Pressing environmental news example for today:
In the island nation of Papua New Guinea, in the Indonesian archipelago, indigenous people and their tribal chiefs are fighting a giant palm oil company out of Malaysia called KLK - Kuala Lumpur Kepong, who has moved in to their land in Collingwood Bay, Papua New Guinea, a pristine land and marine environment upon which the people depend on for their economic sustenance. The regional government has apparently given KLK a commercial lease on this land to raze down the trees and peat bogs, but the people and their tribal leaders have not been consulted. The international bank HSBC is funding KLK's palm oil ventures. Another example of how today's globalism is a modern-day version of the robber baron acts of previous centuries.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Thursday, July 25, 2013
New insights, new potential discoveries with wide-ranging applications in clean energy and clean manufacturing processes seem to be happening every other week or so. It is simply amazing to read about the regular and rapid advancements and progress being made in areas such as wind energy installations, recycling of waste, portable ovens powered by the sun, photovoltaic solar energy cells, the harnessing of tidal waves for energy, and so forth. It is also distressing to hear and read about continuing "accidents" that cause spills of oil and gas into the environment. In the spring of this year in Arkansas, a burst underground oil pipe owned by Exxon Mobil spilled toxic oil into the homes and properties of hundreds of homes. Many of these homes are not fit for residence and will need to be razed down, if this hasn't happened already. This is just one of many burst oil pipes that are occurring in the U.S. and Canada on a regular basis. There are several websites that list and display where and when these failures are happening, the Sierra Club being one of them.
So, what definitely is unfolding in front of the nation's eyes is a dramatic opposition between the old world's dirty energy practices and beliefs and dogma and the new world's clean energy emerging and demonstrated technologies, beliefs, and creeds. The evidence for the severe shortcomings and injurious risks of the old world's energy dogmas is ample: the continuing oil pipeline spills, the huge BP oil spill in 2010, the massive coal ash spill in Tennessee a few years ago, and the list goes on and on. The evidence for hugely-increased risks of grave damage to the environment is being demonstrated by the multiple barrages of anti-environmental legislation being levied by the rabid, pro-pollution congresspersons in our Congress. They are coming out with drastic cuts to the EPA, huge and wide exemptions for polluters to increase their polluting activities, and reducing if not eliminating any accountability for their pollution and continuing accidents.
On the other hand, we are seeing this new wave of exciting and promising developments that is rapidly opening doors to a clean energy economy that can be, and is being, established now. One of these latest developments is an environmentally-friendly battery made from wood upon which sodium ions are set within a base of tin on the wood. These sodium ions apparently can conduct electricity just as well as lithium ions, without the destructive environmental impact that lithium has. And the wooden base is supple and flexible, able to hold the sodium ion-laden water much better than the stiff bases seen in the batteries of today. If you would like to read more about this, here is a link to the scientific article: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl400998t
Think green, think clean! (TM, 2013)
So, what definitely is unfolding in front of the nation's eyes is a dramatic opposition between the old world's dirty energy practices and beliefs and dogma and the new world's clean energy emerging and demonstrated technologies, beliefs, and creeds. The evidence for the severe shortcomings and injurious risks of the old world's energy dogmas is ample: the continuing oil pipeline spills, the huge BP oil spill in 2010, the massive coal ash spill in Tennessee a few years ago, and the list goes on and on. The evidence for hugely-increased risks of grave damage to the environment is being demonstrated by the multiple barrages of anti-environmental legislation being levied by the rabid, pro-pollution congresspersons in our Congress. They are coming out with drastic cuts to the EPA, huge and wide exemptions for polluters to increase their polluting activities, and reducing if not eliminating any accountability for their pollution and continuing accidents.
On the other hand, we are seeing this new wave of exciting and promising developments that is rapidly opening doors to a clean energy economy that can be, and is being, established now. One of these latest developments is an environmentally-friendly battery made from wood upon which sodium ions are set within a base of tin on the wood. These sodium ions apparently can conduct electricity just as well as lithium ions, without the destructive environmental impact that lithium has. And the wooden base is supple and flexible, able to hold the sodium ion-laden water much better than the stiff bases seen in the batteries of today. If you would like to read more about this, here is a link to the scientific article: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl400998t
Think green, think clean! (TM, 2013)
Friday, November 30, 2012
Effects from climate change trending more visible
A husband and wife who both are scientists have been going for years to tiny Tatoosh Island, off the coast of Washington State, for many years now. Dr. Cathy Pfister and her husband, Timothy Wootton, are both biology professors at the University of Chicago, and first began traveling to the island in the 1980s along with their then-graduate adviser, Robert T. Paine (Solie, New York Times, Oct. 7, 2012, 22), a now-retired zoology professor.
Drs. Pfister and Wootton have been measuring the pH balance of the Pacific Ocean's waters off the island since 2000 and have been registering a steady decline in the pH since then. The pair of scientists, along with many others, attribute this decline to the increasing deposit of carbon dioxide, C02, in the ocean waters which occurs as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere by way of the "greenhouse effect." Their pH measurements have been confirmed by many other scientists.
Pfister and Wootton have linked the increasing CO2 in the ocean waters to a decrease in the hardness and durability of the exoskeletons of mussels and goose barnacles, and in coralline algae that latch onto rocky shorelines (Solie 22). Simultaneously, the scientists have observed a decrease in the population of the island's bird populations of gulls and murres, which depend on these shell animals for food. They say that the populations of these birds are a mere half of what they were 10 years ago. Pfister and Wootton find this drop in population to be disturbing, and they regard this, along with the increased acidity in the ocean waters due to CO2 absorption and the weakening of shell animals, to be a danger signal for how climate change is altering long- established relationships in the natural environment.
People, please pay attention to this, and to other communications from the scientific community regarding the effects of climate change. This dedicated wife-husband team of scientists are not necessarily traveling to this water-drenched island, living in a one-room cabin with their children, for their personal enjoyment, although it may be quite invigorating and healthy to breathe in the fresh, ocean air!
Drs. Pfister and Wootton have been measuring the pH balance of the Pacific Ocean's waters off the island since 2000 and have been registering a steady decline in the pH since then. The pair of scientists, along with many others, attribute this decline to the increasing deposit of carbon dioxide, C02, in the ocean waters which occurs as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere by way of the "greenhouse effect." Their pH measurements have been confirmed by many other scientists.
