Perhaps you've heard of Baldwin Hills. The southwestern district of Los Angeles has been called the multicultural Beverly Hills, and is the subject of a BET reality knockoff of MTV's "The Hills." It's also surrounded by more than 400 oil wells in a sector of Los Angeles that's consistently ranked the most-polluted region in the nation. Five years ago, Irma Muñoz watched as two of her closest friends and neighbors, both lifelong Baldwin Hills residents, fell ill. It was cancer—one colon and the other, breast—and within two months, both women, in their late 50s, were dead.
It hasn't been proved that the chemicals they'd inhaled over a lifetime in the region had anything to do with their deaths, but cancer is among the health risks warned to be associated with oilfield expansion in Baldwin Hills, according to a 2007 report from a division of the L.A. County Department of Regional Planning. And in Muñoz's mind, it couldn't have been any clearer. "A lot of people in my neighborhood have died of cancer, and I decided that women needed to start speaking up," says the Los Angeles native, a lifelong activist. In 2004, Muñoz, 56, founded Mujeres de la Tierra, an organization that works to empower women who've traditionally been excluded from the environmental conversation. In anticipation of Earth Day, she spoke with NEWSWEEK's Jessica Bennett:
NEWSWEEK: Describe the biggest environmental issues facing the Latino community in Los Angeles.Muñoz: That's a tough question, but I would say it's a lack of access to passive and active recreational opportunities, to green space to play, to parks. Latinos in many urban areas are the new mainstream, but unfortunately that does not translate in the equitable distribution of resources—especially in the "green world." A lot of power plants and factories are traditionally put in minority neighborhoods, and we suffer as a result of that. What we want are all the things that are necessary to good community health in any urban area: trees and clean air quality.
I know the creation of this organization has very personal roots. But why focus on Latinas specifically?Five years ago, the National Resources Defense Council released a report on Latino health—about how Latino children were suffering disproportionately as a result of environmental woes in their neighborhoods. The report was written in both English and in Spanish, and I remember being so happy it had been written in Spanish so that many in the community could read it. But a few days later, there was an article about the report in a local paper, and not one Latino was interviewed for it. I was really bothered by that, but it was a pattern I had begun to see: the Latino community not being involved in the environmental conversation.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')
Why do you think that is?At the end of the day, it's all about power, influence and money, which we don't see that much of in our communities. Environmentalism is big business. And though there are good people working in our communities, often they're one-, two- or three-person [efforts], and it's harder to get the funding or recognition.
What does environmentalism mean to you?I think when you talk about the environment, most people are talking about the natural elements: air, water, the earth. But for me, and for many in my community, the environment starts with the family. Many of us come from farming backgrounds, and our relationship with the land is almost a spiritual experience. If you look at the history of Mexican-Americans, our whole lives are related to Mother Earth and the natural elements.
Is it possible that the history of Latinos in this country has actually fostered more sustainable practices?When you don't have the luxury of having a lot of stuff, you're resourceful because you have to be. Many of the women I work with live in apartments without access to yards or land, and when I ask them what would make their lives better, they say, "A place where we can grow our own vegetables." For many of us, land is very precious; we come from backgrounds where we grow our own corn and vegetables and fruit. And this is certainly sustainable, but many people don't continue it, because the land around us is very contaminated.
Do you think that through organizations like yours, we can move beyond the idea that environmentalism is a luxury of the elite?Absolutely. I think for many years, we had these alarming articles about if we don't take ownership, that global warming will result in all these horrible things. Well, now that's happening, and people are seeing it with their own eyes. I think we're beginning to realize that this is not someone else's problem; it's ours. And as a result of that, whether we call it the environment or not, we're doing things to change it. So it's no longer going to be a white, middle-class, affluent movement, it's all of us doing it. It just seems that some of us don't have the media or the publicity machines to show what we're doing.
What can NEWSWEEK readers do to help?On the very small scale, I think we can all look at what we do in our households. Do you take 20-minute showers? Do you turn off the water when you brush your teeth? All of those little things are big things, and it all starts at home. But I think people can also organize themselves and work toward a common goal: get involved in cleanup days, take ownership and pride in your neighborhood. If you want a community garden, look for empty land. Get to know your neighbors. I think all of these things are good for strengthening neighborhoods, and for raising the next generation of activists.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
A Green Trade War?
