For those who believe in the phenomenon of global climate change, the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is a major concern. Across the globe, lowering emissions of carbon dioxide has become a mission. While it might seem to some to be a mission meant only for radical environmentalists on the fringe of society, lowering carbon dioxide emissions has some practical benefits as well.
A good example can be found in the champagne industry. The bubbles one finds in one’s champagne are created by carbon, and the industry is responsible for releasing 200,000 metric tons of the gas into the environment every year by producing and shipping its product. Upon realization of this enormous output, a champagne company in France, Pommery, has decided to shrink the size of its bottle.
The new champagne bottle will lose only 2.3 ounces of material, but Pommery projects that this will cut the company’s carbon emissions by 25 percent by the year 2020. And for those not interested in cutting their carbon emissions, this smaller bottle is also simply good for business. Industry wide sales of champagne have been down by about 5 billion euros since 2007. Economists project that the savings in production costs generated by these smaller bottles will help the industry’s profits rise again after this three-year fall.
This example demonstrates that the aims of environmentalists and the aims of businesses are not always mutually exclusive. Many believe that environmentalists are out to harm business with oppressive restrictions on issues such as carbon emissions. But if reducing these emissions can save companies money and help them to become profitable again, then perhaps environmentalists are not so oppressive after all. Perhaps the two seemingly opposing sides can work together.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Friday, September 3, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Genetically Engineered Salmon
Many individuals that consider themselves to be environmentalists become enraged when they see the letters GM, which for those not familiar with the lexicon, stand for genetically modified. The US Federal Drug Administration is currently in the process of approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption. If the approval goes through, this salmon would be the first genetically modified animal to be produced for human consumption in United States history. There are an array of other GM animals that have been developed, and approval of this salmon may open the floodgates for these animals as well.
Despite the harsh critics of this salmon, who have called it a “frankenfish” and believe that it may be disastrous to human health and the environment, the debate about genetically modifying food is much more nuanced. For example, scientists at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada have developed what they call an Enviropig. Normal pigs excrete a great deal of phosphorus from the plants they eat, and this phosphorus finds its way into rivers and seas. The phosphorus is hazardous to the life within these waters and the quality of the water itself. The Enviropig, however, has been developed with a special enzyme that gives it the power to digest more phosphorus and thus excrete less.
This Enviropig, contrary to the conception held by some environmentalists, actually helps the environment in some ways rather than harming it. Similarly, the salmon that is awaiting approval can grow to market size in half the time of a natural salmon. This may mean that the production of these GM salmon is more efficient and would use up fewer resources. However, animal breeders have been breeding animals to produce more meat in this manner for many decades before talks of genetic modification have been on the table. This breeding has caused numerous health problems in these animals, and genetic modification may not be exempt from these repercussions.
Whatever one’s beliefs about genetic modification may be, this salmon has the potential to drastically change the face of food production in the future.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Despite the harsh critics of this salmon, who have called it a “frankenfish” and believe that it may be disastrous to human health and the environment, the debate about genetically modifying food is much more nuanced. For example, scientists at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada have developed what they call an Enviropig. Normal pigs excrete a great deal of phosphorus from the plants they eat, and this phosphorus finds its way into rivers and seas. The phosphorus is hazardous to the life within these waters and the quality of the water itself. The Enviropig, however, has been developed with a special enzyme that gives it the power to digest more phosphorus and thus excrete less.
This Enviropig, contrary to the conception held by some environmentalists, actually helps the environment in some ways rather than harming it. Similarly, the salmon that is awaiting approval can grow to market size in half the time of a natural salmon. This may mean that the production of these GM salmon is more efficient and would use up fewer resources. However, animal breeders have been breeding animals to produce more meat in this manner for many decades before talks of genetic modification have been on the table. This breeding has caused numerous health problems in these animals, and genetic modification may not be exempt from these repercussions.
Whatever one’s beliefs about genetic modification may be, this salmon has the potential to drastically change the face of food production in the future.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Friday, August 20, 2010
Nuclear Power, a New Age?
Nuclear power has a checkered history. The Chernobyl incident in the Ukraine and the Three Mile Island incident in the United States have created a deep public mistrust of this form of power. In the United States, that public mistrust is responsible for a standstill in the building of nuclear reactors that has spanned three decades. Now the Obama administration has announced a guarantee of a loan of $8.3 billion dollars to build the first nuclear reactors since the beginning of this standstill.
