Japan’s largest fish market, Tsukiji, caught fire last week in a blaze that burned for 15 hours, destroying massive portions of the historic building that has housed the market for decades. No one was injured in the fire but the cause is still unknown. The fire will not shut down the market, which has been a popular tourist destination since it opened in 1935, but it has brought international attention to the market–which is facing a dramatic move that few of the tourists visiting its stalls and shops are aware of.

Concerns about the antiquated refrigeration systems in the market and the building’s vulnerability to earthquakes have been present for years but the fast approaching 2020 Olympics accelerated plans to move the market, as Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike looks to create space for athletic venues and housing during the games. The Tsukiji market was meant to be relocated last year to the man-made island of Toyosu, a location which was not convenient for fishmongers or tourists, but was purpose-built with modern appliances and resources. However, Toyosu was occupied by the Tokyo Gas Company from 1966 to 1988 and industrial chemicals had saturated the area, skyrocketing past legal levels.

Officials claimed that they had sanitized the land but Koike revealed in a press conference last fall that those measures had never in fact taken place–yet she still plans to move the fish market to Toyosu. The local government has invested millions in cleaning up the Toyosu site but it has not yet been declared safe–leaving both the fishmongers who work there and tourists who plan to visit wary. The original site of the Tsukiji market will be rebuilt as a culinary theme park while the traditional fish market will be moved to Toyosu in the summer of 2018. More than 70 percent of the fish wholesalers working in Tsukiji oppose the move but unfortunately the decision is not theirs to make–there is no union, no collective bargaining and even if there was, this is not the type of battle unions are usually designed to negotiate.

Hosting the Olympics is an intensive process for any city–the infrastructure fiasco at Sochi and the massive protests in Rio are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to exploring all that can go wrong when hosting the international event. Koike faces an almost impossible decision–leave the Tsukiji market where it is, a crumbling building vulnerable to fires and earthquakes, or move it to the new site, where contamination could destroy the health of everyone who sells and shops for fish there. The market can’t be shut down–not only is it a tourist destination, it is the largest fish supplier for the restaurants of Tokyo. In a nation where sushi is sold on every corner, the fish supply cannot be cut off overnight. The fate of the market rests now rests entirely on the shoulders of the clean-up team working to purify Toyosu. If the site is still contaminated next summer, Koike will be back to square one–with the clock ticking closer to the Olympics every day.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Tourism and Toxicity at the Tsukiji Fish Market appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, Britain’s Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs released documents detailing the country’s plan to reduce air pollution over the next several years. Most notably, the United Kingdom will ban the sale of new petrol or diesel-powered cars and vans by 2040.

In addition to the ban on gas vehicles, the government reiterated its desire to fully implement its recently-announced £2.7 billion investments into low-emission taxis, car-rental programs, roads, and green bus retrofits.

In its plan, the government pledges to be the “the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it.”

Europe’s Green Trend

Britain’s announcement comes at a time when air quality levels are increasingly at the forefront of policies across Europe, as the continent tries to grapple with the increased effects of climate change.

“It’s important we all gear up for a significant change, which deals not just with the problems to health caused by emissions but the broader problems caused in terms of accelerating climate change,” Britain’s Environment Secretary Michael Gove said.

New diesel and petrol cars are to be banned from 2040 as part of a new strategy to tackle air pollution https://t.co/Bmj3JSq6BN pic.twitter.com/MEjFNoqO9R

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) July 26, 2017

Britain’s new policy mimics France’s ban on gas and diesel cars by 2040, which was announced last month after the country struggled with dense smog and pollution in its larger urban areas. It’s also inspiring some Irish politicians to advocate for a similar commitment.

“If Ireland doesn’t change it’s in the danger of becoming a dumping ground. We need to set a date and work from it, without targets we are rudderless,” said Ireland’s Green Party Councillor Ciaran Cuffe.

Too Little, Too Late?

Some politicians, including former Labour Leader Ed Miliband, are saying that this announcement is largely meant to act as a media charade, to distract from ongoing Brexit negotiations and the fact that the U.K. government has been slow to tackle the issue seriously.

Fear that new car petrol/diesel ban in 23 years time is smokescreen for weak measures to tackle 40,000 deaths a year from air pollution now.

— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) July 25, 2017

Criticism is also emerging from industry officials who condemn the government’s plan because of the negative ramifications it may have on car manufacturing jobs.

“Outright bans risk undermining the current market for new cars and our sector, which supports over 800,000 jobs across the U.K.,” said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Even among supporters of a gas car ban, some are critical of the timeline, which they consider to be too forgiving.

Areeba Hamid, a clean air campaigner at Greenpeace UK said: “We cannot wait nearly a quarter of a century for real action to tackle the public health emergency caused by air pollution.”

While 2040 was set as a benchmark by other countries, India has stated that every vehicle sold in the country should be powered by electricity by 2030.

Norway has adopted a similar rule, but has set its target to ban diesel-powered vehicles by 2025. Forty percent of all cars sold in Norway last year were electric or hybrid, making the country a leader in this area.

Maybe Not…

In comparison to some other countries, the U.K.’s goals seem far off. Yet, researchers are confident that the market might naturally transition to cleaner cars sooner than politicians expect.

The Dutch financial group ING released a report earlier this month predicting that the electric car market will see a major breakthrough between 2017 and 2024, and could supply 100 percent of Europe’s car demand by 2035.

Car manufacturers aren’t wasting any time either. Tesla made waves when it announced its mass market electric Model 3 car earlier this month.

Also this month, Volvo said that all of its cars would be be completely or partially electric by 2019. Volvo’s chief executive Håkan Samuelsson called for the “end of the solely combustion engine-powered car.” And BMW announced on Tuesday that it would start building an electric model of the Mini compact car in England through 2023.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Britain to Ban Sale of Gas and Diesel Cars by 2040 appeared first on Law Street.

Researchers may have found a solution to the problem of plastic pollution–a caterpillar’s larvae that have the very unusual ability to digest plastic. A new study published on Monday describes how the larvae work.

The specific type of caterpillar is called the wax worm, which is the larvae form of the greater wax moth. The larvae are normally used as fishing bait. Because they can chew and digest beeswax, they are commonly found in beehives. Beekeepers consider them a pest, which that is how the larvae’s ability was discovered.

Federica Bertocchini, a scientist with the Spanish National Research Council, also keeps bees as a hobby. After removing wax worms from her beehives she realized they managed to chew their way out of the plastic bag she kept them in. After conducting an experiment, Bertocchini and her counterparts at the University of Cambridge, Paolo Bombelli and Christopher J. Howe, confirmed that the larvae did actually digest the plastic and were not simply chewing it into smaller parts.

To determine that, they put the larvae in a blender and spread the paste out on plastic. Because the plastic continued to degrade even when dead larvae were lying on it, the scientists believe that an enzyme in the insects is likely responsible. They could not determine whether the worms produce the enzyme or if it’s made by the bacteria in their gut, but they did see that something broke down the plastic into smaller molecules. Beeswax is composed of a very diverse mix of lipids and it’s likely that the breaking down of polyethylene, the most common plastic, involves a similar chemical process.

The world produces 300 million tons of plastic every year, much of which ends up in landfills or in the ocean, often hurting wild animals. If a caterpillar could be used to stop some of this or if the chemical process can be replicated, it would be a major breakthrough. Bertocchini said of the discovery:

We are planning to implement this finding into a viable way to get rid of plastic waste, working towards a solution to save our oceans, rivers, and all the environment from the unavoidable consequences of plastic accumulation.

The researchers said that, ideally, they would be able to isolate the specific chemicals in the worms that break down the plastic and then insert it into bacteria that could break down plastic faster than worms can. However, they warned that such an accomplishment would take several years even if they are successful, it probably won’t solve the world’s plastic problem altogether. But it is a step in the right direction.

