Is it safe to throw vegetable and fruit peelings and leftovers into the compost? Could pesticides soak into the pile and cause problems when spread on the vegetable garden?
A well-run compost heap functions in much the same way as your liver. It breaks down the various materials passing through it, removing impurities and delivering a purified end product. But, like the liver, compost can suffer if too much is loaded on to it at any one time: cirrhosis of the compost heap might be the outcome.
So, in the same way that you might every so often give up alcohol, detox or flush out your liver, a compost heap needs careful nurturing. Ideally, its feedstock should contain a variety of materials — from lawn clippings to vacuum cleaner dust, from autumn leaves to used coffee filters.
Layering the mixture with a good activator, such as horse manure, is a smart move. Turn the whole lot over once in a while and cover with an old piece of carpet to cook quietly away. Within a few months you should have a lovely, soft, rich material to spread on the vegetable patch or allotment.
Regulations governing the use of pesticides on vegetables and fruit have been tightened over the years, but maintaining a living, breathing compost heap is crucial if various nasty residues are to be eliminated. Many fruits, vegetables and also commercially grown flowers contain the residues of what are called crop-protection compounds. These go by a whole football team of names — the fungicides thiabendazole and dodemorph and the insecticide endosulfan are among the most common.
A proper compost heap will contain all manner of active micro-organisms. This diversity helps to promote the breakdown of the various compounds — with every chance that one of those hundreds of thousands of microbes will be able to degrade residues of a particular pesticide or insecticide. As long as some sort of balance is maintained among the compost ingredients, the residues should quickly disappear.
The Pesticide Action Network (www.pan-uk.org/Projects/Food/index.htm) lists the worst pesticide offenders on the food shelf: potatoes, bread, apples, grapes, tomatoes and cucumbers all feature. The advice is to wash thoroughly, peel, buy organic or, best of all, grow your own. And don’t forget to keep that compost heap warm and healthy.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Even holdouts leave poisoned mining town
Two years ago, Orval "Hoppy" Ray vowed it would take someone meaner than him to make him leave the town where he was born.
But now the crusty, 84-year-old former miner is moving out, leaving behind a blighted, ghostly landscape, its soil, water and air poisoned by generations of lead-ore extraction that produced bullets for both world wars.
After two heart attacks and a tornado that badly damaged his house, Ray lost whatever fight he had left and decided to accept a government buyout, as nearly all his neighbors in Picher have already done.
"You can't fight City Hall," said Ray, who worked Picher's lead mines in the 1940s and, for now, runs a musty pool hall on the main drag. "They've got you squeezed seven ways from Sunday."
Under the $60 million cleanup program, homeowners and businesses in and around Picher are being bought out, and the buildings will eventually be bulldozed. Some of the contaminated soil has already been hauled away; next to go are the 100-foot-high mountains of lead mining waste that loom over the town.
By early next year, Picher will be little more than a name on a map. From 20,000 people at its peak and about 1,700 when the buyouts started two or three years ago, about 80 are left.
Twister killed 6
Ray and a few dozen other people who had hoped to make a last stand here changed their minds after a tornado tore through Picher in May 2008, killing six people and leveling more than 100 homes.
"Dad had to say yes to a buyout," said his 62-year-old son, Steven. "I had damage. Wallpaper's buckling. I got to get the hell out of there."
Some guess as few as four residents, a dozen at most, will stay, in many cases because they are too stubborn or fearful or sentimental to move, despite buyout offers of around $60,000 for a modest house.
The people who do try to stay, like Jean Henson, will have to survive in a near-wasteland without utilities, police or laws.
"I grew up in the country; we had to haul water," said Henson, 58, who has asthma, emphysema and other ailments. "If I have to, I can do it again."
These are scenes from a town marking its final days: A dust-coated General Electric wall clock sits in a store window, its hands stopped at 2:20. Dogs and cats roam Main Street, searching for scraps of food.
