3. In today's class, Prof. Whitaker mentioned about Four Major Rivers Restoration Project. President Lee is known for being stubborn (he's even called "a bulldozer" for that), but I personally think this project is by far the most pathetic thing he's done. The article below is about Hudson River project. Hudson River project has been of official debate for about 30 years, and there was thorough research on toxic materials on its sediment for 7 years. It was also called the most complicated and most expensive environmental project ever. However, despite such preparation and help from top technologies, it still faced problems. It worries me that the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project is being pushed ahead without in-depth research on sediment layer, especially when arsenic materials have been found. Here is the link to an article about the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project for those of you who aren't familiar with it. http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/408944.html
---
GE: Limit PCB Contamination During Hudson Dredging
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: March 8, 2010
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- General Electric Co. on Monday proposed a halting further dredging of the Hudson River if PCBs churned up by the work spread too much pollution downriver during the second phase of an ongoing cleanup.
GE made the proposal as the company and the federal Environmental Protection Agency were set to release separate reports assessing the dredging in 2009 of PCB ''hot spots'' north of Albany. The EPA had yet to release its report Monday afternoon, but the agency has been much more upbeat in its assessments of the dredging than GE, which is paying for the cleanup.
Proposals in both reports will be considered by a peer review panel, which will make recommendations this summer to the EPA on how to continue the federal Superfund project.
Last year's dredging was a test run for the far larger Phase 2 of the cleanup, a projected five-year project on 40 miles of river north of Albany that regulators want to start next year. The EPA wants a total of 2.65 million cubic yards of sediment removed from the river.
Crews working the river last summer found contamination of the river bed was deeper than expected and the work took longer.
GE said PCBs kicked up into the water during dredging presented a serious problem. So the company proposed setting a ''hard cap'' on the amount of PCBs that would be allowed to flow downstream during Phase 2. Crews would start by targeting the contaminated areas that otherwise would be most likely to pollute fish downriver.
''(T)o send more PCBs downriver than would happen without dredging eliminates the benefits of the remedy identified by EPA,'' the GE report said.
GE spokesman Mark Behan called the proposal a ''smarter, more targeted approach.'' Still, it could result in work being stopped before meeting the EPA's removal target.
PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are considered probable carcinogens. GE plants in Fort Edward and neighboring Hudson Falls discharged wastewater containing PCBs for decades before the lubricant and coolant was banned in 1977.
The EPA was expected to call for more modest changes in the plan, such as recalculated productivity targets and tighter control on silt control.
''The completion of the first phase of dredging, while not without problems, has gone very well and is moving us closer to achieving the goal of a cleaner Hudson River,'' EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck said in a prepared release. ''The problems in Phase 1 will be addressed during the careful scientific review, which is now underway.''
General Electric will not disclose projected costs, though others estimate it could exceed $700 million.
3. Today, Prof. Whitaker mentioned that electric cars will be running on Seoul's streets. I've always been doubtful whether electric cars could really be an alternative. According to what I've heard, producing electricity itself is another big problem. Korea depends its electricity on mainly the nuclear plant, and we don't have a satisfactory solution on how to deal with its waste, or the safety of it. If cars use electricity and producing electricity creates other problems, could we call it an alternative? Plus, under Korea's cumulative tax scheme, using electric cars could be very costly.
---
NEVs Running On Seoul's Streets
By Hankyoreh Published: March 12, 2010
A NEV (Neighborhood Electric Vehicle) capable of speeds up to 60 kilometers per hour will be running on Seoul streets for business purposes.
Seoul city announced its plans to introduce 15 NEVs in the first half of the year and 20 in the latter half for business uses around fire stations, Han-Gang Park, and the Seoul Grand Park.
NEVs will become available as an alternative means of transportation when moving a short distance starting from the 30th of this month when exceptional regulations of the Vehicle Administration Law is enforced.
A model with lithium polymer battery will cost around 20 million Won.
Seoul city is expecting to introduce 15 NEVs and 15 high-speed battery chargers around parks maintained by the Seoul government including fire stations, Hang-Gang Park, and the Seoul Grand Park in the first half of the year.
These NEVs will be running on side streets of the city patrolling, managing parks, or cracking down in illegal parking.
In the latter half of the year, 20 additional NEVs will be running on the ring roads of World Cup Park.
In order to promote Seoul’s “Green Car Policy,” the city is also planning to provide NEVs to participants of G20 summit meeting as means of transportation, and once the meeting is over, to lend the cars to the public for use inside the parks.
Remodeling Cars into an Electric Car Possible from July
By Yonhap News Published: March 11, 2010
It will be allowed to remodel your car into an electric car from as early as coming July.
