By Kenneth Barbalace

Politically motivated fear mongering has become a routine part of the partisan discourse with some media outlets. This is an unfortunate part of the current political reality. There are occasions, however, when this fear mongering goes far beyond being just political hatchet jobs and become a true public menace. Tonight FOX News' Glen Beck crossed that line and became a true public health menace.

I don't have cable or satellite TV specifically because I don't want to in any shape form or fashion help enable or support the cable news channels and what they try to pass off as news. As such I didn't see Glen Beck's program tonight, however, I did get the following email from one of his viewers this evening:

I am a concerned citizen trying to find information on some chemical compounds to make a more informed decisions.

I hope you can point me in the right direction or give me some information as I am not a scientist, but want some scientific facts, and possibly to see written results of tests. I want my family to be safe, but I am also concerned about toxins .

I was watching Glenn Beck tonight, and was told that thimerosal was in the H1N1 shots, which said contains Ethyl Mercury in high amounts, and the past reports I have researched said that the safe doses for this chemical was 0.1kg and that current shots contained 237MG. How much difference is this?

Does this constitute poison, or toxicity build up, and if its stored in the brain, does your body ever rid the chemicals of ethyl mercury or thimerosal?

Also can you tell me where to find MSDS on Ethyl Mercury, and facts about over dosages, has it ever been tested on people, in the same dose compared to weight in animals for testing?

I found this link http://www.nfid.org/pdf/factsheets/thimerosal.pdf is this document
correct?

Can you tell me what the effects of Ethyl Mercury vs Methyl Mercury are, if a person was overdosed with this is there any cure for it?

Glenn's doctors also said that it is stored in the brain.

Is Ethyl Mercury toxic like regular mercury, and how can a person know if the shot
contains Ethyl or Methyl Mercury?

What other effect if any, do you know if Ethyl Mercury stops bacteria? Does bacterias affect peoples brains from flu's?

Anyway I am a little confused, but I want third opinions as I don't like to make decisions on a whim when concerning everyone who lives here.

Thank you for your time.

On average, according to the Center for Disease Control, 36,171 people die each year in the U.S. from seasonal flu. This year with the H1N1 Swine flu we could be heading into one of the worst flu outbreaks since the 1918 flu pandemic. To stem the spread of the H1N1 flu, and reduce the number of people who die from it, it is critical to get as many people vaccinated as is possible, especially if they are in the high risk categories. Yet what does Glen Beck do? He tries to use the vaccine as yet another opportunity to stir up fear in his TV audience to convince them that President Obama and his administration are out to get them.

The email I received, is proof that Glen Beck's irresponsible behavior has indeed sowed fear, uncertainty and doubt into the minds of his viewers who were probably already concerned about the flu itself. Thanks to his spreading of paranoid delusions, there will undoubtedly be many individuals who will, out of fear, not get the vaccine. As a result, they will get sick and either die themselves or help spread the virus to others who in turn get sick and die. Glen Beck's actions and fear mongering are not just opportunistic, but they are incredibly irresponsible and should not be tolerated. His fear mongering has undoubtedly set in motion a chain of events, which will result in needless deaths.

In regards to the email I received above, here is the reply I sent them:

There have been several high profile cases of individuals trying to blame vaccines and ethyle mercury for all kinds of things including autism without one shred of scientific evidence to back up their claims. Studies have been conducted into these fears in the past and no causation could be shown. One must separate real science from pseudoscience and one must look at Glen Beck's history of outrageous statements that can not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. His motivation is purely political and it is to spread fear and doubt.

You must ask yourself, who would you trust more about the safety of vaccines? Health care professionals who are working very hard to keep us from getting sick or a TV personality who makes a living being as outrageous as possible? I personally have no concerns about the safety of the vaccine and my entire family plans to get the vaccine when it becomes available.

The threat of H1N1 is very real. The supposed dangers of the vaccine are a figment of Glen Beck's imagination.

If you have the slightest doubt about this issue, I would suggest you consult your family physician. They are in the best position to explain the details to you. Just don't base your health care decisions on the paranoid delusions of some famous TV personality.

To answer your question about weights:
1kg = 1,000g = 1,000,000mg

Thus 237mg = 0.000237kg

Based on your note for maximum safe dosage and Ethyl Mercury concentration, you would have to get 421 injections of the H1N1 vaccine to reach the maximum safe dosage. You probably get more mercury in your diet from eating fish on a regular basis (especially if you sport fish).

Sincerely,
Ken Barbalace

Glen Beck has gone way beyond being a partisan hack with paranoid delusions. He has become a true menace to society and FOX News needs to remove him from their programming.

UPDATE
Leave it to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart to put the fear mongering around the N1H1 flu vaccine into perspective.

By Kenneth Barbalace

Recently, I noticed my Senator, Susan Collins (Maine, Republican), had introduced a bill called the "Energy Assistance Fund Act" (S.855) whose purpose is to help make the U.S. more energy independent by improving the energy efficiency of homes via weatherization (a really big issue here in Maine) and providing tax credits for consumers to invest in renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, etc. for their homes. What really impressed me about this legislation is that it addresses several issues in a very effective manner. By providing money to weatherize homes and tax credits for home based renewable energy consumers the bill will:

1. Result in immediate savings for families due to reduced energy costs, which will be a big help to many households in these tough economic times.
2. Improve our nation's energy security by reducing our need for imported energy.
3. Help reduce our nation's carbon footprint by reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn.
4. Help stimulate the economy by creating thousands, if not tens of thousands of jobs weatherizing homes and installing renewable energy systems in homes.

When we look at investments into renewable energy and spending tax dollars on economic stimulus, the most effective place to spend that money is at the individual home owner level via tax rebates, low interest loans, etc. because the money would almost immediately get pumped back into the economy creating a demand for related goods and services. Furthermore as a nation the impact on our energy needs would be almost immediate as every home that gets properly weatherized will see a very significant reduction in energy consumption (maybe around 40% on average). The money consumers save from the reduced energy consumption could be then spent on other household needs.

Unlike this bill cosponsored by Senator Collins, typical energy bills target big industry, pie in the sky projects that do little to help the individual consumer's energy costs. Furthermore, the projects funded by typical energy bills take years to to reach fruition and oftentimes turn out to be boondoggles that provide very little return on investment.

It is very heartening to see legislation that ties economic stimulus, energy security, household energy efficiency, sustainability and reducing our nation's carbon footprint into such a tidy common sense approach. This bill will rely on trickle up from the consumer instead of empty promises of trickle down from industry.

One thing I love about living in a state with a small population base like Maine is that our Senator's are so much more accessible. A couple weeks ago I wrote Senator Collins about her bill and this is the response I got back today. Even when I disagree with my Senators, which isn't uncommon, I appreciate the fact that they take time to respond to my letters. Here is Senator Collin's response to my inquiry:

Dear Mr. Barbalace:

Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation's energy policy and for including information about your website. I appreciate your interest in environmental issues.

I noted your support for my legislation, S. 855. In a bipartisan effort to help Americans overcome the challenge of our dependence on foreign oil and restore and strengthen our nation's economy, I introduced the "Energy Assistance Fund Act" on April 22, 2009, along with my colleague Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). This legislation, introduced on Earth Day, would assist people who want to invest in energy conservation and alternative energy technologies and help set the nation on a path toward energy independence by providing additional loan authority to support current federal programs that help families and small businesses finance energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. This bill has not yet passed Congress. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where it awaits further consideration. I have attached a copy of the bill and a summary of it for your review.

I also have supported legislation to provide tax credits for consumers to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency efforts like solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources in both new and existing homes. These renewable energy production tax credits have been extended through 2012, as part of the economic stimulus package. Also included in the package was $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program. For the latest Maine funding updates, I suggest that you visit the website: www.maine.gov/recovery/ For further information on renewable energy job certification, I suggest that you visit: http://www.efficiencymaine.com/certifications.htm

I remain committed to working to advance effective energy and environmental legislation that increases America's supply of energy and decreases our demand for foreign oil, which will help us to achieve energy independence and to stabilize gas and oil prices. As the Senate continues to consider energy legislation, I will work to advance these objectives and will continue to support policies that benefit Maine families.

Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Susan Collins
United States Senator

No bill can get passed without support so please take some time and write your senators and encourage them to support this bill. This bill does have bipartisan support. It will help stimulate our economy, it will help reduce our dependence on foreign energy (e.g. oil), and is good for the environment.

Download text of S.855 (pdf)

By Kenneth Barbalace

Once again Apple ranked dead last on an environmental organization's survey of electronics manufacturers. One year ago (April 2007), Green Peace ranked Apple dead last on their survey of electronics companies because of Apple's secretiveness about their environmental practices and their failure to disclose measures they were taking to remove hazardous chemicals from their manufacturing processes. This time around, the environmental organization Climate Counts (ClimateCounts.org), which focuses on climate change issues, ranked Apple last among electronics companies survey with a score of 11 out of a possible 100.

