Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
December 08, 2005
Overharvesting of fish recources
I am an avid fisherman, and with the seasonal changes keeping me off the ice i have been thinking about the continuation of fisheries. I have recently been shown a magazine article, that talked about big DNR busts over the summer fishing season, and I was amazed by some of the stories I took away from it. I was upset when I learned that in the past when people were caught with overharvesting they would be given a small fine, and lose the fish in possession, however they would retain their rights to fish the following day. I am glad however, that this practice no longer exists, and there are severe fines, and the chance to lose any fishing rights. Some of the stories that irritaded me included a group of two men, that had over 100 fish over there limit, and when asked why they continued fishing, he simply stated because they were biting. Overall I believe most fishermen are law abiding, but there should be a strict penelaty for any who break these laws. Anyone who takes fish illigally are not only harming the fishery, but also giving a bad name to the law abiding fisherman.
Posted by Bryan Stramer at 06:00 PM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
Solving Water Contamination in Developing Nations
Information for this blog was taken from an NPR story which can be heard at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5043050
Water Pollution is one of U.S.’s major environmental and human health problems as well as one of the earliest problems of that nature to be addressed in national policy. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and Clean Water Act of 1977 attempted to resolve issues like lead poisoning and contamination of groundwater reservoirs, and have had fair success. In poor developing nations, however, far less concern has been shown for its citizen’s water safety needs. According to NPR, “At least a billion people worldwide drink water that has been contaminated. It contains bacteria, viruses, parasites, and sometimes chemical pollutants.” Most of these people must dig their own wells to get water that will not be treated for these harmful contaminants. I believe that industrialized nations like the U.S. should give much financial and technological aid to these people and it is one of the U.N.’s basic goals to resolve water shortages and safety. Resolving this issue has been slow, though, due to the high cost of water treatment. So how can this safe drinking water be balanced with cost?
One proposal is that communities lacking safe water resources import water from other countries, which many already do. But as John Hamilton of NPR says about one El Salvador family, “The family paid for bottled water. They got by on just ten gallons a week–but [the family] says even that was too expensive.” When such little water can be afforded, obviously water importing cannot be the only solution. In addition, water exporting will only decrease as water resources are exhausted–some nations have even set policies against it. According to William Cunningham, author of our class textbook, Environmental Science, in 1999, even the government of the water-rich nation of Canada “passed federal legislation banning any bulk water export.”
Another, and probably more practical, proposal is that the communities be taught how to manage water filtration and purification. One advocate of this proposal, Will Howie, works for a Tennessee group, “Living Waters,” that trains people how to manage this apparently difficult task for only a “penny a gallon.” This proposal is perfect for some water-poor people, but depends on their location. Water contaminants like ozone can be removed by this cost-efficient method taught by Living Waters, but not all. Many communities like those on the Yucatan Peninsula must deal with high calcium and salt levels that clog filters or contaminate water, respectively. Living Waters has developed a systems involving water softeners and advanced filters to deal with these additional chemicals and can cost a community only a couple thousand dollars. For large urban communities this, again, seems to be a perfects proposal, but for rural people, these systems will be too expensive. In this case, the Bio-sand Filter, costing only about 50 dollars, appears to be most appropriate. In this filter system, sand filters out bacteria and parasites in the water, bringing it to the top layer of the sand where it will die within a week.
As John Hamilton said, “No single solution works everywhere.” For some, purchasing water from other countries will be more simple and cost-efficient to purifying their own water. For most others, filtering systems to purify water will be best, but will often depend upon whether the people are in rural or urban areas and what and how concentrated the contaminants are in the water. In summation, a diversified program for solving water shortages and pollution in poor nations will help reduce water costs to their people.
Posted by Joe Norcross at 02:20 AM | TrackBack | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
Discovery of Deep-Sea Vents May Severly Impact Marine Ecosystems
On December 7th, 2005 USA Today released an article which may completely change the way in which we view the oceanic environment. Previously, scientists hypothesized that deep-sea volcanic vents were extremely rare. However, in the past few months, researchers studying deep-sea vents found that “You can go anywhere in the world’s oceans and find these vents.” These vents provide chemical discharge while also providing an ecosystem for the “extremeophile” creatures living there. The chemical discharge made of iron, copper, zinc and large amounts of silver and gold are estimated to be heated to about 752 degrees and are located in extremely high pressure areas of the oceans. The creatures living in these ecosystems include sea worms, shrimp, and crabs which store energy from the “chemicals discharged from the Earth’s interior rather than from the sun. Scientists have found six undersea ecosystems involving deep-sea vents, however, only about 10% of deep-sea mountain chains have been discovered, leaving many more ecosystems to be explored.
Although I was originally extremely excited about this new marine information, I soon became aware of the negative aspects of undersea exploration. While discovering deep-sea vents is exhilarating, it seems to be a matter of time before humans tamper with the discovery. Not only are humans curious about undiscovered ecosystems, but they have found elements in the vent discharge that are in high demand worldwide. Silver, gold, copper and iron are utilized in many forms: jewelry, buildings, appliances, etc. Now that researchers have discovered an additional source of these highly demanded natural resources, one can only wonder if the ecosystems in the deep-sea vents are truly safe from tampering, even at hundreds of feet below sea-level. In my opinion, it seems to only be a matter of time before these ecosystems begin to fade, as well as many other marine ecosystems.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-12-07-ocean-vents_x.htm
Posted by ~maggie~ at 01:34 AM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
December 07, 2005
The irreversible consequences of hydropower.
As we have found from our discussions on sustainable energy, acquiring energy from these sources creates some problems. For instance, one way to harness hydroelectric power, is to dam a river and use the movement of water to generate energy. However, a negative consequence of this is the build up of sediment upstream of the damn and the lack of sediment after it. This is currently occurring on the Colorado River because of construction of the Glen Canyon Dam. The dam was constructed in the current location because the area upstream could hold a lot of water, and the bedrock was stable enough to support the structure. However, there has been opposition from the Sierra Club, and former senator, Barry Goldwater because of the flooding it would cause in lake Powell and future damage to the river.
