Blog 10: More harmful radiation than previously thought from Fukushima

Summary: Clean up of the recent over flow of radioactive cooling tanks has been much slower than promised by the Japanese government. The Liberal Democratic Party urges the government to take back the promise of returning home to the people near Fukushima. Residents of the eleven affected towns who once planned on going back home in March of next year, my never be able to return again. The Japanese will now have to relocate 160,000 people into new homes. Tepco, the plant's operator is supposed to help pay for the relocation and clean up but says it has more to focus on with the attempts to decommission the Fukushima plant which could take up to thirty years. "At some point in time, someone will have to say that this region is uninhabitable, but we will make up for it," the LDP's secretary general, Shigeru Ishiba, said recently. A plan to give up on cleaning the areas closest to the accident and focus on the realistic goal of making the less affected areas the priority has upset those who are permanently displaced.  

Analysis: "Politicians should have specified a long time ago the areas where evacuees will not be able to return, and presented plans to help them rebuild their lives elsewhere," Toshitaka Kakinuma, a 71-year-old Okuma resident living in nearby Iwaki told the Asahi Shimbun newspaper. There are few like this who even want to return to their homes. Over a thousand people have died due to illnesses related to the evacuation of Fukushima. Some are more devastated than others in that previous accidents made them fear displacement before.  Scientists cap the threat of radiation damage to people up to 20 mSv. Even at or below this, those exposed to the radiation will be more prone to cancer in the future. Constant tests are being taken, measuring harmful emissions in the air, ocean and groundwater. The extremely reactive element, caesium has been detected in plankton from 60 km away from the site of the plant. The accident in Chernobyl had similar effects on the environment.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/12/fukushima-daiichu-residents-radiation-japan-nuclear-power

11/12/13

1:35pm

Blog 9: Ghana accused Environcom on illegal imports

Summary: Environcom, one of the UK’s largest recycling companies, has imported thousands of second hand fridges into the West African country of Ghana. The company has been openly disregarding the regulations in place to protect the country from harmful chemicals. Representatives admit exported the recycled fridges to Ghana but claim that they did so before the rule was set. The situation gets sticky when the company continues on to say that a delay in transportation caused a shipment to arrive later, after the rule was put in place. The ban was fueled by the fear of overwhelming toxic waste from the old electrical units. “The Guardian has seen an email exchange between Environcom and the Ghanaian authorities in which the company threatened to withdraw plans to invest in a recycling plant in the country if it was not allowed to import parts from second-hand fridges.” Authorities say that even now after the story is out, they’re are still dumping the refrigerators on the country.

Analysis: Environcom is obviously aware of the broken rules. They will cheat, lie, and spin their way out of having to clean up their act, unless they are specifically prevented from doing so by environmental legislation. The company claims to be negotiating or seeking clarity in the laws concerning exports of recycled electrical units. This denial might be taken more seriously if it weren’t for the pre-existing accusations on the company for wrongful waste dumping in Africa. “Earlier this year company director Sean Feeney, a former senior Dixons executive, admitted Environcom had exported old-fashioned cathode-ray tube TVs to Africa when they became "hazardous" products, which could not be safely disposed of.” The British recycling company continues exploiting poor countries to put up with environmental dangers to save face with the uninformed people of the UK. Local environments are becoming more and more toxic with the illegal dumping. The impoverished people living around these areas are being exposed and are living in harmful pollution. Ghana plans to file a complaint to the EU in response.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/ghana-uk-environcom-illegal-fridge-imports

Addie McKay

11-6-13

4:30 pm

Blog 8: Climate change linked to brushfire risk

Summary: Australia’s newly elected prime minister, Tony Abbott, is bashing all accounts of evidence that global warming is causing more frequent and intense brushfires. The environment minister, Greg Hunt, stated that there is no single event that can be linked to the rising global temperatures but on the departments own website, the collection of information contradicts his statement. The government website says that the greater the amount of climate change, the more natural disasters will occur. Also in the document, the author admits that it is difficult to isolate one single incident that global warming has caused but when viewing the long term data, the evidence is clear. “Impacts of climate change will mostly be felt through extreme events.” The independent body, the Climate Commission, that announced that link between brushfires and global warming was once a part of the government but after being shut down began receiving private funding.

