Tag Archives: pollution

The Green New Deal

The Green New Deal is a proposal to address global warming and economic inequality. It is widely feared by conservatives as a proposal designed to take away freedom – and cars and money and hamburgers and airplanes. Nonsense.
What it is is a very broad brush plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and the release of other greenhouse gases in ten years. Although the timeline is unreasonable, the objective of necessity will be accomplished in the longer term.
Under the plan, sustainable energy sources will be expanded to eliminate the use of fossil fuels for electricity production. Wind and solar with battery backing can eliminate the need for any fossil fuel use for electricity production. This is already underway, as the use of coal has been cut in half in just the last two to three decades.
At the same time, grid-scale batteries are becoming a thing. The City of Fayetteville will soon begin utilizing a ten megawatt solar panel system with energy storage in batteries – intermittency is not an issue with battery backup. Entergy is planning to close two coal fired plants and is building its own solar farms.
In our economy, the transportation sector is the largest user of fossil fuels. Electrification of transportation is in its infancy but happening none the less. Tesla, the biggest manufacturer of electric cars, has sold over a half-million vehicles since they began in 2012. Electric long haul trucks, semis, are in development and will hit the highways in 2020. Electrification of the rails is a no-brainer, it exists already on a limited scale and can be expanded nation-wide.
A tougher nut is aviation. Jet fuel, essentially kerosene made from crude oil, is an ideal energy source as it is very energy dense. To eliminate the use of fossil fuels from aviation will require either of a couple of solutions. The most likely, especially in the short term is to manufacture fuel synthetically from renewable sources.
Biodiesel from oil crops like soybeans is a possibility but would compete with cropland for food production. Better would be the use of waste organic matter as a feedstock for fuel production. This is already happening but needs to be done more efficiently.
Electrification of aviation has already been achieved but is a long way from commercial airlines’ scale. A battery-powered single engine plane with a range of four hundred miles has been flown in England.
The cost of the total conversion to sustainable energy systems will require considerable investment in research and infrastructure, but at the same time it will create quality jobs in an increasingly automated economy. The increased tax revenues from these new jobs can offset some of the costs.
Then there is the issue of what is the cost of doing nothing. Hurricanes in the East, flooding in the Midwest, and wildfires in the West are already costing hundreds of billions of dollars a year and will only get worse from inaction. Our future depends on facing the reality of climate change. The sooner we address the issue the less costly it will be.

Recycling Woes

There are problems with recycling both locally and nationally. Recycling nationally is being impacted by global politics. Until recently China bought much of our recyclable material. Of late however, they have decided that for both domestic reasons and reasons relating to the trade wars that they will no longer be buying our material. Without that international market the price of some recyclables has been plummeting.

Meanwhile waste has been showing up throughout the biosphere, from vast “islands” of bulk plastics in certain regions of the oceans to microplastics in the guts and even flesh of ocean fish and invertebrates.

Locally, the county has recently decided that the provision of recycling bins in London, Dover, and Hector is too expensive. The only alternative now is for everybody to haul recyclable materials an extra 25 or so miles to the county shop in Russellville. Previously, the bins were available at all hours every day. The county shop location is only open during business hours.

Even in Russellville, recycling is less effective for those without curbside pickup. The city of Russellville’s site at Recycle Works now collects recyclable materials in large open bins with no separation of the material. Previously, enclosed bins with compartments for the different materials were employed. Now, everything is thrown together in the open bins and thus exposed to the weather. This results in much lower yields of usable recyclable material and more waste that must then be hauled off to a landfill.

Again the argument is one of cost. It is cheaper to utilize the open bins, even though the process is less effective. On a recent visit to Recycle Works, I saw a large screen TV and what appeared to be some food waste commingled with the actual recyclable material.

Without recycling opportunities in rural areas, it is likely that we will see an increase in wastes, including recyclables, being dumped in the bar ditches of back roads and ravines. Out of sight, out of mind?

