Another round of beaches “renourishment” will begin in Jacksonville Beach today, Friday July 8, 2011. The last beach “renourishment” project was in 2005. Beach “renourishment” is the process by which sand that has been eroded from the shoreline is being replaced with sand from another source of sand. The Beaches’ shoreline has been eroded due to jetties and dredging of the St. Johns River. The beaches “renourishment” project is expected to replace about 735,000 cubic yards of sand. Sand will be pumped from the bottom of the ocean about eight miles off shore and then the sand will be distributed on the shore. The entire project will cost about 11 million and it is being funded with federal funds (62%), state funds (18%), and Jacksonville City funds (20%).
Work will begin in Jacksonville Beach near 36th Avenue South and it will move north to about one block south of Florida Avenue. Then work will move north towards Neptune Beach and Atlantic Beach from Lemon Street to just south of 19th Street in Atlantic Beach. The entire project is expected to last for at least 50 days, including about a month in Jacksonville Beach and about three weeks through Atlantic Beach. Work will be done 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Portions of the beach where work will be conducted will be temporarily closed. However, areas outside of the work will remain open.
Beachgoers may notice that the sand will be a different color than the sand that was there before the project began. However, according to the City of Jacksonville Beach the replacement sand met criteria set by the state of Florida for Duval County beaches including proper “grain size distribution, shell content, and color.” Also, according to the City of Jacksonville Beach, within a few days or weeks the sun will bleach the sand and the sand will turn into a color that is similar to the color of the sand before it was replaced. The City of Jacksonville Beach has concluded that this beach “renourishment” project will “protect us from future tropical storms, hurricanes, and nor'easters” and that the project is important to preserve the beach, recreation, environmental habitat, and property along the shore.
Although there are alleged benefits to beach “renourishment” there are also some consequences that may occur due to beach “renourishment.” Since the replacement sand will be pumped from the bottom of the ocean it can be expected that the pumping will negatively affect organisms and habitats that are in the area where the sand is being pumped. Also the placement of the pumped sand on the shore may negatively affect organisms and habitats where the replacement sand is being distributed. Therefore while it is important to deal with beach erosion, the process of beach “renourishment” may not be the best option. The negative consequences of beach “renourishment” should be taken into consideration and weighed against the benefits that the beach “renourishment” is expected to bring. However, it seems like beach “renourishment” is the only option being exercised and considered by the government, perhaps citizens should examine other ways that the government can best deal with beach erosion.
-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
Friday, July 8, 2011
Protecting the Atmosphere for Future Generations through Atmospheric Trust Litigation
Mary C. Wood, an environmental law professor at the University of Oregon argues that the atmosphere is a natural resource that should be protected in trust by the government, making the government trustee of the atmosphere and obligating the government to reduce carbon emissions to protect the atmosphere and combat climate change. This theory is based on the public trust doctrine which is a legal principle that requires the government to protect natural resources that belong to the people, for present and future generations. Under this theory every level of government from federal to state to local governments could be held accountable for protecting the atmosphere as a public trust.
Wood argues that “atmospheric trust litigation” is a way for citizens to bring lawsuits against their governments in order to force governments to meet their obligations to protect the atmosphere. So how does atmospheric trust litigation work? First courts must declare that the atmosphere is in the public trust. Then courts could make a judgment that sets the trust obligations that governments have to comply with. Courts could also order an accounting against governments, which requires governments to measure their carbon footprint and then show courts that they are reducing carbon emissions based on scientific findings. Through this accounting, citizens would be able to see if their governments are really reducing carbon emissions. In addition, if courts find that government officials are not meeting their obligations courts could hold officials in contempt of court or make rulings prohibiting activities that contribute to carbon emissions. In May, 2011, Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit organization based in Oregon filed suit in all 50 states on behalf of children, alleging that government entities violated the public trust doctrine because they failed to limit greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Our Children’s Trust asked courts to find that states have a duty to future generations to protect the atmosphere in trust immediately.
