3. After looking at the horrifying images of the implications of the Chernobyl disaster of the birth defects and deformation, I decided to see what other defects and health issues could arise from the environment that people might even not be aware of like the Chernobyl incident at the time. As I think that many people are drawn to the environmental issues for health issues in the first place-although many are drawn to it for the sake of protecting nature itself- I think it would be crucial that people realize the health problems related to the environment. Like the professor said in class, although in a majority of cases cancer is caused by environment, there is a social construction of blaming the individual patients that they are responsible for the cancer, not the environment. As doctors usually say the main reason to cancer is stress, I now questioning this as a social construction they keep telling people to divert their concern for the actual environmentally unsound methods which are instilled in our society. The article I found was on oil spill. The first article I found talked about the effects of oil on marine life and the number of fishes that had not come back since the oil spill. The second article talked about the health impact on humans to the exposure to oil spill. I actually never thought that exposure to oil causes health impacts such as respiratory irritation or headaches. The second article ends by saying that the long term health impacts of oil spill are still unknown. If people were more aware of these health issues before they explode like in Chernobyl, maybe Beck’s ‘risk society’ can be avoided.
4. As oil from the gigantic spill in the Gulf of Mexico reaches U.S. beaches, scientists warn that the potential long-term effects of the massive disaster are hard to gauge -- but potentially disastrous for some local species. … Despite spending $2 billion dollars and using every known clean-up method there was, they recovered 8 percent of the spilled Exxon Valdez oil," Jeffrey Short, Pacific science director for Washington, D.C. conservation organization Oceana told LiveScience. "That is typical of these exercises when you have a large marine oil spill. You're doing really great if you [get] 20 percent." Yet despite the lingering oil, many local species recovered: 10 recovered completely, 19 are still recovering, and only two never came back, including the local herring. … Despite spending $2 billion dollars and using every known clean-up method there was, they recovered 8 percent of the spilled Exxon Valdez oil," Jeffrey Short, Pacific science director for Washington, D.C. conservation organization Oceana told LiveScience. "That is typical of these exercises when you have a large marine oil spill. You're doing really great if you [get] 20 percent." Yet despite the lingering oil, many local species recovered: 10 recovered completely, 19 are still recovering, and only two never came back, including the local herring. …"If they let it come into the passes, and if they don't protect the marshes, it will cause long-term economic loss for years, because there's no way to clean it," he said. "They can talk about spraying micro-organisms on the marsh that may help it recover a little faster, but you can't spray grass beds and oyster reefs." http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/30/long-term-effects-oil-spill-unclear/ "Obviously nobody here is well versed in this kind of problem," he said. Weldon said he found a study of a Greek oil tanker than ran aground in Pakistan in 2003 for health problems associated with exposure to oil. …Weldon said the long term effects from exposure to an oil spill are not known
1.Hyo Jin, CHO 2.Sanitary workers exposed to pollution 3. From the article, I was shocked those sanitary workers are seriously exposed to pollution. These days we are learning about social construction theory regarding environment. And I think this article shows how class or certain social minorities are inner connected to environmental problem. I think that lower classes, social minorities (I mean group or individuals who are deprived of social opportunities.) are more exposed and more affected by environmental problems. People who make laws are not usually belonged to minor groups so that they would hardly recognize the seriousness of environmental problems that minor groups are actually facing. Therefore, what regarded as serious problem in reality can fail to be accepted as a public concern. Even in this case, if the article did not reveal the danger workers are encountering, people would hardly know it. I have not known this problem and even not been interested in it, either. In reality, pollution exists more than we know and expect and actually it is harming certain people’s health, their living environment. Also we might be facing environmental problems unconsciously. Social status, class, race etc, seem to be importantly related to environment because depending on these social factors, pollution’s actual effects, public concerns on environment issues are decided. ---------------------------------- 4. The title of article is 'Guarantee sanitary workers’ right to wash!'. According to the article, Kyung Hyang newspaper, 77% of sanitary workers could not take showers and 67% went back home while wearing working uniforms. From sanitary workers’ uniforms a great amount of germs were discovered, 9, 1700 germs from pants, 13, 3600 from sleeves, 2400 from shoulders and moreover, 719 germs were discovered from workers’ faces. This is because, although sanitary workers are kept being exposed to lots of germs while working, there is not enough shower booths, laundry systems nor cabinets that workers can put their uniforms. There is no specific law that urges sanitation companies to be equipped with shower booths, laundry systems nor cabinets for workers. The rate of industrial disasters of sanitary workers is 6.9% in private sanitation companies, 1.7% in government owned sanitation companies, which both are much higher than average industrial disaster rate of Korea, 0.7%. In Denmark, as the number of sanitary workers increase in 1990’s, they have made it compulsory to equip vanitilaters and cabinets that workers can keep their clothes and uniforms separately. ---------- 5.http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201004131805525&code=940702