There certainly were some problems with some misuse of the recycle bins. Essentially the bins have been utilized for trash dumping. But abandonment of the process will not make the problem go away. Wouldn’t enclosed bins both rurally and in Russellville be less likely to be abused as trash depots? In this day and age, simple video monitors could be employed. This would help with enforcement of existing laws against littering.

This is a public health matter. I think most the people of Pope county want to do the right thing. The people want waste properly managed and recycling opportunities maintained. In the long run, educating and assisting the public in recycling is going to yield a better outcome at a lower cost.

Better still is to reduce the amount of waste going into the system. Container deposit laws ensure a much greater return of materials for recycling. In Arkansas, several attempts at deposit legislation over the past decade have failed to become law. New bills will be introduced in 2019.

Dr. Bob Allen, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Arkansas Tech University.

Troubled Water – The Buffalo National River

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to compile a biennial list of impaired bodies of water in the state. A number of physical, chemical and biological parameters gathered by the ADEQ and other participating agencies are used to determine impairment.

Examples include physical impairment such as sediment, chemical impairment from any number of things but likely nutrient overload, and biological impairment such as fecal coliform bacteria. The standard for any given water body is not uniform but depends on the designated use of said water body.

The highest standard involves extraordinary resource waters, drinking water and water where there is primary (swimming) and/or secondary (wading, fishing) human contact. At the other end of the scale would be cooling water for industry. The objective of the standards is always to protect both human health and the environment in the least restrictive way.

Problems occur when these objectives clash. The ADEQ recently released its 2018 draft 303(d) list and for the first time, a section of the Buffalo National River was listed as impaired. A section of our national treasure and a tributary, Big Creek, are impaired due to elevated E. Coli (bacterial contamination) and low Dissolved Oxygen.

Notably, the area of impairment is adjacent to the controversial C&H hog farm. This farrowing operation raises several thousand hogs a year. Although the farm itself is locally owned the hogs are raised under contract with Brazilian giant JBS S.A, the world’s largest processor of beef and pork. The farm generates about two million gallons of feces and urine annually which is temporarily stored in lagoons before being sprayed on surrounding pasture and hay fields.

The farm was originally permitted by the ADEQ in 2012 and controversy was immediate. Opponents of the farm claimed that there was little to no public notice as required by ADEQ regulations. The farm was shortly thereafter sued for failure to conduct a proper Environmental Assessment (AE) as required by the US EPA.

Upon expiration of their initial permit, a renewal was requested. This was denied and to this date, the farm has been allowed to continue operations during their appeal of the permit denial.

The State has taken several steps to study the issue. First was a scientific group, the Big Creek Research and Extension Team, BCRET funded by the Governor’s office. This study was begun by Governor Beebe and continued by Governor Hutchinson.

More recently created is a type of public interest group, the Beautiful Buffalo River Action Committee, BBRAC. This ad hoc committee created by Governor Hutchinson is comprised of the heads of several state agencies.

In a considerable irony, this committee which was created for the sole purpose of addressing the clamor surrounding the hog farm, decided not to include the farm in its purview. At the last public meeting of BBRAC, a member of the audience commented that every one in the room was there because of the issue surrounding the hog farm yet the action plan did not address the farm.

The declaration of impairment of a 14-mile segment of the river and an adjacent tributary is a black eye for the state of Arkansas for its failure to protect the watershed of the Nation’s first federally protected river.

Permitted Pollution?

The Mt Judea hog factory is going back to court. The factory was first permitted in 2012. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) granted a Regulation 6 permit for the factory. Trouble followed immediately. Opponents of the factory rightly claimed that little to no public notice was given before the factory was permitted and the Reg 6 permit had no site-specific considerations.

The several thousand hogs produce close to two million gallons of waste per year. This stinky brew of urine and feces is spread on hay fields which drain into Big Creek, about six miles from the Buffalo National River. Environmentalists claim that the nutrient pollution washing from the hay fields pollute the Buffalo and threaten hundreds of jobs and a 60 million dollar annual tourism industry.

In 2016 the Reg 6 permit expired. The factory then sought a Reg 5 permit which if granted continued without requiring renewal. The factory continued to operate while ADEQ examined the new permit request. Last month the ADEQ denied the new permit request which the factory is currently appealing. There should be a decision within a couple of months.