Read more: What Really Happens to Your Trash?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could This Caterpillar Help Solve one of the World’s Pollution Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump has long promised to remove as many environmental regulations as possible in order to allow American businesses room to grow and prosper and now seems ready to follow through on his pledge. Conservatives and libertarians have spoken out in widespread support of reducing regulations and its ability to stimulate growth. However, many of the regulations that Republicans believe hamper business productivity are in fact key provisions in the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts that form the legal cornerstone for American public health.

More broadly, this narrative that environmental regulations (or really any sort of environmental policy) are damaging to business in American is a timeless conservative stance. But is it really true? Have environmental regulations really dampened the ability of business to succeed in America? Can regulations really be blamed for more and more industries outsourcing to countries that have less stringent rules? Could Trump’s infrastructure plan fix our water contamination in areas like Flint? What is the real, quantified benefit of regulations on American public health and why is it never discussed in these conversations? This is one of the oldest arguments against environmental policy measures and it deserves to be analyzed in depth. Read on to learn about the history and impact of environmental regulations on business, public health, and America as a whole.

The Birth of the EPA and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts

The advent of environmental regulations in America really begins with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. Prior to the 70s, environmental rules were up to each state to determine independently; regulations were generally loose and chemical dumping was a common, widespread industrial practice. It should come as no surprise that America also had significantly worse water and air quality than it does currently. Only about a third of U.S. fresh water was safe to drink from and watersheds across the nation contained dangerous quantities of unsafe pathogens and hazardous chemicals. With the creation of the EPA came the passage of two critical laws, the Clean Water Act of 1972 and the Clean Air Act of 1972.

Using the Clean Water Act, the EPA permanently barred individuals from dumping their waste in navigable waterways and established a dumping permit system for industrial and municipal facilities. These permits could be revoked if any company exceeded the wastewater standards set by the agency, and the removal of a permit resulted in an operational shutdown. The Clean Air Act of 1972 gave the EPA the power to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six major pollutants: nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead, and carbon monoxide. The impact of these acts has been huge. Beyond their immediate environmental benefits, these laws set a legacy of top-down, federal environmental regulation ensuring that America has some of the cleanest water and safest air in the world.

“Smog” courtesy of Isengardt; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Costs and Benefits on the National Scale

The technological changes required by these laws have been significant. Power plants throughout the nation were required to update their systems and install filters on their smokestacks. The transportation sector has perhaps experienced the greatest changes out of all the affected industries as the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) required massive modifications to engine efficiency and emission filtration systems. Congress created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 1975, which required certain fuel efficiency rates for different fleets of vehicles. The combined effects of the NAAQS and CAFE standards have dramatically increased the fuel efficiency of our transportation sector and subsequently reduced petroleum use and its pollutant emissions.

And did we gain anything? Actually, yes. Thanks to the Clean Water Act and its subsequent amendments, the percentage of drinkable fresh water in the United States rose from about 30 percent to well over 60 percent. The six major air pollutants in our atmosphere dropped by over 69 percent between 1972 and 2014. One of the reasons analyzing regulatory costs and benefits is complicated is because the losses are felt by private businesses, but the gains are felt in a completely different area: public health. In 2010 alone, Clean Air Act regulations led to the avoidance of an estimated 160,000 premature deaths from respiratory-related illnesses, 130,000 heart attacks, and millions of cases of acute bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. By 2020 the effects of the act are projected to prevent over 230,000 premature adult deaths annually.

These benefits don’t just lengthen lives, they also increase productivity throughout a lifetime. In 2010, over 13 million lost workdays and 3.2 million lost school days were avoided. All this has a direct benefit to the productivity of our workforce and the academic success of our students, which eventually aids American businesses by creating educated workers. Furthermore, employers provide health insurance for 59 percent of U.S. citizens, meaning that businesses will often end up directly shouldering the burden of increased health care costs when their workers get sick. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was amended to create a regular review of its costs and savings, the conclusion of which was that the benefits of these programs exceeded their compliance costs by a factor of over 43 to 1, based on the average of the estimated range of savings. In the 20 years since the annual review was first conducted, estimates suggest that the Clean Air Act has generated a staggering $22.2 trillion in savings for the United States compared to only $0.5 trillion in compliance costs for the businesses forced to adapt to new regulations.

But did it stifle the overall growth of American business? No, not really. Between 1970 and 2011, U.S. GDP increased by 212 percent and private sector jobs increased by 88 percent. Even the fossil fuel sector, the industry that stood to lose the most from new regulations, grew dramatically. Oil refineries experienced a sharp uptake in refinery productivity and coal production has increased by 70 percent since 1970.

What About Outsourcing?

It is sometimes incorrectly claimed that environmental regulations are one of the central causes for the significant trend in outsourcing that has swept through American businesses. President Trump certainly seems confident that removing regulations will help to bring back manufacturing to the U.S. But pollution abatement spending by American manufacturing is under 1 percent of the value of their total shipped goods. The primary driver in outsourcing is and has always been a desire to reduce labor costs. It would require much more than just dropping environmental regulations to actually induce companies to return to America (it would also most likely require slashing the minimum wage and dropping most workers’ rights) and the impacts of allowing large industries to pollute freely in this country would be significant.

One only needs to look at the difference in a citizen’s life expectancy and the staggering public health costs in industrialized nations without regulations compared to countries like our own. The World Bank has an exhaustive report on the available data. To do away with regulations will cause a dramatic drop in human health in the United States and would lead to an explosion in public health costs.

It is also overlooked that environmental regulations do encourage growth, as new regulatory mechanisms have consistently led to an increased demand for private tech providers, which are needed to create newly required technology. The American environmental technology sector is actually huge, generating around $300 billion in annual revenues, consisting of 119,000 companies, and providing more than 2.6 million jobs to American citizens. Air pollution control equipment alone generated $18 billion in revenue in 2008. Currently, the United States has the largest Environmental Technology industry in the world, making up about a third of the global market.

Pollution control industries create jobs for engineers, scientists, project managers, construction workers, etc., meaning there are employment opportunities for people of all educational levels. The growth of the pollution control sector also benefits some of the industries it was ironically, and incorrectly, predicted to disrupt–such as steel and plastics manufacturing–which are required to provide the materials for newly developed technology.

Business v. Environmentalism: Flint, Michigan

Much of Trump’s campaign was focused on revitalizing the rust belt through manufacturing and Flint can act as a viable case study for how Trump will impact public health and manufacturing. Flint, Michigan attracted national attention when elevated lead levels were found in many citizens’ blood from drinking contaminated water. Governor Rick Snyder appointed an Emergency Manager to Flint, Darnell Earley, who took control of the city’s budget and switched water sources from the drinkable Lake Huron to the toxic Flint River. The citizens took their complaints to the state Health Department and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality but both agencies largely ignored their concerns. It took nearly a year before the EPA heard about the problems with Flint’s water and the agency has been strongly criticized for not mobilizing rapidly and effectively enough to address the situation after it knew about it. Flint is a very serious story of how poor communication and utilization of federal resources failed a community in a serious way. What it is not is a story that indicates the EPA should be defunded and environmental regulations should be pulled.

The willful flouting of environmental regulations and requirements was what created the crisis in Flint to begin with. While untreated lead pipes used to be the norm in the United States, numerous laws have been passed over the years to protect American communities from lead poisoning. The Safe Drinking Water Act, amended in 1986, prohibited new pipe installations from using lead and the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule (originally devised under Ronald Raegan and put into action by George H.W. Bush) required all lead pipes in America to either be replaced or be used in tandem with additional water treatment. While replacing existing pipes by using less dangerous alternatives, such as PVC, was heavily encouraged, many municipalities, especially in poorer areas, chose to go the cheaper route and use corrosion inhibitors. The Flint City Water Treatment Plant ignored these federal regulations and made the decision not to use anti-corrosion chemicals for their water system during a time when chemical costs were spiking. Skipping corrosion control saved Flint $140 a day, which pales in comparison to the costs of addressing the damage. Automotive factories witnessing their approaching collapse due to foreign competition chose to ignore federal water protection rules. Years and years of dumping toxic waste made the water in the Flint River particularly corrosive. These sorts of things are exactly what the preventative measures the EPA has set in place are there to prevent, and generally, those measures have been successful. Only one-third of American water was safe to drink before the Clean Water Act whereas that number has doubled because industrial dumping has been cracked down upon.

