India Harrison, 9, who suffered a birth defect due to toxic waste in Corby, rests her hand on the hand of her mother, Johanne Photo: JANE MINGAY
Mandy Wright and her son Curtis, 13, who suffered a birth defect due to toxic waste in Corby Photo: JANE MINGAY
Dylan South, 13, who suffered a birth defect in his right leg due to toxic waste in Corby Photo: JANE MINGAY
They say that you used to be able to see Corby from a distance because the steel works made the town glow. Children used to play in the 'soot hills’, or the black hills as they are known locally. “It never really occurs to you what you are playing in when you are a child, does it?” says Johanne Harrison.
There was a quarry that filled with rain water that kids swam in. They called it the Blue Lagoon because the water was so bright. “It actually fizzed at the edges,” says Johanne. Locals also talk of the red mist that enveloped the Sunday market near the works, where people would shop for clothes, meat, fruit and vegetables. It was dust from the plant.
This was an accepted part of life in Corby. Years later, as she struggled to come to terms with her newborn daughter’s limb deformity, it never occurred to Johanne that it might be linked to the toxic legacy of the steel works.
Johanne says she knew something was wrong when the voice of the mid-wife who’d been urging her on, telling her that she could see a head of black hair, suddenly changed to a tone of soothing urgency. “It will be ok,” she told Johanne. “It will be ok.”
As soon as the umbilical cord was cut, baby India was taken away. Later a doctor returned with the child and asked Johanne if she wanted to put her up for adoption. “When I asked him what was wrong he took a biro out of his pocket and stuck it through India’s curled left hand,” says Johanne. This crude gesture revealed that India was missing fingers and had a shortened arm.
When Mandy Wright gave birth to her son Curtis, now 13, the doctors and midwives had been rather more sensitive about his badly-deformed right hand. “I just thought it was one of those things. They told me that he might be brain damaged, and that I should keep an eye on him, but he was fine and we just got on with it. That his hand was as it was just seemed like a freak of nature.”
Curtis and India live within a few miles of each other in Northamptonshire, and it would now seem that there is nothing natural about their birth defects. This week they were present at the High Court in London with 16 other children with deformed hands and feet, all of them conceived in the shadow of the Corby Steel Works as it was dismantled in the eighties and nineties.The incident of deformities in Corby is 300 per cent greater than average.
The 680 acre site had, during its 46 year history, produced a dizzying array of dangerous waste – nickel, chromium, zinc, arsenic, boron and cadmium.The council had to dispose of it somehow, and that they did – in the back of open lorries, sludge spilling onto the public roads of the town. Johanne remembers the smell and the metallic taste of it, and how if you drove behind one of the lorries, your car always ended up covered in a light film.
The waste was dumped all over Corby by staff that Mr Justice Akenhead described this week as being “unqualified and insufficiently experienced”; a waste management expert who saw how the materials were disposed of, was said to have been “appalled”. Even at the time that the land was being “reclaimed”, an auditor described the operation as “naïve, cavalier and incompetent.” On Wednesday, after a ten year battle, the Judge ruled that Corby Borough Council had been negligent and that the dumping of toxic material may have caused the birth defects. He also ruled that India Harrison was not eligible because she was born after the reclamation work had finished. India and her mother plan to appeal that decision, just as it seems the Council will, though at the time of going to press they had not returned calls. Another 60 families are reported to be ready to pursue claims.
Yesterday in Corby there was no sense of triumphalism. ''I’ll tell you this story and you just won’t believe it,” Mandy Wright says. “When I was pregnant I was in hospital with high blood pressure and there was another expectant mother there. When Curtis was born she said 'I’m so sorry about his hand’. A few weeks later she called me up, distraught, to say her child had also been born with a deformity
“I was OK before the ruling,” Wright continues. “If it was just Nature, then that was fine. But to have heard a judge actually say that this town may have caused it because of their negligence is just the pits. I’m furious.”
That fury centres around the children’s suffering. Curtis has had four operations – one of his toes has been grafted to his hand to make a thumb – while India has had eight.Two fingers had to be separated, she has had a skin graft, her bones have been rotated, and she had to have skin and muscle from her groin transplanted on to her hand.
“That operation was just horrific,” says Johanne. “It was the worst thing I have ever experienced in my life. She went straight out of the operating theatre to the high dependency unit and then when she came round she had central lines coming out of her neck and she was really, really sick. She was fighting and screaming in the bed. Whenever we have to go to the hospital she is terrified. Nobody wants to see their child go through that.”
India is likely to lose all movement in the limb. Like Curtis, she has had to learn to write with her other hand. Both have endured bullying, and India had to move school. “People call me things like fishy fingers and three fingered freak,” she tells me.