The presence of the dam prevents sediment from traveling downstream, causing erosion of beaches and destruction of many habitats. As a result, the humpback chub, which lives in the deteriorating habitat, is in danger of extinction. There have been two (in 1996 and 2004) attempts to fix this problem by temporarily flooding the river to release the built up sediment and build up sandbars and beaches downstream. Despite high hopes, insufficient sediment was released and both the attempts failed. It was concluded that destroyed habitats such as this, can never be resorted to their natural state. So, perhaps generating energy from dams is not a good solution. John Schmidt, a geomorphologist, says that “Americans [need] to realize that they cannot have a huge power-generating dam and a natural river ecosystem.”
Contrary to what many believe, it seems renewable energy may not be sustainable after all. This situation shows there is irreversible damage that is being done to the ecosystem by a “better” method of producing energy. So there must be an assessment of what energy source will have the least environmental effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Canyon_Dam
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7064/pdf/438010a.pdf
Posted by Sarah Graves at 10:35 AM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
November 10, 2005
Using Chironomids as biological indicators in water quality analysis
The issue Im discussing is the use of fish versus macro-invertebrates in creating indices for analyzing water quality. The current utility for wetland and stream monitoring stated in the MPCAs Minnesota Water Quality Monitoring Strategy 2004-2014 is the IBI index. This in correlation with TMDLs which I will not discuss in any detail here. The current status for the MPCAs stream health survey, which I participated in this summer, was the creation of IBI scores based upon water chemistry, stream morphology, and a biota work up which included electro-fishing. For those not familiar with electro-fishing it is the use of electrical current to shock fish, stunning them so their filled air bladders capsize their bodies and float them to the surface for collection. The reason I am writing about this issue is that I feel that fish are a poor choice for biotic indicator and that the processes utilized by the survey do not ensure a very strong rate of survival for the specimen collected. I therefore suggest an alternative to using fish as the indicator biota, which is the midge or Chironomid.
The benefit to using these as biological indicators is that there are often as many as 120 to 150 different species in one water system. These have different tolerances to different environmental stressors and through analysis of the ecological makeup of the chironomid population it can be determined which stressors are present in the waterway. Another benefit over the use of fish is the fact that fish differ greatly with geographical regions, as well as types of water systems. Chironomids on the other hand are widespread and have consistent speciation throughout different geographical and geomorphic systems. This case in point are the Chironomids of intertidal and peripheral marine habitats [which] have been described from coasts throughout the world.(Neumann) So even on a global scale the use of an indices with Chironomids as a biotic indicator could be utilized as a coherent more fully encompassing system than using fish.
This approach is not yet widely accepted in the scientific community. Some may say that Chironomids are too time consuming to analyze on a large scale due to the necessity of in lab analysis, where as fish can be identified and quantified on site. I feel that with training though, the benefits that Chironomids can give you along with the absence of fish killing due to over shocking and lack of aeration in their holding tanks, makes the alternative much more appealing. I also want to express that fact that I can not speak for all teams involved in the stream health survey, but have read the procedural outlines for the process and have not found aeration to be taken into consideration.
These two options for biological indicators are not the only ones. I simply am stressing the fact that I feel fish need not be used and that Chironomids may be an optimal choice. The MPCAs Wetland monitoring strategy which utilizes IBI indices indicates the parameters involved for that workup to include: aquatic plants, aquatic invertebrates to the species level, general chemistry, sediment toxicity. (MPCA) Here the invertebrates are not specified, but this does show that Chironomids have a viable spot in biological water health indication.
Neumann, Annu. Rev. Entomolo. 1976.21:387-414
MPCA: Minnesota Water Quality Monitoring Strategy 2004-2014
Other information specific to Chironomids was discussed in detail between
Leonard C. Ferrington, University of Minnesota professor, and myself
Posted by Jason Carlson at 12:51 PM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
Acid Rain
According to The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Acid rain is a serious environmental problem. The term acid rain, is most commonly used to mean acid decomposition in rain, snow, fog, dew, or dry particles. Acid decomposition caused by the release of the gases SO2 and NOX. When SO2 and NOX react with oxygen and water in the atmosphere it forms sulfuric acid. The main source of SO2 emissions come from South Africas coal-fired power stations and metal industries, and NOX comes from vehicle emissions, and fuel combustion. According to Almanac of Policy Issues, acid rain is measured in scale called pH, and the lower a substances pH level is, the more acidic it is. Normal rain has a pH level of 5.5, but acidic rain falling in the United States has a pH level of about 4.3. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states, acid rain causes acidification of lakes and streams, which causes fish to die off and removes the main food source for birds, and can also die from eating these toxic fish. Acid rain also contributes to the damage of trees with high elevations, like red spruce trees, and accelerates the decay of irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are a valued part of our countrys heritage. Before hearing about acid rain in class I had no idea of severity, and the effects it has on the environment. Im not the only one that wasnt aware of this problem; the general public isnt being informed well enough of this environmental issue. Acid rain is being pushed aside because of issues like hurricane Katrina, and global warming. The good news is the United States and the globe can stop acid rain by using other sources of energy and electricity besides fossil fuels. These include: nuclear power, hydropower, wind energy, geothermal energy, and solar energy. On a more personal and individual level, I could, and you could, reduce acid rain by: turning off lights, computers and other appliances when they arent being used, using energy efficient appliances, carpooling to work and school or taking the bus, and riding your bike or walking instead of driving your own personal car.
"Acid Rain." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nov. 2005. 10 Nov. 2005
"What is Acid Rain? and What Causes it?" Almanac of Policy Issues. 6 Aug. 2002. 10 Nov. 2005
Posted by Kelsey Poss at 10:02 AM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
November 09, 2005
A second Hydroelectric Dam to be Built on Mekong River
I recently read an article on Friends of the Earth International Online(http://www.foei.org/media/2005/0404.html) my blog is concerning this article.
