Environmental Science

From the New York Times, December 9, 2007: “Hydrogen Car is Here, a Bit Ahead of Its Time”, comes news that Honda’s hydrogen-fuel-cell car, the FCX Clarity, is production ready. Problem: the hydrogen station to refuel is a rarity in the U.S. So, we’ll have to wait, until, maybe, we run out of oil? Or, until Florida is under water from rising sea-levels.

There was an interesting line in the article that makes the alternative fuel expert, such as yourself, take pause:

Moreover, in Honda’s full-cycle calculation, a fuel-cell vehicle can reduce carbon dioxide output by half compared with a gasoline vehicle.

NY Times

What’s that all about? Why doesn’t a fuel-cell vehicle reduce carbon dioxide output to ZERO? We know that the following reaction, 2H2 + O2 –> 2H2O, is the energy source for the electricity that runs the drive train. Notice: no source of carbon. Plus, the car doesn’t even have a tail-pipe. So, it’s not a hybrid.

So why would there be carbon dioxide at all?

Tell me about it. In fact, make a nice list of all reasons that a hydrogen vehicle will still result in greenhouse gas emissions (I dare you to find more than 5!)

http://winds.jpl.nasa.gov/images/winds_over_ocean2.gif

You’re probably well-versed in the basics of an El-Nino event:

1. the general air mass movement toward higher altitudes at the equator,
2. the cooler and increase in density of said air mass,
3. the spreading out of that air mass and it’s eventual fall back to the earth at latitudes north and south of the equator,
4. the surface winds created by the rising and falling air masses,
5. the Easterlies created over the equatorial Pacific because of the Coriolis effect,
6. the movement of warm surface water in the Pacific to the West, creating a warmer and more elevated Western Pacific (compared to the Eastern Pacific),
7. the atmospheric pressure changes that occur about every 7 years that reduce the intensity of the Easterlies,
8. the build up of warm ocean water in the Eastern Pacific resulting from the reduced Easterlies,
9. the increase in evaporation of water in the central and Eastern Pacific,
10. the intense weather events resulting from the high energy humid air.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images_topic.php3?topic=oceans&img_id=17419
The Jason satellite has measured the elevation of the Pacific in 2006. Shown above are the differences from the norm in water elevation. Notice that the Eastern Pacific is at a greater elevation than usual. This is because the water is warmer and more buoyant–corresponding to an El Nino.

So you understand the science…but why are we talking about this event–essentially a cycling of the weather?

El Nino’s have been unusually strong in recent years and the culprit seems to be global warming.

Still, so what?

Is there any environmental havoc resulting from more intense El Nino’s? (Of course, the answer is yes, and your job will be to research and write on this topic. Is there any “ripple effect”, like an increase in disease? Go beyond the obvious–increased intensity of storms–and look for the side effects.)

Here are some places to go if:
1. I was sleeping during Mr. M’s titillating lecture on El Nino and La Nina events.
2. I can’t find a darn thing from a reputable source on the effects of El Nino.
3. I need even more reputable work.

If you don’t exit my class with a skeptical eye and ear finely tuned to everything you read and hear, then I haven’t met my goals. Don’t get me wrong: I’ll be so happy if you know how to collect and interpret data and explain the science you see. Still, I’d be much happier if you’d patiently consider someone’s environmental science argument and then be ready to say: “Now wait just one darn minute here!…”

Case in point: Skimming the editorial pages of our major local papers this morning, I came across a paragraph in the “What Others Are Saying” section of the Chicago Tribune (January 11, 2008). This quote comes from The Wall Street Journal as a comment on the recently passed energy bill that will phase out the energy-inefficient incandescent light bulb in place of CFLs and LEDs:

Now, I’m sure that Phillips and GE and Sylvania all want to make the world a better place and so on. But if they can do so while at the same time getting the government to force their customers to pay 10 times as much for their products….well…did they mention that they’re making the world a better place? The light bulb that costs 10 times as much does, it is true, last four times as long. But if you’re a light-bulb maker, that’s a pretty good trade. (Brian M. Carney)

The implication is that the consumer is getting ripped off and that the light bulb makers are enjoying a windfall. And since the argument stops there, I sense a hidden argument that the cfls and leds are somewhat of a scam.

or

Now wait just one darn minute here!