Officials at the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced on the 12th that they are “planning to notify safety standards and detailed procedures for allowing remodeling of cars into electric cars in July.”
The ministry revised enforcement regulations of the Vehicle Administration Law last month and prepared a regulation regarding remodeling of cars into electric cars.
In July, as a follow-up measure, in order to prevent indiscreet remodeling, safety standards, standards for repair shops specializing in remodeling, and detailed procedures of remodeling will be notified.
Currently, the ministry has requested an automobile performance lab to investigate possible dangers of electric shock and collision.
1. Franziska Mittelstädt (Sissy) 2. Bangladesh river pollution threatens millions 3. The majority of big cities, especially these with a long history, are directely located at a river, a lake or sea. What would be Busan without sea? Seoul without Hangang? Frankfurt without Main? London without Thames? Paris without Seine? Even my hometown is settled at a river. Therefore the name of my city is "Halle/Saale" - Saale is the name of "our" river. In the middleage rivers have been the main reason for founding villages and cities. One the one hand it gave a lot of the necessary resources to settle down (e.g. fish as food, water, reeds, stones...). One the other hand we have to consider that there haven't been any train or cars at this time. So the river was also a very important transportation way. So even the ancient Egyptians used the Nile for trading and - living! Most of the Egyptian population was directly living at the Nile. And also there is the famous image of "The River of Life". So there cannot be any question: Human living and floating rivers belong together. Or better: Have belonged together? In the following article you can read about a very sad story. Once was the Buriganga river, flowing by Dhaka, the so-called "lifeline" of the city. It was (and still is) very common to wash yourself in the water and to get your drinkwater out of it in the same time. For my it seems almost ironically that this river which was the source of life is now - after invention of human - is a threat for life. So it has turned to be the OPPOSITE! I wonder how much more this river has to be polluted that people start to give the political power to THIS people, WHO seriously want to change this situation seriously. For me it seems to be senseless, that the country of Bangladesh saves money with not clearing the polluted water from companies (they could pay compensate companies for overtaking this extra costs) but facing because of this even higher costs because of the longrun consequences of the river pollution. Too bad, that Dhaka is not the only setting for this story... --------------------------------- (Reuters) - It was once the lifeline of the Bangladeshi capital.
But the once mighty Buriganga river, which flows by Dhaka, is now one of the most polluted rivers in Bangladesh because of rampant dumping of industrial and human waste. [...]"The water of the Buriganga is now so polluted that all fish have died, and increasing filth and human waste have turned it like a black gel. Even rowing across the river is now difficult for it smells so badly," he told reporters. […] "Unfortunately, all these bad things -- encroachment, dumping of industrial waste and other abuses -- occur in full knowledge of the authorities," said Professor Abdullah Abu Saeed, an eminent campaigner for "Save Buriganga, Save Lives." The river flows by the capital Dhaka, a city of 12 million people, which largely depends on the Buriganga's water for drinking, fishing and carrying merchandise. "The pollutants have eaten up all oxygen in the Buriganga and we call it biologically dead. It is like a septic tank," said Khawaja Minnatullah, a World Bank specialist on environment and water management. "There is no fish or aquatic life in this river apart from zero oxygen survival kind of organisms." "If the pollution is not controlled, we will face a serious health crisis in a year or two or at best three years," said Minnatullah. Bangladesh enacted a law in 1995 making it compulsory for all industrial units to use effluent treatment plants in a bid to save river waters from pollution, but industry owners often flout the rule. "Many of them have this plant. But they don't use it as it is expensive," said M.A. Matin, general-secretary of Bangladesh Paribesh Andolon or the Bangladesh Environment Movement. ------------------------
1. HyoJin,CHO 2. Is creating green jobs a sensible aspiration for governments? 3. Actually by searching for more information about green job, I could recognize that creating green jobs is current issue of growing number of countries. At first it was impressive that both sided, proponent and opponent agree on that creating green jobs should be left to private sector to maximize its effects. I guess the reason for it is because when the task is given to private sector, which means the task will be under market mechanism, it can develop into the best way through competition. However, as I agree with the proponent, I want to point out limitation of private sector. The aim of private sector is to yield profit rather than regarding public good. Although task of creating and running green job market can go in its most efficient way, competition needs rule within it, regulations by governments’ policies. Governments’ with policy it can promote positive effect. I agree that creating green job is too large for governments to take since kind of job market is various and broad. New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) article said that the worry when a managed-scarcity synthesis or a ecological synthesis are applied is complains from people for slow economic progress. I realized that the best way will be the one which enlarge ecological affect to its best by profit. In this point, I think green jobs can be a solution. And, related to last lecture, I thought ‘green job’ idea is quiet related to Marx’s argument. Green job, workers would not stuck in harmful working environment, they might be able to feel proud of their works for helping better environment (natural) and natural resources such as soil, air would not be devastated by working. According to Wikipedia, a green job means “work in agricultural, manufacturing, research and development, administrative, and service activities that contributes sustainability to preserving or restoring environmental quality. Specifically, but not exclusively, this includes jobs that help to protect ecosystems and biodiversity.” The definition is originally derived from the United Nations Environment Program --------- 4. (As it is ongoing debate article, I upload moderator’s article.) The two sides are clearly agreed on the fact that the private sector will be responsible for actually producing jobs, green or otherwise. What they differ on is the extent to which government should, by means of policies intended to provide environmental benefit, seek to shape the decisions that surround that job creation. (…)Van Jones makes the undeniable point that within the energy sector there is no question of green jobs policy distorting an otherwise free market; the market starts off hugely influenced, perhaps compromised, by legacy subsidies and other interventions of all sorts. He also points to studies saying that investment in various green technologies and industries produces more employment than investment in those subsidised hydrocarbons, though it is not obviously the case that investment would come at the expense only of fossil-fuel investment. (On this issue of opportunity costs, if either side would care to look a little further at the study of Spanish green jobs by researchers at King Juan Carlos University, it seems to me that many of the commenters would be grateful.) (...)Mr Morriss is inclined to limit his shaping of the market response to offering prizes for certain types of innovation deemed necessary. In the comments MapJim stresses, rightly I think, the need for basic research as a government priority beyond such technological demonstration. But Mr Morriss's belief in innovation and markets alone seems to stretch too far in some respects. To bolster his arguments that governments cannot pick winners, he points to the very different energy economy of the 1870s, and suggests that people today can no more guess at their energy futures than people back then could have guessed at the realities of today. ------------- 5. http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/478
3. In this winter, Korea had lots of snow. There was heavy snow on last week. Also all transportations almost stopped because of snow on last January. Administrations of cities tried to deal with heavy snow by scattering calcium chloride on roads. As the material is very useful to melt frozen snow, it is used whenever it snows. On last January, I saw many roads were covered with snow and this chemical matter. In that time, I thought it was very good thing because it helped the traffic chaos finished. However, I read this article, and then got worry about using it. It is sure that the chemical material helps us, but it threatens not only the environment but humans’ health. It makes vehicles being corrode causing dangerous car accidents or collapse of bridge. Also ground water containing this results in many skin diseases. Finally, it affects negatively to nearby trees which absorbs it. It has many side effects as I wrote it above. But why do the administrations use it? Maybe they didn’t know these facts. But by the article, using it is very cheap and effective so they perhaps use it for “efficiency.” I think efficiency takes priority over better and more important values like environments and human health in this issue. The guys just considered “how can we make the snow being melted quickly” without thinking about some results which it could caused, even though the consequences have had bad influences to human and environment. Everything which we do returns surely to us in any forms. I hope the administrations please remind this, throw shortsighted perspectives and have much wiser and wider thinking and policies when they work.
----------------------------- Has Seoul Used Too Much Road Salt?
In a swift measure to cope with the unprecedented snowfall that halted the nation's traffic on Monday, the government spread 4,769 tons of calcium chloride on roads to melt the snow.
However, environmentalists warned that the chemical could have a negative effect on the environment and damage cars, calling for the use of environmentally-friendly substances.
Calcium chloride is a liquid in its natural state and is converted into a solid by dehydrating it - thus creating its moisture-absorbing effect. When it is converted back into a liquid, it gives off heat. Calcium chloride melts ice at temperatures below zero degrees Celsius.
Currently, authorities have been mixing calcium chloride with sodium chloride as the method is cheap and effective.
However, concerns over the side effects of the mixture are constantly being raised. The Wisconsin Transportation Bulletin recently reported that soil, vegetation, water, highway facilities and vehicles are all affected by the chemicals.
The corrosion of vehicles is estimated to be the most serious impact. Even a relatively small amount of the chemicals can significantly accelerate this, it said.
During a National Assembly hearing in 2005, some asserted that the infamous 1994 collapse of Seongsu Bridge in Seoul, which killed some 100 people, was caused by damage due to calcium chloride. In 2004, the National Institute of Environmental Research verified the allegation that an excessive amount of calcium chloride was detected in ground water near a facility housing snow-removal supplies. The residents using the water suffered from various skin diseases and other ailments.
Prof. Yoo Jeong-chil of Kyung Hee University said the chemical could also have a negative effect on trees nearby.
