The Energy Star program, a joint effort between the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, has seen renewed emphasis by the Obama administration as a means of reducing the waste of energy and limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Under the federal stimulus bill, $300 million will go to rebates for consumers who buy Energy Star products. However, a recent internal audit performed by the DOE’s Inspector General found that the agency does not adequately track whether manufacturers that give their appliances an Energy Star label have met energy efficiency requirements. Another study, completed last year by the EPA, also found that ratings given to televisions and computers under the Energy Star program were “not accurate or verifiable” due to weak oversight.
The DOE only requires that manufacturers of windows and LED and fluorescent lighting have their products tested by certified independent laboratories. Other companies that make refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, water heaters, and room air conditioners, which consume far more energy, can certify those appliances themselves. Mark Connelly with Consumer Reports found that approximately 5-10% of all products that are self-certified do not meet Energy Star requirements. Although the Energy Star program saved an estimated $19 billion in energy costs in 2008, it is important that its requirements are rigorously enforced. Shortcomings could reduce consumer confidence in the program and could result in reduced energy savings, increased consumer risk, and diminish the value of the rebate program under the federal stimulus bill.
On September 30, 2009, the EPA and DOE signed a memorandum that committed both agencies to having all products evaluated by certified independent laboratories, and to expand the Energy Star program to cover products that were not in common use when it began in 1996. It also includes a super star program that identifies the top performing 5 percent of products. With these improvements, the Energy Star program could face continued success and further energy savings in the future.
-Sam Shelby
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Mandatory composting law a success in San Francisco
In June, The city of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors introduced a new law mandating composting of all food and lawn waste with violators facing a fine from $100-$500.
This bill was the first in the nation to make it illegal to throw away recycling or compostable waste. This recycling campaign is the strictest in the nation, but what makes it so exciting is the degree to which it is being embraced by the city's population. NPR reports that landlords and citizens began the practice even before the law became official earlier this fall.
Since it's implementation, many have praised it for making homes and businesses cleaner and less smelly by getting rid of the mixed garbage bags that often sat around for up to a week before pickup and transitioning to disposal in sealed city provided compost bins. Many have noticed, especially workers and managers of high waste producing venues such as restaurants are happy to comply with the law that makes their businesses much more pleasant to the nose.
After pickup, the waste is transported to the Organics Annex, a composting facility that is currently processing 500 tons per day. This compost is then sold to local farms and wineries, a boon for both organic and conventional producers looking for cheaper, eco-friendlier fertilizers that were previously difficult to obtain due to a shortage of sanitary organic compost.
Jared Blumenfield, the city's chief environmental officer plans to have the entire city be waste free, meaning no trash delivered to landfills, by 2020. A lofty goal that he believes the city will happily support him in.
Programs like this were advocated by author Michael Pollan in his open letter to the Obama administration last fall. Pollan supports these campaigns because they will serve the purposes of diverting synthetic fertilizers from fields, reducing costs for sustainable farming, and increasing soil fertility through addition of organic matter to land that has in many cases been exploited since the arrival of Europeans.
It is time that the town of Blacksburg take notice of the success of this program, there is already a large composting faicility in place that would be able to handle the additional load with only minor expansion. This would serve both the town through mitigation of trash problems as well as the growing local agriculture movement that has a high demand for such compost.
This bill was the first in the nation to make it illegal to throw away recycling or compostable waste. This recycling campaign is the strictest in the nation, but what makes it so exciting is the degree to which it is being embraced by the city's population. NPR reports that landlords and citizens began the practice even before the law became official earlier this fall.
Since it's implementation, many have praised it for making homes and businesses cleaner and less smelly by getting rid of the mixed garbage bags that often sat around for up to a week before pickup and transitioning to disposal in sealed city provided compost bins. Many have noticed, especially workers and managers of high waste producing venues such as restaurants are happy to comply with the law that makes their businesses much more pleasant to the nose.
After pickup, the waste is transported to the Organics Annex, a composting facility that is currently processing 500 tons per day. This compost is then sold to local farms and wineries, a boon for both organic and conventional producers looking for cheaper, eco-friendlier fertilizers that were previously difficult to obtain due to a shortage of sanitary organic compost.
Jared Blumenfield, the city's chief environmental officer plans to have the entire city be waste free, meaning no trash delivered to landfills, by 2020. A lofty goal that he believes the city will happily support him in.
