Bioaccumulation is the word of the day, which is a “[g]eneral term describing a process by which chemicals are taken up by an organism either directly from exposure to a contaminated medium or by consumption of food containing the chemical.” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). Quite simply, as humans, we are consuming all of the mercury that has been consumed from the food chain below us. For example, a little fish ingests mercury contaminated plankton, while a bigger fish consumes the mercury contaminated smaller fish, and so on and so forth until we ingest the final product which has been exposed to the toxic substance for its entire lifetime.
A recent study conducted at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio examined Texas school district data and industrial mercury-release data. The study revealed a “statistically significant link between pounds of industrial release of mercury and increased autism rates.” It also showed, for the first time in scientific literature, a relevant association between autism risk and the distance of those affected from the mercury polluting source.
Right about now, you are probably wondering how this toxic substance is entering our food chain in the first place. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), there are several known sources of mercury contributors to our environment, both naturally present and those created by man. Natural sources include volcanoes, natural mercury deposits, and volatilization from the ocean, with the primary human-related sources being: coal combustion, chlorine alkali processing, waste incineration, and metal processing. The USGS notes that the “[b]est estimates to date suggest that human activities have about doubled or tripled the amount of mercury in the atmosphere, and the atmospheric burden is increasing by about 1.5 percent per year.” It is unimaginable to think that we are knowingly and intentionally poisoning ourselves. As you drive along during your commute, or even look out of your home into your own backyard, do you see a potential polluter to your water or seafood supply?
Finally, you may be trying to figure out what can, or is, being done about this problem. Well, the Federal Government has set acceptable mercury levels for water, fish and shellfish, and grain. It is up to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate such mercury emissions under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, with State governments also establishing regulations to control mercury emissions. This begs the question of why we are still seeing fish being contaminated to the point that the EPA felt the need to issue “Your Guide to Eating Fish Caught in Florida” (found here: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/floridafishadvice/Final%202009%20Fish%20Brochure.pdf) as recently as 2009.
If mercury emission is being regulated to the degree necessary to preserve the public health, then should there even be a need to publish such materials? Is enough being done? What will you be having for dinner?
-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern
Monday, March 7, 2011
Water, water everywhere...or is it?
As a multibillion dollar industry with many lobbyists, the bottled water industry is an impressive presence throughout the country. In particular, there are over 40 bottled water facilities in the State of Florida, with the attraction to our state stemming from the fact that bottled water companies don’t have to pay for the water that they pump once they pay a nominal $230 fee for a permit. Critics fear that this will lead to a “tragedy of the commons” approach, where bottled water companies will ultimately deplete the shared limited water resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. Opponents find support in this by noting that Silver Springs, located in Marion County, Florida, has already lost 32% of its historic average flow, with some other springs in the Orlando area predicted to decline in flow by 15% over the next decade.
A proposal sponsored by Sen. Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach, for the Florida 2011 Legislative Session, will attempt to turn the tide by creating a 6 percent tax on a bottle of water. Introduced as an environmental surcharge to be used as an effort to mitigate the impact of withdrawing vast amounts of water from Florida’s springs, Sen. Lynn will face the hurdle of convincing a legislature, which is led by a Senate President and House Speaker staunchly against new taxes of any kind, that the resolution is necessary for protecting the water resources of the state. However, even some environmental advocates are skeptical of the effectiveness of the proposed legislation. Eric Draper, the executive director of Audubon of Florida, said the group was hesitant to back Lynns’ bill, simply because it might not go far enough. He noted that there are other large users of water, such as golf courses or cities that adversely effect our groundwater supply. In fact, aquifers provide nearly 90% of the state's personal drinking water and more than 60% of the state's freshwater usage in agriculture and industry.
A more appealing water-tax first gained momentum in February 2009 when a version was proposed by then Gov. Charlie Crist. The Crist proposal applied a severance tax to the extraction of water by commercial water-bottlers, rather than passing the cost onto consumers of bottled water products in Florida. However, while environmentalists welcomed the idea, the beverage industry lobbied strongly against the water-tax proposals and it ultimately failed.
In the meantime, while the debate looms once again, one of the 40 bottled water facilities in the State of Florida is pumping 1.47 million gallons of water per day through 2018 with nothing more to pay than the cost of its bottles and the other 39 facilities are likely doing the same as you read this post. Once the resource is depleted, they can pick up and move to a new location to start anew. If you are living in an area where your groundwater resource drys up, can you afford to do the same?
