Tennessee Coal Plant Toxic Spill
An Eastern Tennessee Coal Plant has maintained a total of 2.2 million pounds of toxic coal ash in a holding pond within their facilities. The Kingston Fossil Plant, owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, had a breakage in the holding pond and caused massive flooding of surrounding areas with the toxic chemicals, many of which could cause various health problems including cancer. Officials from the plant have said that the sludge released are not toxic, but have also released a joint statement with the EPA for all people and animals to avoid any contact with it. This seems like total crap and a spill like this is just inexcusable.
At the request of the New York Times, the Tennessee Valley Authority released the byproducts of their plant:
The plant’s byproducts included 45,000 pounds of arsenic, 49,000 pounds of lead, 1.4 million pounds of barium, 91,000 pounds of chromium and 140,000 pounds of manganese.
Those are some scary metals and are all linked to causing serious health conditions if exposed to. Who knows that long-term impact of a massive spill like this to the residents in the local community as well as surrounding areas. What’s worse is that authorities from the plant have been slow to inform the local residents of the spill and the dangers it could cause.
This is just another example of wealthy individuals who own these types of plants who care more about making money than the safety of the public or the environment. A formal investigation is going to be done on the spill and how to prevent further incidents like this from happening. Is this really enough though? A plant that allows a holding facility of toxic sludge to break should no longer be in business. This is also just another wake up call to people that coal and other dirty sources of energy need to be eliminated in our country. The danger their byproducts pose are not worth the slightly smaller price tag they have.
Bush Administration Puts Engangered Species Act At Risk
A special “Midnight Session” conducted late last month could put many of the endangered species of animals and plants in our country in extreme risk. In order to meet a deadline of 60 days before the current administration leaves office, they are hard at work to finalize regulations that would eliminate federal wildlife experts from having a deciding factor if federal projects pose a threat to endangered species. This just leaves me scratching my head because this is one of a few instances in which this administration is trying to push out last minute regulations to post further damage to our already fragile environment ( Oil Shale Drilling being another ).
I did not know regulations like this could be put into place over such a short period, but they are going to go through with them. Even with heavy criticism from other lawmakers and environmentalists, the Department of the Interior is still going through with it.
The rules eliminate the input of federal wildlife scientists in some endangered species cases, allowing the federal agency in charge of building, authorizing or funding a project to determine for itself if it is likely to harm endangered wildlife and plants.
These regulations would also exclude federal agencies from worrying about carbon dioxide emissions that also pose thread to endangered species. At the moment, it looks like they are on target to meeting the deadline. If they do, it would make it hard for the new administration to overturn them. There does exist a Congressional Review Act that would allow Congress to overturn these ridiculous regulations, but has not been used often. Luckily some people in Congress are still fighting for the environment representative for the House said:
The House, in consultation with the incoming administration and relevant committees, will review what oversight tools are at our disposal regarding this and other last minute attempts to inflict severe damage to the law in the waning moments of the Bush administration.
What gets me is that the executive branch has this type of power without consent from the Congress. I just don’t get why our government is allowed to continue to pursue their own interests and fill their pockets and nobody seems to be stopping them. There seems like no good that could come out of a bill like this or the drilling of Oil Shale and regulations like these can be passed.
What are you thoughts on the Bush administration’s “midnight regulations” that throw away years of hard work to help protect our environment?
Noises Disrupting Patterns of Whales and Dolphins
This is an interesting story about how global warming along with increased noise pollution by ships could be damaging to whales and dolphins. They both use sounds to be able to orient themselves and find mates. There are several factors contributing to this trend including:
- Global Warming: The warmer the water temperatures allow for sounds to travel further.
- Commercial Shipping: An increase in shipping generates additional sounds.
- Military Advancements: Sonar and seismic technologies have increased causing confusion in animals.
Not only are the increased number of ships on sea hurting the animals, but this indirect threat could really be a major factor in making already endangered species of whales and dolphins more scarce. The U.N. wildlife conference in Rome took place Wednesday to discuss these various dangers that are taking place and ways to mitigate the increased noise pollution in our seas. Many species are losing touch with each other along with whales are ending up on beaches because they are confused on where they are at. This is an interesting statistic about blue whales that they found:
A study by her group found that the blue whale, which used to communicate across entire oceans, has lost 90 percent of its range over the last 40 years.
Hopefully measures can be taken to protect these beautiful creatures of the oceans so that they are around for generations to come.
Interior Department Opens American Oil Shale Development
The Interior Department finalized regulations that would allow for the development of oil shale on federal lands earlier last month. These regulations are focused on a 200 million acre area knows as the Green River formation found in the western states Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. This area is known to have a vast amount of oil shale supplies. It is believed that the oil shale in this area could produce 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, which could help eliminate our dependency on foreign oil. The drawback as you might have guessed is that it is considered to be one of the dirtiest sources of energy and is still in its infancy in terms of technology.
What is Oil Shale?
Oil shale is a rock material that releases a petroleum like liquid called kerogen when it is heated. It is formed from heat and pressure begin applied to millions of years of fossil marine life. This rock is known as the rock that will burn because it contains enough oil to burn without any processing.
In order to extract oil from shale is a much more difficult process. Currently the technology is not developed enough causing it to be an expensive. In order to extract a usable product, it must first be heated to an extremely high temperature. Oil then must be separated from the resulting liquid in a process called retorting. A more experimental process that saves part of the processing of this rock is to heat it while still in ground and then pump the liquid out.