Pfister and Wootton have linked the increasing CO2 in the ocean waters to a decrease in the hardness and durability of the exoskeletons of mussels and goose barnacles, and in coralline algae that latch onto rocky shorelines (Solie 22). Simultaneously, the scientists have observed a decrease in the population of the island's bird populations of gulls and murres, which depend on these shell animals for food. They say that the populations of these birds are a mere half of what they were 10 years ago. Pfister and Wootton find this drop in population to be disturbing, and they regard this, along with the increased acidity in the ocean waters due to CO2 absorption and the weakening of shell animals, to be a danger signal for how climate change is altering long- established relationships in the natural environment.
People, please pay attention to this, and to other communications from the scientific community regarding the effects of climate change. This dedicated wife-husband team of scientists are not necessarily traveling to this water-drenched island, living in a one-room cabin with their children, for their personal enjoyment, although it may be quite invigorating and healthy to breathe in the fresh, ocean air!
Thursday, September 27, 2012
The push to carry out hydro-fracturing operations ("fracking") is widespread and growing in our country as well as abroad, and it is worrying. Despite industry's claims that they are using safe procedures and that there are no harmful side effects from drilling deep into subterranean rocky surfaces to extract natural gas and oil, the facts are that there are numerous, very toxic side products that result from the use of toxic chemicals in the extraction process. Because of the depths accessed in hydro-fracturing, much of these toxic chemicals are left behind in the depths and the opportunity for these chemicals to migrate into underground water supplies is considerable. In fact, this has already happened to water supplies of residents in various states, and just recently the EPA has made a determination of "likely" that hydro-fracturing related contamination of underground water deposits has occurred in the state of Washington. In addition to the use of toxic chemicals, huge amounts of valuable water is used in the fracturing process.
It is important that citizens decide what they think about this important issue and take a subsequent stand. If you are for reasonable and needed regulation of fracturing, which currently is not regulated at all, then please call your congressperson and request that such regulation and control be put into law. Thanks!
It is important that citizens decide what they think about this important issue and take a subsequent stand. If you are for reasonable and needed regulation of fracturing, which currently is not regulated at all, then please call your congressperson and request that such regulation and control be put into law. Thanks!
Friday, November 11, 2011
Good News for Biofuels and Congratulations to Continental-United Airlines
It is nice, for a change, to hear about one of our nation's giant commercial operators, that being Continental-United Airlines, putting into action some of the "green" promises and announcements that so many companies have been issuing lately. On Monday, November 7th, the airline flew a Boeing 737-800 plane from Houston to Chicago's O'Hare airport using a fuel blend that partially consisted (40 percent) of oil produced by genetically modified algae that feed off plant waste and produces oil. Imagine that, folks! And to boot, Alaska Airlines, on Wednesday, November 9th, was scheduled to begin flights over the next several weeks utilizing a fuel blend containing 20 percent recycled cooking oil, with the company claiming that the biofuel blend will reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent. Again, how about that, folks!
Yes, there still remain formidable challenges and problems to overcome and solve but the situation here is excitingly clear: the airlines have begun the commercialization of a clean energy source, and they being major consumers of fossil fuels as well as significant producers of carbon emissions (2 percent of total carbon emissions in 2000, on the way to 3 percent by 2030), this is good news indeed. Major beneficiaries include our overloaded atmosphere, our burgeoning clean energy industry, including its investors, and people, plants, and animals everywhere. Congratulations to Continental-United Airlines, to Alaska Airlines, and to Solazyme Inc., the company which produced and provided the biofuel for Monday's Continental flight. May you put those algae to good use!
Yes, there still remain formidable challenges and problems to overcome and solve but the situation here is excitingly clear: the airlines have begun the commercialization of a clean energy source, and they being major consumers of fossil fuels as well as significant producers of carbon emissions (2 percent of total carbon emissions in 2000, on the way to 3 percent by 2030), this is good news indeed. Major beneficiaries include our overloaded atmosphere, our burgeoning clean energy industry, including its investors, and people, plants, and animals everywhere. Congratulations to Continental-United Airlines, to Alaska Airlines, and to Solazyme Inc., the company which produced and provided the biofuel for Monday's Continental flight. May you put those algae to good use!
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
A way to quantify a major environmental benefit
Amidst the woefully ignorant din and clamor of the anti-environmentalists in Congress feverishly working to strip our nation's environmental laws and protections for the sake of these representatives' business bidders and masters, it was heartening and enlightening to learn about the results of a series of studies first begun in the mid-nineties and carried on for several years later.
The initial question poised for the study was: "Don't trees clean the air?," asked by the then- current mayor of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, Jr., in 1989. A series of other questions followed such as: "What is the character of an American urban forest? How did trees interact with the ecosystem? Do they really affect air quality?" Daley started an ambitious tree-planting program at that time but wanting to find some answers as well, he obtained federal funding for a study progam through the efforts of long-time North Shore representative Sidney R. Yates (D-Ill). The first fruits of this study was titled "The Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project." Several facts were revealed including: the Chicago metro area's urban forest contained roughly 51 million trees, two-thirds of which were in "good or excellent condition." And, in Chicago, the street trees made up only a tenth of the urban forest, buy they provided a quarter of the tree canopy. And, the canopy shaded only 11 percent of the city, less than half of the proportion city officials believed was ideal (Jonnes, Jill, The Wilson Quarterly, Winter 2011, p. 38).
A panapoly of other facts emerged from the study: in 1991, trees in Chicago removed an estimated 17 tons of carbon monoxide, 93 tons of sulfur dioxide, 98 tons of nitrogen dioxide, 210 tons of ozone, and 234 tons of particulate matter. And that's not counting the 155,000 tons of carbon dioxide that our trees in Chicago sequestered a year. Sad to say, that impressive amount accounts only for the tons of carbon put out by motor vehicles in the Chicago area during one week. But, as the author notes, "over time, the urban forest could sequester as much as eight times more carbon if the city planted greater numbers of large, long-lived species such as oaks or London planes and actively nurtured existing trees to full maturity." She states that a large tree that lives on for many decades or even a couple of centuries is able to "sequester a thousand times more carbon than, say, a crab apple with a life span of 10 or 20 years."
