Disastrous Oil Spills

Sign the petition to end our dependence on oil at http://pol.moveon.org/nomoreoil/?id=20940-17303344-NedGHYx&t=4.

I feel obligated to say that oil spills are the most interesting thing that I learned this quarter, because I requested that we cover the topic in class. It is a current event, and inexorably linked to global warming, so I find myself pretty passionate about the topic. I learned about the different options for cleaning up oil spills, which is something that I wanted to know more about for a long time. However, beyond the cleanup measures, several political points surround this issue and need to be addressed.

Take a look at the disturbing pictures. We have discussed cleanup efforts for the water and beaches, but what will become of the wildlife? This poor bird, and many others, will die. The Brown Pelican, making a comeback from endangerment, are once again threated to be worse off than when they were originally placed on the endangered species list.

I also found an interesting article on TheEcologist.org suggesting that ecocide should be added as a crime in the International arena. The International Criminal Court cannot bring BP to trial under its four categories of crime, so it is suggested that another type of crime, “ecocide” be added. The major point is that BP paid out $530 million from 2001-2009, which is only one third of one per cent of the company’s profits. Financial penalties are not enough, and criminal consequences, such as CEO jail time in addition to financial retribution, may be a better deterrent.

Another argument for adding ecocide to the list of international crimes is the oil spills in Nigeria. Why are we uneducated and/or unmoved by the lack of environmental controls in Nigeria? According to a commentary in the Miami Herald, there are over 2000 oil spills that have not been cleaned up at a rate of about 300 spills per year. A subsidiary of Exxon-Mobile is responsible for poisoning the sea and marshes, and it has been a little over a month since 1 million gallons of crude oil have been spewed into the Niger River Delta.

Another point of contention is that many Conservatives indicate that the oil spill happened, because environmentalists prevented drilling in shallower waters and in safer locations. However, http://beforeitsnews.com/news/74/116/Enviros_Didnt_Cause_The_Gulf_Oil_Spill_..._Peak_Oil_Did.html">this article argues that companies are drilling in deep waters, because we have reached peak oil, which means that we reached maximum oil production and are now heading into terminal decline. Desperate for oil, companies are drilling in more dangerous locations, wherever they can tap into the oil.

There can be a lot of talk about these topics, but at some point, someone must be held accountable ... and someone needs to do something. Where do we go from here?

Is Nuclear Energy Really Low-Carbon?

Upon review of the article "Nuclear energy: assessing the emissions," I still find myself reluctant to support nuclear energy as an effective carbon-reducing solution for the next 50 years. Although there is evidence that a plant produces very little carbon in its emissions, the article provides some point and counterpoint arguments regarding the efficiency in steps leading up to and following the actual plant operation.

Personally, my biggest concern has always been the handling of waste and the decommissioning of plants. Therefore, I never really took into consideration the steps that it takes to produce nuclear power in the first place. I did not put thought into the construction of the plant or the mining and transportaiton of the uranium. While I agree with Paul Genoa's stance that we need a protfolio with multiple solutions, I am not convinced that nuclear energy should be one of the components of that portfolio.

Because wind and solar energy emit up to six times less carbon dioxide, and since these solutions take less time and money to implement, it seems clear that these options should be implemented before nuclear energy. We're talking about a much shorter payback period for wind and solar energy. The Energy Policy Act seems to have spurred many license applications, since the Act offers tax breaks and loan guarantees.

However, it seems like nuclear energy will continue to experience an uphill battle with President Obama as well as in the court of public opinion. For example, Obama refused additional funding to the Yucca Mountain Project for waste disposal. Closer to home, the Piketon request for funding for uranium enrichment did not get approved by Obama. This site was formerly used to enrich uranium during the Cold War, and last year, Duke Energy announced plans to open a plant there. Also, the Ohio Action Committee constantly rallies against nuclear energy (hint: correlation of health problems). In 2003 the Davis-Besse plant was shut down for repairs when the NRC found extensive corrosive damage to the reactor vessel head; and the Perry plant was shutdown in 2003 when there was the massive northeast power outage.

Regarding natural disasters, we truly have some risks associated with the impact of natural disasters. For example, the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio was hit by a tornado in 1998. Transmission towers were damaged, which affected the supply of power to the customer base. The very possiblity that a tornado could have damaged a more unstable and dangerous part of the plant just blows my mind (better than blowing up a community or two). This risk exists with any plant located in an area that exeriences earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes; so we have pretty much ruled out all states as plant site candidates.

