The American Bakers Association (ABA) joined other food-related trade organizations urging caution to the Senate Agriculture and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committees to fully consider the impact proposed climate-change legislation would have on the nation’s ability to provide an abundant, affordable food supply to both U.S. and world consumers.
“If not crafted correctly, climate-change legislation could significantly increase the price of food–especially the staples of a basic diet such as bread and other baked goods,” said Robb MacKie, ABA President and CEO.
At a minimum, ABA and other organizations said that any climate change legislation should include the following safeguards:
• Carbon-credit allowances should be distributed in a fashion that takes into account the needs of manufacturers, distributors or retailers of food, agricultural commodity, feed or household products.
• If an emissions cap is adopted, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should not be allowed to lower the cap in the future or use the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions to levels less than the cap.
• Food processors, agricultural commodity handlers and processors, farmers, ranchers and others should be permitted to generate offsets. A well-designed offset system should strike a balance between the need for affordable offsets and the need for productive farmland.
• The legislation should preempt or harmonize state and regional climate-related programs.
• Climate-change legislation should be contingent upon Senate ratification of an international agreement among nations to reduce greenhouse gases.
• Any climate change legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions also should ensure a safe and affordable supply of food, feed and other agricultural products.
“ABA supports the goals of the legislation and is working with its food industry partners and key policymakers to achieve those goals in a cost effective way for bakers and consumers,” MacKie said.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
US unions, green groups unleash climate change campaign
A coalition of US environmental groups and major labor unions on Wednesday unveiled a national campaign to refute charges that legislation to battle climate change would cost US jobs in a recession.
"The fact of the matter is, you're either going to have both, or you'll have neither," Leo Gerard, the head of the United Steelworkers union, told reporters on a conference call to announce the 50-stop, 22-state push.
"This is about creating good family-supporting jobs as we do the right thing for the planet," said Gerard, who predicted that legislation to fight global warming would create hundreds of thousands of jobs "if we do it right."
The "Made In America" Jobs Tour will open Thursday in Ohio -- a critical political battleground in US presidential elections and stretch into September, when lawmakers return from their month-long August break.
The US Senate is poised to consider climate change legislation when it returns in early September, three months before December global climate change talks in Denmark's capital Copenhagen.
"There is no time to wait, we need the jobs now and we must address global warming pollution that is already changing our climate," said Frances Beinecke, the head of the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental group.
The US House of Representatives passed legislation in June that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050, create "green" jobs and wean the US economy from oil imports.
Those levels would be reached through a "cap-and-trade" system that caps pollution levels for large industrial sources but allocates them pollution permits that can be traded.
The House measure faces fierce opposition from Republicans and some business groups who charge it will cost jobs at a time when the battered US economy is mired in recession.
US President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the Congress mostly support the legislation, which they say will help avert environmental calamity while fostering the growth of well-paid "green" jobs.
"Our country and the rest of the world is really living through what's going to be recognized a the third economic revolution," said Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
"And where the agricultural revolution took 3,000 years, and the Industrial Revolution took 300 years, this revolution as we change from a national to an international economy ... this revolution is only going to take 30 years."
Gerard said the United States must fight to keep alive its ability to design and build high-technology "green" technologies, like solar power cells and wind turbines in the face of what he described as unfair competition from China.
"And if you make real things that will reduce our carbon footprint, and create good family-supporting jobs in America, that ought to be the direction this country is going in. I've have enough of Wall Street throwing up on my shoes because they pigged out at the candy store," he said.
"The fact of the matter is, you're either going to have both, or you'll have neither," Leo Gerard, the head of the United Steelworkers union, told reporters on a conference call to announce the 50-stop, 22-state push.
"This is about creating good family-supporting jobs as we do the right thing for the planet," said Gerard, who predicted that legislation to fight global warming would create hundreds of thousands of jobs "if we do it right."
The "Made In America" Jobs Tour will open Thursday in Ohio -- a critical political battleground in US presidential elections and stretch into September, when lawmakers return from their month-long August break.
The US Senate is poised to consider climate change legislation when it returns in early September, three months before December global climate change talks in Denmark's capital Copenhagen.
"There is no time to wait, we need the jobs now and we must address global warming pollution that is already changing our climate," said Frances Beinecke, the head of the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental group.
The US House of Representatives passed legislation in June that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050, create "green" jobs and wean the US economy from oil imports.
Those levels would be reached through a "cap-and-trade" system that caps pollution levels for large industrial sources but allocates them pollution permits that can be traded.
The House measure faces fierce opposition from Republicans and some business groups who charge it will cost jobs at a time when the battered US economy is mired in recession.
US President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the Congress mostly support the legislation, which they say will help avert environmental calamity while fostering the growth of well-paid "green" jobs.
"Our country and the rest of the world is really living through what's going to be recognized a the third economic revolution," said Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
"And where the agricultural revolution took 3,000 years, and the Industrial Revolution took 300 years, this revolution as we change from a national to an international economy ... this revolution is only going to take 30 years."
Gerard said the United States must fight to keep alive its ability to design and build high-technology "green" technologies, like solar power cells and wind turbines in the face of what he described as unfair competition from China.
"And if you make real things that will reduce our carbon footprint, and create good family-supporting jobs in America, that ought to be the direction this country is going in. I've have enough of Wall Street throwing up on my shoes because they pigged out at the candy store," he said.
World youth tell leaders to clean up
An international gathering of youth and children, billed as the largest ever of its type on climate change, on Thursday pressed world leaders to do far more to curb damage to the environment."We young people -- 3 billion of the world population -- are very concerned and frustrated that our governments are not doing enough to combat climate change ... we feel that radical and holistic measures are needed urgently from us all," they said in a statement following their conference in Deajeon in South Korea, itself one of the world's fastest growing polluters."We now need more actions and less talking."Organised by the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), the some 700 people from 10 to 24 years old and from dozens of countries met to discuss their concerns ahead of the U.N. climate conference in December in Copenhagen.That meeting will try to find an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol and set limits on emissions that are driving up global temperatures."We are the generation of tomorrow. The decisions that are made today will define our future and the world we have to live in. So we young people of the world urge governments to commit to a strong post-Kyoto climate regime. It is our lives we are talking about," UNEP quoted 23-year-old delegate Anne Walraven as saying.The statement also urged governments to impose strict laws on polluters, develop independently-monitored carbon action plans and encourage greater use of green fuels."Make engaging environmental education mandatory in schools and universities and promote community environmental awareness -- an informed public is a powerful public."And they called on ordinary people to use alternative transport, pressure businesses to come up with environmentally-friendly products and push their own governments to act to improve the environment.UNEP said they pledged to stage large rallies across 100 capitals to urge global leaders to take action on climate change under the U.N.'s "Seal the Deal!" campaign.