Addressing Environmental Problems 

The most important service the EPA provides is preventative, in the form of regulations protecting people and the environment from pollution. However, a major part of the agency is also focused on pollution restoration through the superfund program. Defunding the EPA will both remove these preventative measures and take away the safety net in place to fix things when pollution does happen. The EPA superfund program was created in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter in order to restore polluted areas, although it has faced legitimate criticism for not accomplishing enough and not addressing many of the sites that have applied for superfund assistance. The superfund program works on a “polluter pays” principle that requires the industry responsible for the contamination to fund a large part of the project. In areas like the Rust Belt, where many of the industries responsible for pollution went bankrupt, there is often no one to hold accountable and restoration projects are severely underfunded. However, this is not to say that the program is worthless; since its conception, the EPA has restored over 1,100 sites from severe pollution to healthy and livable communities and created circumstances for businesses to grow and thrive within those areas.  Superfund is one of Americans most critical programs for protecting marginalized and endangered American communities and it needs not to be abandoned but to have improved efficiency, administration, and a more reliable funding system for when industries can’t be held accountable for pollution.

President Trump’s proposed solution would be to allocate $1 trillion toward American infrastructure at what he claims would be no cost to taxpayers–by giving $160 billion in tax credits to companies that get involved with new projects. However, Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, the advisers behind his plan, admit that the plan can’t actually be self-financing. The private sector will require tens of millions of collective tolls and fees for the infrastructure projects taken from the communities in which the work is done. This means that while wealthy investors stand to make a profit through the infrastructure credits, the poorest and most in-need communities like Flint likely won’t benefit because such projects would not yield the profits necessary for private investors. Infrastructure improvements also won’t replace the direct medical benefits that the EPA has been supplying to the community in the form of lead absorption food packages and chemical treatments to restore the waterways. Now that they have a majority in Congress, Republicans have already started to chip away at environmental regulations, blocking the stream protection rule that controlled coal mining and dumping near waterways. The party’s deregulatory efforts will likely continue over the coming years.

Conclusion

Trump and his team of fossil fuel friendly advisers can do plenty to change the balance of environmental regulation and public health over the next several years. Opening up protected land to drilling, mining, and fracking while also removing environmental regulations places our water and air in harm’s way. Undoing regulations will not, in any sense, be the deciding factor that brings back outsourced manufacturing jobs to the United States, not as long as we have basic labor rights and mandated benefits that prevent companies from putting their staff in sweatshops and paying them a dollar a day.

Undoing regulations will, however, damage the growth of the pollution control industry. Extensive deregulation could even cause a notable increase in health care costs and result in a dramatic increase in cases of respiratory illnesses and eventually increased rates of premature deaths. Allowing manufacturers to dump freely poses a huge danger to American citizens’ drinking water and replacing the superfund program with incentive based infrastructure programs will do little to address environmental concerns in poor areas.

Safe water and air are privileges unique to the developed world and benefits that we’ve had for so long that they may be easy to overlook. However, they are critical to the health of our population and undoing the regulations that enable us to drink clean water and breathe clean air would be a disaster for our nation’s public health.

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Impact of Environmental Regulations on Business appeared first on Law Street.

In Paris, officials are making use of excess heat from electrical appliances to heat up the city’s swimming pools. This environmentally friendly move is spearheaded by Jean-François Martins, deputy mayor in charge of sports. He wants to make swimming pools more sustainable. Paris is in the running to host the 2024 Olympic Games, and becoming more eco-friendly would help its chances both to win the bid, and to save money in the process.

Specifically, France is utilizing the excess heat from computer servers and sewage systems. Wastewater coming from 2.2 million Parisians’ sinks, toilets, washing machines, and dishwashers keep a temperature of about 55 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Some swimming pools are being built on top of the sewers, so that the water and waste run directly underneath the pool, where the heat gets captured through metal plates in the pipes. Then, a pump system transfers the warmth to the pool water. Next year, a start-up company is planning to install several hundred computer servers in the basement of a building with a swimming pool in the city’s 13th Arrondissement. The heat generated by the servers will be captured and transferred to a boiler that warms up the water as well as locker rooms. “We wish to reduce the environmental impact and ecological footprint of these facilities, while reducing chemical product use,” said Martins.

On the whole, Paris is making an effort to be progressive on climate issues. The city’s mayor, Anne Hidalgo, recently announced a ban on car traffic on a two-mile stretch along the Seine. The area will be transformed into a river promenade for pedestrians and cyclists. As a part of Hidalgo’s anti-pollution campaign “Paris Breathes,” the plan had the support of 55 percent of Parisians, even though some on the right opposed it. Paris is actually one of the most polluted cities in the European Union and air pollution is calculated to contribute to 2,500 deaths in the inner city every year.

Décision historique au #ConseildeParis : la fin d’une autoroute urbaine à Paris et la reconquête de la Seine. pic.twitter.com/Q0TQLzuHjA

— Anne Hidalgo (@Anne_Hidalgo) September 26, 2016

Monday, December 12 marks the one-year anniversary of the adoption of the Paris agreement, the first global deal aimed at battling climate change. Representatives from 200 nations met in Paris and agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. President-elect Donald Trump has previously said that he will withdraw from the Paris agreement when he takes office. On Sunday he said, “nobody really knows” why climate change happens, but claimed that he is “open-minded.” Both France’s President Francois Hollande and its former president, Nicolas Sarkozy, reacted to the statement. Sarkozy suggested a tariff on imported American products in case Trump backs out. Hollande said: “The United States, the most powerful economy in the world, the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, must respect the commitments that were made. It’s not simply their duty, it’s in their interest.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paris is Reusing Energy From Wastewater to Heat Swimming Pools appeared first on Law Street.

The military tactic of “scorched earth”–destroying land and resources while entering or retreating from a territory so that enemies cannot benefit from occupying the land–dates back to ancient history. But most of us associate it either with the Napoleonic wars or the World Wars, when both Russia and Germany destroyed infrastructure and land to slow the advance of their enemy.  And in Iraq, as ISIS fights to control Mosul, the scorched earth tactic is alive and well–during its retreat, ISIS has been regularly lighting oil wells on fire, hoping to slow the government forces advancing on it.

The town of Qayyarah, south of Mosul, has been burning for months, the peril escalated by ISIS igniting the Mishraq sulfur plant outside of the town in October. A sulfur cloud stretches out over the town and crude oil runs through the streets, forcing the evacuation of local families.

It can take weeks to put out just a single fire, as the firefighters have to check the land around the well for booby traps and landmines before beginning their work. The toxic smoke that the firefighters inhale makes the work almost unbearable and despite their best efforts, there are still over a dozen wells burning night and day. Even after the fire has been extinguished, the damage is not yet done. Entire villages are stained with soot and smoke inhalation is already damaging the lungs of the populace, as hundreds are being rushed to hospitals. The sky is dark for most of the day and livestock are dying at an escalated rate under the pressure of constant exposure to smoke and soot.

The burning of the oil wells will have a lasting, devastating impact on the landscape–not just in terms of environmental damage but regarding human security–an entire generation of children growing up with lung damage. NASA satellite images provide a grim portrait of how quickly the smoke and sulfur-dioxide released by the fires has spread and raise questions about when the land will be inhabitable again.