Type Size
NWK.widget.FontSizeSlider.init();
Print
Email
NWK.widget.EmailArticle.init();
Links to this article
NWK.widget.Sphere.init();
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Your Email Address
Recipient's Email Address
Separate multiple addresses with commas
Be careful what you wish for. For years, much of the world has been bashing America for refusing to cooperate in the fight against climate change. Now that President Barack Obama has pledged American leadership in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions—and as a far-reaching package of green legislation begins to wind its way through the U.S. Congress—relief is giving way to worry. In recent weeks European, Indian and Chinese officials have warned that the result of America's long-awaited change of mind might not be cooperation but conflict, and possibly the world's first green trade war.
That's because as Washington debates how to regulate emissions, a powerful coalition of energy-intensive industries, labor unions and Rust Belt state legislators is clamoring for protection from imports. They argue that the new cap-and-trade system envisioned by Obama and congressional leaders, which will require major polluters to acquire permits for the right to emit CO2, will put them at a competitive disadvantage against competitors based in countries that don't have similar carbon-pricing schemes. In March Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, said the U.S. is prepared to use a border tax on imports as a weapon to force countries like China to limit their own emissions, triggering a warning by Su Wei, China's chief climate negotiator, that this would lead to retaliatory measures. India has since warned the West not to engage in "green protectionism."
So far, the threats have been limited to words, but that may soon change. Introduced in Congress on April 1, America's proposed scheme is loosely based on Europe's, which gives homegrown energy-intensive industries like steel, aluminum and cement generous free allowances of pollution permits, in effect grandfathering them into the new system. The president would have the authority to impose "border adjustments" only if U.S. companies were determined to be at a competitive disadvantage after a five-year trial period. But with the American debate over climate change increasingly driven by worries over jobs and competitiveness, some form of protection seems increasingly likely. In Europe, politicians have called for EU trade sanctions against both China and the U.S. if they don't agree to cut emissions.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')
Because they already regulate emissions, the Europeans would likely be exempt from any U.S. carbon tariffs, which appear squarely aimed at China.
The biggest victim of a confrontation, however, would be the environment that U.S. legislators are purporting to save. China is just beginning to get serious about its own environmental record, and as a member of the G20 seems finally to be taking its first baby steps toward a more involved and constructive international role. The global climate regime that the world's biggest polluters will try to hammer out at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in December will not work without major developing-world emitters like China onboard. A nasty trade fight with the United States would make cooperation by Beijing even less likely, says Benjamin Görlach, emissions expert at the Ecologic Institute in Berlin.
Not only does the debate over imports threaten to obscure the original environmental-policy goals, it also obscures the facts. The greatest share of carbon-intensive imports reaches the U.S. not from China but from heavily regulated Europe. What's more, a number of studies have found the effects on industrial competitiveness to be minimal. Among other things, they found that the cost of complying with environmental regulation plays little to no role when companies decide where to locate—access to local markets is by far the most important factor, followed by labor costs. In some cases, such as Germany's €160 billion chemical industry, efficiency improvements prodded by environmental regulation have even helped make the industry more competitive, not less. Even the Chinese case is anything but clear. China itself may be polluted, but its exports tend to come from modern, efficient plants, and the country already has higher efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances than the U.S., leading a Chinese official to remark at a Brookings Institution conference in Washington last year that it may be China that should slap carbon tariffs on U.S. products, not the other way around. The trouble now is that the debate is driven less and less by environmental concerns and is turning into one defined by longstanding domestic U.S. worries that cheap Chinese goods will continue to flood the U.S., take jobs and hurt companies. So far in this downturn, the protectionists have been held in check by fears of repeating the mistakes of the 1930s, when a global tariff war plunged the world into depression. Under the cover of green, they could yet have their day.
