|
EARTH
TALK
From the Editors of E/The
Environmental Magazine
Dear
EarthTalk: Did global warming cause Hurricane Katrina or make
its impact worse?
--John O'Dwyer, Hull, MA
No
single storm or its intensity can be attributed to climate change
alone, but scientists do believe that warmer ocean temperatures
as a result of global warming may be intensifying the strength
of hurricanes--and therefore could have contributed to Katrina's
fury. The reason is that warmer ocean temperatures, like those
that occur in the tropics between June and November, cause instability
in the lower atmosphere, which, in turn, "fuels" developing
hurricanes. Thus, if ocean temperatures rise a few extra degrees
above normal, it follows that the ensuing hurricanes will gain
added strength accordingly.
A
recent study by climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded that tropical storms and
hurricanes in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans have increased
in both duration and intensity by a whopping 50 percent since
the 1970s. These increases have taken place over the same time
period as average temperatures at the ocean's surface, suggesting
that this warming is responsible for the greater power of the
storms.
Indeed,
the hottest years in recorded history have been over just the
last 15 years, and with worldwide industrial emissions of carbon
dioxide at their highest levels ever, most scientists agree that
human industrial activity is a significant culprit. Scientists
have been predicting that worldwide sea level rises due to melting
polar ice caps would bring about frequent flooding of low-lying
areas as well as more frequent and intense hurricanes, among other
weather irregularities. "My results suggest that future warming
may lead to an upward trend in [hurricanes'] destructive potential,
and--taking into account an increasing coastal population--a substantial
increase in hurricane-related losses in the 21st century,"
says MIT's Emanuel.
Beyond
reigniting debate about global warming, Katrina's impact is also
highlighting the consequences of the rapid destruction of wetlands
throughout the United States. Louisiana alone has lost more than
a million acres of coastal wetlands since the 1940s, and some
environmental leaders maintain that the installation of the levees
surrounding New Orleans a half century ago led to the decay of
nearby wetlands that historically served as buffers in protecting
against flooding and other storm damage.
According
to the environmental organization, Ducks Unlimited, which has
pledged $15 million to help restore coastal wetlands in Louisiana
damaged by Hurricane Katrina, as a general rule one mile of marsh
can reduce a storm surge by about one foot. "Theoretically,"
explains Tom Moorman, director of conservation planning for the
group's Southern Regional Office, "if you had a healthy chunk
of marsh when Katrina hit, that could have mitigated some of the
damage…the storm surge that hit the Gulf Coast reached some
29 feet, the highest ever recorded. But, in New Orleans, a few
miles of marsh may have made a difference."
CONTACTS:
Kerry Emanuel, "Anthropogenic Effects on Tropical Cyclone
Activity," http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm;
Ducks Unlimited, www.ducks.org.
GOT
AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental
Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/,
or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.
Top
EARTH TALK
From the Editors of E/The
Environmental Magazine
Dear
EarthTalk: Where can I recycle my plastic CD jewel cases?
--Bianca Hoffman, Bridgeport, CT
Environmentalists
have been worried about CD jewel case disposal ever since compact
discs first became popular in the 1980s. Jewel cases are made
out of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), a petrochemical-based plastic
that is notoriously difficult to recycle and has been linked to
elevated cancer rates among workers and neighbors where it is
manufactured. Also, the lead often added to strengthen PVC can
contaminate water, soil and air around PVC manufacturing sites.
Worse
yet, because it contains a variety of additives and lacks a uniform
composition, PVC is far less recyclable than other plastics. Its
quality degrades after only two or three "cycles." Recycling
operations are burdened by having to carefully sort out PVC since
it melts into corrosive gases at lower temperatures than other
plastics, contaminating whole batches while ruining equipment
and raising health concerns. Greenpeace has identified PVC as
the least recycled of the six major common plastics used in consumer,
household and construction projects. Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that less than one percent of
total post-consumer PVC is recovered or reprocessed.