The public trust doctrine has usually been used to protect public access to navigable waterways and beaches. Therefore, getting courts to agree to declare the atmosphere within the public trust may be very difficult because this would require courts to accept an untraditional legal argument. Atmospheric trust litigations are currently being litigated, so the public will have to wait and see whether or not courts will find that the atmosphere should be protected in trust. Perhaps if one court agrees that the atmosphere should be protected in trust then other courts will follow suit, but so far no court has made a decision finding the atmosphere to be a resource held in trust by the people. Our Children’s Trust has upcoming hearings in several states with regard to their requests for courts to declare the atmosphere a public trust. The dates and times of those hearings can be found at http://ourchildrenstrust.org/legal-action.
-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
Wood argues that “atmospheric trust litigation” is a way for citizens to bring lawsuits against their governments in order to force governments to meet their obligations to protect the atmosphere. So how does atmospheric trust litigation work? First courts must declare that the atmosphere is in the public trust. Then courts could make a judgment that sets the trust obligations that governments have to comply with. Courts could also order an accounting against governments, which requires governments to measure their carbon footprint and then show courts that they are reducing carbon emissions based on scientific findings. Through this accounting, citizens would be able to see if their governments are really reducing carbon emissions. In addition, if courts find that government officials are not meeting their obligations courts could hold officials in contempt of court or make rulings prohibiting activities that contribute to carbon emissions. In May, 2011, Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit organization based in Oregon filed suit in all 50 states on behalf of children, alleging that government entities violated the public trust doctrine because they failed to limit greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Our Children’s Trust asked courts to find that states have a duty to future generations to protect the atmosphere in trust immediately.
The public trust doctrine has usually been used to protect public access to navigable waterways and beaches. Therefore, getting courts to agree to declare the atmosphere within the public trust may be very difficult because this would require courts to accept an untraditional legal argument. Atmospheric trust litigations are currently being litigated, so the public will have to wait and see whether or not courts will find that the atmosphere should be protected in trust. Perhaps if one court agrees that the atmosphere should be protected in trust then other courts will follow suit, but so far no court has made a decision finding the atmosphere to be a resource held in trust by the people. Our Children’s Trust has upcoming hearings in several states with regard to their requests for courts to declare the atmosphere a public trust. The dates and times of those hearings can be found at http://ourchildrenstrust.org/legal-action.
-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
Selling and Developing Government Land
Last year the Jamaican government announced that it was going to sell 3,000 acres of property in Font Hill. The property is proposed to be used for the development of a large resort hotel. The land has many environmental features from beaches to agricultural lands to a mangrove forest. The land is also the habitat for wildlife ranging from the American alligator to the West Indian Whistling Duck to migratory birds. This sale has been strongly opposed by environmental lobbyists in Jamaica. These lobbyists are concerned about what will happen to the wildlife that are on the property and the destruction of natural resources. The government officials that support the development of Font Hill believe that the development will create jobs and help the economy. Lobbyists argue that the development may help the economy, but at what risk to an area of biodiversity?
Also in Jamaica, the Urban Development Corporation, a government agency, proposed to develop Winnifred Beach and deny the public access to the beach. The Corporation proposed to put cottages and villas on the beach. The public has opposed the development of the beach arguing that it will degrade the environment of the beach by negatively impacting species habitats and negatively impacting the coral reefs. The public has also argued that the beach has been used by the public for years and therefore the beach should remain open for public access.
Meanwhile, according to Dennis Kravitz, an AP business writer, in the United States in May, 2011, the Obama administration asked Congress to sell off 12,000 government owned properties claiming that they were under underutilized or were no longer needed. The Obama Administration says that taking the properties out of the government’s hands would save the government about $15 billion over a three year period. The United States government owns about 1 million pieces of property and pays about $20 billion a year to operate and maintain the properties. These talks to sell government owned properties came at a time when the government was trying to cut the deficit. The government proposed that the money that would be saved by selling the properties would be used 60% to pay the deficit and 40% to cover the costs to run government facilities. Selling these properties may allow for private entities to purchase and develop the properties causing environmental harms. There are environmental regulations that new developments may be subject to but should the government sell lands that have the potential for development causing environmental harms or does the economic benefit that the government will receive outweigh the potential environmental harms?