3. It is a very ironical situation that people destroy the environment in order to preserve “the environment.” In the article, the government (Ministry of Knowledge Economy, not Ministry of Environment) permitted the participants to construct the tidal power generation on Garorim bay of the West Sea. Every society recognizes the necessity of renewable energy and tries to reduce the dependence on the fossil fuel. In this sense, the building the great size of tidal power generations is a good example showing the concern of the environment. However, what the matter is the government allowed interested people to construct the bay, which is well know as the diverse marine life on the tideland(mud flat). If they build the large power generation, the tideland will be disappeared and the oceanic life will be destroyed. Also in the process of the building seawall, the huge amount of soil and rocks needed so they will meet the condition by carrying them from the mountains. I think this action is the second effect on the nature emerging from the construction. In my opinion, the best way to preserve the environment is just to let it be. Like the 4 rivers construction, human’s exploitation for the environment causes only another degradation. Reading the below article, I assume that the loss from the construction will exceed the gain from the generation. There is alternative instead of constructing tidal power generation on the Garorim bay. We can build the solar power generation more or develop the technology which increases the energy efficiency. We find another alternative in human activity, but if the marine life vanishes on the bay, we will not find any alternative. ----------------------------------- (-continued-)
4. 서해안 대규모 조력발전에 대한 논란이 계속되고 있다. (The argument about the big scale tidal power generation on the West Sea is continued.) 녹색 성장 시대에 조력발전이 재생 가능에너지로 각광받고 있지만 대규모 환경파괴를 부를 수 있다는 우려 때문이다. (In green growth era, tidal power generation is in the limelight, but it merely is from the worry about causing large scale of the environment destruction.)
대규모 조력발전이 필요하다는 주장을 하는 입장에서는 현재보다는 미래를 준비하는 관점에서 조력발전 문제를 접근할 필요가 있다고 강조한다. (People who believe that building the tidal power generation is needed in order to prepare for future life, not based on the present situation) .. 또한 유가에 따라 널뛰는 국민경제를 생각하면 에너지원 다변화에 대한 준비가 시급하고 풍력 등 다른 신재생에너지원에 비해 대규모 전력 생산 등 많은 장점이 있다. (In addition to, the tidal power plant has a big advantage in producing large scale electricity compared with any renewable power generation like wind power plant, and we needs to prepare for diversity of energy resource because of the vulnerable domestic economic to unstable oil price) .. 특히 우리나라의 서남해안은 세계적인 조력•조류에너지 부존지역으로 개발 여건이 매우 우수하다. (Particularly, the West Sea has an excellent condition to build the tidal construction)
반면 환경론자들은 조력 발전으로 환경적으로 매우 우수한 우리나라 갯벌이 사라질 수 있다고 지적한다. (In the contrast, the opponent of the proposal insists that the excellent tideland will be disappeared by the project) 가로림만 조력은 정부로부터 여러차례 보존상태가 최우수인 갯벌로 꼽혔고, 전국 환경가치 평가에서도 1위를 차지한 바 있다. (Garorim bay was chosen as the best tideland with very good preservation by the government many times, moreover, it occupied the first position on national environmental value assessment) … 또 조력발전소 방조제 공사 과정에서 필요한 대규모 토석으로 인해 육상의 자연환경 파괴가 우려되는 문제도 있다. (Besides there is a problem which needs lots of soil and rocks in the process of building the breakwater, so it will destroy the land nature) … 윤 목사는 "조력발전이 들어서는 대규모 갯벌은 풍부한 생물다양성과 먹을거리를 제공하고 있고, 수질 토양 정화작용, 홍수 방지 등 생태계 복원에서 중요한 역할을 하고 있다"며 "결코 조력발전으로 인해 얻어지는 경제적 환경적 이익이 이보다 더 크다고 할 수 없다"고 강조했다. (Yoon minister pointed out that the economic benefit from the tidal power plant never surpasses the profit from preserving the tideland, because the tideland on which the generations will be located provides various oceanic life and to people, and it plays a key role in the restoration in ecosystem such as soil and water quality purification and preventing floods.) jjong@ajnews.co.kr
3. This article is about how biofuels, regarded as an alternative to help improve the environment, acutally causes more CO2 than fossil fuels. (Of course there is the whole debate on whether CO2 is really the cause of global warming, but let's say it is for now) Developing new forms of fuels is an example of "Technical Fix," and it made me wonder, is there really a perfect technical fix? Technical fix may fix the problem, but it always seems to cause other problems. Maybe the only possible fix to the whole environment problem (and all other problems) is to change our habits? (ex. use less energy)
---
Biofuels cause four times more carbon emissions
By Louise Gray Published: 22 Apr 2010
The European Union, including the UK, has set a goal of obtaining 10 per cent of its road fuels from renewable sources by 2020.
But a new report commissioned in Brussels found some biofuels can lead to four times more carbon dioxide polluting the atmosphere than equivalent fossil fuels.
Biofuels have already been criticised for causing food shortages in countries where land for rice or wheat has been displaced by fields of soy beans or sugarcane for fuel.