Regrettably, Mayor Daley did not whole-heartedly adopt the implications of this groundbreaking report. He supported the planting of trees in the city but not in the larger-scaled, strategic manner that the report recommended. Nevertheless, his support pushed forward in a big way the study of trees and their public health implications for urban areas and the citizens who live in these areas. In 993, the Sacramento Municipal Utility did a large-scale assessment study after it had planted 110,000 trees in the front yards of residential customers for free. Among other things, the study found that "a tree planted to the west of a house saved about three times more energy ($120 versus $39) in a year than the same kind of tree planted to the south." The utility's shade program "collectively saves the utility from having to supply $1.2 million worth of electricity annually (_39).
In 2006, in New York City, the Parks Department asked the original study's authors to assess the value of all of the city's 592,000 street trees. The lead authors, by this time, had significantly more sophisticated data tools on hand, and were able to determine for the department that the city's street trees delivered an annual energy savings of roughly $28 million, or $47. 63 per tree. The researchers then calculated multiple other parameters such as savings to stormwater systems through the trees' interception of rainwater ($35.6 million annually); removal of air pollutants ($5 million annually); and a host of other compounding factors such as: hospital patients who could see a tree out of their room were discharged a day earlier than others who could not; shopping areas with trees had more customers than areas that did not; public-housing projects that had leafy tree areas suffered less violence than bare, tree-less projects, and so forth. Together these assessments and findings delivered a summary value of $122 million per year in savings to New York City, or about $209 per tree. This is truly amazing, both for the value that our trees serve up and for the data-finding abilities of these reports. These findings offer a promising potential to turn the minds and mindsets of those radical extremists who are frothing at the bit to remove environmental protections, to dismiss out of hand any efforts to establish a mutually-beneficial relationship with the environment that supplies us with pretty much all of our essential needs. All they do is to chant the jobs mantra. Well, how many jobs do they really think they are going to create as they tear up our nation's national parks, devastate through pollution our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams, and clog our nation's air with mercury, particulates, sulfur dioxide and all the other pestilences? And what kind of variety in jobs do they promise? And at what kind of salaries?
The data from these studies add significant support to the contentions and calls for a positive, supportive approach to our environment as we continue to draw out from it the natural resources that we require, and also over-require through greed and very high expectations for our quality of life. Thanks for reading my blog. I hope you will gain something valuable and important from this.
Note: The authors of these studies along with other professionals have come up with a free software progam called i-Tree which now has the ability to quantify the monetary benefits of any urban tree in America.
The initial question poised for the study was: "Don't trees clean the air?," asked by the then- current mayor of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, Jr., in 1989. A series of other questions followed such as: "What is the character of an American urban forest? How did trees interact with the ecosystem? Do they really affect air quality?" Daley started an ambitious tree-planting program at that time but wanting to find some answers as well, he obtained federal funding for a study progam through the efforts of long-time North Shore representative Sidney R. Yates (D-Ill). The first fruits of this study was titled "The Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project." Several facts were revealed including: the Chicago metro area's urban forest contained roughly 51 million trees, two-thirds of which were in "good or excellent condition." And, in Chicago, the street trees made up only a tenth of the urban forest, buy they provided a quarter of the tree canopy. And, the canopy shaded only 11 percent of the city, less than half of the proportion city officials believed was ideal (Jonnes, Jill, The Wilson Quarterly, Winter 2011, p. 38).
A panapoly of other facts emerged from the study: in 1991, trees in Chicago removed an estimated 17 tons of carbon monoxide, 93 tons of sulfur dioxide, 98 tons of nitrogen dioxide, 210 tons of ozone, and 234 tons of particulate matter. And that's not counting the 155,000 tons of carbon dioxide that our trees in Chicago sequestered a year. Sad to say, that impressive amount accounts only for the tons of carbon put out by motor vehicles in the Chicago area during one week. But, as the author notes, "over time, the urban forest could sequester as much as eight times more carbon if the city planted greater numbers of large, long-lived species such as oaks or London planes and actively nurtured existing trees to full maturity." She states that a large tree that lives on for many decades or even a couple of centuries is able to "sequester a thousand times more carbon than, say, a crab apple with a life span of 10 or 20 years."
Regrettably, Mayor Daley did not whole-heartedly adopt the implications of this groundbreaking report. He supported the planting of trees in the city but not in the larger-scaled, strategic manner that the report recommended. Nevertheless, his support pushed forward in a big way the study of trees and their public health implications for urban areas and the citizens who live in these areas. In 993, the Sacramento Municipal Utility did a large-scale assessment study after it had planted 110,000 trees in the front yards of residential customers for free. Among other things, the study found that "a tree planted to the west of a house saved about three times more energy ($120 versus $39) in a year than the same kind of tree planted to the south." The utility's shade program "collectively saves the utility from having to supply $1.2 million worth of electricity annually (_39).
In 2006, in New York City, the Parks Department asked the original study's authors to assess the value of all of the city's 592,000 street trees. The lead authors, by this time, had significantly more sophisticated data tools on hand, and were able to determine for the department that the city's street trees delivered an annual energy savings of roughly $28 million, or $47. 63 per tree. The researchers then calculated multiple other parameters such as savings to stormwater systems through the trees' interception of rainwater ($35.6 million annually); removal of air pollutants ($5 million annually); and a host of other compounding factors such as: hospital patients who could see a tree out of their room were discharged a day earlier than others who could not; shopping areas with trees had more customers than areas that did not; public-housing projects that had leafy tree areas suffered less violence than bare, tree-less projects, and so forth. Together these assessments and findings delivered a summary value of $122 million per year in savings to New York City, or about $209 per tree. This is truly amazing, both for the value that our trees serve up and for the data-finding abilities of these reports. These findings offer a promising potential to turn the minds and mindsets of those radical extremists who are frothing at the bit to remove environmental protections, to dismiss out of hand any efforts to establish a mutually-beneficial relationship with the environment that supplies us with pretty much all of our essential needs. All they do is to chant the jobs mantra. Well, how many jobs do they really think they are going to create as they tear up our nation's national parks, devastate through pollution our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams, and clog our nation's air with mercury, particulates, sulfur dioxide and all the other pestilences? And what kind of variety in jobs do they promise? And at what kind of salaries?