It’s time for you to respond, and mention the following benefits of the energy-efficient light bulbs:

1) energy cost savings
2) cost of manufacturing each bulb
3) reduced landfill use
4) buffer to climate change
5) reduced mercury emissions, acid rain, mine drainage, particulate emissions
6) less habitat alteration
7) reduced threat to endangered species
8) less thermal pollution
9) less nuclear waste
10) less emission of radioactive particles into the air
11) improved public health
12) lowered energy costs to businesses in the U.S. and boon to economy

etc.

What was the “pretty good trade”?

David’s recent post, “Not such a bright idea”, points to an interesting issue: Will the mercury contained in a compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) prove to be so great an environmental problem that it outweighs any environmental benefits from energy savings?

David reported that the lifespan of a CFL is 3 years, when many sources report an average of 5 years.  But no matter, the bulbs do contain mercury. (NPR Report:CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch…)

It’s not much mercury, on average about 5 milligrams, and the government considers that a very low level, and easily taken care of should the CFL break in your home. (Information on CFLs and Mercury–an EnergyStar Factsheet)

But if you counted up ALL of the CFLs that we hope to be using in American homes in the near future, that’s a lot of mercury.

And that mercury may get into the environment, even endangering solid waste workers, as David points out.  So, is the CFL environmentally worth it?

Compact fluorescent lightbulbs use less energy and last longer than standard lightbulbs. (AP Photo/Donald King)

David also correctly points out that coal, the fuel that produces 49% of our electricity here in Illinois (Illinois Coal Fact Sheet), contains significant amounts of mercury.

A conveyor belt moves underground mined coal to the surface at Peabody Energy’s Gateway Mine Thursday, March 9, 2006, near Coulterville, Ill. The raw coal brought to the surface of an underground mine by conveyor belt is piled, ready for its eventual transport to a nearby facility where it will be washed, sized and separated from any unwanted rock or debris. Illinois’ coal production, which peaked in 1918 with a work force of more than 100,000, took a beating in the 1990s after the Clean Air Act required coal-fired power plants to either burn low-sulfur coal or install costly scrubbers to curb the emission of sulfur dioxide, a cause of acid rain. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman)

Can you support the following hypothesis? Burning coal to power an incandescent light bulb releases more mercury into the environment than a CFL would release if it were eventually broken (and that includes the release of mercury from the coal to power the CFL for the same amount of time).

To support or disprove the above hypothesis, here is the information and strategy you should use:

1. Find out how much energy is required to run a 60.0 W lightbulb for its lifespan.

60.W = 60. Joules of energy used per second
The lifetime of a 60.W lightbulb = 1000 hours
60 minutes = 1 hour
60 seconds = 1 minute

2. To produce the same amount of light, you will have to use a 15 W CFL.  How much energy is required to run a 15 W CFL for 1000 hours?

3. Determine 50.0% of the energy calculated in #1 and #2.  You have now calculated how much energy will come from coal.

4. Because of the loss of energy during transfers, you will need 2.5 times more energy to be produced at the plant than you use at home.  Calculate:
a) how much energy you’ll have to produce at the coal burning plant for an incandescent bulb, and,
b) how much energy you’ll have to produce at the coal burning plant for a CFL.