Should governments allow government owned lands to be privatized? It seems like every time the sale of government land or privatization of land has come up it almost always is proposed for an economic benefit. In Jamaica government owned property is being sold to develop a hotel to create jobs and a beach is being privatized to bring tourists to stay at cottages and villas on the beach. While in the United States, government land is being proposed to be sold to help pay off the government’s debt. While government economic interests are important I can’t help but wonder how privatization of these lands will impact the environment. Are these governments really taking into consideration the economic environmental benefits that these lands provide now?
-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
Also in Jamaica, the Urban Development Corporation, a government agency, proposed to develop Winnifred Beach and deny the public access to the beach. The Corporation proposed to put cottages and villas on the beach. The public has opposed the development of the beach arguing that it will degrade the environment of the beach by negatively impacting species habitats and negatively impacting the coral reefs. The public has also argued that the beach has been used by the public for years and therefore the beach should remain open for public access.
Meanwhile, according to Dennis Kravitz, an AP business writer, in the United States in May, 2011, the Obama administration asked Congress to sell off 12,000 government owned properties claiming that they were under underutilized or were no longer needed. The Obama Administration says that taking the properties out of the government’s hands would save the government about $15 billion over a three year period. The United States government owns about 1 million pieces of property and pays about $20 billion a year to operate and maintain the properties. These talks to sell government owned properties came at a time when the government was trying to cut the deficit. The government proposed that the money that would be saved by selling the properties would be used 60% to pay the deficit and 40% to cover the costs to run government facilities. Selling these properties may allow for private entities to purchase and develop the properties causing environmental harms. There are environmental regulations that new developments may be subject to but should the government sell lands that have the potential for development causing environmental harms or does the economic benefit that the government will receive outweigh the potential environmental harms?
Should governments allow government owned lands to be privatized? It seems like every time the sale of government land or privatization of land has come up it almost always is proposed for an economic benefit. In Jamaica government owned property is being sold to develop a hotel to create jobs and a beach is being privatized to bring tourists to stay at cottages and villas on the beach. While in the United States, government land is being proposed to be sold to help pay off the government’s debt. While government economic interests are important I can’t help but wonder how privatization of these lands will impact the environment. Are these governments really taking into consideration the economic environmental benefits that these lands provide now?
-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
Should the U.S. take action to protect Bluefin Tuna, Or should it be an International Effort?
The population of bluefin tuna has declined over the years due to overfishing and more recently the western Atlantic bluefin tuna population will be affected by the Gulf Oil spill. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition in May 2010 for protection of bluefin tuna as an endangered species, but in May 2011 the Obama Administration declined to give bluefin tuna endangered species protection. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that they would place the species on a watch list as they wait to see how the species is managed through international agreements and initiatives. Larry Robinson, NOAA’s assistant secretary stated that bluefin tuna did not need endangered species protection because the species was “not likely to become extinct.”
Other environmental organizations believe that bluefin tuna should be protected through an international effort instead of the U.S. unilaterally listing the species as an endangered species. However an international attempt last year to protect bluefin tuna at the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species was blocked. Also, according to Lee Crockett, the director of federal fisheries policy for the Pew Environment Group it has been suggested that international protection of the species has not been effective because fishermen still illegally catch more than the legal quota.
It is understandable that the Center for Biological Diversity would want the bluefin tuna to be given endangered species protection, but it seems as if not given the species endangered species protection was not an error because based on the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §1531, in determining whether a species is endangered the Secretary of Interior or Commerce shall give consideration to species that are in “danger of extinction.” Therefore, since bluefin tuna was not in danger of extinction at the time that the Center for Biological Diversity filed its petition, listing the bluefin tuna as an endangered species was not required. Therefore, if environmental organizations seek to protect the bluefin tuna they should either keep monitoring the species to see if it becomes in danger of extinction or push the U.S. government to join in any international agreement that seeks to protect the bluefin tuna. It is difficult in international agreements to get all of the countries to strictly enforce the agreement but just because an international agreement is not as strong or effective as environmental organizations would like them to be does not mean that the U.S. government has to take over regulation in an area that they have found does not need its unilateral protection or that is not required by its laws. However, it can become frustrating if all attempts to protect a species is merely for show on paper and no real protection is being done. Perhaps in a few years the issue of bluefin tuna receiving endangered species protection will be revisited.