Is it a viable option?
Shale being used for oil is nothing new. Mining and its modern production began in the early 1800’s mostly in European countries. Since then, very few countries including Brazil, China and Estonia, have really utilized this resource to extract oil from. As the price of oil has risen, mining shale has really come into the forefront for the US. Currently, there does not exist a technology to extract the oil from shale at a reasonable price. Also, the process emits 4 times as much greenhouse gases as the production of conventional oil.
Environmental reviews are required before federal leasing of these lands can begin, but the companies that will mine these lands will only have to pay a 5% royalty to the government for the first five years of production.
This source of energy just does not seem like the best option available for our country. To allow mining that would destroy beautiful lands in the West seems like such a waste when there isn’t an efficient way to produce oil from shale. I just don’t get the lawmakers in our government. It seems like the obvious options are right in their face with renewable energy, but they once again choose a horrible source of energy instead. The frustrating thing is that there seems to be no research into this resource to determine how much damage it could have to the environment. Would it be worth mining this dirty rock just so oil companies can continue their reign over the energy industry? Lets hope the new administration blocks ridiculous regulations like these that only seem to fatten the wallets of the rich oil tycoons in our country.
British Wind Farm Proposal Brings Controversy
The British Environment Agency is considering building an 80 turbine wind farm development that would be partially built on several major water bodies including the River Thames, the River Medway in the North Downs and parts of the Fens. The wind farm should produce approximately 200 megawatts of energy, enough energy to power 90,000 households. Some of them will be built in lands surrounding the agency’s offices and pumping stations. The remaining will be put riverside of the rivers mentioned above. The plan is to produce enough energy to run all of the agency’s offices along with making an additional $5 million in revenue each year by putting extra electricity back into the grid.
By developing these renewable energy projects we are helping to limit and adapt to the effects of climate change, reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and help develop a low-carbon economy. We are identifying the main contributors to our own carbon footprint – such as major pumping stations – and looking at how we can generate renewable energy to power them.
This does seems like a perfect plan on the surface, but it is not pleasing everybody. Many people living in these areas as well as critics of the plan have said that the construction of this wind farm could do more harm that good. The biggest concern they have is the well being of the landscapes in these area’s, being unattractive sites along with harming the local wildlife. There is also a concern that the amount of renewable energy generated by these turbines will not even come close to removing the country’s dependency on fossil fuels.
Wind turbines can have a serious impact on the appearance of a landscape and certainly should not be located in areas of natural beauty or national parks.
The agency ensured that it will consult with the public and take these factors into consideration before finalizing plans. This is really a tough situation. On the one hand, this agency is trying to make a difference by running all their offices on renewable energy as well as provide more for the entire country. On the other hand, the natural landscape could be affected by them being present. In my opinion, I actually like the look of the wind turbines and don’t feel at all that they detract from the natural landscape. I agree with the agency that this is the correct move and to continue our dependency on fossil fuels based on the principal that it controls too much of the market is not the right way to go.
UN Worried About Asia’s Brown Soot Cloud Problem
There are dirty brown clouds that hover over some parts of Asia that could not only have a major negative affect on those areas, but the entire world. The UN believes that an area ranging from the Persian Gulf to Asia could put at risk food supplies and health of people throughout the entire globe. Many of the major Asian cities including Beijing, Shanghai, Bangkok, Cairo, Mumbai and New Delhi are already engulfed in huge brown clouds that are said to have reduced light by up to 25%. The clouds are basically a thick cloud of soot caused by the excessive burning of fossil fuels and wood. The dangerous part of these clouds are that they significantly contribute to global warming. By absorbing a portion of sunlight, they decrease the ground temperatures, but at the same time have caused melting of the Himalayan glaciers.
I have seen some dirty skies, especially since I live close to large cities, but I can’t imagine seeing such a large thick cloud of black soot. It is really shocking that beyond the things burned to create it, that a cloud of this magnitude is left without change for such a long time. What is even more surprising is that it actually covers up some of the effects of global warming by actually reducing the temperatures on the ground. It may not actually cover them up completely since there is a huge black cloud in the air and less light is present. It can give politicians one more reason why they can argue that global warming is not actually taking place.
Now is the time to be addressing issues like these especially before they become to out of hand. Just because you don’t see smog clouds where you live does not mean that one day it will not have an affect on you. The world needs to come together and ensure that everybody is properly educated to prevent further damage from taking place.
2008 U.S. Presidential Candidates Environmental Views
The presidential election is coming up in just less than two weeks and it’s time to decide who you want to vote for to be our next president. A major concern that I have along with many Americans have is what will the next president do to make sure that our country becomes more eco-friendly. This includes eliminating our dependency on foreign oil and moving our country towards using renewable energy sources such wind and solar energy.
I am a firm believer in giving every candidate an equal opportunity, no matter if many believe that the smaller parties have no chance of winning. While researching the environmental views of all of the candidates, I stumbled upon a site called Grist that put together a chart of the top 5 candidate’s views on certain environmental issues. The candidates shown include:
- Bob Barr
- Cynthia McKinney
- John McCain
- Ralph Nader
- Barack Obama
Grist also includes interviews with candidates that are still running for president and those that dropped out of the race. I know environmental and energy issues are not the only concern for choosing a candidate for president, but it should be a major issue you consider. Depending on which candidate actually becomes president could make a profound difference on how eco-friendly our country becomes or if it does at all.