Source: (Wikipedia)

5. Calculate the amount of coal you’ll have to burn to produce the energy for
a) an incandescent bulb burning for 1000 hours
b) a CFL burning for 1000 hours

30.6kJ energy can be extracted, on average, from 1.00 grams of coal.
1000 J = 1 kJ

Coal is burned at the TXU Corp. Big Brown plant Thursday, Aug. 24, 2006 near Fairfield, Texas. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

6. Calculate an average amount of mercury released per each gram of coal burned.

1.03 x 10^6 short tons of coal burned in 2006 (Source: DOE)
1 short ton = 9.07 x 10^5 grams

50. tons of mercury are released every year from coal burning (Source: EPA)
1 ton = 9.09 x 10^5 g

7. Calculate the average amount of mercury released, in grams,

a) when an incandescent light bulb is powered for 1000 hours
b) when a CFL is powered for 1000 hours

8. Calculate the total amount of mercury released when a CFL is powered for 1000 hours and then broken.

5 milligrams = mercury in one CFL
1 milligrams = 0.001 gram

9. Compare the amounts of mercury released by incandescents versus CFLs.

Have you supported or disproved the hypothesis?

And finally, can you make a strong argument for CFLs?  What other environmental benefits (or risks are involved)?

An aerial view of Georgia Power’s Plant Bowen in Euharlee, Ga., located about 40 miles northwest of Atlanta, is shown in this June 20, 2002 file photo. For the folks in the shadow of the coal-burning power plant, the haze that hangs over the north Georgia countryside is as much a part of the scenery as the rustic farmhouses and winding roads. The ominous sight around Georgia Power Co.’s Plant Bowen _ and what it could mean for the community’s health _ is brushed off by most nearby residents as just an unavoidable fact of life. (AP Photo/The Daily Tribune News, Dayton P. Strickland, File)

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize this week.  The former vice president was lauded for his work publicizing the very real phenomenon of global warming and for introducing the possible consequences of a warmer earth IF we continue to ignore the warning signs.

AP Photo/Paramount Classics, Eric Lee
The news was generally positive in major media outlets.

The Chicago Tribune (Saturday, October 13, 2007) decided to take a weak-kneed editorial position, even within the news articles, of presenting “both sides” of the global warming debate.

There is no debate among climate scientists about the following: global warming is occurring and continued emissions of greenhouse gases will have serious consequences.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of 2,500 climate scientists from around the world, shared the prize with Gore.  From the Trib’s own findings, “these scientists have concluded that there is a 90% certainty that global warming is caused by human activity and that it could cause catastrophic results in the 21st Century.” (page 6)

Still, if you fall for the Trib’s rhetoric, you’d believe that there is a reputable research organization that believes that Gore is “an environmental alarmist whose views have been repeatedly contradicted by scientists, economists and policy experts”, that the IPCC is a “small cabal of ideologically driven government scientists” (page 6), that there are numerous scientific errors in “An Inconvenient Truth”–Gore’s film on global warming–and that “scientific opinion has been sharply divided” on global warming.

This “other side” of the argument is all hogwash, of course.  The “scientists” who purportedly contradict Gore’s views over and over are not experts in the field, the research organization is a biased big-industry mouthpiece, and the “scientific errors” are not scientific errors at all.

The climate-contrarian organization cited by the Trib is the Heartland Institute, an organization of industry executives and pro-business operatives.  The head of this organization is a former executive of Phillip-Morris, the tobacco giant.  Recent activity by Heartland includes editorializing and lobbying to stop anti-smoking laws.  How could the Trib put forth a group as reputable when that group is trying to convince people that the jury is still out on the health issues of smoking?

And what about the scientists who disagree with the climatologists?  (And what’s behind the “small cabal” jibe?  Are  2,500 climate scientists a small cabal?)  Has the paper ever interviewed or even dealt with these scientists?  I remember a large advertisement in the Trib a couple of years ago, signed by Chicago-land “scientists” (maybe 100 signatures, if I remember correctly), challenging the reality of global warming.  The only scientific credentials I saw in that ad were “D.D.S”.  Are these the scientists?  Is the Trib really trying to convince us that global-warming skepticism by a few local dentists justifies the words “scientific opinion has been sharply divided”?  (page 20)