-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
Other environmental organizations believe that bluefin tuna should be protected through an international effort instead of the U.S. unilaterally listing the species as an endangered species. However an international attempt last year to protect bluefin tuna at the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species was blocked. Also, according to Lee Crockett, the director of federal fisheries policy for the Pew Environment Group it has been suggested that international protection of the species has not been effective because fishermen still illegally catch more than the legal quota.
It is understandable that the Center for Biological Diversity would want the bluefin tuna to be given endangered species protection, but it seems as if not given the species endangered species protection was not an error because based on the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §1531, in determining whether a species is endangered the Secretary of Interior or Commerce shall give consideration to species that are in “danger of extinction.” Therefore, since bluefin tuna was not in danger of extinction at the time that the Center for Biological Diversity filed its petition, listing the bluefin tuna as an endangered species was not required. Therefore, if environmental organizations seek to protect the bluefin tuna they should either keep monitoring the species to see if it becomes in danger of extinction or push the U.S. government to join in any international agreement that seeks to protect the bluefin tuna. It is difficult in international agreements to get all of the countries to strictly enforce the agreement but just because an international agreement is not as strong or effective as environmental organizations would like them to be does not mean that the U.S. government has to take over regulation in an area that they have found does not need its unilateral protection or that is not required by its laws. However, it can become frustrating if all attempts to protect a species is merely for show on paper and no real protection is being done. Perhaps in a few years the issue of bluefin tuna receiving endangered species protection will be revisited.
-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Vote for the Timucua National Park!!!
America Is Your Park Launches Today, Vote At LivePositively.com For the Timucuan Ecological and Historical Park To Win $100,000!
Washington D.C. (June 29, 2011) – If you’re reading this, you should get to
your the Timucuan Ecological and Historical Park – STAT! The National Park Foundation, in partnership with Coca-Cola, America’s State Parks and the National Recreation and Park Association, launched today the second annual America Is Your Park campaign and is encouraging all Americans to get outdoors and embrace a healthy
lifestyle, while also embracing the importance of keeping our parks
protected and preserved.
Families are also invited to vote for their favorite park to win the title
of “America’s Favorite Park” and a $100,000 recreation grant made possible
by the Coca-Cola Live Positively initiative.
“Last year, millions of Americans showed their passion for their favorite
parks by voting, so this year we’ve raised the stakes – more parks can win
and there are more ways to vote,” said L. Celeste Bottorff, Vice President,
Living Well, Coca-Cola North America. “We’re asking people to be ‘digital’
by voting online for their favorite park and then get ‘physical’ by getting
out and having fun with us this summer.”
Throughout the summer, people can help their favorite national, state or
local park win big with just a click of a button and there is no limit on
the amount of times one can vote. There are four different ways people can
vote:
1. Click on their favorite park at LivePositvely.com and vote
2. Upload photos of themselves in their favorite park to LivePositvely.com
3. Starting August 10, they can upload video of themselves in their
favorite park to LivePositvely.com
4. Starting July 11, people also can vote by checking into a park using
Facebook Places
The three parks that receive the most votes by September 6, 2011 will be
awarded grants in the following amounts: First Place - $100,000; Second
Place - $50,000; and, Third Place - $25,000. These grants will help
restore, rebuild or enhance recreation areas in parks where people can play
and be active.
The campaign encourages people to attend active healthy living events at
local parks in select cities this summer. Additionally, people can watch,
download and share fitness-in-the-park videos from LivePositively.com
featuring fitness icon Jake Steinfeld, founder of “Body By Jake.”