Apple has worked hard over the years to cultivate an image of being cool, trendy and better than the rest. As such, I'm stunned at how badly they keep scoring on environmental surveys. I would have expected Apple to embrace being environmentally and socially responsible as key aspects of cultivating a "cool mystique". After all, their key demographic base tends to be very progressive on these issues. Maybe Steve Jobs hopes that consumers will keep drinking the Apple cool-aid and not question how socially and/or environmentally responsible Apple really is.

This day in age being a cool/hip company is more than product marketing and design, it also requires being socially and environmentally responsible. Apple should be consistently showing up at the top of these environmental surveys, not at the bottom well below "less cool" companies like Microsoft. Maybe Steve Jobs needs the legions of Apple fans to stand up and demand that Apple become an environmental and social leader before he comes around on these issues. Please, if you are a consumer of Apple's products, stand up and let Steve Jobs know that you expect more out of his company than just the next must have electronic gizmo with batteries that die after two years. Tell him that as a consumer, the environment really does matter.

What the Climate Counts survey evaluated

The Climate Counts survey looked what some of the worlds largest consumer companies are doing to:

• reduce emissions in their production processes;
• make products that require less energy;
• take back products that are obsolete and turning them into the next big thing;
• measure their own climate "footprint";
• reduce their impact on global warming;
• support or block climate legislation;
• publically disclose their climate actions clearly and comprehensibly.

How other technology companies scored

The number one electronics company on Climate Counts' list was IBM (77 out of 100) followed by Canon (74/100) and Toshiba (70/100) rounding out the top three. Other notable technology companies reviewed by Climate Counts included: Google, which scored 55 out of 100; Microsoft, which scored better than Apple, but was still less than stellar at 38 out of 100.

The ten highest scoring companies on Climate Counts' list

1. Nike (apparel/accessories): 82/100
2. Stonyfield Farm (food products): 78/100
3. IBM (electronics): 77/100
4. Unilever (food products): 75/100
5. Canon (electronics): 74/100
6. General Electric (Media): 71/100
7. Toshiba (electronics): 70/100
8. Procter & Gamble (household products): 69/100
9. Hewlett-Packard (electronics):68/100
10. Sony (electronics): 68/100

The ten lowest scoring companies on Climate Counts' list

1. Wendy's international (food services): 0/100
2. Jones Apparel Group (apparel/accessories): 0/100
3. Darden Restaurants (food services): 0/100
4. Burger King (food services): 0/100
5. Yum! Brands (food services): 1/100
6. Viacom (media): 4/100
7. VF Corporation (apparel/accessories): 4/100
8. eBay (Internet/software): 5/100
9. Amazon.com (Internet/software): 5/100
10. Apple (electronics): 11/100

By Kenneth Barbalace

Fuel tax breaks are nothing but election year pandering

Politicians are nothing if not creative when it comes to political pandering without bringing real relief. The latest proposals to cut fuel taxes during this summer (e.g. before the election) is just such example. The claim is that this will save Americans eighteen cents per gallon or $3.60 per 20 gallon tank of gas. This makes for great sound bites, but things are not that simple.

The $0.18 per gallon tax on fuel goes toward paving roads and repairing bridges (e.g. the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi that collapsed in Minnesota). Unless the money lost from suspending fuel taxes is replaced from another source there will not be money to carry out necessary road repairs and tens to hundreds of thousands of workers who repair U.S. highways and bridges will be out of work. Any failure to repair roads will lead to increased maintenance expense for cars and trucks due to the damage bad roads do to vehicles (e.g. potholes wrecking the wheel alignment, tires and suspensions).

There is a proposal to replace the fuel tax money with a windfall profits tax on the big oil companies (everyone's favorite public enemy #1). The thing is, however, this isn't going to happen. With an upcoming election, Congress will be more than eager to show it is helping the American consumer by reducing fuel taxes at the pump, however, industry lobbyists and key congressional leaders will make sure the windfall profit tax never happen and there still wouldn't be much needed funds for highway repairs.

The reduced fuel price fallacy

It is a fallacy that lowering fuel taxes will actually lower prices at the pump. Fuel prices are controlled by supply and demand. When supplies are tight, and demand is high like during the summer driving months, fuel prices keep climbing until they reach a point where supply and demand reach a balance point. Removing the fuel tax will temporarily lower fuel prices, but this will in turn increase demand and the price of fuel will quickly increase to absorb the savings from eliminating the taxes. As a result, over the course of the summer the tax "holiday" will do very little to nothing to actually reduce the cost of fuel for consumers and truckers. The fuel tax cut could even end up driving up the cost of fuel that is not taxed to fund highway repairs (e.g. heating fuel, industrial uses, farm tractors and other vehicles that do not go on public roads).

Changing the way you drive is the best way to save money at the pump

The reality is, only your habits can save you money at the pump. If you can't reduce the amount you drive or can't replace your vehicle with a more fuel efficient model, the best way to save money at the pump is to change the way you drive. With good vehicle maintenance and good driving habits a car with a 20 gallon gas tank might be able to go an extra 30-40 miles or more between fill ups. One example of this is the difference in the way my wife and I drive. Consistently I can average 4-5 miles per gallon better fuel economy than she does driving the same car under very similar conditions. We drive a 2006 Hyundai Elantra, which is rated at 34 mpg highway. With highway driving, she typically gets 32-34 mpg, while I can get 36-40 mpg for the same driving conditions.

Drive smoother, not just slower

Getting better fuel economy isn't just driving slower; it also requires driving smoother and predicting driving conditions well in advance. The goal should be to keep an even pressure on the gas peddle and to avoid having to frequently let off the gas to slow down and then press harder on the gas to speed back up. You also want to avoid putting yourself in a position where you need to tap or press on the brakes, especially at highway speeds. Every time you have to tap the brakes, you are turning forward motion, which you burned fuel to achieve into wasted heat energy.

Don't tailgate

One of the best ways to smooth out your driving is increasing the following distance from the vehicle in front of you. While vast majority of drivers drive way too close to each other from a safety standpoint, this close driving also lowers fuel efficiency. The closer you drive to another vehicle, the more often you have to switch between tapping the brakes and pressing the gas peddle, this wastes fuel. When you increase your following distance, you are able to smooth out your driving and simply let off the gas without touching the brakes to accommodate changes in speed from the driver in front of you. If you find you frequently have to touch your brakes because of the vehicles in front of you, you are driving too close and wasting fuel.

One trick I find particularly effective to smoothing out my driving on freeways is to drive slightly slower than the rest of the flow of traffic when the rest of traffic is exceeding the speed limits (which it usually does). What this does is always keep vehicles moving away from you so you don't have to slow down as often for vehicles in front of you. Slowing down to something closer to the posted speed not only reduces the risk of a speeding ticket, but also actually saves fuel. For instance our car gets the best fuel economy on highway driving where driving speeds are around 50 mph. The faster I go above this speed, the fewer miles per gallon I get. I used to try to keep my speeds to no more than 70mph on a 65mph posted road, but with the higher fuel prices I'm finding traffic is slowing down and I can more comfortably drive closer to 65 mph without impeding traffic behind me or having as many vehicles whizzing by me.

Hilly terrain, bleed your speed

Highway driving in hilly terrain is another opportunity for saving fuel. Typically people try to keep an even driving speed up and down hills, which requires pressing harder on the gas up hill and riding the brakes down hill to maintain a safe and presumably legal speed. This wastes fuel up hill and opportunity down hill. If you maintain an even pressure on the gas peddle up a hill and allow some speed to bleed off near the crest of the hill you will have used less fuel to crest the hill and will have a wider margin of speed you can increase going down the other side before you have to touch the brakes. This habit has to be moderated by other considerations like how many cars are behind you and how long/steep the hill is, but it can be a useful way to save gas. Also when driving in hilly terrain, don't use your cruise control as they tend to waste a lot of fuel in these conditions because they are designed to keep an even speed and thus push too hard up the hills and (depending on their design) can ride the brakes down hill.

City driving, don't race to the stop

City driving is another place where there is lots of room for saving fuel. All too often, drivers (my wife included) keep their foot on the gas almost all the way to a traffic light and then hit the brakes to slow down at the last moment. Again having to hit the brakes (especially at speed) is an indication of wasted energy. Look two or three blocks of where you are driving and watch what traffic lights are doing. If the light a block away just turned red, let off the gas well in advance of the intersection and let the car slow down on its own. If your timing is right, you might get to the intersection just as traffic starts to move again and thus not only will you avoid wasting energy by pressing the brakes, but you might not have to waste energy by having to start moving from a complete stop.