Environmental campaigners say the latest report proves the renewable energy source is also bad for climate change, since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that causes global warming.
The report for the European Commission, released under Freedom of Information rules, looked into the "indirect emissions" from biofuels caused by land use change. The worse example is soy beans in America. Because the land that used to grow soy beans for animal feed is now being used for biofuels, it means that more soy beans must be grown in the rainforests of Brazil to make up for the loss in the domestic market.
Soybeans grown in America therefore have an indirect carbon footprint of 340kg of CO2 per gigajoule, compared to just 85kg for conventional diesel or gasoline.
Biodiesel from European rapeseed has an indirect carbon footprint of 150kg of CO2 per gigajoule, while bioethanol from European sugar beet is calculated at 100kg – both much higher than conventional diesel because of indirect use of land in other countries to replace the food crops that are no longer grown in Europe.
By contrast, imports of bioethanol from Latin American sugar cane and palm oil from southeast Asia have relatively low indirect emissions at 82kg and 73kg per gigajoule respectively. But these biofuels have high direct emissions because although no land for food is being displaced, rainforest it being cut down to grow the crops in the first place.
The European Commission insisted that biofuels is a complex issue and further studies need to be done.
But Kenneth Richter, Friends of the Earth campaigner, said the report proves that biofuels are not the answer to tackling climate change.
"Most of the crops used for biofuels at the moment produce more emissions than fossil fuels therefore biofuel targets in Europe make no sense and are doing opposite of what they are supposed to be doing," he said.
2.Colorado Law Will Retire or Retrofit Coal-Fired Power
3.The news gives us a new sample about energy agencies cutting coal-fired capacity and repowering old plants with cleaner energy sources. I’m really impressed by the initiative act of Colorado government because 1) the state government didn’t wait for the federal regulations to solve the problem 2) it fits well with the idea of ecological modernization and provides a pattern of sustainable production. The environmental “risks” that we face today are obviously perceived around the world. And replacing the old and inefficient coal energy with natural gas must be a future trend. However, I assume, not many regions/countries are applying the solution because not all of them see both the economic and ecological advantages here. Colorado is producing its own natural gas, which cleans the air, protects public health, and creates jobs and protects ratepayers at the same time. And it sets a good example for the world here. Economic growth and pollution reduction are two contradictory things. The prospect is about syncretizing innovative technology and an environmental mind. I hope the local initiative can move the national government to make legislation that improves energy efficiency and environmental quality. Thus, government, energy companies, and environmentalists must work together for easier breath tomorrow.
------------------------------
4.Colorado Governor Bill Ritter on Monday signed into law the Colorado Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act--legislation that requires Xcel Energy (NYSE: XEL) to cut nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 80% from several Front Range coal plants by the end of 2017, most likely sooner.
Xcel will work with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to submit a plan to the Public Utilities Commission by Aug. 15, detailing how it will retire or retrofit 900 megawatts (MW) of coal-fired capacity. Xcel will give primary consideration to replacing or repowering those plants with natural gas, renewables, greater efficiencies and other cleaner energy sources.
"This law is a template for tomorrow that allows us to transform our energy portfolio, our economy and our environment by working strategically and collaboratively," Gov. Ritter said. "By shifting our oldest and least efficient coal plants to cleaner, Colorado-produced natural gas, we send a strong message to the rest of the country that we absolutely can cut air pollution and protect public health while also creating jobs and protecting ratepayers." Governor Ritter was joined at the Capitol signing ceremony by members of a broad coalition that supported House Bill 1365, including Xcel Energy Chairman and CEO Dick Kelly, lawmakers, power producers and conservationists.
"This legislation brings economic, energy and environmental benefits together in one package," the Governor said. "It will set a national example and serve as the exclamation point on Colorado's New Energy Economy, which now also features a 30% Renewable Energy Standard and a new set of balanced, responsible and modern drilling rules."
The Governor thanked Xcel Energy for its national leadership and for partnering with Colorado to create a more diverse and secure energy portfolio, strengthen Colorado’s economy and protect the state’s environment.
"This law gives us a great opportunity to address the issues of regional haze and ozone in a comprehensive fashion, with some certainty for our customers," said Xcel Energy Chairman and CEO Dick Kelly.
The federal Clean Air Act requires Colorado to submit a plan to address regional haze by early next year or the EPA will write its own plan for Colorado. The Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act will allow investor-owned utilities like Xcel Energy to help craft their own plans for how to meet new regional haze guidelines, as well as new mandates for ozone, mercury and carbon dioxide in one comprehensive analysis that will minimize costs and maximize emissions reductions.
1. Franziska Mittelstädt 2. Germany's First Offshore Wind Farm Goes Online 3.In class we spoke about Murray Edelman's perspective to "symbolic" improvements to satisfy certain (mainly smaller) interst groups. Professor Whitaker mentioned in this context that it is probaly more harder to make real improvements than symbolic ones, and that latter is more recognized in the social construction.
The example above is in my point of view a prove that both is/could possible in the same time.
