The Uranium Debate

Believe it or not, a rural county in Virginia is a hot spot for an increasingly demanded element: uranium. First discovered in the 1970s, uranium mining was banned in 1982 by the Virginia Assembly in response to environmental and health concerns. The deposits are concentrated in Pittslyvania County, centrally located in southern Virginia near the North Carolina border. As demands for alternative energy sources have increased, the mining of uranium has become a topic once again. While uranium would be a beneficial alternative energy source, more information needs to be compiled to prove that mining the element would not harm the environment and the residents of Virginia.

Virginia has the largest unmined reserve of uranium in the nation, with over 110 million pounds in Pittsylvania County worth around $10 billion. Uranium is used in the production of nuclear power, and the reserves in Virginia could supply all of the nation's nuclear power plants for two years. A good amount the uranium in Pittsylvania is located on the property of Walter Coles, who founded Virginia Uranium, Inc. in order to ensure that the mining of uranium be done in "the right way." Although Coles may be looking out for his community, he seems to be doing so in a more economic sense, promising more jobs and monetary benefits to the residents of this rural county. But what about mining the "right way" for the environment?

Most uranium mines in the US are located in arid, less populated regions, such as New Mexico and Texas. Opponents of mining in Virginia argue that the climate of the state is much too rainy and wet to ensure that no groundwater or runoff pollution would occur. As we all know from studying coal ash, polluting groundwater causes irreparable damage to the water supply of an area and can have serious negative effects on its residents. Huge metropolitan areas, such as Virginia Beach, rely on water from the areas surrounding Pittslyvania that could be potentially contaminated. Furthermore, statistics show that the Virginia mining would not provide the amount of jobs that Coles promised his company would create.

On the other hand, supporters of uranium mining argue that it is the key to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. According to a geologist from Virginia Tech, contamination of the ground water supply would be highly unlikely due to the fact that uranium is located far below the water table of the region and is therefore a "closed system." Little is actually known about what uranium mining would actually mean for the environment of this region, so a more detailed study is obviously needed.

Fortunately, about a month ago, an 18 month study was ordered by the Virginia Assembly to determine if the uranium in Pittslyvania could be mined safely. This will include extensive environmental research and public hearings. If this study is done correctly, free from political and economic bias, then it will certainly shed light on the possible environmental impacts of uranium mining in Virginia. If the mining is done in a safe and controlled manner, with much care taken to do as little harm to the environment as possible, it would greatly decrease our reliance on foreign oil and provide materials needed in nuclear energy, which is a cleaner energy source. Overall, the residents of Pittslyvania County and the rest of Virginia should pay close attention to the findings of this study as it could effect their quality of life in the long run.

Coal Ash Concerns Involve the EPA

Coal ash is a serious byproduct of the combustion of coal at coal-fired power plants. It is disposed of in both solid and in liquid form. Coal ash contains substances such as mercury, cadmium and arsenic; all of which are associated with cancer. Disposal methods include large surface impoundments and landfill. The danger of coal ash is that without proper disposal or careful monitoring, the waste can seep into and contaminate groundwater. Once groundwater is contaminated, the waste-water can then contaminate other sources of drinking water. Coal ash can also cause other health concerns due to its dust emissions. This however, depends on the amount of coal burned by the plant. According to the EPA, the coal ash is not toxic when dry and in materials such as concrete, but it is harmful once found in air or in water.

As a result of the Tennessee Coal Ash disaster in 2008, many Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about coal ash and its effects. This disaster led the EPA to decide to regulate coal ash, but these regulations have yet to be implemented. These regulations would monitor coal ash recycling, phase out surface impoundments and safeguard the disposal of the ash. Recently the New York Times released an article expressing the concerns of Americans living in the Joliet area of Illinois. Residents such as Mr. Leon Bilbrew fear for their own safety due to the coal ash waste produced by a nearby powerplant owned by Midwest Generation. Activists such as the Sierra Club have informed them of the dangers and have caused residents such as Mr. Bilbrew to fear the large black sludge pit in front of their homes. The EPA is aware of the concern for ground water and EPA manager of the Illinois groundwater and sourcewater program Rick Cobb insists that “It’s a self-implementing program, and they’re (Midwest Generation) doing exactly what they’re supposed to do”. However, contrary to this statement, the Joliet area has been reported by the Sierra Club, Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project as one of many areas with water contaminated by coal ash. The residents of Joliet are not convinced by the EPA and their statements that anything is being done to protect them.