NWK.widget.FontSizeSlider.init();
NWK.widget.EmailArticle.init();
Links to this article
NWK.widget.Sphere.init();
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Your Email Address
Recipient's Email Address
Separate multiple addresses with commas
Be careful what you wish for. For years, much of the world has been bashing America for refusing to cooperate in the fight against climate change. Now that President Barack Obama has pledged American leadership in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions—and as a far-reaching package of green legislation begins to wind its way through the U.S. Congress—relief is giving way to worry. In recent weeks European, Indian and Chinese officials have warned that the result of America's long-awaited change of mind might not be cooperation but conflict, and possibly the world's first green trade war.
That's because as Washington debates how to regulate emissions, a powerful coalition of energy-intensive industries, labor unions and Rust Belt state legislators is clamoring for protection from imports. They argue that the new cap-and-trade system envisioned by Obama and congressional leaders, which will require major polluters to acquire permits for the right to emit CO2, will put them at a competitive disadvantage against competitors based in countries that don't have similar carbon-pricing schemes. In March Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, said the U.S. is prepared to use a border tax on imports as a weapon to force countries like China to limit their own emissions, triggering a warning by Su Wei, China's chief climate negotiator, that this would lead to retaliatory measures. India has since warned the West not to engage in "green protectionism."
So far, the threats have been limited to words, but that may soon change. Introduced in Congress on April 1, America's proposed scheme is loosely based on Europe's, which gives homegrown energy-intensive industries like steel, aluminum and cement generous free allowances of pollution permits, in effect grandfathering them into the new system. The president would have the authority to impose "border adjustments" only if U.S. companies were determined to be at a competitive disadvantage after a five-year trial period. But with the American debate over climate change increasingly driven by worries over jobs and competitiveness, some form of protection seems increasingly likely. In Europe, politicians have called for EU trade sanctions against both China and the U.S. if they don't agree to cut emissions.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')
Because they already regulate emissions, the Europeans would likely be exempt from any U.S. carbon tariffs, which appear squarely aimed at China.
The biggest victim of a confrontation, however, would be the environment that U.S. legislators are purporting to save. China is just beginning to get serious about its own environmental record, and as a member of the G20 seems finally to be taking its first baby steps toward a more involved and constructive international role. The global climate regime that the world's biggest polluters will try to hammer out at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in December will not work without major developing-world emitters like China onboard. A nasty trade fight with the United States would make cooperation by Beijing even less likely, says Benjamin Görlach, emissions expert at the Ecologic Institute in Berlin.
Not only does the debate over imports threaten to obscure the original environmental-policy goals, it also obscures the facts. The greatest share of carbon-intensive imports reaches the U.S. not from China but from heavily regulated Europe. What's more, a number of studies have found the effects on industrial competitiveness to be minimal. Among other things, they found that the cost of complying with environmental regulation plays little to no role when companies decide where to locate—access to local markets is by far the most important factor, followed by labor costs. In some cases, such as Germany's €160 billion chemical industry, efficiency improvements prodded by environmental regulation have even helped make the industry more competitive, not less. Even the Chinese case is anything but clear. China itself may be polluted, but its exports tend to come from modern, efficient plants, and the country already has higher efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances than the U.S., leading a Chinese official to remark at a Brookings Institution conference in Washington last year that it may be China that should slap carbon tariffs on U.S. products, not the other way around. The trouble now is that the debate is driven less and less by environmental concerns and is turning into one defined by longstanding domestic U.S. worries that cheap Chinese goods will continue to flood the U.S., take jobs and hurt companies. So far in this downturn, the protectionists have been held in check by fears of repeating the mistakes of the 1930s, when a global tariff war plunged the world into depression. Under the cover of green, they could yet have their day.
How to send electricity across the continent, virtually for free.
Remember the Woodstock of Physics? Probably not. Back in the spring of 1987, though, headlines were trumpeting it as the most exciting scientific meeting in history. Three thousand physicists crammed into a ballroom at the New York Hilton to talk about superconductivity-the transmission of electricity with literally zero resistance. The technology was suddenly within reach of being economical. So it appeared, anyway, and that could mean anything from superfast computers to tiny, powerful electric motors to power lines that could carry current with no loss of energy.
In the more than two decades since, superconductors haven't grabbed many headlines. That's partly because the new materials discovered in the late '80s proved to be a lot harder to work with than anyone expected, and partly because their energy-saving wizardry wasn't in high demand during most of the 1990s. But nowadays, using less energy is a key strategy in the fight against climate change-and a lot of the technical problems that have dogged superconductor technology have been solved. "Five years ago, I'd have been skeptical," says Robert Cava, a Princeton materials scientist who was in on the original Woodstock of Physics. "But after years and years and years of people beating their heads against the wall, they've finally got it."