-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Extern
A proposal sponsored by Sen. Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach, for the Florida 2011 Legislative Session, will attempt to turn the tide by creating a 6 percent tax on a bottle of water. Introduced as an environmental surcharge to be used as an effort to mitigate the impact of withdrawing vast amounts of water from Florida’s springs, Sen. Lynn will face the hurdle of convincing a legislature, which is led by a Senate President and House Speaker staunchly against new taxes of any kind, that the resolution is necessary for protecting the water resources of the state. However, even some environmental advocates are skeptical of the effectiveness of the proposed legislation. Eric Draper, the executive director of Audubon of Florida, said the group was hesitant to back Lynns’ bill, simply because it might not go far enough. He noted that there are other large users of water, such as golf courses or cities that adversely effect our groundwater supply. In fact, aquifers provide nearly 90% of the state's personal drinking water and more than 60% of the state's freshwater usage in agriculture and industry.
A more appealing water-tax first gained momentum in February 2009 when a version was proposed by then Gov. Charlie Crist. The Crist proposal applied a severance tax to the extraction of water by commercial water-bottlers, rather than passing the cost onto consumers of bottled water products in Florida. However, while environmentalists welcomed the idea, the beverage industry lobbied strongly against the water-tax proposals and it ultimately failed.
In the meantime, while the debate looms once again, one of the 40 bottled water facilities in the State of Florida is pumping 1.47 million gallons of water per day through 2018 with nothing more to pay than the cost of its bottles and the other 39 facilities are likely doing the same as you read this post. Once the resource is depleted, they can pick up and move to a new location to start anew. If you are living in an area where your groundwater resource drys up, can you afford to do the same?
-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Extern
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
China’s Environmental Minister Releases Warning on Growth and Climate Peril
On Monday, China’s Environmental Minister, Zhou Shengxian gave a blunt warning that the growth of the country is threatened by pollution. China is the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases and has the second largest economy in the world making it the biggest polluter and consumer of resources. China uses coal to produce 70% of its energy needs and is becoming increasingly dependent on oil. Minister Zhou’s statements warned that unrestrained development would affect the country’s natural resources, such as water, air and soil, as well as hinder long-term economic growth and social stability. To check this development China will introduce a risk assessment system. The country will consider projected greenhouse gas emissions as part of evaluating proposed development projects, such as approving new factories. This is significant because past economic policies were hesitant to put environmental protection ahead of growth. While the proposed program is to cut energy use for each unit of economic growth, it still will not put caps on emission. This system may be a positive step towards the country’s role in fighting climate change and will be interesting to watch because past promises to curb environmental degradation failed to realize due to lack of will to enforce.
Highlighting the importance of the Minister’s announcements are recent reports on China’s environment finding 10% of domestic grown rice was contaminated with heavy metals and smog at dangerous levels in the capital city. In 2009 a study concluded that 20% of rivers and lakes monitored in China were polluted to such extent they were unfit for consumption, even to irrigate crops.
Minister Zhou stated, “The depletion, deterioration and exhaustion of resources and the deterioration of the environment have become serious bottlenecks constraining economic and social development.” The environmental protection theme will be a focus of the annual Parliament session to being on Saturday.
-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern
Highlighting the importance of the Minister’s announcements are recent reports on China’s environment finding 10% of domestic grown rice was contaminated with heavy metals and smog at dangerous levels in the capital city. In 2009 a study concluded that 20% of rivers and lakes monitored in China were polluted to such extent they were unfit for consumption, even to irrigate crops.
Minister Zhou stated, “The depletion, deterioration and exhaustion of resources and the deterioration of the environment have become serious bottlenecks constraining economic and social development.” The environmental protection theme will be a focus of the annual Parliament session to being on Saturday.
-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern
Friday, February 11, 2011
Marcellus Shale Drilling-Friend or Foe?
Marcellus Shale is a geological formation that is found beneath approximately 60 percent of Pennsylvania’s land mass, buried at depths of up to 9,000 feet. So why is a rock formation so sought after, yet controversial at the same time?
Well, natural gas can be extracted and produced from this formation, leading to economic benefits for a region whose development is at a standstill, as well as take advantage of an abundant energy resource for the nation. Jeff Prowant of the Tiadaghton State Forest says, “The industry has created 80,000 jobs in Pennsylvania.” There is potential for even more jobs as the area, coined America’s next super giant in natural gas production, is twice the size of the Barnett Shale of Texas, whose total effects (based on year-end 2007 levels) were found to include $8.2 billion in annual output, $2.4 billion in annual retail sales, and 83,823 permanent jobs. The process begins when natural gas producers obtain gas and mineral rights from landowners in the region by leasing land for potential drilling activity. Once exploration is complete, seismic testing and geophone instruments are used to locate precise areas and drilling commences if the potential is there.