Hoppy's pool hall is one of the last places still open. The thrift store is gone; so is the post office. The schools closed in July, and City Hall will be shuttered by September. Most of the traffic through Picher comes from the dump trucks hauling tons of lead waste.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently warned those who stay behind that the water will eventually be shut off.
"Some people still just don't believe it," said Larry Roberts, operations manager of the federal fund that helps families move out of lead-polluted communities. "I guess when the taps are shut off, they'll realize the situation they're in."
Part of 40-square-mile Superfund site
Picher is probably among the bleakest, most contaminated spots in one of the biggest Superfund cleanup sites in the country, a 40-square-mile expanse of former lead- and zinc-mining towns that extends into Missouri and Kansas. Within that zone, the creek spews orange from pollution, mine cave-ins and sinkholes threaten, and lead dust has fouled nearly everything.
At the pool hall, Ray recalled the glory days in Picher before the mines closed nearly 40 years ago: The football game in which Picher's broad-shouldered mining boys demolished a neighboring town's team 115-0. The one-room houses on Fourth Street that made up the red-light district. The saloons with names like the Bloody Knuckle.
The pool hall doubles as a museum. Hardhats line the walls, and hunks of calcite, dolomite and galena hewn from the town's mines are displayed in a glass case as if they were championship trophies.
"This is Dad's life," said his son, who is also waiting to be bought out. "This is the heart and soul of who he is."
But now the crusty, 84-year-old former miner is moving out, leaving behind a blighted, ghostly landscape, its soil, water and air poisoned by generations of lead-ore extraction that produced bullets for both world wars.
After two heart attacks and a tornado that badly damaged his house, Ray lost whatever fight he had left and decided to accept a government buyout, as nearly all his neighbors in Picher have already done.
"You can't fight City Hall," said Ray, who worked Picher's lead mines in the 1940s and, for now, runs a musty pool hall on the main drag. "They've got you squeezed seven ways from Sunday."
Under the $60 million cleanup program, homeowners and businesses in and around Picher are being bought out, and the buildings will eventually be bulldozed. Some of the contaminated soil has already been hauled away; next to go are the 100-foot-high mountains of lead mining waste that loom over the town.
By early next year, Picher will be little more than a name on a map. From 20,000 people at its peak and about 1,700 when the buyouts started two or three years ago, about 80 are left.
Twister killed 6
Ray and a few dozen other people who had hoped to make a last stand here changed their minds after a tornado tore through Picher in May 2008, killing six people and leveling more than 100 homes.
"Dad had to say yes to a buyout," said his 62-year-old son, Steven. "I had damage. Wallpaper's buckling. I got to get the hell out of there."
Some guess as few as four residents, a dozen at most, will stay, in many cases because they are too stubborn or fearful or sentimental to move, despite buyout offers of around $60,000 for a modest house.
The people who do try to stay, like Jean Henson, will have to survive in a near-wasteland without utilities, police or laws.
"I grew up in the country; we had to haul water," said Henson, 58, who has asthma, emphysema and other ailments. "If I have to, I can do it again."
These are scenes from a town marking its final days: A dust-coated General Electric wall clock sits in a store window, its hands stopped at 2:20. Dogs and cats roam Main Street, searching for scraps of food.
Hoppy's pool hall is one of the last places still open. The thrift store is gone; so is the post office. The schools closed in July, and City Hall will be shuttered by September. Most of the traffic through Picher comes from the dump trucks hauling tons of lead waste.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently warned those who stay behind that the water will eventually be shut off.
"Some people still just don't believe it," said Larry Roberts, operations manager of the federal fund that helps families move out of lead-polluted communities. "I guess when the taps are shut off, they'll realize the situation they're in."
Part of 40-square-mile Superfund site
Picher is probably among the bleakest, most contaminated spots in one of the biggest Superfund cleanup sites in the country, a 40-square-mile expanse of former lead- and zinc-mining towns that extends into Missouri and Kansas. Within that zone, the creek spews orange from pollution, mine cave-ins and sinkholes threaten, and lead dust has fouled nearly everything.