"They" are scientists and engineers at a handful of companies in Europe, the U.S. and Japan who have figured out how to turn brittle, fragile superconductors into flexible wires. "We basically found a way to bend the unbendable," says Greg Yurek, who left the MIT faculty in the late 1980s to found American Superconductor in Massachusetts. Superconductors have found their way recently into ships, wind turbines and electric cars. But the big push now is for power transmission. A major element of the "smart grid" is a new set of long-distance power lines to carry electricity from renewables like wind and solar. Conventional power lines are expensive, unsightly and wasteful-they can lose 14 percent of their energy from the resistance of the copper cables.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')
Superconducting cables have no such problem. A set of cables carrying five gigawatts of power-the output, of, say, five big nuclear power plants-can fit into a pipe just three feet across, and you could even bury it underground. Part of the pipe will be taken up with a cooling system: these superconductors work only when kept at the temperature of liquid nitrogen, about minus-170 degrees Celsius. Nitrogen is relatively cheap to manufacture and keep cold compared with the liquid helium (minus-269 degrees) needed for old-fashioned superconductors. The cooling equipment draws some energy from the cable, but still far less than the losses in copper cable. Even so, the power industry isn't likely to trash its old but serviceable transmission lines and install superconductors, even if they are more efficient. If the world is going to start using climate-friendly renewables, it'll require new transmission lines anyway. In the U.S., for example, the most abundant and reliable wind power comes from a belt stretching from Texas north to the Dakotas. The best spots for solar are in Arizona and New Mexico. The biggest consumers of electricity-the cities-are mostly along the coasts and near the Great Lakes.
So new power cables will have to link the source to the consumer. And if it's a choice between ugly, inefficient overhead lines and a pipe buried along existing interstate-highway rights of way, the choice seems kind of obvious-assuming that American Superconductor is correct in its claim that the costs are roughly the same. The Woodstock of Physics, in short, may finally be living up to its mostly forgotten hype.
In the more than two decades since, superconductors haven't grabbed many headlines. That's partly because the new materials discovered in the late '80s proved to be a lot harder to work with than anyone expected, and partly because their energy-saving wizardry wasn't in high demand during most of the 1990s. But nowadays, using less energy is a key strategy in the fight against climate change-and a lot of the technical problems that have dogged superconductor technology have been solved. "Five years ago, I'd have been skeptical," says Robert Cava, a Princeton materials scientist who was in on the original Woodstock of Physics. "But after years and years and years of people beating their heads against the wall, they've finally got it."
"They" are scientists and engineers at a handful of companies in Europe, the U.S. and Japan who have figured out how to turn brittle, fragile superconductors into flexible wires. "We basically found a way to bend the unbendable," says Greg Yurek, who left the MIT faculty in the late 1980s to found American Superconductor in Massachusetts. Superconductors have found their way recently into ships, wind turbines and electric cars. But the big push now is for power transmission. A major element of the "smart grid" is a new set of long-distance power lines to carry electricity from renewables like wind and solar. Conventional power lines are expensive, unsightly and wasteful-they can lose 14 percent of their energy from the resistance of the copper cables.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')
Superconducting cables have no such problem. A set of cables carrying five gigawatts of power-the output, of, say, five big nuclear power plants-can fit into a pipe just three feet across, and you could even bury it underground. Part of the pipe will be taken up with a cooling system: these superconductors work only when kept at the temperature of liquid nitrogen, about minus-170 degrees Celsius. Nitrogen is relatively cheap to manufacture and keep cold compared with the liquid helium (minus-269 degrees) needed for old-fashioned superconductors. The cooling equipment draws some energy from the cable, but still far less than the losses in copper cable. Even so, the power industry isn't likely to trash its old but serviceable transmission lines and install superconductors, even if they are more efficient. If the world is going to start using climate-friendly renewables, it'll require new transmission lines anyway. In the U.S., for example, the most abundant and reliable wind power comes from a belt stretching from Texas north to the Dakotas. The best spots for solar are in Arizona and New Mexico. The biggest consumers of electricity-the cities-are mostly along the coasts and near the Great Lakes.
