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? 

New Texas Nuclear Waste Dump Site and the Billionaire behind it.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-04/republican-donor-simmons-seeks-rule-to-fill-texas-dump#p1

This article published in Bloomberg Business Week discusses a nuclear waste dumpsite in West Texas that has already been built, and is currently in the process of seeking government approval to be filled. For this to happen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must change some federal rules for dumping such waste. This would be a multi-billion dollar industry, and a certain proponent of the site is doing everything he can to influence authorities through lobbying, donations, and other methods to make that happen.

The article also discusses the man behind the dump, Harold Simmons, an 80-year-old native Texan hailing from the small northeastern town of Golden whom made his Bloomberg estimated 6.5 billion dollar fortune through involvement in a number of businesses and industries, many of which were not exactly environmentally friendly. He was a former executive at NL industries, once called national lead company, who conducted lead mining in America for well over a century and were the leading source for lead in paint products like Dutchboy, before they diversified into titanium dioxide based paints, atomic bomb elements, ball bearing slides, solder, pipes. By the 1950’s National lead had mostly stopped mining and instead imported its lead and bought ore from mines in the Adirondacks, Quebec, Norway, Cuba, and Australia. The company also made products used in castor oil, oil drills, airplanes, and rayon. In the 1970’s many of their weapons plants were tested and proven to be contaminated areas, including a national lead plant in Fernald Ohio that produced high-level uranium. A decade later in the 1980’s, a subsidiary of national lead agreed to a multi-billion dollar cleanup plan. The article details the innumerable political donations and lobbying that Simmons has handed out throughout the second half of this century to secure his industrial business interests. Simmons’ has been in trouble before, by 1974 he had been indicted and acquitted for both wire and mail fraud, and was targeted by a lawsuit leveled against him by the United Auto Workers union for his handlings of their pensions. More popularly he was involved in an unsuccessful attempt to take over Lockheed to drain its pension fund, which was over financed by about 1.4 billion.  He coined the banking approach of “all debt and no equity” a philosophy of capital management wherein he discovered, and I quote: "Small banks in Texas were casual about getting the maximum use of their funds. . . banks were the most highly leveraged thing I saw. They borrowed most of their money and really didn't need much equity except for purposes of public confidence." Realizing that banks could be bought largely with borrowed money and one could be used collaterally to acquire he set out to "buy a bunch, because one bank could be used to finance another. All debt and no equity." His financial dealings are as shady as his industrial.

Unfortunately, we have this waste and something must be done about it. There are federal dumping sites but Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Nuclear Policy has advised government officials that a new dumping area for radioactive waste  (other than the Nevada Yucca Mountains site) is needed, and in 2010, a leader from within Simmons’ Waste Control Specialist company invited public officials on the commission to visit the west Texas site which they propose is the ‘ideal’ geological space for long-term storage of such waste.

Former Texas environmental official, Glenn Lewis, who resigned from his position out of protest over Simmons’ powerful lobbying influence within the state, and lamented that Simmons was likely to find a way to influence the federal avenues of power to get approval to start filling the dump with radioactive waste: Whatever federal switch has to be thrown to get uranium into the hole, believe me, it will be thrown; that’s how Harold Simmons works.”  Chuck McDonald, a spokesman for Waste Control Specialists, said “there really is no connection between Mr. Simmons’s personal political giving, which he has said he is doing because he believes very strongly in pro-business and free enterprise, and anything WCS is doing.”

The article raised a question for me over what we can really do about nuclear waste, and how much influence people like Harold Simmons and the industries they represent have. Simmon’s is Opera Winfrey’s neighbor in Montecito California and has made an appearance on her show, but certainly not to tout his environmentally unfriendly role in industries, it was to talk the prized sweet potato festival of his hometown. He does do a considerable amount of charity but those contributions are shadowed by his political donations to the GOP, while Obama has been in power Simmons has shown his willingness to reach across the aisles with bipartisan support, however, the money does not come without an agenda.  We inevitably generate the waste through our reliance on nuclear power, which begs the question of how we can safely and responsibly dispose of it?  Although it does not contribute to the greenhouse gas emissions that so many are more concerned with in this era of high climate change consciousness, nuclear power and the waste it generates obviously hold many environmental dangers and public health concerns of their own.