Programs like this were advocated by author Michael Pollan in his open letter to the Obama administration last fall. Pollan supports these campaigns because they will serve the purposes of diverting synthetic fertilizers from fields, reducing costs for sustainable farming, and increasing soil fertility through addition of organic matter to land that has in many cases been exploited since the arrival of Europeans.
It is time that the town of Blacksburg take notice of the success of this program, there is already a large composting faicility in place that would be able to handle the additional load with only minor expansion. This would serve both the town through mitigation of trash problems as well as the growing local agriculture movement that has a high demand for such compost.
Hunting on the Shenandoah National Park?
The Shenandoah National Park in recent years has endured an explosion of it's white tailed deer population. The pressing issue of controlling its deer population has been at the fore front of the parks management agenda. The rapid explosion of the deer population has lead to a lot of problems including, over browsing of native forest, which furthermore alters the native forest make up. The over population of deer is more than likely linked to a decrease of natural predators and the presence of an unnatural food source, i.e. human feeding. The presence of this human feeding alters the deer's lifestyle, making them depended on supplemental feeding, this leads to deer outgrowing there natural carrying capacity. Measures have been taken to reduce human feeding of deer, but have failed. If we look at are state's neighbor Maryland, to the north, we can see a great approach of controlling deer population in a national park. The Environmental Impact Statement which had to be made for the lethal method of taking deer in that particular park proved that it was the most effective and humane way of controlling its deer herd. So, why not just have qualified hunters do the management for the park?
The main objection for allowing management hunts to occur in a national park has to do with conflicting environmental views. The national park system view is mainly preservation, with a more holistic management approach. If management hunting was allowed it would be a more conservative approach, which tends to be lumped in with the view of resource management. I would argue that the Shenandoah National Park has practices already in place that look very similar to resource management, because not only do they allow fishing within the park, but also they allow visitors/users to extract the fish from the park. Is this not a form of resource management? If so, why not allow a system of management hunts to control its over populated deer population? Time and time again hunting has been the only effective and efficient tool for controlling deer numbers.
My suggestion is to allow management bow hunts to serve as a tool for deer population control, on the Shenandoah National Park. Bow hunting is one of the safer hunting alternatives, due to the public safety concern of visitors within the park. We need only to look at Virginia's own urban archery program to understand the safely aspect of hunting within a human populous setting. Dr. Jim Parkhurst (of Virginia Tech), is Virginia's statewide coordinator for the urban archery season; supports my point of viewing hunting as the only effective way of managing deer numbers in a populous setting. My point on the issue is simple, something has to be done about SNP's outrageous deer population; hunting can serve as a efficient, effective, and safe way of sustaining the parks environmental integrity, by reducing deer numbers to a sustainable level.
The main objection for allowing management hunts to occur in a national park has to do with conflicting environmental views. The national park system view is mainly preservation, with a more holistic management approach. If management hunting was allowed it would be a more conservative approach, which tends to be lumped in with the view of resource management. I would argue that the Shenandoah National Park has practices already in place that look very similar to resource management, because not only do they allow fishing within the park, but also they allow visitors/users to extract the fish from the park. Is this not a form of resource management? If so, why not allow a system of management hunts to control its over populated deer population? Time and time again hunting has been the only effective and efficient tool for controlling deer numbers.
My suggestion is to allow management bow hunts to serve as a tool for deer population control, on the Shenandoah National Park. Bow hunting is one of the safer hunting alternatives, due to the public safety concern of visitors within the park. We need only to look at Virginia's own urban archery program to understand the safely aspect of hunting within a human populous setting. Dr. Jim Parkhurst (of Virginia Tech), is Virginia's statewide coordinator for the urban archery season; supports my point of viewing hunting as the only effective way of managing deer numbers in a populous setting. My point on the issue is simple, something has to be done about SNP's outrageous deer population; hunting can serve as a efficient, effective, and safe way of sustaining the parks environmental integrity, by reducing deer numbers to a sustainable level.
A new meaning for "Cash Cow"
Ideas concerning the use of methane from cow manure as energy have been kicked around for years but often dismissed because they weren’t economical. However, as Congress lines up to potentially sign the new climate bill into a law, economics are coming in line and these systems that have a payback are looking very promising.
In Greeley, Colorado investors are lining up to support a new planned clean energy park that eventually will convert some of the methane gas released from the manure piles into power for a variety of industrial businesses. Several agricultural feedlots in the area have already begun experimenting and testing a new technology that heats the cattle excrement and turns it into energy.
