National Geographic- Water

As I was going through my stack of dusty magazines over the weekend, I picked up this month's National Geographic. The entire issue is dedicated to water and why we should care about water. As I was reading the articles and reviewing the fabulous pictures, I was thinking about this class. Unfortunately, links are not available to all of the articles I would like to comment about! I was curious enough to peruse the NG website. There is an entire subsection devoted to environment. Check it out. There's a lot of information on global and national environmental issues.

One article/link I found is about the hidden water use in every day life. It tells how much water goes into making the things we use every day and don't even make the connection. By clicking on the products you can see how much water it takes to make a cup of tea, a bottle of wine, or a gallon of milk. It really sunk in that good clean water is essential for our survival. All life is dependent on water. We should do all that we can to ensure we use that precious resource wisely.

New Limits on Car Emissions

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/science/earth/02emit.html?ref=global-home

The federal government has issued new emissions regulations in order to cut green-house gases. This seemed to be a rather quiet story since President Obama announced he would support off-shore drilling. To me, the shocking news was that these new regulations will cut greenhouse emissions by 30% between 2012 and 2016 (Broder, 2010). That seems like a substantial decrease in greenhouse emissions. Of course the new regulations will increase the costs of cars built under the new law, but consumers should recoup the costs in fuel efficiency. By 2016, vehicles should be saving consumers $3,000 in over the live of the vehicle (Broder, 2010). Overall, this is a huge step for the federal government in improving air quality and fuel efficiency.

Assignment #5, Part 3

H.R. 54 was introduced in January 6, 2009 by Illinois Representatives Mark Kirk and Daniel Lipinski. The purpose of H.R. 54 is "to amend the Federal Water Pollution COntrol Act to establish a deadline for restricting sewage dumping into the Great Lakes and to fund programs and activities for improving wastewater discharges into the Great Lakes" (H.R. 54). In short, this bill may be called the "Great Lakes Water Protection Act" (H.R. 54). The bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I assume it went to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, although the website does not specify which subcommittee it is currently in.

The bill would prohibit any publicly owned treatment works from intentionally bypassing a treatment facility and dumping waste into the Great Lakes. The bill does make provisions for loss of life, personal injury, property damage, and if there is not a feasible alternative to the bypass (intentional diversion of waste from a treatment facility into the Great Lakes) (H.R. 54). If a bypass is necessary, the publicly owned treatment works must provide proof that steps have been taken or planned in order to prevent another bypass in the future (H.R. 54).

If the bill passes, it would also increase the maximum civil penalty for violations. Starting January 1, 2029, the maximum civil penalty for violations would be $100,000 per day. H.R. 54 will also create a Great Lakes Clean-up Fund. Appropriations would come from the fines collected for violations starting January 1, 2029. The funds will the be distributed to the Great Lakes States for habitat protection, wetland restoration, and programs for the improvement of wastewater discharges ( H.R. 54).

Assignment #5, Part 2

1. Do you think that currently developing countries have the right to exploit forests (and other natural resources) as Europe and the U.S. did to increase their economic wellbeing? Why or why not?

This is a tough question for me to answer. I feel a pull in both directions. More and more countries must rely on their natural resources to secure their place in the global market. Yet, at the same time developed countries demand the natural resources of these countries are to be protected. As noted in Vig and Kraft, it is ironic because these developed countries are also the ones that often create the consumer demand for the destruction of these resources (2010). I believe that free market trade would allow for these countries to use their own resources. Developed nations should support and encourage developing nations in securing a place in the global market but by sustainable development- increasing development without damaging the environment (Vig & Kraft 2010) . It could actually be argued that developed nations have a "moral obligation to assist less fortunate ones" (Vig & Kraft 2010, p. 287). Another support could be in the form of riding corrupt governments that do not properly regulate environmental hazards. Another option is for developed nations like Europe and U.S. to more strictly regulate imports from countries that are not producing environmentally friend exports or goods (Vig & Kraft). Reducing the demand for such goods will automatically regulate the market and in turn regulate the environmental impact.

2. What expectations do you think think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate?

a. Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate?

b. What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case, should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not?

c. Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations?

