Pakistan -- a sad new benchmark in climate-related disasters
UNITED NATIONS -- Devastating flooding that has swamped one-fifth of Pakistan and left millions homeless is likely the worst natural disaster to date attributable to climate change, U.N. officials and climatologists are now openly saying.
Most experts are still cautioning against tying any specific event directly to emissions of greenhouse gases. But scientists at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in Geneva say there's no doubt that higher Atlantic Ocean temperatures contributed to the disaster begun late last month.
Pakistani relief helicopter
Reaching for help: A Pakistani Army helicopter brings aid to a few of the estimated 6.5 million flood refugees. Photo courtesy of Jacob Freeze.
Atmospheric anomalies that led to the floods are also directly related to the same weather phenomena that a caused the record heat wave in Russia and flooding and mudslides in western China, said Ghassem Asrar, director of the World Climate Research Programme and WMO. And if the forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are correct, then Pakistan's misery is just a sign of more to come, said Asrar.
"There's no doubt that clearly the climate change is contributing, a major contributing factor," Asrar said in an interview. "We cannot definitely use one case to kind of establish precedents, but there are a few facts that point towards climate change as having to do with this."
There's also no doubt that the Pakistan flooding will join the ranks of the worst natural disasters in recorded history.
The flooding started slowly at the end of July and gradually accelerated over the past two weeks. Disaster assessment maps show that almost the entire northern part of Pakistan and most of its central region have been hit.
During the most intense storms, about a foot of rain fell over a 36-hour period. Parts of the affected areas, in particular Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province (formerly Northwest Frontier province) received 180 percent of the precipitation expected in a normal monsoon cycle. More rain is expected in the days ahead.
Records show that the famed Indus River is at its highest water level ever recorded in the 110 years since regular record-keeping began. Estimates put the number of displaced people at somewhere between 15 million and 20 million, and the government believes about 1,600 are confirmed dead.
6.5 million need food, drinking water and medicine
The International Organization for Migration says the greatest immediate need is in Punjab, where roughly 500,000 families pushed out by the floods are awaiting assistance. All told, agencies guess that about 6.5 million Pakistanis need shelter, food, potable water and medicine.
"This is a disaster which has affected many more people than I have ever seen," said John Holmes, head of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, who also leads relief efforts in Haiti.
Zamir Akram, Pakistani ambassador to the U.N. center in Geneva, said floodwaters now cover an area roughly the size of England. Satellite surveys show about 160,000 square kilometers (62,000 square miles) is underwater, or about one-fifth of Pakistan's landmass and roughly equivalent to the areas of Austria, Belgium and Switzerland combined.
Asrar at the WMO says higher-than-average Atlantic temperatures and conditions made ripe by the La Niña cycle of lower temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean created the perfect conditions for the rains. Experts acknowledge that the scale of this disaster has been made worse by a history of deforestation and land-use changes in the affected areas, but Asrar insists that the sheer volume of precipitation absorbed by clouds and then dumped on Pakistan is chiefly to blame.
Climate scientists at WMO and elsewhere, including those with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, say this year's summer is one of the hottest ever, with high temperatures breaking records across the United States, Europe and Central Asia. Consequently, the surface of the Atlantic has also been much warmer than usual.
The IPCC assessment reports note that higher ocean temperatures lead to more water vapor entering the atmosphere. This fact, Asrar said, already pointed toward a stronger than usual monsoon season in store for South Asia.
Abnormal airflow dumps supersaturated air
Normal air patterns would have dispersed this precipitation over as wide an area as possible. But an abnormal airflow caused by La Niña created a ridge of pressure that blocked the warm, saturated air from moving west to east normally, Arar said.
This same ridge prevented the rains from reaching western Russia, where a severe drought has been blamed for raging wildfires and the destruction of 20 percent of the wheat crop there. And with nowhere else to go, Pakistan and China's far west bore the brunt when the clouds became too saturated with moisture and opened up.
"Basically, this rift that was forming blocked the warm air moving from west to east, and then, on the other side, this air that was super saturated with water vapor had to precipitate all this excess water that was in the atmosphere, which created this unprecedented amount of rain in short period of time," Asrar explained. "The connecting factor is that clearly the warming is a driver for all these events."
U.S. Army Chinook
A U.S. flood relief helicopter flies over a washed-out bridge in the swollen waters of Pakistan's Swat valley. Photo courtesy of Sgt. Monica K. Smith/U.S. Army.
The United Nations says that $459 million is need for international and nongovernmental relief agencies to respond to the disaster. About 35 percent of that appeal is now funded, mostly by contributions from the U.S. and U.K. governments.
Donations from other corners and the private sector have been slow in coming, though aid officials are reporting an uptick in contributions in recent days.
"The response has been a bit slower than perhaps with other disasters but definitely donations are starting to come now," said Airlie Taylor at the London offices of ActionAid International. "I think the world is now starting to wake up to the magnitude of the crisis."
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) is asking for $16 million in donations to buffer the emergency relief activities of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society.
Though more rain is expected and the southern reaches of the country can expect further flooding as the rivers drain out, rumors that India might release even more water from dams upstream are causing a panic in some areas. Pakistani authorities say the rumors are baseless and are desperately trying to get the word out to prevent a spread of disorder.
"The data collected about the Indian dams on Ravi, Sutlej and Beaus Rivers indicate that these dams are not yet filled to their capacity and further no flood producing strong monsoon rainy system is in sight," said Qamar-uz-Zaman Chaudry, head of the Pakistan Meteorological Department, in a release. "As such we may not expect that India would release sudden flood water in these rivers in the next five to ten days at least."
Hundreds of thousands of homes lost
Hundreds of thousands of homes have been completely swept away all over the country, and several communities have been cut off from the outside world as floodwaters washed bridges and roads away. Officials don't yet know what the full cost of recovery will be, but all expect it to be tremendous -- Akram in Geneva told reporters that the cost to rebuild Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, one of the hardest hit, would be at least $2.5 billion.