However, not everyone agrees that this is all a good thing. Opponents fear that the process of “fracking” is not safe for humans, animals or the environment. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is when millions of gallons of water, sand and proprietary chemicals are injected, under high pressure, into a well. The pressure fractures the shale and props open fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well. The concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing include the contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and bi-product chemicals to the surface, and the potential mishandling of waste which may subsequently contaminate aquifers. However, Pennsylvania law requires drillers to case and grout wells through all fresh water aquifers before drilling through deeper zones known to contain oil or gas. This casing protects groundwater from pollutants inside the well, and keeps water from the surface and other geologic strata from mixing with and contaminating groundwater. Opponents are not confident that this is effective and say that drilling should not commence until safer alternatives are explored.
You decide. Are the unknown environmental and health risks worth the potential economic benefits in a time of financial turmoil?
-Tim Nalepka, Legal Intern
Well, natural gas can be extracted and produced from this formation, leading to economic benefits for a region whose development is at a standstill, as well as take advantage of an abundant energy resource for the nation. Jeff Prowant of the Tiadaghton State Forest says, “The industry has created 80,000 jobs in Pennsylvania.” There is potential for even more jobs as the area, coined America’s next super giant in natural gas production, is twice the size of the Barnett Shale of Texas, whose total effects (based on year-end 2007 levels) were found to include $8.2 billion in annual output, $2.4 billion in annual retail sales, and 83,823 permanent jobs. The process begins when natural gas producers obtain gas and mineral rights from landowners in the region by leasing land for potential drilling activity. Once exploration is complete, seismic testing and geophone instruments are used to locate precise areas and drilling commences if the potential is there.
However, not everyone agrees that this is all a good thing. Opponents fear that the process of “fracking” is not safe for humans, animals or the environment. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is when millions of gallons of water, sand and proprietary chemicals are injected, under high pressure, into a well. The pressure fractures the shale and props open fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well. The concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing include the contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and bi-product chemicals to the surface, and the potential mishandling of waste which may subsequently contaminate aquifers. However, Pennsylvania law requires drillers to case and grout wells through all fresh water aquifers before drilling through deeper zones known to contain oil or gas. This casing protects groundwater from pollutants inside the well, and keeps water from the surface and other geologic strata from mixing with and contaminating groundwater. Opponents are not confident that this is effective and say that drilling should not commence until safer alternatives are explored.
You decide. Are the unknown environmental and health risks worth the potential economic benefits in a time of financial turmoil?
-Tim Nalepka, Legal Intern
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Public Trust Has Joined Good Shop
The Public Trust has joined Good Shop!
Good Shop is a website where you can shop online and a percentage of your purchase will automatically be donated to the Public Trust! Your item won't cost you any more than normal and it's really easy to do.
You may either
1) Log into www.goodsearch.com (note, NOT goodshop.com), then click on the Good Shop button, and start shopping. When it comes times to place your purchase, simply select the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute as your charity, and that's it.
Or, even easier...
2) Install the goodsearch.com browser on your computer and select the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute as your charity. Then, anytime you shop from an online store that subscribes to Good Shop, part of your purchase will AUTOMATICALLY be donated to the Public Trust, you don't even have to go through Good Shop's website each time!
Is there an easier way to help raise money for a worthy cause? And it doesn't cost YOU anything! The holidays are in full-swing but you can shop online anytime of year, and when you do, please use Good Shop to help the Public Trust too.
Good Shop is a website where you can shop online and a percentage of your purchase will automatically be donated to the Public Trust! Your item won't cost you any more than normal and it's really easy to do.
You may either
1) Log into www.goodsearch.com (note, NOT goodshop.com), then click on the Good Shop button, and start shopping. When it comes times to place your purchase, simply select the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute as your charity, and that's it.
Or, even easier...
2) Install the goodsearch.com browser on your computer and select the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute as your charity. Then, anytime you shop from an online store that subscribes to Good Shop, part of your purchase will AUTOMATICALLY be donated to the Public Trust, you don't even have to go through Good Shop's website each time!
Is there an easier way to help raise money for a worthy cause? And it doesn't cost YOU anything! The holidays are in full-swing but you can shop online anytime of year, and when you do, please use Good Shop to help the Public Trust too.