Analysis: All evidence points to the fact that high carbon emissions leads to the drying and warming of the south eastern regions of Australia which inevitably leads to a high frequency and more intense brushfires. Prime Minister Abbott has no firm proof in saying the two issues aren’t related. His repeated remarks about climate change not existing has been drawing attention since before he was elected. Sooner or later, his voters will see the gap in his credibility, as well as lose trust in his environment minister. Ignoring the concerns on global warming isn’t the way to avoid its disastrous outcomes. Many Australians have been hurt by the extreme brushfires and if the government refuses to step up and admit that there is real problem then they will continue to suffer. Without government regulation, the major polluters have no incentive to cut down the amount of dangerous emissions. Despite the local efforts at being greener or more efficient, the bulk of the obstacle remains on the corporations. Only the government can truly enforce change. In the case of government under Tony Abbott, change will not occur anytime soon, ensuring an increase in brushfires.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/25/climate-change-linked-to-bushfire-risk-says-environment-department-website

Addie McKay

10/28/13

4:40 pm

Blog 7: China paralyzed by smog

Summary: In the province of Heilongjiang, China, smog shut down airways, closed highways, and schools. The visibility fell under 10 meters in areas where pollution is over 40 times the recommendation. In the city of Harbin, particulate matter size and reached an all time high at micrograms per cubic meter. Authorities warned neighboring cities about the smog that would be moving their way and projected visibility of these cities would be less than 100 meters. Traffic policemen were rendered almost useless because oncoming traffic could not see them. PM2.5 is particularly dangerous because the matter is small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream. Coal consumption in industrial China is causing the extreme particulate matter pollution. Government council’s are talking about creating stricter limitations on the use of coal as an energy source. The Beijing government is prepared to spend 200 to 300 billion Yuan to reduce the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere. Other solutions on the table include closing schools and alternating driving days for cars with even or odd number license plates.

Analysis: The health effects of this intense smog will last in the Chinese people, long after the amount of particulate matter is reduced. Residents of China’s highly polluted areas are at extreme risk. The rate of people who think the air pollution is a big problem is still under half at 47% but this is an improvement from last years 36%. China suffers from some of the worst air pollution on the planet with its high population and highly industrialized society. Particles remain suspended in the air for long periods of time. China will continue to be affected by the pollution. Visibility in the highly affected areas won’t improve for a while so highways and airways won't be able to open immediately. The implications of smog go beyond the major health issues of the Chinese people and the diversions of major transportation. This high pollution will be end up costing the government crazy amounts of money. Shutting down schools and closing roads contribute to an overall loss of productivity in the cities.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/chinese-city-paralysed-by-smog

Addie McKay

Oct 22, 2013

1:30 pm

Blog 6: Air Pollution in Europe

Summary: Over ninety percent of European cities are breathing in dangerously high polluted air, causing major respiratory ailments, says the UN’s World Health Organization. Evidence shows that this extreme amount of pollution can linked to 430,000 deaths throughout the continent. This can be blamed on the countries and their failure the update and require strict limitations on harmful emissions. EEA director, Hans Bruyninckx says "Large parts of the population do not live in a healthy environment, according to current standards. To get on to a sustainable path, Europe will have to be ambitious and go beyond current legislation." This contradicts a prior statement released from the EEA claiming that the air quality in Europe was meeting “acceptable” levels. The WHO says 85-98% of Europe's urban population is exposed to dangerous levels of air pollutions but the EU says only 14-31% of people are exposed. Low level ozone and particulate matter in the atmosphere are the more prominent pollutants in Europe. Their effects are linked to global warming, acid rain, and human health.

Analysis: The European Environmental Agency (EEA) claims that there has been a decline in air pollution emissions for the past decade along with an increase in industry thriving on fossil fuels. Since the 1990’s when industry caused pollution was at its highest, Europe has been making great strides by replacing dirty coal with gas, higher engine standards, etc. But now scientists are learning that it doesn’t take as much of a pollutant like particulate matter to make an impact on the environment and cause health issues. Therefore, the limitations on industry to minimize emissions needs to be less lenient. The EU’s target of limit of emissions is already well below that suggested by the UN. The effects of this pollution create a lot of problems in society. The environmental consequences include acid rain, loss of biodiversity, damage to structures and visibility. Health wise; people living in these areas have higher risk of suffering from respiratory problems, heart disease, and live a generally shorter life. There is also evidence concluding that mothers living in the 90% of affected Europe have children with lower than normal birth weights.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/15/european-cities-dangerous-air-pollution

Addie McKay

10/17/13

7:30 pm

Blog 5: Execution of elephant poachers on the spot

Summary: “Shoot to kill” is the new policy in Tanzania set by the government minister in regards to poachers killing African Elephants. Those guilty of illegal ivory trade are to killed on the spot. This is dangerous ground for rangers, poachers, as well as the elephants. Over the past ten years, a thousand rangers have been killed during the decade and half the population of elephants in just three years. Khamis Kagasheki of the Tanzanian government says “Poachers must be harshly punished because they are merciless people who wantonly kill our wildlife and sometimes wardens.” Ivory is incredibly precious and other leaders in the country agree that poachers would stop at nothing to retrieve it and kill anyone who stands in their way. Local rangers are in a poaching war. Officials claim that instant killing of poachers will create a deterrence. Common criticism of the policy includes that killing will just escalate violence rather than containing it.