Industrialized nations should expect for developing nations to actively participate in the global fight against climate change, even if that nation values economic development more than the fight against climate change. Global warming affects all nations and all citizens of the globe. Every nation should actively fight against global warming. Industrialized and developed nations should ensure that developing nations participate in reducing emissions. If they neglect to participate "the consequences of environmental damage" will essentially be inflicted upon inhabitants of all nations (Vig & Kraft 2010, p. 304).

Industrialized nations should also expect developing nations to adhere to agreements and regulations regarding the global community. Developing nations should also improve environmental policies and practices, with the goal of environmental sustainability, in their own countries in order to receive continued support from developed countries (Vig & Kraft 2010).

As long as developing nations rely on the industrialized and developed nations for support and aid, there cannot be equity in the debate on climate change. However, developing should expect industrialized nations to do just as they are asked and work towards sustainability. Especially since the United States "leads the world in per-capita production of trash" and produces nearly "one-fifth of emissions that contribute to global warming" (Vig & Kraft, 2010, pp. 299-300). The United States and other developed nations that consume the majority of the worlds' goods and resources need to be held to the same standard, if not a higher standard than developing nations. Industrialized nations such as the United States have a moral obligation to help developing and poor nations combat the "consequences of environmental damage" (Vig & Kraft, 2010, p. 304).

Water Pollution & The Clean Water Act

The New York Times previously did a series on water pollution, clean water laws, and health costs associated with both. The NYT reports that in the last five year manufacturers and factories have violated clean water laws more than half a million times (2009). Unfortunately, not all of the violators are punished, due to officials ignoring the violations (Duhigg, 2009). The article also provides a link to a state by state overview of Clean Water Act violations.

Assignment #4

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/us/14kansas.html?emc=eta1

During the first part of the 20th Century, Treece, Kansas was a prosperous mining community. Treece is located in southeastern Kansas and, at one time, was a part of a "vast mining district" (Saulny, 2009) with land rich in lead, zinc, and iron ore. By the 1970s all the mines in the area had closed. All that remained of the land was a toxic dust. The EPA tried to clean up the land during the 1980s but the waste continued to cause problems in the area.

Less than a mile away from Treece, across the Oklahoma-Kansas state-line, is Picher, Oklahoma. Treece and Picher are apart of the same community. Well, at least they used to be apart of the same community. As of September 1, 2009, Picher was no longer a town. The federal government relocated the residents of Picher. However, approximately 140 residents of Treece remain living in the toxic community.

The remaining residents of Treece have been affected by the EPA's decisions to only relocated the residents of Picher. The residents have become isolated and abandoned in a toxic wasteland. There are no jobs and it is impossible to sell a home. The residents want to be relocated but the EPA has, so far, refused. The poverty level in Treece is over twice the national average (Saulny, 2009).

In his article, Konisky states that counties with higher levels of poverty have less regulatory enforcement (2009). This would be true for Treece, however, here the state and federal government have failed to appropriately respond to the town's environmental crisis. The poverty level is extremely high and the EPA refuses to relocate the few remaining residents.

During the 1990s, environmental justice made "a substantial leap forward" (Rast, 2006). All levels of government were to address and respond to real and perceived environmental inequities (Konisky, 2009). This was nearly two decades ago. Only recently, within the past few years, has the problem in Treece been addressed. It is still not resolved.

However, last month the EPA decided to take public comment regarding the relation of Treece residents.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/722214A0DF961094852576C800734309

Exports, Imports, and Pollution

I read this article last week. I felt it went along with some of the previous readings, especially chapter 12 in Vig. If critical climate changes are the result of human behavior, exports and imports definitely have to contribute. The article makes an interesting in point in that those developed nations (some with lower per-capita emissions) that benefit from goods made elsewhere should accept some of the responsibility for the clean-up of the emissions produced from those goods. I agree with this statement. The economies of developed nations, like the United States and those in the EU, benefit from goods produced in China. All the while, China's carbon footprint surpasses all others. Both Vig and the article reference China as the world's leading CO2 emitter. If reducing emissions in developed countries raises CO2 emissions in developing nations, are we doing anything to help the climate? And if wealthy developed nations are contributing to the CO2 emissions in developing nations, should they be obligated to help clean-up those countries? Those are the two questions in the article that stood out to me. Thoughts?