In many cities, traffic lights are timed and if you figure out the optimal driving speed for a stretch of traffic lights you can time your arrival at each light to when they are green and traffic in front of you has started moving again. This can help you totally avoid having to come to a complete stop at intersections and can save a tremendous amount of fuel. The best things about learning to predict traffic lights and adjusting your speed accordingly is that you spend less time at a standing stop and when done right, it doesn't increase your total driving time.

When you do come to a complete stop, don't try to accelerate quickly as this just wastes fuel. Instead, accelerate at a more modest rate. This won't increase your driving time all that much especially if you are in stop and go traffic anyways, but accelerating slower is easier on the engine and uses less fuel.

Maintain your vehicle

While improving fuel mileage by changing driving habits will take practice, an easy way to improve fuel economy is to just maintain your car better. The easiest and cheapest way to improve fuel economy is to make sure you keep your tires properly inflated. Tire pressure should be checked at least once a month. Not only do properly inflated tires improve fuel economy, but it makes the vehicle safer and reduces tire wear.

Another really important maintenance item is getting regular tune ups using premium spark plugs. The fuel economy of our car was really suffering and the first thing my mechanic suggested was to replace the plugs before doing anything else. He put in some Bosch Platinum 2 spark plugs that have two electrodes instead of the standard one electrode. Apparently having multiple electrodes allows for a more powerful spark, which results in more efficient burning of fuel and greater power. The result was that the fuel economy of my 2006 Hyundai Elantra went from 28mpg to 37mpg on the freeway under similar driving conditions. With more careful driving and not using the air conditioning I could probably get 38-39mpg on the freeway (~65mph driving speeds) and over 40mpg highway (~50mph). Given the cost of fuel, the $37 I spent replacing my spark plugs was money very well spent considering it increased my fuel economy by over 30%.

When budgets are tight, one thing that frequently gets sacrificed is routine maintenance. In the long run, however, routine maintenance like oil changes, tuneups, tire rotations wheel alignments, etc. will save money in reduced repair expenses and better fuel economy.

Don't be fooled by political pandering

Don't fall for empty quick fix election year promises to save you money at the pumps. Driving smarter, maintaining your vehicle and when the time comes replacing your vehicle with a more fuel efficient model are the only short term ways to really save money at the pump.

Related Reading

• Dumb as We Wanna Be NY Times Op Edl by Thomas Friedman
• The Gas-Guzzler Gambit NY Times Editorial
• Clinton Gas-Tax Proposal Criticized: Economists Share Obama's View Washington Post
• McCain’s Gas-Tax Plan May Be a Clunker Wall Street Journal
• Empty rhetoric by the tankful Boston Globe Editorial

By Kenneth Barbalace

Whatever their motivation - be it energy independence for the U.S. or an attempt at fighting climate change for Europe - world governments are now heavily subsidizing biofuels. U.S. President George Bush pledged up to $150 million for work on cellulosic ethanol in his 2006 State of the Union address, and as recently as March 2007 he visited Columbia to convince the Brazilian and Columbian governments to become the "green fuel" centres of the world.

Biofuels, or fuels derived from living matter, however, are nothing new. Rudolph Diesel unveiled the first generation biodiesel-fueled engine which ran on peanut oil in 1898 at the World Exhibition in Paris, and Henry Ford intended his 1908 Model T to run on ethanol.... Read entire article

By Kenneth Barbalace

Too often the discussion of renewable energy development focuses on climate change (aka global warming) to the exclusion of other equally important environmental, national security and social justice concerns. While yes, climate change is a serious concern (in spite of what the skeptics try to portray), we need to invest in and not unduly burden the development of renewable energies like wind and solar energies for many other reasons.

Predictably, coverage in the local press of last weeks hearings for a proposed wind farm on Black Nubble Mountain near Sugarloaf Maine in front of Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission, focused on the issue of climate change because of comments by the National Park Service Superintendent for the Appalachian Trail, Pam Underhill. While later acknowledging that global warming was a real concern, she stated that global warming was "irrelevant" in considering whether or not the proposed wind farm should be allowed, which she opposes (see my editorial National Park Service Superintendent states 'Global Warming Irrelevant' in opposing wind farm). While her comments have made for good fodder and headlines for blogs like ours, they also obscured very serious issues.

Other environmental concerns

Beyond contributing to global warming, the burning of fossil fuels to meet our energy needs has a much more direct and observable impact on our environment. Let us for a moment follow the environmental impact of coal from its "cradle to grave". According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, surface mining of coal accounts for 60% of the coal burned in coal fired power plants each year. The most destructive of the surface mining techniques is called mountaintop removal where hundreds of feet of overburden is blasted away and dumped in convenient valleys to access veins of coal which may only be a few feet thick. In West Virginia alone, over 300,000 acres of hardwood forests and 1,000 miles of streams have been destroyed by mountaintop removal. In an open letter to West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin in December of 2006 on the Ohio Valley Environmental Conservation Website, Mark Schmerling wrote:

A mountaintop removal site on Cazy Mountain, in Boone County, was "reclaimed" 22 years ago. It sprouts nothing but non-native grass, and a few thin, nasty-looking, non-native shrubs. Where is the earth-cooling hardwood forest? Where is the native ginseng that mountaineers have always been able to dig to sell and use? Where are the deer, the turkeys, the many species of songbirds, small mammals and other animals? Where are the clean, swift-flowing streams and their native trout? Where is life-giving soil? Where is life?

Once the coal has been mined, it must be transported to the power plants that need it via trains, which burn diesel fuel for power releasing nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and soot into the atmosphere. In addition, as coal is transported in open rail cars, coal dust is blown into the air contributing to the particulate matter released into the atmosphere.

To ensure a steady supply of coal in the event of transportation disruptions, most power plants maintain a sizeable stockpile of coal stored on site in giant open air piles. These piles of coal can leach chemical hazards into water supplies and wind can stir up coal dust into the atmosphere.

Upon burning coal, power plants release toxic chemicals and heavy metals into the atmosphere, including mercury along with tremendous amounts of carbon soot and fossil CO2. The mercury eventually rains out of the atmosphere hundreds if not thousands of miles down wind polluting lakes and streams. Eventually fish in those waters accumulate the mercury in their bodies and become hazardous to eat (as has happened here in Maine). The carbon soot also stays suspended in the atmosphere and can travel for thousands of miles before settling out. Recently it was reported that industrial soot "raining" out of the atmosphere in the arctic region may be largely responsible for the artic ice cap melting much faster than was predicted by climate models (see "Soot Could Hasten Melting of Arctic Ice" at Live Science).

Other fossil fuels like crude oil also have their fair share of cradle to grave environmental impacts including tragic oil spills and emissions from combustion.

In his open letter referenced above, Mark Schmerling summed the environmental issue very succinctly when he wrote:

The damage that has been done and is being done will last for thousands of years, and through hundreds of generations. All of those generations will look back on what has been done in the past thirty years and say, "Who could have let this happen?"

Will you be one of those who let it happen or will you stand among those who tried to change things, including your own energy use habits, to help stop the environmental destruction?

Social costs of fossil fuels

While it is not often thought about, using fossil fuels for energy historically has come with very high social costs. Whether it be wars fought over oil, workers being killed in industrial accidents or entire towns poisoned by the hazardous byproducts that are release into the atmosphere or water supplies by mining/drilling operations.

In the case of coal mining, tailings ponds held back by earthen dams and sludge pumped into abandoned mines can slowly leach their hazardous contents into ground water and drinking water supplies as has happened to four communities in Mingo County West Virginia (see "State Supreme Court upholds verdict against coal company" - West Virginia Gazette). The coal dust from mining operations can blanket nearby communities causing residents respiratory diseases and distress (See "West Virginia Town Fights Blanket of Coal Dust" - New Standard News).

Occasionally tailings dams fail, destroying villages downstream, as happened in 1972 on Buffalo Creek in West Virginia when a dam failure sent 500,000 cubic meters of tailings down a narrow valley leaving 124 people dead, 7 people missing and 4,000 homes destroyed (see "Disaster on Buffalo Creek" - West Virginia Gazette). In October of 2000 near the town of Inez Kentucky, the bottom of a tailings pond collapsed into an abandon mine that ran beneath it, resulting in 250 million gallons of slurry surging into the mineshafts and out two mine exits flooding nearby creeks. Twenty miles downstream had to be declared aquatic dead zones and communities in ten counties had to shut down their water systems (see "When Mountains Move" - National Geographic).

Coal mining is one of the most dangerous jobs one could have and as of this writing 18 people had already been killed in coal mining accidents in the United States in 2007 alone. In 2006 there were 47 people killed in such accidents.