The data from these studies add significant support to the contentions and calls for a positive, supportive approach to our environment as we continue to draw out from it the natural resources that we require, and also over-require through greed and very high expectations for our quality of life. Thanks for reading my blog. I hope you will gain something valuable and important from this.
Note: The authors of these studies along with other professionals have come up with a free software progam called i-Tree which now has the ability to quantify the monetary benefits of any urban tree in America.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Fish-eating coal power plants
<object width="644" height="458"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="movie" value="http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/fishchopper/coalwater.swf%22%3E%3C/param%3E%3Cparam name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/fishchopper/coalwater.swf" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="644" height="458" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Many of us may not be aware of it, perhaps many are, but our nation's power plants, pretty much all fed by coal, are slicing and dicing millions of the fish that live in the streams, rivers, and lakes upon which the power plants are situated. Power plants do this unfortunate, brutal, and, now unnecessary, act by drawing in millions of gallons of water per day to cool their power equipment inside their plants. They then shoot out the water back to where it came from but now, the water is warmed considerably and is not conducive at all to survival of the remaining fish and plants in the rivers, streams, and lakes. And, as noted already, the fish that are drawn in are chopped up into countless bits. Besides killing the fish, this process also endangers all the marine life, insects, plants, and animals, that depend on these fish for their nutrition and survival, as well do the fishermen and sportsmen who fish from these waters.
There is now a new technology that can be installed by the power companies that can reduce the intake of water for cooling purposes by some 97% percent or so. But, as usual, the power companies don't want to pay for this new technology, and they are pressing the EPA very hard to exempt them from having to adopt newer, stringent standards regulating the use of our nation's waters for industrial cooling purposes. It seems that industry in America has the opinion that they have the exclusive right to use and exploit our nation's resources in the same, old ways that they have been doing it for decades, and centuries, really. But the rest of us have to change, don't we? So why shouldn't they as well?
Above this article, there are two links to an informative and colorful animation that depicts the practice of power plants drawing in huge amounts of water, killing millions of fish, and also verbalizes these companies' selfish attitude and stubborn refusal to change their position on this matter. Please take a look at this great animation and then sign the petition that's on the website of the Sierra Club urging the EPA to hold these selfish and greedy power plants to the new proposed standards. Come on, are you really fine with having Charlie the tunafish and all his relatives and friends sucked into massive turbine engines that cut them all up into microscopic pieces??
Thanks!
Many of us may not be aware of it, perhaps many are, but our nation's power plants, pretty much all fed by coal, are slicing and dicing millions of the fish that live in the streams, rivers, and lakes upon which the power plants are situated. Power plants do this unfortunate, brutal, and, now unnecessary, act by drawing in millions of gallons of water per day to cool their power equipment inside their plants. They then shoot out the water back to where it came from but now, the water is warmed considerably and is not conducive at all to survival of the remaining fish and plants in the rivers, streams, and lakes. And, as noted already, the fish that are drawn in are chopped up into countless bits. Besides killing the fish, this process also endangers all the marine life, insects, plants, and animals, that depend on these fish for their nutrition and survival, as well do the fishermen and sportsmen who fish from these waters.
There is now a new technology that can be installed by the power companies that can reduce the intake of water for cooling purposes by some 97% percent or so. But, as usual, the power companies don't want to pay for this new technology, and they are pressing the EPA very hard to exempt them from having to adopt newer, stringent standards regulating the use of our nation's waters for industrial cooling purposes. It seems that industry in America has the opinion that they have the exclusive right to use and exploit our nation's resources in the same, old ways that they have been doing it for decades, and centuries, really. But the rest of us have to change, don't we? So why shouldn't they as well?
Above this article, there are two links to an informative and colorful animation that depicts the practice of power plants drawing in huge amounts of water, killing millions of fish, and also verbalizes these companies' selfish attitude and stubborn refusal to change their position on this matter. Please take a look at this great animation and then sign the petition that's on the website of the Sierra Club urging the EPA to hold these selfish and greedy power plants to the new proposed standards. Come on, are you really fine with having Charlie the tunafish and all his relatives and friends sucked into massive turbine engines that cut them all up into microscopic pieces??
Thanks!
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Another example of the risk in private companies owning and operating our natural resources.
Environmental Accident Occurs Tuesday Morning, April 5, in Tennessee.
1.2 to 3.2 million gallons of storm and sewage water, apparently without solid waste, has surged out a sewage holding tank attached to a sewage treatment plant located in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. The tank collapsed early Tuesday morning. The tank and the entire sewage treatment plant is operated by Chicago-based Veolia Water, a for-profit water management firm.
The holding tank is 70 feet wide, 40 feet high, and has 12-inch reinforced concrete walls. A photo shows a section of the walls that has been blown out. Two workers at the plant are missing and a search for them is underway. The sewage is flowing directly into Gatlinburg which is the main entrance to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
More than 2.62 inches of rain fell in the national park in the 24 hours prior to the breach Tuesday morning. Personnel from the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and the National Park Service are on the scene.
Note: The content of this news brief comes from a report from the Associated Press found on the newspage for Earthlink, Inc., on April 5, 2011. The words and sentences have been paraphrased by this blog writer but all credit goes to the Associated Press.
Commentary
Unfortunately, this is yet another environmental disaster to afflict Tennessee in the last 18 months or so, and like the previous disaster having to do with the breeching of a giant coal sludge retention pond, this disaster also has to do with a retention pond, this time retaining, or supposed to be retaining, excess sewage water prior to it being transferred to the treatment plant. From what I recall, the giant coal sludge pond was managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the huge, quasi-governmental agency created back in the 1930s for the purpose of bringing electricity for the first time to the isolated, rural communities of Tennessee. The sewage plant involved in this present disaster is managed by Veolia Water. Veolia Water has been granted long-term management leases of several water districts in the U.S., including here in the State of Illinois, if I am not mistaken. It is companies like these who are pushing mightily to be granted long-term management rights to the water supplies of cities nationwide, including cities like Chicago, my home city. These companies are also pushing to be granted monopolistic, ownership rights to our nation's rivers and streams, all with the promise that they can deliver water service more efficiently, at a better price, and at equal levels, if not higher, of safety.
