| How Cool is Your School?: Click here |
The Sierra Club has released the results of its fourth annual Coolest Schools survey, which compares the sustainability, conservation and energy-efficiency efforts of U.S. colleges and universities nationwide. Students traditionally have evaluated colleges according to three criteria: academic quality, location, and what kind of social life they can expect. While those considerations are no less important today than they ever were, an increasing number of students have added a fourth criterion to the list: schools with outstanding green credentials. In fact, two-thirds of university applicants now say that a school's environmental record would influence whether they would choose to enroll, according to a survey by the Princeton Review, a company that helps students prepare for exams. In conducting the survey, the Sierra Club sent an 11-page questionnaire to 900 U.S. colleges and universities, with questions in 10 categories: Energy Supply, Efficiency, Food, Academics, Purchasing, Transportation, Waste Management, Administration, Financial Investments, and Other Initiatives. Individual questions were weighted according to their relative importance, but each category was worth 10 points for a possible total score of 100. The Sierra Club received responses from 162 schools and ranked them according to their total scores. The 10 top-ranked schools this year are:
Along with ranking the schools according to their Coolest Schools survey scores, the Sierra Club also provides information about a number of related topics, from what K-12 schools are doing to advance sustainability to how coal-country colleges are embracing clean energy to how things are improving in China. According to participating schools, the annual Coolest Schools survey not only offers students and their parents an easy way to compare colleges on the basis of environmental credentials, it also encourages U.S. colleges and universities to improve. In one survey response reported by the Sierra Club, David Prytherch, sustainability coordinator at Miami University in Ohio, wrote that the annual survey "reminds us of what we've accomplished and how much is yet to be done. It helps encourage continued innovation, knowing that others are watching." Also Read:
How Cool is Your School? originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Friday, August 27th, 2010 at 12:50:34. |
| Canada First Nation to Declare BPA a Toxic Substance: Click here |
Canada is taking an historic step by becoming the first nation to add the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) to its official register of toxic substances. BPA is the primary component in hard, clear polycarbonate plastics that are used in thousands of everyday consumer products such as baby bottles, CDs and DVDs, and the linings of food and beverage cans. Numerous studies have shown that BPA can cause or contribute to health problems ranging from heart disease and diabetes in adults to impaired brain and hormone development in children. BPA is so pervasive, and present in so many products people use every day, that the chemical leaches into our food and water, and even permeates our skin. A report last week by Statistics Canada showed that 91 percent of people tested had BPA in their urine, with the highest concentrations found in children. Those results are consistent with previous studies conducted in the United States. In 2009, when the Canadian government first proposed listing BPA as a toxic substance, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) demanded a formal review of the proposal, accused the Canadian government of pandering to "emotional zealots," and said that any designation of BPA as toxic would not be "based on the best available data and scientific knowledge." Canadian minister Jim Prentice rejected ACC demands, saying that the organization had failed to "bring forth any new scientific data or information" to support its request for a board of review. Canada had already banned the sale of baby bottles that contain BPA in 2008, and while the new action would make it the world's first nation to list BPA as a toxic substance Canada is not alone in its concern about the chemical's possible adverse health effects. In May, France approved a ban on manufacturing, importing, exporting or selling baby bottles made with plastics that contain BPA. Denmark has banned the use of BPA in any materials that come into contact with food and beverages, and Sweden is considering a similar ban. Several U.S. states have banned baby bottles and other children's products that contain BPA, and U.S. government agencies continue to study and review the overall safety of using BPA in consumer products. On the other hand, Germany declined to take action to ban or reduce consumer exposure to BPA after the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment cited two studies that found the chemical was no hazardous to human health. The controversy over BPA is bound to continue for some time, as more studies are conducted and new information comes to light about the potential or proven health effects of exposure to the chemical. Meanwhile, consumers in most countries are left without definitive answers and must decide for themselves whether they want to do as much as they can to reduce their exposure to BPA. Also Read:
Canada First Nation to Declare BPA a Toxic Substance originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Thursday, August 26th, 2010 at 13:15:35. |
| How School Lunch Packaging Waste Adds Up: Click here |
Many of us depend on convenient school lunch throwaways to make morning prep time easier, and it can be difficult to resist those temptations in the supermarket, especially if the kids are shopping with us. But did you know that school lunch waste creates more than 18,000 pounds of garbage for the average elementary school? As the new school year begins, learn more about the hazards of school lunch waste and about a recyclable solution that makes school lunches cool -- and environmentally responsible. Photo courtesy of Getty Images How School Lunch Packaging Waste Adds Up originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Wednesday, August 25th, 2010 at 14:15:44. |