As
a result, most municipal recycling centers do not accept PVC products,
meaning that millions of CD jewel cases either take up room indefinitely
in landfills, where they won't biodegrade, or are incinerated.
And unfortunately the burning of PVCs creates airborne dioxins,
some of the most toxic carcinogens known to man.
While
options for recycling CD jewel cases and other PVC plastics are
limited, the Sammamish, Washington-based GreenDisk company will
take jewel cases and any other hard-to-recycle "technotrash"
(such as defunct printer cartridges, cell phones, compact discs,
videotapes and rechargeable batteries) for a fee of $5.95 for
up to 20 pounds. GreenDisk then turns the resulting raw materials
into GreenDisk-branded office supplies including, you guessed
it, CD jewel cases containing at least 76 percent post-consumer
waste content. The company makes it easy by charging just one
flat fee that covers the collection box and its shipment to the
GreenDisk processing facility.
Another
way to make use of old jewel cases--as well as the compact discs
within--would be for art's sake. The website Make-Stuff.com suggests
reusing jewel cases for picture frames or to show off collections
of miniature items (like coins, stamps, butterflies or dried flowers),
or as necklace holders. Meanwhile, compact discs themselves, also
hard to recycle, can be re-used as reflectors, drink coasters,
large poker chips or game pieces, or other fun stuff.
CONTACTS:
GreenDisk, www.greendisk.com;
Make-Stuff.com, www.make-stuff.com;
Greenpeace, "Why PVC is Bad News," http://archive.greenpeace.org/toxics/pvcdatabase/bad.html.
GOT
AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental
Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/,
or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php
Top
EARTH
TALK
From the Editors of E/The
Environmental Magazine
Dear
EarthTalk: Is the chlorine bleach used for whitening clothes
bad for the environment? And if so, what are some safe alternatives?
--Nancy Potter, via e-mail
More
than 80 percent of American households use chlorine bleach to
whiten their clothes and clean inside their homes, but most consumers
don't realize that the use of this seemingly innocuous cleaning
additive could be polluting their home as well as the great outdoors.
"The
fumes of cleaners containing a high concentration of chlorine
when breathed in can irritate the lungs and be particularly dangerous
for people who suffer from heart conditions or chronic respiratory
problems such as asthma or emphysema," says Patty Avey, editor
of SmartLivingNews. "When the fumes are emitted in small,
poorly ventilated rooms such as the bathroom, the risks are increased,"
she adds.
Another
immediate risk of having chlorine bleach around the house is accidental
ingestion by little ones--poison control centers across the country
receive about 20,000 such calls each year. Also, combining chlorine
bleach with ammonia and other acids can cause deadly fumes.
Meanwhile,
though, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains
that there is no danger in using chlorine bleach around the house,
claiming that the amount of chlorine is too low to warrant serious
concern. But the agency does regulate the use of chlorine for
industrial purposes, and confirms links between exposed workers
and lung irritation.
Whether
used at home or in the factory, chlorine is a big problem for
the environment once it is discarded or rinsed away. It bonds
with other chemicals in the wastewater stream to form carcinogenic
"organochlorines" (such as dioxin) that contaminate
drinking water supplies, among other risks.
Luckily,
healthy and environmentally safe alternatives to chlorine bleach
abound. Many of these can be made at home with household products
you probably already have. Half a cup of hydrogen peroxide can
work well as a bleach alternative when diluted with warm water
prior to going in the wash load.
For
those not so ambitious, commercial variations on such formulas,
which give consumers the benefit of oxygen-based stabilizers that
ensure even distribution within wash loads, are available from
companies such as Seventh Generation, Earth Friendly Products
and BioPac. Most of these products are available at natural food
stores as well as online and at larger, well-stocked supermarkets.
But
before spending a fortune on bleach alternatives, consumers should
see if hard water might be causing their clothes to look gray
and dingy from soap scum and mineral deposit build-up. Clues that
you might have hard water include clean dishes with water spots
on them, white and crusty sediment on fixtures, or a recurring
bathtub ring. If you do have hard water, simply add enough baking
soda to the laundry to make the wash water feel slippery to the
touch and see if that doesn't whiten whites and brighten colors.