In April of this year the World Bank in conjunction with its high risks, high rewards program began planning the construction of Nam Theun 2 a second major hydroelectric dam in Laos on the Mekong river. The dam would cost 1.3 billion dollars to complete and has a scheduled completion date of 2009. 90 percent of the energy produced by the dam would be exported to Thailand. The dam would flood nearly 450 square kilometers and would displace some 6,200 people.
While energy distribution in South East Asia is far from adequate, many people do not have access to it. In many rural towns and villages there is no need for electricity or if there is, usually only a small amount is required. The Laos economy would profit considerably from the export of electricity to Thailand. The construction of second major hydroelectric dam would benefit Thailand which has a major demand for electricity because of the fast rate of development that is occurring there. The only problem with that fact is that the Mekong does not run through Thailand and Thailand will not be adversely affected by the dams construction. Why should a country that does not have claims to a source get all the rewards and none of the consequences?
This issue is a classic example of water rights. Laos has the right to use resources inside its boundaries for its own purposes. However, the problem with rivers is that they usually span across multiple countries and those countries are affected by the change that occurs in others. The construction of a second dam would severely lower the water level of the Mekong in Cambodia and Vietnam. These countries rely heavily on the 1,300 species of fish that inhabit the Mekong river. If this dam is built it will most likely have devastating effects on the Cambodian and Vietnamese economies. A possible alternative would be for the power that would be generated by the dam to be exported to Cambodia and Vietnam instead of Thailand. This would by no means account for the decline in water levels but at least it would be some form of compensation.
In my opinion the construction of a second hydroelectric dam should not continue. There are too many risks associated with the projects and the risks far outweigh the rewards. If the World Bank truly wants to help Laos generate more electricity than they should invest in less destructive means like solar and wind power. This would have fewer economic and environmental repercussions.
Posted by Nicholas Saumweber at 11:38 PM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
Bottled Water
With all the current trends in water consumption we need to think about new and different ways to get water if our existing water supplies are contaminated. Who wants to even think about drinking funky water in the first place? So we turn to bottled water believing that we can get clean, fresh, and most importantly, natural water.
For example, Dasani water is bottled by the Coca-Cola company. The concept for Dasani water was created after the Coca-Cola company decided that the consumers wanted another choice besides soda for a beverage. After a failed marketing attempt called "Say no to H20", the company invented Dasani. If you look at a bottle of this "naturally fresh water" you would expect to see a bottling location or source of water like most bottled waters. Instead you will find the following, "Crisp, fresh taste. Dasani is filtered through a state-of-the-art purification system and enhanced with minerals for a pure, clean taste that can't be beat.". But what does this mean? Where is it bottled? What is this purification system? After no email reply in regards to where these bottling locations are, a further investigation was needed. Each bottling location uses different water and different filtering equipment. What? Well, Dasani water comes from tap water from local communities across the globe. Not only is this a problem with local communities not getting access to local aquifers the company also does not always use appropriate pollution control methods. For example in 2004, the United Kingdom Dasani water was found to have illegally high amounts of bromate. This resulted in a full recall of the bottles; however, there has been no problem of this sort in the United States, but how much longer can they go using local tap water with different filtering techniques before contaminates are found? After there filtering process a minute amount of minerals are added such as magnesium sulfate and potassium chloride. So by buying a Brita pitcher, you could almost produce Dasani water yourself.
However, not all bottled water companies are out to trick the public and make thousands in return. Chippewa Springs Water, for example is bottled only twenty minutes away from my hometown of Eau Claire, Wisconsin (located in the Chippewa Valley). This water comes from a natural spring that they bottle at source right in the valley and in the past it was the only water served on railroads and in Chicago hospitals. So not all bottled water are scams out to make profit, however, most big companies are. This is becoming a more serious issue as local ground water becomes polluted and people need to turn to bottled water. Instead, we need to fight that these problems need to be fixed--not covered up.
Sources: www.cool-drinks.com/root%20folder/chippewa.html
www.newstarget.com
www.makeyourmouthwater.com
Posted by Sadie Schuldt at 08:58 PM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
Bottled Water
With all the current trends in water consumption we need to think about new and different ways to get water if our existing water supplies are contaminated. Who wants to even think about drinking funky water in the first place? So we turn to bottled water believing that we can get clean, fresh, and most importantly, natural water.
For example, Dasani water is bottled by the Coca-Cola company. The concept for Dasani water was created after the Coca-Cola company decided that the consumers wanted another choice besides soda for a beverage. After a failed marketing attempt called "Say no to H20", the company invented Dasani. If you look at a bottle of this "naturally fresh water" you would expect to see a bottling location or source of water like most bottled waters. Instead you will find the following, "Crisp, fresh taste. Dasani is filtered through a state-of-the-art purification system and enhanced with minerals for a pure, clean taste that can't be beat.". But what does this mean? Where is it bottled? What is this purification system? After no email reply in regards to where these bottling locations are, a further investigation was needed. Each bottling location uses different water and different filtering equipment. What? Well, Dasani water comes from tap water from local communities across the globe. Not only is this a problem with local communities not getting access to local aquifers the company also does not always use appropriate pollution control methods. For example in 2004, the United Kingdom Dasani water was found to have illegally high amounts of bromate. This resulted in a full recall of the bottles; however, there has been no problem of this sort in the United States, but how much longer can they go using local tap water with different filtering techniques before contaminates are found? After there filtering process a minute amount of minerals are added such as magnesium sulfate and potassium chloride. So by buying a Brita pitcher, you could almost produce Dasani water yourself.