By Bae Ji-sook ----------------------------- http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/01/117_58505.html
1.Dingyuan Hou 2.Global Trade’s Dirty Secret: Outsourced Emissions 3.With the development of global trade, the environmental issue is getting more serious than ever before, which makes the public more concerned about problem that we’re faced with today. The article brings up a question that has been largely discussed recently: who is to take the responsibility for the increased emissions? As is mentioned in the article, there is a trend for western countries to portray developing countries especially China as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. I’m not saying it because I’m from China, but are the criticisms entirely fair? Granted, China has many problems in almost all aspects of life and a lot can be improved. Pollution is a big problem, but people are aware of it. All new motorbikes and mopeds have had to be electric for the last 4 years; many families are installed with solar water heating if they face south and millions of trees are being planted. However, China's population of 1.3 billion is about four times larger than that of the US, but each Chinese citizen uses about 25% of the energy consumed by his or her US counterpart. Plus, much of that energy used in China is to manufacture goods that are then purchased by Americans, Europeans and Japanese. I think the current form of development has a direct link with the carbon dioxide levels. Both human population and current development are biggest threat to the planet. We can fix this problem by mutual cooperation only; therefore it's unfair to start these types of debates. So definitely we need right alternatives but it's not good to blame any country when you have to walk together. It's not a challenge of one nation it's a global challenge and we need a comprehensive strategy and action.
----------------------------
Carnegie Institution of Science released a new study this week finding that one-third of the carbon dioxide emissions developed countries release into the atmosphere result from goods and services produced outside their borders. The report’s details are troubling: Carnegie’s researchers estimate that 2.5 tons of CO2 per person are consumed in the United States but are produced elsewhere, and that figure spikes to 4 tons per European. Another point that will cause considerable disagreement among global climate negotiators is Carnegie’s analysis that one-quarter of the emissions in China are actually the result of its exports to its trading partners such as the United States.
Emerging economic powers such India and China on one side, and the United States and Western Europe on the other, are finding difficulty reaching any middle ground over who is responsible for increased emissions–and who will pay for such measures. Chinese and Indian leaders will argue that it is hypocritical for industrialized nations to insist that the Chinese and Indians invest their limited resources into decreasing emissions and greenhouse gases. If the United States, Europe, and Japan have enjoyed increased wealth over the past century because of industrialization, why should developing countries deny economic opportunity for their citizens?
An opposing argument, however, is that as people in the developing world become affluent, drive more cars, purchase more goods, and eat more meat, the pace of global consumption is on a course that ultimately will prove unsustainable. So should wealthy nations pay for the cost of reducing CO2 emissions and other threats to the earth’s atmosphere? Or is the real lesson learned is that consumers in industrialized nations should change their habits, consume less, and buy locally?
(continuing on next comment) ----------------- http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/41094
(proceeding with previous comment) It is troubling to think that nations can simply “outsource” their emissions, which in the case of the USA is 11%, and tiny Switzerland, a staggering 50%; and then, point to China as the culprit. Nevertheless, one aspect of the debate often falls under the radar. While activists and, increasingly, consumers demand more locally produced goods and services, such clamor ignores the fact that many jobs around the world rely on international trade. Los Angeles, for example, is famous for its entertainment industry, but the city’s largest employer and wealth generator are logistics and trade. But as a result, the fuels required to ship goods across the oceans, and then to haul them by trucks once they reach their destination, are polluting. Governments, industry, and activists continuously disagree on what is needed to clean the ports in Los Angeles and nearby Long Beach.
So if trade is the cause of such a large proportion of global emissions, why not address the problem at its source? Maersk, the world’s largest shipping and logistics company, is partnering with Lloyd’s Register and the Dutch government to test biodiesel in its engines over the next two years. Maersk’s biodiesel pilot program is modest: the fuel tested is a blend of 5 to 7 percent of FAME, or fatty acid methyl esters. Maersk will not only test the performance of this blend, but will evaluate storage issues as well. Meanwhile, LA Ports is introducing more biodiesel and electric trucks at its facilities, which in the long run could reduce emissions and reliance on imported fossil based fuels in California and the United States.
Encouraging shipping companies to explore alternative fuel options does not receive the hype and attention in which hybrid and electric cars bask. But with our planet’s future and jobs hanging in the balance, the development of alternative fuels for the transportation behind international trade perhaps deserves more research and a sense of urgency.
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.