The use of this technology, coupled with a market-based policy would come of great benefit to the agricultural industry. Industries would be able to sell credits, generated by reducing the green house gases they emit, in the new emissions-trading market the bill would create. This would also create an environmentally friendly shift towards renewable energies and away from methane, a green house gas that is twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide, and much more efficient “heat trapper” in terms of global warming effects.
I personally find this development in technology, in response to the potential policy making in Washington as a great signal of hope. I believe we need to save ourselves, and the world, from the environmental degradation that is every day ebbing closer to an irreversible tipping point. I believe we must use new technologies to develop and implement new ways of powering our country, homes and automobiles. The use of renewable energy, both measures on a massive scale, a smaller scale will come to our nation’s rescue. Additionally, by finding use of by-products, and waste products, and recognizing their value will be of great importance. Hopefully with the passing of the energy bill through congress, we will begin to see even more of these technologies being developed and implemented.
---- Kirsten Dobson
"Zero Waste" Strategy
"Zero Waste" is an anti-garbage strategy that has been gaining national attention recently. According to the New York Times, school cafeterias, restaurants, stadiums, corporations and national parks are all beginning to implement such a strategy. The concept seems very simple: produce less waste. It requires people to recycle or compost whenever possible and to avoid all packaging that is not biodegradable. For example, Yellowstone National Park is taking initiative with its soda cups and utensils. Both are made out of plant based plastics that dissolve when heated to a certain temperature. Restaurants are also partaking. A particular restaurant in Atlanta for example, is no longer throwing out food waste, but instead is placing it in a compost heap located behind the establishment. Towns are also getting involved in initiatives to reduce waste. The resort community of Nantucket resorted to strict trash policies over a decade ago due to decreasing space for landfills and worries about the costs of shipping garbage 30 miles to main land. The town mandates that households and businesses recycle not only common items such as paper, aluminum and glass, but also items that include tires, batteries and household appliances. These strict trash policies have decreased the proportion of trash going to the landfill to just 8 percent. However, some communities have been unwilling or at least hesitant to adopt zero trash policies because of the costs of infrastructure.
Recycling, compost and anti-garbage policies such as "Zero Waste" are beginning to have a mainstream impact due to the growing concerns about the environmental impacts of landfills. It has become increasingly difficult to secure permits for landfills and there has been a heightened concern about the methane released from the organic decay of the material dumped in landfills. The release of methane gas due to organic decay is related to the warming of the Earth's atmosphere.
Additionally, one area of trash that has begun to receive a lot of notice is food waste. The E.P.A. indicates that food waste accounts for thirteen percent of total garbage nationwide. This percentage would greatly increase if recyclables were factored in. Composting food waste like apple cores and old bread would allow for decomposition without producing methane as a by-product, and the waste could then be used as a non-chemical fertilizer. Using biodegradable packaging has also become popular, using plant materials instead of plastic. According to the Biodegradable Products Institute, companies providing compostable products for food providers have doubled since 2006. Although businesses, companies and governments are realizing the importance of recycling, it will be hard to significantly alter individual behavior with regards to recycling and composting. For example, zero waste policies will require everyone to think about every single thing they are throwing away, every day. According to the New York Times, the technology exists, but the education about the benefits of such policies is crucial in order for them to be successful.
I think that all localities should take initiative into adopting "zero waste" policies. According to the E.P.A, Americans dump 4.6 pounds of trash individually, per day. I think that in order for such initiatives to be successful, they need to be creative. For example, the Zero Waste Zone (ZWZ) in downtown Atlanta, is a program that is the only of its kind in the southeast, and one of the few in the nation. The vision of project is to "Develop a prototype of a zero waste zone with an initial focus on diversion of recoverable products produced by foodservice operations from landfills and create a template for zero waste zones in other geographic areas". Therefore, by beginning with certain industries, we can expand upon the implementation of zero waste, allowing time for increased public support, down to the individual level, and then apply those concepts broadly to every day life.
"Zero Waste" strategies will also greatly benefit the environment, decreasing the use of landfills and therefore allowing for a substantial decrease in the amount of methane gas released from decaying organic material. Landfills, on a a superficial level, are unsightly and unpopular. Additionally, they are known to harm wildlife and produce toxic substances that may enter the air and water. Among many problems, including dust and bio-aerosol emissions, landfill gas is the most prominent. According to Green Living, these occur essentially at the beginning of landfill use and may case issues for hundreds of years. There have been initiatives to capture the emissions and use the methane gas captures as a source of green energy. One of these programs in particular is called the Landfill Methane Outreach Program. Great amounts of rain can also cause landfill mess to pollute groundwater, which in turn can pollute limited sources of fresh water. Also, fixing landfills is very costly and time consuming. Therefore, decreasing landfill use by zero waste policies will greatly benefit the environment.