"The needs on the ground require a massive response," said IFRC chief Bekele Geleta. "It's not just about saving people's lives today; we need to plan for their long-term recovery tomorrow."
The litany of weather incidents during the summer of 2010 reads like the latest Hollywood global disaster movie.
The hottest summer ever recorded in 130 years has sparked thousands of wildfires in Russia, burning some entire villages to the ground, killing 53 and leaving 3,500 homeless, according to Russian state media. Cooler temperatures are finally bringing some relief, shrinking the extent of the flames from more than 100,000 acres down to about 54,000 acres.
Next to Pakistan, record rainfall and subsequent flooding and mudslides in western China are estimated to have left roughly 1,200 dead and scores more homeless. China's government has been handling that crisis on its own and has yet to appeal for international support.
Russia's drought has reduced its wheat crop by 20 percent, and droughts in Canada are anticipated to reduce the crop there by an equal proportion. Though the Food and Agriculture Organization says the United States alone has enough grain in storage to meet the gap, the U.S. Department of Agriculture put out a warning last week that reduced yields from droughts in Europe and Africa have lowered food stores to levels close to those seen just before the onset of the 2007 food crisis in the developing world.
Less reported, on Aug. 5, a sensor on a NASA satellite recorded a massive chunk of ice breaking off a glacier in Greenland. The huge block measures more than 77 square miles in size and is one of the largest calving incidents witnessed in the Northern Hemisphere.
Asrar and other WMO officials argue that the evidence linking all these events to climate change is strong.
"The occurrence of all these events at almost the same time raises questions about their possible linkages to the predicted increase in intensity and frequency of extreme events, for example, as stipulated in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007," WMO says in a report.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
China Boosts Renewables Investments, Considers Carbon Cap. U.S. Could Lose Opportunities Due to Lack of Investments and Investment Plan
Energy
China Considering 10-Year, $738 Billion Energy Plan, Ceiling on Coal Production
SHENZHEN, China—China's National Energy Administration has drafted a 5 trillion yuan ($738 billion) development plan that focuses on tapping non-fossil fuel energy sources such as nuclear, wind, solar, and hydropower in the next two five-year planning periods, according to reports from state media.
Jiang Bing, director general of the agency's Policy Planning Department, told Chinese reporters July 20 that the agency has finalized its planning documents for the energy portion of the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011–2015) and has drafted an energy planning document up to 2020 with a major emphasis on renewable energy and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, the newspaper People's Daily reported July 21.
The “New Energy and Industrial Development Plan 2011-2020” was drafted and approved by the National Development and Reform Commission and was sent to the State Council, China's top executive body, for approval, the report said.
The 12th Five-Year Plan period will be “critical” for increasing energy efficiency, adopting cleaner technology, and increasing the use of natural gas and other non-coal energy sources, Jiang said.
By 2015, natural gas will account for about 8.3 percent of the energy used in China, according to Jiang. By that same year, hydropower and nuclear together will contribute about 9 percent and other renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and biomass, will make up about 2.6 percent, Jiang said.
15 Percent Renewables Goal for 2020
The central government has set a national goal of producing 15 percent of its energy from non-fossil fuel energy sources by 2020, and Jiang estimated that by 2015 this ratio would be about 11 percent.
China's reliance on coal will continue, but the government would like to reduce it from its current 70 percent share of energy produced to about 63 percent by 2020, according to Jiang.
The energy development plans also call for investment in clean coal, smart grids, energy efficiency, and clean energy vehicles and they address “reform of the current electricity price market mechanisms,” he said.
Jiang estimated that about 5 trillion yuan ($738 billion) in direct investments and 15 million new jobs will result from the plans.
Caps on Coal Production Possible
To reduce carbon emissions and to ease its reliance on coal, China could impose a ceiling on coal production by the end of the 12th Five-Year Plan, a National Energy Administration official told China Energy News, a newspaper affiliated with People's Daily, on July 26.
Deputy director Wu Yin told the paper that “after extensive research, we are increasingly aware that there must be a coal production limit in the future” to help consolidate the coal industry and lead to “better coal production and consumption.”
Wu said the industry has overcapacity and that smaller producers could be encouraged to consolidate over the next decade. He estimated that coal's share of the national energy mix could drop to 65 percent in the next 10 years.
According to Securities Daily, a newspaper under the direction of the China Securities and Regulatory Commission, a researcher from the China Coal Industry Development Research Center said July 6 that integration of “small, scattered, and irregularly distributed” coal companies would be a major focus of energy planning for the next five-year plan.
Earlier in the year, China's State Council developed plans to reduce the country's energy intensity, with possible closure of smaller utilities and lower production targets for the steel, cement, and other industries (87 DEN A-6, 5/7/10).
China Considering 10-Year, $738 Billion Energy Plan, Ceiling on Coal Production
SHENZHEN, China—China's National Energy Administration has drafted a 5 trillion yuan ($738 billion) development plan that focuses on tapping non-fossil fuel energy sources such as nuclear, wind, solar, and hydropower in the next two five-year planning periods, according to reports from state media.
Jiang Bing, director general of the agency's Policy Planning Department, told Chinese reporters July 20 that the agency has finalized its planning documents for the energy portion of the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011–2015) and has drafted an energy planning document up to 2020 with a major emphasis on renewable energy and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, the newspaper People's Daily reported July 21.
The “New Energy and Industrial Development Plan 2011-2020” was drafted and approved by the National Development and Reform Commission and was sent to the State Council, China's top executive body, for approval, the report said.
The 12th Five-Year Plan period will be “critical” for increasing energy efficiency, adopting cleaner technology, and increasing the use of natural gas and other non-coal energy sources, Jiang said.
By 2015, natural gas will account for about 8.3 percent of the energy used in China, according to Jiang. By that same year, hydropower and nuclear together will contribute about 9 percent and other renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and biomass, will make up about 2.6 percent, Jiang said.