At the pool hall, Ray recalled the glory days in Picher before the mines closed nearly 40 years ago: The football game in which Picher's broad-shouldered mining boys demolished a neighboring town's team 115-0. The one-room houses on Fourth Street that made up the red-light district. The saloons with names like the Bloody Knuckle.
The pool hall doubles as a museum. Hardhats line the walls, and hunks of calcite, dolomite and galena hewn from the town's mines are displayed in a glass case as if they were championship trophies.
"This is Dad's life," said his son, who is also waiting to be bought out. "This is the heart and soul of who he is."
SF eyes UN Climate Center at polluted shipyard
Mayor Gavin Newsom and the United Nations are eyeing a former naval shipyard contaminated by radiation, heavy metals and other industrial toxins as the future site of a sprawling new green technology complex and climate change think tank.
The proposal would turn a section of the Hunters Point Shipyard, one of the most polluted places in the nation according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, into a UN "Global Compact Center" meant to help solve the world's pollution dilemmas and foster clean tech business.
The city hopes to start construction on the center in 2011 and open its doors in 2012. But the project faces many hurdles before it can be realized, including the completion of a complex environmental cleanup, the approval of the city's Board of Supervisors and finding investors.
The U.S. Navy, EPA and state regulators have been working to clean up toxins from the site since the early 1990s and have spent more than $500 million so far. Once finished, the land would be transferred to the city.
"Our current schedule is that the land will be ready to transfer to the city of San Francisco in the middle of 2012," said Mark Ripperda, EPA's project manager for the site. "Timelines can always be changed, but that schedule is pretty solid."
That makes the city's planned 2012 opening unlikely, but officials said the Navy could allow some construction to start before regulators finish their work.
The parcel of land the UN center would occupy would have more than two million square feet of commercial space in a campus-like setting, with views across the bay and to downtown San Francisco. The site would feature a conference center, UN office buildings and have an estimated cost of at least $20 million.
"California, in general, and San Francisco, in particular, has been at the forefront of environmental sustainability and justice for many years and all of the right ingredients are here," said Gavin Power, deputy director of the UN Global Compact.
The shipyard is located next to Candlestick Point, the current home of the San Francisco 49ers, who are planning to leave the city for a new stadium being planned down the peninsula, in the city of Santa Clara.
On Thursday, the same day the mayor announced the proposed UN center, Santa Clara released an environmental impact report for the 49ers' new stadium, moving the team one step closer to leaving.
Newsom has been clear in his desire to keep the 49ers in San Francisco, and the timing of his proposal for a new, high-profile tenant at the site made clear the city is planning to move on with or without the team.
"If the Niners come, they are perfectly compatible," said Michael Cohen, the mayor's director of economic and work force development. "If not, the 25 acres dedicated to the stadium site can be used for a range of alternative purposes."
The UN Center and a future stadium would be key parts of San Francisco's plan to redevelop the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhoods, a project Cohen called "the most important development project in city history."
Voters have approved the redevelopment plan, which is expected to create more than 10,000 new homes, parks and retail space.
The idea that the shipyard would finally be cleaned up led some members of the Hunters Point-Bayview community to greet the proposal with open arms.
"Environmental justice entails not just having the shipyard cleaned up, but also revitalizing to create jobs and parks and affordable housing," Veronica Hunnicutt, chair of the mayor's Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens
The proposal would turn a section of the Hunters Point Shipyard, one of the most polluted places in the nation according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, into a UN "Global Compact Center" meant to help solve the world's pollution dilemmas and foster clean tech business.
The city hopes to start construction on the center in 2011 and open its doors in 2012. But the project faces many hurdles before it can be realized, including the completion of a complex environmental cleanup, the approval of the city's Board of Supervisors and finding investors.