However, not all bottled water companies are out to trick the public and make thousands in return. Chippewa Springs Water, for example is bottled only twenty minutes away from my hometown of Eau Claire, Wisconsin (located in the Chippewa Valley). This water comes from a natural spring that they bottle at source right in the valley and in the past it was the only water served on railroads and in Chicago hospitals. So not all bottled water are scams out to make profit, however, most big companies are. This is becoming a more serious issue as local ground water becomes polluted and people need to turn to bottled water. Instead, we need to fight that these problems need to be fixed--not covered up.
Sources: www.cool-drinks.com/root%20folder/chippewa.html
www.newstarget.com
www.makeyourmouthwater.com
Posted by Sadie Schuldt at 08:58 PM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
November 06, 2005
Mining is Hazardous to your Health
I remember the movie "A River Runs Through It". The backdrop is the good old days of the 20's or the 30's and the grass is green and the rivers are clean. Of course life happens and the characters that are well dressed and young and have so mush promise at the outset of the movie are really complex and don't end up unscathed at all in the end and we see that the good old days weren't so good some times. Actually the river that was made famous in Norman MacLean's novel "A River Run's Through It" the Clark Fork and the Blackfoot are backed up by a dam. Levels of copper are such that in some parts of the riverbank bones of dead cattle are bright green. Beyond the dam are more than 6 million cubic yards of contaminated soil, at some places it is nearly 30 feet deep. According to Jim Robbins in his New York Times article(8/4/05) "Dam and Waste Will Go, Freeing Two Rivers", after the dam was built it was the last stop for copper, cadmium, arsenic and other mine waste that washed down the 120 mile long Clark Fork River. Apparently, the river will have to first be rerouted so it flows into the Blackfoot before they remove soil and the dam. Then the Clark Fork will return to it's channel. So since 1907 two of Montana's biggests rivers have been backed up and have been trapping toxic mining waste and at one time washed it miles down stream. It has taken 3 years to negotiate responsibility for payment, for cleanup and removal and the restoration that goes with it. According to Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana, the Atlantic Richfield Company, which in 1977 inherited a legacy of pollution in buying the Anaconda Copper Mining Company, the mines previous owner pays 80 million; Northwestern Energy which owns the dam pays $11.6million and the state of Montana pays $ 7.6 million. Mr. Robbins states the job is a technically challenging one, but when the natural flow is restored many miles of river will be opened up to spawning bull trout, a threatened species and other fish.
This was very commendable, although, what took so long? Overwhelmed? Maybe, industry? Maybe lack of public knowledge. Read a speech by Jay Hair, secretary general of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) and you'll probably be as confused as I was. Then take a look at the industry members, association partners and goals and projects and it appears that the mining industry might want to look like they are more committed than they actually are to making more solid changes. In the mean time states, volunteers, private companies, nonprofits and environmental agencies are going forward as much as possible. For example: ICMM(http://www.icmm.com/project.php?rcd) had goals for sustainable development, international chemicals management and one for occupational exposure limits for metals. Each had a rationale, a project description, a 2005 deliverable and a strategic outcome all of which appeared
nebulous compared to sustainable development plans brought forward by the International Institute for Environment and Development. (Http://www.iied.org/mmsd) One of the most straight forward goals of the MMSD is to assess global mining and minerals use in terms of the transition to sustainable development and this covers the transition to economic prosperity, human well being, eco system health and accountable decision making as well as the track record of past practice. The ICMM states they have done well with some reclamation projects. One example they cite is a beautiful golf course in Michigan that sits on the site of an old mine. The state of Virginia has schools and strip malls and a post office sitting on top of where mines used to be. Howerever, Jennifer Crump wrote in Canadian Geographic in Jan/Feb 2001 in an article entitled "Sinking Every Putt " what I had often suspected.
MS. Crump states that the most challenging hazard at the Hollinger Golf Course may be what lies beneath its sand traps and water holes. The course is the latest propery to sink into the maze of gold-mining tunnels running under Timmins, Ontario. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines inherited the subsidence problem when Royal Oak Mines went into receivership in 1999 and has since spent upwards of $1million fencing off, refilling and capping holes with cement (about a dozen), which affected nearly 32 hectars of the city. Bedrock is now starting to shift and devices have been installed to forewarn of further instability. Other businesses were compensated for their damages but Hollingers claim was denied. The golf club which was losing it's members and feared ongoing subsidence filled the sink holes without government approval. According to Ms. Crump, Hollinger is now considering legal action for reimbursement. One last reference I would like to make is to Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development, they have a project called Breaking New Ground which highlights the challenges facing the mining/minerals/development/processing sector during the move to a sustainable world economy. Nowhere else is the following contemplated:
the obligation of the mining authority to delimit the mining areas inside indigenous territories
the obligation to consult with indigenous communities before tne initiation of any prospecting or exploration activity;
indigenous communities' preference for the granting of mining titles over third parties;
concessions granted to the indigenous community as a whole, not individual members;
aban against mining activity in terrain considered by the indigenous authorities as sacred or with special social, cultural, or economic significance; and
royalties and other income generated by the mining activity in indigenous lands directed to infrastructure and services that benefit the indigenous communities.
In my view mining and mineral development continue to pose tremendous risk to our natural eco system and thereby human kind. When we have industry moguls on the board of national and international decision making organizations that have made no significant contributions during their tenure, I think it's business as usual. I think it's business as usual that over the past decade more and more companies have released CRS's (corporate responsibility statements)
usually broad statements of principle published in English rather that in the language of the indigenous people living near the project. It's important that one realizes how disregarding the industry has been in the past and that has not changed. We don't need cooperation from the industry as much as we need to figure out some type of contrition payment for all the irreparable damage to our eco system. Somehow we need to make the clean up happen more quickly by the companies directly responsible. Somehow people need to know how very important that is.
