No More Coal?

       According to a recent article from the Environmental News Network, quiet opposition to coal-fired power plants “is quickly evolving into a national tidal wave of grassroots opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations and a fast-growing number of state governments.”

       Recently, 59 coal-fired power plants were refused licenses,  the corporation TXU (Texas-Based Utility) reduced its planned coal plants from 11 to 3, and Florida’s $5.7 billion power plant was refused a license from Florida’s Public Service Commission, choosing instead to focus on the construction of the world’s largest solar-thermal power plant.

       Why all the opposition? There are many reasons:

1. The first, of course, revolves around climate change concerns. For instance, Florida, a state very susceptible to rising water levels, is strongly against new power plants.
2. Funding. Construction Costs which have the technology to keep plants as efficient as possible are sky-high.
3. Health concerns. Environmental proponents of resistance to coal plants bring up the issue of mercury emissions and the thousands of deaths per year from air pollution.
4. The Bush administration’s failure to endorse an underground plan to capture and store CO2 emissions from power plants. (Costs were too high).
5. Companies refusing to examine alternate methods to increase electricity use efficiency. (i.e. insulating buildings or using more efficient light bulbs)
6. Coal stocks are down and banks are being encouraged to reconsider funding coal-fired power plants.
7. Many believe that limiting coal plants will encourage the development and use of alternate energy sources, mainly wind, solar, and geothermal.

       Many see the changes to the coal industry as a step in the right direction, the next step being to extend tax credits for alternative sources.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10sun2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/commentary/31257

Smog Blogging

       Drowsiness and headaches sound like simple complaints after a long day’s work. But what about “dry eye,” congestion, and breathing troubles? Recent studies show that the dangers of smog extend inside city buildings and are truly capable of causing human sickness.

       The term is “sick building syndrome,” and it includes the problems listed above. Typically, workers experience these syndromes only while inside their work buildings. A study spanning four years looked at buildings in 37 cities (not necessarily the smoggiest), testing indoor air quality and surveying employees in 100 buildings from these cities. The buildings were studied under different weather conditions and temperatures, and research consistently showed a link between atmospheric ozone layers outside and the amount of people suffering from these illnesses.

       Even in cities where smog levels were not noticeably high, workers still experienced some of the symptoms on a smaller level. The research noted that most buildings have mechanical ventilating systems rather than natural circulation systems. The type of filter seemed to affect the results as well. (Polyester or synthetic filters causing more trouble than fiberglass filters.)

       So how is smog becoming a problem inside? Scientists are still guessing, but research has found that unstable ozone molecules can react chemically with office building materials. Glass doesn’t tend to have much of a reaction, but according to this study, the bonds in polyester are easily broken up by ozone. The issue involves more than just filters, though. Ozone reacts with certain plastics, carpet fibers, and even oil from human skin, resulting in toxic irritants.

       Sick Building Syndrome doesn’t fluctuate solely with smog levels. In a workplace, especially one that is crowded and busy, even simple cleaning products, solvents in everyday desk products (like white-out), or particles from certain furniture material can contribute. However, evidence strongly supports the idea that smog levels outside are an important factor.

    

Downtown Houston is covered in a shroud of haze in the afternoon, as seen from the north Friday, Aug. 4, 1995. Mayor Bob Lanier has approved the city’s participation in a program to issue ozone smog alerts when air pollution reaches unhealthy levels. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

Sources:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=smog-can-make-people-sick-even-indoors

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/sbs.html

http://www.lhc.org.uk/members/pubs/books/sbs/sb04.htm

Biofuel Backfire?

       Studies indicate that good intentions for the fuel crisis are causing more harm than benefit. According to Jason Hill, a leader of the study at the University of Minnesota, we are rushing into a good theory without considering all aspects and possible consequences. The process of creating biofuel crops from farmland may actually increase the output of greenhouse gases. At least, the benefits would not be significant until far into the future. The study calculated time for benefits from ethanol production to be about 167 years. 

          Some background info:

-          U.S. production of ethanol has increased by over 4.9 billion per year since 2000.