1. Wonmi Nam
ReplyDelete2. Four Major Rivers Restoration Project
3. In today's class, Prof. Whitaker mentioned about Four Major Rivers Restoration Project. President Lee is known for being stubborn (he's even called "a bulldozer" for that), but I personally think this project is by far the most pathetic thing he's done. The article below is about Hudson River project. Hudson River project has been of official debate for about 30 years, and there was thorough research on toxic materials on its sediment for 7 years. It was also called the most complicated and most expensive environmental project ever. However, despite such preparation and help from top technologies, it still faced problems. It worries me that the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project is being pushed ahead without in-depth research on sediment layer, especially when arsenic materials have been found. Here is the link to an article about the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project for those of you who aren't familiar with it. http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/408944.html
---
GE: Limit PCB Contamination During Hudson Dredging
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 8, 2010
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- General Electric Co. on Monday proposed a halting further dredging of the Hudson River if PCBs churned up by the work spread too much pollution downriver during the second phase of an ongoing cleanup.
GE made the proposal as the company and the federal Environmental Protection Agency were set to release separate reports assessing the dredging in 2009 of PCB ''hot spots'' north of Albany. The EPA had yet to release its report Monday afternoon, but the agency has been much more upbeat in its assessments of the dredging than GE, which is paying for the cleanup.
Proposals in both reports will be considered by a peer review panel, which will make recommendations this summer to the EPA on how to continue the federal Superfund project.
Last year's dredging was a test run for the far larger Phase 2 of the cleanup, a projected five-year project on 40 miles of river north of Albany that regulators want to start next year. The EPA wants a total of 2.65 million cubic yards of sediment removed from the river.
Crews working the river last summer found contamination of the river bed was deeper than expected and the work took longer.
GE said PCBs kicked up into the water during dredging presented a serious problem. So the company proposed setting a ''hard cap'' on the amount of PCBs that would be allowed to flow downstream during Phase 2. Crews would start by targeting the contaminated areas that otherwise would be most likely to pollute fish downriver.
''(T)o send more PCBs downriver than would happen without dredging eliminates the benefits of the remedy identified by EPA,'' the GE report said.
GE spokesman Mark Behan called the proposal a ''smarter, more targeted approach.'' Still, it could result in work being stopped before meeting the EPA's removal target.
PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are considered probable carcinogens. GE plants in Fort Edward and neighboring Hudson Falls discharged wastewater containing PCBs for decades before the lubricant and coolant was banned in 1977.
The EPA was expected to call for more modest changes in the plan, such as recalculated productivity targets and tighter control on silt control.
''The completion of the first phase of dredging, while not without problems, has gone very well and is moving us closer to achieving the goal of a cleaner Hudson River,'' EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck said in a prepared release. ''The problems in Phase 1 will be addressed during the careful scientific review, which is now underway.''
General Electric will not disclose projected costs, though others estimate it could exceed $700 million.
---
[http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/08/business/AP-US-Hudson-PCBs.html]
1. Wonmi Nam
ReplyDelete2. Electric Cars
3. Today, Prof. Whitaker mentioned that electric cars will be running on Seoul's streets. I've always been doubtful whether electric cars could really be an alternative. According to what I've heard, producing electricity itself is another big problem. Korea depends its electricity on mainly the nuclear plant, and we don't have a satisfactory solution on how to deal with its waste, or the safety of it. If cars use electricity and producing electricity creates other problems, could we call it an alternative? Plus, under Korea's cumulative tax scheme, using electric cars could be very costly.
---
NEVs Running On Seoul's Streets
By Hankyoreh
Published: March 12, 2010
A NEV (Neighborhood Electric Vehicle) capable of speeds up to 60 kilometers per hour will be running on Seoul streets for business purposes.
Seoul city announced its plans to introduce 15 NEVs in the first half of the year and 20 in the latter half for business uses around fire stations, Han-Gang Park, and the Seoul Grand Park.
NEVs will become available as an alternative means of transportation when moving a short distance starting from the 30th of this month when exceptional regulations of the Vehicle Administration Law is enforced.
A model with lithium polymer battery will cost around 20 million Won.
Seoul city is expecting to introduce 15 NEVs and 15 high-speed battery chargers around parks maintained by the Seoul government including fire stations, Hang-Gang Park, and the Seoul Grand Park in the first half of the year.
These NEVs will be running on side streets of the city patrolling, managing parks, or cracking down in illegal parking.
In the latter half of the year, 20 additional NEVs will be running on the ring roads of World Cup Park.
In order to promote Seoul’s “Green Car Policy,” the city is also planning to provide NEVs to participants of G20 summit meeting as means of transportation, and once the meeting is over, to lend the cars to the public for use inside the parks.
[http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/economy/car/409664.html]
---
Remodeling Cars into an Electric Car Possible from July
By Yonhap News
Published: March 11, 2010
It will be allowed to remodel your car into an electric car from as early as coming July.