The U.S. Navy, EPA and state regulators have been working to clean up toxins from the site since the early 1990s and have spent more than $500 million so far. Once finished, the land would be transferred to the city.
"Our current schedule is that the land will be ready to transfer to the city of San Francisco in the middle of 2012," said Mark Ripperda, EPA's project manager for the site. "Timelines can always be changed, but that schedule is pretty solid."
That makes the city's planned 2012 opening unlikely, but officials said the Navy could allow some construction to start before regulators finish their work.
The parcel of land the UN center would occupy would have more than two million square feet of commercial space in a campus-like setting, with views across the bay and to downtown San Francisco. The site would feature a conference center, UN office buildings and have an estimated cost of at least $20 million.
"California, in general, and San Francisco, in particular, has been at the forefront of environmental sustainability and justice for many years and all of the right ingredients are here," said Gavin Power, deputy director of the UN Global Compact.
The shipyard is located next to Candlestick Point, the current home of the San Francisco 49ers, who are planning to leave the city for a new stadium being planned down the peninsula, in the city of Santa Clara.
On Thursday, the same day the mayor announced the proposed UN center, Santa Clara released an environmental impact report for the 49ers' new stadium, moving the team one step closer to leaving.
Newsom has been clear in his desire to keep the 49ers in San Francisco, and the timing of his proposal for a new, high-profile tenant at the site made clear the city is planning to move on with or without the team.
"If the Niners come, they are perfectly compatible," said Michael Cohen, the mayor's director of economic and work force development. "If not, the 25 acres dedicated to the stadium site can be used for a range of alternative purposes."
The UN Center and a future stadium would be key parts of San Francisco's plan to redevelop the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhoods, a project Cohen called "the most important development project in city history."
Voters have approved the redevelopment plan, which is expected to create more than 10,000 new homes, parks and retail space.
The idea that the shipyard would finally be cleaned up led some members of the Hunters Point-Bayview community to greet the proposal with open arms.
"Environmental justice entails not just having the shipyard cleaned up, but also revitalizing to create jobs and parks and affordable housing," Veronica Hunnicutt, chair of the mayor's Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens
how will key senators vote on a climate bill
<>Sen. Bob Corker came out swinging against the climate bill that the House passed in June.
“I didn’t think it was possible, but the Waxman-Markey climate bill appears to be even more problematic than the climate bill that tanked in the Senate last spring,” he said, referring to the Lieberman-Warner bill that he voted against in 2008. “I don’t know of many special interests that don’t receive a pay-off in this [Waxman-Markey] legislation, and if it comes to the Senate floor in this form, I’ll vote against it.”
Yet Corker understands that climate change is a problem and has called for legislation to address it. In 2007, he traveled to Greenland with a bipartisan group of senators to observe the impacts of climate change, noting upon his return that the U.S. has “a unique opportunity to marry concerns ... like carbon dioxide emissions and energy security.” He said he was “leaning in the direction” of supporting a carbon-trading program.
Lately Corker has been insisting that he won’t accept anything short of a climate plan that auctions 100 percent of pollution permits and returns the money directly to Americans, and his preferred approach would be a carbon tax.
“I want to tell you that I wish we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which would be returned to the American people. So there’s no net dollars that would come out of the American people’s pockets,” Corker told Al Gore during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year.
When the Obama administration rolled out its first budget this year with a framework for a cap-and-trade plan that would have returned roughly 80 percent of the revenues from pollution permits to citizens, Corker bashed it. He called the proposal “slight of hand” and said it is a “massive climate tax increase all Americans will pay.”
His office put out a press release shortly thereafter, noting, “Corker has worked to ensure that whatever Congress implements, be it a cap-and-trade system that acts as a tax or a transparent carbon tax, that 100 percent of the tax revenue is returned to the American people and is not used to increase the size of government.”
So it looks like Corker won’t accept anything short of a complete cap-and-dividend approach, which doesn’t seem to have much traction with most other members of Congress. Don’t count on him for a “yes” vote on whatever climate bill emerges from the Senate.