CONTACTS:
SmartLivingNews, www.smartlivingnews.com;
EPA Chlorine Fact Sheet, www.epa.gov/chemfact/f_chlori.txt;
Seventh Generation, www.seventhgeneration.com;
Earth Friendly Products, www.ecos.com;
Bio Pac, www.bio-pac.com.
GOT
AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental
Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/,
or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php
Top
EARTH
TALK
From the Editors of E/The
Environmental Magazine
Dear
EarthTalk: Is it true that converting crops like corn into
ethanol actually uses more energy than is produced? --Leslie
Foster, Eau Claire, WI
Recent
revelations by Berkeley researcher Tad Patzek have fueled vigorous
debate about the wisdom of using fuels such as ethanol to reduce
our reliance on oil and our contribution to global warming. Patzek's
research concluded that producing ethanol actually uses more energy
than the resulting fuel can generate.
"Ethanol
production using corn grain required 29 percent more fossil energy
than the ethanol fuel produced," reported Patzek in the journal
Natural Resources Research last winter. He added that ethanol
produced from other common sources, such as biomass (wood products
and agricultural waste), requires 50 percent or more fossil fuel
derived energy than the ethanol that results can produce.
"People
tend to think of ethanol and see an endless cycle: Corn is used
to produce ethanol, ethanol is burned and gives off carbon dioxide,
and corn uses the carbon dioxide as it grows," says Patzek.
"But that isn't the case. Fossil fuel actually drives the
whole cycle."
Ethanol
is primarily in use today as an octane-boosting fuel additive,
but it can also be used as a primary fuel in some engines. Most
gasoline sold in North America today contains about five percent
ethanol, but some vehicles--such as the Ford Explorer and Chevy
Silverado--can run on blends of up to 85 percent ethanol. In order
to stimulate production, the U.S. offers generous tax-based subsidies
to farmers who grow crops for ethanol.
While
Patzek's evidence may be compelling, his views on ethanol are
not popular. Critics point out that his findings are based on
farming and production practices that are fast becoming obsolete,
and that newer techniques and machinery can make the ethanol production
process much more energy efficient.
Hosein
Shapouri, an economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
estimates that ethanol fuel can actually generate 67 percent more
energy than it takes to produce it. He points out that scientists
are experimenting with using alternative sources like solid waste,
grass and wood to make the ethanol production process that much
more energy efficient.
While
the jury may still be out as to whether ethanol production can
generate a positive or negative "energy balance," there
are also some potential hazards with ethanol production. For instance,
the nitrogen fertilizer needed to grow corn and other crops ends
up in waterways, causing "algae blooms" that can choke
out other life in affected areas. And while ethanol produces fewer
carbon monoxide emissions than regular gasoline, it does contribute
significantly to low-lying smog.
Doubts
about ethanol underscore a fundamental problem in getting many
types of renewable energy sources, including hydrogen, into mainstream
usage: Until fuel sources like solar or wind power can provide
clean ways to make clean fuel, the processes must rely on coal,
oil, gas and nuclear energy. Indeed, while we may be able to see
a clean energy future, we are still wrangling with how to get
there.
CONTACT:
U.S. Department of Energy Ethanol Facts, www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/ethanol.html
GOT
AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental
Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/,
or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php
Top
EARTH
TALK
From the Editors of E/The
Environmental Magazine
Dear
EarthTalk: How can I find information on toxic spills and major
polluters in another part of the country where I am considering
moving? -- Elizabeth Primiano, via e-mail
Passage
of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act in 1986
ensured that the public could access information on "chemical
releases," but did not provide a very easy way to filter
through data tucked away in vast government databases. But the
Internet has now changed all that.
Today,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides free access
to such data via the Envirofacts Data Warehouse on its website.