It is fitting that ISIS, with its medieval vision of law and order, would revive a violent tactic that should have died out before the turn of the century. ISIS’ burning of the oil wells is not the only way that ISIS is manipulating natural resources. ISIS has also cut electricity to water stations in neighborhoods where Iraqi troops are arriving, leaving approximately half a million people without access to running water or clean drinking water. The lack of drinking water would have been a critical problem even without the fires, but with citizens choking on the smoke, the need for drinkable water is greater than ever before. ISIS is leaving nothing but husks of infrastructure in its wake, forcing civilians to cooperate with it in order to survive–following the terrorists to cities with clean air and water rather than staying put and waiting for Iraqi troops to arrive under the clouds of sulfur.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Weaponized Oil: Scorched Earth Warfare in Iraq appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia Raggi, the newly appointed mayor of Rome, is facing pushback after news outlets revealed a minister she appointed, Paola Muraro, was under investigation during the twelve years she spent as a garbage disposal consultant. Trash disposal is an infrastructure necessity for all cities, but only in Italy is trash synonymous with organized crime, corruption, and intimidation.

Trash collection has been an extremely profitable industry for the Italian mafia, and scores of local politicians have been happy to give it control of refuse. In the mid-2000s, the streets of major cities in the South, such as Naples, were filled with thousands of pounds of garbage. Regional dumps were at full capacity and even though government emergency funding was granted, the money disappeared and the appointed commissioners failed to solve the problem. Under the state of emergency protocols, local governments were allowed to quickly hand out contracts without going through the correct legal vetting of contractors used in other cities–and this allowed the Camorra (a particular syndicate) to expand its practice into a billion dollar profit generator. The corruption behind trash collection has not gone unnoticed–reports of the mafia dumping trash in Germany and illegally dumping so much toxic waste that cancer rates in the region began rising have become commonplace, but acknowledging the problem has not translated into solving it. In many countries, trash disposal issues would be written off as a minor mismanagement but in Italy, the history behind trash corruption makes the investigation into Muraro front page news.

At a hearing this week, Virginia Raggi confirmed that she was aware of the investigation into Muraro’s past but had not thought that it was necessary to share this information with the public. The trash scandal is hardly Raggi’s only problem: multiple ministers have resigned from her administration (including Carla Romana Ranieri, a well-known anti-corruption figure), she is grappling with a bid to host the 2024 Olympics, and as Rome’s first female mayor, her every action is judged through the prism of her gender.

Unfortunately for Raggi, the trash scandal has put her Five Star Movement–a populist, anti-establishment Eurosceptic movement–in a difficult spot right before the elections. The incumbent Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has gotten a boost in the popularity thanks to Raggi’s missteps. Before this scandal, the Five Star had overtaken Renzi, whose numerous reforms to political and economic systems have stirred up anger and distrust among voters. As Raggi struggles to right herself just weeks into her tenure as mayor, doubts are being raised regarding the capabilities of the Five Star movement, which was not originally organized to be a formal political party and has never had a precise platform. Despite being a party that promotes itself as environmentally conscious and operating outside of the traditional corrupt networks of the political world, the Five Star movement seems to have delivered more of the same. For the city of Rome, which has struggled to assert itself as capable of being just as productive and functional as a Northern city such as Milan, this scandal is an regression that embarrasses the city not only on the world stage but domestically, confirming some Northern beliefs that Rome is still too backwards to succeed.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post When in Rome, Don’t Do As Virginia Raggi Does appeared first on Law Street.

Murphy’s Law states that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, and never has that seemed truer than in Rio as the Brazilian government struggles to keep the 2016 Olympics afloat.

The Rio Olympics took another hit last week, after scientists found dangerous strains of drug-resistant bacteria along the beaches that will host swimming, rowing, and canoeing events during this summer’s Games. Two as-yet-unpublished studies found microbes of “super bacteria” along beaches in San Diego, Ipanema, Leblon, Botafogo and Flamengo. The bacteria, Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC), can lie dormant in the human body for months, only emerging when the body is attacked by an illness. Not only is KPC is antibiotic resistant, but it also has the ability to infect other bacteria and make it resistant as well, making it even more frightening. KPC entered the water system from hospitals, households, and businesses that release waste largely without regulation, bringing bacteria that never should have made it to open water into lagoons and the ocean itself.

Water has already been a concern for the Games, as large bodies of standing water are breeding grounds for mosquitoes that spread the Zika virus. But the idea that the ocean itself could be contaminated along the shoreline is more than a threat to Brazil–the bacteria could spread to the beaches of other nations and begin to infect other strains of bacteria across Latin America’s Eastern coast.

In 2014, journalists documented ridiculous conditions in Sochi, Russia during the Winter Olympics. Lack of potable and running water, half-built hotel rooms and manholes without covers were all staples of the Sochi experience. While Sochi was far from ideal, journalists and athletes were not at risk of serious health impairments due to their accommodations. In Rio, athletes, trainers, journalists, and visitors to the Games could be exposing themselves to dangerous illnesses if they attend.

For athletes who have worked all their lives to qualify for the Olympic Games, it doesn’t make sense to back out–they may not qualify again, they may never reach this level of physical prowess again, they may need an Olympic win to gain or keep a sponsor. Media outlets will still report on the Games and broadcast events from Rio because they are massive moneymakers, no matter how dangerous they are. The International Olympic Committee will not cancel the games because it would consider that to be an overreaction. The World Health Organization has given the Games the green light, stating that Zika virus is still an emergency in Brazil but holding the games will not drastically increase the risk of the virus spreading.

Despite all the evidence that the Rio Games are dangerous, they are still moving forward, setting a dangerous precedent for events such as the Qatar World Cup, which was allegedly secured through bribes and has been allegedly built on slave labor and violent human rights abuses. Athletes and media outlets have the option of abstaining from these events, and international sports organizations have the power to revoke a nation’s bid or cancel an event, but none of them do. The media and organizers fear losing their profits, while the athletes fear losing their one shot at success. However, if taking that shot comes at the expense of public health and safety, is it really worth it?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Bacteria on the Beaches: No One Wins at Rio 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Beijing currently resembles a scene that could be from an apocalyptic horror movie: sidewalks deserted, citizens wearing masks, and an impenetrable layer of gray smoke flowing through street corners. Beijing recently announced its first “red alert” for smog, which led to the closure of schools and construction sites and a restriction on the number of cars on the road.

Since Beijing issued its red alert, Shanghai has issued a “yellow alert” and has taken to curbing factory work and suspending outdoor activities at schools. Elderly, young, and sick citizens are asked to stay indoors while the smog alert is in effect–but smog can take days or weeks to clear, leaving these residents essentially trapped in their homes. China’s smog problem has been growing for years but it is reaching a critical level wherein smog actually interferes with the daily behaviors of Chinese citizens. Read on for a look at how the smog problem developed and what the red alert signifies for the future.

The Meaning of the Red Alert

Although the Chinese government never instituted the red alert before this year, Beijing has had higher levels of pollution in the past. Beijing has reached the next-highest level, orange alert, several times but always stopped there. It has been speculated that the government decided to issue the red alert as a nod to public sentiment regarding the smog problem. According to the South China Morning Post,

A red alert marked official acknowledgment of the public perception that previous bouts of bad air had been played down. Some state media tried to put a positive spin on the development, with China Daily editorialising that ‘with the first such red alert, the capital has set a good example in this respect.’ But others took a darker view. China.com.cn, a news portal run by the State Council Information Office, said smog had damaged the government’s image, and Xinhua contrasted photographs of the city on pollution-free days and the depths of the alert.

Smog interferes with the image of a modern, progressive China. Pollution impacts not only the environment and the healthcare of the Chinese population, it also leads to a decline in economic growth. Smog limits the number of days workers can leave their homes and causes health problems for those who do work in urban centers. Toxic air means that life expectancy is an estimated five years shorter for a person living in Northern China than a person living in Southern China.  In addition, China’s brain drain–a phenomenon where educated professionals emigrate to other nations rather than working in their country of origin–has been largely linked to pollution. Educated young workers want to start families in countries where the air is better. Chinese youth have an altogether different concept of outdoors than their parents do. In an interview with the New York Times, a cafe manager named Kan Tingting said that

What bothers me the most is that my child may have a very negative view of nature. She loves nature much less than she would in a normal environment. I don’t want her to grow up thinking nature is ugly.

In a country where “smog days” are akin to snow days in the United States, many children are growing up thinking of smog as a part of their daily life rather than an environmental hazard.