I find it absolutely incredible that 2 years after the 2008 Tennessee coal ash disaster the EPA has yet to implement coal ash regulations. The coal industry fears that with the banning of open air coal ash storage ponds, such as the one that ruptured in the Tennessee coal ash disaster in December of 2008, all the regulations will cost the companies more money than they wish to pay. While it is true that coal ash regulations are controversial due to the possibility of the regulations effecting the economic nature of coal ash recycling, I feel that the dangers outweigh the economic benefits. Regulations are absolutely necessary for the safety of Americans living near coal ash areas. Not only can coal ash contaminate groundwater, but it can directly affect the health of those living near it. Coal companies need to understand that their industry toys with the lives of others and that financial gain is nowhere near as important as human safety. The safety of mankind involves the safety of the environment as well as we need water to drink to survive and therefore when coal ash contaminates water, it endangers human health. I firmly believe that the EPA should finalize their coal ash regulations and prepare them for implementation. They have taken far too long.

Planning For 100,000 Years of Waste Management

The issue of vast amounts of hazardous radioactive waste doesn’t seem to have a place in the political spotlight, but on October 25th the nation got a reminder in upstate New York. Water that was contaminated with radioactive materials was accidentally spilled into the Mohawk River from a nuclear research site that dates back to the 1950s. No drastic effects were suffered in the immediate environment but this only reinforces the importance of finding a place to store radioactive waste on a national and even worldwide scale. Radioactive waste is already a huge danger to all areas where it is temporarily stored, and even if we can stop the production of new waste, we still must handle the transport of this hazardous waste to a central location.

Due to the lack of a permanent disposal facility and the termination of the only proposed solution, it doesn’t seem as if our country, or any place that values its safety, will ever be able to agree upon a place to store high volumes of radioactive material. Waste that has radioactive characteristics can come from many processes besides the production of nuclear energy, but nuclear power is the largest contributor by far. Although the United States has been shying away from the construction of nuclear power plants, China and India have proposed a combined 59 nuclear reactors to be constructed by 2030. The vast amount of waste that is to be produced by these facilities must either find a place to go, or be prevented altogether.

Radioactive waste becomes more of a hazard when it is transported. The United States use strict regulation when moving radioactive waste, but even heavy precautions cannot prevent disaster. Countries like France that produce 75% of their energy by means of nuclear power, have taken to collecting and reprocessing not only their own radioactive waste, but that of many other countries as well. France is not only endangering the area around the temporary storage facility, but because it uses much less precaution than the United States, its transportation is very hazardous. Rail cars containing radioactive waste are allowed to enter railway traffic without further regulation than is standard. The dangers of radioactive waste are too high to continue production and must be stopped in favor of cleaner processes.

Since nuclear energy is the largest contributor to radioactive waste, renewable energy sources like solar photovoltaic and wind turbines must be implemented swiftly to reduce the need for additional nuclear power plants. Countries must collaborate on a global scale to put an end to the production of such hazardous wastes. Political leadership must create a solution to this stalemate and must do so quickly to meet rising energy demand with clean alternatives.

E-waste: Technology Making an Impact

Every year thousands of new technologies are created to replace their quickly outdated predecessors, but what happens to the old models? According to the Environmental Protection Agency about 2.6 million tons of electronic waste (e-waste) was deposited into landfills in 2007, while only 408,000 tons was recycled. E-waste includes computers, cell phones, camera, and many other electronic devices that are simply discarded. The major issue with the disposal of these devices into landfills is the many toxic materials that they contain. These chemicals which include Lead, Mercury and Cadmium can then contaminate ground water or pollute the air when incinerated. Currently policy makers are beginning to understand the risk that e-waste posses to our health and the environment.