“You spend the whole time justifying to her why people are staring,” says her mother. “I tell her that she is special, and that God made her that way.”
Curtis knows that he will never be able to join the army or become a pilot but he takes it all in his stride. “I have put up a barrier of humour. If I laugh with them then that’s better than them laughing at me.” He has joked with people that he had frostbite, or that his dog has attacked him, and when he first met his stepdad he tried to convince him that he had chocolate fingers.
But there is nothing humourous about this story. Corby is a town that has been blighted by the closure of the steel works in 1980. Ten thousand jobs were lost. The clean-up of the plant was supposed to rejuvenate the area but, almost 30 years on, that has not really happened. There is a new swimming pool but there are also boarded up shops and most of the employment available is low-paid warehouse work.
Corby Borough Council – it’s slogan is “building a bigger, better, brighter Corby” – has responded bullishly to this week’s ruling. “We are not yet at the point of saying sorry because nobody yet is responsible,” said Chris Mallender, the council chief executive. The council said that it would have to borrow money if they ended up having to pay the families the £5 million or more their solicitor estimates that they should get between them in compensation.
Certainly, the council have not made it easy, says Des Collins, the solicitor for the families. In 35 years of practice, he has never encountered a defendant as difficult. “The council have been stonewalling to a degree that belies belief. Trying to get hold of documentation was not easy – a lot of it, I was told, went missing in floods or fires.” A dozen new families contacted him yesterday.
Now that the judge has ruled the Council negligent, each family will have a separate trial to decide whether or not the toxic waste was the cause of the birth defects. Other possible causes, such as substance abuse, will also be investigated but the health of the families was scrutinised before the case was brought to rule this out. They will then be eligible for compensation that Collins believes could be as much as £500,000 a case.
If things go to plan, that should take two years, but if the Council continue to deny any link between the deformities of these children and the haphazard way in which they dumped toxic waste, it could take far longer.
The families say it is not about money but about someone being held accountable. Curtis, with wisdom beyond his years, puts it best: “All the money in the world isn’t going to give me a hand. After all this time, we just wanted a decision either way. Now I’d settle for a sorry from them.”
Friday, July 31, 2009
China bows to activist pressure over refinery
China has taken the unusual step of moving a $5bn refinery and petrochemical plant, one of the country’s biggest foreign investment projects, after a public outcry, a senior Communist party official said on Thursday.
The decision to relocate the plant is the highest-profile victory so far for China’s loosely organised but increasingly aggressive envirWang Yang, party secretary of Guangdong province and south China’s most powerful politician, attributed the decision to shift the joint venture project of Sinopec, the Chinese state owned refiner, and Kuwait Petroleum Corp, to “strong criticism from the community”.
“This reflects how Guangdong values environmental protection, the ecology and the opinions of our citizens,” said Mr Wang, who sits on the party’s 25-member Politburo, in a rare interview with foreign reporters. “It was a very difficult decision to make because [the project] has been approved by the state council and signed by the partners.
“We only have one planet to live on and whatever we do at this end affects people at the other end,” he said.
The plant was to be built in southern Guangzhou, the provincial capital, 60km upwind of Hong Kong, where the project has also come under criticism.
Last year, 14 delegates to the provincial people’s congress filed a motion opposing the refinery on the grounds that it could worsen regional air pollution. That opposition emboldened environmental officials, who also began to question the project’s suitability pending the completion of an environmental impact report.
Mr Wang declined to reveal where Sinopec and Kuwait Petroleum had agreed to move the plant to. Privately, provincial officials say it is most likely destined for the industrial port of Zhanjiang in western Guangdong, a much less populated and ecologically sensitive region.
The project was to have been sited in a new heavy industrial zone in the geographical centre of the Pearl river estuary, not far from a bird and wetland sanctuary. The site was marked out last year and villagers were relocated to new housing closer to the centre of Guangzhou.
The relocation is in keeping with a larger push by Mr Wang to engineer an industrial restructuring of the province, which accounts for about a third of China’s exports and which suffered a 20 per cent fall in foreign trade since the onset of the global financial crisis.onmental and community activists.
The decision to relocate the plant is the highest-profile victory so far for China’s loosely organised but increasingly aggressive envirWang Yang, party secretary of Guangdong province and south China’s most powerful politician, attributed the decision to shift the joint venture project of Sinopec, the Chinese state owned refiner, and Kuwait Petroleum Corp, to “strong criticism from the community”.
“This reflects how Guangdong values environmental protection, the ecology and the opinions of our citizens,” said Mr Wang, who sits on the party’s 25-member Politburo, in a rare interview with foreign reporters. “It was a very difficult decision to make because [the project] has been approved by the state council and signed by the partners.