15 Percent Renewables Goal for 2020
The central government has set a national goal of producing 15 percent of its energy from non-fossil fuel energy sources by 2020, and Jiang estimated that by 2015 this ratio would be about 11 percent.
China's reliance on coal will continue, but the government would like to reduce it from its current 70 percent share of energy produced to about 63 percent by 2020, according to Jiang.
The energy development plans also call for investment in clean coal, smart grids, energy efficiency, and clean energy vehicles and they address “reform of the current electricity price market mechanisms,” he said.
Jiang estimated that about 5 trillion yuan ($738 billion) in direct investments and 15 million new jobs will result from the plans.
Caps on Coal Production Possible
To reduce carbon emissions and to ease its reliance on coal, China could impose a ceiling on coal production by the end of the 12th Five-Year Plan, a National Energy Administration official told China Energy News, a newspaper affiliated with People's Daily, on July 26.
Deputy director Wu Yin told the paper that “after extensive research, we are increasingly aware that there must be a coal production limit in the future” to help consolidate the coal industry and lead to “better coal production and consumption.”
Wu said the industry has overcapacity and that smaller producers could be encouraged to consolidate over the next decade. He estimated that coal's share of the national energy mix could drop to 65 percent in the next 10 years.
According to Securities Daily, a newspaper under the direction of the China Securities and Regulatory Commission, a researcher from the China Coal Industry Development Research Center said July 6 that integration of “small, scattered, and irregularly distributed” coal companies would be a major focus of energy planning for the next five-year plan.
Earlier in the year, China's State Council developed plans to reduce the country's energy intensity, with possible closure of smaller utilities and lower production targets for the steel, cement, and other industries (87 DEN A-6, 5/7/10).
Thursday, July 29, 2010
NOAA Study Shows Earth is Warming Exponentialy
SCIENCE: The Earth climbs to new heights on heat charts -- NOAA (07/29/2010)
Lauren Morello, E&E reporter
The last decade was the warmest since modern weather record-keeping began in the 1880s, according to a new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Furthermore, each year between 2000 and 2009 was hotter than average conditions in the 1990s, which were in turn hotter than average conditions in the 1980s, said co-editor Deke Arndt, chief of the climate monitoring branch of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
He led a team of 303 researchers from 48 countries that compiled the agency's 20th annual "State of the Climate" report, which Arndt likened to a medical checkup -- this time, for a planet instead of a person.
The report evaluates 10 aspects of Earth's climate that it says are "clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, [and] all tell the same story: global warming is undeniable."
Those indicators include warming surface air and sea temperatures, rising seas, declining sea ice, and shrinking ice and snow cover on land.
Some of the biggest changes occurred at the poles. The area covered by Arctic sea ice reached a new record summer low three times in the last decade.
Dramatic shrinkage of Arctic ice since 1979
The total area covered by sea ice at the end of each summer was roughly equal to that of the lower 48 United States when satellite monitoring of the Arctic began in 1979, said Walt Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
"Today, when we reach the [summer] minimum, the typical area is equivalent to states west of the Mississippi, sometimes considerably less than that," he said.
Down south, the Antarctic Peninsula is warming five times faster than the global average, the report says, and "significant ice loss" has been observed along the peninsula and Antarctica's western coast.
Climate graphs
Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere (middle chart) are driving Arctic Sea ice areas down and the planet's temperatures up. Photo courtesy of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"What this data is doing is screaming that the world is warming," said Peter Thorne, a senior researcher at the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites.
Thorne said the fact that so many disparate aspects of the climate system indicated warming showed such conclusions "can't be driven by a single individual or even several small groups -- the evidence is there to see."
Small changes with glacier-sized impacts
Overall, the 2000s were 0.96 degree Fahrenheit hotter than the 20th-century average, the report says. And what seems like a small change in global average temperature can produce noticeable climate effects.
The observed temperature rise of about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the past half-century has "already altered the planet," the report says, citing melting of glaciers and sea ice, more intense rains and more common -- and hotter -- heat waves.
"People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created," the analysis said. "One that's warmer and more extreme."
Still, the report only evaluates the state of the climate and does assign a cause for the observed warming, said Tom Karl, the transitional director of NOAA's climate service.
"This report does not speak to trying to make the link between the cause and what we observed," he said, "but this is the basis for that next step."
The NOAA report will be published as a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Lauren Morello, E&E reporter
The last decade was the warmest since modern weather record-keeping began in the 1880s, according to a new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Furthermore, each year between 2000 and 2009 was hotter than average conditions in the 1990s, which were in turn hotter than average conditions in the 1980s, said co-editor Deke Arndt, chief of the climate monitoring branch of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
He led a team of 303 researchers from 48 countries that compiled the agency's 20th annual "State of the Climate" report, which Arndt likened to a medical checkup -- this time, for a planet instead of a person.
The report evaluates 10 aspects of Earth's climate that it says are "clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, [and] all tell the same story: global warming is undeniable."
Those indicators include warming surface air and sea temperatures, rising seas, declining sea ice, and shrinking ice and snow cover on land.
Some of the biggest changes occurred at the poles. The area covered by Arctic sea ice reached a new record summer low three times in the last decade.
Dramatic shrinkage of Arctic ice since 1979
The total area covered by sea ice at the end of each summer was roughly equal to that of the lower 48 United States when satellite monitoring of the Arctic began in 1979, said Walt Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
"Today, when we reach the [summer] minimum, the typical area is equivalent to states west of the Mississippi, sometimes considerably less than that," he said.
Down south, the Antarctic Peninsula is warming five times faster than the global average, the report says, and "significant ice loss" has been observed along the peninsula and Antarctica's western coast.
Climate graphs
Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere (middle chart) are driving Arctic Sea ice areas down and the planet's temperatures up. Photo courtesy of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"What this data is doing is screaming that the world is warming," said Peter Thorne, a senior researcher at the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites.
Thorne said the fact that so many disparate aspects of the climate system indicated warming showed such conclusions "can't be driven by a single individual or even several small groups -- the evidence is there to see."