Within the United States e-waste is a topic of growing concern. A number of states have already instated regulations for e-waste, banning different devices from entering landfills and pushing recycling. Many of these programs are still being improved upon or are not monitored closely enough to have a powerful effect. These regulations are currently only working to stop a small amount of e-waste that enters landfills. A major issue also connected to e-waste is the transport of it to developing countries, such as regions in China, for it to be “recycled” at low cost and high health risk of local residents. The Basel Convention (of 1989) looked to halt this process and for many nations has, but as of 1997 the US still has not accepted its terms. Some US companies are initiating recycling programs to retake used devices but are not making major impacts or are not fully following through with their programs. The growing concern in the US has sparked an interest about how to deal with e-waste but little has been accomplished so far.

There are several ways the US can work to solve its e-waste problem. The first is to reuse, repair and recycle. By donating old working products they can earn longer life spans reducing the need for them to be thrown away. Repairing older or broken products rather than purchasing a new one will also cut back on e-waste. In the event that a device has reached the end of its life span or cannot be repair companies like e-stewards provide solutions for many corporations, take-back programs, and individuals to recycle electronic devices. Several Corporations have begun successful reclamation programs, such as Best Buy, Apple, and Staples, that allow you to drop off old devices which are then evaluated for recycling or reuse for free There are many ways that the US can reduce e-waste that is introduced into the environment but without a stronger push with legislation from the federal government there will be little enforced action taken.

Geothermal Hot Spots

Researchers from Southern Methodist University and Google have recently identified West Virginia as the largest geothermal hot spot in the eastern United States. Most were surprised that the coal capital of the world could be a major source of renewable energy in the future. Usually geothermal hot spots are found in areas with high tectonic activity, like the Western United States. However, new drilling technology would allow this hot spot to be used for commercial production.
The major issue surrounding this topic is whether or not West Virginia will choose to tap into this resource. Energy, electricity more specifically, is so cheap in W.VA that geothermal energy could not compete. Furthermore, coal companies will not want to support an energy source that could cut into their profits. It seems unlikely that lobbyists at the state house or in Congress will let legislation supporting geothermal energy to pass.
In today's world of shrinking energy sources, geothermal energy could be the answer to many problems. Unfortunately, this is least widely recognized type of renewable energy. Most people in the United States are focused on solar, hydroelectric, or wind energy. Other countries like Iceland have been using geothermal energy for years with much success. Although the United States is the world's leading producer, geothermal energy accounts for only five percent of renewable energy produced. This number is more significant when you take into account that only seven percent of all energy produced in the United States is renewable. For being the world's leading producer of geothermal energy, we have not fully explored the capabilities of this energy type.
I would support West Virginia in immediately developing geothermal energy. One of the many criticisms of renewable energy is that no infrastructure is in place to distribute the energy. However, West Virginia already has an extensive system in place to support coal fired power plants. Any geothermal power plants could just as easily be connected to the existing network. Clean and renewable energy could be supplied to Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware for low prices. Even if West Virginia does not want to use geothermal energy, this could be a great opportunity for the surrounding region.

More states should adopt green building standards

This August, New York’s State Green Building Construction Act will go into affect. NY Govenor, David A. Paterson signed a law in September 2009 requiring all new government buildings and major renovations adhere to green building standards. The New York Office of General Services will be crafting new guidelines according to the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification system. Many cities and states, including Florida, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, have been enacting legislation requiring new buildings meet LEED standards. Many governmental buildings currently draw their power from fossil fuels at the expense of taxpayers. Building more energy-efficient governmental facilities would be a simple, clean, and cheap way to begin a sustainable infrastructure.

Environmental planning has increasing importance as we draw closer to exhausting our nonrenewable sources of energy; state governments requiring new buildings to meet greener requirements is an important first step toward America’s energy independence. These buildings require no serious change to infrastructure, but will reduce government spending on energy powering new buildings and renovated old ones. State and city governments are strong examples for the national government and citizens to follow. There are already 45 states and 442 localities (cities, towns, and counties) with LEED initiatives. Reducing the carbon footprint of the United States is extremely important and increasing legislation supporting effective programs such as LEED certification can pave the way toward more sustainable living across the nation.