Finally, if the goal is to level off the carbon emissions over the next 50 years, then Genoa is way off base when he attempts to promote the future capabilities of plants running on lower-grade uranium, as well as future improvements in mining uranium. These are all longer-term possibilities, and decisions need to be made as to where to invest money - in research for solutions to some of the issues of this political hot potato - or in wind and solar energy to start reaping the benefits of lower emissions now!

Bottled Water - Deal or No Deal?

For this assignment, we were asked to consider the safety and cost-effectiveness of bottled water. I referenced three web sites.

Sierra Club's bottled water campaign
The Sierra Club web site lists false advertising, packaging and marketing as a major issue. It indicates that bottled water costs approximately 1000 times more than tap water!



This site also points out that Nestle received $9MM in tax credits while 20,000 families had their water turned off due to lack of payment. They cited this as an injustice and in opposition to the United Nations stance that water is a basic human right and need.

Independent bottled water testing found bacteria, toxic chemicals and chlorination byproducts in some bottled waters, so it is also not safe to assume that bottled water is safer than tap water. The massive sales of bottled water is also creating a tremendous amount of trash!

International Bottled Water Association

Bottled Water
The FDA expects states to approve the water sources for bottled water, because the states regulate the bottled water industry. States also have their own bottled water regulations.

The IBWA states that the FDA is only responsible for verifying compliance, and that the states are responsible for inspecting and testing water sources and bottled water. There are no specifications regarding how often inspections are to be performed, and bottled water is treated as a food product by the FDA. Therefore, there is more regulation regarding packaging and labeling than there is regarding water quality and contaminants.

Tap Water
The IBWA indicated that there are many variations on regulations for tap water, depending on the source, size of plant, purificaiton process, etc. They proceeded to provide what sounds like an extreme example, where a pubilc water system can qualify for contaminant waivers and reduced testing frequencies. The site continues to state that this waiver process contrasts with the rigorous tesitng standards for bottled water, but because the states regulate and test their own bottled water, there are no checks and balances and no validation for this claim.

For tap water, "N/A" was listed under Compliance and Enforcement, which can lead one to presume that compliance and enforcement are not applicable.

NRDC (National Resources Defense Council) study report on bottled water
This web site has so much information, I am not sure how to summarize what is presents. Even the executive summary is several pages long. However, the site did point out some major FDA gaps, and a couple of them really stood out to me. For example, the FDA rules do not apply to water sourced, packaged and sold in the same state. When a business does fall under the FDA regulations, the rules are not as strict as the EPA rules for tap water. For example, there are no rules prohibiting E. coli or coliform bacterias, and there are no federal disinfection and filtration regulations...just to name two.

My Point of View
Overall, I consider bottled water to be no deal at all. It is not a good deal for my pocketbook, nor is it a good deal for my health or the Earth's health (trash). I do drink bottled water sometimes, though; such as a replacement for soda when I am out (and facility does not serve from tap), and when I am on the go and tap water in a plastic sports bottle won't meet my needs. But - most of the time, I am drinking tap water anyway. From what I have read, tap water is safer, and it tastes just fine to me!

My Carbon Emission Remission Mission

Okay, so here's the rub. We're doing a lot of the things that we should be doing already - and with my being an unemployed, full-time student - that is putting a bit of a crimp in our budget. We won't be doing some of the major upgrades, like home remodels, vehicle purchases, etc., that would make a significant change.

On the EPA website, there were action items to select that would estimate financial and CO2 savings, and my action items resulted in an estimated 8% decrease. Let's take a look, shall we? Everything with an *asterik* is a success!