“We only have one planet to live on and whatever we do at this end affects people at the other end,” he said.
The plant was to be built in southern Guangzhou, the provincial capital, 60km upwind of Hong Kong, where the project has also come under criticism.
Last year, 14 delegates to the provincial people’s congress filed a motion opposing the refinery on the grounds that it could worsen regional air pollution. That opposition emboldened environmental officials, who also began to question the project’s suitability pending the completion of an environmental impact report.
Mr Wang declined to reveal where Sinopec and Kuwait Petroleum had agreed to move the plant to. Privately, provincial officials say it is most likely destined for the industrial port of Zhanjiang in western Guangdong, a much less populated and ecologically sensitive region.
The project was to have been sited in a new heavy industrial zone in the geographical centre of the Pearl river estuary, not far from a bird and wetland sanctuary. The site was marked out last year and villagers were relocated to new housing closer to the centre of Guangzhou.
The relocation is in keeping with a larger push by Mr Wang to engineer an industrial restructuring of the province, which accounts for about a third of China’s exports and which suffered a 20 per cent fall in foreign trade since the onset of the global financial crisis.onmental and community activists.
House Approves Food-Safety Bill
The House approved the first major changes to food-safety laws in 70 years Thursday, giving sweeping new authority to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the way food is grown, harvested and processed.
The action follows a wave of food-borne illnesses over the past three years, involving products as varied as spinach and cookie dough, which has shaken consumer confidence and made the issue a priority for congressional leaders and the White House. Food illnesses sicken one in four Americans and kill 5,000 each year, according to government statistics. Tainted food has cost the food industry billions of dollars in recalls, lost sales and legal expenses.
"Americans are dying because the Food and Drug Administration does not have authority to protect them, and American producers and agriculture are being hurt," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), the bill's author, who has been pushing food-safety change for more than 20 years. "This will fundamentally change the way in which we ensure the safety of our food supply."
The measure passed 283 to 142. The Senate is expected to take up its version after the August recess. President Obama, who has voiced concerns about the safety of peanut butter consumed by his 8-year-old daughter, endorsed the House bill Wednesday.
The legislation affects every aspect of the U.S. food system, from farmers to manufacturers to importers. It places significant responsibilities on farmers and food processors to prevent contamination -- a departure from the country's reactive tradition, which has relied on government inspectors to catch tainted food after the fact.
The 159-page bill was backed by a raft of consumer groups and trade associations but faced opposition from some farm interests and their House Republican allies, who said it gives too much authority to the FDA and will lead to higher costs and burdensome paperwork without necessarily making food safer.
"The federal government will tell our farmers and ranchers how to do something they've been doing since the dawn of mankind," said Rep. Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla.). "It goes too far in the direction of trying to produce food from a bureaucrat's chair in Washington, D.C."
The legislation requires food producers and importers to pay an annual $500 registration fee, which would help fund stepped-up FDA inspections, enforcement and related activities such as food-safety research. About 360,000 facilities in the United States and abroad would be subject to the fees. The Congressional Budget Office reported that the fees would not cover the cost of the new system, leaving the FDA to incur a net cost of $2.2 billion over five years.
If enacted, the bill would be the first major overhaul of food laws since 1938, when Congress gave the FDA the power to oversee the safety of most foods, as well as drugs and cosmetics. At that time, the government was concerned mainly about food makers adulterating products by substituting ingredients or using additives to mask rancid meat and vegetables.
But as the food industry has changed, new threats have emerged. Deadly pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7 can contaminate foods without the knowledge of farmers, manufacturers or consumers. An increasing amount of food Americans consume -- about 15 percent -- is imported, with little known about overseas growing or processing methods. And the U.S. food supply chain has grown increasingly complex, with some manufacturers unsure where raw ingredients originate.
The legislation requires food manufacturers to identify the particular risks they face, create controls to prevent that contamination, monitor those controls to make sure they are working and update those measures regularly. Such controls have been mandatory for the seafood and juice industries since the 1990s after several high-profile contamination cases; they are widely believed to have reduced outbreaks involving those products.
The House bill calls for the FDA to set safety standards for farmers and manufacturers who process food. And it requires imported food to meet the same standards.
The legislation requires the FDA to sharply step up inspections. The FDA now inspects food facilities about once a decade. The bill would also mandate inspections of high-risk facilities at least once a year and low-risk facilities at least every three years.
The measure also gives the FDA significant authority to contain outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. The agency would be able to recall food if it suspects contamination, instead of relying on the food maker to act voluntarily. It also allows the FDA to quarantine a geographic area, blocking the distribution of suspect food to the rest of the country. And the FDA would gain access to records at farms and food production facilities.