Despite Defeat, Australian Government Vows to Move Ahead With Emissions Legislation
Australia's government promises to push through a sweeping carbon emissions trading system despite a parliamentary defeat. The plan would require the country's biggest polluters to buy permits for emitting carbon dioxide. Government ministers want the legislation to be passed before United Nations climate change talks in December. The Australian government has proposed what some say is the world's most ambitious carbon trading program. It would force the country's 1,000 worst polluters to buy carbon dioxide permits and would cover about 75 percent of emissions. The aim is to curb greenhouse gas pollution by between five and 25 percent by 2020. The plan needs the approval of Australia's upper house of parliament, the Senate. A recent vote, however, saw the plan defeated by an unusual alliance of Greens, who think the program does not go far enough to protect the environment, and conservative lawmakers, who say it will damage industry and cost jobs. Undeterred, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the government will try again to have the legislation passed."We will bring this bill back before the end of the year because we on this side understand we have to start the economic transformation we need. If we don't, this nation goes to Copenhagen with no means to deliver our targets. And if we don't, the message to Copenhagen would be that Australia is once again going backward on climate change," said Wong. Conservative politicians think that Australian businesses, especially the dominant resources sector, will lose their competitive edge under the government's carbon trading program. Federal opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull proposes a different plan that he says would help both the economy and the environment. However, he says the climate change minister rejected it. "We put forward a report only a few days ago which showed some alternatives that would make for a scheme that was greener, cheaper and smarter. A greener, cheaper and smarter scheme and she just dismissed it out of hand and said it was a mongrel idea," he said. There is hope that a compromise can be reached to allow the carbon trading mechanism to pass through the Senate. The opposition and the government have struck a deal to approve the part of the climate legislation that sets renewable energy targets. It means 20 percent of Australia's power supply must come from renewable sources by 2020. But there still is no agreement on the more contentious legislation covering carbon trading, which still divides Australia's parliament. If the political impasse continues it could trigger an early election.The debate over emissions trading has prompted a flurry of research into how Australia, which relies heavily on coal to generate electricity, can reduce pollution. The mining industry is spending vast amounts to find ways to produce coal that burns more cleanly. James McGregor is a government scientist who says that storing carbon emissions deep underground is one way forward. "What we do is when we compress the carbon dioxide at the back end of the capture plant we compress to what's known as a supercritical liquid. So a supercritical liquid is at room temperature. It has the density of a solid but it behaves like a liquid, so we can use standard pumping systems to move carbon dioxide around," he said. Australia, one of the world's worst per capita emitters of greenhouse gases, also is pursuing a renewable energy options, including wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power. Much of the debate has focused on Australia's vulnerability to climate change, which many scientists say is worsened by human emissions of greenhouse gases - mostly from burning coal and oil. Warmer temperatures are expected to change weather patterns, causing more droughts and floods in parts of the world.But a former senior official of the World Bank thinks the needs of developing countries must be urgently considered. David Freestone, who is visiting Australia, says that poorer economies feel the full force of a shifting climate. "There's big floods in China, in India. You see in Africa the increased desertification now in the Sahelian regions, in the south of the Sahara," he said. "The incidents of droughts - and Australia knows this more than anyone I would imagine - the incidents of droughts has radically increased. Fifty percent of the Earth could be suffering droughts within the next 50 years." In Australia, climate change skeptics say that warming temperatures are part of a natural cycle and are not influenced by man's use of fossils fuels. The majority of Australians disagree and want their political leaders to take a decisive stand against global warming that many believe has the potential to inflict more severe damage.
Perry nets endorsement thanks to opposing climate change rules
Gov. Rick Perry's stance against climate change legislation has already won him at least one endorsement.
The Texas Chemical Council on Tuesday threw its support behind Perry's reelection bid. The group said in a press release:
Gov. Perry is a longtime champion of causes important to the Texas chemical industry, including his recent stand against federally proposed cap-and-trade legislation and regulation of CO2 by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is clear that such policies being discussed in Congress would set our nation on the road to the largest tax burden ever levied upon American families.
Implementing such federally proposed regulations would cripple Texas' energy sector, irreparably damaging both the state and national economies and severely impacting national oil and gas supplies. Texas' energy industry fuels the nation, supplying 20 percent of the nation's oil production, one-fourth of the nation's natural gas production, a quarter of the nation's refining capacity, and nearly 60 percent of the nation's chemical manufacturing.
Regulating greenhouse gases could boost demand for natural gas, which generates less greenhouse gas when burned than oil or coal. Greater demand for natural gas might cause prices to rise.
And higher natural gas prices are bad for the Texas chemical industry, which relies on natural gas as a major feedstock. If natural gas prices rise too much compared with oil, Texas chemical makers have difficulty competing with the European chemical makers, which tend to use oil as a feedstock.
Perry has aligned himself with voters who oppose regulation of greenhouse gases. He says Texas has been going green on its own, without federal help. And he questions whether humans contribute to climate change.
Jump for full press release from the chemical group.
Texas Chemical Council Endorses Rick Perry for GovernorThe Texas Chemical Council (TCC) has endorsed Gov. Rick Perry for re-election.
"Governor Rick Perry is a proven leader who has solidified Texas' reputation as the best state in the nation to do business through policies that attract capital investment and generate high-paying, high-quality jobs that sustain our state's economy," said TCC President and CEO Hector L. Rivero. "As a major economic engine since the 1940s, the chemical industry is among the first high-tech industries in Texas and continues to be an innovator through advanced research and development.
"Our products improve the quality of life of every Amer ican and millions of people around the world. Governor Perry's leadership to lower taxes, pass meaningful tort reforms, and provide a fair and balanced regulatory system has enabled the Texas chemical industry to compete in the global economy and keep high paying jobs and investment in Texas."
Gov. Perry is a longtime champion of causes important to the Texas chemical industry, including his recent stand against federally proposed cap-and-trade legislation and regulation of CO2 by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is clear that such policies being discussed in Congress would set our nation on the road to the largest tax burden ever levied upon American families.