Monday, November 15, 2010
India's Environmental Tribunal
India is going to be the third country in the world to have a separate judiciary for trying environmental cases. The other two countries with a similar judiciary are Australia and New Zealand. The National Green Tribunal will have twenty members. Ten members will be from the judiciary and ten will be environmental experts. The Tribunal will have four circuits in an effort to hear cases in as much geographical territory of India as possible. Previously, India had a capped penalty of $564 dollars for polluters throughout the country. The National Green Tribunal will be able to order polluters to pay higher amounts.
Some American environmentalists are skeptical of the benefit that the Tribunal will provide. India has had two similar tribunals and both have been widely criticized. In 1995, a hazardous waste tribunal was established, and in 1997, the Nation Environmental Appellate Authority, which the National Green Tribunal will be replacing. Business is growing rapidly in India, and the government is facing pressure to make sure that any environmental regulation will not slow the growth of this business.
India has 5,000 environmental cases currently on file that the National Green Tribunal will be responsible for hearing once it is up and running. One of these cases involves the government’s disposal of toxic waste in 2008 from a chemical spill disaster in 1984. Approximately 350 tons of waste was released from a chemical plant owned by Union Carbide, and 3,800 people were killed as a result. Residual gas from the spill killed an additional 15,000 people and left about 50,000 injured. There are allegations that the 2008 disposal of the waste was done in an improper and secretive manner. With such questionable governmental practices in India, one has to wonder if the National Green Tribunal will do its part to change the situation.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Some American environmentalists are skeptical of the benefit that the Tribunal will provide. India has had two similar tribunals and both have been widely criticized. In 1995, a hazardous waste tribunal was established, and in 1997, the Nation Environmental Appellate Authority, which the National Green Tribunal will be replacing. Business is growing rapidly in India, and the government is facing pressure to make sure that any environmental regulation will not slow the growth of this business.
India has 5,000 environmental cases currently on file that the National Green Tribunal will be responsible for hearing once it is up and running. One of these cases involves the government’s disposal of toxic waste in 2008 from a chemical spill disaster in 1984. Approximately 350 tons of waste was released from a chemical plant owned by Union Carbide, and 3,800 people were killed as a result. Residual gas from the spill killed an additional 15,000 people and left about 50,000 injured. There are allegations that the 2008 disposal of the waste was done in an improper and secretive manner. With such questionable governmental practices in India, one has to wonder if the National Green Tribunal will do its part to change the situation.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Friday, November 12, 2010
Turtle Harvesting in Madagascar
A recent study has revealed that villages in the southwestern region of Madagascar are responsible for harvesting up to 16,000 of the world’s rarest turtles. The turtles being harvested are marine turtles. All species of marine turtles are on the IUCN Red List of endangered species, which is arguably the most well-known and comprehensive list of endangered species. The majority of the turtles caught in this region of Madagascar are green turtles, which are the most common of the marine turtles. However, a good percentage of the turtles being caught are the hawksbill, which are much more endangered than the green.
The government of Madagascar has banned the harvesting of marine turtles, but the ban is hardly enforced because of tradition and practical reasons. For example, the coastal villagers of Madagascar rely on turtle meat as a staple of their diet. A conservation group called Blue Ventures has established a partnership with this region of Madagascar in order to address this issue as well as other conservation issues. Blue Ventures claims that it is difficult to get the villagers to understand that the marine turtles are a resource that is being depleted rapidly. Eating the turtles is a historical practice for the villagers, and this practice even has a spiritual component to it.
However, there is a great deal of progress being made. Blue Ventures partnership with Madagascar has been considered so successful that the partnership won several awards from the United Nations. Other conservation efforts by Blue Ventures in the region have showed the villagers the importance of protecting the environment in other ways, and hopefully this awareness will apply to the marine turtle population as well.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
The government of Madagascar has banned the harvesting of marine turtles, but the ban is hardly enforced because of tradition and practical reasons. For example, the coastal villagers of Madagascar rely on turtle meat as a staple of their diet. A conservation group called Blue Ventures has established a partnership with this region of Madagascar in order to address this issue as well as other conservation issues. Blue Ventures claims that it is difficult to get the villagers to understand that the marine turtles are a resource that is being depleted rapidly. Eating the turtles is a historical practice for the villagers, and this practice even has a spiritual component to it.
However, there is a great deal of progress being made. Blue Ventures partnership with Madagascar has been considered so successful that the partnership won several awards from the United Nations. Other conservation efforts by Blue Ventures in the region have showed the villagers the importance of protecting the environment in other ways, and hopefully this awareness will apply to the marine turtle population as well.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)