Small changes with glacier-sized impacts
Overall, the 2000s were 0.96 degree Fahrenheit hotter than the 20th-century average, the report says. And what seems like a small change in global average temperature can produce noticeable climate effects.
The observed temperature rise of about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the past half-century has "already altered the planet," the report says, citing melting of glaciers and sea ice, more intense rains and more common -- and hotter -- heat waves.
"People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created," the analysis said. "One that's warmer and more extreme."
Still, the report only evaluates the state of the climate and does assign a cause for the observed warming, said Tom Karl, the transitional director of NOAA's climate service.
"This report does not speak to trying to make the link between the cause and what we observed," he said, "but this is the basis for that next step."
The NOAA report will be published as a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Senate Looks to Create Ocean Conservation Trust Fund
OCEANS: Senators eye trust fund for conservation (06/11/2010)
Allison Winter, E&E reporter
A bipartisan Senate duo is vying to create a "National Endowment for the Oceans" that would pay for conservation efforts on U.S. coasts and ocean waters -- a longstanding request from marine advocates that could gain new traction in the wake of the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) are preparing legislation that would set aside some of the money collected from oil and gas taxes for a fund dedicated to conservation of oceans and coastlines.
The bill would join a flurry of legislative efforts attempting to respond to the oil spill or highlight gaps in federal funding and policy. The bills have the potential to become part of an energy package the Senate is expected to take up this summer.
Lawmakers are also eyeing the oil-spill response package as a possible vehicle for other oceans legislation that has struggled to find time for debate on the House and Senate floor, according to congressional aides.
Staff from the Senate Commerce Committee and House Science and Technology Committee said they are looking for opportunities to contribute to the bill -- which could end up being a vehicle even for broader legislation like reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act, the aides said. The CZMA governs activities in state waters from the shoreline out to about 3 miles offshore.
Whitehouse told oceans advocates at the Capitol Hill Oceans Week conference yesterday that he and Snowe are still working on the legislation but expect to introduce it in the next few weeks. Oceans advocates and federal marine experts applauded the announcement.
At first, the fund would rely on the interest from the oil spill trust fund, Whitehouse said. A five-cent-per-barrel tax is the main funding for the oil spill liability trust fund, which would pay for federal coordinators to respond to a spill, damage claims or appropriations for research and development. The oceans endowment would likely start small and seek more money as it develops, Whitehouse added.
"To a certain extent it will have to earn its stripes," Whitehouse said.
Oceans experts have advocated for years for an ocean trust fund. The Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on the Oceans both recommended the creation of a special, dedicated ocean trust fund as part of sweeping reports they issued more than five years ago.
"We need permanent and dedicated funding for ocean conservation and management using a portion of the [outer continental shelf] revenue," Chris Mann of Pew Environment Group said in an interview yesterday. "The spill so greatly highlights that the true cost of offshore oil and gas drilling is not just to the environment but the economy. It seems like a golden opportunity to lock in an approach that reinvests a reasonable portion of that revenue."
Allison Winter, E&E reporter
A bipartisan Senate duo is vying to create a "National Endowment for the Oceans" that would pay for conservation efforts on U.S. coasts and ocean waters -- a longstanding request from marine advocates that could gain new traction in the wake of the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) are preparing legislation that would set aside some of the money collected from oil and gas taxes for a fund dedicated to conservation of oceans and coastlines.
The bill would join a flurry of legislative efforts attempting to respond to the oil spill or highlight gaps in federal funding and policy. The bills have the potential to become part of an energy package the Senate is expected to take up this summer.
Lawmakers are also eyeing the oil-spill response package as a possible vehicle for other oceans legislation that has struggled to find time for debate on the House and Senate floor, according to congressional aides.
Staff from the Senate Commerce Committee and House Science and Technology Committee said they are looking for opportunities to contribute to the bill -- which could end up being a vehicle even for broader legislation like reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act, the aides said. The CZMA governs activities in state waters from the shoreline out to about 3 miles offshore.
Whitehouse told oceans advocates at the Capitol Hill Oceans Week conference yesterday that he and Snowe are still working on the legislation but expect to introduce it in the next few weeks. Oceans advocates and federal marine experts applauded the announcement.
At first, the fund would rely on the interest from the oil spill trust fund, Whitehouse said. A five-cent-per-barrel tax is the main funding for the oil spill liability trust fund, which would pay for federal coordinators to respond to a spill, damage claims or appropriations for research and development. The oceans endowment would likely start small and seek more money as it develops, Whitehouse added.
"To a certain extent it will have to earn its stripes," Whitehouse said.
Oceans experts have advocated for years for an ocean trust fund. The Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on the Oceans both recommended the creation of a special, dedicated ocean trust fund as part of sweeping reports they issued more than five years ago.
"We need permanent and dedicated funding for ocean conservation and management using a portion of the [outer continental shelf] revenue," Chris Mann of Pew Environment Group said in an interview yesterday. "The spill so greatly highlights that the true cost of offshore oil and gas drilling is not just to the environment but the economy. It seems like a golden opportunity to lock in an approach that reinvests a reasonable portion of that revenue."
Thursday, May 20, 2010
All You Need To Know About Bottle Vs. Tap Water
Bridging the water divide: It's not only about taste
By Carolyn Butler
Tuesday, May 18, 2010; HE02
For months now, my husband and I have been fighting about water.
Drinking water, that is. He thinks it's time to ditch our monthly bottle delivery service, because of both the expense and green guilt over all that plastic.
I concede these points but continue to play my trump card: concerns about the quality of local tap water and any potential impact on our family's health. The horrific headlines about dangerous lead levels in the District's water supply from earlier in the decade are still too fresh in my mind; it also doesn't help that lately, filling a glass from our faucet or drawing a bath smells like we're draining a swimming pool.
We had more or less come to a standstill in the water wars when I received an e-mail from the District's Water and Sewer Authority at the end of April, warning people in our neighborhood not to use the tap because of abnormally high amounts of chlorine at a local reservoir.