I believe that it of the utmost importance for compulsory LEED certifications to be required for all state government buildings as well as for federal government buildings. Mandating that buildings meet LEED certification will save money for taxpayers, create 'green' jobs, and would lessen some of the energy demands across states. Some states, such as Nevada, are also offering tax breaks for LEED building projects. New green standard buildings would also comply with the 2030 challenge and reduce buildings’ energy consumption from 60% from fossil fuels to zero. A national requirement for all new governmental buildings and renovations meet green building standards is an obvious and easy way to begin a greener America. This first step in governmental change can lead to all new buildings being more sustainable.

How Trees Can Save Lives

So how can trees save lives? They don't have a pulse, courage, arms, legs, or anything that would lend themselves to the traditional heroism that comes with saving a life. What trees provide however, will save many lives in helping protect the environment.

Trees provide a very important and vital resource to the living creatures of the planet. They provide oxygen that is consumed by all living organisms. Granted this oxygen is a by-product, but it is a by-product that is crucial to the survival and continuation of life. Not only do trees produce oxygen, but they also remove Carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon is one of the leading contributors to climate change and the regulation of it is of great importance to the survival of everything. Trees absorb Carbon through a process called sequestration. Through this process, Carbon is taken in through the leaves and stored in the wood particles that make up the tree. It remains in the hardwood until the tree is either burned or decays re-releasing the Carbon into the atmosphere.

Trees are also very helpful in the urban environments. A common problem in a lot of

major cities is the concept of urban heat island effect. With the increase of hard, reflective surfaces and the reduction of greenery, sunlight is reflected back upwards and retained in the surrounding area. This leads to increased temperatures inside the city limits which leads to an increase in energy production and consumption, increase in air conditioning and greenhouse gas emissions. Trees help to reduce the heat island effect by the creation of shade, absorption of Carbon Dioxide leading to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and greatly increases moisture retention.

Water retention is a crucial benefit that trees provide to the planet as well. Storm water runoff has become an ever increasing problem with the realization of non point source pollution effecting the major waterways where most of our drinking water comes from. A tree in this situation acts as a filter for the water as it passes through the soil and is absorbed by the trees roots. This prevents a lot of runoff from residential and agricultural practices from entering the freshwater systems which provides clean drinking water for people and animals. Trees also prevent erosion due to the roots extending out into the soil which strengthens it and prevents any excess from running off into the same freshwater systems.

When all of these benefits combine they prove that trees really do save lives. They create oxygen, filter the air and water, reduce erosion and water contamination, retain water moisture, and decrease the heat island effect that plagues most cities.

Dam Removal in the United States

One dilemma facing both environmentalist groups and policymakers alike is what to do with old and aging hydroelectric dams. As dams approach the end of their life cycle maintenance costs and failure rates skyrocket. Dams are also detrimental to local wildlife populations, providing further incentive for their removal. Furthermore, the economic benefits of dam removal usually outweigh the consequences. As a result, I firmly believe that it is far more beneficial, both economically and environmentally speaking, to remove dams.

The decommissioning of dams is a fairly recent, but quickly growing, phenomenon. Of the nine-hundred dams removed from American rivers, roughly half have been removed in the last ten years . Naturally, the biggest push to remove dams comes from environmentalists seeking to restore fish habitats and breeding grounds.

Such was the case in Port Angeles, Washington in 2007, when the decision was made to demolish the Elwha Dam in the hopes of restoring wildlife habitat and fish populations. The demolition will also more readily provide water for agricultural uses, as well as recovering lands inundated by water the dam is holding back. Although the dam is not slated for demolition until 2012, the action has inspired the push to remove dams in other states: the Snake River Dams in Washington are just one such example.

