Upper Elk River Waste Treatment Facility

Snowshoe Mountain is a place for families to get away and relax whether it may be some kind of snow sport, or just simply relaxing in the mountainside cottage.   As the years have progressed though, more and more people around the area are discovering this scenic get away.   Within the last decade 572 new living facilities have been constructed and hundreds of more are still to come. Like lots of places in the world, the population is growing at an exponential pace, and due to this, the infrastructure is starting to get weak.; specifically, the wastewater treatment facility.

            Long ago, the population outgrew the wastewater’s treatment facility causing for many violations.  Finally, growth has become too overbearing and the government is doing something about it.  They have proposed to spend an estimated 17 million dollars on a new facility that they want to have located at Sharp Fields Farm.  A man named Tom Shipley is the sixth generation of family to live at this Sharp Fields Farm and he is not having it.  He doesn’t mind the fact of a new facility; he just doesn’t want it on or around his farm for various reasons.  First off, the Upper Elk River run’s right along the farm, which are home to native brook, brown, and rainbow trout. The creation of this facility as well as its waste will directly affect the ecosystem that surrounds it, including these fish.  Next, the scenery.  Pocahontas County is infamous for it’s sheer natural beauty and this giant 5 building facility would greatly damage the natural effect.  Although Mr. Shipley plans to hold off government officials of Pocahontas County, they plan to take his farm by eminent domain.

            I firmly agree with Mr. Shipley as the man is fighting for his life, job, and dignity.  He dropped his job in Indiana a few years back to solely keep the farm going.  Since then he has all sorts of ideas for a bed and breakfast and even a country store.  If there is a wastewater treatment facility on the backside of his farm, this will prevent his success in what would be his career.  The government swooping in with eminent domain just shows that they have to use this to get what they want, even if it isn’t right.  There are plenty of other locations that might not be as easy to work with, but still can get the job done without destroying six generations of hard work, multiple species of trout, and the everlasting scenery of our great mountains.

Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves

The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves is in partnership with USAID, the U.S. DOE, the U.S. Department of State, the EPA, the UN, and many other Alliance Founding Partners with the primary goal to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women and combat climate change. In the developing world, nearly 1.9 million are sick due to the smoke produced in their homes from traditional cookstoves. These cookstoves are reliant on coal, wood, dung, and any other abstract burning materials. The burning of these materials create adverse health impacts and contribute to global warming. Women and children, in particular, are greatly affected by this traditional way of life, which continues in developing countries. At least 20 hours a week are dedicated to collecting these materials that in turn harm, in many ways. Through the empowerment of women and the implementation of energy-efficient cookstoves, in developing countries, the goals of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves can be met, through the assistance of developed countries, such as the United States.

The implementation of clean-burning stoves is essential to the reduction of greenhouse gases on a global scale, as these new stoves are primarily dependent upon renewable energy, such as solar and wind. Three billion people use polluting, inefficient cookstoves daily, which contributes to air pollution. The Global Alliance aims to begin initiatives in Africa, Asia, and India. As a matter of fact, the U.S. DOE has funded cookstove projects in Kenya & Honduras. Health benefits are also key to this initiative. Half of the 3 billion persons are dying of insufficient nutrition also die due to do air pollution. Cooking over coal-burning, dung-burning, or wood-burning stoves is not positive to your overall health because air pollution can cause a long list of adverse effects such as asthma, bronchitis, heart attacks, etc.

Developing nations lack the funds and resources to implement cleaner processes and with the help of the United States, we can improve the future for us and future generations to come. The United States has a commitment of $50.82 million, over the next 5 years, for the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.

In order to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, a major shift in sustainable energy is required. Those not connected to the grid, a must find different sources of energy, instead of wood, coal, and dung. It begins now with small, individual projects, rather than retrofitting all of the world's coal-fired power plants. It is in our self-interest to support the Global Alliance initiative, as it is not just the women and children directly affected by the unclean cookstoves, but all persons on planet Earth, affected by global warming.