"I am thankful to have the support of the Chemical Council, whose member companies represent an integral part of our state's economy and are providing jobs for hardworking Texans," said Gov. Perry. "I am proud of our state's chemical industry and l ook forward to helping maintain its strength in the years to come.&r dquo;
Implementing such federally proposed regulations would cripple Texas' energy sector, irreparably damaging both the state and national economies and severely impacting national oil and gas supplies. Texas' energy industry fuels the nation, supplying 20 percent of the nation's oil production, one-fourth of the nation's natural gas production, a quarter of the nation's refining capacity, and nearly 60 percent of the nation's chemical manufacturing.
The Texas Chemical Council is a statewide trade association of chemical manufacturers in Texas. TCC currently represents 77 member companies who operate more than 200 manufacturing facilities across the state with over $50 billion in physical assets and employing over 74,000 Texans. The chemical industry pays more than $1 billion in state and local taxes each year and is responsible for nearly a half-million Texas jobs. Texas chemical products are the state's larges t export with approximately $35 billion in exports annually.
.
The Texas Chemical Council on Tuesday threw its support behind Perry's reelection bid. The group said in a press release:
Gov. Perry is a longtime champion of causes important to the Texas chemical industry, including his recent stand against federally proposed cap-and-trade legislation and regulation of CO2 by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is clear that such policies being discussed in Congress would set our nation on the road to the largest tax burden ever levied upon American families.
Implementing such federally proposed regulations would cripple Texas' energy sector, irreparably damaging both the state and national economies and severely impacting national oil and gas supplies. Texas' energy industry fuels the nation, supplying 20 percent of the nation's oil production, one-fourth of the nation's natural gas production, a quarter of the nation's refining capacity, and nearly 60 percent of the nation's chemical manufacturing.
Regulating greenhouse gases could boost demand for natural gas, which generates less greenhouse gas when burned than oil or coal. Greater demand for natural gas might cause prices to rise.
And higher natural gas prices are bad for the Texas chemical industry, which relies on natural gas as a major feedstock. If natural gas prices rise too much compared with oil, Texas chemical makers have difficulty competing with the European chemical makers, which tend to use oil as a feedstock.
Perry has aligned himself with voters who oppose regulation of greenhouse gases. He says Texas has been going green on its own, without federal help. And he questions whether humans contribute to climate change.
Jump for full press release from the chemical group.
Texas Chemical Council Endorses Rick Perry for GovernorThe Texas Chemical Council (TCC) has endorsed Gov. Rick Perry for re-election.
"Governor Rick Perry is a proven leader who has solidified Texas' reputation as the best state in the nation to do business through policies that attract capital investment and generate high-paying, high-quality jobs that sustain our state's economy," said TCC President and CEO Hector L. Rivero. "As a major economic engine since the 1940s, the chemical industry is among the first high-tech industries in Texas and continues to be an innovator through advanced research and development.
"Our products improve the quality of life of every Amer ican and millions of people around the world. Governor Perry's leadership to lower taxes, pass meaningful tort reforms, and provide a fair and balanced regulatory system has enabled the Texas chemical industry to compete in the global economy and keep high paying jobs and investment in Texas."
Gov. Perry is a longtime champion of causes important to the Texas chemical industry, including his recent stand against federally proposed cap-and-trade legislation and regulation of CO2 by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is clear that such policies being discussed in Congress would set our nation on the road to the largest tax burden ever levied upon American families.
"I am thankful to have the support of the Chemical Council, whose member companies represent an integral part of our state's economy and are providing jobs for hardworking Texans," said Gov. Perry. "I am proud of our state's chemical industry and l ook forward to helping maintain its strength in the years to come.&r dquo;
Implementing such federally proposed regulations would cripple Texas' energy sector, irreparably damaging both the state and national economies and severely impacting national oil and gas supplies. Texas' energy industry fuels the nation, supplying 20 percent of the nation's oil production, one-fourth of the nation's natural gas production, a quarter of the nation's refining capacity, and nearly 60 percent of the nation's chemical manufacturing.
The Texas Chemical Council is a statewide trade association of chemical manufacturers in Texas. TCC currently represents 77 member companies who operate more than 200 manufacturing facilities across the state with over $50 billion in physical assets and employing over 74,000 Texans. The chemical industry pays more than $1 billion in state and local taxes each year and is responsible for nearly a half-million Texas jobs. Texas chemical products are the state's larges t export with approximately $35 billion in exports annually.
.
The Five Most Important Things You Can Do for the Environment
If you feel you’re not doing enough for the environment by replacing your incandescent light bulbs with CFL or LED lights and composting your kitchen garbage, maybe you’re ready to make a deeper commitment to environmental stewardship.
Some of these strategies may seem a little radical, but they are among the most valuable actions you can take to protect and preserve Earth’s environment.
Have Fewer Children—or NoneOverpopulation is arguably the world’s most serious environmental problem, because it exacerbates all of the others. The global population grew from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion in 1999, an increase of 100 percent in just 40 years. According to current projections, the world population will expand to 9 billion by 2040, a slower growth rate than during the last half of the 20th century but one that will leave us with many more people to accommodate.
Planet Earth is a closed system with limited resources—only so much fresh water and clean air, only so many acres of land for growing food. As the world population grows, our resources must stretch to serve more and more people. At some point, that will no longer be possible. Some scientists believe we have already passed that point.
Ultimately, we need to reverse this growth trend by gradually bringing the human population of our planet back down to a more manageable size. This means more people must decide to have fewer children. This may sound pretty simple on the surface, but the drive to reproduce is fundamental in all species and the decision to limit or forgo the experience is an emotional, cultural or religious one for many people.
In many developing countries, large families can be a matter of survival. Parents often have as many children as possible to ensure that some will live to help with farming or other work, and to care for the parents when they are old. For people in cultures like these, lower birth rates will only come after other serious issues such as poverty, hunger, poor sanitation and freedom from disease have been adequately addressed.
In addition to keeping your own family small, consider supporting programs that fight hunger and poverty, improve sanitation and hygiene, or promote family planning and reproductive health in developing nations.
Use Less Water—and Keep It CleanFresh, clean water is essential to life—no one can live long without it—yet it is one of the scarcest and most endangered resources on our increasingly fragile planet.
Water covers more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface, but most of that is salt water. Freshwater supplies are much more limited, and today a third of the world’s people lack access to clean drinking water. According to the United Nations, 95 percent of the cities worldwide still dump raw sewage into their water supplies. Not surprisingly, 80 percent of all illnesses in developing countries can be linked to unsanitary water.
Use only as much water as you need, don’t waste the water you do use, and avoid doing anything to taint or endanger water supplies.
Eat ResponsiblyEating locally grown food supports local farmers and merchants in your own community as well as reducing the amount of fuel, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions required to move the food you eat from the farm to your table. Eating organic meat and produce keeps pesticides and chemical fertilizers off your plate and out of rivers and streams.