Under the legislation, the food agency will get new enforcement powers and be able to impose beefed-up civil and criminal penalties. One provision allows the FDA to declare food "adulterated" simply if the grower or manufacturer has failed to follow safety standards, regardless of whether the food is actually tainted.
The bill does not address the fractured nature of U.S. food regulation, which is spread among 15 federal agencies, as well as thousands of state and local health departments.
Agriculture interests were able to win key concessions. Small farms are exempt from registration fees, ranchers and farmers now regulated by the Agriculture Department are excluded from the requirements of the bill and the FDA will have to consider the special concerns of small growers and organic farmers, among other provisions.
The action follows a wave of food-borne illnesses over the past three years, involving products as varied as spinach and cookie dough, which has shaken consumer confidence and made the issue a priority for congressional leaders and the White House. Food illnesses sicken one in four Americans and kill 5,000 each year, according to government statistics. Tainted food has cost the food industry billions of dollars in recalls, lost sales and legal expenses.
"Americans are dying because the Food and Drug Administration does not have authority to protect them, and American producers and agriculture are being hurt," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), the bill's author, who has been pushing food-safety change for more than 20 years. "This will fundamentally change the way in which we ensure the safety of our food supply."
The measure passed 283 to 142. The Senate is expected to take up its version after the August recess. President Obama, who has voiced concerns about the safety of peanut butter consumed by his 8-year-old daughter, endorsed the House bill Wednesday.
The legislation affects every aspect of the U.S. food system, from farmers to manufacturers to importers. It places significant responsibilities on farmers and food processors to prevent contamination -- a departure from the country's reactive tradition, which has relied on government inspectors to catch tainted food after the fact.
The 159-page bill was backed by a raft of consumer groups and trade associations but faced opposition from some farm interests and their House Republican allies, who said it gives too much authority to the FDA and will lead to higher costs and burdensome paperwork without necessarily making food safer.
"The federal government will tell our farmers and ranchers how to do something they've been doing since the dawn of mankind," said Rep. Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla.). "It goes too far in the direction of trying to produce food from a bureaucrat's chair in Washington, D.C."
The legislation requires food producers and importers to pay an annual $500 registration fee, which would help fund stepped-up FDA inspections, enforcement and related activities such as food-safety research. About 360,000 facilities in the United States and abroad would be subject to the fees. The Congressional Budget Office reported that the fees would not cover the cost of the new system, leaving the FDA to incur a net cost of $2.2 billion over five years.
If enacted, the bill would be the first major overhaul of food laws since 1938, when Congress gave the FDA the power to oversee the safety of most foods, as well as drugs and cosmetics. At that time, the government was concerned mainly about food makers adulterating products by substituting ingredients or using additives to mask rancid meat and vegetables.
But as the food industry has changed, new threats have emerged. Deadly pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7 can contaminate foods without the knowledge of farmers, manufacturers or consumers. An increasing amount of food Americans consume -- about 15 percent -- is imported, with little known about overseas growing or processing methods. And the U.S. food supply chain has grown increasingly complex, with some manufacturers unsure where raw ingredients originate.
The legislation requires food manufacturers to identify the particular risks they face, create controls to prevent that contamination, monitor those controls to make sure they are working and update those measures regularly. Such controls have been mandatory for the seafood and juice industries since the 1990s after several high-profile contamination cases; they are widely believed to have reduced outbreaks involving those products.
The House bill calls for the FDA to set safety standards for farmers and manufacturers who process food. And it requires imported food to meet the same standards.
The legislation requires the FDA to sharply step up inspections. The FDA now inspects food facilities about once a decade. The bill would also mandate inspections of high-risk facilities at least once a year and low-risk facilities at least every three years.
The measure also gives the FDA significant authority to contain outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. The agency would be able to recall food if it suspects contamination, instead of relying on the food maker to act voluntarily. It also allows the FDA to quarantine a geographic area, blocking the distribution of suspect food to the rest of the country. And the FDA would gain access to records at farms and food production facilities.
Under the legislation, the food agency will get new enforcement powers and be able to impose beefed-up civil and criminal penalties. One provision allows the FDA to declare food "adulterated" simply if the grower or manufacturer has failed to follow safety standards, regardless of whether the food is actually tainted.
The bill does not address the fractured nature of U.S. food regulation, which is spread among 15 federal agencies, as well as thousands of state and local health departments.
Agriculture interests were able to win key concessions. Small farms are exempt from registration fees, ranchers and farmers now regulated by the Agriculture Department are excluded from the requirements of the bill and the FDA will have to consider the special concerns of small growers and organic farmers, among other provisions.
Brazil reports British shipments to toxic waste body
Brazil has reported Britain to the top international body overseeing the trade in hazardous waste over allegations it exported hundreds of tonnes of household rubbish, a Brazilian diplomat said on Friday.
