Change to Natural Gas Fueled Power Plants

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/science/earth/epa-sets-greenhouse-emission-limits-on-new-power-plants.html?_r=1&ref=science

This New York Times article presents the pros, cons, and future challenges of Obama's proposed rule to end coal fueled power plants. The EPA claims that this proposal would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants to 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour. Obama's proposal call for the switch from coal to natural gas. This new rule would only be applied to new plants, leaving old ones unaffected. 

This idea has many proponents as well as opponents. Ms. Jackson called the proposed rules “a common-sense step to reduce pollution in the air, protect the planet for our children and move us into a new era of American energy.” I feel that this opinion rings of exaggeration of the proposals effects and is limited in its scope. The proposal, while reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the US, is not dramatic enough in my opinion. I feel that a more effective way to implement this proposal would be to make it applicable to all plants, old and new. If there is a change to be made, why not make it more widespread, and thus more effective? I also think that Ms. Jackson's idea of protecting our planet for future generations and providing them with "a new era of American Energy" is limited in its scope. She fails to take into account that with the change to natural gasses, that we will be reliant on those countries which provide it, seeing as the US is not the most lucrative source. Rick Santorum (in a very exaggerated manner) addresses Ms. Jackson's failings in claiming, "President Obama’s environmental agenda kills American jobs, creates higher energy prices and weakens our nation’s security,” he said. “America is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and we could create our own energy if the government would let us.  Instead, Barack Obama would rather pick winners and losers in the energy field.”

This proposal, and the subsequent reactions to it, beg the question: Which do we hold to be of upmost importance A) reducing the harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere? or B) whether or not we are a "winner" or a "loser" in the energy field? 

In New Copenhagen Suburbs, Aim is Sustainable Living

In New Copenhagen Suburbs, Aim is Sustainable Living           

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/business/energy-environment/in-new-copenhagen-suburbs-aim-is-sustainable-living.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=architecture

The situation in Copenhagen is characterized paradoxes.  As they anticipate expansion, they also look to reduce their environmental footprint.  As they work to improve and develop and network of mass transit, they also hope to eliminate commuting altogether.  In this way it is also characterized by connections.  Copenhagen’s internal and external connections are a means of enhancing the vivacity of the place.  In addition to infrastructural connections, they connect with the Swedish city of Malmo via a rail bridge-tunnel.  This connection is economically beneficial. 

The developments serve as a testing ground for urban and architectural ideas.  While planned cities have long histories, they are still developing to better meet the needs of communities.  There exist examples from as early as the 17^th century that are now considered natural parts of the city.  They have the capacity to become well integrated.  When they are planned carefully and purposefully, they can better address the needs of a community.  The author suggests that they should be developed from the bottom up, not from the top down, so that they better address the human scale.       

Implementing major changes in anticipation for growth is perhaps an appropriate opportunity to make changes for more sustainable living.  Will it be possible to be more conscientious while looking to account for the needs of 100,000 more people in a decade, or will those needs become more pressing than the need to be green?  Is it justifiable for so many resources to go into a single planned community when others are struggling, or will it ultimately end up preventing enough waste to justify it?

Opening a Detention Center: Environmental Injustice?

Community members of Fulton County, Georgia are complaining about a youth detention center set to open in the area next month. In fact, many residents are making claims that the building of the facility is a prime example of environmental injustice. The center will sit near a cluster of surrounding neighborhoods as well as a daycare. The location of the facility, specifically its proximity to the daycare center has raised many concerns among Fulton County residents. Many people are concerned that one of the inmates will escape from the center and cause harm to the children at Sheltering Arms Learning Center located one block away. While these concerns are not entirely far-fetched, they do seem a bit exaggerated considering the large barbed wire fence, full 24 hour security staff, and extensive camera system which are in place to secure the center.

Another issue raised by the community is the lack of communication with The Department of Juvenile Justice. Neighbors have complained that they were completely unaware that the center was being built in their area while the Department insists that the community was well informed every step of the way. Until more information is released concerning the issue it cannot be determined whether the placement of the facility is truly an example of environmental injustice or not. In the traditional sense, the construction of the center does not pose an immediate threat to the community, but as previously mentioned, the potential for future problems must also be considered. Is environmental injustice only concerned with threats of contamination and other physical health hazards? Should this instance in Fulton County be categorized under a different heading? Do you think this is really a calculated targeting of an African-American community? The locals certainly think so. In the words of one of the local residents, "they wouldn't do this up north."

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/neighbors-upset-over-new-youth-detention-center-se/nLgSr/

Coastal Authority Approves $50 Billion Plan for Hurricane Protection in Louisiana

http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/03/coastal_authority_approves_50-.html

One of the articles we focused on during Tuesday's class discussed Louisiana's environmental problems, social inequalities, and low status in the United States. Many of the political, social, and environmental problems of Louisiana surfaced after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. Now, after years of negotiations between locals, politicians, scientists, and engineers, a plan has been put in place which allocates $50 billion for coastal restoration and hurricane storm surge protection.

The financial plan attempts to meet the diverse needs of locals. North shore communities were angry because they felt they were not being provided an equal amount of protection as the communities located on the South shore. In order to alleviate tensions between communities, $75 million is going toward building a barrier and surge gate. Also, after citizens from Lafitte and surrounding communities complained about their lack of protection, $870 million was allocated towards a levee which protects against storm surges. The article states that the plan also aims to promote confidence in local fishermen who think that freshwater diversions will decrease their commercial yield.

While the class reading focused primarily on disparities between Louisiana and other U.S. states, this article highlights inequalities that exist on the local level, between communities. It also demonstrates the potential locals possess to have their unique needs met. These communities were well organized and aggressive when voicing their needs to state legislators.

Do you think these efforts will be enough to protect the individuals of Louisiana? Will this large sum of money fix the social problems within the state? What do you think is the most effective way to promote equality between states? Is America truly unaware of the problems facing Louisiana and only concerned about rising oil prices? $50 billion is a significant amount of money... Who's interests are paramount in the passage of this plan? The national government, oil companies, Louisianians, local communities?