Oh really? From what I've read, many of the towns and counties that have turned their water departments to Veolia and other such firms are now desperately looking for ways to get out of their contracts seeing that the prices for delivery have gone up as high as seven times, and the quality and reliability of the service has notably declined. Our outgoing mayor, Richard M. Daley, has said on several occasions how he's been seriously considering outsourcing the drinking water of our city. Our incoming mayor, Rahm Emmanuel, has been rather vague and inconsistent on this proposal, at one time saying he definitely would not consider outsourcing any more of our city's public assets, and at other times saying that he would look into such possibilities.
Outrageous. If the events at this Tennessee sewage plant are any indication of the reliability and efficiency that for-profit firms are promising in return for taking over public natural resources, and then take into account the history so far of their other water management deals, I say the ideas and proposals to continue with this short-sighted, indeed blind, way of executing the public's business is a definite NO. If these companies succeed in obtaining more such contracts, which is fairly likely, it seems, then you and I can look forward to many more spills, breeches, water contaminations, etc., like we're seeing today in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Think about it. If you agree with me, then stand up and voice your concern. Say NO WAY to further privatization of our natural resources, and public assets of any type.
Thanks!
1.2 to 3.2 million gallons of storm and sewage water, apparently without solid waste, has surged out a sewage holding tank attached to a sewage treatment plant located in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. The tank collapsed early Tuesday morning. The tank and the entire sewage treatment plant is operated by Chicago-based Veolia Water, a for-profit water management firm.
The holding tank is 70 feet wide, 40 feet high, and has 12-inch reinforced concrete walls. A photo shows a section of the walls that has been blown out. Two workers at the plant are missing and a search for them is underway. The sewage is flowing directly into Gatlinburg which is the main entrance to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
More than 2.62 inches of rain fell in the national park in the 24 hours prior to the breach Tuesday morning. Personnel from the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and the National Park Service are on the scene.
Note: The content of this news brief comes from a report from the Associated Press found on the newspage for Earthlink, Inc., on April 5, 2011. The words and sentences have been paraphrased by this blog writer but all credit goes to the Associated Press.
Commentary
Unfortunately, this is yet another environmental disaster to afflict Tennessee in the last 18 months or so, and like the previous disaster having to do with the breeching of a giant coal sludge retention pond, this disaster also has to do with a retention pond, this time retaining, or supposed to be retaining, excess sewage water prior to it being transferred to the treatment plant. From what I recall, the giant coal sludge pond was managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the huge, quasi-governmental agency created back in the 1930s for the purpose of bringing electricity for the first time to the isolated, rural communities of Tennessee. The sewage plant involved in this present disaster is managed by Veolia Water. Veolia Water has been granted long-term management leases of several water districts in the U.S., including here in the State of Illinois, if I am not mistaken. It is companies like these who are pushing mightily to be granted long-term management rights to the water supplies of cities nationwide, including cities like Chicago, my home city. These companies are also pushing to be granted monopolistic, ownership rights to our nation's rivers and streams, all with the promise that they can deliver water service more efficiently, at a better price, and at equal levels, if not higher, of safety.
Oh really? From what I've read, many of the towns and counties that have turned their water departments to Veolia and other such firms are now desperately looking for ways to get out of their contracts seeing that the prices for delivery have gone up as high as seven times, and the quality and reliability of the service has notably declined. Our outgoing mayor, Richard M. Daley, has said on several occasions how he's been seriously considering outsourcing the drinking water of our city. Our incoming mayor, Rahm Emmanuel, has been rather vague and inconsistent on this proposal, at one time saying he definitely would not consider outsourcing any more of our city's public assets, and at other times saying that he would look into such possibilities.
Outrageous. If the events at this Tennessee sewage plant are any indication of the reliability and efficiency that for-profit firms are promising in return for taking over public natural resources, and then take into account the history so far of their other water management deals, I say the ideas and proposals to continue with this short-sighted, indeed blind, way of executing the public's business is a definite NO. If these companies succeed in obtaining more such contracts, which is fairly likely, it seems, then you and I can look forward to many more spills, breeches, water contaminations, etc., like we're seeing today in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Think about it. If you agree with me, then stand up and voice your concern. Say NO WAY to further privatization of our natural resources, and public assets of any type.
Thanks!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Preparing for electric cars' entry into the market
Greetings everyone,
Yes, it's been three months since I've last posted. Shame on me. Then again, it doesn't appear that anyone has read my blog on environmental matters yet, so I guess I don't need to feel too ashamed. I still have hope that I will, someday, gain some interested readers.
Well, the blog news today is about electric vehicles, specifically how some companies are ramping up their charging technology and marketing plans to provide a feasible way to provide electric charging service for those brave folks, admittedly few still, who are, and will be, purchasing all-electric or mostly electric vehicles (such as the Chevy Volt) in the very near future. For those electric car owners who don't own their homes, and thus do not have a garage in which they can plug their cars in, say overnight, to charge them up, the company 350 Green LLC, based out of San Diego, California, has agreements with the city of Chicago to install 73 public charging stations within city's metro area by the end of 2011. The agreements call for a total of 280 charging stations with no specific date mentioned in the Chicago Tribune articles of February 16 and 27, 2011 (Please see the Business sections for both dates).
Isn't that amazing? Our city, Chicago, is actually taking real and tangible steps toward the realization of electric vehicle power here and now, in the present. I find this simply wonderful, despite the risks and potential pitfalls. And there seems to plenty of those to chew on. Without getting into too much detail here, one problem has to do with the charging power of the stations to be installed.
The first 73 stations, Level 1 stations, will have quick-charging sockets that will be able to fully charge a vehicle in 30 minutes, at a cost of $65,000 per station. The remaining 146 stations to be built will be Level 2 stations, which will fully charge a vehicle in around 7 hours. These will cost under $10,000 per station. 350 Green is planning on charging customers around $50 to $60 for a month's worth of charging service. Will they have any takers? And what will be the cost to use the slower-charging stations? In any case, while paying $50 to $60 per month for electric "gas" might not seem like all that great of a deal, when compared to the $120 to $200 per month that many of us most likely are now paying, and compared to the probably significantly higher prices we'll soon be paying for gasoline, the cost for charging an electric vehicle is going to sound more and more like a warm hum instead of a loud buzz.
Well, that's all the environmental buzz for this blogpost. I hope someone will read and enjoy this, and please, tune into the buzz surrounding electric vehicles entering the American car market in the very, near FUTURE!