So new power cables will have to link the source to the consumer. And if it's a choice between ugly, inefficient overhead lines and a pipe buried along existing interstate-highway rights of way, the choice seems kind of obvious-assuming that American Superconductor is correct in its claim that the costs are roughly the same. The Woodstock of Physics, in short, may finally be living up to its mostly forgotten hype.
Coal ash spill cleanup slow; cause still unknown
Glen Daugherty watches from his wooden dock, just beyond his prized pontoon boat, as a floating dredging machine growls from across the channel of the Emory River.
When it isn't broken down, the machine has been slowly sucking up tons of coal ash that spilled six months ago from the Kingston Fossil Plant a few hundred yards upriver.
The Tennessee Valley Authority, owner and operator of the giant coal-fired Kingston plant, calls this progress. Daugherty, 67, who once delivered coal from local mines to the Kingston plant, just sees shattered dreams.
"I was going to be here the rest of my life," he said. "Now I don't know what I am going to do."
A Dec. 22 breach in an earthen dike unleashed 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic-laden ash into the river and 26 lakeside homes, covering some 300 acres with grayish muck.
The 1,900-square-foot brick rancher that Glen and Evelyn Daugherty built on their little acre of paradise along the Emory River in 1991 wasn't damaged by the spill. But it's now part of the cleanup zone. Most of their neighbors have moved or are moving with buyouts from the nation's largest public utility — TVA has paid out $20 million so far.
House or healthDaugherty said TVA won't pay enough to replace his home, and he refuses to take on debt at his age.
Still, Daugherty said his wife's doctor advised them: "Which is more important to you — your house or your health? I am going to tell you right now, you better get out of there."
The Daughertys, who celebrated their 40th anniversary in February, have until July 31 to decide.
The cause of the spill is still unknown, six months after the disaster brought national attention to the regulation and risks of coal ash storage. The ash — which typically contains traces of arsenic and other toxic materials — is stored at 43 other sites in 26 communities around the country, which are so hazardous the Army Corps of Engineers won't disclose their locations.
TVA hired engineering consultants AECOM USA Inc. to study the cause. Lead consultant William Walton, based in Vernon Hills, Ill., isn't taking calls from The Associated Press.
TVA spokesman John Moulton said the document should be out this month.
‘It was an embarrassment’A panel of engineering and environmental experts formed by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation is waiting to review the AECOM report. So are attorneys handling a half dozen federal lawsuits filed by victims against TVA.
University of Tennessee professor emeritus Bruce Tschantz, an expert in hydrology and dam safety engineering, is on the panel, which was briefed on the report a few weeks ago.
Tschantz wouldn't reveal any conclusions, but said he hopes the final version digs deep into the decisions that led to the wall's collapse. It should explain whether such a spill could happen again — and whether it can be prevented, he said.
Click for related content
Beetles threaten water, power suppliesMoney to shut nuclear plants falls shortEPA declares asbestos emergency in town
"My analogy is when an airplane goes down and they find out the direct reason is the wings were cracked," he said. "OK, so that is why it went down but why were the wings cracked? Why were the wings not inspected? Why were they allowed to crack? Is it because of poor management and inspection?"
Tshcantz added: "No matter what the findings are — it was an embarrassment."
This much is known. The Kingston plant's ash landfill began filling up with the byproduct of coal-fired electric generation in 1958, and the pile stood 60 feet high at the time of the spill. It was licensed to go even higher, to 80 feet, before closing in 2015. A layer of water sat on top to keep the ash from blowing away.
Two small, localized problems with the dikes were found in 2003 and 2006, according to the utility's inspector general. Otherwise, state inspectors found no deficiencies in August, and a visual inspection the afternoon before the spill turned up no problems.
TVA officials noted immediately after the spill that the temperature dropped to 14 degrees that night. President and CEO Tom Kilgore said 4.9 inches of rain fell in December — almost twice as much as normal — which could have added significant weight to the pile.
Even so, the spill could have been worse. Just more than half of the 9.5 million cubic yards of ash the site holds spilled. Kingston has the largest ash pile of any of TVA's 11 coal-fired power plants.