This development begs the question of whether the United States’ longstanding apprehension regarding nuclear power has ended. Many believe that the dangers presented in Chernobyl or Three Mile Island are still present. These people see nuclear reactors as possessing the ability to cause cancer in individuals within the reactor’s radius, contaminate drinking water, and destroy the surrounding environment. Others believe that technology has come a long way since 1976, the date of the Three Mile Island incident, and that the country should give nuclear power another chance.
Without a doubt there are many benefits to this form of energy. Climate change has become a much more prevalent issue than it was three decades ago, and nuclear power has the potential to do a lot for this issue. Unlike power plants that use oil or coal, nuclear power plants release no carbon dioxide into the air. Carbon dioxide is generally accepted as a gas that contributes to the phenomenon of climate change. And considering that the carbon dioxide released from power plants make up the majority of the carbon dioxide released around the world, an astronomically greater percentage than that released by transportation, nuclear power has much about which to boast.
Just as clearly there are downsides to nuclear power. Just one downside is the waste that is produced from these plants. This waste must be stored underground, in caverns across the United States. Obviously, there is not an infinite amount of space with which to store this waste, and storage will be a problem if the number of reactors increases. Nuclear power may not be a permanent solution, but it might help to reduce our dependence on oil and coal. This may make the transition to even better forms of power much easier, and this effect alone may be benefit enough.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Extern
This development begs the question of whether the United States’ longstanding apprehension regarding nuclear power has ended. Many believe that the dangers presented in Chernobyl or Three Mile Island are still present. These people see nuclear reactors as possessing the ability to cause cancer in individuals within the reactor’s radius, contaminate drinking water, and destroy the surrounding environment. Others believe that technology has come a long way since 1976, the date of the Three Mile Island incident, and that the country should give nuclear power another chance.
Without a doubt there are many benefits to this form of energy. Climate change has become a much more prevalent issue than it was three decades ago, and nuclear power has the potential to do a lot for this issue. Unlike power plants that use oil or coal, nuclear power plants release no carbon dioxide into the air. Carbon dioxide is generally accepted as a gas that contributes to the phenomenon of climate change. And considering that the carbon dioxide released from power plants make up the majority of the carbon dioxide released around the world, an astronomically greater percentage than that released by transportation, nuclear power has much about which to boast.
Just as clearly there are downsides to nuclear power. Just one downside is the waste that is produced from these plants. This waste must be stored underground, in caverns across the United States. Obviously, there is not an infinite amount of space with which to store this waste, and storage will be a problem if the number of reactors increases. Nuclear power may not be a permanent solution, but it might help to reduce our dependence on oil and coal. This may make the transition to even better forms of power much easier, and this effect alone may be benefit enough.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Extern
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Floating Gardens Help, But the St. Johns River Needs More
Toxic algae blooms have become an all-too-familiar sight (and smell) along the St. Johns River. Experts agree that these blooms are in large part due to high nitrogen and phosphorous levels entering the river through fertilizer runoff and leaking septic tanks. The City of Jacksonville has taken a few measures in an attempt to alleviate this growing problem, namely building retention ponds and running an advertising campaign to warn citizens of the damage over-fertilization can cause. The Times-Union recently ran a story about a new weapon the city is employing to reduce pollution levels in the river. Much like using plants to clean up contaminated soil (see post below), the city’s latest tactic uses plants to remove pollutants from contaminated water. But is this a long-term solution?
Floating on buoyant pallets, specific “nutrient-eating” plants bob on the surface while their roots do the dirty work below. These plants, Redtop, Soft Rush, Canna, Pickerel, Bur-Marigold, and Arrowhead, have proven to be highly effective at absorbing nitrates and phosphates from water. Once the plants have soaked up as much as they can handle, they are replaced. Although they do not remove 100 percent of the contaminants in the water, floating gardens represent a highly cost-effective way to combat pollution in the river.
However, floating gardens cannot stem the relentless tide of contaminants that pour into the river on a daily basis. It is merely reactive. In the long run, the city needs a stiffer regulatory framework of prevention. No matter how many floating gardens the city installs, over-fertilized lawns and leaking septic tanks will continue to undermine any remedial measures. This is not to say that the right to care for one’s lawn should be taken out of a homeowner’s hands. But, unless the city does something to incentivize landowners to use less harmful fertilizers or have their septic tanks inspected, algae blooms, dead fish, and putrid smells will become the river’s trademark characteristics. Only when Jacksonville dramatically reduces the amount of pollution entering the river can it work toward cleaning out the filth that is already there.