Eating responsibly also means eating less meat, and fewer animal products such as eggs and dairy products, or perhaps none at all. It’s a matter of good stewardship of our finite resources. Farm animals emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, and raising animals for food requires many times more land and water than growing food crops.
Livestock now use 30 percent of the planet’s land surface, including 33 percent of farmland worldwide, which is used to produce animal feed. Every time you sit down to a plant-based meal instead of an animal-based meal, you save about 280 gallons of water and protect anywhere from 12 to 50 square feet of land from deforestation, overgrazing, and pesticide and fertilizer pollution.
Conserve Energy—and Switch to Renewable EnergyWalk, bike and use public transportation more. Drive less. Not only will you be healthier and help to preserve precious energy resources, you’ll also save money. According to a study by the American Public Transportation Association, families that use public transportation can reduce their household expenses by $6,200 annually, more than the average U.S. household spends on food every year.
There are dozens of other ways you can conserve energy—from turning off lights and unplugging appliances when they are not in use, to substituting cold water for hot whenever practical and weather stripping your doors and windows, to not overheating or overcooling your home and office. One way to start is to get a free energy audit from your local utility.
Whenever possible, choose renewable energy over fossil fuels. For example, many municipal utilities now offer green energy alternatives so that you can get some or all of your electricity from wind, solar or other renewable energy sources.
Reduce Your Carbon FootprintMany human activities—from using coal-fired power plants to generate electricity to driving gasoline-powered vehicles—cause greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.
Scientists are already seeing significant climate changes that point to the likelihood of serious consequences, from increasing drought that could further reduce food and water supplies to rising sea levels that will submerge islands and coastal regions and create millions of environmental refugees.
Online calculators can help you measure and reduce your personal carbon footprint, but climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions and, so far, the world’s nations have been slow to find common ground on this issue. In addition to lowering your own carbon footprint, let your government officials know that you expect them to take action on this issue—and keep the pressure on until they do.
Some of these strategies may seem a little radical, but they are among the most valuable actions you can take to protect and preserve Earth’s environment.
Have Fewer Children—or NoneOverpopulation is arguably the world’s most serious environmental problem, because it exacerbates all of the others. The global population grew from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion in 1999, an increase of 100 percent in just 40 years. According to current projections, the world population will expand to 9 billion by 2040, a slower growth rate than during the last half of the 20th century but one that will leave us with many more people to accommodate.
Planet Earth is a closed system with limited resources—only so much fresh water and clean air, only so many acres of land for growing food. As the world population grows, our resources must stretch to serve more and more people. At some point, that will no longer be possible. Some scientists believe we have already passed that point.
Ultimately, we need to reverse this growth trend by gradually bringing the human population of our planet back down to a more manageable size. This means more people must decide to have fewer children. This may sound pretty simple on the surface, but the drive to reproduce is fundamental in all species and the decision to limit or forgo the experience is an emotional, cultural or religious one for many people.
In many developing countries, large families can be a matter of survival. Parents often have as many children as possible to ensure that some will live to help with farming or other work, and to care for the parents when they are old. For people in cultures like these, lower birth rates will only come after other serious issues such as poverty, hunger, poor sanitation and freedom from disease have been adequately addressed.
In addition to keeping your own family small, consider supporting programs that fight hunger and poverty, improve sanitation and hygiene, or promote family planning and reproductive health in developing nations.
Use Less Water—and Keep It CleanFresh, clean water is essential to life—no one can live long without it—yet it is one of the scarcest and most endangered resources on our increasingly fragile planet.
Water covers more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface, but most of that is salt water. Freshwater supplies are much more limited, and today a third of the world’s people lack access to clean drinking water. According to the United Nations, 95 percent of the cities worldwide still dump raw sewage into their water supplies. Not surprisingly, 80 percent of all illnesses in developing countries can be linked to unsanitary water.
Use only as much water as you need, don’t waste the water you do use, and avoid doing anything to taint or endanger water supplies.
Eat ResponsiblyEating locally grown food supports local farmers and merchants in your own community as well as reducing the amount of fuel, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions required to move the food you eat from the farm to your table. Eating organic meat and produce keeps pesticides and chemical fertilizers off your plate and out of rivers and streams.
Eating responsibly also means eating less meat, and fewer animal products such as eggs and dairy products, or perhaps none at all. It’s a matter of good stewardship of our finite resources. Farm animals emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, and raising animals for food requires many times more land and water than growing food crops.
Livestock now use 30 percent of the planet’s land surface, including 33 percent of farmland worldwide, which is used to produce animal feed. Every time you sit down to a plant-based meal instead of an animal-based meal, you save about 280 gallons of water and protect anywhere from 12 to 50 square feet of land from deforestation, overgrazing, and pesticide and fertilizer pollution.
Conserve Energy—and Switch to Renewable EnergyWalk, bike and use public transportation more. Drive less. Not only will you be healthier and help to preserve precious energy resources, you’ll also save money. According to a study by the American Public Transportation Association, families that use public transportation can reduce their household expenses by $6,200 annually, more than the average U.S. household spends on food every year.
There are dozens of other ways you can conserve energy—from turning off lights and unplugging appliances when they are not in use, to substituting cold water for hot whenever practical and weather stripping your doors and windows, to not overheating or overcooling your home and office. One way to start is to get a free energy audit from your local utility.
Whenever possible, choose renewable energy over fossil fuels. For example, many municipal utilities now offer green energy alternatives so that you can get some or all of your electricity from wind, solar or other renewable energy sources.
Reduce Your Carbon FootprintMany human activities—from using coal-fired power plants to generate electricity to driving gasoline-powered vehicles—cause greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.
Scientists are already seeing significant climate changes that point to the likelihood of serious consequences, from increasing drought that could further reduce food and water supplies to rising sea levels that will submerge islands and coastal regions and create millions of environmental refugees.
Online calculators can help you measure and reduce your personal carbon footprint, but climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions and, so far, the world’s nations have been slow to find common ground on this issue. In addition to lowering your own carbon footprint, let your government officials know that you expect them to take action on this issue—and keep the pressure on until they do.