To keep us supplied with cheap fossil fuel energy people are dying, and lives, communities and ecosystems are being destroyed. In short, there is blood on the hands of everyone who depends upon fossil fuel as their source of energy. We can not lower the social costs of fossil fuels unless we develop alternative energy sources and reduce the amount of energy we consume.

The real inconvenient truth, national security

Like all nations, the United States is utterly dependent upon fossil fuels, and much of this energy (especially crude oil) must be imported from politically unstable corners of the world run by unsavory regimes. As the world industrialized in the late 1800s, reliable sources of cheap energy became critical to nations' national security and wars were driven in a large part by the need to secure energy supplies. Throughout the 1900s and even today, wars and allegiances between countries have frequently been in a large part about securing reliable supplies of energy. No where is this more clearly obvious than in the Middle East as far back as the end of World War One. Even in his new book "The Age of Turbulence" Former Federal Reserve Chairman Allen Greenspan wrote:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

He is right, why should we deny this? We need to face reality; we would not have cared to give the Middle East more than lip service for the past sixty years if it were not for the oil that flows from their sands. After all, we do not go after depots in Africa. The reality is that without the steady supply of oil from the Middle East and other parts of the world our nation would grind to a halt. The threat from Iran is not nuclear weapons; it is that they might stabilize the Middle East under their view of the way things should be. This could seriously threaten the steady supply of oil to the United States. The same was true when Saddam invaded the Kuwait. Sure liberating a beleaguered nation sounds comforting, but underlying this was our undeniable need to keep the oil flowing.

As a matter of national security, the United States must become energy independent. We must get to a point as a nation where we do not depend upon energy from nations that are run by tyrants. We can not depend upon our own fossil fuel reserves to achieve energy independence. As a society we must invest in renewable energies on a personal, local, regional and national basis and we all must learn to use our energy more wisely, which includes improving the energy efficiency of everything in our lives.

Are wind turbines truly an eye sore or are they a sign of hope?

Wind farms may not be particularly beautiful things to look at on a distant natural vista, but they are signs of a brighter, cleaner and safer future. They do not maim or kill thousands of workers. They do not have to be continually fed at the expense of destroying forests, streams or communities. They do not endlessly pump toxic chemicals into the atmosphere or water supplies. They do not produce carbon soot that accelerates the melting of icecaps and glaciers, nor do they contribute to climate change. Most importantly, when better technology comes along, all traces of their existence can be removed from the land and it returned back to what it was before, with the mountains still intact and the scrap materials recycled into something new.

Wind energy is not an end all be all solution to our energy needs, rather it must be part of a bigger mix of energy sources. Wind turbines, however, have the distinct advantage of being able to be built closer to where the power will be consumed. This will result in less energy being lost during transmission and they can help decentralize an electric grid making it more robust and less susceptible to the loss of a single source of power generation. Finally, every megawatt of energy produced by a wind turbine is one less megawatt of energy came at tremendous cost to the environment, a community or health of people.

Superintendent Underhill's opposition to the wind farm project on Black Nubble Mountain near Sugarloaf Maine is dead wrong; concerns about scenic views from the Appalachian Trail must not override other concerns. Yes protecting the AT is a legitimate concern, but there are bigger issues at play. Unfortunately, if Underhill gets her way and the wind farm does not get built it will be her home state of West Virginia that will continue to pay the tragically high price of her opposition and our nation's failed energy policy in terms of blood spilled, lives ruined and their environment destroyed.

By Kenneth Barbalace

Yesterday (9/20/2007), the National Park Service's Appalachian Trail Superintendent Pam Underhill of West Virginia, stated that global warming was "irrelevant" while testifying in opposing to the placement of Maine Mountain Power's proposed 18 wind turbines on Black Nubble Mountain near Sugarloaf Maine. Underhill, who was testifying in her official capacity as a NPS superintendent front of Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC), said she has fought hard to protect trail for 30 years and considers it her middle child. In her testimony she said didn't want wind turbines located anywhere near what she considers to be a pristine section of the Appalachian Trail because she didn't want hikers to have to see them. Under questioning she acknowledged that global warming was a concern, however, Underhill refused to say whether she would prefer to see the development of renewable energy over the development of more coal fired power plants.

In response to the National Resources Council of Maine's support for the wind farm, which would be three miles from the Appalachian Trail at its closet point, Underhill stated:

"I do not know why the National Resources Council of Maine decided to throw the Appalachian Trail under the bus on this one, but it is not something we will forget any time soon."

In the past, the National Resources Council of Maine had opposed the wind farm, but after negotiations lead Maine Mountain Power to reduce their proposed project from 30 turbines spread over two mountain tops to just 18 turbines on one mountain top, the NRC of Maine threw their support behind the project.

In an interview aired on a Maine Public Broadcasting news report of Maine's Land Use Regulatory Commission's public hearings for the proposed wind farm project Shawn Mahoney, Vice President of Conservation Law Foundation's Maine chapter, said he was stunned to hear Underhill say that global warming was irrelevant when considering this project.

Personally, I'm more than just stunned that Underhill stated global warming is irrelevant, I'm beyond disbelief on so many levels. First I see this as an issue of someone from a distant state forcing her view of the way things should be on another state that is trying to satisfy part of its energy needs in more environmentally sustainable ways. Second, I wonder, what is worse, hikers occasionally seeing wind turbines on a distant mountain peak or hikers not seeing the mountain peak at all because of pollution from coal fired power plants? Maybe she prefers that power plants burning West Virginia coal continue to belch out mercury laden pollution that then rains down and poison the fish in our lakes and streams such that the fish are not safe for hikers to eat? Maybe she prefers to do nothing to try and reduce our contributing to the melting of the polar ice caps and driving species that depend upon those icepacks for survival.

Wind turbines are not appropriate on every mountain top, but they can be an important part of our renewable energy mix and with other renewable energies can help reduce the need for more coal fired power plants. It is Mainers who will see these wind turbines the most and if Mainers are willing to accept some visual blemishes on our horizons to reduce our overall environmental impact, who is Underhill, to interfere. After all, she lives in a state that removes mountains to get to coal (I wonder what that does to their scenic views?). I remember working in the Shenandoah National Park in Virginia along the Appalachian Trail some twenty years ago and not being able to see distant mountains because of pollution. I'd much rather see an occasional wind farm on a distant mountain than not see the mountains at all. I'd prefer not to lose parts of some costal State and National parks here in Maine to rising oceans caused by the melting of polar ice caps. I don't want my grand children or great grand children to never experience the taste of Maine maple syrup because a warming planet did in our sugar maples. Finally, I'd love to be able to have our lakes and streams free of mercury pollution so that I could go fishing with my children and eat the fish we catch.

Related coverage elsewhere

• Maine PBN report of LURC hearing (requires Windows Media Player)
• Wind farm generates political tempest: A federal official's stance on Maine's Black Nubble project is questioned by a California congressman (MaineToday.com)

By Kenneth Barbalace

Every day it seems we learn of new products that were made in China being recalled because they contain lead and/or other harmful substances. From the food we eat or feed our pets to personal hygiene products like toothpaste to the toys we give our children, "made in China" is becoming the new "skull and crossbones" warning label. In May of 2006 we reported on a Russian ban on Norwegian salmon due to elevated levels of the heavy metal cadmium. It turned out that the cadmium had been fed to the fish as a result of contaminated batches of the mineral supplement zinc sulphate, which was added to the fish food and had been imported from China. Since then, the trickle of "isolated" contamination events of Chinese made products has turned into a raging torrent of product recalls. Although one can't help but wonder if the problem existed all along and the sudden torrent of recalls is simply because more attention is being paid to this issue.

A review of product recalls on the Consumer Product Safety Commission's website that were posted between January 1, 2007 and August 17, 2007 found 36 recalls of products (mostly for children) that contained unacceptable levels of lead or other chemical hazards. Of those 36 recalls (which each can represent dozens of products) 33 were for products manufactured in China (which includes 2 recalls for products from Hong Kong), 2 were for products manufactured in India, and 1 had no country of origin listed. This means that on average for the beginning of 2007, the CPSC was issuing a recall for products that posed an unacceptable lead or chemical danger every single week. Also of the 36 recalls, 21 were for children's costume jewelry (19 from China, 2 from India).

On top of the CPSC recalls there was also a well publicized ban on some farmed fish from China, a toothpaste scare where many brands of toothpaste imported from China turned out to contain the poisonous chemical diethylene glycol, and contaminated wheat gluten which had found its way into pet and livestock feed.

For the most part, goods imported into the United States are not inspected or tested by government agencies for safety. Rather, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of products being imported is left to the companies importing the goods. Commonly it is only when a problem is discovered that government agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission step in and investigate the situation.

