A New Generation

First, I'd like to apologize for dropping off. I was out of town and forgot my laptop. Now let's get back to business.

I'm not a supporter of nuclear energy. I feel the risks are too great and I think it is too expensive. I think the electrical supply system should move to a distributed generation model. Similar to how the internet has given everyone, even me, a way to create content. With distributed generation, every home, for example, has solar panels and/or a small wind turbine. Everything is tied to the grid and power is spread around where it needs to go. Power plants will still be necessary but combining this distributed model with conservation could eliminate the need for nuclear plants. If each home can generate half of it's own electricity use plus cut consumption the need for new plants could disappear. Some techniques/technology for supply management would need to be implemented to compensate for the intermittent nature of solar and wind but I think it is achievable. What about costs? I think per kw solar may be 10 times more expensive then nuclear on pure capital outlay. However, lifetime costs for waste management related to the toxic waste generated by nuclear power and operating costs probably level the playing field. I'll be honest and say I haven't looked extensively at it because there is a lot of number crunching involved and I'm sure a think tank has done it somewhere. I did find a nuclear vs coal comparison that shows some of the costs associated with nuclear. I look forward to the day that electricity is generated in a distributed model. Taxpayers have subsidized a significant amount of the infrastructure so we should use it. Transmission costs and that infrastructure will still need to be supported in some manner. A complex issue but we really have to start looking at all the options so we can come up with positive solutions.

Crop Circles

So you think crop circles are an alien phenomenon? In France, Greenpeace used crop circles to identify fields containing genetically engineered crops. They resorted to this because the French courts ordered them to remove information about these fields from a website. The image is from Yann Arthus Bertrand and shows a crop circle that marks one of the fields.

Changing to Green

Many people want to limit there environmental impact. Where to begin? I recently posted 100 Ways to Save the Environment but not all of those might apply to you or you want more.

CBC, the Canadian public broadcaster, has a few sections on their website that can give you more interactive information on how to live in a more environmentally sound way. One section, Living Green, has reports on how other people have converted to solar or what to do with dandelions. Another section, Going Green, has video clips on eco-camps for kids, organic food delivery and more. These sites may give you ideas on things you can do. I encourage you to do your own research if you plan on making changes. Some things may not be suitable for you or based on where you live may not work at all. I know it is difficult to calculate your own environmental impact but taking the right steps could help you minimize it.

Another Electric Car Development

Google.Org, the philanthropic arm of Google (which also owns Blogger), has announced plans to fund the development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The aspect that I find most intriguing is that the cars will be plugged-in to feed power back to the grid. You can find the details at their website. This video also has some information. Right now it looks like they're shooting for a 100mpg PHEV. I hope it works and they can get one for sale in my area.

Pacific Trash Vortex

I came across a site by chance on the internet that shows the trash flow in the Pacific. It animates the trash flow in the Pacific ocean. A fascinating bit of information.

Please help the children

I don't normally reproduce entire articles but in this case I feel I had no choice. I found it so appalling that I don't want you to do anything other than read it. Read it thoroughly and then read it again. Do what you can to eliminate these chemicals from your life. Then contact your political representatives and see what is being done to eliminated these products from the market so we can end the poisoning. This is from June 16, 2007 in the Globe and Mail.

Pollution, plastics affect boys more, group report says
Males more prone to asthma and learning disabilities, data show
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
June 16, 2007

When it comes to many illnesses, boys are the weaker sex by far.

The incidence of asthma, autism, childhood cancer, learning disabilities and behavioural disorders, among others, is higher in boys, sometimes startlingly so. Autism, for instance, almost seems like a male preserve, with boys outnumbering girls four to one.

Why boys appear to be more vulnerable to a host of ailments is a major scientific puzzle, but a new report says part of the reason may be that males are more sensitive to pollution and many hormone-like chemicals widely used in consumer products ranging from computers to plastic water bottles.

"The issue of male vulnerability to environmental hazards is an emerging area of scientific research," said the report by the Canadian Partnership for Children's Health and Environment, a group funded in part by Environment Canada and backed by a number of major public health and environmental organizations.

Although the report stressed that girls are more likely to develop some conditions, such as the birth defect spina bifida, it said for a number of increasingly common health problems "boys seem to be particularly at risk."