Op-Ed: Fighting new flu strain will take collective vigilance
Every fall, we deal with new strains of seasonal flu. But this year, we'll also confront a potentially serious flu virus that first appeared last spring. While scientists won’t know exactly how strong the 2009 H1N1 flu will be until the middle of the flu season, they’re warning it could cause more illness as our kids return to school.We don’t need to wait to act. In the fight against flu, preparation is more than half the battle — and we need everyone to chip in.We in the federal government have been aggressively responding to the new H1N1 since April. We’re building on what we learned from the early spring season and from health officials in the southern hemisphere where flu seasons are already underway. In addition to preparing the seasonal flu vaccine as usual, government scientists and vaccine manufacturers are working around the clock to produce a vaccine to protect people from the new H1N1 flu virus. And we’re making good progress on both fronts — the seasonal flu vaccine is ready for distribution and we’re on track to have an H1N1 vaccine by mid-October. We’re also working closely with cities, states and across government agencies to make sure we have a rapid, coordinated response this fall. In the last few months, we’ve sent more than $350 million in federal grants to states, tribes, territories and hospitals to help them strengthen their flu response. In early July, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Education held a flu summit for governors and public health officials. Just this week, we hosted another summit for mayors and county officials and webcast it on flu.gov — which has become the best place to find up-to-date information about flu. Our agencies are working with the Department of Agriculture to make sure children will have access to healthy meals if their schools close, and with Departments of Commerce and Labor to reach people at work. The Obama Administration has briefed members of Congress at a special bi-cameral, bi-partisan session. And HHS has worked with Members — Republicans and Democrats — on “prevent the flu” public service announcements to air in August when they’re home. But federal government efforts won’t be enough. The lines of defense against the flu need to reach into every living room and kitchen.This new H1N1 is not the flu we’re used to. It was just getting started when our flu season should have been ending. While anyone can get sick, the pattern of infection is unusual. It hasn’t yet affected many seniors, but it spreads rapidly among otherwise healthy kids up to college age. Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continue to observe higher levels of flu-like illness than normal for this time of year. But there’s one way in which the 2009 H1N1 flu isn’t different: it can still send you to the hospital with fever, cough, sore throat, headache, chills and fatigue, and sometimes, diarrhea and vomiting. For the worst cases, it’s still deadly. And it’s especially dangerous for people with chronic illnesses such as asthma, heart disease, or diabetes, and women who are pregnant. Until a vaccine arrives in October, prevention is our best defense. That means we all need to make sure we wash our hands frequently with soap and water, cough or sneeze into a tissue, and stay home from work or school if we’re sick. It also means planning ahead. Parents should talk to their employers and make child care arrangements in case their kids get sick. And if a school closes, learning shouldn’t stop. Schools need to create opportunities to learn online and work with parents to find ways for students to bring textbooks and other resources home. If you’re an employer, you should plan to get by with a reduced staff. You don’t want an employee who’s ill to spread flu in the workplace. If you’re a medical provider, you should plan to handle more calls and patient visits. An outbreak will bring people who have flu and people who have flu-related symptoms or concerns into your office. To help people get ready for flu season, we’ve created a “one-stop” website — www.flu.gov. You’ll find tips to prevent, and respond to an outbreak and checklists and fact sheets that will help families, businesses and others get prepared. We got a head start on the flu season by beginning our preparations this spring. But the next few months will have the biggest impact on how the upcoming flu season plays out. Widespread, determined, and sustained efforts are needed to prevent the spread of flu and reduce the harm it causes. Let’s get to work.
2nd lead poisoning case hits China, 1,300 sick
China detained two factory officials after 1,300 children were poisoned by pollution from a manganese processing plant, state media said Thursday, days after emissions from a lead smelter in another province sickened hundreds.
Both cases have sparked unrest and come amid growing anger in China over public safety scandals in which children have been the main victims. Tainted infant formula milk and the mass collapse of schools in a huge earthquake last year have also provoked widespread dissent.
The latest incident involves the Wugang Manganese Smelting Plant in Wenping township, central Hunan province. It opened in May 2008 without the approval of the local environmental protection bureau, within 500 yards (meters) of a primary school, a middle school and a kindergarten.
Fears of poisoning began to spread among villagers in early July when many children became susceptible to colds and suffered fevers and other ailments, the official Xinhua News Agency said.
Some 1,354 children who live near the plant — or nearly 70 percent of those tested — were found to have excessive lead in their blood, Xinhua said. Lead poisoning can damage the nervous and reproductive systems and cause high blood pressure and memory loss.
Local authorities shut down the smelter last week and detained two of its executives on suspicion of "causing severe environmental pollution," Xinhua said. General manager Liu Zhongwu was still at large, it said.
Li Liangmei, a 36-year-old mother of two affected children, said hundreds of villagers rioted Aug. 8 after news broke about the lead poisoning. She said a crowd of about 600 to 700 people overturned four police cars and smashed a local government sign.
"People were angry about the test results," Li said. Her 13-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son were among the hundreds found to have lead in their blood above safe levels.
Earlier this week, villagers in Shaanxi, another rural province in central China, clashed with police as they protested the operations of the Dongling Lead and Zinc Smelting Co. in the town of Changqing. They also stoned trucks trying to deliver coal to the plant.
That unrest came after at least 615 out of 731 children in two villages near that smelter tested positive for lead poisoning. Children from six other villages there are now being tested.
Children's health can be a particularly volatile issue in China, where most families are restricted to having just one child.
A string of recent safety scandals has put parents on high alert, including a national problem with tainted infant formula that killed at least six babies, and the mass collapse of schools in last year's Sichuan earthquake that left thousands of students dead. Critics blamed poor government oversight for the milk, and local corruption and profit-skimming for the allegedly shoddy school buildings.
Seeking to restore public trust, the Communist Party leadership has vowed in each case to deal harshly with those responsible for endangering children. But heavy-handed efforts to silence angry parents, including threats and house arrest, have further damaged the party's image and undermined its pledge to "put people first."
Zhao Lianhai, the father of a child who was sickened by tainted milk, blamed local government greed for the new lead poisoning cases and expressed sympathy for the families affected.
"It is said that children are the flower of the motherland and I am sad to see these flowers devastated," he said in a telephone interview. "The government should value the children more than this, care for them and do more to protect their food and living conditions."
Since his son became ill, Zhao has turned to activism, seeking punishment for those implicated in the milk scandal and free medical care for victims. Some 294,000 infants suffered urinary problems from drinking the infant formula contaminated with the industrial chemical melamine.
On the case of the manganese smelter in Hunan, a Wenping township government official who declined to give his name said the numbers of children with lead poisoning are expected to rise as more children are tested.
Xinhua said preliminary tests found that children from four villages near the plant were affected but that many are being tested again in the provincial capital, Changsha, to see how serious their cases are.