The risks posed by lead

Lead is a serious health risk for infants, children, and women of child bearing age. In children lead can cause: nervous system and kidney damage; learning disabilities including attention deficit disorder and decreased intelligence; speech, language, and behavioral problems; etc. In adults lead can cause: increase chances of illness during pregnancy; harm a fetus including causing brain damage; fertility problems; nervous system disorders; memory and concentration problems; etc. High levels of lead exposure can cause seizures, unconsciousness, and even death (source CPSC publication: "Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home" – PDF). Lead can enter the blood stream via ingestion or inhalation.

Home test kits

Consumers can protect their children from potentially ingesting lead by getting home lead test kits and testing products around one's home. There are two different styles of kits. One style requires the consumer to take samples and mail them in to the testing laboratory. The other style of test kit can show test results immediately without being mailed in. We have not tested any of these kits so we can not make recommendations as to what works best. When buying these tests online, be really careful to buy them from a reliable source. Another source for these test kits are pottery supply stores that sell "raw materials" (e.g. clays, glazes, kilns, etc.). The types of products that should be tested are those that a child could be put in their mouth, could be eaten, or could come in contact with food either directly or indirectly (e.g. crystal glasses, dishes, hands, etc.). It should be noted that most garden hoses do contain lead and are not safe to drink water from unless the hose is labeled as safe for potable water. Also, most Christmas tree lights contain lead and one should wash their hands after handling these lights and before handling any food.

Food for thought

Do you know where your food comes from? The odds are that some of the food every American ate today, or at least some ingredients in the processed food they ate, came from China because China is the number one exporter of food to the United States, with food imports from China doubling between 2004 and 2007. In fact, China now supplies around 80% of the world's supply of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and much of the world's supply of vitamin B-12. So, if you run down the ingredient list of any food you buy and it includes "ascorbic acid" you can be almost certain that the ascorbic acid came from China. Making matters worse of the imported products the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for inspecting, only one percent of them actually get inspected with only half of those inspections including analytical testing (source NPR). By comparison, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspects nearly 16% of meat and poultry imported into the U.S. (source USA Today).

In spite of only inspecting one percent of imports they are responsible for inspecting, in July 2007 alone the FDA refused entry for products from China 130 times. Reasons blocking Chinese food imports included: unapproved ingredients; poisonous substances and/or unsafe additives; being contaminated with animal drugs and/or pesticides; being tainted with salmonella; etc. Between August 2006 and July 2007, the FDA refused the importation of products from China around 1,877 times. Think about this for a minute; the FDA inspects only one percent of imports and still rejected Chinese goods 1,877 times. So just how much unsafe food made it past FDA inspectors and onto the dinner table of American households?

Avoid products that are most commonly hazardous

Looking at the recall list below, one can see a trend that the cheapest goods are on the recall list the most. It also seems that it is very common for tainted, dangerous, and/or counterfeit goods to end up at deep discount and/or dollar type stores. This is another point where one can vote with their wallet. Do not shop at these types of stores. Especially do not buy children cheap toys or jewelry from these discount and/or dollar stores and don't let them buy toy jewelry from vending machines. In fact, with the way things are going, one should not buy their children any of the really cheap costume jewelry because it seems to be recalled for lead the most of any product type.

Buying toys made in America, in Western European countries or other countries that have strict product safety laws can greatly reduce the risk of getting defective or contaminated products. Yes, a wooden train set that is made in the U.S.A. might be more expensive that a Chinese made equivalent, but we all know toddlers and young children put everything in their mouths and the cheaper price of the Chinese version of the toy just isn't worth the potential health risks of a child ingesting lead.

Take action and demand better product safety

Consumers should write their elected officials, including the President, and ask them to enact as well as enforce measures that would help improve inspection programs to ensure the safety of imported products. Consumers should also make their demands for safe products known by using their wallets. Boycotting Chinese made toys and/or goods would be an appropriate way to get China's attention, such that they make real reforms not just hold show trials and make empty promises. Ask grocery stores to disclose the country of origin for all fish, meats, and produce. When possible, buy produce from local farmer's markets or grow your own (home grown produce tastes better anyways). It may not be possible to avoid Chinese made goods all together, but one could certainly greatly limit the number and types of products made in China that one buys.

It will take more than the Chinese government to enact product safety laws to address this problem. It will require the Chinese people themselves to come to the realization that product safety is extremely important to their own economic well being. If the demand for Chinese made goods starts to significantly decline, then the Chinese people and businesses in China will start to take product safety more seriously and start to hold themselves more accountable.

CPSC recalls for products containing lead or other chemical hazards between Jan 1, 2007 and Aug 15, 2007

The following is the list of 36 recalls we found on the CPSC's website. Keep in mind that individual recall notices can represent dozens of products. Unless otherwise noted, all recalls below were voluntary recalls by the manufacturer/retailer and the recalled products were manufactured in China.

1. Mattel Recalls "Sarge" Die Cast Toy Cars Due To Violation of Lead Safety Standard
2. Fisher-Price Recalls Licensed Character Toys Due To Lead Poisoning Hazard
3. Children's Earrings Sold at Wal-Mart Stores in Florida Recalled by Uncas Manufacturing Co. Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
4. AAFES Expands Recall of "Soldier Bear" Toy Sets Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard (made in Hong Kong, which is part of China)
5. Children's Metal Jewelry Recalled by Future Industries Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
6. Children's Necklaces Recalled by GeoCentral Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
7. RC2 Corp. Recalls Various Thomas & Friends™ Wooden Railway Toys Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
8. Silver Stud Earrings Sold Exclusively at Kmart Recalled by Crimzon Rose Accessories Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
9. Gemmy Industries Corp. Recalls Flashing Eyeball Toys Due to Chemical Hazard (the liquid the eye balls floated in was kerosene)
10. Children's Metal Jewelry Sold at Limited Too and Justice Stores Recalled by Tween Brands Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
11. Toy Drums Recalled by The Boyds Collection Ltd. Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
12. AAFES Recalls "Soldier Bear" Toy Sets Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard (made in Hong Kong, which is part of China)
13. Troy-Bilt Recalls Children's Gardening Gloves Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
14. Children's Rings Recalled By Cardinal Distributing Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
15. High Lead Levels Prompt Recall of Children's Metal Jewelry By Spandrel Sales and Marketing Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
16. CPSC Warns About Worn Vinyl Baby Bibs (country of manufacturer not listed, but news reports have stated China)
17. Lead Poisoning Hazard Prompts Cardinal Distributing to Again Recall Children's Rings (Made in India)
18. Target Recalls Anima Bamboo Collection Games Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
19. Oriental Trading Company Inc. Recalls Children's Necklaces Due to Lead Hazard
20. 900,000 Children's Necklaces and Charm Bracelets Recalled by Cardinal Distributing Co. Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard (Made in India)
21. Various Metal Key Chains Recalled by Dollar General for Lead Poisoning Hazard
22. A&A Global Industries Recalls Children's Bracelets Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
23. Regent Products Corp. Recalls Stuffed Ball Toys Due to Lead Hazard
24. Children's Mood Necklaces Recalled by Rhode Island Novelty Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
25. Children's Necklaces Sold Exclusively at Claire's Stores Recalled Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
26. Toys "R" Us Recalls "Elite Operations" Toy Sets Due to Lead and Laceration Hazards
27. Children's Necklaces Sold Exclusively at Accessories Palace Recalled by United Imports Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
28. Discount School Supply Recalls Children's Two-Sided Easels Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
29. H & M Recalls Boy's Jackets Due to Choking, Poisoning Hazards
30. Children's Rings Sold at Big Lots! Stores Recalled By Lari Jewelry Company Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
31. Children's Jewelry Sold Exclusively at Kmart Recalled by Crimzon Rose Accessories Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
32. Samara Brothers Recalls Boys' Jackets Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
33. Children's Bracelets Recalled by DM Merchandising Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
34. Children's Rings Recalled by Shalom International Due to Lead Poisoning Hazard
35. U.S. Toy Co. Recalls More Children’s Butterfly Necklaces Due to Lead Poisoning
36. Samara Brothers Recalls Children's Two-Piece Overall Sets, Snaps Contain Lead

US Food and Drug Administration actions and warnings

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration Import Refusal Reports for OASIS
• FDA issues warning about tooth paste imported from China containing poisonous chemical - In May of 2007 the FDA started issuing warnings about toothpaste from China, which contained the poisonous chemical diethylene glycol (DEG).
• FDA: Pet Food Recall (Melamine)/Tainted Animal Feed
• FDA Detains Imports of Farm-Raised Chinese Seafood

Selected news articles

Reading the following articles is highly recommended

• From China to Panama, a Trail of Poisoned Medicine (New York Times – subscription may be required)
• China food safety head executed (BBC News)
• Chinese product scares prompt US fears (BBC News)
• Where did that food come from? Your guess is as good as the label (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
• Food Imports Often Escape Scrutiny (NY Times – subscription may be requires)
• U.S. food imports outrun FDA resources (USA Today)

By Roberta

Three states recently announced ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse emissions because, in the words of New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine, "…In the absence of leadership on the federal level the burden has now fallen upon the state executives and legislatures to lead the way on this issue…". In addition to protecting the residents in their own states, proactive states are blazing the trail for others to follow.