"We're conducting a vast experiment on our children with the way we let chemicals be used," said Kathleen Cooper, one of the report's authors and researcher at the Canadian Environmental Law Association. She said the experiment "appears to be harder on the boys."

One of the odder recent findings is that in many developing countries, boys are taking it on the chin even in something as basic as the number being born. In Canada, there was a decline of 2.2 males for every 1,000 live births between 1970 and 1990, the latest period for which statistics have been analyzed. The report said one theory for the drop is that hormone-disrupting chemicals are causing mortality in males during fetal development.

In recent decades, there has been a big increase in the use of chemicals that have been found to exhibit hormone-like properties, including flame retardants used in computers and furniture foam, phthalates used in personal care products and soft plastics, and bisphenol A, a plastic compound used in water bottles and the inside linings of beverage and food cans.

"Experimental studies, mainly in animals, have shown that it takes only a relatively small amount of exposure to these chemicals to disrupt normal hormone functioning," the report said. "People are exposed to these chemicals mainly through food and consumer products."

There has also been a puzzling increase in male genital tract defects, including undescended testicles, and hypospadias, a condition where the opening of the penis isn't on the tip, where it's supposed to be, but underneath.

These birth defects have been increasing across industrialized countries over the past three to four decades, coinciding with the period of increased use of hormone-like chemicals in consumer products, according to the report.

Developmental disabilities are also strikingly more common in boys. Besides autism, boys have a higher incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, Tourette's syndrome, cerebral palsy, and dyslexia.

The report said there could be a genetic reason for these observations because there are a larger number of stem cell divisions during male fetal development, providing greater odds for something to go awry.

However, it said there are also about 200 substances researchers have found that are in commercial use and exhibit neurotoxicity, or the ability to damage developing brain and nervous system tissue. Among these are lead, mercury, dioxins, pesticides, solvents, and flame retardants.

What's in your water?

Since 1996 the nuclear plant in Braidwood, Illinois has experienced several leaks of tritium laced water. Unfortunately the residents did not know about this and have been drinking radioactive water for at least 10 years. In March of 2006 the Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Exelon which owns the nuclear facility after they acknowledged the spills.

Here are several links to additional information:

Illinois Files Suit

Illinois Obtains Injunction

EPA Illinois Updates

Newshour Report with Video

Good Background Story

The basic premise behind the story is that the company did not adequately disclose the spills and the residents drank the water without knowing it was radioactive. To say exposure to radiation is not healthy would be an understatement. It is likely impossible to determine the health impacts on the residents now and the "incubation" period for cancer is not exactly known. Radiation exposure may cause cancer on a shorter timetable or exacerbate preexisting conditions. There may be increasing cancer rates and other rare diseases right now as a result. Other effects on the citizens may be longer term in the form of damaged DNA, genetic disorders in future generations or who knows what else.

Another spill occurred May 25, 2007. When will it end? How many more times do people need to be unwittingly exposed to pollution/radiation until something is done? Nuclear energy is not a safe alternative and it becomes even deadlier when secrecy and profits are put ahead of public safety. Please don't forget about the people of Braidwood or the dozens of other communities who live near these facilities. Pressure your elected officials for full disclosure and rigid enforcement of regulations in place to ensure that public safety is the most important consideration.

The Nuclear Answer?

There have been important developments in nuclear energy recently. President Bush touted nuclear energy as part of plan to reduce emissions in response to climate change. In Canada, the federal government recently agreed to support a plan to bury nuclear waste as nuclear energy is being proposed as a solution to meet electricity needs . A major criticism of nuclear energy has been the waste disposal issue and with a plan the nuclear industry hopes to provide a solution.

There will be lots of money to be made in constructing new plants and handling the waste. This will happen unless awareness is raised about the dangers of nuclear energy, no mater how much they are downplayed. Nobody wants to live near one, nuclear accidents are deadly, and the waste is deadly. I've written about nuclear issues before.

Also in the news, Greenpeace released a report (PDF) about tritium hazards associated with Canadian nuclear plant operations and recommended pregnant women and children to move at least 10 km (about 6 miles) away from any nuclear power facility. Most current information rates tritium as "mildly radioactive type of hydrogen that occurs both naturally and during the operation of nuclear power plants." According to the Greenpeace report this risk is underrated.