Posted by Ramona Beard at 08:04 PM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
October 19, 2005
Dead in the Water
I recently watched a documentary on FSTV called Dead in the Water it concentrated on the problems associated with the privatization of water. The documentary focused on: South Africa, a city in Canada called Monckton, Argentina, California and Atlanta, Georgia. The basic premise was that private companies primary concern is making profit. Corporations first responsibilities are to their shareholders and to the bottom line. A moral dilemma is presented when a corporation comes into a community of poverty stricken people and tries to provide them with water in an effort to make money. This begs the question, should corporations be able to profit off something that people need to survive? There are several examples of corporations conceding morals to make profit. In World War II Dupont made money by selling products to Germany, our enemy. Recently Enron, World Com and Wal-Mart have made the news for their questionable ethics.
The big push for privatization of public works started in the 1980s with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan. In the United States the Washington Consensus was formed, this was a combination of public money and private companies that intended among other things, to solve the worlds water problems.
The World Bank and the I.M.F. (International Monetary Fund) were in on the ground floor of the privatization of public services around the world and helped to push the ideology of free market, they wanted to minimize government and reduce poverty.
Argentina was having major problems in 1989, inflation was at 5000 percent and the countrys monetary system was failing. The government at the time with pressure from I.M.F. decided to privatize water, gas and electricity. The I.M.F. was able to pressure Argentina by writing conditions into loans that called for privatization in order for the loans to be approved. This has led to many problems for Argentina such as clean water being mixed with waste and sewage flowing in the streets. This stems from the fact that the water company takes in more money by making water connections than they do making sewage connections. By maximizing profit they let the sewage system get out of control. The documentary showed many children who are often the victims of water born diseases.
The other places, Atlanta, South Africa and Monckton all had problems with their water systems that were fixed by privatization briefly. In the long run though the problems were only exacerbated. The story that particularly touched me was one from our own country; in California Enron decided that water was going to be the next big thing. They built a storage facility that was able to hold 480 billion liters of water right in the middle of the San Juan Valley. Right next to the storage facility there was an agricultural community spanning 9 million acres of irrigated desert. The farmers there paid .13 cents a ton for water while a regular citizen would have had to pay $1.30 a ton. In 1998 an Enron subsidiary, Azurix, started a web site called water2water.com a as way to trade water like it was any common commodity. They offered the farmers of San Juan Valley contracts lasting up to 25 years. If these farmers would have accepted they could have made more money by just selling their water than they could have ever hoped to make farming. The farmers wisely distrusted the water traders and would not give in. This ended up costing Azurix one billion dollars and contributed to the downfall of Enron. It also stopped the selling of water as a commodity in the United States.
The water corporations made the argument that when the public utilities were failing to provide communities with safe water and sewage they would to come to the rescue by providing a much needed service. To paraphrase an official from Veolia water, people who are opposed to globalization believe that water should be a gift form god but what private companies offer is not just water, its purity and convenience. If people dont pay for water in places where it is now part of the infrastructure, including places where people are trying to live on one U.S. dollar a day, then people who do not have water infrastructure now will never be able to get it.
On one side there are people who believe that essential needs must not be privatized. How long will it be before corporations are selling oxygen to breathe? Providing a service is one thing but making a profit from something that if denied could kill people is unjust. The corporations would have us believe that a free market economy will provide where need necessitates and that nothing is free. I dont believe that a place with no jobs or money will be able to create a market out of thin air. The privatization of water seems to be another example of companies taking advantage of a situation to make a profit.
Posted by Brooke Anderson at 09:52 PM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
Road Salts Affecting the Environment
I recently read an article talking about the effect of the runoff or road salt into lakes and ponds and killing animals and plants that live there. This article focused on this issue in Canada, but we can obviously relate to this situation here where we live. The article, Road Salts an Environmental Concern on the Science and Environmental Bulletin online, mainly focused on the results of the recent tests done on porewater, the water that fills spaces between the solid sediment particles on the floor of the pond. (S&E)
These tests revealed that an estimated 4,732 kilotonnes of road salt and calcium chloride are used to de-ice roads every year in Canada. (S&E) The runoff from this is ending up in lakes and ponds, causing the porewater to be toxic, affecting the ecosystem at the bottom of these bodies of water. Concerns about this affecting fish have been addressed in the past, so this article focused more on the other species that may be damaged by this process. They took samples of the sediment and porewater at the bottom of these water bodies and analyized them. Their studies showed that the salt sediment at the bottom of these waters in some cases was preventing the plants to get the amount of oxygen they need to live healthily. This article argues that instead of salt, we need to find other ways to de-ice our roads and make them safer. One suggestion was that there should be an increase in sand use, or the roads should be better maintained by cities and people should be more cautious drivers.
Looking at the information I read I looked more into the affects and alternate ways to treat our roads. I found that the use of salt to treat the roads may not be the biggest concern, but the amount of salt is what is causing the problem. Some salt running off into the waters wont cause much of a problem with the ecosystem, but the problem lies when we are using it in such a great volume. After reading this I felt that the correct way this should be handled would be a combination of the first articles thoughts. I think the best solution would be to combine increased maintenance of roads and more careful drivers, with a reduced amount of salt used. That way, we can still take advantage of the best way to de-ice roads, but just in more moderation.
Posted by Jesse Tannuzzo at 07:47 PM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
Reefs at Risk
The world's coral reefs are one of the most intricately balanced and largest sources of biodiversity on the planet. They are home to thousands of unique creatures that can only survive in the reef environment. Many peoples and animals depend on the reefs for their livelihood. However, their lifestyles may need to change if current trends remain intact.
To understand the reef's vital role, some basics are necessary. Coral reefs are some of the oldest living things on the planet. They have been around for 225 million years, and some living coral today can be dated back about 2.5 million years. At their most basic level, coral reefs are simply polyp cities. Coral polyps are actually the thin layer that covers all coral reefs and provides energy to fuel the entire reef community. Living coral polyps are animals that can be as small as an infants fingernail with a mouth and tentacles to capture plankton and organic matter floating in the sea. These animals contain algae called zooxanthellae, which convert sunlight to fuel by the process of photosynthesis, and derive nutrients from the polyp wastes in the process. The zooxanthellae are the life force of the polyp; if the zooxanthellae die, the polyp dies and the reef, once host of living creatures, will become a stony, lifeless structure. Reefs form when individual coral polyps reproduce and grow on the skeleton of the last layer. This process, over time, produces a reef, a more fantastic structure than man could ever create.