This type of "chlorine spike" is a concern because the disinfectant can react with organic matter in the water and produce higher levels of some disinfection byproducts that have been associated with an increased risk of cancer and DNA damage, said Nneka Leiba, a health research analyst at the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based environmental advocacy group. The April problem was isolated, however, and resolved within a few hours.
While it is comforting to know that our water is being monitored so closely and that this sort of glitch is almost immediately publicized, there are clearly some reasons to be wary of the tap, on both a national and local level. For example, a recent EWG analysis of nearly 20 million records from 45 states identified 316 pollutants found in the nation's tap water system since 2004. Of these contaminants, 114 are regulated and were found in concentrations above federal guideline level; the rest are currently unregulated. "That means these 202 contaminants" -- which include gasoline additives and rocket fuel -- "can be present in tap water at any level and it would be fine, because there are no safety standards," Leiba said.
This report didn't include the District because of a bureaucratic record-keeping issue, but Leiba said she worries about the high concentration of organic matter in the Potomac River, the District's source water, as well as the day-to-day levels of chemical byproducts and agricultural pollutants such as arsenic that end up in the tap.
WASA officials don't deny problems, past or present, but they say they're doing everything possible to keep drinking water safe. "In any system this large, you're going to have days where everything doesn't work as hoped, but our goal is to catch incidents quickly, take the necessary steps and report them to customers straight away, so they can be safe," said WASA general manager George Hawkins. He notes that in addition to some 60,000 federal aqueduct tests a year, WASA collects about 9,500 water samples and conducts 31,000 tests of its own, and then reports some monthly and all yearly monitoring data on its Web site. (According to this information, WASA was in compliance with all federal EPA guidelines for water quality and safety for 2009, and is for 2010 so far, as well.)
Since 2000, the city has regularly used chloramine instead of chlorine, specifically to reduce the levels of disinfection byproducts in the water. As for lead leaching in from old pipes, Hawkins admits that it has not yet been eliminated from all home taps, although it is currently well below the EPA action level for problems. "But any lead is cause for concern," he said. The agency recently stopped replacing water mains that are made of lead in all but a few cases, since research found that such replacements do not reduce the amount of lead coming into a house -- and might actually increase it for a time -- unless the lead pipe connecting the main to the house is also replaced. For people who can't afford such work, Hawkins recommends a simple water filter -- preferably one certified by NSF International -- which can significantly reduce the amount of metals and other pollutants in your tap water.
And how about that delightful chlorine odor and taste?
It's actually a preventive health measure -- the result of a temporary system-wide switch from chloramine back to the slightly stronger chlorine, intended to prevent bacteria buildup and make sure local water lines are clean. The substitution, which started in February, ends this week.
"We saw an uptick we didn't like and wanted to eliminate the issue before it became a problem -- to nip it in the bud," said Watkins, who acknowledges that many people notice the change in smell and flavor. For those who simply can't stomach the District's finest tap vintage, either with or without seasonal additives, Hawkins again suggests using a water filter, along with running your cold water tap for five to 10 minutes and keeping water in an open pitcher in your fridge, to help eliminate the eau de swimming pool.
Given such issues, is it any surprise that bottled water sales skyrocketed in the past decade? But just because it comes in a pretty container and by various estimates costs up to 2,000 times more than tap water, that doesn't mean its quality is higher, say experts. In fact, a recent EWG report found that 10 brands of bottled water contained a range of pollutants, including disinfection byproducts, arsenic, caffeine and pharmaceuticals.
"Testing revealed that some -- not all -- brands look remarkably like tap water, with the same signature contaminants," according to EWG's Leiba, who said that despite labels touting clear mountain springs, various studies estimate that more than 40 percent of bottled waters are sourced from purified municipal public water. "Unlike municipalities, bottled water manufacturers aren't required to disclose any of this information on their labels or Web sites -- so most of the time you have no idea what you're getting."
Indeed, all water is not monitored equally: Bottled water is regulated as a food product by the Food and Drug Administration, while tap water falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA and the Safe Drinking Water Act. "These regulations, while similar, are not identical, and in most cases, tap water is better regulated -- it's monitored more carefully, the rules for bacteria and viruses, in particular, are stricter, and the reporting to the public is better," said Peter Gleick, author of "Bottled & Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession With Bottled Water."
In the course of researching his book, Gleick found more than 100 instances of bottled water contamination leading to recalls in this country alone, a full third of which were never made public. The toxins included mold, fecal bacteria, glass particles and even crickets. "I'm not arguing that bottled water is worse quality than tap water -- I'm arguing that we don't know because we're not looking, and that when we do look hard enough and test, we find problems," said Gleick.
So what's a warring couple to do in the meantime, when it seems like the famed poetic lament "Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink" has never been more relevant? The experts go with filters. High-quality carbon filters can get rid of contaminants such as asbestos, lead, mercury and disinfection byproducts, while more-expensive reverse osmosis filters will also remove inorganic pollutants including nitrates and perchlorate. But, said Leiba, "Even simple filters can make a big difference in quality."
That may be just the armistice we need.
By Carolyn Butler
Tuesday, May 18, 2010; HE02
For months now, my husband and I have been fighting about water.
Drinking water, that is. He thinks it's time to ditch our monthly bottle delivery service, because of both the expense and green guilt over all that plastic.
I concede these points but continue to play my trump card: concerns about the quality of local tap water and any potential impact on our family's health. The horrific headlines about dangerous lead levels in the District's water supply from earlier in the decade are still too fresh in my mind; it also doesn't help that lately, filling a glass from our faucet or drawing a bath smells like we're draining a swimming pool.
We had more or less come to a standstill in the water wars when I received an e-mail from the District's Water and Sewer Authority at the end of April, warning people in our neighborhood not to use the tap because of abnormally high amounts of chlorine at a local reservoir.