In these days the first offshore wind farm in the German North Sea went online. This is a really big step for the change of the German power structure - at least in my opinion. For my personal "social construction" of the power supply problem of Germany it means that I gained a lot of hope that we have now the chance to adapt to our nature more probberly. But I cannot proove this rationally. I think the German government and the corporations involved in the project missed somehow the chance to create a huge symbolic effect, because this event caused only small public attention and I had to have a closer look to find this news.
This giant project's development is supported by the EU CO² regulations. Maybe we can see this as an example of the central power mentioned by Schnaiberg, which can decelarate the treadmill of production. In this project many diffrent power companies worked together with the government and public and private scientist and biologist as well as NGO fighting for the protection of the local fauna and flora.
That this incentive by EU regulations has not necessarily positive outcomes we can discover through the fact that Germany is the only country substituting "dirty" energy completly with renewable energy sources - instead of expanding use of atomic power plants.
*continued* 4.Germany's energy supply is on the verge of an important turning point. Over the coming months and years, German utility giants plan to build massive offshore wind farms that are expected to produce huge amounts of green energy. The first such wind farm went online this week. ... Twelve wind turbines tower above the icy water, covering an area of roughly four square kilometers (1.5 square miles), or about the size of 500 soccer fields. At a height of 150 meters (492 feet), each turbine is as tall as the Cologne Cathedral and, at 1,000 tons, as heavy as 25 fully loaded semi-trailer trucks. ... In the coming months and years, more giant offshore wind farms will begin popping up along German and European coasts, feeding enormous amounts of electricity into the grids on the mainland. Large corporations like Siemens and General Electric, and European energy providers like E.on, RWE, Vattenfall and the Spanish company Iberdrola, are currently staking out their claims in waters that have been approved for wind-farm use. Hardly a month goes by without new investments worth billions being made. ... In 2007, Germany made a commitment to the European Union to substantially reduce its CO2 emissions. Chancellor Angela Merkel promised that her country would play a "pioneering role" in European and global climate protection. The goals were no less ambitious.
By 2020, Germany intends to reduce its emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide by 30 percent over the base year of 1990. In its bid to reach this goal, the German government is taking an unorthodox approach within the EU. While its European neighbors plan to reduce their CO2 emissions through a mixture of energy conservation programs, the expansion of renewable energy and nuclear power, which has low CO2 emissions, Germany is standing by its plans to phase out nuclear power, which were announced by the administration of former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. Although the current coalition government of Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats and the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP) wants to extend the operating lives of Germany's reactors, nuclear power is not expected to be more than a so-called bridge technology in the future. ... To protect the sensitive Wadden Sea (Wattenmeer) tidal flats and wetlands, which stretch along Germany's North Sea coast, as well as to head off the tourism industry's likely protests against giant towers along beaches, the German government has required offshore wind farms to be sited far away from coastlines. The farms must be at least 30 kilometers (19 miles) away from beaches, which is significantly more than in other EU countries.
This has serious consequences. Logistics costs are disproportionately greater than in neighboring countries, some of which allow their wind farms to be sited less than 5 kilometers from the shore. An even more serious problem is that, at such great distances from the coasts, the water can be more than 40 meters (130 feet) deep. ------------ http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,691699-5,00.html
2. Found Alive: The Loch Ness Monster of the Northwest Prairie. Alas, It Disappoints
3. One of the environmental issues are saving the endangered species. This is an article about the giant Palouse earthworm that was once known as extinct in 1980s but reappeared again. However, the worm does not have its features which are the gigantic figure and lilac scent. Dr. Johnson-Maynard said it is a scientific coup to find the worms again. It is glad to find this once feared extinct species. Although it lost its features, scientists are finding ways to find more giant Palouse earthworm.
As it turns out, the worms are bigger than night crawlers but not giant. The two specimens, the adult of which had to be killed and dissected to determine whether it was indeed a giant Palouse earthworm, were about seven inches long when they came from the ground.
Giant earthworms do exist in Africa and Australia, she said, and so it was thought that a North American version was possible.
The last live worms were found in the 1980s. Worms were found by researchers in 2005 and 2007, but they were killed during recovery. There were numerous sightings in the 19th century before most of the native prairie was plowed up for wheat. Environmentalists have petitioned the federal government to list the worm as endangered.
The researchers used an electroshock device to find the worms. The location technique, called the octet method, involves sticking eight electrodes into the ground in a one-foot-circle and sending electricity through them. It is believed to be what brought the worms to the surface.