Still, there will always be those who object. Most of the opposition to the practice of dam removal is aimed at the potential economic damages caused by lost jobs . However, this could not be further from the truth. The removal of four dams along the Klamath River in Oregon is actually being supported for the economic stimulation it would provide: aside from revitalizing the local salmon population, the destruction of the dams would provide numerous jobs and boost agricultural development, as well. In Klamath County alone, the plan is projected to add $40 million in revenue as well as 707 jobs. These estimates are conservative, and the benefits are actually expected to be much higher.

Dam removals are on the rise, and rightly so. By revitalizing local wildlife populations and providing numerous economic benefits, dam removal asserts itself as a practice that is both environmentally and economically worthwhile.

Geosequestration Contaminates Drinking Water

As climate change is evolving into a more serious problem, scientists are being forced to think of new, innovative solutions to combat it. A more recent idea that is now raising some concerns is geosequestration, or underground carbon dioxide storage. The carbon dioxide is captured and injected deep underground for long-term storage so it does not harm the atmosphere. However, it has been found that the sequestered carbon dioxide could bubble up into drinking water aquifers near the surface, drastically increasing the number of contaminants in the water and making it more of a problem than a solution.

Because the carbon dioxide could increase contaminants in the water tenfold or more, I believe that this method of handling carbon dioxide release should be halted until a better and safer alternative is found. Yes, there are some ways that scientists have suggested to avoid or reduce the risk of contamination, but it is not worth the dangerous backlash of the serious consequences. After a year of exposure to carbon dioxide, a study proved that there were a number of sites where the leaking of carbon dioxide drove contaminants up significantly, in some cases to levels above the maximum contaminant loads set by the EPA for potable water. Particularly, uranium and barium, which are potentially dangerous, contaminated water supplies. This is clearly not a safe solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The procedure has also been met with prevalent local opposition, mainly due to the fear of freshwater aquifer contamination. In addition to being potentially hazardous to health, the process is also long and tedious. The carbon dioxide must be compressed into a liquid after it arrives at its destination. The procedure itself consumes a large amount of energy. This negative impact, as well as the growing risk for drinking water contamination, does not make this project viable any longer.

As a citizen who drinks the water from these potentially contaminated freshwater aquifers, I am very concerned about the serious issues associated with geosequestration. The consequences are dangerous to human health, and since geosequestration has not been around for an extended period of time, even more hidden repercussions could exist. I do not think that this procedure is the best way to combat climate change and the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Firstly, I think the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions is the place to start. Then, there are other ways to sequester carbon dioxide, such as planting trees. But regardless of other methods of reducing greenhouse gases absorbed into the atmosphere, a “solution” that only creates more serious problems is not a good one.

Water, It Makes You Grow

A major factor in comprehensive planning is coordinating regulations to provide for an environmentally sustainable future. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) understands this. Their publication this past year is a compilation of 75 policies aimed at helping to protect water resources, and providing the framework needed for smart growth. One of their proposed policies specifically pointed towards a linkage between water infrastructure and future growth. It suggests that projects to expand water accessibility are encouraging suburban development, and that if states were to allocate their annual $3.3 billion in federal funds for water infrastructure towards upgrading existing systems, they could control growth. This solution would also fix outdated water systems and help to restore water quality in many areas, as well as conserving water at the same time.

This is obviously a very controversial issue, as it is a direct attack on growth and development. Opposition to the new policy has come from local government officials, as well as private employers such as contractors. Unfortunately for the EPA, taking away suburban growth in many cities takes a hit on local government through the money it could collect from prospective citizens. At the same time, home builders would take a hit, as development on the suburban fringe would come to a screeching halt without new water infrastructure.

