Shannon DeWitt
October 4, 2010
One of China’s most serious pollution problems is one that is mostly ignored by the government. The problem is coal ash, a byproduct of using coal as a resource for most of its energy needs. Seventy percent of the country’s energy comes from coal, with electricity production accounting for half of all coal consumption. Coal ash impoundments, created to control these harmful byproducts, are not nearly as efficient and prepared for environmental disasters as they should be. The impoundments are located closer to people and farms than they are legally permitted to be and as a result people and animals are having negative health effects. Cows are reproducing less and producing less milk as a result of eating grass that contains fly-ash from the nearby coal plants. Not only are the people living near these plants acquiring skin and respiratory infections, but those who consume cow products in their diets can become ill as well. The coal ash is also contaminating ground water and well-water, and if another environmental disaster, such as the 2006 leak from the dam at Pan County Power Plant in Guizhou that sent 300,000 tons of coal ash into the Tuochang River, were to occur there is no telling how many people and animals could suffer as a result of poor management of coal waste.
It is clear that there is a problem resulting from coal ash in China. People and animals are being affected from the waste contaminants in their air, water, and food. There is documentation to show that coal ash is a significant problem for the country. The next step would be a social movement to bring attention to the issue and demand a change. The US and various parts of the world are having to research other methods of energy production aside from oil, and it seems to me that China needs to be in the same research to find a new method of energy production other than coal. Coal may be a cheap resource for the country, but the costs to the inhabitants and the land need to be weighed more heavily to avoid further damage.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS318418519320101003?pageNumber=1
1 comment:
I agree that alternative energy sources should be researched instead of continuing to harm their communities and livestock. Its a shame that because something is cost effective it will take priority over health.
Post a Comment