 Smog in the Cities

China’s air pollution comes largely from the use of coal in its major industrial cities. China’s economic boom has generated massive economic growth, but that led to a parallel spike in airborne pollutants. Coal pollution is compounded with car emissions to create a toxic atmosphere, only exacerbated by dust storms and construction dust that floats in the air of most urban centers. Beijing recognized the sources of its pollution and has striven to use coal substitutes and limit the use of cars, but those solutions have yet to create lasting change in the smog levels.

Yang Weimin, Deputy Chair of the Central Leading Group on Finance and Economic Affairs, stated earlier this week that China will need to build ten new mega-cities to offset the pollution and traffic pressures of Beijing. Mainland China has six mega-cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Tianjin and Chongqing) and the Chinese government has recognized the need for shifting growth to other areas of the country. However, building these cities is a twofold challenge. First, it will be difficult to convince people to relocate to new cities without stable job prospects so the government will need to convince major companies to set up headquarters in this new set of mega-cities, but at the same time, they will need to retain the job sector in the existing cities. Second, building new cities requires a great deal of construction, which creates hazardous dust and only contributes to negative air quality in the short term.

Cleaning Up Before 2022

China will host the Winter Olympic Games in 2022 and officials have already stated that they plan to welcome athletes from around the world to a city with healthy air. The Beijing Olympics of 2008 were an unforgettable marvel that China hopes to match with the Winter Games, but air pollution has made athletes and coaches worry about the safety of competing there. When China made its bid for the 2008 Games, it promised to cut down on pollution in Beijing, and was largely successful in meeting its goal–during the Olympics, Beijing air quality was the best it had been in a decade. Beijing is clearly capable of reducing smog in the short-term, but the return of smog in the wake of the 2008 Games has left many pessimistic about the probability of long-term smog reduction. Although organizers of the Olympics have stated that they are treating the smog as a serious threat and plan to mitigate before athletes arrive, they have not outlined a precise plan for what they will do to reduce smog.

Profiting off of China’s Plight

This week, a Canadian company made headlines for charging up to $28 for bottles of “clean air” on the Chinese market. Vitality Air, which bottles air from Banff and Lake Louise, has seen a massive spike in sales in China over the past two months. Vitality Air began almost as a joke–co-founder Moses Lam listed a Ziploc bag of air on Ebay to see how much he could get from it, and then ran with the idea of “selling air”. Vitality Air prides itself on being hand-bottled and is supposed to be used to fight hangovers, lethargy and now, pollution.  Bottled air may seem to be a ridiculous concept but according to the Times of India:

Vitality Air is not the only business cashing in on China’s pollution problem – a restaurant in in Zhangjiagang city recently started charging patrons for fresh air, after owners bought air filtration machines for the establishment and added a surcharge to people’s bills for the operation costs.

Selling air like it is any other commodity may be a fad sparked by the introduction of the red alert, but it raises interesting questions about the future of commodities in China. What products are Chinese citizens willing to buy in order to feel safe, and does that make them a target for companies that seek to profit off of their distress? Will foreign countries take advantage of China’s environmental weaknesses to sell them unexpected products or will they commit valuable technology to solving the pollution problem?

 Conclusion

As the world celebrates the major climate agreement made in Paris this week, managing pollution and reducing smog seems like a more manageable task. Yet in China, the damage may be irreversible and a new generation may grow up without access to clean air. It is tempting to accept China’s air pollution as a problem too monolithic to tackle but considering the impressive reduction in smog that the country enacted before the Olympics of 2008, mitigating smog is possible. It will require political action and firm commitments to reach the government’s goal of reducing smog by 2022. China’s leading officials need to seek immediate, effective changes before the red alert becomes a commonplace event in Beijing.

Resources

CNN: Smog in China Closes Schools and Construction Sites, Cuts Traffic in Beijing

The Guardian: Smog Envelops Beijing: Before and After Pictures as City Goes on Red Alert

New York Times: Smog So Thick, Beijing Comes to a Standstill

South China Morning Post: China Needs to Build 10 More Megacities to Ease Pollution and Traffic Pressure on Beijing, Top Planner Says

South China Morning Post: Winds of Change: After Years of Denial, China’s Politicians Have Finally Woken up to Nation’s Concerns Over Hazardous Air Pollution

USA Today: Punchlines: China’s Smog Days Beat Snow Days

ABC News: Hazardous Smog Blankets Shanghai, China Pledges to Clean up by 2022 Winter Olympics

Times of India: Canadian Company Sells Bottled Fresh Mountain Air in China as Smog Levels Worsen

CNN: Canadian Start-up Sells Bottled Air to China, Says Sales Booming

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Red Alert in Beijing: Smog’s Debilitating Impacts appeared first on Law Street.

Life in plastic isn’t always fantastic. So why do we continue to cover our world in it? In the United States alone, we generate about 33 million tons of plastic waste per year. But in 2013, only nine percent of that total plastic waste was recovered for recycling. So where does the remaining 91 percent of plastic waste end up? While a significant portion of our trash is piled high in landfills, eight million tons of plastic trash ended up in the ocean from coastal countries in 2010. At this rate, the ocean trash tonnage is on track to increase tenfold in the next decade unless we take substantial steps to decrease our waste and improve the ways that garbage is collected and managed. One company is taking that challenge head on–Adidas has figured out one unique way to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Fairly soon, you may be able to look down at your feet to see the company’s new earth-friendly sneakers.

It makes sense to try to monetize our ocean pollution, particularly for the most industry-heavy countries. While China claims the top spot on the list of countries generating the greatest amounts of ocean-bound trash, the United States is 20^th on the list. If the recyclable materials in the United States waste stream were recycled, we would generate over 7 billion dollars—that’s equivalent to Donald Trump’s purported net worth. More important than the monetary implications, non-recycled plastic waste in particular is responsible for the deaths of over a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals, including sea turtles, sea lions, and seals each year. The plastic that doesn’t end up in a sea turtle’s stomach pollutes our oceans, poisons our water, and stays there. The average time for a plastic bottle to degrade completely is at least 450 years but some take as long as 1000 years to biodegrade.

There is an obvious need to find ways to harmonize nature and the consumptive, wasteful system we now maintain. That’s one goal of the new partnership between Adidas and Parley for the Oceans, a New York-based ocean conservation organization. At the end of June, Adidas announced a prototype for a running shoe made completely of plastic trash, gillnet fishing, and deep sea trawling found in the ocean.

Today we showcased a shoe that six days ago was ocean plastic waste. Bring on tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/mjkxwOUih1

— adidas (@adidas) June 29, 2015

One of Parley’s goals is to “make environmental protection fiscally lucrative for pacesetting major companies,” and that’s exactly what this shoe will do. Adidas has plans to roll out more recycled, plastic-based products later this year, all in a larger effort to highlight ocean-based environmental issues and promote efforts to counteract marine pollution.

Collaboration and innovation creates progress. We present a concept shoe born from ocean plastic waste. pic.twitter.com/5gv4y5imNH

— adidas (@adidas) June 29, 2015

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a non-profit, marine conservation organization that uses direct action tactics to protect marine life, was responsible for retrieving the materials that make up the outer design of the Adidas shoe. Sea Shepherd conservationists went on a 110-day expedition where they collected plastic from the ocean floor and even confiscated gillnets after they tracked down an illegal fishing boat off the west coast of Africa. The plastic that was collected went into the upper shoe structure and the green gillnets were knitted into the top of the sneaker to create its colorful design.

Adidas should be applauded for taking the lead in environmentally-aware sportswear. The company is the world’s third most valuable brand in the sports industry, just after Nike and ESPN, with a net worth of $6.8 billion dollars. This new sneaker and the upcoming line of shoes made from recycled plastics prove that even the big companies can go green, and do it in style. After all, trash looks much better when it’s being recycled on a shoe than it does when it’s polluting the ocean.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Shoes: Adidas’s Plan to Tackle Ocean Trash appeared first on Law Street.