-Legal Extern, Kyle Johnson
Floating on buoyant pallets, specific “nutrient-eating” plants bob on the surface while their roots do the dirty work below. These plants, Redtop, Soft Rush, Canna, Pickerel, Bur-Marigold, and Arrowhead, have proven to be highly effective at absorbing nitrates and phosphates from water. Once the plants have soaked up as much as they can handle, they are replaced. Although they do not remove 100 percent of the contaminants in the water, floating gardens represent a highly cost-effective way to combat pollution in the river.
However, floating gardens cannot stem the relentless tide of contaminants that pour into the river on a daily basis. It is merely reactive. In the long run, the city needs a stiffer regulatory framework of prevention. No matter how many floating gardens the city installs, over-fertilized lawns and leaking septic tanks will continue to undermine any remedial measures. This is not to say that the right to care for one’s lawn should be taken out of a homeowner’s hands. But, unless the city does something to incentivize landowners to use less harmful fertilizers or have their septic tanks inspected, algae blooms, dead fish, and putrid smells will become the river’s trademark characteristics. Only when Jacksonville dramatically reduces the amount of pollution entering the river can it work toward cleaning out the filth that is already there.
-Legal Extern, Kyle Johnson
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Save Our Gulf
Many have seen the haunting photographs and news coverage. Every day pundits offer their perspective on what is now being called the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. Even satellites high above our atmosphere have captured images of the murky swirl spreading toward the Gulf coast like spilled black ink. For most people, these images tell a tragic story unfolding in a place far away. For folks in the Gulf region, the catastrophe plays out daily before their own eyes. That doesn’t mean, however, they are taking the effects of the disaster lying down.
Save Our Gulf is a project started by the Waterkeeper Alliance to combat the horrible effects of the Gulf oil spill. The Alliance is comprised of almost 200 Riverkeepers, Baykeepers, Coastkeepers, Soundkeeprs, and Bayoukeepers throughout the country who advocate for and protect local waterways. Each Waterkeeper assumes countless duties in defense of its waterway, from educating young students to taking high profile polluters to court. For example, our local affiliate is the St. Johns Riverkeeper, led by Neil Armingeon and Jimmy Orth. In essence, the Waterkeeper Alliance acts as a network connecting and supporting Waterkeepers nationwide and their respective communities.
In addition to fundraising, the Save Our Gulf program has created an advisory committee made up of veteran Waterkeepers with oil spill experience to support the affected Gulf Coast Waterkeepers, providing information, guidance, and communications support. Crises of this magnitude require the coordination of thousands of people, and the committee is taking the necessary steps to ensure that help gets where it’s needed in the most efficient, effective way possible. Issues taken up by the committee include public access to information, volunteer management, training, and legal and technical support.
Anyone interested in making a donation or providing support in any way should visit www.saveourgulf.org. Additionally, the website provides information about the Waterkeeper Alliance, past projects, links to other organizations, and informative multimedia resources. Donations to the program go toward providing everything from cleanup supplies and gear to emergency office space and food for volunteers.
Those curious about the role of the St. Johns Riverkeeper in protecting our river can visit the organization’s website, www.stjohnsriverkeeper.org, for more information.
-Kyle Johnson, Legal Intern
Save Our Gulf is a project started by the Waterkeeper Alliance to combat the horrible effects of the Gulf oil spill. The Alliance is comprised of almost 200 Riverkeepers, Baykeepers, Coastkeepers, Soundkeeprs, and Bayoukeepers throughout the country who advocate for and protect local waterways. Each Waterkeeper assumes countless duties in defense of its waterway, from educating young students to taking high profile polluters to court. For example, our local affiliate is the St. Johns Riverkeeper, led by Neil Armingeon and Jimmy Orth. In essence, the Waterkeeper Alliance acts as a network connecting and supporting Waterkeepers nationwide and their respective communities.
In addition to fundraising, the Save Our Gulf program has created an advisory committee made up of veteran Waterkeepers with oil spill experience to support the affected Gulf Coast Waterkeepers, providing information, guidance, and communications support. Crises of this magnitude require the coordination of thousands of people, and the committee is taking the necessary steps to ensure that help gets where it’s needed in the most efficient, effective way possible. Issues taken up by the committee include public access to information, volunteer management, training, and legal and technical support.