Officials at the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced on the 12th that they are “planning to notify safety standards and detailed procedures for allowing remodeling of cars into electric cars in July.”
The ministry revised enforcement regulations of the Vehicle Administration Law last month and prepared a regulation regarding remodeling of cars into electric cars.
In July, as a follow-up measure, in order to prevent indiscreet remodeling, safety standards, standards for repair shops specializing in remodeling, and detailed procedures of remodeling will be notified.
Currently, the ministry has requested an automobile performance lab to investigate possible dangers of electric shock and collision.
[http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=001&aid=0003165210]
1. Franziska Mittelstädt (Sissy)
ReplyDelete2. Bangladesh river pollution threatens millions
3. The majority of big cities, especially these with a long history, are directely located at a river, a lake or sea.
What would be Busan without sea? Seoul without Hangang? Frankfurt without Main? London without Thames? Paris without Seine? Even my hometown is settled at a river. Therefore the name of my city is "Halle/Saale" - Saale is the name of "our" river. In the middleage rivers have been the main reason for founding villages and cities. One the one hand it gave a lot of the necessary resources to settle down (e.g. fish as food, water, reeds, stones...). One the other hand we have to consider that there haven't been any train or cars at this time. So the river was also a very important transportation way. So even the ancient Egyptians used the Nile for trading and - living! Most of the Egyptian population was directly living at the Nile.
And also there is the famous image of "The River of Life". So there cannot be any question: Human living and floating rivers belong together. Or better: Have belonged together?
In the following article you can read about a very sad story. Once was the Buriganga river, flowing by Dhaka, the so-called "lifeline" of the city. It was (and still is) very common to wash yourself in the water and to get your drinkwater out of it in the same time.
For my it seems almost ironically that this river which was the source of life is now - after invention of human - is a threat for life. So it has turned to be the OPPOSITE!
I wonder how much more this river has to be polluted that people start to give the political power to THIS people, WHO seriously want to change this situation seriously.
For me it seems to be senseless, that the country of Bangladesh saves money with not clearing the polluted water from companies (they could pay compensate companies for overtaking this extra costs) but facing because of this even higher costs because of the longrun consequences of the river pollution.
Too bad, that Dhaka is not the only setting for this story...
---------------------------------
(Reuters) - It was once the lifeline of the Bangladeshi capital.
But the once mighty Buriganga river, which flows by Dhaka, is now one of the most polluted rivers in Bangladesh because of rampant dumping of industrial and human waste.
[...]"The water of the Buriganga is now so polluted that all fish have died, and increasing filth and human waste have turned it like a black gel. Even rowing across the river is now difficult for it smells so badly," he told reporters.
[…]
"Unfortunately, all these bad things -- encroachment, dumping of industrial waste and other abuses -- occur in full knowledge of the authorities," said Professor Abdullah Abu Saeed, an eminent campaigner for "Save Buriganga, Save Lives."
The river flows by the capital Dhaka, a city of 12 million people, which largely depends on the Buriganga's water for drinking, fishing and carrying merchandise.
"The pollutants have eaten up all oxygen in the Buriganga and we call it biologically dead. It is like a septic tank," said Khawaja Minnatullah, a World Bank specialist on environment and water management.
"There is no fish or aquatic life in this river apart from zero oxygen survival kind of organisms."
"If the pollution is not controlled, we will face a serious health crisis in a year or two or at best three years," said Minnatullah.
Bangladesh enacted a law in 1995 making it compulsory for all industrial units to use effluent treatment plants in a bid to save river waters from pollution, but industry owners often flout the rule.
"Many of them have this plant. But they don't use it as it is expensive," said M.A. Matin, general-secretary of Bangladesh Paribesh Andolon or the Bangladesh Environment Movement.
------------------------
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54I04G20090519
1. HyoJin,CHO
ReplyDelete2. Is creating green jobs a sensible aspiration for governments?
3. Actually by searching for more information about green job, I could recognize that creating green jobs is current issue of growing number of countries. At first it was impressive that both sided, proponent and opponent agree on that creating green jobs should be left to private sector to maximize its effects. I guess the reason for it is because when the task is given to private sector, which means the task will be under market mechanism, it can develop into the best way through competition. However, as I agree with the proponent, I want to point out limitation of private sector. The aim of private sector is to yield profit rather than regarding public good. Although task of creating and running green job market can go in its most efficient way, competition needs rule within it, regulations by governments’ policies. Governments’ with policy it can promote positive effect. I agree that creating green job is too large for governments to take since kind of job market is various and broad.