The move followed the discovery in recent weeks of about 1,400 tonnes of British household waste in Brazil that appeared to have been illicitly exported under the guise of recyclable plastic.
The report was lodged with the secretariat of the Basel Convention, an agreement signed by 172 countries which regulates the cross-border movements and disposal of hazardous waste.
It was set up in the 1990s as a response to a growing wave of toxic waste dumping in eastern Europe and developing countries, mainly by private firms from industralised nations.
"Since both countries are part of the Basel Convention, we gave the secretariat the information that we found ... and now we hope that Britain will come up with a solution to the problem," the diplomat, who declined to be named, told AFP.
"The secretariat can act as a mediator or send experts to check on the denuncation, and what normally happens in these situations is that Britain removes this hazardous waste from Brazil," he added.
The diplomat said there had been full cooperation from British authorities, as both countries investigated who was responsible for both exporting and importing the waste.
The waste included used disposable nappies, syringes, condoms, batteries, food remains, used packages of cleaning products and cloth, according to Brazilian news reports and images taken during an inspection by Brazil's state environmental agency IBAMA.
However the containers, which had been unloaded in three southern ports in Brazil, had been marked as containing only plastic for recycling.
Britain's Environment Agency said on Sunday plans were being laid to bring back the 89 containers of rubbish that had allegedly been illegally exported.
The move followed the discovery in recent weeks of about 1,400 tonnes of British household waste in Brazil that appeared to have been illicitly exported under the guise of recyclable plastic.
The report was lodged with the secretariat of the Basel Convention, an agreement signed by 172 countries which regulates the cross-border movements and disposal of hazardous waste.
It was set up in the 1990s as a response to a growing wave of toxic waste dumping in eastern Europe and developing countries, mainly by private firms from industralised nations.
"Since both countries are part of the Basel Convention, we gave the secretariat the information that we found ... and now we hope that Britain will come up with a solution to the problem," the diplomat, who declined to be named, told AFP.
"The secretariat can act as a mediator or send experts to check on the denuncation, and what normally happens in these situations is that Britain removes this hazardous waste from Brazil," he added.
The diplomat said there had been full cooperation from British authorities, as both countries investigated who was responsible for both exporting and importing the waste.
The waste included used disposable nappies, syringes, condoms, batteries, food remains, used packages of cleaning products and cloth, according to Brazilian news reports and images taken during an inspection by Brazil's state environmental agency IBAMA.
However the containers, which had been unloaded in three southern ports in Brazil, had been marked as containing only plastic for recycling.
Britain's Environment Agency said on Sunday plans were being laid to bring back the 89 containers of rubbish that had allegedly been illegally exported.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Colleges Become Greener Thanks to Savvy Students
Smart students know they need environmental literacy to be prepared for the green economy, and more colleges are responding, reports The Princeton Review. It is only the second year the publication has compiled its "Green Colleges" rating, but results show more institutions are participating in the survey -- and more students are concerned about a college's environmental policies and practices. The Princeton Review's system rated 697 institutions on a scale of 60 to 99, with score of 99 earning a place on the Green Honor Roll (see list below). The criteria analyzed an institution's policies, practices and course availability in relation to environmental sustainability. Developed with ecoAmerica, an environmental nonprofit "dedicated to strategic marketing projects to engage mainstream Americans on the benefits of environmental progress," said Rafael Reyes, the program director. Specifically, the survey analyzed quality of life issues, such as the availability of local and organic food; preparation for employment and citizenship through environmental literacy courses; and overall commitment to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through LEED certified buildings or participation in The American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). And even with the poor economy, schools are continuing to increase their sustainability efforts, said David Soto, The Princeton Review's director of college rankings, in a telephone interview. While paying for college is still the top worry for students and parents, environmental concerns were right behind that, Soto said. More than 1 in 4 students and nearly 1 in 5 parents said an institution's commitment to the environment would "very much" impact their choice of a college or university. "They know they need these skills (such as environmental literacy) to get a job in the green economy," he said. Greenest of Green Campuses Some institutions, such as Middlebury College in Vermont and the University of California, Berkeley, were pretty much expected to make the honor roll -- and they did. (Full disclosure: This reporter is a recent Cal graduate). But a couple of institutions stand out. For example, at the Arizona State University, Tempe campus, President Michael Crow co-chairs the ACPUCC and the university boasts the largest array of solar panels on a college campus in the country. Colorado College in Colorado Springs, which is smaller in size and student population, has the largest solar photovoltaic array in the area. There is no one-size-fits-all