| Lakeview Gusher of 1910 Bigger, Not Worse, Than BP Oil Spill: Click here |
When BP finally stopped the oil flowing from its ruptured underwater well in the Gulf of Mexico last month [July 2010], the government announced that the 4.9 million barrels (more than 205 million gallons) of oil the well had spilled over the previous three months made it the worst accidental oil spill in U.S. and world history. Along with most other media, I reported that conclusion, but one of my readers (a man named Craig) quickly pointed out that the government and the media were all mistaken and had not looked far enough back in the history books to get the facts straight--and he was right. The Lakeview gusher of 1910 spilled 9 million barrels of oil (that's 378 million gallons) onto a patch of scrubland in Kern County, California, between the towns of Taft and Maricopa, about 110 miles north of Los Angeles. Once it blew, the Lakeview gusher was unstoppable for 18 months. The initial flow from the Lakeview gusher was 18,000 barrels a day, building to an uncontrolled crescendo of 100,000 barrels daily, and eventually producing only 30 barrels a day after the flood of California crude was finally stopped. Ironically, the Lakeview gusher might never have happened if the crew on site had obeyed orders from bosses in Los Angeles. After months of unproductive drilling, Union Oil headquarters sent word to shut down the operation and abandon the well. But the crew, led by a foreman nicknamed Dry Hole Charlie, wouldn't give up. They ignored the orders and kept on drilling. In mid-March 1910, 2,200 feet below the surface, the drilling tapped into a high-pressure reservoir and the well blew with such force that the eruption demolished the wooden derrick and created a crater so large that no one could get close enough to the well to try capping it. The well kept gushing until September 1911. The Lakeview gusher didn't actually do much environmental damage. Black mist fell for miles around, and only the valiant work of oil workers and volunteers building dykes by hand prevented the oil from contaminating Buena Vista Lake to the east, but most of the oil soaked into the sagebrush studded soil or evaporated. And while 100 years later the area is still soaked with oil, the long-term environmental impact of the spill is generally considered minimal. So while the Lakeview Gusher was larger in volume than the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf spill was a far bigger environmental and economic disaster. Also See:
Lakeview Gusher of 1910 Bigger, Not Worse, Than BP Oil Spill originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Sunday, August 15th, 2010 at 22:48:28. |
| Gulf Spill Claiming More Wild Lives: Click here |
While the government is crowing about the amount of oil it says has vanished from the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill, the oil that remains is making things rough for the wildlife in the area. The average daily number of oiled birds being collected dead or alive by rescue workers is now nearly double what is was before BP managed to plug the ruptured oil well, up to 71 from the previous 37, according to wildlife officials. Sea turtles have fared even worse: more oiled turtles have been recovered during the past 10 days than in the three months when the spill was still in progress. The risk to wildlife from the BP spill is far greater than it might be in other areas, because the Gulf Coast is a breeding or nesting area for many species of birds, turtles and other wildlife. One of the saddest things rescue workers are seeing are fledgling birds, just beginning to test their wings, landing in oily patches where they end up covered in oil. The area is also an important stop for hundreds of migratory species. Before the well was capped, 56 percent of oiled birds were recovered alive, but that figure has fallen to 41 percent in recent days. As of Friday, August 6 [2010], 1,794 oiled birds have been recovered alive compared to 1,642 that died. A total of 428 oiled sea turtles have been recovered, more than half of those in the past 10 days, and only 17 have died. There have been other turtle deaths related to the oil spill that were not a direct result of the animals being covered with oil. Also Read: Gulf Spill Claiming More Wild Lives originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Tuesday, August 10th, 2010 at 06:41:22. |
| BP Spill: Is Most of the Oil Really Gone?: Click here |
BP barely succeeded in plugging the ruptured underwater oil well that spewed an estimated 4.9 million barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico before the U.S. government declared that the "vast majority" of the oil is gone. Really? Gone where? "More than three quarters of the oil is gone," said Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy and a former EPA administrator, in an appearance on The Today Show. "The vast majority of the oil is gone. It was captured, it was skimmed, it was burned, it was contained. Mother Nature did her part and that's good news." Browner was referring to a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which claims that one-quarter of the oil either evaporated or dissolved naturally, another quarter was either burned, skimmed or recovered directly from the wellhead, and about 24 percent was dispersed "as microscopic droplets into Gulf waters." That leaves 26 percent that is far from gone and is lurking "just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments," according to NOAA. Despite NOAA's optimism and Browner's almost giddy "good news" report, there are too many problems with the overall picture to start celebrating just yet. First of all, oil that is "dispersed" isn't gone; it's just broken down into smaller droplets and spread around. And it's still a threat. "Oil that is in microscopic droplets that is still there may be