This approach is not a typical one for the states that often prefer that the federal government stay out of state affairs, especially ones that are likely to cost everyone money. The difference is that individuals at the state level realize the seriousness of the situation and that they owe it to their constituents to mitigate on behalf of their people when the federal government refuses to take action.

Exactly what do these states plan to do to alleviate the situation? Each strategy is very different, but the anticipated outcome is the same, significant reduction of emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as quickly as possible.

According to the bill passed in the New Jersey Legislature on June 21, 2007, greenhouse gas emissions generated by every sector of New Jersey's economy will be required to drop to the 1990 level (a reduction of about 13%) by 2020 and that emissions will be capped at 20% of the 2006 level by 2050. The bill will also require a statewide greenhouse-gas monitoring program that will apply to emissions from out-of-state power plants exporting electricity to New Jersey. There is a plan to charge emission fees to every company that emits CO2. The bill has resulted in complaints from business and industrial groups. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in coming months. (New York Times article (subscription required), University of California press release)

In a bill signed into law by Governor Schwartzenegger in late January 2007, transportation fuels sold in California will have to contain 10% less carbon by 2020 (American Chemical Society: Environmental Science and Technology Online). This bill is unique in that it will provide a way to judge fuels from a life-cycle standpoint, not just from the tailpipe. This means that the amount of CO2 emitted during any phase of mining, manufacturing, transportation, etc. would have to be taken into account in measuring the CO2 emission, not just the CO2 emitted when the fuel is burned (known as cradle to grave). This bill will penalize high carbon fossil fuels (coal to liquid), because while the coal to liquid fuel may burn cleaner than gasoline, the process of producing it emits much more CO2 into the atmosphere

According to Professor Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, "This new (California) policy is hugely important, and has never been done before. It will likely transform the energy industries...We anticipate much greater reductions after 2020." (A New Era for A New Era for Transportation Fuels: Governor Schwarzenegger's Low Governor Schwarzenegger's Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Other Carbon Fuel Standard and Other Transportation Initiatives).

Florida has taken a totally different and yet logical approach to the problem of climate change. In July 2007 Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced that he wants utilities to generate one-fifth of their electricity from renewables to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gases. This action is necessary because the federal government has failed to act on this critical issue. How will this be accomplished? The sunshine state has plenty of sunshine to power rooftop solar panels and renewable energy advocates are urging the state to help residents create thousands of mini power plants in their homes. Crist plans to call on the state to permit people who generate power at homes and businesses to lower utility bills by putting excess electricity back into the grid. Crist has also suggested the use of wind generators to accomplish the 20% reduction in use of electric energy. While he has not set a proposed date for reaching the goal, Mike Sole, secretary of the state's Department of Environmental Protection, suggested that the target date is 2020. (Reuters)

Other states have indicated their intent to take action in order to curb the emission of CO2. If the leaders of our country find the truth too inconvenient and choose not to see the handwriting on the wall, then someone else will have to do it for them. Fortunately, there are state leaders who are courageous enough to do what has to be done.

By Kenneth Barbalace

An acquaintance of mine set me a link to a webpage berating a plan in Santa Monica, California to build the nation's first sustainable parking garage. The project includes photovoltaic roof panels, a storm drain water treatment system, recycled construction materials, and energy efficient mechanical systems. It will also feature ground floor retail shops.

So what was the writer's complaint? Their complaint was that "motoring" is not a sustainable activity and that the parking garage was ugly. They also claimed that the automobile age was going to be over in 17 years. Southern California giving up the automobile within 17 years would be like residents of northern Siberia giving up parkas; it is not going to happen. While better mass transit may be a noble objective, the reality is that new parking garages are still going to have to be built in cities like Santa Monica. Building parking garages to be as sustainable as possible and to make the best possible use of the space (e.g. retail space on the ground floor and roof top solar collectors) is a laudable effort.

We have seen a similar disconnect with some "environmentalists" (obstructionists would be a better term) up here in New England. In our case it deals with various wind farm proposals. Wind farms would seem to be the very picture of environmental sustainability, yet several recent wind farm proposals were blocked on "environmental" grounds. One proposal that has been fought using every method possible was a plan to put wind turbines on platforms out to sea off the coast of Cape Cod in Massachusetts. The plan was to put them far enough out to sea that they would appear very small or would be obscured by the curvature of the Earth, yet residents fought against this plan primarily because it would spoil the scenic ocean views of their multimillion dollar waterfront homes. Wind farm proposals here in Maine have run up against the same "environmental" claim of spoiling the scenic view because they would be placed on mountain tops.

Another claim often used to obstruct wind farm proposals is the claim that they will result in high bird mortality rates, which just is not true. In fact, one recent study by the National Academy of Sciences on the environmental impact of wind turbines I was reading and had planned to blog on but didn't, found that the bird mortality rate of modern slow revolving wind mills was lower than with other man made structures like tall buildings, power lines, etc. In fact, feral cats are much more devastating to bird populations than anything else and there is an up cry every time there is any effort to exterminate or otherwise remove feral house cats from the wild. Even the National Audubon Society supports wind farms and collaborates with wind farm developers "to best determine how to maximize the benefits of wind power while reducing the potential for harm to birds, wildlife and the environment."

Would the "environmentalists" fighting against wind farms and/or sustainable parking garages prefer that we build more coal fired power plants that spew mercury and greenhouse gases or build new nuclear reactors instead of wind turbines? The reality is that everything human civilization does has an impact on the environment. Cities like Santa Monica, California will continue to grow in population and thus will need more parking garages, and all of society will continue to need more energy. Not everyone can use mass transit from their home, but they could drive to well situated parking garages to pick up mass transit to complete their trip. Building sustainable parking garages that make use of the wasted space on top of the structure by adding solar panels and constructing them out of recycled materials is the right thing to do. So is building mountain top wind projects here in Maine or sea based wind projects off the coast of Cape Cod.

Yes, the true environmental impact of renewable energy projects like wind farms needs to be evaluated and minimized, however, it must also be recognized that all energy sources have environmental impacts, and we can not do without energy. The question we must ask when evaluating the environmental impact of renewable energies like wind farms is what are their net environmental impact compared to the traditional alternatives?

The simple fact of the matter is that many people try to wrap their arguments and obstructionism against projects like the sustainable parking garage in Santa Monica, California and wind farms in environmental terms when the real reason for their opposition is NIMBY (not in my back yard). They simply don't want their aesthetic sensibilities offended by the infrastructure required to sustain our civilization. This NIMBY attitude wrapped in a cloak of environmental concern is giving environmentalism a bad reputation and is wrong headed. From a big picture perspective, being environmentally responsible requires occasionally offending our aesthetic sensibilities. Personally, I would be thrilled if the next parking garage project here in Portland, Maine followed the sustainable parking garage model and would love to see some local mountain tops dotted with wind mills. For me, these things would mean we were taking local responsibility for the environmental impact of our energy needs.

Related Articles on EnvironmentalChemistry.com

• Environmental Justice and the NIMBY principle
  Not in my backyard! In whose backyard does our hazardous waste end up?
• Increased Mercury Levels Attributed to Industrial Activities
  Outdated coal fired power plants are contributing to increased mercury levels in lakes and streams.

Further Reading Elsewhere on the Web

• Audubon Society "Strongly Supports Wind Power", TreeHugger.com, 12/26/2006
• Cats More Lethal Than Wind Turbines, TreeHugger.com, 5/23/2007
• Putting Wind Power's Impact on Birds in Perspective, American Wind Energy Association, 2003

By Kenneth Barbalace

Today the New York Times has a new article on the coal-to-liquids (CTL) subsidies and loan guarantees that are working their way through Congress. The more I look at this issue the more I see that CTL is not about getting the best value out of our energy investments, but rather it is another big industry trying to get as much pork out of the federal treasury as is possible.

For just a moment, let us compare and contrast CTL against other measures to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil and fossil fuel energies.