While this policy is still in a stage of infancy, the EPA is headed in the right direction. By establishing controls on the usage of federal funds in Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs), policy has a means to control suburban sprawl, while at the same time keeping present water infrastructure clean, and dependable; Two words that are quite trendy right now. As for criticism, it cannot be expected that there will not be growing pains in a transition to smart, sustainable growth, and these are just a few typical examples. While home construction has been an easy business for those working in high growth areas like Northern Virginia, one cannot always expect there to be easy work in specific sectors given the dire state of the environment. Hopefully, the future holds more federal control over state usage of water infrastructure funding, and sets the mold for a generic CIP that focuses more on the improvement of existing systems, rather than the creation of new ones

Privatization of America’s National Parks

Privatization of America’s National Parks

Our National Parks are threatened by many things. The changing global climate is shrinking the alpine tundra atop America’s highest mountains. Mechanized travel in and around our public lands is endangering the silence found in the backcountry. Recent trends in recreation are shifting towards digital distractions for and may be leaving the National Parks obsolete to young Americans. But, most threatening of all is the idea of privatizing of our Nation’s greatest treasures.

Groups within the federal government as well as nonprofits like Property and Environment Research Center (P.E.R.C.) support the outsourcing and privatization of the National Park system. Among the many arguments for privatization there are some key themes. First, the Parks are commons and because use is difficult to manage degradation will result from overuse. Second, declining budgets in the park system have left few other options to accomplish park functions besides the formation of “partnerships” with private industry and outsourcing park responsibilities. Third, without the bureaucratic regulations that govern the park service, private firms could more effectively provide park services while at the same time gaining profits.

In 2003 the Bush administration found that almost 70% of full time workers in the National Park Service could be replaced with private sector workers. But, these numbers are misleading and fail to account for the multidisciplinary nature of careers in the National Parks. Employees in the parks often perform tasks ranging from environmental interpretation and education to wildland firefighting. These employees are responsible for many different duties and accomplish these tasks efficiently. Outsourcing these jobs or shifting them to private vendors would require extensive cross training and the effects these transitions would have on visitor experience is unknown.

Two years later in 2005, the deputy assistant secretary of the Interior Department Paul Hoffman proposed 194 pages of revisions to the park service’s planning documents. By changing phrases like “harm” to “irreversibly harm” and other similarly small yet impactful changes, these plans would have made it much easier for off-road vehicles and snowmobiles to be used in the National Parks, a policy change that is highly supported by recreation societies outside the NPS. These policy changes were rejected by senior National Park employees but they show how even though the government is mandated to protect park resources balancing the protection of the resources within the parks with the use of the parks remains a challenge. How could a private firm achieve this balance while simultaneously pursuing profit?

The pro privatization group P.E.R.C. claims that privatizing the parks will make it “… possible to avoid more regulation, government bureaucracy, and financial waste, and, instead, solve environmental problems in a cooperative and collegial manner…” Private industry can certainly provide recreational opportunities and Disney could manage a National Park to provide recreational experiences to the public. But, how would Disney manage the ecological services provided by the National Parks? By privatizing the parks we would be handing these nonmarket benefits over to groups whose main concern is monetary profit. Economics guides a firm towards production of a product that is profitable to them and this leaves the land as an investment that can be exploited and transferred or exchanged. Without regulations these firms would not be able to provide the nonmarket benefits that make our National Parks so valuable.

Inundation in the Maldives: Global Warming and Rising Sea Levels

The Maldives are not just a chain of sunkissed islands where rich Westerners can go to escape the realities of the real world. This paradise nation is also home to the Dhivehin people, who over 2,000 years have developed a culture and language. Yet due to rising sea levels as a result of global warming, the 300,000 Dhivehin people may have to flee as their home is swallowed by the Indian Ocean.

In 2005 the German magazine “Der Spiegel” featured the first of a series of articles on the severity of rising sea levels in the case of the Maldives. The article stunned many, as the threat of human caused pollution possibly submerging an entire country is a fairly impressionable topic. The Guardian reports that by 2100, the sea levels will likely rise .59 cm. Such a minute change is likely to cause inundation as the majority of the Maldives’ islands are less than 1.5m above sea level. If forced to leave, the Dhivehin people will be the first entire civilization forced to move due to what the Maldivian President calls “environmental refugees“

The case of the Maldives is relevant to our in class topic on the Kyoto Protocol and the international effort to combat climate change. The overall purpose of the Kyoto Protocol is intended "to bring countries together to reduce global warming and to cope with the effects of temperature increases that are unavoidable after 150 years of industrialization” through an international treaty. As discussed in class, because one country’s pollution eventually affects the whole globe, the only possible way to improve current conditions and being to “reverse” the last 150 years of industrialization must be through an international cooperative effort.