This type of "chlorine spike" is a concern because the disinfectant can react with organic matter in the water and produce higher levels of some disinfection byproducts that have been associated with an increased risk of cancer and DNA damage, said Nneka Leiba, a health research analyst at the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based environmental advocacy group. The April problem was isolated, however, and resolved within a few hours.
While it is comforting to know that our water is being monitored so closely and that this sort of glitch is almost immediately publicized, there are clearly some reasons to be wary of the tap, on both a national and local level. For example, a recent EWG analysis of nearly 20 million records from 45 states identified 316 pollutants found in the nation's tap water system since 2004. Of these contaminants, 114 are regulated and were found in concentrations above federal guideline level; the rest are currently unregulated. "That means these 202 contaminants" -- which include gasoline additives and rocket fuel -- "can be present in tap water at any level and it would be fine, because there are no safety standards," Leiba said.
This report didn't include the District because of a bureaucratic record-keeping issue, but Leiba said she worries about the high concentration of organic matter in the Potomac River, the District's source water, as well as the day-to-day levels of chemical byproducts and agricultural pollutants such as arsenic that end up in the tap.
WASA officials don't deny problems, past or present, but they say they're doing everything possible to keep drinking water safe. "In any system this large, you're going to have days where everything doesn't work as hoped, but our goal is to catch incidents quickly, take the necessary steps and report them to customers straight away, so they can be safe," said WASA general manager George Hawkins. He notes that in addition to some 60,000 federal aqueduct tests a year, WASA collects about 9,500 water samples and conducts 31,000 tests of its own, and then reports some monthly and all yearly monitoring data on its Web site. (According to this information, WASA was in compliance with all federal EPA guidelines for water quality and safety for 2009, and is for 2010 so far, as well.)
Since 2000, the city has regularly used chloramine instead of chlorine, specifically to reduce the levels of disinfection byproducts in the water. As for lead leaching in from old pipes, Hawkins admits that it has not yet been eliminated from all home taps, although it is currently well below the EPA action level for problems. "But any lead is cause for concern," he said. The agency recently stopped replacing water mains that are made of lead in all but a few cases, since research found that such replacements do not reduce the amount of lead coming into a house -- and might actually increase it for a time -- unless the lead pipe connecting the main to the house is also replaced. For people who can't afford such work, Hawkins recommends a simple water filter -- preferably one certified by NSF International -- which can significantly reduce the amount of metals and other pollutants in your tap water.
And how about that delightful chlorine odor and taste?
It's actually a preventive health measure -- the result of a temporary system-wide switch from chloramine back to the slightly stronger chlorine, intended to prevent bacteria buildup and make sure local water lines are clean. The substitution, which started in February, ends this week.
"We saw an uptick we didn't like and wanted to eliminate the issue before it became a problem -- to nip it in the bud," said Watkins, who acknowledges that many people notice the change in smell and flavor. For those who simply can't stomach the District's finest tap vintage, either with or without seasonal additives, Hawkins again suggests using a water filter, along with running your cold water tap for five to 10 minutes and keeping water in an open pitcher in your fridge, to help eliminate the eau de swimming pool.
Given such issues, is it any surprise that bottled water sales skyrocketed in the past decade? But just because it comes in a pretty container and by various estimates costs up to 2,000 times more than tap water, that doesn't mean its quality is higher, say experts. In fact, a recent EWG report found that 10 brands of bottled water contained a range of pollutants, including disinfection byproducts, arsenic, caffeine and pharmaceuticals.
"Testing revealed that some -- not all -- brands look remarkably like tap water, with the same signature contaminants," according to EWG's Leiba, who said that despite labels touting clear mountain springs, various studies estimate that more than 40 percent of bottled waters are sourced from purified municipal public water. "Unlike municipalities, bottled water manufacturers aren't required to disclose any of this information on their labels or Web sites -- so most of the time you have no idea what you're getting."
Indeed, all water is not monitored equally: Bottled water is regulated as a food product by the Food and Drug Administration, while tap water falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA and the Safe Drinking Water Act. "These regulations, while similar, are not identical, and in most cases, tap water is better regulated -- it's monitored more carefully, the rules for bacteria and viruses, in particular, are stricter, and the reporting to the public is better," said Peter Gleick, author of "Bottled & Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession With Bottled Water."
In the course of researching his book, Gleick found more than 100 instances of bottled water contamination leading to recalls in this country alone, a full third of which were never made public. The toxins included mold, fecal bacteria, glass particles and even crickets. "I'm not arguing that bottled water is worse quality than tap water -- I'm arguing that we don't know because we're not looking, and that when we do look hard enough and test, we find problems," said Gleick.
So what's a warring couple to do in the meantime, when it seems like the famed poetic lament "Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink" has never been more relevant? The experts go with filters. High-quality carbon filters can get rid of contaminants such as asbestos, lead, mercury and disinfection byproducts, while more-expensive reverse osmosis filters will also remove inorganic pollutants including nitrates and perchlorate. But, said Leiba, "Even simple filters can make a big difference in quality."
That may be just the armistice we need.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Federal Government Exempts Itself From Clean Water- Interesting
Hey All:
It has been a while since my last post. I am going to try and keep this more up to date and will be making some significant changes in the coming weeks/months. Focus of this blog will shift from general politics to the politics of clean water- a passion of mine and the right of all people.
Below, see a recent article from WTOP for discussion purposes. Question- How can we expect to improve water quality if even the Federal government will not do its fair share?
WASHINGTON - The federal government is refusing to pay millions of
dollars in water bills, and that means the additional cost will
trickle down to you.
In response to unfunded mandates by the Environmental Protection
Agency, many local authorities are charging new fees.
The District of Columbia began itemizing the Impervious Area Charge on
monthly bills in order to defray the costs of this mandate to clean up
stormwater runoff that makes its way into the Anacostia River and then
into the Potomac River. The Potomac runs into Chesapeake Bay, the
nation's largest estuary.
Stormwater runoff is a leading cause of water pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
George Hawkins, general manager of D.C.'s Water and Sewer Authority,
tells WTOP if the federal government doesn't pay its bill, then
someone will have to make up the difference.