--Jennifer Tabones

Efficiency for Our Energy Future

When posed with the question, “What is the key to energy sustainability?” most often one would respond with the answer, renewable energy sources. Although alternative energy is projected to play a large role in reducing our energy imports, the more crucial immediate action to help achieve energy sustainability is to curb our demand. We as Americans overlook many inefficiencies in our daily lives, and one of the areas that has much room for improvement is the residential sector. Using energy efficient building materials and appliances, like products approved by Energy Star, can save consumers money, reduce energy demand, and ultimately improve environmental conditions by reducing GHG emissions. The most important factors towards creating a sustainable energy future are conservation and the implementation of efficient systems and components, in order to decrease our overall consumption.

Residential inefficiencies have many causes, and some are much larger than others. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 46% of the average American’s utility bill comes from heating and cooling alone. In order to address this problem, residential buildings can be outfitted with new windows, doors, insulation, and other building materials to improve the loss of warm or cool air. The government addressed this opportunity when it included tax credits for this type of retrofit in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Encouraging improvements in residential building materials is a great way for the government to boost the economy by investing in our future needs and creating jobs in the process.

However, the tax credit incentives created by the 2009 legislation are set to expire at the end of 2010 and there is no policy currently in place to extend the benefits. In a time when new technologies are becoming more available and affordable, it is important to keep these programs active. Products like high efficiency R-5 windows became widely available in the spring of 2010, and the recent implementation of a Building Technologies Program, by the U.S. Department of Energy, has made this highly advanced product more affordable to retailers than ever before. This development has many policymakers, such as Senators Olympia Snowe and Jeff Bingaman, thinking about potential legislation that would extend the tax credits through 2012 with a focus on the most efficient technologies on the market.

An extension to the already successful energy tax credit programs would benefit consumers, the economy, and the environment. Increasingly affordable Energy Star rated products will benefit even low income residents by paying for themselves in energy savings over reasonably short periods. Investing in energy efficiency will create jobs and reduce GHG emissions all at once, thus benefitting both sides of the ongoing ‘economic vs. environmental’ debate. The legislation is still a work in progress, but the potential benefits from declining costs are on the rise and such a program can only better our country.

Portugal and Renewable Resources, What the US Could Learn

There are many reasons for countries and governments to look into renewable technologies but usually the first one to come to mind is not get out of an economic deficit. That is exactly the reason why Portugal has gone through a big change in how their country gets its energy. Portugal has no fossil fuels of its own, so therefore it had to import almost all of its energy. The buying of their energy from an outside source contributed to about half of the countries national deficit. So, in order for Portugal to start climbing out of their debt they needed to find a way to make their own energy and start utilizing what resources their country had like its hundreds of miles of coastline and very sunny areas. The country bought the privately owned transmission lines that ran throughout the country and upgraded them at a cost. The company that had owned the lines before had no interest in renewable energy because the upgrades that would need to occur to the grid would increase cost to industry. The upgrades that the country made increased flexibility and the connection to remote areas so that people can now produce and distribute their own energy back onto the grid through a personal generator like a solar panel. The new emphasis on renewable energy especially in wind and solar power has really paid off for Portugal. It now is nearly at forty five percent renewable energy for electricity production, which is up about twenty eight percent from five years earlier.

Not only is Portugal improving its economy because they are no longer importing as much foreign fossil fuels but also their economy improved because of the boom in jobs available for creating renewable energy. In Portugal the number of energy enterprises tripled over a six year period creating a mass amount of jobs. Someone has to build the wind turbines, hydroelectric dams, and other renewable energy generators so it ends up being a win-win situation. Not only are the new companies flourishing just in Portugal, they are flourishing all over the world because other countries see how well they are performing.

The United States could learn a thing from Portugal about advancement in renewable technology and fixing economic deficits. Every day on the news you see stories about the economy and lack of jobs and see people trying to come up with solutions to the problems. Well this is one great idea that in a sense kills two birds with one stone. If the United States looked at what Portugal is doing and try something similar our dependence on fossil fuels would plummet and available jobs would increase instead of it being the other way around like it is now.