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Sung Yeon Lee
ReplyDelete2. Health effects from oil spill
3. After looking at the horrifying images of the implications of the Chernobyl disaster of the birth defects and deformation, I decided to see what other defects and health issues could arise from the environment that people might even not be aware of like the Chernobyl incident at the time. As I think that many people are drawn to the environmental issues for health issues in the first place-although many are drawn to it for the sake of protecting nature itself- I think it would be crucial that people realize the health problems related to the environment. Like the professor said in class, although in a majority of cases cancer is caused by environment, there is a social construction of blaming the individual patients that they are responsible for the cancer, not the environment. As doctors usually say the main reason to cancer is stress, I now questioning this as a social construction they keep telling people to divert their concern for the actual environmentally unsound methods which are instilled in our society. The article I found was on oil spill. The first article I found talked about the effects of oil on marine life and the number of fishes that had not come back since the oil spill. The second article talked about the health impact on humans to the exposure to oil spill. I actually never thought that exposure to oil causes health impacts such as respiratory irritation or headaches. The second article ends by saying that the long term health impacts of oil spill are still unknown. If people were more aware of these health issues before they explode like in Chernobyl, maybe Beck’s ‘risk society’ can be avoided.
4. As oil from the gigantic spill in the Gulf of Mexico reaches U.S. beaches, scientists warn that the potential long-term effects of the massive disaster are hard to gauge -- but potentially disastrous for some local species.
…
Despite spending $2 billion dollars and using every known clean-up method there was, they recovered 8 percent of the spilled Exxon Valdez oil," Jeffrey Short, Pacific science director for Washington, D.C. conservation organization Oceana told LiveScience. "That is typical of these exercises when you have a large marine oil spill. You're doing really great if you [get] 20 percent."
Yet despite the lingering oil, many local species recovered: 10 recovered completely, 19 are still recovering, and only two never came back, including the local herring.
…
Despite spending $2 billion dollars and using every known clean-up method there was, they recovered 8 percent of the spilled Exxon Valdez oil," Jeffrey Short, Pacific science director for Washington, D.C. conservation organization Oceana told LiveScience. "That is typical of these exercises when you have a large marine oil spill. You're doing really great if you [get] 20 percent."
Yet despite the lingering oil, many local species recovered: 10 recovered completely, 19 are still recovering, and only two never came back, including the local herring.
…"If they let it come into the passes, and if they don't protect the marshes, it will cause long-term economic loss for years, because there's no way to clean it," he said. "They can talk about spraying micro-organisms on the marsh that may help it recover a little faster, but you can't spray grass beds and oyster reefs."
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/30/long-term-effects-oil-spill-unclear/
"Obviously nobody here is well versed in this kind of problem," he said. Weldon said he found a study of a Greek oil tanker than ran aground in Pakistan in 2003 for health problems associated with exposure to oil.
…Weldon said the long term effects from exposure to an oil spill are not known
http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/2010/04/doctor_explains_health_impact_of_exposure_to_oil_spill.html
1.Hyo Jin, CHO
ReplyDelete2.Sanitary workers exposed to pollution
3. From the article, I was shocked those sanitary workers are seriously exposed to pollution. These days we are learning about social construction theory regarding environment. And I think this article shows how class or certain social minorities are inner connected to environmental problem.
I think that lower classes, social minorities (I mean group or individuals who are deprived of social opportunities.) are more exposed and more affected by environmental problems. People who make laws are not usually belonged to minor groups so that they would hardly recognize the seriousness of environmental problems that minor groups are actually facing. Therefore, what regarded as serious problem in reality can fail to be accepted as a public concern. Even in this case, if the article did not reveal the danger workers are encountering, people would hardly know it. I have not known this problem and even not been interested in it, either. In reality, pollution exists more than we know and expect and actually it is harming certain people’s health, their living environment. Also we might be facing environmental problems unconsciously. Social status, class, race etc, seem to be importantly related to environment because depending on these social factors, pollution’s actual effects, public concerns on environment issues are decided.
----------------------------------
4. The title of article is 'Guarantee sanitary workers’ right to wash!'. According to the article, Kyung Hyang newspaper, 77% of sanitary workers could not take showers and 67% went back home while wearing working uniforms. From sanitary workers’ uniforms a great amount of germs were discovered, 9, 1700 germs from pants, 13, 3600 from sleeves, 2400 from shoulders and moreover, 719 germs were discovered from workers’ faces. This is because, although sanitary workers are kept being exposed to lots of germs while working, there is not enough shower booths, laundry systems nor cabinets that workers can put their uniforms. There is no specific law that urges sanitation companies to be equipped with shower booths, laundry systems nor cabinets for workers. The rate of industrial disasters of sanitary workers is 6.9% in private sanitation companies, 1.7% in government owned sanitation companies, which both are much higher than average industrial disaster rate of Korea, 0.7%. In Denmark, as the number of sanitary workers increase in 1990’s, they have made it compulsory to equip vanitilaters and cabinets that workers can keep their clothes and uniforms separately.
----------
5.http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201004131805525&code=940702
1. Hye Jung, Choi
ReplyDelete2. Irony in building tidal power generation.
3.
It is a very ironical situation that people destroy the environment in order to preserve “the environment.” In the article, the government (Ministry of Knowledge Economy, not Ministry of Environment) permitted the participants to construct the tidal power generation on Garorim bay of the West Sea.