How can this major newspaper put this editorializing next to their own report of local climatologists, who are members of the IPCC, who work at prestigious institutions such as Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago, and who shared this year’s Nobel prize?  “The Nobel spotlights the work environmental scientists have done for decades…’actually the opinion of some of the world’s best experts…that [carries] a lot of weight.’” (Woodward, page 7)  “There’s a lot of science in there that people have a hard time refuting.” (Manier, page 7)

The “errors” in the film aren’t errors: they are possible consequences of global warming.  Some of these consequences have not been realized yet.  And as in all projections, there is no certainty.  With lack of certainty, there is always a debatable point.

Debate can be good.  However, considering the potential for disaster on an unprecedented level, can we use the lack of scientific certainty to delay action and allow debate to rage on and on, as the Trib suggests we should? (page 20)  Gore says NO!  To delay action is immoral in this situation.

So what has Gore done to elicit such a response to accolades he has received from scientists, governments, the U.N., and now, the Nobel committee, for his work?  Gore presents the science to a popular audience and he does this very well.  Climate experts agree that Gore did an excellent job of compiling and translating years of highly technical research for the general public.  As for the drama in “An Inconvenient Truth” let’s remember that Gore is on a mission to convince people that something must be done now.  He repeatedly and sincerely talks about our moral obligation to address this problem.  His appeal to our humanity should not be called “scientific errors”.

A list of the 9 points in the film that have been called “errors” and a good analysis of each of them may be found at:
The Guardian (for a short list) and
Deltoid–a science blog (for the analysis)

Throughout the Trib’s articles, there is the mention of Gore running for the presidency in 2008 (even though he has said that he will not run, and he has said this many times).  Is the paper trying to diminish the serious issue of global warming by emphasizing some alleged political angle? Is the editorial staff very worried that Gore MAY run and ruin the chances for a Republican victory? (The Tribune is unabashedly Republican, having endorsed Republican presidential candidates, without exception.)

AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian

This type of reporting diminishes the accomplishments of scientific work.  The paper had the chance to emphasize the consensus, present the science, educate the public, and not least of all, celebrate an American’s accomplishment on the world stage.  But the Trib dropped the ball.  It’s an issue of cowardly journalism–here, the paper is worried about angering their many readers who hate Al Gore, so they must present “the other side”, however unscholarly and misleading that other side is.  It’s also an issue of ignorance.  Editorial writers and many lay people don’t understand the difference between real science and junk science.  Additionally, that junk scientists so frequently call real science “junk science” confuses the casual reader.

Do you know the meaning of junk science?

Have you come into contact with junk science?  Have you seen junk science that is so eloquent and influential that not only does it pass for real science, but also influences public decision making?

No?  Take a look around–you won’t have to go far to find it.

A CNN story and the same story from MSN on the EPA study.

In 1994, President Clinton issued executive order EO12,898 that mandated that the EPA establish an Office of Environmental Justice.

According to the EPA, environmental justice is “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/).

The goal of the office is to ensure that all U.S. citizens are protected from environmental and health hazards and that no ethnic or class group bears a disproportionate share of negative environmental impact from industrial, agricultural, or government activities.

Whether much progress has been made to reduce environmental racism is questionable.

A very interesting site that shows the U.S.’s top polluters and gives information on their toxic releases is at Scorecard: The Pollution Information Site.  Out of the top 100 national polluters, Illinois is home to two: Peoria Disposal Company, Peoria, Il, at number 19, and Ameren Energy Generating Coffeen Power Station, Coffeen, Il, at number 74.

Where are top polluters in our area? From Scorecard’s “Environmental Justice Mapper” comes the following map showing the location of industries that report toxic emissions to EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). There are a band of industries to the left and the right of Oak Park. The demographic profile is for the region near Maywood.

Source: Scorecard’s Environmental Justice Mapper

There is a definite link between the location of these industries and nonwhite or poor populations. One major exception is the O’Hare airport and Midway airport locations. Airports are serious air polluters. The wealthy neighborhoods of Park Ridge are in a high risk zone because of the airport.