Shell Wins Offshore Drilling Rights In Alaska
On Monday, October 20th, the Federal Government granted rights to Dutch Shell Company to drill in the Arctic Ocean for oil and natural gas. The Minerals Management Service issued a permit to Shell to drill two exploration wells in areas of the Beaufort Sea between July and October of next year. Though the pronouncement represents a large step forward in the legal process, the energy company cannot immediately begin operations; it still must secure an air permit from Environmental Protection Agency. This pronouncement did not come as a surprise to the opponents of offshore drilling, as it is only the latest development in a long line of lawsuits, court hearings, and controversial decisions.
Shell’s operations faces stiff opposition from environmental groups who claim the government is supporting nothing more than a Bush-era leasing rush. Organizations such as Pacific Environment claim that drilling will pollute the water and release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council the effects of an oil spill on the sensitive Alaskan ecosystem could be devastating. Indigenous populations also oppose large-scale drilling operations, fearing that such an undertaking could disrupt migration patterns of bowhead whales during the summer depleting their main source of food. In the face of such criticism, Shell has pledged to make changes to how it explores for oil and natural gas in the Arctic. The company has reduced size of its drilling fleet and will completely stop operations and remove drilling ships during the whale-hunting season. Unfortunately, such measures have done little to quell the controversy surrounding Shells drilling operations in the Beaufort Sea.
On this particular issue I have to side with the environmentalists and indigenous peoples of the Alaska. I understand the government’s intentions; there are over 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas waiting to be discovered of the Alaskan coast, and the extraction of these resources would undoubtedly lessen the US’s dependence on foreign oil. However, I believe that the risks of offshore drilling simply outweigh the benefits. Despite Shell’s attempt to minimize its presence in the region, off shore drilling has been known to disrupt indigenous hunting parties and whale migration patterns. Also past disasters, including the infamous Exxon Valdez spill, have shown that oil spills can have detrimental effects on Alaska’s ecosystem, in the short and long run.
This controversial decision to allow the Dutch Shell Company to drill in the Beaufort Sea was born out of the mantra “Drill, baby, drill.” This belief contends that expanding domestic oil production will somehow solve our dependence on foreign energy supplies. This is simply not the case. The United States does not have the reserves capable of satisfying our exponentially growing demand for energy, even for a short period of time. This is why drilling for oil near ecologically and culturally sensitive areas in Alaska is simply unacceptable: it does not represent the solution, only a way to worsen the problem.
Green Roof Technology
A green roof is an extension of an already existing roof consisting of vegetation, growing medium, filter and drainage system, and structural support in an interlocking grid. Green roofs counteract the urban heat island effect, which is when temperatures in a city are hotter and drier than that of the surrounding countryside. By reducing impervious surfaces which cause temperatures to rise, green roofs cool the air through the process of evaporation and assist in keeping the rooms beneath the roof cooler. Green roofs also absorb sound from both the interior and exterior, blocking noise such as highways or airplanes and help prevent excess storm water runoff. Another advantage is the reduction of smog and dust, because it is known and proven that plants can enhance the quality of air. With these benefits for green roofs being stated it is very hard to find a suitable argument for bare or graveled roofs.
Germany has many policies in place now including building code guidelines, minimum design requirements, and performance standards. They also give direct and indirect financial incentives and ecological compensation to property owners and developers through integration into developmental regulation. Canada is in the beginning stages of creating polices and already offers incentives to commercial and institutional buildings for green roofs that improve energy efficiency. Green roofs also count towards Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification points for Green Building accreditation evaluation.
The United States is just discovering policy and planning importance in the green roof industry. Green roof knowledge is very limited according to a survey given to 2,500 facility managers in the United States. It found that most facility managers knew about green roofs principles and some advantages but not their full purpose. Raising awareness for green roofs and their benefits would be the first step towards policy and planning in the United States. Future policy to consider would be requiring buildings within cities with a certain number of square foot roofs to install green roofs and to give these developers grants and incentives.
-Amanda Hamilton
Germany has many policies in place now including building code guidelines, minimum design requirements, and performance standards. They also give direct and indirect financial incentives and ecological compensation to property owners and developers through integration into developmental regulation. Canada is in the beginning stages of creating polices and already offers incentives to commercial and institutional buildings for green roofs that improve energy efficiency. Green roofs also count towards Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification points for Green Building accreditation evaluation.