As I reported yesterday, Google and Intel have founded the Climate Savers Computing Initiative. This initiative has the stated goal of reducing computer energy consumption 50% by 2010. This is the equivalent of removing 11 million cars from the road or shutting down twenty 500 megawatt coal or oil fired power plants. When you compare how much energy savings that can be achieved by ideas as simple as building better computers against how much it will cost to replace just 10% of the U.S. need for crude oil with coal-to-liquids; you will start to see that there are much better ways for the U.S. Congress to be investing taxpayer money to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The problem is that big energy industries like the coal industry want to find ways to increase their profits and thus increase our dependence on their energy products. If Congress focused their energy investments on energy efficiency and renewable energies (e.g. more efficient solar panels put on private homes), the big energy companies would not be able to sell us as much energy, and would not make as much money. Thus, the energy industry lobbies Congress for investments in technology like CTL that are really good for their own interests, but are not that good for our national interests.

Everything in our lives from the computers we use, to the cars we drive, to the homes we live in are so inefficient that we may be able to virtually eliminate our dependence on foreign oil if these things were simply made more energy efficient using existing technologies. As has been pointed out, in the case of computers, over half of the energy they consume is wasted. The same is true with the average home we live in. By simply using better building techniques the energy consumption of the typical home could be cut by at least half. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, only 12.6% of the potential energy in the fuel cars burn actually translates into forward motion; the rest is wasted to heat, friction, idling, etc. How much oil would be saved if the fuel economy of the cars we drive was increased by 10mpg? How much would this really cost compared to the investments required for CTL?

The best the coal industry can "promise" with a $200 billion investment is a replacement of 10% of the U.S. crude oil needs in twenty years. Yet the computer industry is saying it can deliver a 50% world wide reduction in energy consumed by computers by 2010. According to a report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy by enacting basic energy codes using existing technologies all new homes and buildings being built today could consume 50% less energy for an added construction cost that would be offset by lower energy costs in about 10 years for the average homeowner.

Coal-to-liquids is a boondoggle because it is an unneeded technology that is way too expensive. The money that the government would spend on CTL would be much better spent on investments in energy efficiency and renewable resources, as these would have a much higher payback in terms of reducing our dependence upon oil and other fossil fuels. In addition, investments in energy efficiency and renewable resources would have the environmental advantage of significantly cutting our greenhouse gas emissions and thus would help slow climate change.

We need energy policies that place a priority on getting the best possible return on investment, and coal-to-liquids is not that investment.

Related Articles

• Congress proposes massive subsidies to convert coal into diesel fuel
• Subsidies for coal to liquids compared to funding for other energy research
• Google and Intel found computer energy efficiency initiative
• Earth Day resolutions you should make

By Kenneth Barbalace

As a result of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule changes to the enforcement of the Clean Water Act, it now only automatically applies to permanent navigable waters and the wetlands attached to these waters. Intermittent and non-navigable waters and their wetlands may or may not be protected depending upon other criteria including whether or not they are attached to navigable waterways. These changes were the result of a Supreme Court ruling last year that ruled in the words Justice Anthony Kennedy that there must be a "significant nexus" between a wetland and/or waters and a navigable waterway. The cause of the navigable water requirement in the Supreme Court's ruling is the wording of the Clean Water Act itself, which under Title I Section 101(a)(1) states:

it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985.

In fact the Clean Water Act uses the phrase "navigable waters" some 81 times. It was this phrase that caused a massive split within the Supreme Court with the justices writing no less than five separate opinions.

As a result of the Supreme Court's ruling and the EPA's subsequent rule changes, it is estimated that around 60% of streams and 20% of wetlands could be in jeopardy of not being protected under the Clean Water Act. To rectify this problem, there is a bill (H.R. 2421) working its way through the U.S. House of Representatives, which has 157 cosponsors. This bill would essentially eliminate the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act, thereby ensuring that virtually all U.S. waters are protected. Although some Senators (including Democratic Senator Russ Feingold) have expressed concern on this issue, I could not at this time find a Senate companion bill to H.R. 2421.

One would hope that some Senators will quickly cosponsor companion legislation to H.R. 2421 and that the bills are quickly passed into law so that the Clean Water Act can more clearly protect non-navigable waters and wetlands.

Further Reading

• Clean Water Act
• H.R. 2421: To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States
• Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States (PDF, 149k)
• U.S. Supreme Court Opinions RAPANOS ET UX., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
• U.S. Supreme Court Transcripts of oral arguments Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States (PDF 276k)
• Murky waters: How far should the Clean Water law go? By Brigid Sweeney, Medill Reports, Northwestern University

By Kenneth Barbalace

Bills in Congress to provide tens of billions of dollars in subsidies tax credits and loan guarantees for coal to liquids production (see my last blog entry) got me wondering just how much money the United States spends each year on energy research and development. Fortunately, my curiosity was easily satisfied as the International Energy Agency (IEA) tracks such things and makes their data available in an online database that allows one to query the Energy R&D budgets of participating countries. What I learned was very interesting and made the coal to liquids (CTL) proposals working their way through Congress even more disturbing.

According to the IEA, between 2001 and 2005 (the latest year data is available for) the United States spent just under eight billions dollars on energy R&D. Of the R&D expenditures, for this five year time frame, 23.46% ($1.87 billion) was spent on nuclear research (presumably, a large portion went to disposal research), 18.77% ($1.49 billion) went into coal research and 13.46% went to energy conservation in transportation (see table below). By comparison, all renewable sources combined (solar, bio-energy, wind, geothermal & hydropower) accounted for only 16.02% ($1.27 billion), with 35% of the renewable R&D going towards bio-energy (probably, corn ethanol being the chief beneficiary).

As was reported by the Motley Fool, by the coal industries own estimates the projected cost of R&D for coal to liquids production capacity capable of displacing only 10% of the U.S. crude oil needs will cost at least 200 billion dollars, for which the coal industry wants the American taxpayer to underwrite the majority of the tab.

Think about this for a moment; from 2001-2005 the U.S. spent an average of $1.59 billion on energy generation, conservation and remediation (e.g. spent nuclear fuel) R&D. Now the coal industry wants taxpayers to underwrite a significant portion of the $200 billion in R&D just for coal-to-liquids. This is how much the U.S. would be spending on energy R&D for the next 125 years if R&D budgets were to remain at 2001-2005 levels. Another way to think about $200 billion is that at $20,000 per home, this is enough money to put solar panels on 10,000,000 homes, which on average would supply 60% of those homes electric needs and help make them more self-sufficient in the event of power outages.

Does the U.S. need to spend more money on energy R&D? The answer is probably yes. Does the U.S. need to find a way to wean itself off of crude oil produced in geo-politically unstable parts of the world? The answer is most definitely yes. However, it does not make any sense for U.S. taxpayers to underwrite tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of R&D for a single source of energy. CTL is an especially dubious investment because of its high cost of production. By the coal industry's own estimates, in order for CTL to remain profitable the price of oil must remain above $50 per barrel. In addition, even with carbon capture and sequestration CTL will increase greenhouse gas emissions, which will be counterproductive towards efforts to reign in greenhouse gas emissions and global warming (see my last blog post).

Rather than putting massive amounts of taxpayer dollars into researching a single highly dubious energy source, Congress should be looking at more modest and pragmatic funding increases for wide range of energy sources. Diversifying Federal investment in energy R&D will reduce the overall risk if specific investments don't pan out and help create a diverse range of energy sources that can be tapped where they each make the most sense. Simply dumping tens of billions of dollars into a highly risky and extremely expensive source of energy, such as coal to liquids, is a sure way to a boondoggle, like we saw with the Synthetic Fuels Corporation fiasco. Is this how you want your taxpayer dollars spent?

U.S. Energy R&D Budgets 2001-2005 (in Millions of U.S. Dollars)

	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	Total	Percent of Total
Nuclear	323.81	312.35	390.95	393.97	444.54	1865.63	23.46%
Coal	263.71	346.32	347.01	324.43	211.03	1492.51	18.77%
Oil & Gas	122.50	110.28	91.58	78.03	78.76	481.15	6.05%
Hydrogen & Fuel Cells				153.76	171.39	325.15	4.09%
CO2 Capture & Storage				40.46	45.36	85.82	1.08%
Solar	101.46	96.22	86.82	82.95	85.07	452.53	5.69%
Bio-Energy	94.44	94.33	89.94	86.94	80.85	446.49	5.61%
Wind	43.30	41.11	43.91	40.90	40.80	210.02	2.64%
Geothermal	29.46	29.09	29.94	25.30	25.27	139.06	1.75%
Hydropower	5.46	5.36	5.29	4.80	4.86	25.78	0.32%
Transportation Energy Conservation	279.59	264.80	183.67	177.14	165.41	1070.61	13.46%
Industrial Energy Conservation	162.70	155.05	102.11	92.94	74.80	587.60	7.39%
Residential & Commercial Energy Conservation	142.56	134.71	61.51	59.39	65.46	463.63	5.83%
Other Energy Conservation	51.83	67.33	65.90	61.33	60.42	306.81	3.86%
Totals	1620.83	1656.96	1498.64	1622.32	1554.03	7952.78

Source of data: International Energy Agency
Note: This data excludes non-energy specific research (e.g. storage technologies, energy transmission, etc.).