You can just plug in a zip code to locate polluters, hazardous
waste sites and other relevant environmental data in a specific
region. Envirofacts incorporates the federal Toxic Release Inventory
(a database of annual toxic spills and releases), lists hazardous
waste sites on the "Superfund" list (those slated for
cleanup), and tracks violations of the Clean Water and Clean Air
acts.
Another
good source for pollution information is Scorecard, a website
operated by the non-profit advocacy group, Environmental Defense.
The free online service helps users comb through more than 400
authoritative scientific and governmental databases on various
forms of pollution to assess local environmental quality. Additionally,
the site provides lists of toxic chemical releases and provides
links to online references whenever available. Scorecard is regularly
updated so that users can be sure they are getting the most current
information.
The
Right-to-Know Network (RTK NET), an information retrieval service
launched in 1989 that predates both Envirofacts and Scorecard,
provides access to numerous environmental databases that can help
you identify specific factories and their environmental effects,
and assess the people and communities impacted. A project of OMB
Watch, a government watchdog organization based in Washington,
DC, the service migrated to the Internet in the mid-1990s, and
its popularity waned as government agencies began to provide data
directly to those who wanted it.
While
RTK NET still provides up-to-date, zip-code-based information
on toxic releases, its founders focus most of their attention
these days on advising organizations and professionals who work
on environmental, health and safety issues. It recently merged
with the Working Group on Community Right-to-Know, a clearinghouse
for right-to-know laws and information. The new organization now
focuses more on advocacy and seeks to "advance the public's
right to know about environmental and health threats [and] defend
against attacks on public access to environmental and health information…"
CONTACTS:
EPA Envirofacts Data Warehouse,
www.epa.gov/enviro/; Scorecard, www.scorecard.org;
The Right-to-Know Network, www.rtknet.org.
GOT
AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental
Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/,
or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php
Top
EARTH
TALK
From the Editors of E/The
Environmental Magazine
Dear
EarthTalk: Is it bad for the environment to dump clog removers
like Drano down the drain? What are some alternatives to such
products? -- Cindy Jones, via e-mail
The
active ingredient in Drano and other conventional drain cleaners
is sodium hydroxide, otherwise known as caustic soda or lye. It
is a man-made chemical used for its corrosive properties. According
to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
the substance is not considered a pollutant per se, as it separates
into relatively harmless component elements once released into
water or moist soil.
But
sodium hydroxide is an irritant that can burn skin and aggravate
nose, throat and respiratory airways, so contact with it is best
avoided. If ingested outright it will likely induce vomiting,
as well as cause chest or abdominal pain and make swallowing difficult--so
keep it well out of the reach of children.
For
those who would rather avoid such chemicals entirely, safer alternatives
do exist. A plunger or mechanical drain snake--along with a little
elbow grease--can often free up clogs as well or better than sodium
hydroxide compounds. One home remedy with a proven track record
is to pour a handful of baking soda mixed with a half cup of vinegar
down the drain, and follow it quickly with boiling water.
Another
option is to choose any number of enzymatic biological drain cleaners
on the market today, such as Earth Friendly Products' Enzyme Drain
Cleaner or Bi-O-Kleen's BacOut. These make use of a natural bacterial
and enzyme mixture to open and keep drains clear. And unlike sodium
hydroxide they are non-caustic and will not facilitate combustion.
As
any plumber will tell you, a good maintenance regimen is the best
way to prevent clogged drains. Flushing drains weekly with boiling
water can help keep them clear. Also, installing small screens
atop drains will help keep hair, lint and other clogging elements
out of the pipeline in the first place.
CONTACTS:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, www.atsdr.cdc.gov;
Earth Friendly Products, www.ecos.com;
Bi-O-Kleen, www.bi-o-kleen.com.
GOT
AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental
Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/,
or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php
Top
EARTH
TALK
From the Editors of E/The
Environmental Magazine
Dear
EarthTalk: What have been the environmental consequences of
the Iraq War?
-- Katharine Biddle Barrette, Weston, CT
According
to a report by the international environmental organization Greenpeace,
the ecological damage from the 1990s Gulf War was "unprecedented."
