Eco Business: Lighting the Dark Continent, by Achim Steiner, Adnan Amin, and Kandeh K. Yumkella
Discover News: Electric Cars a Health Hazard in China
Download 302.1 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Forbes: Coal Country Losing Luster
- CBS: Mass. wind turbine health study debated at hearing
Discover News: Electric Cars a Health Hazard in China15 February 2012. Buying an electric car to be green? If you live in China, think twice: The electricity used to power that car comes primarily from coal in China, making the negative impact on health greater for e-cars than traditional, gasoline-powered vehicles, a new study says. With e-car sales rising in China, researchers analyzed the environmental health impacts of five different vehicles in 34 cities in China. Previous studies have focused on emission factors and greenhouse gas emissions, but the authors believe this is the first study that analyzes the proportion of emissions actually inhaled by individuals. “We had an idea that the emissions are farther away from people in China, and we thought it was appropriate to look at the health effects,” said Julian Marshall, Assistant Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Minnesota.
While Obama’s team thinks old coal should be tossed out or cleaned up, it is also donning shale gas the new fuel champion. But if you think the Environmental Protection Agency is the primary source of coal’s troubles, think again. Abundant shale gas supplies are one reason. But so too are diminishing reserves, all of which take more labor and more money to dig out. It’s okay to take shots at environmental regulators. With the slew of rules coming down the pike that include everything from mercury to coal ash to greenhouse gases, it is more expensive to burn coal. But even some coal companies are saying that they need to migrate away from Central Appalachia and into potentially richer areas such as those in Wyoming that have low-sulfur coal. “The increased competition from other sources of coal and energy has negatively impacted production in Central Appalachia, illustrating that the existence of coal reserves does not guarantee that the coal will be economical to produce or competitive with other regions,” says a report by DownstreamStrategies. “The declining competitiveness is due in large part to the increased cost of producing coal in Central Appalachia, for both surface and underground mining.” Arch Coal agrees, saying in its annual outlook that production in Kentucky, West Virginia and Tennessee could fall from 200 million tons today to 99 million tons by 2035. A decade ago, it was 300 million tons. Coal companies will move west where the U.S. EnergyInformation Administration says that development will increase by at least 1 percent a year until 2035. In this country, most of the coal comes from Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky. Wyoming provides about 41 percent of U.S. coal production, which is an increase from 18 percent two decades earlier. Today, the roughly 443 million tons of coal mined from the Wyoming Powder River Basin is shipped to 34 states, including those in the east. With an expanding rail transportation network, coal emanating from that area could flourish. It’s also easier to mine. Underground mining is one issue. Surface mining, or mountaintop mining, is another. The EPA has proposed rules to restrict the ability of mining companies to toss aside debris by setting tougher water quality standards. It would require buffer zones around the streams while requesting mining enterprises to move in phases so that they can better monitor their environmental footprints. No doubt, the assault on EPA will continue. Coal interests keep talking about “clean coal” but they also keep bitching that it’s too expensive to actually become cleaner. So shutting down and throwing folks out of work is the only option left, all while the cost of doing business keeps rising, they say. Their friends in Congress are introducing bills to get EPA off their tails. But, in the end, those are going no where because there is a lack of consensus. Shale gas, though, might save the day for both the region, and Obama. Dubbed by the president as the bridge fuel until green energy can get its legs, Central Appalachia is rife with both the unconventional gas, and voters. The Marcellus Region that stretches down the east coast is estimated to hold as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. Penn State University says that such assets would create 200,000 jobs and the American Chemical Council says that 12,000 chemical-related jobs would be formed in West Virginia alone. PriceWaterHouseCoopers adds that their energy prices will dramatically fall, making them more competitive. By comparison, the coal mining industry in all of Appalachia employs 31,000 people, says the National Mining Association. As production falls there and as EPA regs kick in, that number will decline. Blaming coal’s woes on the proposed environmental regulations tells only a fraction of the story. The rest can be explained by competition from other coal states as well as from cheaper and cleaner fuels. That makes the labor-intensive pursuit for coal in Central Appalachia a tougher sell and the need for fuel diversity there more essential than ever. The president will make his appeal to the region but the voters there are likely to reject it. Back to Menu _________________________________________________________________ CBS: Mass. wind turbine health study debated at hearing15 February 2012. Neil Anderson says the headaches, dizziness and palpitations began shortly after Wind One, a 400-foot high wind turbine, began operating about a quarter mile from his Falmouth home. So did sleep disruptions, ringing in his ears and elevated blood pressure. Anderson was among a number of Massachusetts residents who on Tuesday disputed a recent report from a state-appointed panel of experts that reviewed existing scientific evidence and found no serious health risks associated with living near wind turbines. "Despite the conclusions of this expert health panel, wind turbines that are close to residences make people sick," Anderson told the Statehouse hearing, adding that nearly all of his symptoms disappeared when the town-owned, 1.6 megawatt turbine was temporarily shut down in November amid complaints. Environmentalists, industry officials and other wind energy advocates were equally strong in their praise of the panel's report, telling state officials who called the meeting that the findings were a resounding endorsement of wind as a safe and clean alternative to other types of energy. "When we say no to wind in Massachusetts we are saying yes to a bunch of dirty energy sources like coal, like gas, like nuclear power" that bring health risks far greater those posed by wind power, said Emily Rochon, a Northeastern University law student who attended the meeting with other members of the group Wind Action Committee. The report, commissioned by state environmental and public health officials and released in January, said there was no evidence noise or low-frequency vibrations from turbines trigger health problems like those described by Anderson and other neighbors, effects sometimes collectively referred to as "wind turbine syndrome." The report did raise the possibility that sound generated by turbines could be annoying to nearby residents or cause sleep disruptions, and recommended that Massachusetts adopt noise limit guidelines similar to those in some European countries. State officials stressed Tuesday that they had not yet formally accepted the panel's findings nor reached any conclusions about where new wind turbines should be constructed in Massachusetts. Gov. Deval Patrick has made wind energy a key tenet of his strategy to move the state away from carbon-emitting power plants. Critics have questioned both the methods and motivations of the panel, chastising it for relying on a review of data from previous studies done around the world rather than visiting the sites and conducting interviews with state residents who have complained of wind turbine syndrome. Eleanor Tillinghast, a Mount Washington resident and member of the statewide coalition Windwise Massachusetts, accused the panel of "passing off junk science as real science." The group has called for a moratorium on the construction of new land-based wind turbines until all potential health risks are addressed. Projects have been proposed for several other communities in the state, including Fairhaven, Lenox and Plymouth. Critics have also suggested that at least two members of the state-appointed panel had previous ties to the wind energy industry, a claim strongly denied by the panelists and the state officials who appointed them. Some wind energy advocates, while acknowledging that they did not live in the shadow of a turbine, said the whooshing sound of turbine blades was not annoying but actually soothing — akin to ocean waves or a babbling brook. But Falmouth resident Kathryn Elder dismissed any notion that health concerns were more perception rather than reality. "It's not my perception, it's not my opinion, and it certainly isn't annoyance that wakes me up repeatedly at night, or has caused myself and members of my family to have extreme anxiety and other physical issues in response to living close to the turbine," said Elder, who urged the state to adopt "hard and fast regulations" that would require turbines to be kept a safe distance from residential areas and set strict noise limits.
Directory: cpi -> briefs briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news Download 302.1 Kb. Share with your friends:
|