"If we don't have the revenue we anticipate from the federal
government, we will have to make up for it from other sources."
Nathan Gardner-Andrews, counsel for the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies, says those other sources will be local residents and
businesses.
"To the extent that the federal government refuses to pay its fair
share, then the economic burden falls even more squarely on the
shoulders of local rate payers," Gardner-Andrews says.
In the District, the fee is based on how much land you own, which
means the average homeowner pays about $2.20 a month. The fee for the
federal government -- which owns nearly 20 percent of the land and is
WASA's biggest customer -- is more than $2 million a year.
Hawkins says it's ironic that one federal agency is imposing the
requirements that necessitate the new fees while another agency is
refusing to pay the fees.
"Particularly since the work that we are doing is a direct result of
federal mandates. The federal government should step up and do its
part since they are such a very significant landowner in the city."
Hawkins says the federal government owns more than 30 percent of the
land that generates the stormwater runoff.
The federal government won't pay the fee because it says the fee is a
tax. WTOP has obtained a letter sent to WASA and the U.S. Department
of Treasury from Lynn Gibson, acting general counsel for the
Government Accountability Office:
"The Impervious Surface Area charges adopted by the District appears
to be a tax on property owners. If this is so, GAO's appropriated
funds are not available to pay the assessment due on April 15, 2010,"
Gibson says.
"Accordingly, we are instructing the Department of Treasury not to
make a payment to the District."
Susan A. Poling, managing associate general counsel for GSA, says
"under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, the
United States government is immune from taxation from states, cities
and other municipalities."
The dispute comes down to whether the Impervious Area Charge is a tax or a fee.
Poling says that has yet to be determined in this case.
"Whether something is a tax or a fee requires a good look at the
facts. The federal government can easily pay something that is a fee
where we are getting some kind of service, like a water bill. But we
are immune from taxation."
The dispute over stormwater fees is not limited to the District. The
GAO has sent similar letters to local municipalities across the
country:
In 2006, King County, Wash., was one of the first to get a letter.
Four years later, King County and the GAO have still not resolved the
problem.
In Seattle, taxpayers have had to make up more than $1.6 million in
drainage fees the federal government has refused to pay. "We're
pondering a wide range of solutions, including legal action,"
Assistant City Attorney Greg Narver says.
In Vancouver, Wash., the city attorney's office says the unpaid fees
are costing local taxpayers about $8,000 per month.
In Gwinett County in Georgia, it's costing residents $160,000 a year.
The City of Cincinnati took the issue to court. In 2007, the federal
government reached a settlement with Cincinnati over $100,000 in
unpaid surface water management fees the departments of Health and
Human Services and Veterans Affairs refused to pay the city. Uncle Sam
agreed to pay $17,000.
According to a 2009 GAO opinion, the settlement has "no bearing" on
the determination of other disputed fees.
Hawkins says he has a meeting scheduled with GAO to try and resolve
the billing dispute, but says if that doesn't work he hasn't ruled out
suing the federal government.
"There is a judgment call to be made here that's at a policy level."
Hawkins says. "We can appeal to the Obama Administration and if that
doesn't work then we'll take whatever legal steps we need to take."
It has been a while since my last post. I am going to try and keep this more up to date and will be making some significant changes in the coming weeks/months. Focus of this blog will shift from general politics to the politics of clean water- a passion of mine and the right of all people.
Below, see a recent article from WTOP for discussion purposes. Question- How can we expect to improve water quality if even the Federal government will not do its fair share?
WASHINGTON - The federal government is refusing to pay millions of
dollars in water bills, and that means the additional cost will
trickle down to you.
In response to unfunded mandates by the Environmental Protection
Agency, many local authorities are charging new fees.
The District of Columbia began itemizing the Impervious Area Charge on
monthly bills in order to defray the costs of this mandate to clean up
stormwater runoff that makes its way into the Anacostia River and then
into the Potomac River. The Potomac runs into Chesapeake Bay, the
nation's largest estuary.
Stormwater runoff is a leading cause of water pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
George Hawkins, general manager of D.C.'s Water and Sewer Authority,
tells WTOP if the federal government doesn't pay its bill, then
someone will have to make up the difference.
"If we don't have the revenue we anticipate from the federal
government, we will have to make up for it from other sources."
Nathan Gardner-Andrews, counsel for the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies, says those other sources will be local residents and
businesses.
"To the extent that the federal government refuses to pay its fair
share, then the economic burden falls even more squarely on the
shoulders of local rate payers," Gardner-Andrews says.
In the District, the fee is based on how much land you own, which
means the average homeowner pays about $2.20 a month. The fee for the
federal government -- which owns nearly 20 percent of the land and is
WASA's biggest customer -- is more than $2 million a year.
Hawkins says it's ironic that one federal agency is imposing the
requirements that necessitate the new fees while another agency is
refusing to pay the fees.
"Particularly since the work that we are doing is a direct result of
federal mandates. The federal government should step up and do its
part since they are such a very significant landowner in the city."
Hawkins says the federal government owns more than 30 percent of the
land that generates the stormwater runoff.
The federal government won't pay the fee because it says the fee is a
tax. WTOP has obtained a letter sent to WASA and the U.S. Department
of Treasury from Lynn Gibson, acting general counsel for the
Government Accountability Office:
"The Impervious Surface Area charges adopted by the District appears
to be a tax on property owners. If this is so, GAO's appropriated
funds are not available to pay the assessment due on April 15, 2010,"
Gibson says.
"Accordingly, we are instructing the Department of Treasury not to
make a payment to the District."
Susan A. Poling, managing associate general counsel for GSA, says
"under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, the
United States government is immune from taxation from states, cities
and other municipalities."
The dispute comes down to whether the Impervious Area Charge is a tax or a fee.
Poling says that has yet to be determined in this case.