“I didn’t think it was possible, but the Waxman-Markey climate bill appears to be even more problematic than the climate bill that tanked in the Senate last spring,” he said, referring to the Lieberman-Warner bill that he voted against in 2008. “I don’t know of many special interests that don’t receive a pay-off in this [Waxman-Markey] legislation, and if it comes to the Senate floor in this form, I’ll vote against it.”
Yet Corker understands that climate change is a problem and has called for legislation to address it. In 2007, he traveled to Greenland with a bipartisan group of senators to observe the impacts of climate change, noting upon his return that the U.S. has “a unique opportunity to marry concerns ... like carbon dioxide emissions and energy security.” He said he was “leaning in the direction” of supporting a carbon-trading program.
Lately Corker has been insisting that he won’t accept anything short of a climate plan that auctions 100 percent of pollution permits and returns the money directly to Americans, and his preferred approach would be a carbon tax.
“I want to tell you that I wish we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which would be returned to the American people. So there’s no net dollars that would come out of the American people’s pockets,” Corker told Al Gore during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year.
When the Obama administration rolled out its first budget this year with a framework for a cap-and-trade plan that would have returned roughly 80 percent of the revenues from pollution permits to citizens, Corker bashed it. He called the proposal “slight of hand” and said it is a “massive climate tax increase all Americans will pay.”
His office put out a press release shortly thereafter, noting, “Corker has worked to ensure that whatever Congress implements, be it a cap-and-trade system that acts as a tax or a transparent carbon tax, that 100 percent of the tax revenue is returned to the American people and is not used to increase the size of government.”
So it looks like Corker won’t accept anything short of a complete cap-and-dividend approach, which doesn’t seem to have much traction with most other members of Congress. Don’t count on him for a “yes” vote on whatever climate bill emerges from the Senate.
how will key senators vote on a climate bill?
Bob Corker came out swinging against the climate bill that the House passed in June.
“I didn’t think it was possible, but the Waxman-Markey climate bill appears to be even more problematic than the climate bill that tanked in the Senate last spring,” he said, referring to the Lieberman-Warner bill that he voted against in 2008. “I don’t know of many special interests that don’t receive a pay-off in this [Waxman-Markey] legislation, and if it comes to the Senate floor in this form, I’ll vote against it.”
Yet Corker understands that climate change is a problem and has called for legislation to address it. In 2007, he traveled to Greenland with a bipartisan group of senators to observe the impacts of climate change, noting upon his return that the U.S. has “a unique opportunity to marry concerns ... like carbon dioxide emissions and energy security.” He said he was “leaning in the direction” of supporting a carbon-trading program.
Lately Corker has been insisting that he won’t accept anything short of a climate plan that auctions 100 percent of pollution permits and returns the money directly to Americans, and his preferred approach would be a carbon tax.
“I want to tell you that I wish we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which would be returned to the American people. So there’s no net dollars that would come out of the American people’s pockets,” Corker told Al Gore during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year.
When the Obama administration rolled out its first budget this year with a framework for a cap-and-trade plan that would have returned roughly 80 percent of the revenues from pollution permits to citizens, Corker bashed it. He called the proposal “slight of hand” and said it is a “massive climate tax increase all Americans will pay.”
His office put out a press release shortly thereafter, noting, “Corker has worked to ensure that whatever Congress implements, be it a cap-and-trade system that acts as a tax or a transparent carbon tax, that 100 percent of the tax revenue is returned to the American people and is not used to increase the size of government.”
So it looks like Corker won’t accept anything short of a complete cap-and-dividend approach, which doesn’t seem to have much traction with most other members of Congress. Don’t count on him for a “yes” vote on whatever climate bill emerges from the Senate.
