As you pull up a lawn chair to watch fireworks this Fourth of July, you might wonder if all that smoke and dust generated to celebrate U.S. independence is healthy for the Earth. Could this most cherished of American traditions harm the environment?
Fireworks are explosives, which are not by design eco-friendly. Both backyard and public displays spew out not only dust and smoke but also heavy metals, carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides.
Chemicals used to create certain colors are highly toxic. The barium compounds that produce green are transformed when fireworks explode into water-soluble chemicals that are poisonous and can cause heart and lung problems, according to Dr. Thomas Klapotke, professor of inorganic chemistry at the University of Munich in Germany.
Fireworks clearly come at an environmental cost, says Klapotke, who has been studying the polluting effects of fireworks to create more environmentally friendly pyrotechnics using nitrogen — instead of gunpowder — as a propellant. Using copper compounds to create a barium-free green is also under study. But backyard fireworks a few times a year don’t harm the environment as much as commercial fireworks launched daily at theme parks, Klapotke says.
Today’s fireworks are less toxic than in the past, and research will find even better alternatives, says Julie Heckman, executive director of the American Pyrotechnics Association (APA), the leading fireworks industry trade organization.
For example, the Walt Disney Co. developed “air launch” technology that it uses for nightly fireworks shows at its Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, California. Substituting compressed air for gunpowder significantly reduces smoke and other pollutants.
Many toxic chemicals have been banned from fireworks over the years, Heckman says. Arsenic, for example, was used in “snakes” into the 1990s before being banned in the United States. Because 98 percent of all fireworks are manufactured in China, the APA has created a laboratory there to monitor those destined for the U.S. market. Barium, however, is still on the “allowed chemicals” list, Heckman says.
Although the search for more environmentally friendly fireworks is well under way, it will be at least six to 10 years before these products are available to the general public, Heckman says. “Formulas for making fireworks have existed for hundreds of years,” she says. “When you’re manipulating chemicals, it is important that they not only perform well, but will be safe to use.”
by Marcia Passos Duffy
http://climate.weather.com/articles/julyfireworks2008.html?from=pif_locallinker_undeclared
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: amazon kindle, Oprah Winfrey, oprah's book club, reading device, reduce paper
$50 Off Amazon Kindle Today!
To get the $50 discount and save TONs of paper, follow these easy steps:
- Click the link below
- Add the Amazon Kindle to your shopping cart then proceed to checkout.
- In the coupon code box, type OPRAHWINFREY
- Don’t forget to check the box for free shipping too!
Filed under: RAISING AWARENESS | Tags: California auto emissions, car emissions, clean air act, emissions standards, EPA standards, greenhouse gas
EPA justifies blocking California waiver
Critics say state must regulate greenhouse gas emissions
In a 48-page document describing the reasoning behind its much-criticized decision, the EPA argues that California doesn’t have the “compelling and extraordinary conditions” required for a waiver under the Clean Air Act, because the rest of the nation also suffers the effects of global warming.
EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, who has faced lawsuits and angry denunciations since making the decision in December, told The Associated Press in a phone interview that legislative history shows California must have a unique problem in order to justify a federal waiver to implement a vehicle emissions law stricter than the federal government’s.
Environmentalists and California officials disagree with Johnson’s interpretation, contending that California has been granted Clean Air Act waivers in the past to deal with problems that are also happening elsewhere, such as diesel pollution.
Critics also contend that California does, in fact, have uniquely worse problems from global warming compared with other states, including wildfire risks, air pollution and water supply shortages.
“Clearly Johnson hasn’t spent much time in California. Doesn’t he know the simple scientific fact that hotter air causes more smog?” said Frank O’Donnell, executive director of Clean Air Watch, a Washington advocacy group.
“This reads like something written up in the board room of General Motors,” O’Donnell said.
California’s standards
The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to regulate vehicle pollution because the state began such regulations before the federal government. But a federal waiver is required, and if California gets one, then other states can adopt California’s standards, too.
California’s tailpipe emissions law would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016.
Twelve other states — Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — had adopted California’s tailpipe standards and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah had said they also plan to adopt them. The rules were under consideration elsewhere, too.
In denying the waiver request, Johnson argued that a nationwide approach would be better and said it would be provided by a new law raising fuel economy standards that was signed by President Bush in December. Automakers applauded Johnson’s decision.
California officials argued that California’s law would be stronger and act faster.
Filed under: BABY STEPS FOR US | Tags: food, organic, organic labels, organic seal, USDA
1. When starting out, focus on organic alternatives to the foods your family eats most.
2. Try to add one new organic item to your cart each week. You can find organic versions of virtually every food your family eats.