Li, the mother of two affected children, said villagers are also angry over discrepancies in test results, with levels reported in their home county allegedly lower than those conducted in Changsha.
"People suspect that the factory owner and the government bribed the hospital to forge the results," she said
Both cases have sparked unrest and come amid growing anger in China over public safety scandals in which children have been the main victims. Tainted infant formula milk and the mass collapse of schools in a huge earthquake last year have also provoked widespread dissent.
The latest incident involves the Wugang Manganese Smelting Plant in Wenping township, central Hunan province. It opened in May 2008 without the approval of the local environmental protection bureau, within 500 yards (meters) of a primary school, a middle school and a kindergarten.
Fears of poisoning began to spread among villagers in early July when many children became susceptible to colds and suffered fevers and other ailments, the official Xinhua News Agency said.
Some 1,354 children who live near the plant — or nearly 70 percent of those tested — were found to have excessive lead in their blood, Xinhua said. Lead poisoning can damage the nervous and reproductive systems and cause high blood pressure and memory loss.
Local authorities shut down the smelter last week and detained two of its executives on suspicion of "causing severe environmental pollution," Xinhua said. General manager Liu Zhongwu was still at large, it said.
Li Liangmei, a 36-year-old mother of two affected children, said hundreds of villagers rioted Aug. 8 after news broke about the lead poisoning. She said a crowd of about 600 to 700 people overturned four police cars and smashed a local government sign.
"People were angry about the test results," Li said. Her 13-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son were among the hundreds found to have lead in their blood above safe levels.
Earlier this week, villagers in Shaanxi, another rural province in central China, clashed with police as they protested the operations of the Dongling Lead and Zinc Smelting Co. in the town of Changqing. They also stoned trucks trying to deliver coal to the plant.
That unrest came after at least 615 out of 731 children in two villages near that smelter tested positive for lead poisoning. Children from six other villages there are now being tested.
Children's health can be a particularly volatile issue in China, where most families are restricted to having just one child.
A string of recent safety scandals has put parents on high alert, including a national problem with tainted infant formula that killed at least six babies, and the mass collapse of schools in last year's Sichuan earthquake that left thousands of students dead. Critics blamed poor government oversight for the milk, and local corruption and profit-skimming for the allegedly shoddy school buildings.
Seeking to restore public trust, the Communist Party leadership has vowed in each case to deal harshly with those responsible for endangering children. But heavy-handed efforts to silence angry parents, including threats and house arrest, have further damaged the party's image and undermined its pledge to "put people first."
Zhao Lianhai, the father of a child who was sickened by tainted milk, blamed local government greed for the new lead poisoning cases and expressed sympathy for the families affected.
"It is said that children are the flower of the motherland and I am sad to see these flowers devastated," he said in a telephone interview. "The government should value the children more than this, care for them and do more to protect their food and living conditions."
Since his son became ill, Zhao has turned to activism, seeking punishment for those implicated in the milk scandal and free medical care for victims. Some 294,000 infants suffered urinary problems from drinking the infant formula contaminated with the industrial chemical melamine.
On the case of the manganese smelter in Hunan, a Wenping township government official who declined to give his name said the numbers of children with lead poisoning are expected to rise as more children are tested.
Xinhua said preliminary tests found that children from four villages near the plant were affected but that many are being tested again in the provincial capital, Changsha, to see how serious their cases are.
Li, the mother of two affected children, said villagers are also angry over discrepancies in test results, with levels reported in their home county allegedly lower than those conducted in Changsha.
"People suspect that the factory owner and the government bribed the hospital to forge the results," she said
Australian Parliament sets renewable energy target
Australia's Parliament passed a law Thursday to require that 20 percent of the country's electricity come from renewable sources such as the sun and wind by 2020, matching European standards and up from about 8 percent now.
The law would quadruple the renewable energy target set by the previous government in 2001 and provide enough clean electricity to power the households of all 21 million Australians.
The target matches one set in 2007 by the European Union, which leads the world in green power technology.
But some officials warn that more aggressive cuts in carbon gas emissions are needed as well.
The bill was passed by the Senate and House of representatives on Thursday after the government reached a deal with the main opposition party to increase government assistance to industries that are heavy users of electricity and create safeguards for existing investment in the coal mining industry.
Sen. Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens minor opposition party, said the target should be 30 percent and that big polluters were offered too much government assistance.
Sen. Bob Fielding, an independent, said the bill will make power too expensive.
"It's moms and dads that will be subsidizing wind-powered electricity, solar — these are very expensive," he said.
Currently, 8 percent of Australia's electricity comes from renewable sources, including hydroelectric generators built late last century, according to the private Clean Energy Council.
Critics argue the target will make electricity more expensive in coal-rich Australia without curbing the amount of climate-warming carbon gases that the nation emits, as overall electricity consumption rises.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told the Senate on Wednesday that even with one-fifth of Australia's electricity coming from renewable sources by 2020, the nation's carbon gas emissions are projected to be 20 percent higher than 2000 levels.
"The only way we're going to be able to turn around the growth in our carbon pollution ... is to put a firm legislated limit on the amount of carbon that we produce and make those who create the pollution pay for it," Wong said.
Last week the Senate rejected a government-proposed bill that would have taxed industries' carbon emissions starting in 2011 and slashed the country's emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020
The law would quadruple the renewable energy target set by the previous government in 2001 and provide enough clean electricity to power the households of all 21 million Australians.
The target matches one set in 2007 by the European Union, which leads the world in green power technology.
But some officials warn that more aggressive cuts in carbon gas emissions are needed as well.
The bill was passed by the Senate and House of representatives on Thursday after the government reached a deal with the main opposition party to increase government assistance to industries that are heavy users of electricity and create safeguards for existing investment in the coal mining industry.
Sen. Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens minor opposition party, said the target should be 30 percent and that big polluters were offered too much government assistance.
Sen. Bob Fielding, an independent, said the bill will make power too expensive.
"It's moms and dads that will be subsidizing wind-powered electricity, solar — these are very expensive," he said.
Currently, 8 percent of Australia's electricity comes from renewable sources, including hydroelectric generators built late last century, according to the private Clean Energy Council.
Critics argue the target will make electricity more expensive in coal-rich Australia without curbing the amount of climate-warming carbon gases that the nation emits, as overall electricity consumption rises.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told the Senate on Wednesday that even with one-fifth of Australia's electricity coming from renewable sources by 2020, the nation's carbon gas emissions are projected to be 20 percent higher than 2000 levels.