* 1. Reduce the number of miles I drive my first vehicle by 10 miles per week ($83 annual savings; 531 pounds of CO2 per year 1 percent of your total emissions). Last week, I walked to pick up some fresh produce, plus my daughter and I walked to the library. I also combined some errands together and ran them on the same day instead of fitting them in as I could each day. I wasn't sure if this would actually save 10 miles, but my calculations estimate that it actually saved about 11 miles.
2. Reduce the number of miles I drive my second vehicle by 10 miles per week ($83 annual savings; 462 pounds of CO2 per year 1 percent of your total emissions). Well, maybe I should not have answered this one on behalf of my husband, because almost all of the driving that he does is to and from work. However, there are times that we could drive his slightly more efficient car, instead of my mini-van.
? 3. Perform regular maintenance on my vehicles ($173 annual savings; 1,243 pounds of CO2 per year 2 percent of your total emissions). Can we count this one as a savings if we already keep our vehicles maintained? And frankly, I don't think that an individual can count this as monetary savings, if one assumes a trip to the shop for the engine tune-up. Let's just call this one a wash.
4. Turn down my household's heating thermostat by 2 degrees Fahrenheit on winter nights ($17 annual savings; 142 pounds of CO2 per year 0 percent of your total emissions). Yes, we can do this one, but I can't count it as something completed for our assignment.
* 5. Turn down my household's air conditioner thermostat by 1 degrees Fahrenheit in summer ($48 annual savings; 444 pounds of CO2 per year 1 percent of your total emissions). I will count this as a win now, because my husband likes to run the AC to keep things cool and to dehumidify. I actually changed our programmable thermostat 2 degrees, and so far so good.
* 6. Enable the sleep feature on my computer and monitor ($10 annual savings; 153 pounds of CO2 per year 0 percent of your total emissions). We actually have 2 computers on which I have made sure the sleep feature is enabled.
* 7. Wash my clothes in cold water instead of hot ($12 annual savings; 173 pounds of CO2 per year 0 percent of your total emissions). Other than linens and whites, I have changed my clothes-washing to cold water.
* 8. Use a clothes line or drying rack for 50% of my laundry, instead of my dryer ($40 annual savings; 584 pounds of CO2 per year 1 percent of your total emissions). We had a clothes line in the laundry room already, but we purchased and installed a retractable line for outside as well.
* 9. Replace 5 75-watt incandescent light bulbs with 20-watt ENERGY STAR lights ($35 annual savings; 623 pounds of CO2 per year 1 percent of your total emissions). Although we had already changed out most light bulbs, I found 5 that could be replaced and just went ahead and did it instead of waiting for them to burn out on their own.

According to the EPA web site, our new "total annual estimated CO2 emissions would be 53,469 pounds of CO2 per year or 17,823 pounds of CO2 per year per household member (average emissions per person in the United States are 20,750 pounds per year)."

A few more things that I am doing on my own:
1. Composting - I purchased a Compost Tumbler a few years ago, and I have yet to really use it. We pulled it out, got some compost acceralator, and we are adding kitchen scraps and yard waste. Soon we will have a lovely compost to add to our garden.
2. Vegetable gardening - Within the past year, we acquired a tiller, so I am tilling up some ground this week to plant more vegetables than our usual tomatoes.
3. Shopping - I will make an even greater effort than usual to shop for local and organic food and to buy second-hand clothing and household decor.
4. Water Heater - We turned down the water heater by 2 degrees, because it was set pretty high anyway.


I hope that all of these steps help to reduce my household carbon footprint, but I also wonder what else I can do to help spread the word to get more people to take even greater steps just like we are doing in our class?!!?

Calculating my Household Carbon Footprint

Starting with www.carbonfootprint.com, my footprint was estimated at 21.56 metric tons of CO2, which is apparently greater than the average of 20.4 for people in the United States. Really? I hoped that we'd score a little better than this!

This site listed some things to do immediately to reduce our personal carbon emissions, but we're doing most of them, such as:

1. We turn many things off when they are not in use, but not all of them, so we can improve in this area.
2. We use the programmable thermostat, which is set to be a little less comfortable (hot or cold, depending on the season) when we are not at home.
3. We always run full dishwasher loads, which you would realize if you'd look at our counter and sink!
4. I do create a menu and go to the grocery once per week, however, I do not run all of my errands on the same day in a single trip.
5. I hang up a lot of laundry to dry, but inside of my home, not outside.
6. We use CFLs all over the house, but a search did turn up 5 more bulbs that I can replace to make us fully compliant.
7. Within the past few years, we replaced all of our appliances with energy star appliances.
8. We drink tap water, well actually, water filtered through the fridge.
9. We buy local produce as often as possible, but we have not gotten into the zone of buying local meats and poultry. The whole in season bit is a struggle during the winter, so in order to keep good nutrition, we do buy foods that are shipped. How can we avoid that during the winter?
10. We avoid "Made in China" as much as we can, and we prefer limited packaging, but do not always make it a deciding factor.
11. I recycle everything! Ask my husband!! I have been known to dive into the trash compactor after a recyclalble that my husband discard incorrectly...

So I wanted to see how another site evaluated my footprint, and here is what I found:
1. My estimated emissions are 80 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)equivalent per year, also above the U.S. national average, at www.nature.org.
2. www.carbonfund.org provided an offset purchase calculation of 19.71 tons.
3. According to www.epa.gov our total emissions are are 57,824 lbs of CO2 per year, which is 26.7 tons, and about average for our household size in the U.S.