Coral reefs have an immense impact on the world. Not only do they house one out of every four sea creatures, but they also provide a great livelihood and intrinsic value for humans. The majority (>50%) of the world's population live along coastal regions, a third of which have coral reefs. Coral reefs provide these people with a buffer from storms and erosion, a source of medicines, building materials such as limestone, and most importantly, food. Worldwide, 30-40 million people depend upon coral reefs for food. This environment plays an enormous role in the everyday lives of these people.
Although these reefs seem to be a blessing to the planet, humans don't seem to treat them that way. According to www.globalissues.org, over 20% of the world's coral reefs have been completely destroyed and show little to no chance of recovering. An even more devastating figure from the world resources institute states that at least 60% of the world's coral reefs are threatened by human activity. This type of stress on such a delicate environment can and does have devastating results, not only effecting water-laden creatures, but the entire food chain.
There are many causes of the vast destruction of these coral reefs, all due to human activity. A few of the main concerns are as follows: dense coastal development, pollution, erosion, overexploitation and tourism, over fishing and a practice called blast fishing, weather pattern change possibly caused by global warming, and disease. All of these could be discussed at great length. However, in order to keep this brief, I just want to mention just a few things. In regards to coastal development, according to statistics most people are attracted to living along the ocean. As shoreline cities and towns grow, however, so does the threat to nearby reefs. To begin with, space on coastlines is often limited, which leads to airports and more being built on reefs. These structures attract business, which increases shipping, the risk of oil spills, and the dredging of harbors. Mining is also a problem. Sand and limestone, which are used to make glass and cement, are often mined for their use in these construction materials. Since the limestone is the very substance that holds the coral together, much of the reef being mined is destroyed for it. As if these things didnt harm the coral enough, humans release mass amounts of pesticides, pollutants, and sewage into the water. These along with mammoth quantities of sediment, either from heavy land clearing and construction or erosion, tend to smother the coral, block the sunlight, and stop the growth of the coral. If this continues, the zooxanthellae are unable to photosynthesize and abandon the coral to their death. In addition to this, the human feces and agricultural runoff carry diseases that don't effect their human and plant carriers but can wipe out entire coral reefs. By dumping sewage and other wastes, entire reefs can be stricken with disease and die out.
As if this indirect destruction is not enough, there are also many direct destructive actions taken by man to annihilate entire spans of reef. As mentioned earlier, a practice called blast fishing. In blast fishing, a lethal mixture of fertilizer and diesel oil is put into sticks of dynamite, the same explosive favored by most terrorists. Fishermen then drop ignited sticks from their small fishing boats above the reefs, wait for them to detonate, and proceed to capture as many fish as possible. Usually, one fisherman dives into the reef to extract the fish caught in the rubble while another remains in the boat and snags the fish that float to the surface. The explosion causes the swim bladder of fish to rupture, which kills them. This causes them to float to the surface for easy retrieval. Another disgusting practice is called cyanide fishing. Fishermen execute this by first creating a solution of crushed cyanide tablets and seawater. Once on the reef, the solution is dumped into the water. This solution stuns any fish that come into contact with it. The fishermen waste no time getting into the water and capturing as many stunned fish as they can find. They also bring along a bottle of cyanide solution to puff at unaffected fish. As if clearing out all the fish in an entire span of reef isnt enough, the fishermen will then use a crowbar to hammer the corals apart for any stunned fish that may have been hiding or caught in them. They then leave the broken, empty reef and proceed further down to do this again. The saddest part of this is that these animals are being stunned so that they can later be sold by the hundreds of thousands to restaurants or even pet stores for a straight profit. These practices are an ideal example of how steps need to be taken in order to stop these direct acts of malice towards the world's coral reefs.
Coral reefs are an extremely important part of the natural ecosystem. They provide for the marine environment as well as give humans abundant resources and enjoyment. Currently, 20% of the world's reefs are destroyed and over one-third are damaged. In fifty years, over 75% of the reefs are expected to be suffering from human activity. This is an unnacceptable situation. Humans must take action to reverse this course before it is too late. Biodiversity and the good of all the planet depends upon our actions. Humans need to step down and join the natural world as a part of it, another creature, living with the rest of nature, not against it.
Posted by Carla Inderrieden at 10:39 AM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
October 17, 2005
When to stop!
I recently read an article in the Minnesota Daily titled, "Rules would ease limits on pollution." The article discusses how the Bush administration is proposing new regulations that would allow power plants to emit even more pollutants into the air annually. The new regulations would deter even more the effect of the Clean Air Act that is now instated. The article especially highlighted the push towards furthering industry over valuing our precious resource of clean air! They further proved this with several quotes from EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. He said, " We want to remove any unnecessary obstacles. We're focused on practical, achievable, results that don't get delayed by years of litigation." The regulations would mostly benefit coal burning industries which the EPA claims have been getting cleaner. Further research has shown that contrary to their claims many east coast power plants decised to not install the much needed newer controls, that help clean up sulfur dioxide. It closes in stating that the Clean Air Act was created to help insure our right to have clean air, but revisions are infringing on that right.
After reading the article one question remained in my mind. When do we stop? I was reminded of a postcard I received once that said, "Only when the last tree has been cut down...Only when the last river has been poisoned...Only when the last fish has been caught...Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten." If we continually loosen regulations on the Clean Air Act, than what is the point of it! It was created to protect the air and help create a cleaner future, adjustment of its regulations will contradict its purpose and impair its affectiveness.