Further Reading
Congress proposes massive subsidies to convert coal into diesel fuel

By Kenneth Barbalace

Key congressional lawmakers with the support of intense lobbying by the coal industry are pushing legislation through both the House of Representatives and the Senate that could potentially provide tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, low interest loans and tax breaks to the coal industry to produce diesel fuel, jet fuel and fuel oil from coal. According to the International Herald Tribune, the list of key congress persons pushing legislation includes:

• Representative Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee;
• Representative Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat whose district is dominated by coal mining;
• Senator Barack Obama, a Illinois Democrat and Presidential candidate;
• Senator Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican;
• Senator Larry Craig, a Wyoming Republican; and
• Other "coal state Republicans".

This legislation is being pushed forward under the guise of alternative energies to make the United States energy independent and is expected to have the support of President Bush who has stressed the need for "alternative energies" rather than "renewable energies", thus making room for coal.

The legislation being proposed includes: loan guarantees of upwards of $30 billion for 6-10 coal-to-liquid plants; $0.51 per gallon tax credit for all coal derived fuel sold through 2020; and federal subsidies if the price of oil drops below $40 per barrel.

While converting coal to diesel type fuels would help the United States become energy independent it would also be extremely counterproductive to our efforts to decrease carbon dioxide emissions to slow global warming. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (see graph below), even if carbon capture and sequestration was implemented in the coal to diesel conversion process the net amount of total lifecycle greenhouse gases that would be released per BTU of fuel produced and consumed would be 3.7% higher than using traditional production techniques to produce diesel fuel from crude oil. Without the use of carbon capture and sequestration, the amount of greenhouse gases released from the coal to diesel fuel conversion process would increase by 118.5%.

The coal to liquid fuel proposals working their way through Congress have all the hallmarks of pork barrel politics that will make coal executives rich at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer with dire consequences for efforts to reign in CO₂ emissions and global warming. Taxpayers should be very wary of tens of billions of tax dollars being sunk into what is essentially an industry driven experiment. History has shown that when corporate interests lobby for and get such huge amounts of taxpayer money the result is invariably a boondoggle and at the very least a waste massive amounts of money. The failure of the synthetic fuel initiatives of thirty years ago and the billions in taxpayer dollars that were wasted on the government owned Synthetic Fuels Corporation is just such an example.

If the coal industry wants to move forward with finding new markets for coal via turning it into liquid fuels, it is their purgative. U.S. taxpayers, however, should not be the ones funding the research into this technology and said technology MUST NOT result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions for the total lifecycle of the fuel produced.


Data for graph came from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f07035.htm

Further Reading
Subsidies for coal to liquids compared to funding for other energy research

By Roberta

Chain of Custody (COC) is a paper trail that describes events from a beginning point to an end point. As a hazardous waste chemist, I used a manifest to document the passage of the waste from “the cradle to grave”, which means from the point that the waste was generated to the time that it was properly disposed of and a “certificate of destruction” was issued. When cleaning up the hazardous waste from clandestine drug operations for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), we had COC documentation that identified every point at which the chemicals were passed on to another individual or agency. In fact, if the cargo compartment of the vehicle, in which the chemicals were being transported, was opened, both a lock AND a number coded seal had to be removed before entry, and the removal of the seal had to be documented, dated and signed by the individual removing the seal. When the compartment was closed and locked again, the code on the new seal had to be listed on the same line as the code on the seal that had been removed.

There was an unbroken line of all activities relating to the clandestine lab chemicals. In addition, there was a number coded seal on each container. If the seal was broken for any reason, it had to be entered and a new seal had to be recorded. Generally speaking, the seal was never broken from the time it was placed on the container until it went to final disposal. If it was broken, there had better been a really good reason. As a result of 9/11, a chain of custody is now standard for any shipment of hazardous materials, not just chemical wastes.

During my years in the hazardous waste industry, I was Transportation Compliance Manager for a regional fleet of hazardous waste vehicles and drivers. Every potential driver was drug tested prior to being hired. If they failed the test, they were not hired. We were all subject to random drug testing throughout our careers; if anyone failed the random tests they were immediately moved to a non-safety sensitive position and could under the discretion of upper management be given an opportunity for rehabilitation or be dismissed. The COC was even stricter for the drug test samples than hazardous waste. Under no circumstances could there be any way that the name of the individual could be associated with a drug sample until the test was completed and the results recorded. The reputation and careers of me and everyone I worked with depended upon the reliability of the testing labs' procedures. I have always felt fairly confident that lab procedures are carried out properly--until now.

I am not a cycling enthusiast, but my connection to drug testing and COC protocols has drawn me to the drug doping hearings of last year's Tour de France winner Floyd Landis. Given what has been exposed during the hearings over the past week and a half, if I were being tested now, by the WADA accredited French testing laboratory LNDD I might not be so confident my tests were being handled properly. I was absolutely horrified to read the testimony of the witnesses and what it has exposed about LNDD. I was especially appalled by what was exposed during the testimony of Dr. Simon Davis, who has a PhD in mass spectrometry and did much of the designing of the mass spectrometer in question (including writing parts of its procedural manual).

Up until Floyd Landis's samples arrived at LNDD and the seal was broken the chain of custody seemed to be handled appropriately. From that point on the COC totally breaks down. There are many missing entries, and hence opportunities for mistakes to have occurred, switches of samples to be made, and the integrity of the sample and test results to be fatally compromised.

Aside from the lack of certainty in the COC, the procedural errors that occurred in the laboratory were too numerous to mention. The technicians even admitted that they knew that they were testing samples from Floyd Landis. It appears, in fact, that many of the errors have been built into the procedures from day one of operation and that the mass spectrometer was set up or calibrated properly to begin with. LNDD's procedures were so inadequate that one would have to question every drug test result that ever came from that laboratory.

Missing data, re-running of analysis, switching of samples within a lot, manual correction of data, inability to retrieve data that should have been saved are errors that I would have questioned in procedures conducted by my freshman college chemistry students. In fact, when my students found that analysis of computed generated data was questionable or when they had made an error in procedural errors, they reported it to me immediately so that we could remedy the situation if possible. Those errors were recorded as required and reported in the final document.

It seems to me that LNDD's forgetting to carry out specific procedures, such as determining reference peaks, was common enough that several “I forgot to do it” events occurred in the analyzing of specimen A and B of Floyd Landis alone. Do these mistakes happen as frequently with other samples?

Floyd Landis's attorney summarized in his closing statements (unofficial non-literal transcripts by "Trust But Verify", video recordings can be viewed here):

Errors build one on top of one another. Pattern of mistakes, necessary to cover the previous mistake, which creates a need to do something else.

...

Lab documents, crossouts, improper procedures. Our point has never been that these were someone else's samples. It was about sloppiness and lack of care. Seven errors on one page. What does that tell you about quality and training? It's no good.

In March of this year there was a discovery dispute, and LNDD produced in March. This [log] was one dealing with preparation of reference solutions. We saw some strange things. This is supposed to be a living documents. Supposed to be a conteporanesous log, but the handwriting is the same all the year.

It appears that the individual who was training other employees didn’t understand the procedures. One could only assume that her trainees knew less than she did about the procedures. I am horrified to think of how many innocent people have lost jobs, sports titles and had their lives destroyed because of errors that have taken place in this testing laboratory. No wonder they report 300% more drug positive tests than any other lab. Could it be that up to 2/3 of their positive tests were in error? Given what we know from the testimony of Davis and others during Floyd Landis' hearings, it would seem that all data ever generated from the LNDD testing lab should be suspect.

Had this testimony ever been documented in a US Court against a testing lab in the United States, one would expect that the lab would have been shut down until the mass spectrometers were properly installed and calibrated, the laboratory technicians were properly trained, procedures were in place and it could be demonstrated that employees understood the procedures, including COC.

This is a day in court for every athlete that LNDD has accused. Right now at LNDD, we may have lab techs with 6 months training who think what they are doing is right.

Can we approve of this work? Deleting files, changing data, not being able to identify the substances in questions.

Would you want the fate of your life and career in the hands of LNDD?


[Roberta Barbalace's Bio]


Further Reading
Our analysis of the first part of the hearing: "When science, peer review & independent experts are anything but"

Relevant testimony in this case in chronological order (from "Trust But Verify"):

• Hearing - Mon Meier-Augenstein - I
  
• Hearing - Mon Meier-Augenstein II
• Hearing - Mon Meier-Augenstein III
• Hearing - Mon Meieir-Augenstein Cross
• Hearing - Tue: Davis Direct
• Hearing - Tues: Davis Direct II
• Hearing - Tue: Davis Direct III