Costly cleanupTo date, TVA has rebuilt roads and railroad tracks, restored utilities, offered compensation to victims, opened community outreach centers and public document rooms, begun dredging and awarded a contract to ship about half the spilled ash to an Alabama landfill. The cleanup cost could reach $1 billion.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is overseeing the cleanup, which could cost $1 billion. Anda Ray, TVA's top environmental executive, said the agency is working to get the ash out of the river by next spring to prevent it from being carried downstream during a storm.
When it isn't broken down, the machine has been slowly sucking up tons of coal ash that spilled six months ago from the Kingston Fossil Plant a few hundred yards upriver.
The Tennessee Valley Authority, owner and operator of the giant coal-fired Kingston plant, calls this progress. Daugherty, 67, who once delivered coal from local mines to the Kingston plant, just sees shattered dreams.
"I was going to be here the rest of my life," he said. "Now I don't know what I am going to do."
A Dec. 22 breach in an earthen dike unleashed 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic-laden ash into the river and 26 lakeside homes, covering some 300 acres with grayish muck.
The 1,900-square-foot brick rancher that Glen and Evelyn Daugherty built on their little acre of paradise along the Emory River in 1991 wasn't damaged by the spill. But it's now part of the cleanup zone. Most of their neighbors have moved or are moving with buyouts from the nation's largest public utility — TVA has paid out $20 million so far.
House or healthDaugherty said TVA won't pay enough to replace his home, and he refuses to take on debt at his age.
Still, Daugherty said his wife's doctor advised them: "Which is more important to you — your house or your health? I am going to tell you right now, you better get out of there."
The Daughertys, who celebrated their 40th anniversary in February, have until July 31 to decide.
The cause of the spill is still unknown, six months after the disaster brought national attention to the regulation and risks of coal ash storage. The ash — which typically contains traces of arsenic and other toxic materials — is stored at 43 other sites in 26 communities around the country, which are so hazardous the Army Corps of Engineers won't disclose their locations.
TVA hired engineering consultants AECOM USA Inc. to study the cause. Lead consultant William Walton, based in Vernon Hills, Ill., isn't taking calls from The Associated Press.
TVA spokesman John Moulton said the document should be out this month.
‘It was an embarrassment’A panel of engineering and environmental experts formed by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation is waiting to review the AECOM report. So are attorneys handling a half dozen federal lawsuits filed by victims against TVA.
University of Tennessee professor emeritus Bruce Tschantz, an expert in hydrology and dam safety engineering, is on the panel, which was briefed on the report a few weeks ago.
Tschantz wouldn't reveal any conclusions, but said he hopes the final version digs deep into the decisions that led to the wall's collapse. It should explain whether such a spill could happen again — and whether it can be prevented, he said.
Click for related content
Beetles threaten water, power suppliesMoney to shut nuclear plants falls shortEPA declares asbestos emergency in town
"My analogy is when an airplane goes down and they find out the direct reason is the wings were cracked," he said. "OK, so that is why it went down but why were the wings cracked? Why were the wings not inspected? Why were they allowed to crack? Is it because of poor management and inspection?"
Tshcantz added: "No matter what the findings are — it was an embarrassment."
This much is known. The Kingston plant's ash landfill began filling up with the byproduct of coal-fired electric generation in 1958, and the pile stood 60 feet high at the time of the spill. It was licensed to go even higher, to 80 feet, before closing in 2015. A layer of water sat on top to keep the ash from blowing away.
Two small, localized problems with the dikes were found in 2003 and 2006, according to the utility's inspector general. Otherwise, state inspectors found no deficiencies in August, and a visual inspection the afternoon before the spill turned up no problems.
TVA officials noted immediately after the spill that the temperature dropped to 14 degrees that night. President and CEO Tom Kilgore said 4.9 inches of rain fell in December — almost twice as much as normal — which could have added significant weight to the pile.
Even so, the spill could have been worse. Just more than half of the 9.5 million cubic yards of ash the site holds spilled. Kingston has the largest ash pile of any of TVA's 11 coal-fired power plants.