More than two-dozen chemical, biological and possibly nuclear
facilities were destroyed or badly damaged, dispersing airborne
toxins over hundreds of surrounding miles. Bombing and troop movements
ruined hundreds of square miles of fragile desert surface, while
land mines killed and maimed not only humans but also many thousands
of wild animals.
A
United Nations mission in March 1991 found nearly half of Kuwait's
1,330 active oil wells ablaze, releasing acrid smoke that spread
hundreds of miles, causing substantial amounts of ensuing acid
rain as well as respiratory and carcinogenic effects in humans
accordingly. Many other wells were gushing oil: Some eight million
barrels reached coastlines, and as many as 150 million barrels
spilled onto the ground.
Fast
forward to the present Iraq War: The U.S. military focused on
securing Iraq's oil wells at the outset, in light of past experience,
and was more concerned about the potential environmental destruction
from the release of chemical and biological agents or the detonation
of weapons of mass destruction.
But
while such fears proved unfounded, Iraqi citizens--not to mention
allied soldiers--could suffer for decades to come from the effects
of the use of weapons containing depleted uranium. Depleted uranium
(DU) is a waste product of uranium enrichment for the production
of nuclear fuel and weapons. Its density and high melting point
make DU useful in various kinds of munitions, especially because
it can penetrate tank armor. For the same reasons, it is also
used in tank armor itself.
But
when such munitions are expended into the field, the substance
sticks around and can contaminate food and water supplies and
surrounding landscapes. (The actual radiation given off by DU
is slight, and not likely to cause any distress.) Human health
effects linked to DU exposure include kidney damage, lung cancer
and leukemia, although conclusive studies have not yet been conducted
An
International Commission to Ban Uranium Weapons was formed in
2003 to try to convince military leaders to stop using DU. The
group is currently collecting signatures for its online petition
calling for a comprehensive prohibition on the production, possession
and sale of DU weaponry. Some 190,000 sympathizers have signed
on so far.
In
a rare bit of good news from Iraq (environmental or otherwise),
the country's ancient marshlands, which were drained by Saddam
Hussein in the 1990s as punishment against their occupants (most
of the area's 450,000 Shi'ite inhabitants had to flee), are back
to almost 40 percent of their former level, according to the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Since Saddam Hussein's fall
from power, the marshes have recovered at what researchers term
a "phenomenal" rate.
CONTACTS:
Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org;
International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons, www.bandepleteduranium.org.
GOT
AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental
Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/,
or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php
Top
EARTH
TALK
From the Editors of E/The
Environmental Magazine
Dear
EarthTalk: Why do people consider the Endangered Species Act to
be the country's most important environmental law when it only
protects a few hundred plant and animal species? -- Mark McGrath,
Greenwich, CT
According
to the latest tally by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
745 plant and 523 animal species are listed as threatened or endangered
in the United States. While these flora and fauna have benefited
from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections, environmental advocates
point to the law's far-reaching habitat protection provisions
as key to preserving the nation's overall environmental quality.
When
a plant or animal is listed as threatened or endangered under
the ESA, federal officials must also designate critical habitat
"essential to the conservation of the species." Today
it is estimated that some 100 million acres of both private and
public land across the U.S. are protected by the ESA from new
development and resource extraction (mining, oil drilling) because
they harbor one or more rare species.
Not
everyone is happy with these provisions. Since the ESA became
law in 1973, property owners have protested that restrictions
on what they can do on their own private lands are unconstitutional.
With some success, they have taken their grievances to court repeatedly,
clogging the judicial system with appeal after appeal. Also, due
to all these legal skirmishes, officials at the USFWS, which administers
the law, complain of having to devote so many hours and resources
to legal battles instead of field work.
Sympathetic
to these legalistic concerns, the Bush administration has been
pushing for the de-listing of some species whose numbers have
improved in recent years--including bald eagles, gray wolves and
grizzly bears. But | 
Home
My
Shopping Cart