Green Labeling

Recently green labeling or eco-labeling has become a hot topic among environmentalists. These labels certify that a number of products have environmentally friendly features; including being recyclable, biodegradable, compostable, toxic free, and made of disposable products. The issue is that many companies have labels that have not been certified by the federal government. These green labels are used to attract more customers and prove the company is engaging in sustainable practices. I agree that green labeling is a beneficial environmental policy but only when used properly. The labels increase consumer awareness and hold companies accountable for safe business practices. It is important that consumers have all the information they need to make informed decisions. Choosing environmentally friendly products is one step to becoming a more sustainable society.

According to one article, there are over three hundred companies that offer some kind of “green certification” for products ranging from coffee to seafood. Many companies do not have the resources to provide an independent review of products. This results in an overwhelming number of certifications and labels. Consumers can easily become confused and purchase products not at all sustainable. In the past year, the Federal Trade Commission has brought its first suit against a company for falsely claiming their paper products were biodegradable. This is a good first step in helping to police companies that use false advertising.

The Environmental Protection Agency has also established a program called "Design for the Environment". Basically this program has established a seal regulated by the EPA for household and commercial products. This seal ensures that only ingredients that cause the least amount of harm to the environment are used during production. In the future, I would support an expansion of this program to include not only household and commercial products. Many independent bodies, like the Forest Stewardship Council, perform their own evaluations of products. Bringing these companies under the umbrella of the EPA or FTC would make the process of green certification more consistent. Until the government has established green labels for more products, some companies are creating their own certifications. Home Depot actually established their own rating system for products. To qualify, those products must either be certified by an independent company or meet EPA standards. Overall, I believe the federal government and even corporations are moving in the right direction. The more regulation of these materials the more sustainable consumers can be.

- Mark McKenzie

Sprawl in Atlanta- The main cause of environmental problems?

Urban sprawl around the city of Atlanta has created tremendous environmental problems in the area. The city of Atlanta itself is home to only 429,500 people, but the 29 county metropolitan area surrounding the city has a population of 4,917,717 making the area the 8^th largest metropolitan area in the country. This statistic points to the fact that there is an enormous amount of land developed around the city of Atlanta which brings with it a multitude of environmental problems. According to the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) the population of Atlanta grew at a rate of 13% during the 1990s, while the area of developed land grew at a rate of 50%.

Urban sprawl brings with it a host of problems from air and water pollution, increased property taxes, more traffic, and a lower quality of life with less interpersonal relationships. Several major cities including Portland, Oregon have been able to utilize smart growth to curb the issue of urban sprawl and avoid the problems that come with it.

Urban sprawl and demand for low density housing means that people spend more time in their cars in Atlanta stuck in traffic and commuting great distances to work. The Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority is a great way to get around downtown, but the vast majority of Atlanta residents live outside the city in suburbs and commute into the city for work during the day. The incredible amount of traffic in Atlanta has led to 13 counties which cannot meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and other automobile related pollutants. The air pollution caused by urban sprawl and excessive vehicle traffic in Atlanta leads to “asthma, bronchitis and sensitive lungs suffering from shortness of breath, coughing fits and wheezing, “ and the conclusion by a prominent Atlanta physician that “the best thing people can do if they are susceptible to [respiratory irritants] is to stay indoors and breathe air that's been run through an air conditioner.” Is this the future we want for our children? Or should we act now to address the growing problem of sprawl in Atlanta?

Another result of urban sprawl is that forest and agricultural areas are rapidly being lost in favor of development. As the amount of impervious surfaces increases with the construction of new roads, parking lots, and buildings, the land loses its ability to absorb and retain water. When forests and soil are intact, they capture rain water and release it in a controlled manner over time maintaining regular water levels. With an increase of impervious surfaces, the land has lost its ability to retain water resulting in severe droughts and floods in the greater Atlanta area. In addition to increased runoff and decreased retention, water demand also increases as more households consume water for irrigation and daily life. The impact of urban sprawl on water quality in Atlanta is that the area sometimes suffers severe droughts or experiences flash floods in heavy precipitation events. Flooding, runoff, and chemical pollution result in over 1,000 miles of rivers and streams that do not meet federal water quality standards. Following a flood in Atlanta in 2009 the e.coli level in the Chattahoochee river was 42 times the highest safe level. “

Urban sprawl in Atlanta is one of the biggest problems facing the area today. Sprawl brings with it a host of environmental and lifestyle problems which must be addressed at the root cause. By employing lessons learned from examples of smart development like Portland, Oregon, Atlanta may be able to reign in sprawl and improve quality of life for millions of residents.