Costly cleanupTo date, TVA has rebuilt roads and railroad tracks, restored utilities, offered compensation to victims, opened community outreach centers and public document rooms, begun dredging and awarded a contract to ship about half the spilled ash to an Alabama landfill. The cleanup cost could reach $1 billion.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is overseeing the cleanup, which could cost $1 billion. Anda Ray, TVA's top environmental executive, said the agency is working to get the ash out of the river by next spring to prevent it from being carried downstream during a storm.
Vedanta gets award for environment management: Film on pollution by Vedanta’s refinery
Vedanta’s aluminium refinery at Lanjigarh gets the Golden Peacock award despite several notices from the OSPCB for non-compliance with environmental regulations This timely film by Surya Shankar Dash released today highlights the pollution caused by the refinery, plight of the suffering villages and their protest against it.
The Real Face of Vedanta a film highlighting the pollution caused by Vedanta’s refinery in Lanjigarh, Orissa was released. This 30-minute film has been made by independent film maker Surya Shankar Dash and draws attention to the plight of the communities suffering from the pollution caused by the one million tonne per annum aluminium refinery plant of Vedanta. The film also captures the public hearing held for the expansion plans where people lambasted the company for the pollution caused by it. Vedanta plans to expand its plant to 6 MTPA, making it the world’s biggest aluminium refinery. The public hearing was organised as part of the clearance process. Vedanta’s pollution is affecting more than twenty villages in its vicinity causing widespread skin and respiratory problems.
The Real Face of Vedanta a film highlighting the pollution caused by Vedanta’s refinery in Lanjigarh, Orissa was released. This 30-minute film has been made by independent film maker Surya Shankar Dash and draws attention to the plight of the communities suffering from the pollution caused by the one million tonne per annum aluminium refinery plant of Vedanta. The film also captures the public hearing held for the expansion plans where people lambasted the company for the pollution caused by it. Vedanta plans to expand its plant to 6 MTPA, making it the world’s biggest aluminium refinery. The public hearing was organised as part of the clearance process. Vedanta’s pollution is affecting more than twenty villages in its vicinity causing widespread skin and respiratory problems.
Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction: risk and poverty in a changing climate
This is the first biennial global assessment of disaster risk reduction prepared in the context of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. It focuses on the nexus between disaster risk and poverty, in a context of global climate change.
The 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction is the first biennial global assessment of disaster risk reduction prepared in the context of the International Strategy forDisaster Reduction (ISDR). The focus of this report is the nexus between disaster risk and poverty, in a context of global climate change. Both mortality and economic loss risk are heavily concentrated in developing countries and within these countries they disproportionately affect the poor. Disaster impacts have persistent, longterm negative impacts on poverty and human development that undermine the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This report identifies underlying risk drivers such as vulnerable rural livelihoods, poor urban governance and declining ecosystems that shape the relationship between disaster risk and poverty. It also shows how climate change will magnify the uneven social and territorial distribution of risk, increasing the risks faced by the poor and further amplifying poverty.
The 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction is the first biennial global assessment of disaster risk reduction prepared in the context of the International Strategy forDisaster Reduction (ISDR). The focus of this report is the nexus between disaster risk and poverty, in a context of global climate change. Both mortality and economic loss risk are heavily concentrated in developing countries and within these countries they disproportionately affect the poor. Disaster impacts have persistent, longterm negative impacts on poverty and human development that undermine the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This report identifies underlying risk drivers such as vulnerable rural livelihoods, poor urban governance and declining ecosystems that shape the relationship between disaster risk and poverty. It also shows how climate change will magnify the uneven social and territorial distribution of risk, increasing the risks faced by the poor and further amplifying poverty.
environmental awareness in Tamilnadu
The best way to attempt to bring about a change in the attitudes in the society is through children. They have no vested interests. They are impressionable. They are our future. They are the single most important influence in any family. With this realisation the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India and the department of Environment are working towards creating Environmental awareness among school students in Tamil Nadu.The main objectives of this programme is to educate children about their immediate environment and impart knowledge about the eco-systems, their inter-dependence and their need for survival, through visits and demonstrations and to mobilise youngsters by instilling in them the spirit of scientific inquiry into environmental problems and involving them in the efforts of environmental preservation
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)