There were some inconsistencies in what went into the calculations, but overall, the goal is to reduce emissions, and the sites had some good advice (beyond the sale of offsets). Frankly, I did get tired after a while ... it takes some time and energy to be good steward of the planet. Haven't we done enough already? ... No?

CFC Skeptic vs. CFC Believer (or Politician vs. Scientist)

First of all, I do not give a lot of credence to the source of the first quote for our class http://www.timetracts.com/The%20Ozone%20Controversy.htm.

Although eloquently written, the article makes no reference to scientific or academic sources. Given the religious content of the website, one can assume that the website is most likely theoconservative. Furthermore, the natural emmission of chlorine into the "atmosphere" does not often reach the outer stratosphere. Chlorine from the oceans and most volcanic eruptions (exception is very large, explosive, sulfur-rich, vertical eruptions) is washed by rain in the troposphere and does not reach the stratosphere. What we're talking about here is stratospheric ozone depletion, so I laugh at the comment, "...let's make decisions that are not based on panic, but on good science."

About the article assigned to read, it was last updated May 30, 2001. Really, what data has been collected since then? Perhaps some of the arguments and data (or lack thereof) are no longer relevant.

Regarding whether or not the amount of ozone depletion is significant enough to warrent goverment regulations of CFC's:

1. Singer's arguments about the cost to refit and replace industrial equipment is certainly a valid concern. However, it has been reported that the retrofits since the Montreal Protocol have been lower in cost with some economic benefits. It also looks like more research has provided more information about the ratio of CFC to ozone depletion. Finally, Singer's reputation is that of a skeptic of scientific findings, and he served in several governmental positions, which makes him politically motivated (interpret that in whatever way works best for you).

2. Zurer provides plenty of scientific evidence to support the stance that it is beneficial to regulate CFCs. There is data collected from nearly 50 years, as well as supportive lab simulations that are reproducible.

Whether or not the additional amount of UV exposure would be significant to humans:

1. When Singer indicates that there is not enough evidence to link ozone-depletion with UV-increase, how much information does he need? I found several studies on the internet, so how many studies would be satisfactory to draw a conclusion? Singer also states that UVB is not known to be a carcinogen, but according to the World Health Organization, UVB is a known carcinogen for lab animals. I am sure that Singer would not propose that we run lab experiments on humans, but since I have personal experience with the "easily cured basal-cell and squamous-cell carcinomas," let me tell you that the cure of cutting out your skin in a large area around the cancerous cells is not fun. If you're lucky, the cancer is small, and you can have stitches and a small mark. If you're lucky, it won't be on your face, which is a commonly exposed part of your body. Try having a chunk of flesh cut out of your face and see how you like the "easy cure". Skin cancers would be the least of our concerns anyway.

2. Zurer refers to evidence and correlations, so she does not make as compelling of an argument as in the CFC regulation stance. However, in performing further research on Zurer's comments, one can find a considerable amount of supporting documentation for her arguments. More data has become available and proven since the original publish date of the article.

Conclusion
I am skeptical of the skeptic (and politician), Singer. I find myself personally more aligned with the practical scientist, Zurer. Although hasty, the decision to regulate CFCs was a good judgement call. All in all, the CFC controversy hit a trifecta, because media and politics forced regulation with limited scientific evidence. I think that we were lucky that later evidence proved our international powers correct in forging ahead.

Overall, my opinion has not waivered. If there is something that we (humans) do to affect the natural balance of the environment (proven with man-made CFCs and statospheric ozone depletion), then we must get it back into balance. We have stepped outside of acceptable limits and must repair and recover, no matter how large or small the consequences.

Class Expectations

Although I would not technically consider myself a "tree-hugger," I do have a concern for the impact of our actions on the environment. I believe that one of our greatest responsibilities as human beings is to be guardians of our great planet, however, we have for years been destroyers instead. My hope is that this class will provide more information and things to consider regarding care of the environment.

Our instructor, Kirby Underwood, seems very enthusiastic about the course, which helps to make a positive first impression. An enthusiastic instructor makes the class time go by quickly and keeps the topics interesting. Personally, it motivates me to do well. Any examples brought into class, such as the balloons filled with different gasses, help to demonstrate the points as well as to add interest. Overall, I look forward to what seems like a good class this quarter.

Upon completion of this class, I hope to have learned the composition of different things and about the quality of our air, water and food. Who knows, maybe we will walk away being able to apply some positive changes in our lives from having taken this course.

Atomically Yours,
Kathy