university. Soto emphasized the goal of his publication is to help students find the college that is "right fit" for an individual. For those who are concerned about the environment, the honor roll schools also have local and organic food options and transportation alternatives, offer an interdisciplinary approach to sustainability, and strive to reduce their carbon footprint.Much of the environmental change on the campuses is driven by students, Soto said. "Students are savvy shoppers," he said, "they know what they want and are more versed in these subjects than their parents" so competitive colleges are responsive to their concerns.In addition, more students are realizing that living the "green life" doesn't mean they have to give up creature comforts. And progressive campus policies are also engaging the "environmental agnostics" with tasty, local food, then helping these students make the connection to larger issues through environmental literacy courses, Soto said. Environmental courses are even being taught in the English and drama departments, in addition to science and engineering schools, he said. A Growing Trend This year's Review saw a 30 percent increase in colleges participating in the green rankings, which could be a signal that more are simply jumping on the green bandwagon. But the competition to perform well among their peers on such ranking systems drives higher education to take more challenging things -- like reducing GHG emissions -- seriously, Soto said. In addition, Reyes of ecoAmerica said there has been "a dramatic sea change since the start of the ACUPCC; with 640 participating institutions, [the climate commitment] has been a major factor in catalyzing efforts among universities to go green, even among those who are not signatories.""This generation, the millennials, if you will, are very in tuned to what is going on," said Soto. For example, the renewable energy sector is expected to grow four fold in the next decade and young people know this, he said. "They want to be employed in a position that is not only fulfilling in monetary way, but also from a social standpoint," he said, noting that social responsibility is growing in popularity among business schools. The full rankings show a diversity of institutions, from the well-funded Ivy Leagues to the small, private colleges, Soto said. "You don’t have to have a huge endowment to do well. If you budget wisely and are responsive to what students want, you’ll perform well." The Green Honor Roll (listed alphabetically)Arizona State University at the Tempe campusBates College (Lewiston ME)Binghamton University (State Univ. of New York at Binghamton)College of the Atlantic (Bar Harbor ME)Colorado College (Colorado Springs CO)Dickinson College (Carlisle PA)Evergreen State College (Olympia WA)Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta)Harvard College (Cambridge MA)Middlebury College (Middlebury VT)Northeastern University (Boston MA)University of California - BerkeleyUniversity of New Hampshire (Durham)University of Washington (Seattle)Yale University (New Haven CT)
Environmental Restoration May Not Be the Home Run It’s Advertised As
I remember the good old days, playing backyard baseball. Every now and then the perfect pitch would come, and, no matter how terribly I’d been hitting up to that point, I’d knock that ball out of the park. And the crowd would go wild…until everyone saw where that ball was headed. And with a crash it was realized: right through Mr. Saunders window. And then I had to fess up to old, grumpy Mr. Saunders that I, yes I, was the Great Bambino who had smashed his window. And he let me know darn well that I, yes I, had to pay to fix it. I, yes I, had to clean up my mess.
Cleaning up after ourselves is nothing new. And yet, if this be the case, why, then, do outsiders always have to ask companies and industries who affect the environment adversely, to clean up after themselves? Didn’t their mothers (and fathers) teach them that if they make a mess, it is their responsibility to return everything back to how they found it? Didn’t anyone tell them that the broken window won’t fix itself?
» See also: Greenpeace Praises Brazil
» Get Planetsave by RSS or sign up by email.
Well, people have stepped in, and in the United States, restoration regulations are in use. This clean-up process is known by a few names: environmental restoration, ecological restoration or environmental remediation. And this process, this act of “cleaning up,” is “a process in which a damaged resource is renewed. Biologically. Structurally. Functionally” (John J. Berger, Restoring the Earth: How Americans are Working to Renew our Damaged Environment). It is, in essence, no trace living.
But while policymakers across of the globe are relying on environmental restoration projects to fuel emerging market-based environmental programs, it is not certain whether these programs deliver the environmental impacts that they market.
Markets identify the benefits humans derive from ecosystems, called ecosystem services, and associate them with economic values which can be bought, traded or sold. In short, they put a monetary value on the environment. This value is used in order to compensate for the damage done or environmental services used.
But now, two known ecologists, Dr. Margaret Palmer and Dr. Solange Filoso of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, are raising concerns about the real impacts of restoration. They are concerned that there is insufficient scientific understanding of the restoration process, namely, how to alter a landscape or coastal habitat to achieve the environmental benefits that are marketed.
“Both locally and nationally, policymakers are considering market-based environmental restoration programs where the science does not yet conclusively show that environment health will improve once the ‘restoration’ is completed,” said Dr. Palmer. “These programs may very well make economic sense, but the jury is still out whether or not the local environment will ultimately benefit.”
