ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS THAT WON'T BE TRUMPETED WORLDWIDE BY THE MEDIA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Environment Canada are poised to highlight more good news on North America's environment. The 2004 Annual Progress Report on the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, just off the press but, as of this writing, not yet released, documents progress in dealing with a particularly nasty suite of persistent, toxic chemicals which accumulate in the environment with increasing concentration up the food web. These are pollutants of national and international concern, but they have pronounced impacts on the biota and fisheries of the Great Lakes, and the people who rely on them, because of the size of the lakes and the longer residence time of the contaminants in such huge bodies of water.

The strategy was the result of a 1997 agreement between the U.S. and Canada “to virtually eliminate toxic substances from the Great Lakes to meet previous commitments under their Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. As ambitious or foolhardy as this goal may sound, it seems that success is within reach with respect to priority pollutants such as mercury, PCBs, dioxins/furans, and hexachlorobenzene (HCB). Using “Great Lakes” in the title is some what confusing since the goals for both countries are, for the most part, national in scope. But these waters are major receptors of the pollutants addressed in the Strategy. Many of these pollutants travel great distances in the air. In the case of some, mercury for instance, they cycle about globally. Nevertheless, the 2004 report gives us a snapshot of tremendous progress which extends well beyond just the Great Lakes region.

Of the 17 reduction goals set forth for the top twelve toxic substances (“Level 1”) back in 1997, “ten have been met, three will be met by the target timeline date of 2006, and the remaining four will be well advanced toward meeting the targets by 2006,” states the report.

Regarding mercury, the subject of much debate in Washington these days, the report notes that the U.S. met its national mercury-use reduction goal of 50 percent, and currently stands at over 50 percent based on a 1990 baseline. Mercury is now out of batteries, paints, high-school labs, some illuminated tennis shoes, and other products. When was the last time your kids played with elemental mercury in the high-school chemistry lab? Digital thermometers obviate the need for mercury in that high-volume product, too. In the mid-1990s, this writer, on behalf of then Governor John Engler of Michigan, worked with the Big Three auto companies to phase out 9.8 metric tons of mercury going into convenience-light switches under hoods and trunks annually. The chlor-alkali industry accounted for almost 35 percent of mercury use in 1995, and its total mercury use decreased 76 percent between 1995 and 2003 (with some plant closures). The fluorescent-lamp industry reported using 6 tons of mercury in 2003, down from 32 tons in 1997. The Canadians are also making great progress towards a 90-percent reduction goal (based on a 1988) baseline. They are now at 83 percent.

Keep in mind that these are figures for the deliberate use of mercury, not emissions per se. U.S. mercury emissions decreased approximately 45 percent between 1990 and 1999, according to the annual report. Significant reductions in emissions from municipal-waste combustors and medical-waste incinerators, by 1999, resulted from regulatory mandates under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The good news is that the U.S. has yet to see the new reductions to be achieved from regulation of the power industry pursuant to the new Clean Air Mercury Rule which will eventually cut those mercury emissions by nearly 70 percent.

The 2004 report recognizes tremendous progress by the U.S. and Canada in reducing emissions of dioxins and furans. The U.S. projects a 92-percent reduction in nationwide releases of these pollutants by the end of 2004 against a goal of 75 percent by 2006. Nothing like under promising and over delivering! Canada stands at 84 percent and expects to meet its 2000 target of 90 percent by 2005. Again, past regulation of combustion sources has yielded these substantial reductions. When pending regulatory actions are fully implemented, “the largest source in the United States will be household garbage burning,” according to the report. Think about it: We have done such a great job controlling dioxin emissions from large, industrial sources that we only have backyard burn barrels to go after. Check out www.openburning.org.

PCBs, second only to mercury as a cause of fish-consumption advisories nationally, is also a top priority of the Binational Toxics Strategy. The goal for high-level PCBs was a 90-percent reduction of use in electrical equipment along with proper management and disposal to prevent accidental releases. PCBs were banned by law many years ago, but they were still in use at the time the strategy was conceived. In the U.S. about 87,000 PCB transformers and 143,000 PCB capacitors were disposed of between the 1994 baseline and the end of 2002. This represents reductions of 43.5 percent and 10 percent respectively.