You can’t escape pollution if you are in the Chicago area. Here is a sobering graphic from The Scorecard comparing Cook County to national averages:

From the Scorecard Site, here is the pollution scorecard for Cook county and here is a list of the top polluters in Cook county.

This is a related MSN story on the EPA’s plan to reduce the amount of pollution reporting, which the EPA considers a “regulatory burden” on the polluting industries.

Why are “TRI” industries located in poor and non-white areas around the country? What can be done to rectify this environmental racism?

One billion people do not have access to clean drinking water.

Over 2 and a half billion people have no sewage collection or treatment facilities.

It is estimated that over 2 million children die each year from water borne diseases such as cholera.  Cholera is caused by a bacterium found in contaminated food and water:

Vibrio cholerae, NYS Department of Health, Wadsworth Center, (http://www.wadsworth.org/databank/vibrio.htm)

Access to clean water is a basic human right.  For this reason, by 2015 the United Nations plans to cut in half the number of people who must drink contaminated water and who have no means of wastewater treatment.

Until that goal is met, serious outbreaks of disease associated with contaminated water will continue around the world.

A Health Ministry worker pours chlorinated water into a family well in Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday, June 15, 2005. Authorities are rushing to chlorinate hundreds of wells across the Afghan capital after more than 2,000 suspected cases of cholera have been detected in recent weeks and at least eight people have died, amid fears the city of 4 million was on the verge of a cholera epidemic. (AP Photo/Tomas Munita)

In 1991, a tragic cholera outbreak began in Peru.

Three year old Adrian Catashunga Pezo is treated for Cholera on June 5, 1991 in the General Hospital of Iquitos, Peru. His mother Maria Pezo rests with her son during his treatment. (AP Photo/Alejandro Balaguer)

The outbreak was traced to contaminated shellfish, but lack of hygiene and an antiquated drinking water system resulted in the disease spreading very quickly throughout the country.

Proper treatment of Peru’s drinking water would have prevented many deaths.  But the areas hardest hit by the epidemic were very poor ones, and monies to repair or build new water treatment facilities and delivery pipes were not available.  Drinking water supplies and cropland were routinely contaminated with raw sewage.

Officials say that Perú’s poor water supply and overcrowding of the shanty towns that surround the coastal cities helped to spread the disease. The rapid population growth in Lima and other coastal cities of Perú during recent decades exceeded the infrastructure available to deal with fecal contamination of water supplies. Chlorination is not kept at proper levels and the water pressure is not maintained for twenty-four hours a day, so waste water can flow into pipes that are cracked. Where population growth has been rapid water supplies have become overstreched.
(Dr. Sonia Arbona, Dr. Shannon Crum, University of Colorado, Boulder, http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/warmup/cholera/cholera.bak14)

There has been some controversy over the lack of chlorination and the Peruvian cholera outbreak.  One argument lays blame with Peruvian government officials and a supposed application of the Precautionary Principle.  An initial report in the magazine Nature stated that chlorination of drinking water may have been scaled back in Peru because of fears of disinfection byproducts (DBP).  DBPs were reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to increase the risk of certain cancers. The chlorinated organic compounds are generally very toxic, and many are categorized as either mutagen, teratogen, or carcinogen.

An example of a DBP that has been linked to serious health problems and cancer is the following molecule, called “MX”:

A thorough study of policies and actions before the outbreak have shown that there was no effort to reduce the chlorination of drinking water.

Still, there are those who use it to argue against applying the Precautionary Principle.