Rudy G
Yes, it's been three months since I've last posted. Shame on me. Then again, it doesn't appear that anyone has read my blog on environmental matters yet, so I guess I don't need to feel too ashamed. I still have hope that I will, someday, gain some interested readers.
Well, the blog news today is about electric vehicles, specifically how some companies are ramping up their charging technology and marketing plans to provide a feasible way to provide electric charging service for those brave folks, admittedly few still, who are, and will be, purchasing all-electric or mostly electric vehicles (such as the Chevy Volt) in the very near future. For those electric car owners who don't own their homes, and thus do not have a garage in which they can plug their cars in, say overnight, to charge them up, the company 350 Green LLC, based out of San Diego, California, has agreements with the city of Chicago to install 73 public charging stations within city's metro area by the end of 2011. The agreements call for a total of 280 charging stations with no specific date mentioned in the Chicago Tribune articles of February 16 and 27, 2011 (Please see the Business sections for both dates).
Isn't that amazing? Our city, Chicago, is actually taking real and tangible steps toward the realization of electric vehicle power here and now, in the present. I find this simply wonderful, despite the risks and potential pitfalls. And there seems to plenty of those to chew on. Without getting into too much detail here, one problem has to do with the charging power of the stations to be installed.
The first 73 stations, Level 1 stations, will have quick-charging sockets that will be able to fully charge a vehicle in 30 minutes, at a cost of $65,000 per station. The remaining 146 stations to be built will be Level 2 stations, which will fully charge a vehicle in around 7 hours. These will cost under $10,000 per station. 350 Green is planning on charging customers around $50 to $60 for a month's worth of charging service. Will they have any takers? And what will be the cost to use the slower-charging stations? In any case, while paying $50 to $60 per month for electric "gas" might not seem like all that great of a deal, when compared to the $120 to $200 per month that many of us most likely are now paying, and compared to the probably significantly higher prices we'll soon be paying for gasoline, the cost for charging an electric vehicle is going to sound more and more like a warm hum instead of a loud buzz.
Well, that's all the environmental buzz for this blogpost. I hope someone will read and enjoy this, and please, tune into the buzz surrounding electric vehicles entering the American car market in the very, near FUTURE!
Rudy G
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Electric Vehicles Becoming a Visible Reality
Ford Motor Co. is planning to introduce a line of electric vehicles here in Chicago, Illinois, beginning first by the end of this year, 2010! Isn't that exciting to hear? Their new model lines will include the Transit Connect Electric small commercial van, the Focus Electric passenger car, and a plug-in hybrid vehicle. Only the plug-in hybrid, apparently still without a name, will require gasoline to run.The other two will not. Is that exciting or what?
One problem is the sufficient availability of electric charging stations for these electic vehicles. Currently, the city of Chicago plans to begin installing, through a U.S. Department of Energy Clean Cities grant, about 100 charging stations by the end of this year. According to Ford Motor Co., about 300 charging stations around the country are being installed on a monthly basis (who knew that?). Ford would like to see in a city such as Chicago the availability of a charging station within a 2 to 3 mile radius for a consumer. And it would like to see a majority of those stations be "Level Three" stations, which are able to fully charge a vehicle in less than two hours. A "Level Two" charging station can take three times longer to charge a vehicle. A Level Three station can cost up to $50,000 while only $2,000 is required for a Level Two station.
Another problem is deciding how to regulate the charging stations and how much, if at all, to charge the consumer for charging their vehicles. The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) hopes to deal with this and related questions by the spring of 2011. According to Manny Flores, chairman of the ICC and former Chicago alderman, the ICC's top priority is maintaining the safety and reliability of the electric grid. But private companies have already started to install charging stations in the Chicago area. They are planning to charge by the "session" as opposed to charging by the kilowatt hour. For instance, InterPark parking company has installed 22 charging stations so far, with two at each of its 10 Loop parking garages, and two at its garage at the corner of Ohio and Rush streets. The company is giving out free charges until the end of the year. Again, is that great or what?
Still another problem is the fact that a colder climate hampers the battery charge for an electric vehicle, and here in Chicago we all know about a colder climate. But, as we also have seen, there have been a number of unsual warm spells during the winter months, and if one tends to see a correlation between this phenomenon and the scientific predictions of climate change, as I personally do, then one can expect to see increasing warming trends during winter months as a continuing pattern. Thus, there should be less cold days to worry about the electric car battery not holding its charge well. And, by driving an electric vehicle, one will certainly be helping to draw down the carbon emissions which are contributing to climate change to begin with. So all you soon-to-be-purchasing new car folks, please, pretty please,consider the prospects and the benefits of purchasing an all-electric vehicle for your personal and commercial needs. As it was expressed in the commercial from years' past, "You'll LIKE IT!" Thanks!
The information for this post was drawn solely from an article in the Chicago Tribune, Saturday, October 30, Business Section, page 10, written and reported by Julie Wernau, Tribune reporter. Reasonable and truthful attempts were made to paraphrase any statements or sentences that otherwise would have been too literally close to the original sentence in the fine article by Ms. Wernau. All due attributions are given to the reporter, Julie Wernau, and to the Chicago Tribune.
One problem is the sufficient availability of electric charging stations for these electic vehicles. Currently, the city of Chicago plans to begin installing, through a U.S. Department of Energy Clean Cities grant, about 100 charging stations by the end of this year. According to Ford Motor Co., about 300 charging stations around the country are being installed on a monthly basis (who knew that?). Ford would like to see in a city such as Chicago the availability of a charging station within a 2 to 3 mile radius for a consumer. And it would like to see a majority of those stations be "Level Three" stations, which are able to fully charge a vehicle in less than two hours. A "Level Two" charging station can take three times longer to charge a vehicle. A Level Three station can cost up to $50,000 while only $2,000 is required for a Level Two station.
Another problem is deciding how to regulate the charging stations and how much, if at all, to charge the consumer for charging their vehicles. The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) hopes to deal with this and related questions by the spring of 2011. According to Manny Flores, chairman of the ICC and former Chicago alderman, the ICC's top priority is maintaining the safety and reliability of the electric grid. But private companies have already started to install charging stations in the Chicago area. They are planning to charge by the "session" as opposed to charging by the kilowatt hour. For instance, InterPark parking company has installed 22 charging stations so far, with two at each of its 10 Loop parking garages, and two at its garage at the corner of Ohio and Rush streets. The company is giving out free charges until the end of the year. Again, is that great or what?
