Can we ever change our world’s transportation system to become environmentally friendly?  How far will we go before our entire earth is filled with roads and highways?