California Water Package

In November, California lawmakers approved—including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger—a series of bills that would vastly overhaul the state’s troubled waterways that is a major source of the state’s drinking water. The likes of these bills have not been seen in the state of California since the 1960s, nor has any new water infrastructure in years—even as the state’s population has increased. This water package was prompted by heavy demand on a rapidly growing population causing drought, harming fish industries, and fueling crop loss. In 2008, more than 100,000 acres were left unplanted in the Central Valley. Additionally, environmental problems in the Sacramento River have resulted in a collapse of the Chinook salmon population, closing salmon season off the coast of California and much of Oregon for two years in a row. Essentially, this plan calls for a comprehensive ecosystem restoration in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, a collection of channels, natural habitats and islands at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers that is a major source of the state’s drinking water. In addition the series of bills call for new dams, aggressive water conservation goals and monitoring of ground water levels, and paves the way for the creation of a canal that will move water from the north to the southern regions of the state. These bills include an $11.1 billion bond issue and the rest of the roughly $40 billion project will be paid by localities, largely through new user fees.

Many environmentalists believe that the bill’s penalties for misusing the water supply do not go far enough. In light, there have been some changes to the bill in terms of oversight of the ailing estuaries, checks and balances on future dams, and some mild penalties for failure to conserve water.

But how effective are these bills? Are these bills just a treatment, rather than a solution for the issues at hand?

These bills, while intentions are valiant, to me seem to not create a solution. I feel that creating a canal to collect water stretching from the north to the south as next to or even implausible as California is one of the most densely populated states. Not only will this mitigate water, which is already scarce, away from the water table, I feel that it could have negative effects on the already fragile Californian ecosystem. Already California has seen negative impacts on the environment from the reduced numbers of smelt and salmon to the loss and destruction of the delta and surrounding waterways. I think that one of the only proper ways to protect water is through water conscious land use planning. Water is essential to our survival therefore it should limit us in where we develop… If a water table cannot sustain a densely populated area should we be allowed to develop there? And if we do are we just going to divert water from other regions to meet our needs?

Are we ingesting toxins along with our water?

Do you know what you are drinking when you ingest a refreshing gulp of H2O? Chances are you are unaware of all the possible pollutants that refresh your thirst on a daily basis. Water that is claimed to be tested by your water provider may have hidden toxic materials dissolved within, which are ingested into your body and could make you sick. Even bottled water could harm our bodies more than water straight from the tap.
Research shown from The New York Times claims "that an estimated one in ten Americans have been exposed to drinking water that contains dangerous chemicals or fails to meet a federal health benchmark in other ways." This is from interviews of more than 250 state and federal regulators, water-system managers, environmental advocates, and scientists. Toxins that have seeped into wells after being dispersed onto farmland is one way for water to become unhealthy. It can also be from runoff in areas where sewer systems that cannot accommodate heavy rains creating overflow. There is also direct dumping that some companies have plead guilty to.
Records analyzed by The New York Times indicate that the Clean Water Act has been violated more than 506,000 times since 2004, by more than 23,000 companies and other facilities, according to reports submitted by polluters themselves. Companies sometimes test what they are dumping only once a quarter, so the actual numbers of days when they broke the law is often far higher. And some companies illegally avoid reporting their emissions, say officials, so infractions go unrecorded. These toxins can accumulate for years before they even cause problems, making it very difficult to pinpoint the cause for the poisoning.
Water bottles as well are the cause of toxins in our drinking water. Most people have heard of (and have seen their fair share of students and professors toting) water bottles made by Nalgene, but the almost unbreakable plastic that makes these bottles so popular could be making us sick. Bisphenol A, or BPA, has been found to disrupt the processes of the endocrine system in animals, but its is still unclear what, if any, the effects on humans are. The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that even in high exposure instances, the detrimental effects are presumed to be very low because the half life of the compounds are very short; however, taking no chances, the Canadian government seems very likely to place a ban or partial ban on food-related uses of BPA plastics in the near future. Other companies that produce water bottles, such as Klean Kanteen, claim that their use of stainless steel will prevent the seeping of BPA into any liquid inserted into their container. Even water that comes prepackaged could contain the same toxins that come out of our faucets. In this case, why bother paying the money for the convenience when you can bring your own reusable container (one that doesn't contain BPA plastic) and save yourself money and save the environment by preventing waste.

Global water crisis

Every day thousands of people die from lack of access to clean water. This threat has been considered the greatest threat that we have ever come up against. There are three different types of water crises. Dwindling freshwater supplies, inequitable access to water, and the corporate control of water are these concerns.

Around the world 215 major rivers and 300 groundwater basins and aquifers are shared by two or more people. This creates tension over ownership and use of use of precious freshwater. If we do not change over behavior with water in the near future we could be seeing deepening conflicts and potential wars. This will become more likely when more watersheds turn to deserts, glaciers melt, and water supplies are poisoned. The former defense secretary of Britain warned of coming "water wars".