Every society recognizes the necessity of renewable energy and tries to reduce the dependence on the fossil fuel. In this sense, the building the great size of tidal power generations is a good example showing the concern of the environment.
However, what the matter is the government allowed interested people to construct the bay, which is well know as the diverse marine life on the tideland(mud flat). If they build the large power generation, the tideland will be disappeared and the oceanic life will be destroyed. Also in the process of the building seawall, the huge amount of soil and rocks needed so they will meet the condition by carrying them from the mountains. I think this action is the second effect on the nature emerging from the construction.
In my opinion, the best way to preserve the environment is just to let it be. Like the 4 rivers construction, human’s exploitation for the environment causes only another degradation. Reading the below article, I assume that the loss from the construction will exceed the gain from the generation. There is alternative instead of constructing tidal power generation on the Garorim bay. We can build the solar power generation more or develop the technology which increases the energy efficiency. We find another alternative in human activity, but if the marine life vanishes on the bay, we will not find any alternative.
-----------------------------------
(-continued-)
(-continued-)
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
4.
서해안 대규모 조력발전에 대한 논란이 계속되고 있다.
(The argument about the big scale tidal power generation on the West Sea is continued.)
녹색 성장 시대에 조력발전이 재생 가능에너지로 각광받고 있지만 대규모 환경파괴를 부를 수 있다는 우려 때문이다.
(In green growth era, tidal power generation is in the limelight, but it merely is from the worry about causing large scale of the environment destruction.)
대규모 조력발전이 필요하다는 주장을 하는 입장에서는 현재보다는 미래를 준비하는 관점에서 조력발전 문제를 접근할 필요가 있다고 강조한다.
(People who believe that building the tidal power generation is needed in order to prepare for future life, not based on the present situation)
..
또한 유가에 따라 널뛰는 국민경제를 생각하면 에너지원 다변화에 대한 준비가 시급하고 풍력 등 다른 신재생에너지원에 비해 대규모 전력 생산 등 많은 장점이 있다.
(In addition to, the tidal power plant has a big advantage in producing large scale electricity compared with any renewable power generation like wind power plant, and we needs to prepare for diversity of energy resource because of the vulnerable domestic economic to unstable oil price)
..
특히 우리나라의 서남해안은 세계적인 조력•조류에너지 부존지역으로 개발 여건이 매우 우수하다.
(Particularly, the West Sea has an excellent condition to build the tidal construction)
반면 환경론자들은 조력 발전으로 환경적으로 매우 우수한 우리나라 갯벌이 사라질 수 있다고 지적한다.
(In the contrast, the opponent of the proposal insists that the excellent tideland will be disappeared by the project)
가로림만 조력은 정부로부터 여러차례 보존상태가 최우수인 갯벌로 꼽혔고, 전국 환경가치 평가에서도 1위를 차지한 바 있다.
(Garorim bay was chosen as the best tideland with very good preservation by the government many times, moreover, it occupied the first position on national environmental value assessment)
…
또 조력발전소 방조제 공사 과정에서 필요한 대규모 토석으로 인해 육상의 자연환경 파괴가 우려되는 문제도 있다.
(Besides there is a problem which needs lots of soil and rocks in the process of building the breakwater, so it will destroy the land nature)
…
윤 목사는 "조력발전이 들어서는 대규모 갯벌은 풍부한 생물다양성과 먹을거리를 제공하고 있고, 수질 토양 정화작용, 홍수 방지 등 생태계 복원에서 중요한 역할을 하고 있다"며 "결코 조력발전으로 인해 얻어지는 경제적 환경적 이익이 이보다 더 크다고 할 수 없다"고 강조했다.
(Yoon minister pointed out that the economic benefit from the tidal power plant never surpasses the profit from preserving the tideland, because the tideland on which the generations will be located provides various oceanic life and to people, and it plays a key role in the restoration in ecosystem such as soil and water quality purification and preventing floods.)
jjong@ajnews.co.kr
-----------------------------------
http://www.ajnews.co.kr/uhtml/read.jsp?idxno=201004301613141200525§ion=S1N17§ion2=
1. Wonmi Nam
ReplyDelete2. Does Possible Technical Fix Exist?
3. This article is about how biofuels, regarded as an alternative to help improve the environment, acutally causes more CO2 than fossil fuels. (Of course there is the whole debate on whether CO2 is really the cause of global warming, but let's say it is for now) Developing new forms of fuels is an example of "Technical Fix," and it made me wonder, is there really a perfect technical fix? Technical fix may fix the problem, but it always seems to cause other problems. Maybe the only possible fix to the whole environment problem (and all other problems) is to change our habits? (ex. use less energy)
---
Biofuels cause four times more carbon emissions
By Louise Gray
Published: 22 Apr 2010
The European Union, including the UK, has set a goal of obtaining 10 per cent of its road fuels from renewable sources by 2020.
But a new report commissioned in Brussels found some biofuels can lead to four times more carbon dioxide polluting the atmosphere than equivalent fossil fuels.