“Our national parks are home to our country’s treasures -- from our iconic
landscapes to the hallowed places where history happened,” said Neil
Mulholland, President and CEO, National Park Foundation. “Thanks to
dedicated partners like Coca-Cola and the America Is Your Park campaign,
our nation’s parks can continue to receive the vital support they need.”
Last year, thanks to more than 1.6 million votes cast by its supporters,
Bear Head Lake State Park in Ely, Minnesota was named “America’s Favorite
Park.” The park is using the grant to build a new warming hut to ensure
safety and comfort for winter sports enthusiasts all season long.
For more than 40 years, Coca-Cola has supported America’s parks through
partnerships with individual parks and national park organizations. The
Company has donated more than $14 million for restoration and renovation of
our country’s parks, including the restoration of more than 260 miles of
“Active Trails” for families to hike and explore, and development of the
first sustainable recycling program at The National Mall, a national park
in the heart of Washington, D.C. Most recently, Coca-Cola donated $1
million to The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation’s Peopling of
America® Center, which helps to oversee the historic restoration of the
national park.
About The National Park Foundation
You are the owner of 84 million acres of the world’s most treasured
landscapes, ecosystems, and historic sites -- all protected in America’s
nearly 400 national parks. Chartered by Congress, the National Park
Foundation is the official charity of America’s national parks. We work
hand in hand with the National Park Service to connect you and all
Americans to the parks, and to make sure that they are preserved for the
generations who will follow.
Join us – This is Your Land. www.nationalparks.org
FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/nationalpark
TWITTER http://twitter.com/goparks
Washington D.C. (June 29, 2011) – If you’re reading this, you should get to
your the Timucuan Ecological and Historical Park – STAT! The National Park Foundation, in partnership with Coca-Cola, America’s State Parks and the National Recreation and Park Association, launched today the second annual America Is Your Park campaign and is encouraging all Americans to get outdoors and embrace a healthy
lifestyle, while also embracing the importance of keeping our parks
protected and preserved.
Families are also invited to vote for their favorite park to win the title
of “America’s Favorite Park” and a $100,000 recreation grant made possible
by the Coca-Cola Live Positively initiative.
“Last year, millions of Americans showed their passion for their favorite
parks by voting, so this year we’ve raised the stakes – more parks can win
and there are more ways to vote,” said L. Celeste Bottorff, Vice President,
Living Well, Coca-Cola North America. “We’re asking people to be ‘digital’
by voting online for their favorite park and then get ‘physical’ by getting
out and having fun with us this summer.”
Throughout the summer, people can help their favorite national, state or
local park win big with just a click of a button and there is no limit on
the amount of times one can vote. There are four different ways people can
vote:
1. Click on their favorite park at LivePositvely.com and vote
2. Upload photos of themselves in their favorite park to LivePositvely.com
3. Starting August 10, they can upload video of themselves in their
favorite park to LivePositvely.com
4. Starting July 11, people also can vote by checking into a park using
Facebook Places
The three parks that receive the most votes by September 6, 2011 will be
awarded grants in the following amounts: First Place - $100,000; Second
Place - $50,000; and, Third Place - $25,000. These grants will help
restore, rebuild or enhance recreation areas in parks where people can play
and be active.
The campaign encourages people to attend active healthy living events at
local parks in select cities this summer. Additionally, people can watch,
download and share fitness-in-the-park videos from LivePositively.com
featuring fitness icon Jake Steinfeld, founder of “Body By Jake.”
“Our national parks are home to our country’s treasures -- from our iconic
landscapes to the hallowed places where history happened,” said Neil
Mulholland, President and CEO, National Park Foundation. “Thanks to
dedicated partners like Coca-Cola and the America Is Your Park campaign,
our nation’s parks can continue to receive the vital support they need.”
Last year, thanks to more than 1.6 million votes cast by its supporters,
Bear Head Lake State Park in Ely, Minnesota was named “America’s Favorite
Park.” The park is using the grant to build a new warming hut to ensure
safety and comfort for winter sports enthusiasts all season long.