404 not enough

Federal wetlands legislation is failing to curb wetland destruction. Federal jurisdiction over wetlands is determined by the commerce clause in the constitution governing interstate commerce. this is the bases for the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) which was passed to maintain restore and protect the nation's water ways. within this act, section 404 is used to gain federal jurisdiction over wetlands and tributaries. 202 states that the Secretary may issue permits after notice and opportunity for public hearings for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites. the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual further explains the secretary of the army, acting though the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States was made by congress to expand coverage of 404 to wetlands.

However the usage of section 4o4 for wetlands protection is like putting a square peg into the round hole. the section does not forbid the destruction of wetlands or waterways for that matter. All 404 does, is to require the government permission before placing things into the water. This leads to the second problem with the section, removal of items. This is first stated by the court case United States v. James J. Wilson where if he had just taken the dirt from the ditch that was being dug to another site the corps of engineers would not have been involved, next was Save our community v. EPA, where pumping a lake dry was deemed not a violation of 404, to the American Mining Congress v. COE and National Mining Association v. COE that invalidated Tulloch 1 and 2, which had essentially banned mechanized excavation of wetlands. All these cases point out the large loop hole in section 404. The Federal Government can only regulate what people put into a wetland, not what they take out. As stated before so long as they don't add anything to the site people may remove plant life and dig drainage ditches to change the hydrology of the wetland into dry land.

Currently the courts have pointed out that the EPA or the Corps cannot regulate these activities because congress has clearly not expressed that such activities are to be regulated. Since the overturning of the Tulloch rules, many states have found themselves unprepared to protect these Jurisdictional wetlands and have thus lost many of them.

Section 404 ultimately does not work for the purpose of wetland protection. What is needed is a new section that will focus on wetlands and their protection. This can only be done by an act of congress. We need to petition our representatives to create and back a more comprehensive section to the Clean Water Act dealing with wetlands specifically. until then we will continue to loose millions of acre of this precious land each year.

Religiosity and Environmental Attitudes

Perhaps one of the largest groups of (almost) unofficial actors in the world, and most certainly the largest population of people that rarely gets addressed when concerned with the environment, are those associated with the world’s many religions. In America, religious people are in the definite majority, with nearly 80% of the population identifying themselves as Christian alone; the pressure is on to find out how religious organizations are spreading information about current environmental issues and what views (if any) the religiously active portion of the world are taking.

The issue is only exacerbated by the complex relationship between what might be typified as the “moderately” and “fundamentally” religious groups. Concerning the fundamentals, whose worldview is profoundly shaped by holy text, I would not be surprised to see a lack of concern over environmental issues because of the alarmingly short “future” they believe to be ahead of us. Apocalyptic religious prophecy is not a new phenomenon, but as we start to tread the murky waters of environmental change and the end-times-esque climate that might appear, I can only fear what those who are hoping for the “second coming” might interpret those climate patterns to be. But, according to a Pew Forum poll, religious views have a very insignificant influence on people’s attitudes towards the environment. Only about 6% of religious people answered that their religion plays the biggest role in shaping their environmental opinions.

However, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams claims just the opposite. He says that religions hold the (as yet unsubstantiated) “moral vision” and wide sweeping influence that will ultimately influence environmental action. He is certainly right about religion’s resources in the general public. The same article states that religions are involved in around half the world’s schools and take part in a great percentage of investments and other works. With their fingers in so many places I wouldn’t be surprised if the political heads of religion manage to get the outcome they desire.

And maybe the Archbishop really does have something behind his words. In 2003, the top three US Christian advocacy groups gave incredibly high approval ratings to congressmen. However, as reported by that article the same congressmen were given terrible approval ratings by the League of Conservation Voters. While there may be many religious people in America who aren’t initiated in the environmental movement, the pious are gathering in the UN to address climate change. An interfaith community met to discuss how they help to address the climate issues in ways that national governments cannot.