3. Learn to read the new USDA Organic labels appearing on store shelves starting 10/21/02:
· 100 Percent Organic–may carry new USDA Organic Seal
· Organic - at least 95% of content is organic by weight (excluding water and salt) and may carry new USDA Organic Seal.
· Made With Organic – at least 70% of content is organic and the front product panel may display the phrase “Made with Organic” followed by up to three specific ingredients.
· When less than 70 % of content is organic, may list only those ingredients that are organic on the ingredient panel with no mention of organic on the main panel.
4. Minimize your family’s exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Studies have shown that U.S. consumers can experience up to 70 daily exposures to residues from POPs through their diets. The use of POPs is forbidden in organic agriculture. Reduce your family’s exposure to POPs by purchasing the organic alternatives to the top ten* foods found most likely to be contaminated with POPs: 1) butter, 2) cantaloupe, 3) cucumbers/pickles, 4) meatloaf, 5) peanuts, 6) popcorn, 7) radishes, 8 ) spinach, 9) summer squash, and 10) winter squash. Source: Nowhere to Hide: Persistent Toxic Chemicals in the U.S. Food Supply, Pesticide Action Network North America, 2000, www.panna.org. *Presented in alphabetical order
5. Know which fruits and vegetables are the best choice for your family. Conventionally grown fresh produce is three to four times more likely to contain one or more pesticides than organic produce. Government tests show that conventional apples, pears, peaches, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, celery, spinach and sweet bell peppers are the foods most likely to be contaminated with one or more pesticides. Choosing organically grown fruits and vegetables can significantly decrease the frequency and level of dietary exposure to pesticides. Source: Organic Center for Education and Promotion state of science review titled “Minimizing Pesticide Dietary Exposure Through Consumption of Organic Foods,” May 2004.
6. Look for organic foods wherever you shop. Organic foods can be found at your favorite grocery store, natural food store or local farmers market. And remember, you can find products made from organic cotton, wool and linen too!
7. If you don’t find the organic foods you’re looking for, ASK. Many store managers are happy to make special orders for their customers or can help you find an alternative to meet your needs.
Filed under: RAISING AWARENESS | Tags: electric, environmental education, Hinkle Charitable Foundation, SELF, solar power
With the vision of powering a brighter 21st century, the Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, brings solar power and modern communications to rural villages in the developing world — for enhancements in health, education, and economic well-being.
The Hinkle Charitable Foundation (HCF), which advocates for environmental and musical education, has issued the Pure Waste Challenge to motivate people to commit to reducing their carbon footprint. For each and every person who reads three short but very informative primers on saving energy and commits to taking action, the Hinkle Charitable Foundation will donate $100 to SELF, up to the first 1000 responders.
Please visit the Hinkle Charitable Foundation website at www.thehcf.org and learn how you can save energy while also helping SELF to bring carbon-free solar power to the developing world.
The Pure Waste Challenge:
Minimal changes producing a great impact.
Filed under: BABY STEPS FOR US | Tags: carbon footprint, CO2, forest, Kyoto, trees, woodland
Trees In Trust enables you to quickly and easily dedicate a piece of forest to give as a gift, as a memorial or to reduce your carbon footprint. You don’t own the trees, but they are held in your name forever by a not-for-profit charitable land trust which protects the woodland in perpetuity.
The 2005 Canadian government information on Climate Change estimates that you produce 3 tonnes of CO2 if you drive a mid-sized car 15,000 km a year and another 4 tonnes to cover heating, lighting and other appliances, totaling 7 tonnes of CO2 per year.
An acre of mature trees can capture 2.6 tonnes of CO2 per year.
The Kyoto target for Canada is to reduce our CO2 output by 6% of 1990 levels by 2012.
A sixth of an acre of trees can capture 430Kg of CO2 per year, which is 6% of your annual CO2 production.
So one way to meet your personal Kyoto target of a 6% reduction of CO2 is to secure a sixth of an acre of trees. To absorb your entire personal CO2 production requires almost 3 acres of trees.
Many dismiss the Kyoto target as impractical, impossible, ineffective – but if we do nothing then we are headed for disaster. Only by many of us acting individually can we make a real difference.
Filed under: RAISING AWARENESS | Tags: biofuels, corn, emissions, ethanol, fuel, gas, gasoline, greenhouse, land use
Study: Corn ethanol worse than gasoline
Greenhouse emissions much higher if land use factored in, researchers say
updated 4:50 p.m. MT, Thurs., Feb. 7, 2008
The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday.
The study challenges the rush to corn-based ethanol as a response to global warming, but says there is a future for ethanol from waste products that do not require uprooting land where carbon is already absorbed by trees and plants.