For more than 40 years, Coca-Cola has supported America’s parks through
partnerships with individual parks and national park organizations. The
Company has donated more than $14 million for restoration and renovation of
our country’s parks, including the restoration of more than 260 miles of
“Active Trails” for families to hike and explore, and development of the
first sustainable recycling program at The National Mall, a national park
in the heart of Washington, D.C. Most recently, Coca-Cola donated $1
million to The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation’s Peopling of
America® Center, which helps to oversee the historic restoration of the
national park.
About The National Park Foundation
You are the owner of 84 million acres of the world’s most treasured
landscapes, ecosystems, and historic sites -- all protected in America’s
nearly 400 national parks. Chartered by Congress, the National Park
Foundation is the official charity of America’s national parks. We work
hand in hand with the National Park Service to connect you and all
Americans to the parks, and to make sure that they are preserved for the
generations who will follow.
Join us – This is Your Land. www.nationalparks.org
FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/nationalpark
TWITTER http://twitter.com/goparks
Friday, June 10, 2011
Earn Discounts and Deals Just by Recycling
Recyclebank is a company that gives points and rewards to people who recycle and engage in green activities. Members can use the points that they have earned to claim rewards from places like Bloomingdales and Macy’s or get deals or discounts on products like Dove, Aveeno, and Kashi. These are only a few of the rewards; Recyclebank has over 100 rewards to choose from. If you want to get involved go to http://www.recyclebank.com/ and register now. You can begin to earn points by learning about different recycling activities and taking quizzes or by referring friends to Recyclebank on Facebook or Twitter.
There are many other ways to earn points on Recyclebank after registering. First, members can recycle their electronic devices at recyclebank.flipswap.com. Second, members can apply for a Gconomy Visa Card. Members can earn points by shopping with the card at participating Recyclebank Reward Partners (any company that offers rewards on Recyclebank is a partner) or anywhere Visa cards are accepted. Third, members can participate in conservation challenges on “The Future Friendly Neighbors” Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/futurefriendly. Fourth, members can earn points by recycling Kashi boxes and Ziploc bags. There will be a points code on the products that members can enter on recyclebank.com to earn points. Fifth, members can earn points monthly by making a pledge on Aveeno’s Facebook page at https://www.face book.com/aveeno?sk=app_192486454119700. Sixth, members can earn points by recycling at home. Only some communities and waste haulers participate in Recyclebank’s Home Recycling program. Members will have to provide Recyclebank with their address, and Recyclebank will determine if the member is eligible for home recycling. The items that members can recycle at home are dependent on what each City accepts for recycling, so members should contact their local government to see what their City accepts. If members are in an area where there are no participating communities or waste haulers, then Recyclebank suggests that members send their local government or waste haulers a letter informing them about Recyclebank.
Recyclebank is a great resource because Recyclebank gives points for some of the recycling activities people already engage in. All you have to do now if you already recycle or are interested in green activities is go to recyclebank.com, find what you are interested in and earn as many points as you like. This program is great even for those people who are just beginning to recycle because Recyclebank gives easy step by step instructions and tips for proper recycling. Now people can not only help save the environment but they can be rewarded for their actions. The more people join programs like Recyclebank the more it will get other people interested in recycling and in turn this will help save the environment.
-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
There are many other ways to earn points on Recyclebank after registering. First, members can recycle their electronic devices at recyclebank.flipswap.com. Second, members can apply for a Gconomy Visa Card. Members can earn points by shopping with the card at participating Recyclebank Reward Partners (any company that offers rewards on Recyclebank is a partner) or anywhere Visa cards are accepted. Third, members can participate in conservation challenges on “The Future Friendly Neighbors” Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/futurefriendly. Fourth, members can earn points by recycling Kashi boxes and Ziploc bags. There will be a points code on the products that members can enter on recyclebank.com to earn points. Fifth, members can earn points monthly by making a pledge on Aveeno’s Facebook page at https://www.face book.com/aveeno?sk=app_192486454119700. Sixth, members can earn points by recycling at home. Only some communities and waste haulers participate in Recyclebank’s Home Recycling program. Members will have to provide Recyclebank with their address, and Recyclebank will determine if the member is eligible for home recycling. The items that members can recycle at home are dependent on what each City accepts for recycling, so members should contact their local government to see what their City accepts. If members are in an area where there are no participating communities or waste haulers, then Recyclebank suggests that members send their local government or waste haulers a letter informing them about Recyclebank.