New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) article said that the worry when a managed-scarcity synthesis or a ecological synthesis are applied is complains from people for slow economic progress. I realized that the best way will be the one which enlarge ecological affect to its best by profit. In this point, I think green jobs can be a solution. And, related to last lecture, I thought ‘green job’ idea is quiet related to Marx’s argument. Green job, workers would not stuck in harmful working environment, they might be able to feel proud of their works for helping better environment (natural) and natural resources such as soil, air would not be devastated by working.
According to Wikipedia, a green job means “work in agricultural, manufacturing, research and development, administrative, and service activities that contributes sustainability to preserving or restoring environmental quality. Specifically, but not exclusively, this includes jobs that help to protect ecosystems and biodiversity.” The definition is originally derived from the United Nations Environment Program
---------
4. (As it is ongoing debate article, I upload moderator’s article.)
The two sides are clearly agreed on the fact that the private sector will be responsible for actually producing jobs, green or otherwise. What they differ on is the extent to which government should, by means of policies intended to provide environmental benefit, seek to shape the decisions that surround that job creation.
(…)Van Jones makes the undeniable point that within the energy sector there is no question of green jobs policy distorting an otherwise free market; the market starts off hugely influenced, perhaps compromised, by legacy subsidies and other interventions of all sorts. He also points to studies saying that investment in various green technologies and industries produces more employment than investment in those subsidised hydrocarbons, though it is not obviously the case that investment would come at the expense only of fossil-fuel investment. (On this issue of opportunity costs, if either side would care to look a little further at the study of Spanish green jobs by researchers at King Juan Carlos University, it seems to me that many of the commenters would be grateful.)
(...)Mr Morriss is inclined to limit his shaping of the market response to offering prizes for certain types of innovation deemed necessary. In the comments MapJim stresses, rightly I think, the need for basic research as a government priority beyond such technological demonstration. But Mr Morriss's belief in innovation and markets alone seems to stretch too far in some respects. To bolster his arguments that governments cannot pick winners, he points to the very different energy economy of the 1870s, and suggests that people today can no more guess at their energy futures than people back then could have guessed at the realities of today.
-------------
5. http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/478
1. Hye Jung, Choi
ReplyDelete2. A shortsighted reaction
3. In this winter, Korea had lots of snow. There was heavy snow on last week. Also all transportations almost stopped because of snow on last January. Administrations of cities tried to deal with heavy snow by scattering calcium chloride on roads. As the material is very useful to melt frozen snow, it is used whenever it snows. On last January, I saw many roads were covered with snow and this chemical matter. In that time, I thought it was very good thing because it helped the traffic chaos finished.
However, I read this article, and then got worry about using it. It is sure that the chemical material helps us, but it threatens not only the environment but humans’ health. It makes vehicles being corrode causing dangerous car accidents or collapse of bridge. Also ground water containing this results in many skin diseases. Finally, it affects negatively to nearby trees which absorbs it.
It has many side effects as I wrote it above. But why do the administrations use it? Maybe they didn’t know these facts. But by the article, using it is very cheap and effective so they perhaps use it for “efficiency.” I think efficiency takes priority over better and more important values like environments and human health in this issue. The guys just considered “how can we make the snow being melted quickly” without thinking about some results which it could caused, even though the consequences have had bad influences to human and environment.
Everything which we do returns surely to us in any forms. I hope the administrations please remind this, throw shortsighted perspectives and have much wiser and wider thinking and policies when they work.
-----------------------------
Has Seoul Used Too Much Road Salt?
In a swift measure to cope with the unprecedented snowfall that halted the nation's traffic on Monday, the government spread 4,769 tons of calcium chloride on roads to melt the snow.
However, environmentalists warned that the chemical could have a negative effect on the environment and damage cars, calling for the use of environmentally-friendly substances.
Calcium chloride is a liquid in its natural state and is converted into a solid by dehydrating it - thus creating its moisture-absorbing effect. When it is converted back into a liquid, it gives off heat. Calcium chloride melts ice at temperatures below zero degrees Celsius.
Currently, authorities have been mixing calcium chloride with sodium chloride as the method is cheap and effective.
However, concerns over the side effects of the mixture are constantly being raised. The Wisconsin Transportation Bulletin recently reported that soil, vegetation, water, highway facilities and vehicles are all affected by the chemicals.
The corrosion of vehicles is estimated to be the most serious impact. Even a relatively small amount of the chemicals can significantly accelerate this, it said.
During a National Assembly hearing in 2005, some asserted that the infamous 1994 collapse of Seongsu Bridge in Seoul, which killed some 100 people, was caused by damage due to calcium chloride. In 2004, the National Institute of Environmental Research verified the allegation that an excessive amount of calcium chloride was detected in ground water near a facility housing snow-removal supplies. The residents using the water suffered from various skin diseases and other ailments.
