Tag Archives: pollution

Scientists Discover a Garbage Patch in Atlantic Ocean

Posted on by
1

A two-decade-long study revealed a concentration of plastic debris in the Atlantic Ocean, much like the more widely known Pacific Trash Vortex.  The BBC reports:

The work is the conclusion of the longest and most extensive record of plastic marine debris in any ocean basin.  Scientists and students from the [Sea Education Association] collected plastic and marine debris in fine mesh nets that were towed behind a research vessel…

The researchers carried out 6,100 tows in areas of the Caribbean and the North Atlantic – off the coast of the US. More than half of these expeditions revealed floating pieces of plastic on the water surface.  These were pieces of low-density plastic that are used to make many consumer products, including plastic bags.

The maximum plastic density — 200,000 pieces per square kilometer — is comparable to the Pacific Garbage Patch, though the size of both patches is hard to estimate.  The Pacific Vortex is often described as a “plastic continent,” but this isn’t strictly accurate.  Although the total area is indeed continental, the plastic pieces are generally small (up to one centimeter across) and widely dispersed.

Nevertheless, plastic debris in the ocean is a serious problem.  Dr. Lavender Law, part of the team of researchers from SEA, told BBC News that, while specific impacts remain unknown,

“…we know that many marine organisms are consuming these plastics and we know this has a bad effect on seabirds in particular.”

The very thing that makes plastic useful, its durability, also makes it a problem for oceans.  Plastic does not decompose, but breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces.  While it’s clear that plastic debris is hazardous, it’s difficult to judge the actual “size” of the Garbage Patch.  In her (highly recommended) book The World is Blue, oceanographer Sylvia Earle, Explorer-in-Residence at the National Geographic Society, writes,

“[The Pacific Trash Vortex] is as big, as wide, as deep as the ocean itself.  On every dive I have made in the past 30 years, whether snorkeling or in deep-diving submarines, trash of some sort, and sometimes of many sorts, is visibly present.” (page 94)

It’s official: EPA declares GHGs dangerous to human health

Posted on by
1

Big news from the EPA:  Greenhouse gases harm humans!

In a historic finding, the EPA officially announced its “endangerment finding” for greenhouse gases.

The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases ”threaten the public health and welfare of the American people” and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

“These long-overdue findings cement 2009′s place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at news conference.

There has been some debate over whether CO2 and other GHGs count as pollutants, since they aren’t actually poisonous.  In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that GHGs could legally be regulated under the Clean Air Act, if the EPA determined that they posed a danger to public health — which is has now done.

What happens next?  Not much.  The Administration would rather curb emissions through a cap-and-trade bill, since that would be easier on the  economy.  A lot of environmentalists are wary of a carbon trading plan, especially one that gives away free pollution permits.  But those free permits are intended to keep the cost down, which may be necessary to pass the bill.

I think the EPA’s decision has two main benefits.  First, it’s a sign that the Obama Administration is serious about cutting emissions, even if Congress doesn’t pass a clean energy bill.  Second, it puts the U.S. in a better position for Copenhagen.

Of course, if the EPA did try to implement “command and control” regulations, it would be a long and difficult legal process, with protest from business groups — probably even greater than what we’re seeing now.  And we don’t know for sure that the Administration would even take that step.  But the option is more open than before.  We’re on the right track.

Coal is to solar as stone club is to bronze shield.

Posted on by
Reply

As alternative energy sources gain popularity among politicians and their consumers, the Big Coal industry is spending millions in a desperate attempt to improve its image.  One of the most common greenwashing terms is “clean coal.”  This oxymoron is usually used to describe efforts to make coal plants environmentally friendly by capturing the greenhouse gases that they emit.  I believe Melange puts it quite well:

A coal plant that captures some (or even all) of its CO2 emissions is NOT “environment-friendly” by any stretch of the imagination. “Slightly-less-deadly,” certainly.

That post goes on to mention major problems with coal, such as mountaintop removal.  If you have ever entertained the thought that coal could be clean, I recommend that you look into that practice.

The truth is, there is no such thing as clean coal. As This is Reality points out, there is currently not a single power plant that captures its GHG pollution.  While Big Coal insists that it is commited to carbon capture and sequestration, its supporters have actually been fighting energy progress for years.

Coal is still the dirtiest energy source, and if we really want to move forward, we need to focus on the future.  At the end of the Stone Age, wasn’t it lucky that people didn’t just try to make their rocks harder?  Coal is the stone club of the 21st century.  Let’s see if we can move on to bronze shields.

Flu pandemic may have originated in factory farms

Posted on by
2

The rapid spread of the H1N1 virus has the world in a panic, with the WHO giving it a 5 out of 6 “imminent pandemic”phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg rating.  In less than a week, the flu infected hundreds and caused numerous deaths.

But where did it come from?  Of course, it originally came from pigs.  Most likely, it came from pigs who were raised in overcrowded, inhumane factory farms.  As a PETA blogger puts it,

Cramming animals by the hundreds or thousands into gigantic, windowless sheds—in which the air is teeming with bacteria and the pigs’ or chickens’ throats are burned by the accumulated waste—is a recipe for spreading virulent diseases.

Simple enough.  For more details, you can read the Humane Society’s informative article.

No doubt, there are other important factors in the spread of H1N1, but the unsanitary conditions of intensive farms definitely play a role.  Besides contributing to the development of diseases, factory farms have plenty of other problems.  If you have any contact with the animal rights community at all, then you have to be aware of the mistreatment of animals that occurs in these farms.  I won’t elaborate, since PETA and the Humane Society have that area covered.

There’s also a problem in the gigantic amount of waste produced by businesses that raise millions of animals.  This waste often accumulates in filthy lagoons, which commonly pollute water sources.  In addition, livestock are big emitters of greenhouse gases, which are fueling climate change.

Still, environmental  concerns are not enough for some people.  But no one can deny the growing number of antibiotic-resistant infections.  If we overuse antibiotics on animals (human or otherwise), the strains evolve to become resistant.  While I do not know much about the human medical field, I can say with reasonable certainty that antibiotics are used too much on factory farms.  In order to keep the animals passably healthy in the conditions mentioned above, agribusinesses pump their animals full of antibiotics, becasue that’s cheaper than improving the farms.

I’m not going to preach about vegetarianism, but it’s important to be aware of the impact of our diet.  Many of the problems that we have today are a result of people pretending that actions don’t have reactions.

Interestingly, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) have introduced a bill that would restrict important classes of antibiotics for use against disease only, taking them out of the realm of subtherapeutic use or growth promotion in agriculture.

You might want to ask your Congressman to support this bill; it seems like preserving the effectiveness of medicine should be a bipartisan issue.