"The only way we're going to be able to turn around the growth in our carbon pollution ... is to put a firm legislated limit on the amount of carbon that we produce and make those who create the pollution pay for it," Wong said.
Last week the Senate rejected a government-proposed bill that would have taxed industries' carbon emissions starting in 2011 and slashed the country's emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020
What Can You Do to Protect and Preserve the Environment?
Concerned about the environment? Here are ways you can get involved and make a difference. You'll find tips to reduce waste, find eco-friendly products, and support community, government and corporate efforts to help the environment.
Live Green
Reduce Global Warming
Conserve Energy
Live Green
Want to put more “green” in your life by saving money and reducing waste? Here is practical information about environmentally friendly food, drink, fashions, cars and cleaning products, to name a few. Make eco-friendly lifestyle choices and buying decisions that will help sustain the environment rather than deplete it.
Why Stop Using Plastic Bags?
Living Alone is Bad for the Environment
Are Dishwashers Bad for the Environment?
How to Make Eco-Friendly Home Improvements
Eco-Friendly Drain Cleaners
Zero Waste Starts with Responsible Design
How to Stop Receiving Junk Mail
Why Online Bill Paying is Good for the Environment
Reduce Global Warming
Reducing global warming may seem like a daunting task, but if each of us makes a commitment to taking steps now, we can make a difference. For example, if every family in the United States replaced one regular light bulb with a compact fluorescent, 90 billion pounds of greenhouse gases would be eliminated. Look here for more steps, big and small, that will help to reduce global warming.
Top 10 Things You Can Do to Reduce Global Warming
Use Public Transportation
Energy Conservation: A Free Home Energy Audit Can Help You Save Power and Money
Conserve Energy
One way to do your part to protect the environment is to make choices every day that enable you to use less energy.
Why Should You Get a Free Home Energy Audit?
Slaying Energy Vampires Can Save You Money and Help the Environment
Heat Only the Space You Need
Reduce Your Personal Chill Factor
Stay Warm, Save Money, and Help the Environment
Change a Light Bulb and Change the World
Green Light: Are LED Light Bulbs Better Than CFLs?
How to Keep Cool Without Air Conditioning
Live Green
Reduce Global Warming
Conserve Energy
Live Green
Want to put more “green” in your life by saving money and reducing waste? Here is practical information about environmentally friendly food, drink, fashions, cars and cleaning products, to name a few. Make eco-friendly lifestyle choices and buying decisions that will help sustain the environment rather than deplete it.
Why Stop Using Plastic Bags?
Living Alone is Bad for the Environment
Are Dishwashers Bad for the Environment?
How to Make Eco-Friendly Home Improvements
Eco-Friendly Drain Cleaners
Zero Waste Starts with Responsible Design
How to Stop Receiving Junk Mail
Why Online Bill Paying is Good for the Environment
Reduce Global Warming
Reducing global warming may seem like a daunting task, but if each of us makes a commitment to taking steps now, we can make a difference. For example, if every family in the United States replaced one regular light bulb with a compact fluorescent, 90 billion pounds of greenhouse gases would be eliminated. Look here for more steps, big and small, that will help to reduce global warming.
Top 10 Things You Can Do to Reduce Global Warming
Use Public Transportation
Energy Conservation: A Free Home Energy Audit Can Help You Save Power and Money
Conserve Energy
One way to do your part to protect the environment is to make choices every day that enable you to use less energy.
Why Should You Get a Free Home Energy Audit?
Slaying Energy Vampires Can Save You Money and Help the Environment
Heat Only the Space You Need
Reduce Your Personal Chill Factor
Stay Warm, Save Money, and Help the Environment
Change a Light Bulb and Change the World
Green Light: Are LED Light Bulbs Better Than CFLs?
How to Keep Cool Without Air Conditioning
Air Pollution May Reduce Rainfall and Cause Drought
As if there weren't already plenty of reasons to cut back on air pollution, now it looks as though cleaner air may reduce drought.
New research by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory makes a strong case that air pollution is contributing to drought conditions and potential crop failure in northern China by reducing the type of light rainfall that is essential for agriculture.
According to the study, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, air pollution reduced the number of days of light rainfall in China by 23 percent between 1956 and 2005. Light rainfall is defined as anything up to 0.4 inches (10 millimeters) in a day.
The way this works is that air pollution causes tiny air particles called aerosols—some aerosols also occur naturally—which affect how rain clouds form. Although the number of water droplets in clouds is higher when more aerosols are present, the water droplets in polluted skies are up to 50 percent smaller than in clean air. Many are so small that they are unable to fall as rain.
The research study shows that most of the aerosols in China are caused by human activity, such as the use of fossil fuels. China’s population and fossil fuel consumption increased dramatically between 1960 and 2000, and so did the number of aerosols in China’s skies. The result was the significant decrease in light rainfall noted in the study, and more drought in northern China. Heavy rainfall, which actually increased in some parts of southern China during the same period, can cause flooding and wash away crops before they have a chance to ripen and be harvested.
The conclusion of the researchers is that reducing air pollution in China could help to relieve drought, as well as decreasing acid rain and health problems associated with air pollution. About 2.5 million hectares of crops in northern China and Inner Mongolia are currently threatened by drought, raising concerns that the autumn grain harvest (which accounts for more than 70 percent of China’s total grain crop) could be ruined.
New research by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory makes a strong case that air pollution is contributing to drought conditions and potential crop failure in northern China by reducing the type of light rainfall that is essential for agriculture.
According to the study, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, air pollution reduced the number of days of light rainfall in China by 23 percent between 1956 and 2005. Light rainfall is defined as anything up to 0.4 inches (10 millimeters) in a day.
The way this works is that air pollution causes tiny air particles called aerosols—some aerosols also occur naturally—which affect how rain clouds form. Although the number of water droplets in clouds is higher when more aerosols are present, the water droplets in polluted skies are up to 50 percent smaller than in clean air. Many are so small that they are unable to fall as rain.
The research study shows that most of the aerosols in China are caused by human activity, such as the use of fossil fuels. China’s population and fossil fuel consumption increased dramatically between 1960 and 2000, and so did the number of aerosols in China’s skies. The result was the significant decrease in light rainfall noted in the study, and more drought in northern China. Heavy rainfall, which actually increased in some parts of southern China during the same period, can cause flooding and wash away crops before they have a chance to ripen and be harvested.
The conclusion of the researchers is that reducing air pollution in China could help to relieve drought, as well as decreasing acid rain and health problems associated with air pollution. About 2.5 million hectares of crops in northern China and Inner Mongolia are currently threatened by drought, raising concerns that the autumn grain harvest (which accounts for more than 70 percent of China’s total grain crop) could be ruined.