The United States is just discovering policy and planning importance in the green roof industry. Green roof knowledge is very limited according to a survey given to 2,500 facility managers in the United States. It found that most facility managers knew about green roofs principles and some advantages but not their full purpose. Raising awareness for green roofs and their benefits would be the first step towards policy and planning in the United States. Future policy to consider would be requiring buildings within cities with a certain number of square foot roofs to install green roofs and to give these developers grants and incentives.
-Amanda Hamilton
VA Dominion Power Line Proposal Meets Local Opposition
In the last few years since I have been here at Virginia Tech, an actual ‘power’ struggle has been developing back home in Fauquier County, VA , as well as other neighboring counties in Northern VA. Dominion Virginia Power, our major energy provider, is planning to remove a 115,000-volt line and replace it with a double-circuit 230,000-volt line. The power lines in place now are what are known as “Radial” lines and these are more vulnerable to power outages and weather damage. To prevent potential outages and meet the energy demand of these growing communities, Dominion says it must repair the lines before it is too late. Consequently, the line stretching from Loudoun County to Fauquier County and parts of Prince William County are indeed “radial”. The Loudoun-Middleburg Transmission Project proposal can be found here. It points out that the amount of energy currently running through the lines is greater than what the federally approved agreement is. The transmission would serve about 20,500 homes and still needs approval by the VA State Corporation Commission.
While this plan seeks to meet the areas energy needs, the land for the power towers is famous for its beauty and historic quality. For a map of the proposed location see here. Growing up in Fauquier County, I know and appreciate its beauty and importance more than most. The towers height would reach 110 feet and all surrounding trees that could potentially cause damage would be cut down. County residents including myself are worried not only of the eyesore through VA horse country and historical Civil War sites, but also the effect on wildlife. I do not believe that meeting the areas energy demand is a bad goal. I just think if we took more time in passing policy, maybe there could be a "greener" way of meeting the need, rather than increasing our dependence on coal.
The Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) has been heading the opposition to Dominion's proposal. They say that the proposal offers more power than is necessary and will connect to one of the oldest and dirtiest coal fired plants in all of the United States. Famous actor and Fauquier resident, Robert Duvall has also opposed the plan and made many public appearances and statements. "I ask that we slow this down now, so that we can explore alternatives other than cutting a big ugly path through our countryside. Can you imagine a big ugly path with towers through the Grand Canyon, Glacier National Park, Yosemite, Yellowstone, the Tetons? No. This is the Piedmont. It shouldn't be here either," Duvall said.
- Caroline Simpson
Surry Country Coal Fired Power Plant
For almost a year now, there has been great controversy over the proposed $6 billion coal fired power plant to be built by ODEC in
Both official and unofficial actors have been involved in this process. Protesters and environmental groups such as the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club have made known their disapproval for this project. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has expressed great concern for how this project will effect the bay, and has even said that the plant is in fact illegal because it violates clean air laws due to the high volumes of pollutants that will be omitted. the Army Corps of Engineers has been involved because the proposed site of the plant is located on protected wetlands, meaning the projects will not be able proceed without the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers. The State Department of Environmental Quality has called for a serious investigation into the proposed plant's environmental impact.
There has been much debate over this new coal fired power plant with strong supporters and strong protesters. It has also been a point of interest for delegates as the elections are just around the corner. Stan Clark's statement shows that he is firmly against the coal plant and supports the health of both people and the environment. He lists the incredible amount of pollutants that will be added to our local air and water including "14.6 million tons of carbon dioxide, 3,600 tons of sulfur, ½ a ton of lead, and 118 pounds of mercury annually”.
I am very much against this coal plant being built as I know it will affect the air quality in
With an extremely fragile and important ecosystem such as the Chesapeake Bay Watershed on the line, potential harm to the local economies due to decreased tourism, and guaranteed health risks caused by pollution, there really is no argument for the proposed power plant strong enough to offset the negative effects it will incur.
Solar Energy is beneficial to the Earth as well as your bank account
In recent years, the American population has seen an ever-growing increase in the efforts to protect the environment. More specifically, the popularity of solar energy is increasing at a substantial rate. The use of solar energy helps to combat the pollution given off by fossil fuel technologies, but perhaps the reason that more and more people are beginning to install photovoltaic cell panels and solar thermal water heating systems is due to their economic benefit.