“I didn’t think it was possible, but the Waxman-Markey climate bill appears to be even more problematic than the climate bill that tanked in the Senate last spring,” he said, referring to the Lieberman-Warner bill that he voted against in 2008. “I don’t know of many special interests that don’t receive a pay-off in this [Waxman-Markey] legislation, and if it comes to the Senate floor in this form, I’ll vote against it.”
Yet Corker understands that climate change is a problem and has called for legislation to address it. In 2007, he traveled to Greenland with a bipartisan group of senators to observe the impacts of climate change, noting upon his return that the U.S. has “a unique opportunity to marry concerns ... like carbon dioxide emissions and energy security.” He said he was “leaning in the direction” of supporting a carbon-trading program.
Lately Corker has been insisting that he won’t accept anything short of a climate plan that auctions 100 percent of pollution permits and returns the money directly to Americans, and his preferred approach would be a carbon tax.
“I want to tell you that I wish we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which would be returned to the American people. So there’s no net dollars that would come out of the American people’s pockets,” Corker told Al Gore during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year.
When the Obama administration rolled out its first budget this year with a framework for a cap-and-trade plan that would have returned roughly 80 percent of the revenues from pollution permits to citizens, Corker bashed it. He called the proposal “slight of hand” and said it is a “massive climate tax increase all Americans will pay.”
His office put out a press release shortly thereafter, noting, “Corker has worked to ensure that whatever Congress implements, be it a cap-and-trade system that acts as a tax or a transparent carbon tax, that 100 percent of the tax revenue is returned to the American people and is not used to increase the size of government.”
So it looks like Corker won’t accept anything short of a complete cap-and-dividend approach, which doesn’t seem to have much traction with most other members of Congress. Don’t count on him for a “yes” vote on whatever climate bill emerges from the Senate.
Friday, July 31, 2009
The Food, Energy and Environment ‘Trilemma’
At the 2009 Bio World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology, held in Montreal last week, industry players and scientists found themselves pondering two seemingly contradictory concerns.
One focused on how rapid advances in genetic engineering and biotechnology can expand the market for cellulosic ethanol and other “second-generation biofuels,” which are touted as low-emission substitutes for corn ethanol (itself a partial substitute for gasoline).
The other involved the problem of ensuring that exponential growth in the global biofuel market — which is projected to grow 12.3 percent a year through 2017, according to one recent study of the industry — will not hurt the environment and divert vast tracks of arable land needed for food or grain production.
A paper published in Science earlier this month, referred to the triple challenges of energy, environment and food as the biofuel “trilemma.” The authors identified five “beneficial” sources of biomass: perennial plants grown on abandoned farm fields, crop residue, sustainably harvested wood residue, double or mixed crops, and industrial/municipal waste.
“In a world seeking solutions to its energy, environmental, and food challenges, society cannot afford to miss out on the global greenhouse-gas emission reductions and the local environmental and societal benefits when biofuels are done right,” the authors state. “However, society also cannot accept the undesirable impacts of biofuels done wrong.”
Another assessment, from a biofuels study group established by Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, part of an international science body, discusses the challenge of dedicated energy crops:
A small number of food-crop species like corn, sugarcane, oil palm and rapeseed are currently used globally to produce biofuels. Their continued use as biofuel feedstocks in light of increasing food demand, limited land resources, and stagnant agricultural yields is problematic. Dedicated energy crops like switchgrass in temperate areas and jatropha in the tropics have been proposed as a way to produce energy without impacting food security or the environment. However, such special energy crops require land, water, nutrients, and other inputs, and therefore compete with food crop for these resources. This competition contributes to conversion of grasslands, to deforestation, to and other land-use changes, with the associated adverse environmental effects.
The paper, which was published last year, estimates that if biofuels account for 10 percent of transportation fuels, as some governments hope, production could eventually account for at least 8 percent of the world’s supply of arable land and perhaps much more, as well as consume large quantities of water.
One focused on how rapid advances in genetic engineering and biotechnology can expand the market for cellulosic ethanol and other “second-generation biofuels,” which are touted as low-emission substitutes for corn ethanol (itself a partial substitute for gasoline).