I was especially interested in this article becuase the Clean Air Act is my topic for the upcoming debate. I realize that as a nation we need to concern ourselves with our economy and industry falls into that catagory, but in my opinion our environmental health is more important. We must all be aware of future generations that will be forced to live with the resources we have left them. Furthermore, effects or air pollution are severly effecting us now. Increased global warming due to high pollution levels are gradually raising the temperature of the ocean and hurting valuable ecosystems. Smog is making living in cities a health risk. People are developing asthma, and these are all just the effects we know about now, Who knows about what the long term affects will be! I do not think helping industry is worth this global loss.
Reflecting on this brought me to an even deeper issue, the overall overemphasis our nation make of immediate financial benefit over longterm global benefit. In my recent astronomy class we discussed global warming and the fight against it. All the nations of the world proposed that every country should sign an act that would commit to lowering levels of emissions to prevent further global warming. The only opposition to it cam from the only two countries who refused to sign it; Australia and the United States. This topic is far to broad to attack in one blog, but it does raise several questions that we should all personally address. Questions such as: "Do we support our government in loosening regulations on the Clean Air Act?", "How to voice out opinions for/against the proposals.", and "What do we as a nation value?". Hopefully, advancement in public awareness in this subject will lead to our country taking responsibilty to our affects on the environment and joining this century!
Posted by Jessica Houlihan at 11:59 PM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
September 29, 2005
Hypoxia in the Gulf
Hypoxia was mentioned early in the class as an environmental concern, something I had not even heard of before. It interested me, though, because with it already being a concern, and then piling on top of it the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, it seemed that the Gulf of Mexico might have a hard time recovering.
Hypoxia occurs when "dissolved oxygen concentrations are less than 2 mg/L", this situation creates an enviornment in which most organisims experience high levels of stress and some cannot live at all (mostly bottom dwellers). In order for hypoxia to occur, the water column needs to be stratified and there needs to be organic matter to consume the oxygen. The Mississippi produces both of these, making for a hypoxic zone that reached the size of New Jersey in 1999.
The Mississippi River drains a basin into the Gulf the size of approximately 41% of the United States, of which that basin contains the majority of our crop land. This is important because the Nitrogen left over from the fertilizer and the animal manure of these farms is getting washed down to the Gulf, contributing to 65-84% of the hypoxia-causing nitrogen.
For every nitrogen atom, up to 6.6 atoms of organic carbon can be produced by photosynthesis. This nitrogen can then be recycled again and again to produce even more carbon. We have seen a great increase in nitrogen flux draining from the basin, it has gone from less than 0.5 million metric tons in 1955 to reaching over 1.5 million metric tons in the 1990's.
Increased fertilizer use and increased streamflow are setting a tragic course for the Gulf of Mexico. The problem could have only been compounded by the flooding of Katrina, spilling all of those contaminants into the Gulf as well. Unfortuanately any effort we make to supress hypoxia from advancing won't produce measureable fruit for quite some time. But there is no better time to start than now.
All information/facts gathered from:
EOS, Transactions, American Geophyisical Union: Volume 81, Number 29, July 18th, 2000
Posted by Lindsey Hatz at 10:07 AM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
Minneapolis steps to the forefront of clean municiple water
An article posted in the Star Tribune on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 titled; Same taste, but cleaner water, discusses the addition of a new ultrafiltration system to the municipal water supplies of Minneapolis, Mn. Primarily implemented in surface water intake systems, the new system filters the previous municipal water output through a series of synthetic micro filtration tubes, which will put Minneapolis water standards far ahead of federal water regulations. This new system is also capable of continuously monitoring critical water data and can also pre-sense contaminated water from upstream sources to prevent contamination into the quality water supply. Bio-Terrorist weapons such as anthrax will now be able to be filtered with this new system. A second ultrafiltation system is also planned to be build a couple of miles up river and is scheduled to be finished in five years. A two day storage water supply will be held in reserve in case there is a large scale contamination in the newly opened facility. This is largely due to the possibility of a radiation leak from the Monticello Nuclear Plant. The top of the line improvements boasts Minneapolis as a water conscious metropolis.
Posted by Jason Carlson at 03:52 AM | Comments (1) | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
September 28, 2005
water in the desert
Water is a precious resource, one that the city of Las Vegas seems to take for granted. With the fountains of the Strip, the green lawns of the residential areas, all of the swimming pools, and the golf courses, you wouldnt even know that you were actually in the middle of the desert. Las Vegas and its vicinity get their water from Lake Mead, a lake formed because of the presence of the Hoover Dam. The Hoover Dam was built to provide electricity to Las Vegas, and now it decreases the flow of the Colorado River so that it is now merely a trickle as it reaches the Gulf of Mexico. This has disrupted the natural system of life as many species depend on the river as a water source in the dry desert. Granted there are areas where the Colorado River once flows as it was naturally meant to, but in other areas, it definitely has a negative effect in other areas.
The Las Vegas area grows rapidly with each passing year, and officials have realized that eventually there will be a water problem is something is not done to stop it, especially with the unavailability of groundwater; there only water resource is Lake Mead.
Vegas is now working on a conservation program so that they can save a cumulative amount of water each year.
Posted by Miranda Kersten at 11:46 PM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
The Dead Zone
The Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico was mentioned in both of my Environmental Science classes this semester. I had previously never heard of this issue and decided to look into it. I think this issue is interesting and important because it combines topics such as; human influence on natural earth cycles, habitat destruction, economic impact, and the debate over whom is responsible for protecting the environment. I found information on the Sierra Club website, but I am interested to see if anyone finds perspectives or opinions different from what I found on this site.
The Dead Zone is a section of the Gulf of Mexico that seasonally has extremely low levels of life supporting oxygen. This lifeless part of the ocean often grows to the size of Massachusetts, but varies depending on the time of year. However, studies have shown that the Dead Zone has been growing consistently since 1993. The size of the Dead Zone depends on the amount phosphorus and nitrogen draining into the Mississippi and reflects farming seasons. Human activities from as far away as Minnesota are producing these excess nutrients. The nutrients are used in fertilizer on farm lands to encourage plant growth. And they are doing exactly that. Enormous algae and phytoplankton blooms grow in the water from the Mississippi River that enters the Gulf. As these blooms die, they sink to ocean floor. As we learned in class, in order for organisms to decompose, they need oxygen. These decomposing plants use the oxygen, and a lot of it. The amount of oxygen in the water is often drops to less than 2 parts per million. This state of depleted oxygen in the water is known as hypoxia. This oxygen level is not able to support most marine life that would normally live in the area.