Analysis: Poaching and trade of ivory is illegal. Through constant tries to relieve the problem, many rangers died in defense as well as elephants. The question is, what's more important? Human rights is the issue for the opposers of the “shoot to kill” policy and on the other hand, there is the worry of possible extinction of a species. Elephants are an important part of the savannah ecosystem. Some might put them in the same boat at polar bears; on the verge of extinction due to human activities. Human rights activist view on the matter is arguably biased on the issue. Placing the human above all other creatures that we share the Earth is often justified by the majority but the pros and cons are not laid out evenly. Perhaps a more potent solution that doesn’t involve killing people and can still effectively protect the elephants is somewhere in the middle. Either way, the decision has been made to enforce the policy and continue the poaching war. The threat to rangers will most likely increase and result in more deaths. As the for the elephants, this is a positive step in conservation and protection that will hopefully prove to be beneficial.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/08/shoot-elephant-poachers-tanzania-ivory

Addie McKay

10/8/13

1:25 pm

Blog 4: Second breach at Fukushima nuclear plant

Summary: The Fukushima nuclear power plant leaked again today, Thursday, for the second time with in months. A tank holding contaminated water was overfilled and flowed into the Pacific Ocean through runoff, rivers, and ditches. The Tokyo Electric Power Company has agreed to keep a closer watch in the plant though many question their ability to effectively manage a serious clean up. The government has promised to improve conditions to prevent accidents like this last month just after the first incident. The Japanese government claims to be in full control of the situation. 200,000 Becquerel's per liter of radioactive isotopes was spilt. The legal limit is 30 Becquerel's per liter. The spill lasted for 12 hours, releasing over a hundred gallons of the toxic water. On top of that, the tank was leaning due to uneven location. The company is used to filled the tanks all the way to the top because it doesn’t have much storage to spare. The company admits to polluting the surrounding waters of the plant but says the ocean will dilute the toxins, making the harmless to other countries.

Analysis: Japan is a core country and is expected to be able to handle situations like these the first time around. The fact that this happened twice within two months proves the countries lack of seriousness on the environment. The statement that the toxins won’t harm other countries is hardly positive. The oceans cycle around the world and with such as high toxicity of the water will most likely have an effect of the ecosystems not only in Japan but in the surrounding countries and might even affect the waters of western united states. Fish and other aquatic organisms in the waters will take in the toxins either killing them or spreading the poison the organisms that feed on them. Also to be feared is the possibility of future spills that could be more detrimental the environment. The Japanese government promised to secure the nuclear plant after the first accident. Now the for a second time. Who’s to say this won’t happen again. The facility itself is dangerous and in an inadequate area where the storage area is low and the ground isn't level. The plant runs hundreds of tons of water a day to cool the reactors. The storage won’t last forever and spill will keep occurring unless something is done.

Addie McKay

10/3/13

12:50 PM

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/03/fukushima-nuclear-plant-leak-japan

Blog 3: Arctic leaders talk tapping riches without ruining environment

Summary: Representatives from countries bordering the arctic region including environmentalist, government leaders and business people from Canada, Russia, the US, Norway and Denmark met at a forum in Salekhard, Russia to discuss future utilization of resources in the Arctic Region. The forum consists of 700 delegates as well as the Russian, Finnish, and Icelandic Presidents. Studies suggest just that 20% of the worlds oil reserves and 30% of the natural gas lay underneath the ice. Fish and freshwater are also on the table. The goal is only achieved if the environmental impacts don’t prove to be negative. Russian President Vladimir Putin reassures the forum by saying “The right to extract oil in the ice conditions will only be given to operators, who have tried methods to clean oil spills under ice. We are also considering the creation of a mechanism for financial backing of cleanups of such spills.” Before any final decision is made, Finnish President Niinisto called for a better understanding of the ecology in the arctic between the countries.