The other involved the problem of ensuring that exponential growth in the global biofuel market — which is projected to grow 12.3 percent a year through 2017, according to one recent study of the industry — will not hurt the environment and divert vast tracks of arable land needed for food or grain production.
A paper published in Science earlier this month, referred to the triple challenges of energy, environment and food as the biofuel “trilemma.” The authors identified five “beneficial” sources of biomass: perennial plants grown on abandoned farm fields, crop residue, sustainably harvested wood residue, double or mixed crops, and industrial/municipal waste.
“In a world seeking solutions to its energy, environmental, and food challenges, society cannot afford to miss out on the global greenhouse-gas emission reductions and the local environmental and societal benefits when biofuels are done right,” the authors state. “However, society also cannot accept the undesirable impacts of biofuels done wrong.”
Another assessment, from a biofuels study group established by Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, part of an international science body, discusses the challenge of dedicated energy crops:
A small number of food-crop species like corn, sugarcane, oil palm and rapeseed are currently used globally to produce biofuels. Their continued use as biofuel feedstocks in light of increasing food demand, limited land resources, and stagnant agricultural yields is problematic. Dedicated energy crops like switchgrass in temperate areas and jatropha in the tropics have been proposed as a way to produce energy without impacting food security or the environment. However, such special energy crops require land, water, nutrients, and other inputs, and therefore compete with food crop for these resources. This competition contributes to conversion of grasslands, to deforestation, to and other land-use changes, with the associated adverse environmental effects.
The paper, which was published last year, estimates that if biofuels account for 10 percent of transportation fuels, as some governments hope, production could eventually account for at least 8 percent of the world’s supply of arable land and perhaps much more, as well as consume large quantities of water.
Activists cheer China's plan to move refinery
< China's decision to shift the location of a planned $5 billion oil refinery and petrochemical plant in the south after years of public outcry is a sign that environmental concerns can shape policy.
Wang Yang, the Communist Party chief of Guangdong, said the province would move the plant to an unnamed location because of opposition from the community and lawmakers. The project is a joint venture between China's Sinopec Corp. (0386.HK)(SNP.N) (600028.SS) and Kuwait Petroleum Corporation.
"We only have one planet to live on, so whatever we do on this end will affect others on the other end," Wang told reporters at a news conference on Thursday.
Some environmental activists applauded the move, saying it reflected Beijing's commitment to tackling climate change after years of sacrificing the environment for economic growth.
"The decision by the government shows that they do consider the opinions from different stakeholders across the region, which is a positive sign," said Edward Chan, a Greenpeace campaign manager based in Hong Kong.
In recent years, Chinese citizens have scored some victories over local governments, which have shelved or delayed projects after vocal opposition about pollution and environmental worries.
These include a paraxylene chemical plant in the city of Xiamen that was scrapped on toxicity concerns and a delay over a planned hydroelectric power dam on the Nu river in Yunnan province.
Already the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, China has come under pressure from the international community to curb emissions.
But other experts stopped short of calling the decision a landmark victory for China's green activists, saying environmental practices and requirements were still unevenly enforced and in flux.
"Guangdong is a special province --- it is rich and the local community is very strong, that's not the same for other cities in China," said Ma Zhong, executive vice-dean of the School of Environment and Natural Resources at Beijing's Renmin University.
"I don't believe there's a real environment movement across the country. They (the local governments) are mainly concerned about their own interests."
RESIDENTS COMPLAIN
The Sinopec-Kuwait Petroleum refinery was to have been built in Nansha at the tip of the Pearl River Delta in South China's economic powerhouse of Guangdong.
Residents in Nansha, home to fish and shrimp farmers, have complained about the project, saying a smaller refinery in the area pollutes the air with a strong chemical stench on bad days. [ID:nHKG207067]
"We have spent much effort in considering Nansha's fragile ecology and also (the refinery's) impact on neighbouring provinces, in deciding to relocate," Wang said.