Again, this amount of nitrogen and phosphorus is not naturally occurring in the Mississippi and Gulf of Mexico. The main source of these nutrients is streams that drain from farming states such as Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Minnesota, and then empty into the Mississippi and then the Gulf. 56% of the nitrogen in the Mississippi is from commercial fertilizers, 25% from animal manures, and the remaining 19% is attributed to legumes, municipal and domestic waste, and atmospheric deposition. Atmospheric deposition occurs when nutrients are released by sources such as cars and power plants into the air, and then settle into bodies of water, in this case, the Mississippi.
Beyond creating an area that no longer can support marine life, this nutrient drainage has even more negative impact. The Dead Zone threatens biodiversity, and the economy. The environmental damage of hypoxia includes; noxious algal blooms that choke out fish, shrimp and crabs; altered coastal phytoplankton food websthe lowest rung of the ocean food chain upon which most sea life depends; altered stream-side ecosystems. Also important to consider is that many fish also travel upstream from the Gulf to the Mississippi to spawn, with this oxygen depleted area growing, it is easy to predict that these species will also be affected. Economically, the Dead Zone is also harmful. Fishermen on the Gulf of Mexico have to travel farther and farther from the Dead Zone in order to catch the fish that sustain their livelihoods. Additionally, The Gulf of Mexico supplies 40% of the United States fishing yield. If the Dead Zone continues to grow, the economic devastation will grow with it.
The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized the Dead Zone as an area that demands attention and a solution. On this website I found that it seemed that not much concrete action had been taken towards fixing this problem. Rather, is seemed to be an acknowledgement of things that needed to be changed and goals that had been set. This brings up the issue of who is responsible for stopping the growth of the Dead Zone. Though the cause of the Dead Zone can be traced back quite specifically, I dont think there would be any sort of incentive for farmers, for examples, to stop their use of fertilizers. The use of fertilizers increases their crop production, and helps them economically. I was interested in how much farmers would suffer economically if they stopped, or significantly reduced their use of fertilizer. Is this economic strain close or equal to the one that the fishermen face in the Gulf of Mexico? An additional source of the excess nutrients is exhaust from automobiles and output into the air from power plants that burn fossil fuels. I had never thought about the impact that use of fossil fuels had on water quality, rather just the issue of the limited supply and damage it does to air quality. The Dead Zone is another example of how imperative a serious reassessment and resolution to change is.
Posted by Mary Kemp at 09:04 PM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
SUV's in the Environment
I recently read an article devoted to examining the negative effects sport utility vehicles have on the environment. First off, I was a little skeptical of this arguement. When it comes to something as big and broad as the environment, or global warming, I really didn't think the simple switch from a SUV to a passenger car could make that big of a difference. However, after reading this article, reducing the amount of SUV's on the road seemed like a relativley easy way to help protect our environment.
Each SUV will emit over "ten tons more CO2 into the environment than a passenger car"(Fuel Economy Website). With fact that passenger cars and SUV's account for 20% of the US's CO2 emissions, cutting out ten tons of CO2 for each SUV would take a big chunk out of our totals.
The main environmental concern associated with CO2 emissions is global warming and the accelleration CO2 has on the greenhouse effect. Now, not driving SUV's may seem easier said than done, but the truth is that "only 5% of all SUV's are ever taken 'off-road'"(Newsweek). There are also other reasons people buy SUV's (e.g. hauling, cargo room), but in the majority of cases SUV's benefits are rather unsubstantial.
Another concern with SUV's is its role in the creation of smog. Sport utility vehicles can emit "30 percent more carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and 75 percent more nitrogen oxides than passenger cars"(Motor Vehicle Facts). These factors contribute heavily to pollution and smog.
The obvious conclusion from all of this, as stated before, would be to stop using SUV's, which basically be impossible. Although the use of them can be reduced significantly, they will never be completely eliminated. Another possible solution would be to raise the standards of SUV's and force them to be more fuel-efficient. Automakers are capable of making SUV's with much more fuel efficiency at the cost of only around $1,000 per vehicle. The combination of lowered use of SUV's and improved standards for these vehicles can have a significant effect on the improvement of our environment without much sacrifice even needed.
Posted by Jesse Tannuzzo at 12:26 PM | 5. Air and Water Resources
Category "5. Air and Water Resources"
September 21, 2005
Global warming eye opener
In todays world with all the studies that have been done in the last decade alone global warming has been show to be true. But alot of people still don't believe it at all. Which to me totally doesn't make sense. If you look at the last hundered years alone you can see a great change on many land scapes.
For instanes all around the world glacers that have been around for thousands of years are receding at an alarming rate. Some don't even exsist any more.
What does the lose of so many glaicers mean to us? For some people that live near these glaciers, this is their main supply of fresh water. For the rest of us, you have to remember that the water has to go some where. Weither it means more rain or rising oceans it will affect us all and it has already begun. The biggest indicator when it comes to global warming, in my opinion, was the breaking of the huge ice shelve off of Antartica. I think it opened alot of peoples eyes to the true power of global warming. But yet some people still haven't accepted global warming as a reality.
Science and goverment have been working to fight back and there have been much progress. But more countries are becoming industrialized and producing more CO2. I know there are better cleaner way to produce energy and to industrialize. If we keep looking for ways to reduce CO2 while looking for new ways to make better cleaner profit, I know we as a global community will find a cleaner better world to live in.
Posted by Thomas Evers at 11:37 AM | Comments (4) | 5. Air and Water Resources