Karen Hadden, the director of the Austin-based SEED Coalition, an environmental advocacy group that supports clean air and water in Texas and opposes the site was quoted: “The money is so huge, and the political pressure is so strong -- that’s what we’re dealing with here…Harold Simmons wants it to be a nuclear mega-mall." This is admittedly a difficult issue because it is hard to determine where nuclear waste can be safely and responsibly stored, however, I imagine that Simmons’ site, which is not far from Andrews County, Texas whose capital which has a population of around 15,000, could be facing some environmental and health concerns as a result of this waste. How can Justice be preserved for people and the environment when these industries and billionaires behind them have so much influence? 

Monsanto to Allow Use of Seed After Patent

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/business/18seed.html

This news release came out awhile ago, but I just heard about it in a class on Thursday. Starting in 2014, Monsanto's patent on Roundup Ready soybeans will expire. They will allow farmers to use this seed, and even save it after harvests; a practice that has been illegal since Monsanto has claimed patent rights on their seeds. This is a huge deal for the agriculture industry, since this is the first patent that will be expiring on seeds. Monsanto will for sure lose a lot of money, and farmers will save a lot of money. According to the article, the Roundup Ready soybeans will essentially become equivalent to generic drugs. Many people think that Monsanto will develop a new form of Roundup Ready soybeans to replace the previous patent, and continue their dominance in the soybean market. Monsanto denies these claims, saying that they will not extend any farmer's contract with Roundup Ready soybeans until 2014 when the patent expires, and will let them save their seeds. The whole picture of the future of Roundup Ready soybeans is still unclear, and will be interesting to see what happens in 2014. It sounds like at the end of the article, that there is a second form of Roundup Ready soybeans that will hit the market which promises farmers higher yields and "other desirable traits".

My initial reaction to this was shock. I was amazed that Monsanto was going to sit back and just let this patent expire. This is a major revenue source for them, as they have 90% of the soybean market. This would be a major environmental justice win for the farmers. Will Monsanto release the second form of Roundup Ready soybeans, and continue on their path of not allowing farmers to save that seed? Is this a case of sheer goodwill for Monsanto? I'm still skeptical.

Water In The Time Of Cholera: Haiti's Most Urgent Health Problem

We talked in class on Tuesday about some of the most severe health threats facing developing countries. This article deals with the growing cholera problem in Haiti. Food and water contaminated by human feces can spread cholera. The disease was introduced to the island only 18 months ago, likely via United Nations Peace keeping troops from Nepal. This is a huge problem, especially in Port-au-Prince, where, despite being a city the size of Chicago, there is no sanitation system or sewage infrastructure. Thus, canals throughout the city are filled with human waste and trash and clean water is a rare commodity.

A sliver of hope lies in the nation’s new (and first) sewage treatment facility.  A plant, set to open soon, was built to handle the entire city’s output. The waste will be detoxified and used as agricultural compost. Toilets are also being added at schools in the city. The money to pursue these sanitation practices is coming from the post-quake funds from the Spanish government. Surprisingly, there is some resistance (or apathy) from Haitians who don’t feel like sanitation is an important goal. Sanitation in the country has actually declined over the last 20 years, and it isn’t part of the citizen’s mentality.

Improving sanitation will help stop disease on a local, regional and global level. Locally, it is important to educate citizens on the importance of sanitation and its ties to disease. Regionally and on a national level, infrastructure—like sewage systems—is crucial, especially in such a large city. In addition to the infrastructure upgrades, there is currently a push to vaccinate Haitians with the cholera vaccine. However this plan has been criticized as a distraction from the deeper infrastructure problems. I agree to an extent. Vaccines will help people, but creating the infrastructure to stop the spread of disease is more important and will benefit those with and without the resources to be vaccinated. Infrastructure will also aid the next generations, rather than relying on a steady input of vaccine.  What would you propose as solutions to Haiti’s disease issues? Do you think that vaccines are a practical approach? Is it troubling to you that the infrastructure upgrades are funded by foreign sources?