-          In the United States, ethanol provides nearly 5% of transportation fuel. (Renewable Fuels Association.)

-          2007 federal legislature has promoted doubling ethanol production in the next 10 years.

-          The main crops used for alternate fuels have been corn, palm oil, sugar cane, and soybeans. 

       Because they are carbon neutral (the carbon released is balanced by carbon taken in naturally by the crops), these fuels do have great potential. It is the process of obtaining them which is presenting the challenge. Clearing land to create biofuel plantation is releasing large amounts of CO2 into the air. It means overturning the soil and leaving vegetation that isn’t burned away simply to rot. A side effect is that the earth has fewer “natural sponges” to take in the carbon. Plantations don’t take in nearly as much CO2 as rainforests or grasslands. The effects are harsher in some areas than in others. In a study in Indonesia, for example, researchers found that clearing one rainforest released such a large amount of carbon that a net reduction wouldn’t be likely for over 400 years.

            How are scientists approaching the problem? Many encourage exploring the benefits of municipal trash and crop waste further. These areas present a daunting task of supplying necessary technology, however. Some farmers in the United States have been replacing soybean fields with cornfields in response to the ethanol demand. As a result, other areas of the world are clearing more land for the soybean demand. It’s a cycle that continues with no serious net reduction in carbon emissions, if any. Though considered carbon neutral, biofuel systems also must take into account the additional emissions from transportation and production. 

              

Heavy equipment works the site of the First United Ethanol, LLC plant in Mitchell County near Camilla, Ga., Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2007. First United Ethanol LLC, founded in 2005 by farmers and businessmen from 13 counties looking for ways to enhance the value of Georgia farm products, is building a dry mill ethanol facility capable of producing 100 million gallons of fuel-grade ethanol per year. The $170 million facility is expected to use 36 million bushels of corn. (AP Photo/The Albany Herald, Don Stalvey)http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-biofuel8feb08,1,7253036.story?ctrack=2&cset=true http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?ex=1360126800&en=93ca489d8380138f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Ripple Effects

Global warming means far more than melting ice caps and polar bears struggling for survival. In fact, the ripple effects are extremely numerous and often severe.

       A decline in certain species is just one example. Take the caribou of Alaska whose population has dropped in number by over 60,000. Close observations and research has shown us several reasons which correlate with rising temperatures. With an increase warmer days, the breeding time for mosquitoes and other insects extends, and the caribous expend precious energy trying to escape from them. Winters also present a challenge to the caribou. Increased precipitation buries the lichen they feed on deep beneath the snow and makes it more difficult for them to escape predators. Cold rains  turn to sheets of ice, making it often impossible for the caribou even to paw out their food. These effects carry into the spring when late blizzards delay migration.

                

       Animal species are not the only ones facing a threat. Human health is in danger as well. Although global warming leads to increased precipitation in some areas, it causes severe drought in others. Agriculture is disrupted, water sources become scarcer, and many nations which already struggle with poverty mus confront even greater challenges. Wildlife struggling to keep up with temperature change will make finding reliable food sources even more difficult. The intensity in events such as floods or hurricanes will destroy the land, eliminating even more sources of food. Additionally, rising temperatures tend to increase levels of smog, threatening those with respiratory illnesses. Studies are already showing a dramatic increase in asthma among children. 

       Though humans may be able to look ahead and make possible adaptations, we can only test the environment so far. Unless new changes are incorporated fast, even the walls built up to prevent flooding will be ineffective. Within the next 70 years or so, millions may lose their homes along the coast. With the rising population placing more and more stress on our planet, this disruption will undoubtedly change the economy as well. Some areas may suffer more with certain issues in the beginning, but global warming is still a worldwide problem that requires attention in full force from ALL nations. Many predict extreme political strife between countries in competition for resources over the basic necessities of food and water as well as energy resources, which will also be affected by the changing climate.

Sources:

National Geographic Documentary

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?

tagID=274http://globalwarming2020.com/2008/01/26/the-effects-of-global-warming-how-to-live-with-them/