Regardless of the political debates about global warming, scientists have long been involved in trying to combat this environmental problem. But what exactly are activist-scientists doing–or not doing–to address global warming?

One facet of combatting global warming is dealing with raised carbon dioxide levels. A lot of talk about carbon dioxide levels focuses on so-called “carbon sinks”–forests that, due to plants’ ability to process carbon dioxide, remove the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere–and their potential to mitigate the effects of global warming. But can forests and artificial means of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere actually “save us” from global warming?

Capturing Carbon Dioxide

Instead of working to prevent the rising carbon dioxide levels that have been fueling global warming, one of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent projects has been the capturing and storage of excess carbon dioxide. This process involves the harvesting of carbon dioxide from facilities such as electricity power plants that emit a great deal of carbon dioxide. Once the carbon dioxide is harvested directly from these sources, it is channeled–sometimes by pipeline and sometimes by truck–usually underground, where it is re-introduced into the earth in order to produce more oil.

Carbon dioxide capturing and sequestration is often upheld as an easy fix to global warming:

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology that can capture up to 90% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation and industrial processes, preventing the carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide capture can occur through three basic methods. Pre-combustion capture is used in industrial processes like natural gas burning; post-combustion capture is used in the food and beverage industries; and oxyfuel combustion capture is used with water instead of air as a combustion material in industries other than power generation.

Once harvested, the carbon is transported and injected into the earth in liquid form, where it is often channeled into increasing oil production. While sponsors of carbon capture argue that this process is completely safe, there are serious concerns that the injection of such large amounts of liquid into the earth actually increases the likelihood of devastating earthquakes.

Is fueling oil production to fight global warming wise?

Though many support carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, there are serious concerns that this process is used to directly increase, rather than reduce, dependence on non-renewable, highly toxic oil production and use. The carbon dioxide that is harvested from power plants is channeled back into oil production and therefore “helps the United States continue producing record amounts of oil.”

This capture and sequestration method is arguably so popular because it actually creates profits for the massive multinational corporations involved in oil production and related fields. But some scientists are concerned that this process actually further entrenches unsustainable energy practices. David Biello at Scientific American points out:

The process will perpetuate fossil fuel use and may prove a wash as far as keeping global warming pollution out of the atmosphere. Then there are the risks of human-caused earthquakes as a result of pumping high-pressure liquids underground or accidental releases as all that CO2 finds its way back to the atmosphere.

There’s certainly evidence that this corporate-motivated approach to reducing carbon emissions has its drawbacks, especially given the amount of energy that is inefficiently used by the capture and sequestration technology.

 Alternative to Oil: Artificial Photosynthesis

Some scientists are beginning to reevaluate their hesitations about carbon sequestration. Scientists at Berkeley have been working to refine a way that captured carbon can be broken down through artificial photosynthesis instead of being channeled back into oil production.

Dr. Peidong Yang, a chemist at the Berkeley Lab working on artificial photosynthesis–the process that plants use to create food by breaking down carbon dioxide and sunlight into glucose and water—has stated about the research that:

Our system has the potential to fundamentally change the chemical and oil industry in that we can produce chemicals and fuels in a totally renewable way, rather than extracting them from deep below the ground.

Through combining nanowire technology with specific bacterial populations to mimic the photosynthetic processes that leaves undergo naturally, the Berkeley team has created the potential for solar-powered chemistry that non-lethally utilizes sequestered carbon.

The question now is once this new technology is ready for market (it is not quite there yet) will the corporations that profit from the current methods of the re-use of sequestered carbon utilize it?

To the Forests: Natural Photosynthesis and Global Warming

It is important to note, however, that despite the hopefulness with which many are embracing the new developments in artificial photosynthetic capabilities, we seem to be forgetting one crucial thing: Photosynthesis, even on a massive scale such as that accomplished by rainforests, cannot reverse or halt global warming.

Because carbon dioxide is essentially “plant food,” it is easy to focus on an abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as being good for plant growth. In turn, the more plants there are, the more carbon dioxide will be taken out of the atmosphere. Since extremely excessive carbon dioxide emissions are a principle driver of global warming, plants (particularly strong concentrations of plants, such as rainforests) are often thought to be helpful in reducing carbon emissions and in slowing global warming. Indeed, some scientific studies show that, under certain laboratory greenhouse conditions, increased carbon dioxide levels can contribute to a greater amount of plant growth. This is extremely important because, as Carol Rasmussen, a member of NASA’s Earth Science News Team, reports:

Forests and other land vegetation currently remove up to 30 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. If the rate of absorption were to slow down, the rate of global warming would speed up in return.

Through a natural process referred to as carbon fertilization, plants “eat” the extra carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human processes, thus reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Recently, however, the purported impacts of carbon fertilization have been called into question: a recent study found that increased tree growth does not always result from increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Regardless of whether forest growth is stimulated by increased carbon dioxide, Climate Science Watch encourages us to think beyond the small picture of plants taking already overwhelming amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. There is a bigger picture of the relationship between global warming–which is already occurring–and plant life. A report by Climate Science Watch reminds us that:

Climate [change] impacts like drought, floods, extreme weather, shifting seasons, and increasing ranges of weeds, invasive species, and plant pests will all negatively impact crop yields [and other plant growth].

Additionally, other nutrient restrictions limit the amount of increased natural photosynthesis that can occur in forests. Differentials in rainfall levels and subsequent droughts that are already being caused by global warming negatively impact the amount of plants that can grow and photosynthesize.

Hammering home these cautionary pieces of evidence is the fact that massive forests like the Amazon have been suffering from increased tree mortality–both due to direct human destruction and the indirect impacts of altered conditions from climate change. Therefore, the Amazon rainforest is consuming a billion tons less each year than it has previously. For perspective, each yearly Amazon drop amounts to twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the U.K. per year.

So Should We Take Carbon Dioxide Back Out of the Atmosphere?

Investing hope and massive resources in carbon capture and sequestration, forest-driven photosynthesis, and artificial photosynthesis produces a sense of calm in many that the impacts of global warming can be combated without creating actual changes in the corporate practices that are increasing dangerous carbon dioxide levels. These debates about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are important, but they are fundamentally invested in addressing symptoms rather than causes. While these are great scientific achievements, the causes of global warming need to be addressed as well.

Resources

Primary

Environmental Protection Agency: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration

NASA: NASA Finds Food News about Forests and Carbon Dioxide

Additional

Environment 360: Can Carbon Capture Technology Be Part of the Climate Solution?

Alternet: Corporations Have Big Plans to Profit From Global Warming

Guardian: Chevron Accused of Racism as it Fights Ecuador Pollution Ruling

Guardian: Tropical Rainforests Not Absorbing as Much Carbon as Expected

Guardian: Just 90 Companies Caused Two-Thirds of Man-Made Global Warming Emissions

Science Daily: Major Advance in Artificial Photosynthesis Poses Win/Win For the Environment

Climate Science Watch: The CO2 “Fertilization” Effect Won’t Deter Climate Change

Corp Watch: Climate Change and Environmental Racism

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Carbon Dioxide Capture: Can it Stop Global Warming? appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most hazardous locations for one’s lungs is Texas. A site of many refineries and factories, the state already presents itself as a major emitter; but its activity exceeds the second ranking states by a wide margin. For example, nitrogen oxide emissions from smoke stacks and vents surpass number two ranking Pennsylvania by more than 60 percent, and tonnage of volatile organic compounds eclipse number two Colorado by more than 44 percent. If this is not enough, many state officials are siding with the industries themselves in an attempt to combat the implementation of tighter emissions regulations. Their testimonies argue that toughening up the standards will be too expensive and not necessarily beneficial to public health.