toxic to any of the small creatures under the water that it encounters," said NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco, in an NPR interview. And when Browner says that "Mother Nature did her part" she means that tiny microbes are feeding on the microscopic droplets of oil, a process that depletes oxygen from the surrounding waters and could dramatically expand the already enormous dead zone in the Gulf. One other thing Browner left out is that it will take years for biodegradation to finish removing the dispersed oil from the Gulf. Second, even if only 26 percent of the oil remains, that's still 1.274 million barrels (more than 53.5 million gallons) of oil, about five times as much oil as was released during the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, and Alaska is still feeling the environmental and economic shock waves from that accident. We will rely on government, industry and independent scientists to conduct research, analyze data, and monitor the effects of the Gulf spill. What we don't need are political cheerleaders or naysayers who try to paint a picture that is better or worse than reality. Also Read: BP Spill: Is Most of the Oil Really Gone? originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Monday, August 9th, 2010 at 06:26:34. |
| It's Official: BP Gusher in Gulf is Biggest Oil Spill Ever: Click here |
The ruptured BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico gushed an estimated 4.9 million barrels (205.8 gallons) of oil in approximately three months, making it the largest accidental oil spill in history, according to the most recent detailed analysis by government scientists. Not all of the oil flowed into the ocean and the fragile marine environment of the Gulf; containment activities captured approximately 800,000 barrels (33.6 million gallons) of oil before the well was successfully capped and the leak was halted in mid-July. Even after subtracting the captured oil, the damaged offshore well spewed 4.1 million barrels (172.2 million gallons) of oil into the waters of the Gulf, making it far worse than the next largest accidental spill, and second only to the intentional release of oil by Iraqi forces during the 1991 Gulf War. The largest accidental oil spill before the Deepwater Horizon spill was the 1979 Ixtoc-1 spill, also in the Gulf of Mexico, which released 3.3 million barrels (138.6 million gallons) of oil over a period of 10 months, following an explosion on an offshore oil rig operated by the Mexican state-owned oil company Pemex. The new 4.9 million barrel figure is near the high end of an earlier official estimate, which said that somewhere between 3.0 million and 5.3 million barrels of oil had escaped from the well between April 20, when the Deepwater Horizon offshore rig exploded, and July 15, when the wellhead was finally capped and sealed. The new government estimate has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 10 percent. When the well first ruptured, "62,000 barrels of oil per day were leaking from the well," according to a statement released by government scientists. That's more than the most recent estimate of 35,000 to 60,000 barrels offered by U.S. authorities, and more than 12 times faster than the 5,000-barrel flow rate initially reported by both BP and government sources. Government scientists now say that the flow rate started at 62,000 barrels daily, but decreased to 53,000 barrels per day just before the well was successfully capped in July. This may not be the last word on the size of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Government scientists, along with industry and independent experts, will continue to analyze data and refine their estimates. And given how much oil never reached the surface due to the use of chemical dispersants underwater, as well as other variables that have not been fully explored or accounted for, estimates for the size of this worst-ever oil spill may rise again. Correction: Despite reports by U.S. government scientists and most media outlets (including this one), the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was not the largest accidential oil spill on record. That distinction still belongs to the so-called Lakeview gusher, which back in 1910 and 1911 spewed 9 million barrels (378 million gallons) of California crude over a stretch of scrubland for a period of 18 months before it was finally brought under control. Thanks to a reader named Craig (last name unknown) for pointing out the error. Also Read:
It's Official: BP Gusher in Gulf is Biggest Oil Spill Ever originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010 at 14:23:11. |
| Oil Spill Response Bill Passes House, Stalls in Senate: Click here |
In a sweeping response to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday [July 30, 2010] voted to toughen offshore drilling safety standards, lift the cap on industry liability for oil spills, protect whistleblowers who report safety concerns, and deny new offshore leases for up to seven years to companies with poor safety records--BP being a prime example. The Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act passed by a vote of 209-193, over the objections of most Republicans and some Democrats that the legislation would disrupt, disable, or at least slow down domestic energy production. The CLEAR Act would remove the $75 million cap on oil companies' liability for economic damages from oil spills and impose new safety standards as well as increased inspections independent equipment certifications, and tougher penalties for safety violations. The measure would also levy a new conservation fee of $2 per barrel of oil and 20 cents per million British thermal units (BTUs) of natural gas for all oil and gas leases in federal territory. In addition, the CLEAR Act would finish the job of breaking up the Minerals Management Service (MMS), which has come under fire for sloppy--some would say criminally negligent--oversight and regulation of offshore drilling operations. In breaking up MMS, the House intends to