Recyclebank is a great resource because Recyclebank gives points for some of the recycling activities people already engage in. All you have to do now if you already recycle or are interested in green activities is go to recyclebank.com, find what you are interested in and earn as many points as you like. This program is great even for those people who are just beginning to recycle because Recyclebank gives easy step by step instructions and tips for proper recycling. Now people can not only help save the environment but they can be rewarded for their actions. The more people join programs like Recyclebank the more it will get other people interested in recycling and in turn this will help save the environment.
-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Can Floridians and Their Children Breathe Easy This Summer?
Florida has many power plants; and according to an Environment Florida report, Dirty Energy’s Assault on Our Health: Ozone Pollution, those power plants are estimated to emit more smog-forming pollution than 45 other U.S. states. Now that the summer has arrived, smog is going to become even more of a problem because sunlight and hot weather cause smog to concentrate. Florida’s children who live in high smog areas and are exposed to the smog are going to be greatly affected by the high levels of smog concentration as they participate in summer activities outdoors. High levels of smog may even cause children to develop a diminished lung capacity. Smog can also affect children even when they are in the womb, by affecting their birth weight and by negatively affecting their growth. Adults are not immune from the health effects that exposure to smog pollution may cause either. This pollution can cause damage to lung tissue and the ability to breathe normally can be diminished.
What is our government doing about this problem? In July 2011 the U.S. EPA is geared up to finalize standards that will reduce emissions that cause the formation of smog. These rules will still allow smog to remain in the air but they are supposed to reduce the allowable level of emissions that create smog so that the air can be safe to breathe. Although the U.S. EPA is set to develop stricter standards they are being opposed by Congress and lobbyists that have threatened to block the rules. Florida Senator Bill Nelson and Congressman Ted Deutch support the stricter rules. Some in Congress feel that the stricter standards are not necessary because there are already smog standards in place from 2008, so they ask “why increase the standards and put pressure on the power plant industry?” They also ask, “if the standards in 2008 were supposed to protect the air that we breathe, then why does EPA need to set stricter standards?”
It can be assumed that the 2008 smog standards were enough to protect the public health but the fact that the U.S. EPA finds it necessary to finalize stricter standards makes me think that those standards are not enough to protect the health of Floridians and their children. Shouldn’t Floridians be able to breathe safely especially in the summer months when people want to enjoy the outdoors? I would say so, and the EPA is set to go ahead and set the stricter standards.
-Antoinette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
What is our government doing about this problem? In July 2011 the U.S. EPA is geared up to finalize standards that will reduce emissions that cause the formation of smog. These rules will still allow smog to remain in the air but they are supposed to reduce the allowable level of emissions that create smog so that the air can be safe to breathe. Although the U.S. EPA is set to develop stricter standards they are being opposed by Congress and lobbyists that have threatened to block the rules. Florida Senator Bill Nelson and Congressman Ted Deutch support the stricter rules. Some in Congress feel that the stricter standards are not necessary because there are already smog standards in place from 2008, so they ask “why increase the standards and put pressure on the power plant industry?” They also ask, “if the standards in 2008 were supposed to protect the air that we breathe, then why does EPA need to set stricter standards?”
It can be assumed that the 2008 smog standards were enough to protect the public health but the fact that the U.S. EPA finds it necessary to finalize stricter standards makes me think that those standards are not enough to protect the health of Floridians and their children. Shouldn’t Floridians be able to breathe safely especially in the summer months when people want to enjoy the outdoors? I would say so, and the EPA is set to go ahead and set the stricter standards.
-Antoinette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)