Without quelling rising sea levels, the United States will likewise confront issues of human migration forced by inundation as well as extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes and winter storm surges. Because the problems accompanied by global warming will inevitably have a national and international effects (as illustrated in with the case of the Maldives and the United States), change needs to occur on a personal, local, and national scale to deter rising sea levels.

On a personal scale, people need to pick up new lifestyle practices which would also have positive health side effects. An examples of these individual practices would be bike riding instead of driving which would reduce green house gas emissions. On a local level, municipalities and local governments should provide tax breaks for those individuals who install renewable energy devices such as solar panel roofs. Lastly, on a national scale, programs such as the German Pfand system would encourage individuals to recycle bottles by putting a financial incentive on them. Unlike various U.S. states which already implement similar programs, Germany administers the program on a national level in order to involve ALL of its citizens.

Difficult as it may be to believe, rising sea levels as a result of global warming will have devastating effects; from whipping out an entire culture’s homeland to causing inundation on our nation’s coastlines, global warming and its effects need to be dealt with on an international scale. Through individual, local, and national level changes in lifestyle and policy, it is definitely possible to slow down global warming and its effects. Yet as for the hitherto damage we have already caused as a result of industrialization, we must brace ourselves for negative environmental changes.

Beetles Devestat Colorado's Forests

Who thought a little beetle could devastate a whole population of trees? This is what is happening in Northern Colorado forests, specifically to the lodgepole pines. So far, millions of acres of forests have been destroyed, and many more are predicted to succumb to this tiny beetle. Foresters and environmentalists are working together to come up with a way to ensure that this does not happen again. The best solution is to thin the forests and use the dead trees as a clean energy source.

In the past, pine beetle infestations have been short-lived due to temperature drops in the mountains that kill them. Due to global warming, the pine beetles have been able to survive the Colorado winters and continue to devastate the forests. They begin by infesting weaker trees, but as their population grows, they begin to attack all pines with little discrimination. The beetles are now migrating to other parts of Colorado forests, promising more destruction.

Colorado foresters are looking to the future by planning to build a forest with better biodiversity so that millions of trees cannot be taken out by one beetle species. This addresses the problem of how to prevent this from happening again, but people are still trying to figure out what to do with all the dead trees. These "skeletons" heighten the risk of forest fires, which is a common problem in the West, and some are worried that they pose a risk to electrical lines and could result in huge blackouts.

Many want to manually thin the forests and cut down most of the dead trees. This would create a lot of excess wood, which could be used for cellulose ethanol. Basically, companies, with funding from the government, will take the dead trees and convert them to cellulose ethanol. I think this is an extremely effective way to deal with the waste produced by forest thinning. It would also relieve the controversy surrounding corn ethanol, another fuel source, because these dead trees cannot be used for anything else whereas corn can be used for food.

The beetle problem in Colorado has devastating effects on the environment of that region, but if managed properly, the forests will regenerate. The carnage remaining should be used to create cleaner fuel, which would help reduce CO2 emissions and stop climate change. Remember, climate change is the reason the beetles were able to have such a catastrophic effect in the first place.

National Ocean Policy

After the Deepwater Horizon oil spill catastrophe this spring and summer, U.S. citizens have become aware of the environmental, social, and economic devastation caused when we put money over our environment. Although there is significantly less media coverage on the oil spill the past couple months, its effects are still visible and will cause problems for the fishing communities and health standards for both ocean and fishing systems into the future. While citizens were reminded of how vulnerable and important our oceans and waterways are, President Obama had already established an executive order on June 12, 2009 for the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force .