Prof. Yoo Jeong-chil of Kyung Hee University said the chemical could also have a negative effect on trees nearby.
By Bae Ji-sook
-----------------------------
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/01/117_58505.html
1.Dingyuan Hou
ReplyDelete2.Global Trade’s Dirty Secret: Outsourced Emissions
3.With the development of global trade, the environmental issue is getting more serious than ever before, which makes the public more concerned about problem that we’re faced with today. The article brings up a question that has been largely discussed recently: who is to take the responsibility for the increased emissions? As is mentioned in the article, there is a trend for western countries to portray developing countries especially China as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. I’m not saying it because I’m from China, but are the criticisms entirely fair? Granted, China has many problems in almost all aspects of life and a lot can be improved. Pollution is a big problem, but people are aware of it. All new motorbikes and mopeds have had to be electric for the last 4 years; many families are installed with solar water heating if they face south and millions of trees are being planted. However, China's population of 1.3 billion is about four times larger than that of the US, but each Chinese citizen uses about 25% of the energy consumed by his or her US counterpart. Plus, much of that energy used in China is to manufacture goods that are then purchased by Americans, Europeans and Japanese. I think the current form of development has a direct link with the carbon dioxide levels. Both human population and current development are biggest threat to the planet. We can fix this problem by mutual cooperation only; therefore it's unfair to start these types of debates. So definitely we need right alternatives but it's not good to blame any country when you have to walk together. It's not a challenge of one nation it's a global challenge and we need a comprehensive strategy and action.
----------------------------
Carnegie Institution of Science released a new study this week finding that one-third of the carbon dioxide emissions developed countries release into the atmosphere result from goods and services produced outside their borders. The report’s details are troubling: Carnegie’s researchers estimate that 2.5 tons of CO2 per person are consumed in the United States but are produced elsewhere, and that figure spikes to 4 tons per European. Another point that will cause considerable disagreement among global climate negotiators is Carnegie’s analysis that one-quarter of the emissions in China are actually the result of its exports to its trading partners such as the United States.
Emerging economic powers such India and China on one side, and the United States and Western Europe on the other, are finding difficulty reaching any middle ground over who is responsible for increased emissions–and who will pay for such measures. Chinese and Indian leaders will argue that it is hypocritical for industrialized nations to insist that the Chinese and Indians invest their limited resources into decreasing emissions and greenhouse gases. If the United States, Europe, and Japan have enjoyed increased wealth over the past century because of industrialization, why should developing countries deny economic opportunity for their citizens?
An opposing argument, however, is that as people in the developing world become affluent, drive more cars, purchase more goods, and eat more meat, the pace of global consumption is on a course that ultimately will prove unsustainable. So should wealthy nations pay for the cost of reducing CO2 emissions and other threats to the earth’s atmosphere? Or is the real lesson learned is that consumers in industrialized nations should change their habits, consume less, and buy locally?
(continuing on next comment)
-----------------
http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/41094
(proceeding with previous comment)
ReplyDeleteIt is troubling to think that nations can simply “outsource” their emissions, which in the case of the USA is 11%, and tiny Switzerland, a staggering 50%; and then, point to China as the culprit. Nevertheless, one aspect of the debate often falls under the radar. While activists and, increasingly, consumers demand more locally produced goods and services, such clamor ignores the fact that many jobs around the world rely on international trade. Los Angeles, for example, is famous for its entertainment industry, but the city’s largest employer and wealth generator are logistics and trade. But as a result, the fuels required to ship goods across the oceans, and then to haul them by trucks once they reach their destination, are polluting. Governments, industry, and activists continuously disagree on what is needed to clean the ports in Los Angeles and nearby Long Beach.
So if trade is the cause of such a large proportion of global emissions, why not address the problem at its source? Maersk, the world’s largest shipping and logistics company, is partnering with Lloyd’s Register and the Dutch government to test biodiesel in its engines over the next two years. Maersk’s biodiesel pilot program is modest: the fuel tested is a blend of 5 to 7 percent of FAME, or fatty acid methyl esters. Maersk will not only test the performance of this blend, but will evaluate storage issues as well. Meanwhile, LA Ports is introducing more biodiesel and electric trucks at its facilities, which in the long run could reduce emissions and reliance on imported fossil based fuels in California and the United States.
Encouraging shipping companies to explore alternative fuel options does not receive the hype and attention in which hybrid and electric cars bask. But with our planet’s future and jobs hanging in the balance, the development of alternative fuels for the transportation behind international trade perhaps deserves more research and a sense of urgency.