Currently ecosystem service market demand is driven by regulations requiring those who harm the environment to mitigate or provide offsets for their environmental impacts. However, many are hoping that the offsets will expand outside the regulatory context and into the voluntary, resulting in a net increase of ecosystem services rather than simply popping a fly out to left field and hoping that your man on third makes it home.
The two scientists urge that we recognize that restoration projects generally only restore a subset of the services that natural ecosystem provide. ”There is an inherent danger of marketing ecosystem services through ecological restoration without properly verifying if the restoration actions actually lead to the delivery of services,” said Dr. Filoso. “If this happens, these markets may unintentionally cause an increase in environmental degradation.” It’s like fixing Mr. Johnson’s broken window by gluing it together. The window is there, but it isn’t quite the same as it used to be.
I found out early on that it takes more than just glue to fix a broken window, which brings up the age old idea that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Conservation of the environment is better and more efficient than trying to recreate it, replace it or repair it; just like it is easier to keep the ball out of Mr. Johnson’s window to begin with.
Written by Ruedigar Matthes
Cleaning up after ourselves is nothing new. And yet, if this be the case, why, then, do outsiders always have to ask companies and industries who affect the environment adversely, to clean up after themselves? Didn’t their mothers (and fathers) teach them that if they make a mess, it is their responsibility to return everything back to how they found it? Didn’t anyone tell them that the broken window won’t fix itself?
» See also: Greenpeace Praises Brazil
» Get Planetsave by RSS or sign up by email.
Well, people have stepped in, and in the United States, restoration regulations are in use. This clean-up process is known by a few names: environmental restoration, ecological restoration or environmental remediation. And this process, this act of “cleaning up,” is “a process in which a damaged resource is renewed. Biologically. Structurally. Functionally” (John J. Berger, Restoring the Earth: How Americans are Working to Renew our Damaged Environment). It is, in essence, no trace living.
But while policymakers across of the globe are relying on environmental restoration projects to fuel emerging market-based environmental programs, it is not certain whether these programs deliver the environmental impacts that they market.
Markets identify the benefits humans derive from ecosystems, called ecosystem services, and associate them with economic values which can be bought, traded or sold. In short, they put a monetary value on the environment. This value is used in order to compensate for the damage done or environmental services used.
But now, two known ecologists, Dr. Margaret Palmer and Dr. Solange Filoso of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, are raising concerns about the real impacts of restoration. They are concerned that there is insufficient scientific understanding of the restoration process, namely, how to alter a landscape or coastal habitat to achieve the environmental benefits that are marketed.
“Both locally and nationally, policymakers are considering market-based environmental restoration programs where the science does not yet conclusively show that environment health will improve once the ‘restoration’ is completed,” said Dr. Palmer. “These programs may very well make economic sense, but the jury is still out whether or not the local environment will ultimately benefit.”
Currently ecosystem service market demand is driven by regulations requiring those who harm the environment to mitigate or provide offsets for their environmental impacts. However, many are hoping that the offsets will expand outside the regulatory context and into the voluntary, resulting in a net increase of ecosystem services rather than simply popping a fly out to left field and hoping that your man on third makes it home.
The two scientists urge that we recognize that restoration projects generally only restore a subset of the services that natural ecosystem provide. ”There is an inherent danger of marketing ecosystem services through ecological restoration without properly verifying if the restoration actions actually lead to the delivery of services,” said Dr. Filoso. “If this happens, these markets may unintentionally cause an increase in environmental degradation.” It’s like fixing Mr. Johnson’s broken window by gluing it together. The window is there, but it isn’t quite the same as it used to be.
I found out early on that it takes more than just glue to fix a broken window, which brings up the age old idea that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Conservation of the environment is better and more efficient than trying to recreate it, replace it or repair it; just like it is easier to keep the ball out of Mr. Johnson’s window to begin with.
Written by Ruedigar Matthes
Clean beach water? Not always, survey finds
What's the water like where you swim — not the temperature, but the quality? An annual report released Wednesday concluded that beach water quality is not improving across the country.
Nationally, 7 percent of water samples in 2008 violated health standards — indicating the presence of human or animal waste, according to the report by the Natural Resources Defense Council. That's zero improvement over 2007 and 2006.
"Pollution from dirty stormwater runoff and sewage overflows continues to make its way to our beaches," Nancy Stoner, co-director of the council's water program, said in a statement marking the 19th annual "Testing the Waters" report.
"Americans should not suffer the consequences of contaminated beach water," she added. "From contracting the flu or pink eye, to jeopardizing millions of jobs and billions of dollars that rely on clean coasts, there are serious costs to inaction."
The report, compiled using data from the Environmental Protection Agency, looked at more than 6,000 beaches and found several states well above that national average of 7 percent:
Louisiana (29 percent of samples violated standards).