Many homes and businesses have installed photovoltaic solar panels to the roofs of their buildings in order to save the Earth and save money. More often than not, these solar panels are able to generate more electricity than the building actually needs; in this case, the excess energy goes back into the energy grid and the owner of the building receives full retail credit for the energy they “sell back” to their provider. By allowing them to sell energy back to providers, building owners have been able to pay off the investment of solar panel installation quickly and are able to turn a profit relatively soon after the installation.
There have also been federal government incentives that have motivated the usage of solar energy. On October 3, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Emergency Stabilization act of 2008, which extended tax credits for solar energy systems. The tax credits apply to both residential and commercial solar installations for 30% of the cost of a system “placed in service” from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2016.
The use of these solar panels however may not be as beneficial in every state. Although the installation of solar energy producing mechanisms may be advantageous in locations where there is sun 90% of the time, in places where this does not occur, the upfront costs may not be plausible. Even during this economic recession however, there are many banks that are willing to give out loans to home and business owners who are specifically planning on installing solar panels.
It is about time that alternative energy in the form of solar energy hits mainstream. Although the upfront costs may seem alarming, both banks and the federal government are trying to make it as easy and economically motivating as possible for people to implement. More and more politicians are urging lawmakers to create even more incentives for people to use these efforts and reduce the catastrophic effects that fossil fuels have on our environment. Now is the time to rally behind these efforts and reap the benefits that solar energy will have on our environment as well as our pockets.
-Corinne Brady
Many homes and businesses have installed photovoltaic solar panels to the roofs of their buildings in order to save the Earth and save money. More often than not, these solar panels are able to generate more electricity than the building actually needs; in this case, the excess energy goes back into the energy grid and the owner of the building receives full retail credit for the energy they “sell back” to their provider. By allowing them to sell energy back to providers, building owners have been able to pay off the investment of solar panel installation quickly and are able to turn a profit relatively soon after the installation.
There have also been federal government incentives that have motivated the usage of solar energy. On October 3, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Emergency Stabilization act of 2008, which extended tax credits for solar energy systems. The tax credits apply to both residential and commercial solar installations for 30% of the cost of a system “placed in service” from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2016.
The use of these solar panels however may not be as beneficial in every state. Although the installation of solar energy producing mechanisms may be advantageous in locations where there is sun 90% of the time, in places where this does not occur, the upfront costs may not be plausible. Even during this economic recession however, there are many banks that are willing to give out loans to home and business owners who are specifically planning on installing solar panels.
It is about time that alternative energy in the form of solar energy hits mainstream. Although the upfront costs may seem alarming, both banks and the federal government are trying to make it as easy and economically motivating as possible for people to implement. More and more politicians are urging lawmakers to create even more incentives for people to use these efforts and reduce the catastrophic effects that fossil fuels have on our environment. Now is the time to rally behind these efforts and reap the benefits that solar energy will have on our environment as well as our pockets.
-Corinne Brady
The EPA on mountain top removal
In the last years, mountain top removal has been on the headlines numerous times because it is a real problem in different regions of the country: West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee. Mountaintop removal mining is a type of coal mining used since 1970s as an extension of conventional strip mining techniques. The reason why coal companies in Appalachia use this method is because it permits for almost complete recovery of coal seams while reducing the number of workers required to a fraction of what conventional methods requires. Coal companies use explosives to blast as much as 800 to 1000 feet off the tops of mountains in order to reach the coal seams resulting millions of tons of waste rock, dirt, and vegetation are then dumped into surrounding valleys, burying miles and miles of streams. Unfortunately, while Congress is moving to act, mountaintops are still being blown up all over Appalachia.
So who regulates these mining operations? The EPA, under the Clean Water Act (CWA), regulates these mining practices, including discharges of pollutants, rock and dirt are placed in streams and wetlands. Coal mining operations are also regulated under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
Recently, in September, the EPA announced plans to hold 79 pending mountaintop removal mining permits for further environmental review. The news comes as part of a "Memorandum of Understanding" the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers signed earlier this year. The two agencies agreed to work together to review pending permits, and today's announcement sets the EPA and the Corps on a path towards closer scrutiny of these permits that is based on science and the law.
The announcement shows that the administration is serious about science and the law working together and that the clock is ticking. However, the destruction in Appalachia is far too great to ignore. Already mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia has permanently buried at least 2,000 miles of streams under piles of toxic waste and debris and not to mention the entire communities that have been displaced. Therefore the fact remains: mountaintop removal is an immoral crime against nature and our community, a human rights violation and it must be abolished, not regulated.
-Eliana Sejas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)