This conflict extends far beyond the Lone Star State. The Supreme Court itself is locked in a debate as to what measures are necessary and how much they will cost. Dissenters argue that the Obama Administration’s latest initiatives via the Environmental Protection Agency do not contain a cost-benefit analysis. The argument leans on wording in the Clean Air Act, which stipulates that regulations be “appropriate and necessary.” But who has the right to unilaterally determine what is appropriate and necessary? A rough estimate at a “quantifiable” benefit estimates that 11,000 unnecessary deaths can be prevented each year. Calculations diverge as to the monetary expenses and savings; one concludes that $9.6 billion in expenses will result in $6 billion in savings, while another maintains that those same costs can result in up to $30-90 billion in savings. These numbers should not be the focus of the decision, though. If thousands of people might live on who would otherwise die, this should be justification enough to implement the necessary measures.

Henan Province, China. Courtesy of V.T. Polywoda via Flickr.

Ozone and air contamination are a widely pervasive problem; the lives that potentially could be saved are not just in urban areas. Gases and ozone emissions are not stagnant; many studies and measurements have found excessively high air contaminants in rural and wide-open areas such as the Colorado mountains and the Native American reservations in Utah. In addition to the problem of poor restrictions on emission, the standards as to what technically constitutes contamination or poor air quality are too lax. For this reason, non-emitting areas are facing health risks that are not legally deemed as such.

Air pollution is a perfectly remediable problem. In the early 1900s, the great steel city of Pittsburgh rivaled Victorian London for poor air quality. But a series of laws and regulations and more efficient use of fuel led the city to be declared one of the most livable by the 1980s; the characteristic smoke and pollution cleared away almost entirely. A more poignant example is Japan. A system of local governments responding to local concerns but acting seamlessly with national and international-level reform efforts enabled the country to curb pollution without derailing economic growth. In fact, considering the incentives to invest in research and new technologies, the formulation of new overseeing agencies and subsequent job creation, by 1980 air pollution control became a profitable industry itself!

This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of the debates in the Supreme Court right now; all the concerns about cost effectiveness and damage to industry and the economy are based on perceptions of the status quo. People seem to be under the impression that the objective is simply to cap emissions while maintaining all the other aspects of day-to-day life and commercial activity. Rather, as demonstrated by the multi-layered action of Japan, it is a complicated process that requires commitment by many parties, but ultimately a worthwhile one because it is clearly doable and benefits not just the health of the people but can be financially desirable, as well.

This past November, an interesting thing occurred in Beijing. In anticipation of the arrival of many world leaders for an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, the government mandated a six-day vacation for urban residents, which included traffic restrictions and the closure of factories in an attempt to clear the smog. It was a monumental success; in less than a week, what came to be labeled as “APEC Blue” dominated the skies. The striking effects of this action has galvanized progressive voices and demonstrated to the nation and world that there is a plethora of options from which we can draw that quite effectively address the problem.

Courtesy of Nicolo Lazzati via Flickr.

Air pollution is one of the most visible and widespread consequences of industrialization, rampant consumption, and natural resource use. It may not have as immediate or drastic consequences as some other environmentally related challenges, but it certainly is dangerous. Most importantly, there are so many things that we can do to address it, which may be surprisingly effective and rapid in doing so, while at the same time improving our own habits and ways of life.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beijing Knows How to Curb Its Air Pollution, So Why Doesn’t Texas? appeared first on Law Street.

Rising populations and increasingly heavy use of technology is causing a global food crisis. But starvation isn’t the issue at hand; it is waste. The amount of food that is wasted worldwide costs a huge amount of money, fills landfills, and emits methane gas. The process of producing and delivering food in the first place induces environmental damage and displaces people and animals. This complex and interconnected system requires attention on multiple levels if we intend to avert a slew of catastrophes.

Similar to the problems with water, the primary problem with managing and consuming food is not scarcity but distribution imbalances. People starve in many places around the world, while others gorge themselves on conspicuously lavish meals that they do not intend to finish. In fact, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimated that the food discarded by retailers and consumers in the most developed counties would be more than enough to feed all of the world’s 870 million hungry people. Some suggest that the economic ramifications of wasted food reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars. An additional scientific conclusion includes the fact that the amount of methane gas emitted by decomposing food in landfills is only surpassed by national emissions of the United States and China.

Courtesy of Bill McChesney via Flickr.

Considering these ominous statistics, some say a solution is to refrain from eating meat. The meat industry requires large swaths of land to raise animals, huge amounts of food to feed to them, and enormous quantities of water to grow those crops in the first place. This resource and energy intensive process thus draws in many sectors in order to be possible. While this decision may help reduce demand for such environmentally threatening foods, there are many other products that we eat whose production is costly. For example, one of the most common ingredients in many foods, especially packaged and frozen ones, is palm oil. The price for the acquisition of the substance includes heavy deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia, which displaces indigenous people, releases stored carbon into the atmosphere, and threatens already critically endangered animals such as Sumatran rhinos and orangutans, Asian elephants, and leopards.

Courtesy of David Ellis via Flickr.

The overall production and distribution processes of the industry is one of the primary concerns at play. Thanks in part to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, one of the sparks of the environmental movement in the 60s, we are quite familiar with all the problems associated with spraying chemicals, pesticides, and DDT. It has already been established that pesticides and deforestation are endangering butterflies; however, they are still widely used in the agricultural sector. A relatively recent possible solution involved genetically modified crop seeds, which provide the subsequent plants with an incorporated pesticide that attacks the nervous system of pests such as root worms and flea beetles. It is becoming evident that these plants are dangerous to other types of insects as well, particularly bees. This could be catastrophic. All mosquitoes do is spread diseases; the world could do quite well without them. Bees are another story. They are pollinating insects; they provide a crucial component to their ecosystems, allowing plants to reproduce, flourish, and anchor the food chains built above them. Furthermore, even farmers often rely on bees to help pollinate their own crops.

Courtesy of Brian via Flickr.

In addition to addressing these large-scale global patterns of production, there are many things that vendors and consumers can do to alleviate the situation, particularly with regard to food waste. Composting is becoming more and more common, which helps insofar as reducing the amount of food thrown away; rather it puts it to productive purposes in fertilizing soil in which new plants can be grown. As this occurs on a local level, it also reduces pollution that results from transportation challenges. In an effort to reduce waste, KFC restaurants in Britain will begin making their coffee cups out of an edible sugar paper and white chocolate. While this reduction in waste is not specifically with regard to food, it is a nice idea and a good starting point.

Ultimately neither of these things will resolve the wide ranging set of challenges we face with regard to the food sector. Yet they help us think about our consumption habits and the environment around us. The decisions we make as consumers are vital to addressing wasted food. Our habits, lifestyles, values, and expectations play a substantial role in the patterns of the industry. Therefore we have plenty of opportunities to act productively and affect change. The first step? Don’t bite off more than you can chew.

For more information on how you can make meaningful changes in your own life, here are some helpful tools:

• The Waste Free Kitchen Handbook, written by a project scientist at the Natural Resource Defense Council and coming out in May 2015.
• End Food Waste: Website with relevant information and activist campaigns.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Challenges of Food Production and Consumption appeared first on Law Street.

Plastic is an absolutely amazing material. It is durable, light, portable, and malleable. It can be made into virtually any product we can imagine. It can be recast, recycled, and reused. It plays a role in every material aspect of our modern lives. But it is usually non-biodegradable, leeches toxins, and if not handled properly can be dangerous to land and ocean environments, animals, and ourselves.

One of the factors that complicated the search for Malaysia Flight 370 last spring was the Indian Ocean Gyre. A gyre is a system of cyclically moving ocean currents, tied into trade winds and the Coriolis Effect. There are five major ones on Earth: in the North and South Atlantic, in the North and South Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The inexorable motion of the water constantly cast question marks as to where to search for the crashed plane. As the weeks dragged on, the likelihood of locating it in the predetermined locations dwindled; it could have been anywhere by then. Furthermore, search & rescue operators were deceived time and again by what they thought was plane debris. In actuality, it was plastic. The gyres are choked with floating garbage and plastic, earning them the nickname “garbage patches.”

The Earth’s major gyres, courtesy of NOAA via Wikipedia.