Page 8 of their report states the following:

"Like most radionuclides, tritium is a carcinogen, mutagen and teratogen. Many scientists have expressed concerns about tritium’s radiotoxicity. However, some radiation authorities continue to assert, rather misleadingly, that tritium is a “weak” radionuclide because the energy of its decay particle is very low. However, paradoxically, in radiation biology the weaker a particle the more effective it becomes. Unfortunately this remains unrecognised in official circles and tritium’s official dose factor (i.e., the dose given by the disintegration of one atom of tritium) is currently very small. Indeed, it is the lowest among common radionuclides by some margin."

Basically, regulators and nuclear plant operators deem the risk to be low while, scientifically, the risk may be much higher. Regardless, would you drink the tritiated water released from nuclear power plants? In Braidwood, Illinois the residents have been doing just that without knowing it. I'll have a story about that tomorrow.

Economics, Society and the Environment

Canada is perceived as a country that enjoys economic and natural wealth that supports a just society with equity and fairness paramount. Unfortunately, Canada is falling further behind the United States in what is becoming known as the "productivity gap". The Conference Board of Canada recently referred to the country as "a land of mediocrity". Why? A lack of innovation. So much so that this "failure to innovate" is undermining the economy. You can sign up to the Conference Board and download the full 154 page report. How does this impact the environment and other issues? Here are some quotes from the Globe and Mail article about the report.

"In health care, Canada does well at saving people from the flu and pneumonia, but performance on infant mortality and death from diabetes is weak.

Since Canada's health-care system is geared toward resolving urgent needs, little innovative thinking is done on how to prevent illness, the report says."
"But Canada fares miserably in the areas of innovation and environment, earning a D grade in both categories.

While Canada's air and water quality are high, and protection of biodiversity is solid, our level of waste generation and our battle to curb climate change are rock bottom, the report says.

Again, the lack of creative thinking to solve these problems slows progress, Ms. Golden said. And so it's no surprise that in the innovation category, Canada ranks 14th out of 17 countries - 'an alarming portent for the future.' "

My interpretation of the headlines and news stories associated with this report. Canada is not that great in health care, despite what Michael Moore might say, and is unimaginative in solving health issues. Canada has abundant natural resources but they will not last forever and all that happens is they are extracted and sold. The environment will suffer due to an inability/unwillingness of government to take the lead on the issue or foster a regulatory regime that will stimulate innovation to solve the problem. All this because the population is generally comfortable because doing nothing doesn't make things worse. This quote from the Globe and Mail article says it all:

" 'Canadians are complacent and generally unwilling to take risks," the report scolds. 'This culture holds Canada back.' "

In Canada just under 20% of the population works for the some level of government or providing public goods (health care, education etc) if you take the total labor force as 16 484 300 and public sector employment at 3 148 702. I'm sure this has a material impact on the economy and innovation which by extension impacts the environment. Government can be inefficient which does not help the environment and since the public sector represents a significant portion of GDP then any waste impacts the economy and the environment. The public sector must take the lead in participating in the solution and stimulate employees to be part of the solution. The alternative is to step aside and foster innovation by using measures, like a carbon tax, to provide economic consequences for inefficiency and waste. With government at 20% of the economy I can imagine what they'll choose.

Who targets kids?

Corporations have usually denied targeting children with their advertising campaigns. In the past, accusations have been leveled against food companies, fast food chains and others for targeting children. Even more scrutiny has been placed on these businesses with the rising concern over obesity rates, diabetes and other food related health issues. Finally, some changes have been made.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest threatened to sue Kellogg's over commercials pitching their food to children. Surprisingly, Kellogg's has agreed to change their practices (sarcasm added for emphasis). I guess TV commercials selling lousy food to kids is not the right thing to do after all. Wait, I thought TV didn't influence people's behavior (add more sarcasm here).

While this is an excellent development I'm still disappointed that it takes the threat of a lawsuit and negative media attention on corporate practices to change things. I am equally disappointed in the lack of personal responsibility that requires lawsuits to compensate someone for being irresponsible but that's a different issue.

Food choices and consumption are a personal responsibility. With nutritional labeling guidelines and the internet individuals should be able to make the right decisions for their health. Making these decisions will then change what is offered in stores. Parents need to be responsible for their children and make the healthy choices for them so they can establish healthy eating habits to carry with them in life. If you think Fruit Loops are the right thing for you that's your choice. Just don't sue me if you get diabetes...