The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
“Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming,” concludes the study published in Science magazine.
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly “plow up more forest or grasslands,” releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.
Ethanol industry responds
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers’ view of land-use changes “simplistic” and said the study “fails to put the issue in context.”
“Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role,” said Bob Dinneen, the association’s president.
There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.
The new “green” fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.
During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20 percent less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70 percent less emissions.
The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses “were one-sided” and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.
“The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions,” said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20 percent, will increases it by 93 percent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50 percent more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.
Biofuels from waste urged
Not all ethanol would be affected by the land-use changes, the study said.
“We should be focusing on our use of biofuels from waste products” such as garbage, which would not result in changes in agricultural land use, Searchinger said in an interview. “And you have to be careful how much you require. Use the right biofuels, but don’t require too much too fast. Right now we’re making almost exclusively the wrong biofuels.”
The study included co-authors affiliated with Iowa State University, the Woods Hole Research Center and the Agricultural Conservation Economics. It was supported by a grant from NASA’s Terrestrial Ecology Program, and by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Searchinger, in addition to his affiliation with Princeton, is a fellow at the Washington-based German Marshall Fund of the United States.
Filed under: RAISING AWARENESS | Tags: California water supply, domestic water supply, Orange County, tap water, toilet to tap
Orange County has spent almost $500 million dollars on a new water-purification plant to turn wastewater into drinking water. The plant is scheduled to come online this week.
The new plant has a control room that features giant computer screens showing the status of every pipe, water basin and filter in the system.
Returning Water to Nature
“This is an amazing control system,” said Shivaji Deshmukh, program manager for Orange County’s Groundwater Replenishment System. “You can keep track of every valve control point. It’s measuring PH and conductivity, which is a reflection of how much salt is in the water, so we’re keeping track of this constantly.”
But the real action takes place downstairs in a labyrinth of pipes. Engines push the water through the plant’s microfilters. Using high pressure, reverse osmosis, it’s then forced through a thin membrane. Finally, the water is injected with peroxide and blasted with ultraviolet light to remove lingering hormones and dissolved pharmaceuticals.
At the end of every day, 70 million gallons of drinking water — 10 percent of what the county needs — get pumped back underground into the aquifer.
“We return the water to nature. We put the water back into the ground, and we let Mother Nature take over from us,” said Mike Wehner, assistant general manager of the Orange County Water District. He said his product is so pure that the agency has to add lime back into it to keep the water from eroding the cement pipes.
“I think it’s a viable solution everywhere in the world,” he said. “People don’t have any objection to sending astronauts up into space and having them live for weeks at a time recycling their own wastewater. Well, down here on the ground, we can apply the same kind of technologies.”
But some Californians said they do not like the idea of drinking recycled wastewater.
“I’m all for recycled water but don’t use it in our reservoirs or our drinking fountains. Why take the chance?” asks Muriel Watson, a retired San Diego schoolteacher.
Wilson is a member of the “Revolting Grandmas” — a group that is revolted by the plan to replenish reservoirs with treated sewage water.
Some California cities are also looking into the idea, though they are wary of the public’s reaction.
But the distasteful idea of drinking recycled wastewater is only part of the debate. It’s also about energy.
Energy Is a Factor
About one-fifth of California’s energy is used to move water from north to south through the state water project.
Bruce Reznik said new sources of potable water should not demand even more.
“We want to make sure that we’re not trading water security for energy insecurity,” Reznik said.
His group, San Diego Coastkeeper, supports water recycling, and he even likes the term “toilet to tap” because the process uses less energy and emits less carbon than the existing state water project.
“It reduces our energy footprint as long as we don’t use these new water supplies to then sprawl out and have more development,” he said. “If we actually use it to offset our imports, it can be a win for us on energy. Of course, it helps promote water stability and security.”
Filed under: RAISING AWARENESS | Tags: Alaska, Exxon, oil, Prince William Sound, spill, Supreme Court, Valdez
Exxon’s Alaska Oil Spill Case Heads to High Court
On March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of heavy crude oil in the icy waters of Alaska’s Prince William Sound. Nineteen years later, Exxon and those affected by the disaster are still arguing over punitive damages, and the case is now before the Supreme Court. It will be heard in February.
Exxon has already paid out nearly $3.5 billion, but was the money wisely spent? Also, how did the spill, the money and the attention change the region?
Nearly two decades after the worst spill in U.S. history, has the Sound recovered?
NPR: All Things Considered, January 22, 2008
To listen to the full story (7 min 36 sec) click here and then select “Listen Now”.