For example, there was a tragic conflict in Darfur where there was lack of water and agriculture land. Israel, Jordon, and Palestine all rely on the Jordon River which is controlled by Israel and is starting to cause conflict. In China and India the Brahmaputra River has caused tension over disputes of water rights. Currently China has a proposal to divert the river and re-igniting this tension.

This can be seen in the U.S. along the U.S.-Canadian border over shared boundary water as well. This is in direct result of growing concerns over the Great Lakes. Increasing pollution and water tables drained have only worsened the situation by the buildup of population and industry.

The problem starts with the global covenant from people and their governments. The U.N. report argued that corruption, restricted political rights, and limited civil liberties are reasons of the plant's growing water crisis. The only ways to improve this situation are to clean water, protect and conserve water supplies, and water justice. The success from these new changes can be seen in the restoration of the Lake Constance from the countries sharing this water source. These countries are Germany, Austria, Lichtenstein, and Switzerland.

This is relevant to our class because some of the policy ideas to correct this concern. Some of these policies to solve this issue include trading virtual water, conserve irrigation, exploit advanced desalination, expand waste water recycling, and develop creative pricing policies for urban water and waste water. Also we can start watching water footprints by making this concern the next Energy Star.

Asian Carp Poisoned

In the 1970s two species of Asian carp, bighead and silver, were introduced to farm ponds in Arkansas to help reduce high levels of algae in the water. When large floods plagued the area in the 1990s, the fish invaded the Mississippi River, and haven’t looked back since. The fish have infiltrated northward and are now on the brink of entering Lake Michigan via the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. With an estimated 4,000 fish per mile along the Illinois River, they are now dubbed an invasive species, and for good reason. The fish don’t have stomachs – only elongated digestive tracks, allowing them to eat up to 40% of their body weight. The supply of cadophilia algae in the Great Lakes is ample, and would more then adequately support the fishes’ appetite. Both fish reproduce three times per year, which would overpopulate native species natural to the lake ecosystem.
Originally, the US Corps of Army Engineers placed an electric grid under the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal in attempt to prevent the fish from advancing towards the Great Lakes. Recently the US Fish and Wildlife Service preformed a “fish kill” operation, dumping over 2,000 gallons of toxins into the canal while maintenance on the electric grid was occurring. Afterwards, among over 200,000 pounds of dead fish, a lone Asian carp carcass was found 40 miles from the Lake. The Governor of Michigan as well as numerous environmental groups have threatened to sue the US Corps of Army Engineers if three shipping locks along the canal are not closed to prevent further penetration by the fish.
Obviously the fish poses a threat to the $7 billion dollar fishing industry that is the Great Lakes, but is poisoning them the solution? The reason the shipping locks were not closed instantly is because it would disrupt the shipment of coal and wheat into the area. The closing of the locks would be ideal, but not feasible, as the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal is the only connection between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River. The poison will have a detrimental effect on the environment of the lakes as well, however the negative effects of the invasive Asian Carp far out weigh a drop in the bucket in terms of pollution.

EPA rules on Greenhouse Gases

In a move surely timed to coincide with the beginning of the climate talks at Copenhagen, the EPA has finally taken an official stand on the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
The EPA reported "The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations."

This announcement is likely aimed not only at the negotiators in Denmark, but at Congress as well with a contentious Cap-and-trade bill currently facing the Senate as well as a proposed ruling to set emissions standards for all light duty automobiles to be operated within the US. The announcement today was necessary because until now, the US government had not taken an official position on the impacts of GHGs. This is a major step forward in US climate policy, marking a departure from Bush era policies. In 2007, in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had the authority to regulate Greenhouse gases. However, the Bush-Cheney administration ignored the EPAs findings and refused to officially report them. With this position formalized, hopefully the process for introducing future climate legislation will be streamlined.

The EPA administrator when announcing the report, said that this move was the next logical step for her agency, stating that it was integral to the passing of several new programs including emissions tracking from major contributors, mandatory use of best available technology, and the possibility of working with individual polluters to reduce emissions.
Obviously, not everyone is happy about this report and its coincidence with a major effort to revitalize the American economy. "An endangerment finding from the EPA could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will chock off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,” Thomas Donahue, president and CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce said in a statement released earlier today.

Beyond its influence over US specific policy, there is little doubt that the EPA hopes to sway the decisions of those influenced in the Copenhagen talks. With an official admission from the world's largest polluter regarding the effect of CO2 and other GHGs, it is my hope that nations resistant to emission cuts may be more inclined to take action.
Though the Senate's inability to pass any climate legislation this year has certainly served to all but prevent any meaningful treaties being developed, hopefully this long overdue report from the EPA will help move along future rulings in the US and abroad.