Among other things, the 2008 documentary “Addicted to Plastic” details an excursion to the Eastern Garbage Patch in a section of the North Pacific Gyre. Watch the trailer below.

Director Ian Connacher related that the patch is not so much a floating landfill whose contents can be systematically scooped out, but is spread out over an area the size of Western Europe requiring constant painstaking and ultimately minimally effective sifting.

Furthermore, this is not just an aesthetic problem. All new plastic begins life as a “nurdle:” a small pellet that can subsequently be made into whatever product desired. Nurdles account for a large percentage of ocean gyre garbage. In addition, plastic accumulates pollutants such as oils, toxins, and other things that we have also dumped or let run off into our oceans. To the eyes of many fish and birds, nurdles resemble fish eggs and are subsequently eaten. They can choke the animals because they are indigestible, or they can poison the animals because they are riddled with toxins. Then in a process of bioaccumulation, larger fish who eat many of the smaller fish that have ingested nurdles subsequently carry the toxins (and the plastic). Many of these fish are ones that people eat as well; the plastic and toxins work their way back to us and endanger our health, too.

Most of the plastic in the garbage patches arrived there not because it was dumped over the side of ships, but because it was carelessly tossed into the water systems or left on the shores; ocean plastic has worked its way there from the land. Therefore trying to pick all the trash out of the gyres does not stop the problem at the source. The plastic industry is highly flawed and needs to be more properly operated. Greenpeace and others have suggested that governments facilitate more recycling infrastructure and consumers be more conscientious about their use of plastic bags and purchasing products with a lot of plastic packaging. They add that a lot of potential lies with corporations, in regulating and intelligently choosing their plastics. For example, those micro beads in exfoliating products are disastrous and should be eliminated.

These things are only part of the problem, though. Connacher is of the opinion that the regulation of the recycling process and the decisions of corporations in the production process need to be more seamlessly intertwined and cooperative. That is to say, there are problems that make the recyclability of plastic less effective. The cap and ring on a soda bottle is a different type of plastic than is the container. One might be recyclable while the other is not. If they both can be recycled, that may not necessarily be at the same location or by the same means. Inevitably, things get lost in translation. There is nothing that we the consumers can do about this except put our plastics in the bins and hope that everything gets recycled–and properly. Yet these are not unsolvable problems. Scientists in parts of Europe are proposing a “circular economy” with regard to plastics, the idea of which is that “…products must be designed with end of life recovery in mind.” This process has more to do with providing incentives for people to recycle, but theoretically can be applied to the design and production process as well.

“Addicted to Plastic” also provides hope, recounting stories of people who took creative initiative in order to get some of the otherwise wasted plastic out of the environment and put it to productive use. People reduce their plastic consumption on community levels, and researchers and scientists find new types of plastic that are more biodegradable or less toxic. There are things we can do to make the production process better as well as things we can do to address the problematic plastic that is already out there. It requires more than picking it up off the ground or out of the water. It requires major changes, many of which will be difficult. A set of issues like this tends to be overlooked because it does not appear as pressing as climate change or energy regimes; however, it is operating on a global scale, and pervades every aspect of human geography and life. We can emerge victoriously out of our throwaway culture.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just How Bad is Our Culture of Plastic Obsession? appeared first on Law Street.

Environmental policy is a hollow shell if it lacks the crucial component that is the interest and engagement of the people. An Ossining, New York-based conservation organization called Riverkeeper seeks to merge these arenas by sparking communal engagement and care for their surrounding ecosystems, in particular the Hudson River, so as to more effectively pursue regulations and values that are conducive to a healthy environment and lifestyle. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated in Riverkeeper’s eponymously titled biography, “…environment is not something distant and inaccessible to most Americans. It is not an issue that can be separated out and dealt with on its own. The environment is our neighborhood, our community. It is our quality of life.”

In the 1960s, a group of fishermen banded together to patrol the Hudson in search of environmental law violators. As the strength and breadth of the coalition that would become Riverkeeper grew, they became increasingly effective at pinpointing and prosecuting individuals and corporations who polluted the waters of the Hudson. After a half century, Riverkeeper is now a respected organization with various departments and manifestations throughout the country. Its founding principle of a “neighborhood watch,” which sparked its initial coalescence, remains a treasured and vital practice.

I recently joined my fellow Riverkeeper interns aboard the patrol boat, Fletcher, for an abridged estuary survey. Now in his fourteenth year at the post, Captain John Lipscomb detailed that a full patrol requires thirteen days, from New York City up to the mouth of the Mohawk River, the largest tributary of the Hudson. The key to a successful patrol, he explained, is to “…look, but also be seen looking.” Having people on the shores see the vessel and “Riverkeeper” emblazoned on the side of the hull is a deterrent; this is a powerful and often more preferable means of keeping the Hudson clean than catching violators red handed. Furthermore, it is advertising as well as policing. The boat’s presence and visibility raises environmental awareness; it gets the concepts into people’s heads and hopefully influences their behavior.

The Fletcher on patrol

Riverkeeper’s patrol has many other functions that tie into this philosophy of engaging the community. The organization seeks to empower the community with data, primarily with water quality sampling and subsequent output of its findings in reports. The EPA’s recommendations for testing in recreational waterways occasionally meets opposition on the basis that it is unnecessary because nobody swims at particular points on the river; however, designated beaches are not the only points at which people partake in river activities. During our patrol, as it was a hot and sunny day, we encountered a group of kids jumping from a low rocky precipice into the water and swimming about. The captain drew the boat near, and acquired their permission to snap a few photos. He intends to present this evidence of countless examples that clearly the people are partaking in recreational activity all along the water. This raises several points. First is that water sampling is undoubtedly warranted. Second, it speaks to the role of community members in environmental policy formulation, as well as the fact that such responsible policies are in the best interest not just of nature but the people as well.

Scenic Surprises on the Hudson

Riverkeeper has been passionately engaging the problems raised by the Tappan Zee Bridge construction project. In addition to outrage over the discovery that Albany was using clean water funds to finance the endeavor, the actual work is being done in a somewhat careless and haphazard fashion with regard to the delicate ecosystem by which it is surrounded. Captain Lipscomb has been documenting the number of dead fish discoveries, particularly the species as some teeter on the endangered list, in an effort to raise public awareness and induce a more responsible approach to the project with regard to the Hudson River’s biodiversity.

It goes without saying that an additional responsibility of the Hudson patrol involves active, first-hand clean up. Unfortunately, I was not surprised to see a substantial amount of trash choking the waterway. In fact, at one point we slowed the boat so as to draw out a fully intact television bobbing at the surface. Hopefully in time, through the work of Riverkeeper and other like-minded organizations and citizens, the amount of garbage that finds its way into the water will diminish to a negligible amount.

Captain Lipscomb wants to extend the range of the patrol into the Mohawk. If this is to be accomplished, Riverkeeper will need to cultivate relationships with other organizations in that area so as to effectively take on a mission of such large scope. This is already a philosophy of the organization. “We promote positive sustainable relationships; it is not in our best interest to sue everybody” clarified Dana Gulley, manager of the Community Outreach & Volunteer Programs at Riverkeeper. Rather, she added, it is important to communicate. Riverkeeper seeks to open dialogue and educate; if they encounter a violator, they approach them and ask if they knew they were polluting.

Beneath the Bear Mountain Bridge

These activities are not just for aesthetic conservation. More than nine million people in New York City and the surrounding area drink from the Hudson watershed. Human health and human culture are at stake in environment-society relationships. As Robert Kennedy Jr. and the first Hudson Riverkeeper John Cronin put it: “As Riverkeepers we protect nature, not so much for nature’s sake, but for the sake of humanity. Nature enriches us economically, but we have other appetites besides money. These hungers — spiritual, cultural, and aesthetic — must be fed if we want to grow as we are meant to — if we are to fulfill ourselves.”

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

All images courtesy of [Franklin R. Halprin]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Riverkeeper: Patrolling the Hudson to Keep NYC’s Water Clean appeared first on Law Street.