Biofuels have already been criticised for causing food shortages in countries where land for rice or wheat has been displaced by fields of soy beans or sugarcane for fuel.
Environmental campaigners say the latest report proves the renewable energy source is also bad for climate change, since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that causes global warming.
The report for the European Commission, released under Freedom of Information rules, looked into the "indirect emissions" from biofuels caused by land use change. The worse example is soy beans in America. Because the land that used to grow soy beans for animal feed is now being used for biofuels, it means that more soy beans must be grown in the rainforests of Brazil to make up for the loss in the domestic market.
Soybeans grown in America therefore have an indirect carbon footprint of 340kg of CO2 per gigajoule, compared to just 85kg for conventional diesel or gasoline.
Biodiesel from European rapeseed has an indirect carbon footprint of 150kg of CO2 per gigajoule, while bioethanol from European sugar beet is calculated at 100kg – both much higher than conventional diesel because of indirect use of land in other countries to replace the food crops that are no longer grown in Europe.
By contrast, imports of bioethanol from Latin American sugar cane and palm oil from southeast Asia have relatively low indirect emissions at 82kg and 73kg per gigajoule respectively. But these biofuels have high direct emissions because although no land for food is being displaced, rainforest it being cut down to grow the crops in the first place.
The European Commission insisted that biofuels is a complex issue and further studies need to be done.
But Kenneth Richter, Friends of the Earth campaigner, said the report proves that biofuels are not the answer to tackling climate change.
"Most of the crops used for biofuels at the moment produce more emissions than fossil fuels therefore biofuel targets in Europe make no sense and are doing opposite of what they are supposed to be doing," he said.
---
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7614934/Biofuels-cause-four-times-more-carbon-emissions.html]
1.Dingyuan Hou
ReplyDelete2.Colorado Law Will Retire or Retrofit Coal-Fired Power
3.The news gives us a new sample about energy agencies cutting coal-fired capacity and repowering old plants with cleaner energy sources. I’m really impressed by the initiative act of Colorado government because 1) the state government didn’t wait for the federal regulations to solve the problem 2) it fits well with the idea of ecological modernization and provides a pattern of sustainable production. The environmental “risks” that we face today are obviously perceived around the world. And replacing the old and inefficient coal energy with natural gas must be a future trend. However, I assume, not many regions/countries are applying the solution because not all of them see both the economic and ecological advantages here. Colorado is producing its own natural gas, which cleans the air, protects public health, and creates jobs and protects ratepayers at the same time. And it sets a good example for the world here. Economic growth and pollution reduction are two contradictory things. The prospect is about syncretizing innovative technology and an environmental mind. I hope the local initiative can move the national government to make legislation that improves energy efficiency and environmental quality. Thus, government, energy companies, and environmentalists must work together for easier breath tomorrow.
------------------------------
4.Colorado Governor Bill Ritter on Monday signed into law the Colorado Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act--legislation that requires Xcel Energy (NYSE: XEL) to cut nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 80% from several Front Range coal plants by the end of 2017, most likely sooner.
Xcel will work with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to submit a plan to the Public Utilities Commission by Aug. 15, detailing how it will retire or retrofit 900 megawatts (MW) of coal-fired capacity. Xcel will give primary consideration to replacing or repowering those plants with natural gas, renewables, greater efficiencies and other cleaner energy sources.
"This law is a template for tomorrow that allows us to transform our energy portfolio, our economy and our environment by working strategically and collaboratively," Gov. Ritter said. "By shifting our oldest and least efficient coal plants to cleaner, Colorado-produced natural gas, we send a strong message to the rest of the country that we absolutely can cut air pollution and protect public health while also creating jobs and protecting ratepayers."
Governor Ritter was joined at the Capitol signing ceremony by members of a broad coalition that supported House Bill 1365, including Xcel Energy Chairman and CEO Dick Kelly, lawmakers, power producers and conservationists.
*continued*
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete*continued*
ReplyDelete"This legislation brings economic, energy and environmental benefits together in one package," the Governor said. "It will set a national example and serve as the exclamation point on Colorado's New Energy Economy, which now also features a 30% Renewable Energy Standard and a new set of balanced, responsible and modern drilling rules."
The Governor thanked Xcel Energy for its national leadership and for partnering with Colorado to create a more diverse and secure energy portfolio, strengthen Colorado’s economy and protect the state’s environment.
"This law gives us a great opportunity to address the issues of regional haze and ozone in a comprehensive fashion, with some certainty for our customers," said Xcel Energy Chairman and CEO Dick Kelly.
The federal Clean Air Act requires Colorado to submit a plan to address regional haze by early next year or the EPA will write its own plan for Colorado. The Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act will allow investor-owned utilities like Xcel Energy to help craft their own plans for how to meet new regional haze guidelines, as well as new mandates for ozone, mercury and carbon dioxide in one comprehensive analysis that will minimize costs and maximize emissions reductions.