Whatever role religion ends up playing in the forthcoming environmental events, I think we need to pay attention. If the end-timers start prevailing we’ve got a population who actually looks forward to the environmental crisis, if the environmentally conscious UN meeting grows then we’ll have found a great way to disseminate information to the general public. The spectrum is huge for potential outcomes, and I’m hopeful we can pull out of the apocalyptic future that’s looming ahead.

The Damage of Invasive Species in the US

Invasive species have had a long standing affect on the environmental in many cases causing in unrepeatable damage. Invasive species can occur naturally over periods of time do to climate change or the need for more resources but due to human interaction this problem has increased greatly. People often import plants for food and decoration and animals as food and as pets. These species which are exotic to US or uncommon to other regions in the US are then in some way released into the environment. When these newly invasive species enter their new environment they can cause serious damage to the ecosystem in the area. Several of the main ways that these species cause problems are through competition and their ability to occupy unoccupied niches. These two events can have serious impacts on the ecosystem by reducing or eliminating naturally occurring species which in many cases can cause other species in the ecosystem to suffer. This can have an even greater negative impact an ecosystem.

An example of an invasive species that has caused major environmental and economic damage is the Water Hyacinth. Originally from South America this aquatic plant has now spread to over 50 countries on five continents. The major problem with this aquatic plant is its ability to double its population about every 12 days, covering entire waterways in just months. The Water Hyacinth causes damage in several ways in the United States; through the environment, agriculture, and economy. Environmentally Water Hyacinth grows rapidly covering entire waterways blocking sunlight for other aquatic plant species and algae, depleting oxygen levels for fish life, and interferes with water flow and flood control systems. Economically Water Hyacinth clog waterways preventing boaters both recreational and commercial from traveling causing marinas, docks, and commonly used waterways to be shutdown costing the owner large sums of money. Other economic costs are seen in the state of Florida, which has a major problem with this invasive species, spending millions of dollars a year to control the infestation in their 450 public waterways. Agriculturally water hyacinth clogs water intake pumps and crowds drainage and irrigation ditches causing major issues with crop and herd irrigation. Water Hyacinth is an example of how detrimental invasive species can be to the environment and economics in the United States.

It is important for invasive species to be recognized as a dangerous environmental problem that’s main cause is humans. Policy enforcement could easily help to reduce the occurrence of invasive species causing damage to the environment. After current policies are strengthened and expanded to restrict or scrutinize the import and use of invasive species the next step would to be to clean already damaged ecosystems and to restore biodiversity. Further research could also be done in this area which could in the future produce further policies to manage already largely populated invasive species. The more invasive species are imported for human use the large the risk that ecosystems across the country could be seriously damaged.

Blog Assignment #1_Jeff Inman

Urban Pollution in the James River Basin Watershed

By Jeff Inman

The James River Watershed has had a long history of pollution issues dating back to 1920 when the issue was first presented. Although this has been studied for a long time, the issue is still very much present. Non-point source pollution is defined as pollution produced mainly by agricultural and

urban practices that generate runoff that flows into streams, lakes, groundwater, etc. This is a large problem because it has led to contaminated groundwater that affects the water that a lot of people in the watershed drink out of. Also, the pollution that has led into waterways has led to a large increase in fish kills as well as large algal blooms.

While it is easy to say that it is largely the agricultural farms that are doing the polluting, it is not entirely true. There are several farms with livestock that contribute a lot of pollution to the waterways, most of which have a stream that runs through the property that the livestock wade through. However, agriculture is only part of the problem. The urban and suburban environments produce a lot of non-point source pollution as well. There is a lot of forested land inside the watershed which keeps soil erosion to a minimum; however there is a lot of construction that takes place expanding the suburban environment. With this increase in housing, chemicals, fertilizers, and domestic pesticides are over applied. The chemicals that aren't absorbed by the grass and plants stay on the surface of the ground until it rains and then they flow into the waterways.