Research the issue of chlorination and the production of organochlorines, the Precautionary Principle, and the controversy concerning the Peruvian cholera outbreak.  Start with the following:

EPA Factsheet on Drinking Water Contaminants

Arguing against the Precautionary Principle–a bad decision accelerated a cholera epidemic

Precaution and Cholera in Peru

“Chlorine is so dangerous that it should be banned”

Alternatives to chlorinating drinking water

Questions to consider:
1. How would you state the Precautionary Principle in your own words?
2. Summarize the argument concerning the misapplication of the Precautionary Principle in Peru as well as the counter-argument.
3. Weigh the risks and benefits of chlorinating drinking water and describe the problems with DBPs.  Can you make a strong argument for continued chlorination of drinking water?  Should there be any changes to policies regarding chlorination?
4. State two alternatives to chlorinating drinking water.  Are these alternatives practical, efficient, and economical?

Global warming is a serious threat to the earth, there is no doubt. And it is not a political issue or economic issue. As the venerable Al Gore states, it IS a MORAL issue.

Title: Antarctic Icebergs, Copyright: © Alfred-Wegener-Institut, http://www.awi.de/

Since “An Inconvenient Truth” won the Oscar for the year’s best documentary, global warming is IN.

And if you are a “global warming junkie”–that is, you just can’t get enough information about global warming–now is your time.

You’ll find an unending discussion of the impacts of a warmer earth and possible ways that we might slow the growing problem.

We have just entered the International Polar Year (started March 1st). To learn more about this fascinating international scientific expedition, visit the IPY’s website.

Image courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (accessed at www.ipy.org)

Go ahead. Indulge yourselves. Become experts in climate change.

Here are a few recent news items to get you started:

Is the Bush administration imposing a global warming gag order on U.S. scientists? See this recent NY Times article: “Protocol is Cited in Limiting Scientist’s Talk on Global Climate”

Is the administration’s global climate action plan not much better than “business as usual”? The World Resource Institute analysis of various U.S. plans to lower greenhouse gas levels: “Comparing the Impact of Various Greenhouse Gas Policies”, and “US Predicting Steady Increase for Greenhouse Gas Levels”.

Al Gore uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, let us all NOT conserve. The global-warming-isn’t-real crowd is getting sillier and more desperate: “Group Faults Al Gore On Environmental Claims”

And the NPR report on the start of the International Polar Year: “International Polar Year Kicks Off“.

Our most recent focus in class has been on how urban streams suffer greatly from runoff that comes from roads, parking lots, sidewalks, roofs, and industrial lands.

Silver Creek after a day of rain (photo credit: mrmc)

Another name for run-off is non-point-source pollution (NPS).  This means that the source of the pollutants is dispersed over a wide area.  Because of the large source area, NPS can contain many materials that would negatively impact water quality.  Because there are many of these pollutants and because many are at low levels or their time in the stream is short-lived, the collection of pollutants can be hard to identify.  Also, testing for every possible contaminant would be too expensive.

Sampling at Silver creek can be a challenge (photo credit: mrmc)
Environmental scientists need an easy and quick way to determine the relative quality of a waterway, the possible source of pollution, and whether or not certain pollutants might be in the water.  Towards this end, scientists will choose one or more water quality indicators.  A water quality indicator might be a collection of organisms whose presence or absence is related to the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem. Also, the indicator could be a chemical, the concentration of which is related to the presence of other, hard-to-test-for, pollutants.

(photo credit: mrmc)
An example of an indicator chemical would be chloride.

We recently checked for chloride ion in Silver Creek.

After reading the post from February 27, “Urban Streams”, (see below) and after comparing our chloride data from previous years (visit www.fenwickfriars.com/Creek, click on experiment–>chloride), and after reading an EPA factsheet on NPS  (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/facts/),

1) Describe how our data, along with data from previous years, indicates that Silver Creek is prone to the large fluctuations in water level and velocity characteristic of urban streams.
2) Make a short list of likely pollutants at high levels in the creek and link their presence to the high levels of chloride.
3) Using your description and list of pollutants, predict the three greatest water quality problems of the creek.
4) Describe two remediation or reclamation projects that cities in the Silver Creek watershed could implement to reduce the three greatest problems of the creek.