-----------------
http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/4/colorado-law-will-retire-retrofit.cfm
1. Franziska Mittelstädt
ReplyDelete2. Germany's First Offshore Wind Farm Goes Online
3.In class we spoke about Murray Edelman's perspective to "symbolic" improvements to satisfy certain (mainly smaller) interst groups. Professor Whitaker mentioned in this context that it is probaly more harder to make real improvements than symbolic ones, and that latter is more recognized in the social construction.
The example above is in my point of view a prove that both is/could possible in the same time.
In these days the first offshore wind farm in the German North Sea went online. This is a really big step for the change of the German power structure - at least in my opinion. For my personal "social construction" of the power supply problem of Germany it means that I gained a lot of hope that we have now the chance to adapt to our nature more probberly. But I cannot proove this rationally.
I think the German government and the corporations involved in the project missed somehow the chance to create a huge symbolic effect, because this event caused only small public attention and I had to have a closer look to find this news.
This giant project's development is supported by the EU CO² regulations. Maybe we can see this as an example of the central power mentioned by Schnaiberg, which can decelarate the treadmill of production. In this project many diffrent power companies worked together with the government and public and private scientist and biologist as well as NGO fighting for the protection of the local fauna and flora.
That this incentive by EU regulations has not necessarily positive outcomes we can discover through the fact that Germany is the only country substituting "dirty" energy completly with renewable energy sources - instead of expanding use of atomic power plants.
*continued*
ReplyDelete4.Germany's energy supply is on the verge of an important turning point. Over the coming months and years, German utility giants plan to build massive offshore wind farms that are expected to produce huge amounts of green energy. The first such wind farm went online this week.
...
Twelve wind turbines tower above the icy water, covering an area of roughly four square kilometers (1.5 square miles), or about the size of 500 soccer fields. At a height of 150 meters (492 feet), each turbine is as tall as the Cologne Cathedral and, at 1,000 tons, as heavy as 25 fully loaded semi-trailer trucks.
...
In the coming months and years, more giant offshore wind farms will begin popping up along German and European coasts, feeding enormous amounts of electricity into the grids on the mainland.
Large corporations like Siemens and General Electric, and European energy providers like E.on, RWE, Vattenfall and the Spanish company Iberdrola, are currently staking out their claims in waters that have been approved for wind-farm use. Hardly a month goes by without new investments worth billions being made.
...
In 2007, Germany made a commitment to the European Union to substantially reduce its CO2 emissions. Chancellor Angela Merkel promised that her country would play a "pioneering role" in European and global climate protection. The goals were no less ambitious.
By 2020, Germany intends to reduce its emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide by 30 percent over the base year of 1990. In its bid to reach this goal, the German government is taking an unorthodox approach within the EU. While its European neighbors plan to reduce their CO2 emissions through a mixture of energy conservation programs, the expansion of renewable energy and nuclear power, which has low CO2 emissions, Germany is standing by its plans to phase out nuclear power, which were announced by the administration of former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. Although the current coalition government of Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats and the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP) wants to extend the operating lives of Germany's reactors, nuclear power is not expected to be more than a so-called bridge technology in the future.
...
To protect the sensitive Wadden Sea (Wattenmeer) tidal flats and wetlands, which stretch along Germany's North Sea coast, as well as to head off the tourism industry's likely protests against giant towers along beaches, the German government has required offshore wind farms to be sited far away from coastlines. The farms must be at least 30 kilometers (19 miles) away from beaches, which is significantly more than in other EU countries.
This has serious consequences. Logistics costs are disproportionately greater than in neighboring countries, some of which allow their wind farms to be sited less than 5 kilometers from the shore. An even more serious problem is that, at such great distances from the coasts, the water can be more than 40 meters (130 feet) deep.
------------
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,691699-5,00.html
1. Ye Eun Cho
ReplyDelete2. Found Alive: The Loch Ness Monster of the Northwest Prairie. Alas, It Disappoints
3. One of the environmental issues are saving the endangered species. This is an article about the giant Palouse earthworm that was once known as extinct in 1980s but reappeared again. However, the worm does not have its features which are the gigantic figure and lilac scent. Dr. Johnson-Maynard said it is a scientific coup to find the worms again. It is glad to find this once feared extinct species. Although it lost its features, scientists are finding ways to find more giant Palouse earthworm.
As it turns out, the worms are bigger than night crawlers but not giant. The two specimens, the adult of which had to be killed and dissected to determine whether it was indeed a giant Palouse earthworm, were about seven inches long when they came from the ground.
Giant earthworms do exist in Africa and Australia, she said, and so it was thought that a North American version was possible.
The last live worms were found in the 1980s. Worms were found by researchers in 2005 and 2007, but they were killed during recovery. There were numerous sightings in the 19th century before most of the native prairie was plowed up for wheat. Environmentalists have petitioned the federal government to list the worm as endangered.
The researchers used an electroshock device to find the worms. The location technique, called the octet method, involves sticking eight electrodes into the ground in a one-foot-circle and sending electricity through them. It is believed to be what brought the worms to the surface.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/science/earth/28earthworm.html?ref=earth