Eat Your Lawn

This video is under 3 minutes and highlights a project on converting lawns to vegetable gardens. Look at these statistics from the EPA and see how much actually goes into lawn care in the U.S. If that was converted to productive gardens imagine the global impact?

Is Recycling Effective?

Curbside recycling programs have been established for a number of years and recycling "centers" are even on street corners so you can contribute while you're out and about. I've maintained the position that formal recycling programs are an excellent way to reduce waste but I have also felt that it is an easy way out for individuals. Rather than thinking about what we buy if we split the waste into four bins we've done our part. Also, how effective are these programs?

Again, The Economist comes through. (Just as an aside, their magazine and online site is a wealth of information on just about everything it seems.) They have reported on the evaluation of recycling programs to determine if they were effective. Read the article (The Truth About Recycling) for details on the evaluation and more about recycling. One point of note is in the final section that speaks to the fact that most products are not designed with recycling in mind. Most are not bought with recycling in mind for that matter. If we can change our production and consumption patterns to be in line with the environmental impact then we won't need to be legislated into doing so.

Taxes and the Environment

I haven't personally researched tax legislation to determine how it relates to environmental policy or consumer behavior towards the environment. I'm sure there is a significant body of research on how taxation impacts economic activity. One particularly interesting proposal is known as the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax wants to replace U.S. federal taxes with a single national sales/consumption tax. How would this relate to the environment? Other than saving paper by eliminating government forms.

Triple Pundit summarizes the Fair Tax and relates the resulting economic impacts to the environment. It is a great article and concisely explains what you would need to know. The Fair Tax website has a lot more detail on how it would work and they also have some research studies there on the various impacts throughout the economy.

To solve our environmental/sustainability problems we need to provide new solutions. The Fair Tax may be one of those.

100 ways...

A big part of spreading environmental responsibility to the "masses" is finding easy ways for people to participate by doing little things everyday that are part of their routine. Just by altering a few things we can all make a difference. I've said it before on this blog, and it has been said elsewhere, if everyone contributes then the aggregate difference is huge. For example, everyone changes one light bulb to LED or CFL and the total power saved is significant. I found a list that has 100 ways to make your contribution.

100 Ways to Save the Environment

Some of my favorites are:

30. Learn about alternatives to household cleaning items that do not use hazardous chemicals

47. Take actions that use non hazardous components (e.g., to ward off pests, plant marigolds in a garden instead of using pesticide).

58. Ask your employer to consider flexible work schedules or telecommuting.

There are 97 others that are easy to implement if they fit your current life. Some are for wood stoves so if you don't have one obviously you can't do anything about those. However, many others will help save the environment and could save you money as well. With environmental issues at the forefront governments and businesses are offering many incentives for changes such as the ones listed. Always check for utility company rebates, tax breaks, trade in programs and incentives to help finance your transition or upgrades. Good luck.

The Polluter Pays

This week a court in New Jersey ruled that Exxon must pay the state for lost recreational opportunities caused by contaminated refineries. The amount has yet to be determined. No decisions on whether appeals will be filed have been reported. One case where Exxon will appeal is the case of the Valdez spill in Alaska. A recent decision upheld the amount of damages and will not be reconsidering the damages. Unfortunately we are almost 20 years from the spill and Exxon will appeal again. I guess record profits create an inability to pay.

I'm not a legal expert but the NJ ruling may create a precedent that other polluters may be obligated to pay for extra damage caused by business operations. Hopefully a ruling like this can be expanded to hold corporations and individuals responsible for their actions. Obviously our commitment to future generations is not enough.

In the produce aisle

In connection with a post earlier this week about organic food here is a short video exploring the produce aisle. In my opinion, it is important to understand how your purchasing decisions impact your health and the world around you. Hopefully this provides you with some information that will be useful to you.

Emissions Trading Schemes

The proposed policy framework to address climate change will eventually include some type of trading system. Unfortunately, a patchwork of systems exist currently and, to the best of my knowledge, they have not been overly successful. In my opinion, for these schemes to be successful they will need to be administered with clear definitions of what can be traded, open to everyone, and not-for-profit. If it made like a regular commodities exchange it may be efficient in an economic sense but could be hijacked by speculators like crude oil trading.