The Task Force recommends implementation under the guidance of a National Ocean Council, which establishes a “national policy to ensure the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of the ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources.” It also seeks to support sustainable coastal economies and uses, response to climate change, and calls for the development of coastal and marine spatial plans. On July 19, 2010 the Task Force submitted its Final Recommendations , which provide:

(1) our nations first ever National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, (2) a strengthened governance structure to provide sustained…ocean, coastal, and Great Lake issues, (3) a targeted implementation strategy that identifies and prioritizes nine categories for action the U.S. should pursue, and (4) a framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning that establishes…an ecosystem based approach to address conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.

The National Ocean Council (NOC), established under the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, is a dual Principal- and Deputy-level committee. It outlines the nine national priority objectives for implementation which include, ecosystem-based management, coastal and marine spatial planning, inform decisions and improve understanding, coordinate and support among Federal, State, tribal, local, and regional sectors, resiliency and adaptation to climate change and ocean acidification, regional ecosystem protection and restoration, water quality and sustainable practices on land, environmental stewardship needs in the arctic, and strengthening of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observations, mapping, and infrastructure. Recent work that has been accomplished since this late September by the Ocean Council include meetings with stakeholders, nomination requests for the Governance Coordinating Committee, and the planning of a National Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning workshop.

The implementation of this order by the President is beneficial because we are moving in the right direction by focusing on the importance of our ocean ecosystems. After the Gulf oil spill this summer, it has become even more apparent how delicate the sustainability of our waterways is for the environment, society, and the economy. In protecting these waterways, we are better suited for fighting climate change and preventing both natural and man-made disasters from happening again. However, while there is a great benefit in the governments involvement, some believe that “many fisherman and others who depend on the oceans to make a living fear increased government regulations.”

New US Standards for Heavy Vehicle Emissions

In regards to air pollution, CO2 is the most detrimental to the environment and to the Earth's ozone. Global warming and the problem of greenhouse gas buildup is a serious problem today. The "greenhouse effect" occurs as a result of a buildup of GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere. The energy absorbed from the sun's rays by the Earth is trapped in the Earth's atmosphere and cannot escape due to the GHGs. Under normal circumstances, the Earth absorbs only the the amount of energy necessary from the sun's rays. The unnecessary energy is released back into space. These trapped rays cause the Earth to be much warmer than normal. CO2 is included amongst these greenhouse gases and is fast becoming a serious issue in air pollution policy. The buildup of CO2 is mostly caused by large in part by the burning of fossil fuels. Since the Industrial Revolution and the introduction of motorized vehicles and large-scale industry, levels of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere have increased by 35%.

Recently, it was announced by the federal government that the Obama administration had designed and were preparing to implement national emissions and fuel economy standards on "heavy vehicles" for the first time. These standards would play a role in the administration's attempt to combat climate change and to increase energy efficiency. The proposal would apply different standards to different type of vehicles and newer vehicles. These standards would aim to address the several urgent challenges including dependence on oil, energy security, and global climate change. The program has the potential to reduce GHG emissions by nearly 250 million metric tons and save approximately 500 million barrels of oil over the lifespan of vehicles sold from 2014 to 2018.

I feel as though these standards will do more benefit than harm to the United States. Climate change is a serious issue and the regulation of CO2 is a way to mitigate against it. With today's technology, we should be able to push regulations to the limit and strive to achieve lowest levels of pollution possible. CO2 is one of the main contributors to global warming and according to the EPA, transportation vehicles account for a large amount of CO2 emissions in the United States. The heavy vehicles emissions standards are a move in the right direction. Standards and regulations are not the only way the United States can work on CO2 levels. We need to reduce our dependence on transportation and focus on local industry as much as possible. Trees and vegetation can be restored to urban areas and help to sequester carbon. While the US did not participate in the Kyoto Protocol, we can at least attempt to reduce CO2 levels through other means.

Personally, I think that stationary sources of CO2 are just as important as the mobile sources focused upon in the Obama administration's proposal. However, I believe that it will unfortunately take more time for the government to place restrictions on stationary sources. Until then, I feel that actions such as this recent proposal are heading towards that direction. One can only hope that air quality standards for CO2 will become more detailed and stringent in the future.