He declined to say where the plant would go, but a source with knowledge of the plans said it was most likely in Zhanjiang in western Guangdong, a less ecologically sensitive area.
"The environment is a significant factor, but I don't think we can yet say that it's the exclusive factor motivating these decisions to relocate these projects," said Beatrice Schaffrath, a Beijing-based lawyer who focuses on environmental regulation.
Other issues were concerns about feasibility, construction and foreign investment in general, she said.
Guangdong, which accounts for about 12 percent of China's economic output, is trying to upgrade its manufacturing sector and has pledged to relocate small and dirty factories away from the Pearl River Delta.
Despite Guangdong's decision, non-governmental groups said they still needed to keep polluters under surveillance.
"Our worries now are that the residents (in the new area) are not as well-educated or informed, or may be more eager to look for economic development," Chan said.
"The story has not ended. It's really important for green groups to pay attention to where the project is moving to."
Wang Yang, the Communist Party chief of Guangdong, said the province would move the plant to an unnamed location because of opposition from the community and lawmakers. The project is a joint venture between China's Sinopec Corp. (0386.HK)(SNP.N) (600028.SS) and Kuwait Petroleum Corporation.
"We only have one planet to live on, so whatever we do on this end will affect others on the other end," Wang told reporters at a news conference on Thursday.
Some environmental activists applauded the move, saying it reflected Beijing's commitment to tackling climate change after years of sacrificing the environment for economic growth.
"The decision by the government shows that they do consider the opinions from different stakeholders across the region, which is a positive sign," said Edward Chan, a Greenpeace campaign manager based in Hong Kong.
In recent years, Chinese citizens have scored some victories over local governments, which have shelved or delayed projects after vocal opposition about pollution and environmental worries.
These include a paraxylene chemical plant in the city of Xiamen that was scrapped on toxicity concerns and a delay over a planned hydroelectric power dam on the Nu river in Yunnan province.
Already the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, China has come under pressure from the international community to curb emissions.
But other experts stopped short of calling the decision a landmark victory for China's green activists, saying environmental practices and requirements were still unevenly enforced and in flux.
"Guangdong is a special province --- it is rich and the local community is very strong, that's not the same for other cities in China," said Ma Zhong, executive vice-dean of the School of Environment and Natural Resources at Beijing's Renmin University.
"I don't believe there's a real environment movement across the country. They (the local governments) are mainly concerned about their own interests."
RESIDENTS COMPLAIN
The Sinopec-Kuwait Petroleum refinery was to have been built in Nansha at the tip of the Pearl River Delta in South China's economic powerhouse of Guangdong.
Residents in Nansha, home to fish and shrimp farmers, have complained about the project, saying a smaller refinery in the area pollutes the air with a strong chemical stench on bad days. [ID:nHKG207067]
"We have spent much effort in considering Nansha's fragile ecology and also (the refinery's) impact on neighbouring provinces, in deciding to relocate," Wang said.
He declined to say where the plant would go, but a source with knowledge of the plans said it was most likely in Zhanjiang in western Guangdong, a less ecologically sensitive area.
"The environment is a significant factor, but I don't think we can yet say that it's the exclusive factor motivating these decisions to relocate these projects," said Beatrice Schaffrath, a Beijing-based lawyer who focuses on environmental regulation.
Other issues were concerns about feasibility, construction and foreign investment in general, she said.
Guangdong, which accounts for about 12 percent of China's economic output, is trying to upgrade its manufacturing sector and has pledged to relocate small and dirty factories away from the Pearl River Delta.
Despite Guangdong's decision, non-governmental groups said they still needed to keep polluters under surveillance.
"Our worries now are that the residents (in the new area) are not as well-educated or informed, or may be more eager to look for economic development," Chan said.
"The story has not ended. It's really important for green groups to pay attention to where the project is moving to."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)