Still another problem is the fact that a colder climate hampers the battery charge for an electric vehicle, and here in Chicago we all know about a colder climate. But, as we also have seen, there have been a number of unsual warm spells during the winter months, and if one tends to see a correlation between this phenomenon and the scientific predictions of climate change, as I personally do, then one can expect to see increasing warming trends during winter months as a continuing pattern. Thus, there should be less cold days to worry about the electric car battery not holding its charge well. And, by driving an electric vehicle, one will certainly be helping to draw down the carbon emissions which are contributing to climate change to begin with. So all you soon-to-be-purchasing new car folks, please, pretty please,consider the prospects and the benefits of purchasing an all-electric vehicle for your personal and commercial needs. As it was expressed in the commercial from years' past, "You'll LIKE IT!" Thanks!
The information for this post was drawn solely from an article in the Chicago Tribune, Saturday, October 30, Business Section, page 10, written and reported by Julie Wernau, Tribune reporter. Reasonable and truthful attempts were made to paraphrase any statements or sentences that otherwise would have been too literally close to the original sentence in the fine article by Ms. Wernau. All due attributions are given to the reporter, Julie Wernau, and to the Chicago Tribune.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Making Economic Sense
One hears this all the time these days from various companies and corporations regarding their willingness to change their dirty, polluting habits. "We will make changes when it makes economic sense to do so, and not sooner," or, "It is not economically beneficial for us to put in these cleaner technologies at this time," or something to that effect. One hears similar statements from our government leaders such as this from the previous administration, "We must abide by the requirement that any such changes be in accordance with what make economic sense before we push any new regulations on the practices of producing corporations." This is a paraphrase of a sentence in a letter that the White House personally addressed and sent to me a few years back when I had written a scathing, personal letter to the Bush White House expressing my outrage over the mountaintop removal practices of the coal companies in the Appalachian regions.
There are many of us who remember the debate during the Bush years (and earlier, I believe) over how to structure the emphasis on how to decide environmental policy. The debate centered on the principle of costs vs. benefits. The conservative side wanted to emphasize a direct economic connection between costs and benefits, which meant that if benefits could not be shown to outshine the economic costs, even if those benefits were meaningful in other ways, such as less pollution, more beauty, etc., then the regulatory approach should not be taken. The liberal side always tried to show that the benefits of effective enviromental requirements, such as requiring big industry to implement the best available technology (BAT) in regard to their waste output, do outweigh the costs. Well, now there are some newly-available facts to buttress that argument.
The Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center just released a report based on data obtained from the National Research Council showing in concrete numbers just what is the economic costs to human health as a result of the emissions from our nation's coal-burning power plants. The National Research Council provided health cost estimates for the nation's energy output as a whole, including emissions from power plants and from vehicles, and their overall cost estimate is $120 billion per year. This estimate is for hidden costs tied, for the most part, to soot emissions from power plants and from vehicles, and does not include what we pay for the comsumption of coal, gasoline, and diesel fuel (Chicago Tribune, Michael Hawthorne, Thursday, October 21, 2010,"Health costs of coal plants are tallied," Section 1, page 11).
The National Research Council, one of our nation's leading scientific organizations, included data for emissions from power plants and their health impacts from across the country, including for the antiquated, still-running, coal-burning Fisk and Crawford power plants right here in our city of big shoulders and big smokestacks, Chicago. The estimated costs for the neighboring communities of these plants, those being the Pilsen and the Little Village neighborhoods, are $127 million annually.
If you think about it for a moment, you realize that hey, it's not just the direct costs to a producing company that need to be considered for that plant to either change or keep its emission practices, it's also the costs to the surrounding entities, whether they be people, animals, trees, plants, fields, streams, and so forth. Sticking with people here, the costs are clearly significant. Think about it. Thanks!
There are many of us who remember the debate during the Bush years (and earlier, I believe) over how to structure the emphasis on how to decide environmental policy. The debate centered on the principle of costs vs. benefits. The conservative side wanted to emphasize a direct economic connection between costs and benefits, which meant that if benefits could not be shown to outshine the economic costs, even if those benefits were meaningful in other ways, such as less pollution, more beauty, etc., then the regulatory approach should not be taken. The liberal side always tried to show that the benefits of effective enviromental requirements, such as requiring big industry to implement the best available technology (BAT) in regard to their waste output, do outweigh the costs. Well, now there are some newly-available facts to buttress that argument.
The Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center just released a report based on data obtained from the National Research Council showing in concrete numbers just what is the economic costs to human health as a result of the emissions from our nation's coal-burning power plants. The National Research Council provided health cost estimates for the nation's energy output as a whole, including emissions from power plants and from vehicles, and their overall cost estimate is $120 billion per year. This estimate is for hidden costs tied, for the most part, to soot emissions from power plants and from vehicles, and does not include what we pay for the comsumption of coal, gasoline, and diesel fuel (Chicago Tribune, Michael Hawthorne, Thursday, October 21, 2010,"Health costs of coal plants are tallied," Section 1, page 11).
The National Research Council, one of our nation's leading scientific organizations, included data for emissions from power plants and their health impacts from across the country, including for the antiquated, still-running, coal-burning Fisk and Crawford power plants right here in our city of big shoulders and big smokestacks, Chicago. The estimated costs for the neighboring communities of these plants, those being the Pilsen and the Little Village neighborhoods, are $127 million annually.
If you think about it for a moment, you realize that hey, it's not just the direct costs to a producing company that need to be considered for that plant to either change or keep its emission practices, it's also the costs to the surrounding entities, whether they be people, animals, trees, plants, fields, streams, and so forth. Sticking with people here, the costs are clearly significant. Think about it. Thanks!
Monday, October 18, 2010
Premier Post of Environmental News and Commentary
Greetings and Hello,
I have, for some time now, felt the need to express my interests and concerns regarding the fight to preserve our environment, here at home and abroad, in writing. I do send in written opinions regarding specific issues when signing various petitions aimed at our political representatives in Washington or in our state capitols (mine is Springfield, Illinois). But I feel the need to do more and express more my interests and my thoughts on issues of the environment, hence my decision to start a blog. Yes, I know, there are numerous blogs on this topic, and I know I am late coming into this game. Yet, I definitely think that the issues and debates surrounding how we, as people, as social beings, and as producing beings, use and treat our natural environment are of paramount importance in today's world that is crowded with important issues.