separate its inspection and revenue-collection activities and to end "revolving door" hiring practices between MMS and the oil and gas industry. The House also passed the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act, which would provide legal protection against retaliation for workers on offshore rigs who report health or safety issues to their employers or regulators. The measure, which passed by a vote of 315-93, extends whistleblower protection for the first time to workers who are involved in oil and gas exploration, drilling, production, or cleanup operations along the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States. Both bills now go to the Senate, but nobody is holding out much hope that either will survive a Senate vote in September after Congress reconvenes following the August recess. Meanwhile, the Senate is still engaged in partisan mud wrestling over its own version of legislation similar to the CLEAR Act, which also includes incentives for natural-gas vehicles, more money for land and water conservation, and funding for the Home Star program to encourage homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient. With the mid-term elections coming up in November, when a third of all Senate seats and every House seat will be up for grabs, both parties are working hard to make their members look good and the other guys look bad. If Senate support and opposition for these energy bills break along party lines, as expected, then the Democrats won't have enough votes to pass the legislation. Republicans will likely offer a host of amendments and then filibuster the bill, effectively killing the legislation on the floor. If that happens, Democrats will hammer Republicans during the mid-term campaigns for blocking congressional response to the disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and Republicans will attack Democrats for trying to push through legislation that they claim would create an economic disaster in response to the environmental disaster caused by the spill. Bottom line: While all this political posturing is going on, nothing is getting done, and the American people are not being well represented by either party when it comes to preventing future oil spills or ensuring appropriate liability for this one. If, in the best of times, politics is the art of compromise, at present it seems to have devolved to the art of frenzied inactivity: a lot of shouting and finger-pointing, but no real progress. Also Read:
Oil Spill Response Bill Passes House, Stalls in Senate originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Monday, August 2nd, 2010 at 12:45:49. |
| Let's Go Shopping: It's National Farmers Market Week: Click here |
Looking for something interesting and rewarding to do this week? How about a trip to your local farmers market? U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Thomas J. Vilsack has proclaimed August 1-7, 2010 as National Farmers Market Week with a list of "whereas" statements that makes it easy to understand the growing appeal of farmers markets. Over the past few years, farmers markets have become incredibly popular. Between 1994 and 2009, the number of U.S. farmers markets tripled, from 1,755 to 5,274, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. You don't have to be a locavore to appreciate and enjoy the benefits of a good farmers market. Along with farm-fresh locally grown food, and the chance to interact personally with the people who grow and raise the fruits, vegetables, meats and other food products that wind up on your table, farmers markets also offer a better quality of life by helping to create healthy local economies and more vibrant communities. If you're a regular farmers market customer, keep it up. If you keep meaning to shop your local farmers market, but just never seem to get there, grab a couple of reusable shopping bags and go. And if you need help locating a farmers market in your area, check out How to Find Your Local Farmers Markets. Photo by Getty Images Also Read:
Let's Go Shopping: It's National Farmers Market Week originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Monday, August 2nd, 2010 at 03:55:15. |
| Climate Bill is Dead; EPA Now Best Hope for U.S. Climate Solution: Click here |
Senate Democrats late last week abandoned any attempt to win approval for comprehensive climate and energy legislation this year, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid conceded that he didn't have the 60 votes needed to pass the bill over the inevitable Republican filibuster. Instead, Senate leaders are putting their shoulders into passing a quickly assembled substitute bill that weaves together a collection of sure-to-pass programs and provisions into a patchwork piece of legislation that is guaranteed to agitate no one--except the people who actually want to do something about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and shifting American energy dependence from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. And there's no telling whether the U.S. House of Representatives will accept this watered-down bill even if the Senate passes it. The new bill, which Reid wants to pass before the August recess, does not put a price or a cap on carbon emissions, does not subsidize electric vehicles, provides no debt financing for clean energy, and includes no renewable energy standard (RES) to mandate that a certain percentage of the nation's electricity come from green energy sources (although a handful of moderate Democrats and at least one Republican senator who firmly oppose any kind of carbon cap or tax have said they might be open to including an RES in the new bill). On the other hand, the substitute bill doesn't open new areas to offshore oil drilling nor does it include billions of dollars in loan guarantees for nuclear energy. Here's what the new bill does include: Read more...Climate Bill is Dead; EPA Now Best Hope for U.S. Climate Solution originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Tuesday, July 27th, 2010 at 05:11:54. |