Do the Benefits of Recycling Outweigh the Costs?
Controversy over the benefits of recycling bubbled up in 1996 when columnist John Tierney posited in a New York Times Magazine article that “recycling is garbage.”
“Mandatory recycling programs,” he wrote, “…offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups -- politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations and waste handling corporations -- while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems. Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America…”
Cost of Recycling vs. Trash CollectionEnvironmental groups were quick to dispute Tierney on the benefits of recycling, especially on assertions that recycling was doubling energy consumption and pollution while costing taxpayers more money than disposing of plain old garbage.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense, two of the nation’s most influential environmental organizations, each issued reports detailing the benefits of recycling and showing how municipal recycling programs reduce pollution and the use of virgin resources while decreasing the sheer amount of garbage and the need for landfill space -- all for less, not more, than the cost of regular garbage pick-up and disposal.
Michael Shapiro, director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste, also weighed in on the benefits of recycling:
“A well-run curbside recycling program can cost anywhere from $50 to more than $150 per ton…trash collection and disposal programs, on the other hand, cost anywhere from $70 to more than $200 per ton. This demonstrates that, while there’s still room for improvements, recycling can be cost-effective.”
But in 2002, New York City, an early municipal recycling pioneer, found that its much-lauded recycling program was losing money, so it eliminated glass and plastic recycling. According to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the benefits of recycling plastic and glass were outweighed by the price -- recycling cost twice as much as disposal. Meanwhile, low demand for the materials meant that much of it was ending up in landfills anyway, despite best intentions.
Other major cities watched closely to see how New York was faring with its scaled back program (the city never discontinued paper recycling), ready to perhaps jump on the bandwagon.
But in the meantime, New York City closed its last landfill, and private out-of-state landfills raised prices due to the increased workload of hauling away and disposing of New York’s trash.
As a result, the benefits of recycling glass and plastic increased and glass and plastic recycling became economically viable for the city again. New York reinstated the recycling program accordingly, with a more efficient system and with more reputable service providers than it had used previously.
Benefits of Recycling Increase as Cities Gain ExperienceAccording to Chicago Reader columnist Cecil Adams, the lessons learned by New York are applicable everywhere.
“Some early curbside recycling programs…waste resources due to bureaucratic overhead and duplicate trash pickups (for garbage and then again for recyclables). But the situation has improved as cities have gained experience.”
Adams also says that, if managed correctly, recycling programs should cost cities (and taxpayers) less than garbage disposal for any given equivalent amount of material.
Even though the benefits of recycling over disposal are manifold, individuals should keep in mind that it better serves the environment to “reduce and reuse” before recycling even becomes an option.
“Mandatory recycling programs,” he wrote, “…offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups -- politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations and waste handling corporations -- while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems. Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America…”
Cost of Recycling vs. Trash CollectionEnvironmental groups were quick to dispute Tierney on the benefits of recycling, especially on assertions that recycling was doubling energy consumption and pollution while costing taxpayers more money than disposing of plain old garbage.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense, two of the nation’s most influential environmental organizations, each issued reports detailing the benefits of recycling and showing how municipal recycling programs reduce pollution and the use of virgin resources while decreasing the sheer amount of garbage and the need for landfill space -- all for less, not more, than the cost of regular garbage pick-up and disposal.
Michael Shapiro, director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste, also weighed in on the benefits of recycling:
“A well-run curbside recycling program can cost anywhere from $50 to more than $150 per ton…trash collection and disposal programs, on the other hand, cost anywhere from $70 to more than $200 per ton. This demonstrates that, while there’s still room for improvements, recycling can be cost-effective.”
But in 2002, New York City, an early municipal recycling pioneer, found that its much-lauded recycling program was losing money, so it eliminated glass and plastic recycling. According to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the benefits of recycling plastic and glass were outweighed by the price -- recycling cost twice as much as disposal. Meanwhile, low demand for the materials meant that much of it was ending up in landfills anyway, despite best intentions.
Other major cities watched closely to see how New York was faring with its scaled back program (the city never discontinued paper recycling), ready to perhaps jump on the bandwagon.
But in the meantime, New York City closed its last landfill, and private out-of-state landfills raised prices due to the increased workload of hauling away and disposing of New York’s trash.
As a result, the benefits of recycling glass and plastic increased and glass and plastic recycling became economically viable for the city again. New York reinstated the recycling program accordingly, with a more efficient system and with more reputable service providers than it had used previously.
Benefits of Recycling Increase as Cities Gain ExperienceAccording to Chicago Reader columnist Cecil Adams, the lessons learned by New York are applicable everywhere.
“Some early curbside recycling programs…waste resources due to bureaucratic overhead and duplicate trash pickups (for garbage and then again for recyclables). But the situation has improved as cities have gained experience.”
Adams also says that, if managed correctly, recycling programs should cost cities (and taxpayers) less than garbage disposal for any given equivalent amount of material.
Even though the benefits of recycling over disposal are manifold, individuals should keep in mind that it better serves the environment to “reduce and reuse” before recycling even becomes an option.
Satellite-based estimates of groundwater depletion in India
Groundwater is a primary source of fresh water in many parts of the world. Some regions are becoming overly dependent on it, consuming groundwater faster than it is naturally replenished and causing water tables to decline unremittingly1. Indirect evidence suggests that this is the case in northwest India2, but there has been no regional assessment of the rate of groundwater depletion. Here we use terrestrial water storage-change observations from the NASA Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites3 and simulated soil-water variations from a data-integrating hydrological modelling system4 to show that groundwater is being depleted at a mean rate of 4.0 1.0 cm yr-1 equivalent height of water (17.7 4.5 km3 yr-1) over the Indian states of Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana (including Delhi). During our study period of August 2002 to October 2008, groundwater depletion was equivalent to a net loss of 109 km3 of water, which is double the capacity of India's largest surface-water reservoir. Annual rainfall was close to normal throughout the period and we demonstrate that the other terrestrial water storage components (soil moisture, surface waters, snow, glaciers and biomass) did not contribute significantly to the observed decline in total water levels. Although our observational record is brief, the available evidence suggests that unsustainable consumption of groundwater for irrigation and other anthropogenic uses is likely to be the cause. If measures are not taken soon to ensure sustainable groundwater usage, the consequences for the 114,000,000 residents of the region may include a reduction of agricultural output and shortages of potable water, leading to extensive socioeconomic stresses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)