The essential thing is, the quality of our environmental resources and processes are directly related to our quality of living, both in the absolutely essental aspects of living, such as available clean water and clean air, and in the aesthetic and spiritual aspects of living, such as being able to enjoy a healthy and beautiful state or national park, and to have the knowledge that the various wild animals, insects, reptiles, and plants that we love (and need) have not been lost to extinction.
This is why I am motivated to start yet another blog on environmental concerns. I hope that I can make this idea materialize into something worthwhile and interesting, both for myself and for any interested readers. Thank you for your choice to visit and read this blog. Certainly, to involve yourself in matters of our precious environment can not harm you. On the contrary, it can help lift you up, educate you, and prepare you to be an active, involved person in this most important struggle to find some balance and sanity in the current mad rush to exploit what is left of the earth's resources.
The item for today's news is the ongoing efforts of our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to regulate what is known as coal ash. Coal ash is the residual matter left over from the combustion of coal which takes place at coal energy plants which produce much of our nation's electricity. The EPA is proposing "the first-ever national rules to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants" (LaTisha Petteway, petteway.latisha@epa.gov, 202-564-3191, 202-564-4355). Some of you may recall the huge release of stored coal ash from the contaiment site owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The TVA produces much of the electricity for residents living in rural areas of Tennessee and other states, I believe. The spilled coal ash covered millions of cubic yards of land and river. Coal ash has harmful substances in it such as heavy metals including lead and chromium. The EPA is proposing new regulations that would require more stringent requirements for the storage and handling of coal ash, and to also redesignate coal ash as being a toxic product. Such a designation would create new limits on how coal ash is handled, shipped, and so forth. There are many businesses that creatively use recycled coal ash in various products that are used in industry and agriculture. They object to the proposed toxic label.
The EPA has proposed two approaches for dealing with the problems of handling and disposing of coal ash. One option, Subtitle C, is stringent and is compulsory. The other option, Subtitle D, is much more voluntary in nature, and would be enforced primarily by citizen actions, i.e., lawsuits. The texts of both approaches can be found at the website: http://www.epa.gov/coalashrule .
While you are there, please take a couple of minutes to express your support for one of these options. I would be pleased if you decide to support subtitle C. But it is important, in any case, that our EPA hears from its constituents. They do value what people have to say and they take people's thoughts and opinions into consideration when they deliberate on which policy to adopt. So please, take the time and let the EPA know what you think at http://www.regulations.gov/ . Enter "EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640" into the search field and click "Search". Follow the links to submit a comment. Who knows, you may reside next to a coal ash containment site and not even know that you are. Wouldn't you want to have the strongest and current protections to minimize the risk of having that toxic sludge slide into your back or front yard?
Thank you.
I have, for some time now, felt the need to express my interests and concerns regarding the fight to preserve our environment, here at home and abroad, in writing. I do send in written opinions regarding specific issues when signing various petitions aimed at our political representatives in Washington or in our state capitols (mine is Springfield, Illinois). But I feel the need to do more and express more my interests and my thoughts on issues of the environment, hence my decision to start a blog. Yes, I know, there are numerous blogs on this topic, and I know I am late coming into this game. Yet, I definitely think that the issues and debates surrounding how we, as people, as social beings, and as producing beings, use and treat our natural environment are of paramount importance in today's world that is crowded with important issues.
The essential thing is, the quality of our environmental resources and processes are directly related to our quality of living, both in the absolutely essental aspects of living, such as available clean water and clean air, and in the aesthetic and spiritual aspects of living, such as being able to enjoy a healthy and beautiful state or national park, and to have the knowledge that the various wild animals, insects, reptiles, and plants that we love (and need) have not been lost to extinction.
This is why I am motivated to start yet another blog on environmental concerns. I hope that I can make this idea materialize into something worthwhile and interesting, both for myself and for any interested readers. Thank you for your choice to visit and read this blog. Certainly, to involve yourself in matters of our precious environment can not harm you. On the contrary, it can help lift you up, educate you, and prepare you to be an active, involved person in this most important struggle to find some balance and sanity in the current mad rush to exploit what is left of the earth's resources.
The item for today's news is the ongoing efforts of our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to regulate what is known as coal ash. Coal ash is the residual matter left over from the combustion of coal which takes place at coal energy plants which produce much of our nation's electricity. The EPA is proposing "the first-ever national rules to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants" (LaTisha Petteway, petteway.latisha@epa.gov, 202-564-3191, 202-564-4355). Some of you may recall the huge release of stored coal ash from the contaiment site owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The TVA produces much of the electricity for residents living in rural areas of Tennessee and other states, I believe. The spilled coal ash covered millions of cubic yards of land and river. Coal ash has harmful substances in it such as heavy metals including lead and chromium. The EPA is proposing new regulations that would require more stringent requirements for the storage and handling of coal ash, and to also redesignate coal ash as being a toxic product. Such a designation would create new limits on how coal ash is handled, shipped, and so forth. There are many businesses that creatively use recycled coal ash in various products that are used in industry and agriculture. They object to the proposed toxic label.
The EPA has proposed two approaches for dealing with the problems of handling and disposing of coal ash. One option, Subtitle C, is stringent and is compulsory. The other option, Subtitle D, is much more voluntary in nature, and would be enforced primarily by citizen actions, i.e., lawsuits. The texts of both approaches can be found at the website: http://www.epa.gov/coalashrule .
While you are there, please take a couple of minutes to express your support for one of these options. I would be pleased if you decide to support subtitle C. But it is important, in any case, that our EPA hears from its constituents. They do value what people have to say and they take people's thoughts and opinions into consideration when they deliberate on which policy to adopt. So please, take the time and let the EPA know what you think at http://www.regulations.gov/ . Enter "EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640" into the search field and click "Search". Follow the links to submit a comment. Who knows, you may reside next to a coal ash containment site and not even know that you are. Wouldn't you want to have the strongest and current protections to minimize the risk of having that toxic sludge slide into your back or front yard?
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)