Analysis: A number of conflicts arise in the international discussion of whether or not to develop the Arctic region. First, is the fact that there are no real official boundaries between the countries in the area. Differences in opinion could result in the argument on where is “fair game” to start developing. Russia’s argument does prove to be reliable in that their government has already spent some $45 million on a ‘Spring Clean’ program. On the other hand, Russia is simultaneously ramping up their military in order to prepare for the worst. This quite a stretch for them, considering the fact that the forum was deemed free of any political bias’ interfering. Also to be concerned with is the true measure of global climate change and the possibilities of disastrous outcomes regarding it. Oil spills while not considered common, do happen. If an oil spill did occur, then we would have poisoned one of the last untouched, resource rich, ecosystems. So in the forum, the question must be asked, what is the benefit to risk ratio? News of the forum has motivated a considerable number of protests an organization known as Greenpeace. Protesters have been arrested. No decision has been made yet on the issue but the answer will be long awaited.

http://rt.com/news/arctic-forum-russia-putin-315/

Addie McKay

9/25/13

8:15 pm

Blog 2: Abolition of the Carbon Tax in Australia

Summary: Tony Abbott, the newly elected prime minister of Australia’s first priority was to remove the carbon tax. (The carbon pricing began in 2012, taxing each ton over 25,000 at around $25 dollars per ton.)  He explains his reasoning, telling Daily Telegraph, "The carbon tax has been a handbrake on the NSW economy and I will assure Premier O'Farrell today that my top legislative priority is scrapping the carbon tax because that will be an adrenalin shot for local business and relief for families too." In 2009, Abbott made his feeling of global warming apparent calling climate change ‘crap’. Majority of his 2013 campaign donors were mining, coal, and oil companies. Since this tax was introduced just over a year ago, Australian economics have been at an all time high. The price was a success, significantly lowering the amount of emissions of CO2 in big corporations. The abolition of the Carbon tax would intensify Australia's already great pollution. The past year has been the hottest yet on record. 

Analysis: Tony’s opposers use words like “negligent” and “front man of the carbon industry” to describe him. The facts laid out in the article does point out the negative agenda of the new Prime Minister but with such a high awareness of global warming these days, we have to ask how this man came into office. He must be doing something right. Or is the government in Australia truly ran by those of the fossil fuel industry? The author describes a “scam” by Abbott, previous to the election, called “direct action” ensuring mission of saving the environment. This was discredited.

The Carbon tax may not have had a direct correlation with the positive trend in Australia’s economy but it’s obvious it did indeed lower the rate of emissions of CO2 levels. Abbotts support of these industries is clear in the numbers. The some of donations from these fossil fuel industry exceeds a million dollars. The quest of abolition is not set in stone just yet though. Sworn into office just yesterday, September 18, the Prime Minister’s cabinet won’t be sworn in until next week, September 25. The cabinet, while male-dominated and hand picked by Abbott, still has a strong say in the abolition of the Carbon Tax and the citizens of Australia await their decision.

Addie McKay
09-19-13
10:08 pm  

Blog 1: Nature, Inc?

Summary: Majority governments around the world have been focusing more on economic crisis’ more than the needs of their surrounding environments. A new thought has been pitched by the UN Environmental Program that looks at nature as an “ecosystem service” provider; in other words, viewing the environment fiscally. This means that the resources we use will no longer be free. Local people of resource rich areas will demand to know who and what is in control of the land around them as well as compensation for displacement and such. In the past, credit systems were placed on carbon dioxide emissions but big corporations were able to find their way around or “pay off” the damage. Frankly, the value of a rain forest cannot be put into a monetary value. Instead of basing on the worlds failed markets, more government control should phase out subsidies harmful to the environment and become more aware of the true value of nature.

Analysis: In more ways than we think, global warming, the loss of biodiversity, and depletion of water already affect the global economy. What was thought once to be an endless supply of medical revolutions and even the air we breathe are being destroyed; turned into vast farmlands and factory grounds. Also, outlined in the article is the fact that fact that previous ideas to control the use of resources have failed. Even in a positive system of conservation involving policies other international governments, there lies risk to other factors. Threats are placed on the indigenous people living in these resource rich areas such as displacement and loss of income received from said resources. Industry from early Europe has already drawn the short straw for residents of these areas by taking advantage of the undeveloped countries. In conclusion, the outcomes of previous financial market based economy is too far a risk to apply the fate of remaining resources on earth.

Addie McKay   

09-11-13

6:57 PM

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-limits-of-market-based-environmental-protection-by-barbara-unmuessig