"Whether something is a tax or a fee requires a good look at the
facts. The federal government can easily pay something that is a fee
where we are getting some kind of service, like a water bill. But we
are immune from taxation."
The dispute over stormwater fees is not limited to the District. The
GAO has sent similar letters to local municipalities across the
country:
In 2006, King County, Wash., was one of the first to get a letter.
Four years later, King County and the GAO have still not resolved the
problem.
In Seattle, taxpayers have had to make up more than $1.6 million in
drainage fees the federal government has refused to pay. "We're
pondering a wide range of solutions, including legal action,"
Assistant City Attorney Greg Narver says.
In Vancouver, Wash., the city attorney's office says the unpaid fees
are costing local taxpayers about $8,000 per month.
In Gwinett County in Georgia, it's costing residents $160,000 a year.
The City of Cincinnati took the issue to court. In 2007, the federal
government reached a settlement with Cincinnati over $100,000 in
unpaid surface water management fees the departments of Health and
Human Services and Veterans Affairs refused to pay the city. Uncle Sam
agreed to pay $17,000.
According to a 2009 GAO opinion, the settlement has "no bearing" on
the determination of other disputed fees.
Hawkins says he has a meeting scheduled with GAO to try and resolve
the billing dispute, but says if that doesn't work he hasn't ruled out
suing the federal government.
"There is a judgment call to be made here that's at a policy level."
Hawkins says. "We can appeal to the Obama Administration and if that
doesn't work then we'll take whatever legal steps we need to take."
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Uncertainties Run Amok
So what has happened since our last musing. The United States economy continues to be a rollercoaster ride few citizens on Wall Street or Main Street are currently enjoying. In one day, the economy lost more than $1 trillion in value by plunging 777 points throughout the course of business. This sent ripples throughout the global economy causing anxiety and general unease among most major western economies. The markets then "rebounded" gaining over 200 points all the while eeringly teetering on the brink of collapse. I will continue to say that such drastic changes in market conditions are signs of great uncertainty and anxiety and point to the fact that the largest of our problems await. I will say again that no-one should feel comfortable when market actions are directly affected by the actions, or inactions, of the United States Congress.
Meanwhile, the Senate passed a larger version of the financial "bailout" or "rescue" or whatever its being called in the current debate. The bill passed by the Upper Chamber has a few more "sweeteners" designed to provide political cover for Members to vote yes. This seems fine, and normally works in attracting new votes in the legislative arena, except this issue is now so high-profile and the election is so close (5 weeks) that in this case poison by any other name remains poison. Once Members vote yes, or switch their votes to yes from no, that becomes an instant talking point for the opposition candidate for the next five weeks. I can see it now, and so can the Members, "Congressman X voted to bailout greedy investment bankers while doing nothing to protect your family and our community from the horrors of foreclosure, the strain provided by rising commodity prices and the pressures of rising energy prices". If only it were that simplistic, the only problem is, in elections it is.
Our Presidential candidate's continue to tell us that passage of this bill is of critical import, but neither of them have really taken any actions to show this truism other than showing up for a vote they are supposed to show up for anyway. I imagine that if one of these candidates did speak honestly with the American people and made this a hallmark issue of their campaign, an "action item" if you will, than that candidate would see a significant rise in their polling numbers across the board. Is it possible that instead of using campaign dollars in varying state's of strategic value that a candidate could approach the national television networks and ask to pay for a 15 minute chunk of time addressing the American people? It sets a dangerous precedent for future cycles, but it almost assures a victory in 2008. But a move such as that would require political leadership and anyone who knows anything in the nation's capitol can tell you that is a tough thing to come by in today's day and age.
So here's to the lower house of Congress. Our future as a nation rests squarely in your hands, at least our prosperity for the next 5 to 10 years. A "no" vote almost ensures our continued demise, while a "yes" vote could save us from the worst economic meltdown our nation has seen in generations. This is one of those votes where elected officials have to make a tough decision. That decision is a value judgement, which is more important, the future of our nation or the future of their job? I would argue that both are intertwined and a true public servant would be able to convey that compelling message with candor and vigor to their constituents.
Meanwhile, the Senate passed a larger version of the financial "bailout" or "rescue" or whatever its being called in the current debate. The bill passed by the Upper Chamber has a few more "sweeteners" designed to provide political cover for Members to vote yes. This seems fine, and normally works in attracting new votes in the legislative arena, except this issue is now so high-profile and the election is so close (5 weeks) that in this case poison by any other name remains poison. Once Members vote yes, or switch their votes to yes from no, that becomes an instant talking point for the opposition candidate for the next five weeks. I can see it now, and so can the Members, "Congressman X voted to bailout greedy investment bankers while doing nothing to protect your family and our community from the horrors of foreclosure, the strain provided by rising commodity prices and the pressures of rising energy prices". If only it were that simplistic, the only problem is, in elections it is.
Our Presidential candidate's continue to tell us that passage of this bill is of critical import, but neither of them have really taken any actions to show this truism other than showing up for a vote they are supposed to show up for anyway. I imagine that if one of these candidates did speak honestly with the American people and made this a hallmark issue of their campaign, an "action item" if you will, than that candidate would see a significant rise in their polling numbers across the board. Is it possible that instead of using campaign dollars in varying state's of strategic value that a candidate could approach the national television networks and ask to pay for a 15 minute chunk of time addressing the American people? It sets a dangerous precedent for future cycles, but it almost assures a victory in 2008. But a move such as that would require political leadership and anyone who knows anything in the nation's capitol can tell you that is a tough thing to come by in today's day and age.
So here's to the lower house of Congress. Our future as a nation rests squarely in your hands, at least our prosperity for the next 5 to 10 years. A "no" vote almost ensures our continued demise, while a "yes" vote could save us from the worst economic meltdown our nation has seen in generations. This is one of those votes where elected officials have to make a tough decision. That decision is a value judgement, which is more important, the future of our nation or the future of their job? I would argue that both are intertwined and a true public servant would be able to convey that compelling message with candor and vigor to their constituents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)