Ocean Garbage Patches

The far reaching effects of human waste products keep popping up across the globe, sometimes in the most unexpected places. This time, our oceans are taking the hit. Garbage patches are forming in oceans everywhere as a result of garbage being transported from streets to seas due to urban runoff. During a heavy rainfall, debris is sometimes carried directly into waterways, but more often it is being deposited into storm drains that eventually lead to the water supply. As a result, trash is accumulating in our oceans because they are the final source that waterways lead to. Ocean gyres, the huge circular currents of the oceans, are the reason that such huge patches of garbage are forming because they carry trash with the flow, where it eventually ends up spiraling in a vortex for years.

The most extensively studied ocean garbage accumulation is in the Pacific. This was the first patch that was discovered 12 years ago. It is not so much of a “trash island” as is the common view, but rather it is a collection of smaller clumps that occur over a huge area. There are still no precise measurements of how much trash there really is, but many sources claim that put together, all the debris adds to the size of Texas, if not bigger. Making up the heaps are large objects, as well as a huge under layer of degraded plastic bits. The worst part of all is that the majority of the debris is plastic products that are not biodegradable. The accumulation of plastics in the oceans can have contaminating effect to both the water itself and the organisms that live in it. Not only can the masses of trash trap organisms, but more and more birds and fish are being found dead with great amounts of plastic in their stomachs. What happens is smaller fish feed in the areas where garbage patches occur, causing them to ingest small particles of plastic. As they are eaten by larger fish and oceanic birds, these plastics are accumulated into these animals’ biomass, as well. Plastic is not able to break down in their bodies, which can result in death for these organisms. This phenomenon is also a cause for human concern because these degraded plastic toxins may be building up in the fish we eat, but there is no way to guarantee or certify that they are not there. These and many more are the problems that we face from the huge accumulations of garbage in the oceans.

How to go about cleaning up the trash patches is a huge issue because of the vast size of the problem. These areas are so large that it would take up huge amounts of money and effort to clean them up completely. Moreover, using nets to collect the debris would also trap any aquatic life in the area. Another issue is that many of the garbage heaps are not on any country’s territory. This takes the responsibility off any single government for cleaning them up. Despite these limitations, some private groups are still trying. Project Kaisei is one such group. They have designed nets for the job and hope to collect 40 tons of garbage and plastics to be used in trial recycling. This is not a perfect plan, but it is a start. What really needs to be done is on land. Although they are cheap and versatile, plastics need to be phased out because of their environmental threat. This could even be done on a personal scale by choosing to buy fewer plastic products. Better recycling methods could also help in reducing the amount of plastics that go into our waterways. Another technique would be the use of better storm water management techniques. By processing storm water before releasing it into waterways, a lot of the trash could be taken out of the water before it reaches the oceans. Overall, it is going to take huge amounts of effort, time, and money to solve the problem of ocean garbage heaps.

Climate Gate

With the Copenhagen climate conference approaching in less than a week, hundreds of world leaders and climate experts are drawing together to debate a new pact to slow global warming, and reduce GHG emissions globally.

However, recent events have created a stir before the upcoming meeting. A string of hacked private e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit were recently released detailing global climate change scientists in the U.S. and Europe casting doubts about the very scientific facts that this upcoming summit will be biased upon. The Climate Research Unit has thus far been incredibly influential in the global warming debate.

Researchers such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who you may know from Al Gore’s inconvenient truth, and the “hockey stick controversy” were involved in private emails that show that these experts along with many of the worlds leading scientists on climate change decided to exclude or manipulate some of their research that didn’t help prove global warming exists.

The most evident area where record-keeping appears to have been skewed by the scientists, was temperature readings from 1998. Although temperatures have gone down since 1998 and only spiked a couple times since, researchers showed an upward trend when releasing their data. The email exchange, that occurred in 1999, shows not only this, but that they talked of using a “trick” to try and “hid the decline” in global temperatures.

For critics of climate change this appears to be another “nail in the coffin” that global climate change isn’t indeed an issue, and has been an extrapolation from true and untrue theories and facts. How will this affect Copenhagen this Saturday, is the question many are asking.

However, the scientists although not denying the email exchange say the emails are being misinterpreted. However, the leakings of the emails have created a stir internationally and in the White house. While the two largest carbon producers, India and China still agree that climate change is happening and will be setting goals to lower their own carbon emissions, others have casted new doubts.

The United States has yet to make a clear stance on reducing GHG emissions, and leaked emails have given ammunition to critics of climate change. Climate change supporters say Copenhagen may only produce a framework for an agreement for an agreement that could be finalized next year.

How do you think this will affect climate change supporters at Copenhagen this week? What do you think this means for any sort of international agreement being finalized in the next year? Or funding for green renewable energies in the United States?

--- Kirsten Dobson