Another serious issue that needs to be addressed is the negative and/or unexpected outcomes of regulation. The Economist has an excellent piece, titled Perverse Incentives, that outlines how production of certain refrigerants that damage the ozone actually carbon credits to sell in Europe. The article is not technical but you would have to read it in it's entirety to fully understand what is going on. Basically the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Protocol are overlapping in this area creating a loophole of sorts.

Overall, any regulatory scheme will need to have an enforcement/verification mechanism and be clearly defined and flexible to keep up with changes and provide everyone with equal opportunity to participate. Unfortunately, massive regulatory schemes usually become bureaucratic quagmires and results are difficult to measure. If politicians are serious about tackling the issue then a system not based on existing methods will be proposed. Otherwise we'll end up with a new version of the tax code.

Organic food

With organic food becoming part of the mainstream I have noticed more and more media coverage of issues surrounding organics. I am a buyer of many organic products. Obviously I am concerned about environmental issues but I also find they have less additives and they taste better. I buy food to eat it and taste is pretty important. I don't buy food to make myself feel like I'm saving the planet by the purchases I make. I believe that our industrial model of food production is not the best model for long-term sustainability but I also understand the role it plays in producing enough for the population. It is a trade off like almost anything else. There are couple of things I have noticed recently about organic foods. I posted a while back about this trade off and will not rehash that. However, there has been a recent study at the University of Alberta by Sean B. Cash about the footprint left by organic produce during transportation to other markets. I will be reading some of his other research as the titles sound quite interesting. I haven't been able to find the specific article but his interview with CBC raises a few important points about your food. Find out where it comes from and a label on it doesn't mean everything. I find food labels like fair trade or organic are like the blue box: you throw in your can, feel like you've done your bit and move on. These labels, while valuable, are creating an easy way to "contribute" or be part of the solution without any thought on the part of the consumer. Isn't mindless consumption what drove us to this point?

Another study coming from York University outlines how the organic food label has become, according to Irena Knezevic, "a marketing tool more so than an assurance of quality, let alone an assurance of a fair and sustainable production process." An article in the Globe and Mail with the title "Has big business turned organics into 'yuppy chow'?" says it all.

How will consumers reconcile their desire to do some good and eat well with corporate takeovers of the organic market? Are these labels going to make a difference or will we simply be buying our way out of guilt? Time will tell. I know I have to look in my fridge and pantry and find out what I'm really buying.

Plastic Alternatives

"New products, using plastics made from corn instead of petroleum, made their debut at the 2007 BIO International Convention held in Boston.. The convention drew 20,000 scientists, industry leaders and government officials to see the latest products and discuss progress in efforts to: * find cures for major diseases, * find good substitutes for oil-based plastics and fuels, * and provide disease-resistant, genetically engineered crops and cloned animals to improve food supplies. To see clips of interviews with experts talking about the new plastics, go to www.moreaboutthat.info, click on our Biotech Plastics's segment and then download our podcast to see the segment online. If you are a news station and have access to Pathfire, this story is also available on Pathfire DMG. Click on the binoculars, select advanced search tab, highlight DWJ archive, and use keywords: Biotech Plastics. This segment is underwritten by the Biotechnology Industry Organization."

This is the description associated with this video. I have purchased a version of "plastic" cups when I went on a trip recently. The type I bought were only useful for cold beverages but the only difference I noticed was the price. They were about double the cost of traditional plastic cups. I haven't put one in my own compost bin but they are biodegradable but I'm sure over the summer I'll have a chance to try it out. My neighbor asked me about the cups and I told him about the price. His response was we better start paying now or we're really going to pay later.

All the Green News I can find

I've been trying to incorporate as much environmental news as I could into the blog. I eventually found it overwhelming and have decided to comment on the stories I have a real interest in. I found I was spending all kinds of time trying to find news rather than actually writing anything. I've created a news service of sorts that has a bunch of feeds updated to it on an ongoing basis. I've also included a news feed covering various key words using Google News feed. You can find the link at the right as Eco News or go to:

http://liatw-econews.blogspot.com/

If you have any suggestions for additional feeds or key words to add let me know.