Presently, Missouri is working to find the major contributing areas of this in an attempt

to stop further pollution. The obvious prevention to further pollution is to reduce and ideally prevent the intense usage of these chemicals in the urban environment. Missouri should also incorporate more policy to eliminate pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals that are not biodegradable. The state could also mandate that only individuals and companies with special certifications and licenses can apply fertilizer, pesticides, and any other potentially harmful chemicals. Another possible solution that can be used in both the urban and agricultural aspects of non-point source pollution is riparian buffer zones. By making these buffer zones mandatory with the construction of new neighborhoods, industrial parks, and businesses, the state can save a lot in the long run. They save money because the buffer zones will be there for a long time and continue to provide the same, if not more, filtration and erosion control that it did when first planted. Lastly, the state could provide seminars and educational opportunities to the public. This will stimulate interest in the public that will allow them to make the conscious decision to control their pollution and in the end solving a large part of the issue in Missouri.

Colorado Remains The Beacon of Hope in an Otherwise Unsure Future

While consumption of crude oil in the United States will increase undoubtedly over the next 20 years, the United States is no longer the only mass consumer. Worldwide, demand is estimated to increase 49% by 2035. This includes countries, who historically have had little impact on the world energy supply, increasing by 89% from 2007-2035. Yet, The United States has still failed repeatedly to answer the call for energy independence. Recent polls show that three in four voters support investing in energy efficiency or renewable energy, yet there has been no major environmental legislation passed in the United States since the 1970’s. The United States has refused to halt the dependence on foreign oil and sadly, this course will only end in disaster. Without a major improvement in energy efficiency and renewable energy production, American’s will find that fossil fuels will not be able to provide for a growing American population. If we have chosen our destiny, we will only face the consequences in near future.

However, through the darkness, a light has emerged in the Rocky Mountain’s shadow- Colorado. Colorado has become an exception to the tragedy destined mean. Despite economic turmoil, Colorado has refused to give into cheap fossil fuels and has continuously invested in renewable energy. On March 5^th of this year, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter proposed the Colorado Clean Air-Clean Job’s Act. This groundbreaking legislation will close 2 coal-fired plants by 2017 and replace them with natural gas and renewable energy sources, both of which can be found locally and will provide much cleaner, safer sources of energy. This isn’t the only advance Colorado has made this year in renewable energy either. Just three days after proposing the Colorado Clean Air-Clean Job’s Act, CO legislature updated a different bill. While in 2004, voters passed renewable energy requirements to fulfill 10% of Colorado's energy usage by 2015, the newest bill (HB 1001) tripled this requirement to 30% by 2020. This will not only lead to 100,000 solar rooftops over the next decade but will also protect rates and health of constituents.

Colorado legislation has succeeded due to three energy legislation necessities that must be adopted country wide: high standards, cooperative utilities and future oriented leaders. By setting such high standards of improvement, Colorado has thrust itself into innovation. In addition to their stringent emissions and consumption standards, Colorado has become the first state to enforce installment standards of renewable energy by requiring specific training in installing systems. While states like Virginia allow any contractor or electrician to install the complicated systems, Colorado enforces its training standards to protect the consumer against faulty systems, adding to the industries credibility. Secondly, Colorado has cooperative power providers. For too long electricity providers have fought renewable energy, threatened by its competition rather than embracing its power. As well as supporting all improvements to the HB 1001, Xcel Energy (the states largest power provider) has given support and is working with the Department of Health and Environment to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions of coal powered plants by 70-80 percent in this time frame too. Lastly, Colorado has innovative and future-sighted leaders. Rather than providing subsidies for fossil fuels that are nearly 6 times as large as that of clean energy like in Washington, Colorado is looking towards it’s future for its voters. Senators on Capital Hill like CO Democrats Mark Udall and Michael Bennet seem to be working alone in the fight for energy independence and environmental protection.

The energy bill proposed in 2004 has already helped model US legislation like the US Clean Energy Bill, a bill not surprisingly voted down last month in Washington. In addition, Colorado has already influenced states like California in invest in renewable energy. On the very same day that Gov. Ritter announced the passage of new, more stringent renewable energy requirements, California Gov. Schwarzenegger announced actions to rapidly increase renewable energy projects.

Colorado and its voters have provided a blue print for clean energy legislation across America. Due to their leadership, 29 states now have renewable energy goals for the near future. We can only hope that the trend continues and we fight for energy independence while we still have the option. I am afraid, if we don’t adopt the standards proposed by Colorado voters soon, it might be too late.

Timothy A Reese