The 2004 Annual Progress Report on the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy is a treasure trove of statistics, graphs, and general information on our sustained, continuing efforts to protect human health and the environment. Executive summary: It's a greener world than you know.

Source






IT'S THE GREENIES WHO HAVE MADE NUKES RESPECTABLE AGAIN!

Environmentalists - convinced that the world was on the brink of disaster through "global warming" - were delighted in 1997 when the UN Climate Change Convention in Japan drafted the Kyoto Protocol, which called for mandatory reduction of emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. But today they might be wondering whether their feelings of triumph were premature. Eight years later, as the Kyoto Protocol comes into force, it is emerging that green lobbyists have unwittingly been responsible for an outcome none of them could have wished for. In a growing number of countries, an increasingly preferred source of base-load electrical power is none other than nuclear energy.

Renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind power, tidal or geothermal) produce only two per cent of global electricity. Oil and gas usage has increased, as a result of the increased number of motor vehicles on the roads, so the only way out for many countries has been to turn to nuclear energy, against which the greens have a pathological aversion.


Indeed, countries around the world have been investing more in nuclear power since the Kyoto protocol came into effect. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency estimated earlier this year that up to 130 new 1000-MW nuclear power plants are in the offing. Nuclear power is becoming popular precisely because it has no greenhouse gas emissions, allowing countries to meet their Kyoto obligations to cut emissions. In Britain, for example, the last Conservative Government closed down the last of Britain's coal-powered generators, leaving all of them running on gas (much of which needs to be imported from Russia), and 14 nuclear power stations, built many years ago.


In order for Britain to meet its legal obligations under Kyoto, the only alternative that is currently under discussion by both the Conservatives and Labour is nuclear energy. Referring to the Labour Party's recent election manifesto, the London Times observed, "There is remarkably little said about the matter at all, given the apocalyptic view that the Prime Minister apparently takes of the impact of climate change. There are two reasons for this unwonted reticence. The first is embarrassment. Having pledged to curb UK carbon emissions by 20 per cent of the 1990 rate in 2020, and 60 per cent within a generation - cuts far steeper than the Kyoto Protocol requires - emissions have been rising, not falling, for the past two years. The second reason is the reluctance to grasp the nuclear nettle. Labour is determined to get through this election without saying where it stands on building new nuclear power stations - one of the 'greenest' energy sources in climate change terms, but a dirty word with green lobbies worried about waste and potential 'meltdown'."


France, one of the strongest supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, has been phasing out old coal-fired power stations and replacing them with nuclear power plants for many years. Currently, France obtains nearly 80 per cent of its electrical needs through nuclear energy. The US currently acquires 20 per cent of its electricity from nuclear energy, and Russia 16 per cent. The accelerating price of both oil and coal is also pushing countries towards the nuclear option. It is ironic that the radical environmentalists who most strongly pushed for the Kyoto Protocol, are about to see the re-emergence of their worst nightmare, nuclear power.

More here





GLOBAL WARMERS FORGET SPECIES ADAPTABILITY

Global warming may not have the catastrophic effect on the diversity of the world's species that has been forecast, according to a new book. Plants and animals may actually be able to respond to the temperature rises that are expected to occur over the next century, the University of East Anglia's Professor Godfrey Hewitt claims.

Drawing on the fact that many species have survived ice ages without becoming extinct, Prof Hewitt believes man's destruction of habitats is a far greater threat to biodiversity. The theory is put forward in Climate Change and Biodiversity, to be published this Friday. Prof Hewitt, an evolutionary biologist, said: "Most [species] can probably cope with the small increases in temperature we are seeing. Far more serious would be a sudden large drop in temperature, possibly the beginning of a new ice age. This is linked to another real worry, which is the destruction by man of habitats where species have survived many such major climate changes."

The book suggests that the threat of global warming to biodiversity should take account of longer-term climate changes. Species have endured repeated global cooling and warming through several ice-age cycles, which for northern Europe oscillated between ice cover and conditions warmer than today. Elements of certain species will move north as temperatures rise, leading to potential genetic change in those species. Prof Hewitt added: "Organisms may adapt to new conditions, change their range with suitable environments, or go extinct."

The migration of species may also lead to genetic change, and loss of genetic diversity, although this probably poses no threat to humans.

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************