Anyone interested in making a donation or providing support in any way should visit www.saveourgulf.org. Additionally, the website provides information about the Waterkeeper Alliance, past projects, links to other organizations, and informative multimedia resources. Donations to the program go toward providing everything from cleanup supplies and gear to emergency office space and food for volunteers.
Those curious about the role of the St. Johns Riverkeeper in protecting our river can visit the organization’s website, www.stjohnsriverkeeper.org, for more information.
-Kyle Johnson, Legal Intern
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Want Cleaner Soil? Plant a Tree.
You may know that the leaves of plants act as natural air purifiers, taking in carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen through a process called photosynthesis. You may not know that their roots can provide a similar function within contaminated soil. Through a process called phytoremediation, plants called hyperaccumulators naturally store (through bioaccumulation) or break down contaminants in soil, sediments, groundwater, and surface water. Plants with this ability can soak up metals, pesticides, solvents, explosives, crude oil, and other kinds of toxic wastes in an energy efficient and aesthetically pleasing process. They also prevent wind, rain, and groundwater from carrying the pollution elsewhere.
Phytoremediation has numerous advantages. First of all, it costs much less than traditional cleanup measures like soil replacement and groundwater pumping. Additionally, whereas these methods merely transport the problem to another location, phytoremediation allows the soil to be purified so that it may be used again. Furthermore, by allowing plants to do most of the work, remediation occurs without subjecting workers to the health hazards of toxic waste cleanup. Ultimately, it is much less disruptive to the environment than traditional methods at a much lower price. However, phytoremediation is not without its drawbacks.
The process is dependent on many different factors, such as depth of the roots and the concentration of the contaminant in the soil in relation to the tolerance of the plant absorbing it. Also, if the material is absorbed and held in the plant’s leaves, this could pose a danger to animals or humans who may harvest or eat the plant. It requires close monitoring. The biggest variable, however, may be time. As compared to some traditional measures of remediation, phytoremediation can take a long time. This depends on the type of plants used, number of plants used, the size and depth of the polluted area, and the type of soil among other factors. It often takes many years to clean up a site with phytoremediation.
Nevertheless, the disadvantages should not prevent phytoremediation from being considered a viable cleanup option. It can be a highly useful method, especially if time is not a factor. For instance, if land on which a lead paint factory once sat were targeted to build a park, phytoremediation would be an ideal solution if lead were found in the soil. Sunflowers have proven to be excellent hyperaccumulators, especially for lead. They are so effective that they were successfully used to clean up radioactive soil in Chernobyl after their nuclear disaster. Other potent hyperaccumulators include hydrangeas (aluminum), Blue Tongue (aluminum), water hyssop (lead, mercury, cadmium, and chromium), and willow trees (cadmium, zinc, copper), among many others.
Although phytoremediation, by itself, may not always prove to be the most practicable option, it should at least be considered as a compliment to traditional methods of hazardous waste cleanup. Many remediation projects use plants after soil replacement to eliminate remaining trace contaminants in the soil. All that remains then of the once polluted land are plants and trees. Much in the same way plants purify our atmosphere, they can be equally useful in cleaning up the earth under our feet.
-Kyle Johnson, Legal Intern
Phytoremediation has numerous advantages. First of all, it costs much less than traditional cleanup measures like soil replacement and groundwater pumping. Additionally, whereas these methods merely transport the problem to another location, phytoremediation allows the soil to be purified so that it may be used again. Furthermore, by allowing plants to do most of the work, remediation occurs without subjecting workers to the health hazards of toxic waste cleanup. Ultimately, it is much less disruptive to the environment than traditional methods at a much lower price. However, phytoremediation is not without its drawbacks.
The process is dependent on many different factors, such as depth of the roots and the concentration of the contaminant in the soil in relation to the tolerance of the plant absorbing it. Also, if the material is absorbed and held in the plant’s leaves, this could pose a danger to animals or humans who may harvest or eat the plant. It requires close monitoring. The biggest variable, however, may be time. As compared to some traditional measures of remediation, phytoremediation can take a long time. This depends on the type of plants used, number of plants used, the size and depth of the polluted area, and the type of soil among other factors. It often takes many years to clean up a site with phytoremediation.