Ohio (19 percent).
Indiana (18 percent).
Illinois (15 percent).
Delaware, New Hampshire and Virginia had the lowest violation rates, all with 1 percent.
Five-star guide to U.S. beaches
Below's a quick look at how the 200 U.S. beaches rated by the Natural Resources Defense Council fared, with five stars being the highest ranking. Beaches are followed by their state abbreviation.
•
1 star
•
2 star
•
3 star
•
4 star
•
5 star
CT: Ocean Beach ParkFL: Bayview ParkFL: Monument BeachFL: Newman Brackin Wayside ParkFL: Venice Public BeachFL: Venice Fishing PierNJ: Avalon Beaches at 30th NJ: Belmar BeachNJ: Spring Lake (Essex)NJ: Point Pleasant Beach (Central)NY: Jones Beach State Park at Zach's BaySC: Myrtle BeachSC: Surfside Beach
Source: Natural Resources Defense Council
• Print this
Orange County beaches rate highestThe report also provides a five-star rating guide for 200 popular U.S. beaches, based on indicators of beach water quality, monitoring frequency and public notification of contamination.
Fourteen beaches rated five stars, and nine of those were in Orange County, Calif. The others were in Alabama, Maryland and Minnesota and New Hampshire
hirteen beaches rated just one star. Five were in Florida, four were in New Jersey, two in South Carolina and one each in Connecticut and New York.
Illnesses from polluted beach water include stomach flu, skin rashes, pinkeye, ear, nose and throat problems, dysentery, hepatitis, respiratory ailments, neurological disorders and other serious health problems, the defense council said. "For senior citizens, small children and people with weak immune systems, the results can be fatal," it added.
The report did find a 10 percent drop in days that beaches were closed or advisories issued, but attributed the decline to dry conditions and decreased funding for monitoring — not to any improvement in water quality.
"When the rains return," Stoner said, "so will pollution, forcing beaches to issue more closings and advisory days
Nationally, 7 percent of water samples in 2008 violated health standards — indicating the presence of human or animal waste, according to the report by the Natural Resources Defense Council. That's zero improvement over 2007 and 2006.
"Pollution from dirty stormwater runoff and sewage overflows continues to make its way to our beaches," Nancy Stoner, co-director of the council's water program, said in a statement marking the 19th annual "Testing the Waters" report.
"Americans should not suffer the consequences of contaminated beach water," she added. "From contracting the flu or pink eye, to jeopardizing millions of jobs and billions of dollars that rely on clean coasts, there are serious costs to inaction."
The report, compiled using data from the Environmental Protection Agency, looked at more than 6,000 beaches and found several states well above that national average of 7 percent:
Louisiana (29 percent of samples violated standards).
Ohio (19 percent).
Indiana (18 percent).
Illinois (15 percent).
Delaware, New Hampshire and Virginia had the lowest violation rates, all with 1 percent.
Five-star guide to U.S. beaches
Below's a quick look at how the 200 U.S. beaches rated by the Natural Resources Defense Council fared, with five stars being the highest ranking. Beaches are followed by their state abbreviation.
•
1 star
•
2 star
•
3 star
•
4 star
•
5 star
CT: Ocean Beach ParkFL: Bayview ParkFL: Monument BeachFL: Newman Brackin Wayside ParkFL: Venice Public BeachFL: Venice Fishing PierNJ: Avalon Beaches at 30th NJ: Belmar BeachNJ: Spring Lake (Essex)NJ: Point Pleasant Beach (Central)NY: Jones Beach State Park at Zach's BaySC: Myrtle BeachSC: Surfside Beach
Source: Natural Resources Defense Council
• Print this
Orange County beaches rate highestThe report also provides a five-star rating guide for 200 popular U.S. beaches, based on indicators of beach water quality, monitoring frequency and public notification of contamination.
Fourteen beaches rated five stars, and nine of those were in Orange County, Calif. The others were in Alabama, Maryland and Minnesota and New Hampshire
hirteen beaches rated just one star. Five were in Florida, four were in New Jersey, two in South Carolina and one each in Connecticut and New York.
Illnesses from polluted beach water include stomach flu, skin rashes, pinkeye, ear, nose and throat problems, dysentery, hepatitis, respiratory ailments, neurological disorders and other serious health problems, the defense council said. "For senior citizens, small children and people with weak immune systems, the results can be fatal," it added.
The report did find a 10 percent drop in days that beaches were closed or advisories issued, but attributed the decline to dry conditions and decreased funding for monitoring — not to any improvement in water quality.
"When the rains return," Stoner said, "so will pollution, forcing beaches to issue more closings and advisory days
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)