Nevertheless, the disadvantages should not prevent phytoremediation from being considered a viable cleanup option. It can be a highly useful method, especially if time is not a factor. For instance, if land on which a lead paint factory once sat were targeted to build a park, phytoremediation would be an ideal solution if lead were found in the soil. Sunflowers have proven to be excellent hyperaccumulators, especially for lead. They are so effective that they were successfully used to clean up radioactive soil in Chernobyl after their nuclear disaster. Other potent hyperaccumulators include hydrangeas (aluminum), Blue Tongue (aluminum), water hyssop (lead, mercury, cadmium, and chromium), and willow trees (cadmium, zinc, copper), among many others.
Although phytoremediation, by itself, may not always prove to be the most practicable option, it should at least be considered as a compliment to traditional methods of hazardous waste cleanup. Many remediation projects use plants after soil replacement to eliminate remaining trace contaminants in the soil. All that remains then of the once polluted land are plants and trees. Much in the same way plants purify our atmosphere, they can be equally useful in cleaning up the earth under our feet.
-Kyle Johnson, Legal Intern
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Is Natural Gas a Bunch of Hot Air?
The Horizon Oil Rig Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a solemn reminder of mankind’s love-hate relationship with crude oil. It also begs the question – is there a better option on the horizon? Some folks in Pennsylvania say yes. Pennsylvania is home to the Marcellus Shale, a massive formation of marine sedimentary rock thought to contain vast amounts of untapped natural gas. Although it actually stretches well into New York, Ohio, and West Virginia, the section of rock situated in Pennsylvania is thought to contain the largest deposit of the resource. But before we go head over heels for natural gas, it is worth taking a closer look at its current uses and environmental impact, as well as considering the future of energy production in America.
Why natural gas? Natural gas is a source of electricity generation in utility turbines and power plants, emitting about 45% less greenhouse gas than coal. It is used in the home as well, in stoves and ovens, clothes dryers, and central heating. Natural gas is also used in fertilizer, municipal buses, and the manufacture of glass, steel, and plastics. Many companies around the world are also looking to build gas-powered aircraft.
Despite its claim as the cleanest fossil fuel, natural gas still contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. It is composed mostly of methane, which traps about twenty times more radiation in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Although carbon dioxide is released in much larger quantities, natural gas emissions are expectedly to dramatically climb in the future, thanks in part to discoveries of large deposits like the Marcellus Shale.
Another problem with natural gas is that it is a fossil fuel, meaning that it is only a matter of time before it is used up and we have to look elsewhere for a fuel source. Before we get swept away by the economic potential of natural gas and the Marcellus Shale, now is a good time to ask – what kind of energy economy do we want? Ideally the production of energy on a grand scale would come from a renewable resource, i.e. wind or the sun. These are both clean, infinite sources of energy. Mass production of energy from these sources is not viable yet, but much of that has to do with a lack of research into solo-voltaic (solar electricity) and windpower technology.
Given the state of flux in the oil industry and mankind’s increasing awareness of the catastrophic effects of oil production, now is an opportune time for a Manhattan Project with respect to energy. The U.S. government spent vast amounts of research to build the atomic bomb and to get to the moon. We now need to attack energy production the same way.
-Kyle Johnson, Legal Intern
Why natural gas? Natural gas is a source of electricity generation in utility turbines and power plants, emitting about 45% less greenhouse gas than coal. It is used in the home as well, in stoves and ovens, clothes dryers, and central heating. Natural gas is also used in fertilizer, municipal buses, and the manufacture of glass, steel, and plastics. Many companies around the world are also looking to build gas-powered aircraft.
Despite its claim as the cleanest fossil fuel, natural gas still contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. It is composed mostly of methane, which traps about twenty times more radiation in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Although carbon dioxide is released in much larger quantities, natural gas emissions are expectedly to dramatically climb in the future, thanks in part to discoveries of large deposits like the Marcellus Shale.
Another problem with natural gas is that it is a fossil fuel, meaning that it is only a matter of time before it is used up and we have to look elsewhere for a fuel source. Before we get swept away by the economic potential of natural gas and the Marcellus Shale, now is a good time to ask – what kind of energy economy do we want? Ideally the production of energy on a grand scale would come from a renewable resource, i.e. wind or the sun. These are both clean, infinite sources of energy. Mass production of energy from these sources is not viable yet, but much of that has to do with a lack of research into solo-voltaic (solar electricity) and windpower technology.
Given the state of flux in the oil industry and mankind’s increasing awareness of the catastrophic effects of oil production, now is an opportune time for a Manhattan Project with respect to energy. The U.S. government spent vast amounts of research to build the atomic bomb and to get to the moon. We now need to attack energy production the same way.
-Kyle Johnson, Legal Intern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)