Supporters of the factory claim that the factory is operating within the rules of the ADEQ but the environmentalists claim the factory is polluting Big Creek and the Buffalo. They are both right.

The factory has been inspected on numerous occasions and has operated without a violation. At the same time, there is clear evidence of pollution from the factory. Currently, there is a five-year moratorium, begun in 2015, for any new medium to large Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). The purpose was to allow time for a study to be done evaluating the impact of the factory on the watershed. Governor Beebe funded the Big Creek Research and Extension Team (BCRET) to collect and evaluate the necessary data.

Pollution from the CAFO comes principally from excess nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate. They make their way by washing from the soil into Big Creek and thence the Buffalo. Also, the whole of the Buffalo watershed is underlain by the Boone formation which contains much porous limestone called Karst. This porosity can provide multiple paths for the pollutants to move from the field to underground streams, springs, and wells then into the Buffalo.

Factory proponents want to blame the tourists for nutrient pollution. Granted there will be some, but no way will the million annual visitors leave a couple of gallons each of urine and feces in the watershed.

They also claim that feral hogs in the watershed contribute to the pollution, but the feral hogs are only eating and excreting nutrients already in the watershed – the plants and animals which they eat. On the other hand, the CAFO hogs are eating and excreting nutrients imported into the watershed, an imbalance show by the BCRET data.

Most telling is the data from two gauging stations on Big Creek, one upstream of the spray fields and one downstream. Nitrate measurements downstream average 50 % higher than upstream. The measurements of soluble phosphate show a greater than 100 % increase in concentration downstream compared to upstream. This pollution stimulates algae growth and a subsequent reduction in dissolved Oxygen.

Choking algae blooms and reduced Oxygen negatively affect the numbers and health of fish and other aquatic organisms. Will tourists come to fish for carp in the future? Or will we decide that there are better locales for raising hogs?

Trump’s attack on the Environment

If one sentence could encapsulate the Trump administration’s approach the environment it would be “ Modern air is a little too clean for optimum health.” This is a statement made by Robert Phalen, a Trump appointee to the Science Advisory Board, Environmental Protection Agency. Trump and his minions seem to be working to reverse the work of the previous decades in protecting the environment and the health of the planet.

Although much of his effort has been focused on reversing Obama era regulations, the focus is actually much broader. Fossil fuels producers and various and sundry extractive industries are favored without the burdensome regulations meant to protect our health and the environment.

In 2007 during the Bush presidency, the supreme court ruled that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and the EPA has the responsibility to regulate it. CO2 is the major greenhouse gas driving climate change. And what is Trump’s response? He appointed Scott Pruitt, a climate change denier, to head the EPA.

Trump withdrew from the Paris Accords, an agreement among every country on the planet that recognizes the reality of anthropogenic global warming. This can’t be overstated. Every single country, besides us, be they capitalist, communist, socialist, monarchy, or whatever agree that actions must be taken to prevent or at least mitigate climate change caused by global warming. Everybody but us. Every scientific body including those in the United States. Friends and enemies alike, every single government, but us.

President Obama created the Clean Power Plan, meant to gradually but substantially wean us off the use of fossil fuels in electrical power generation. In October Trump proposed repealing the clean power plan in favor of increased use of coal. Ironically deregulating the use of coal will most likely have no effect to “bring back coal” because it is economics, not regulations, that has caused such a decline in its use. They will, however, have the effect of delaying the development of sustainable energy production from wind and solar.

Trump has also proposed a repeal of the methane rule. Methane, otherwise known as natural gas is a potent greenhouse gas in its own right. The methane rule was meant to tighten regulations concerning its release to the atmosphere during production and distribution. Sadly, it is cheaper to be sloppy and allow fugitive emissions that contribute to global warming.

In what must be one of the worst-timed deregulatory actions, Trump repealed a construction standard meant to reduce damage from flooding only days before the worst flooding ever in the Huston area. The standard would have added less than 1 % to the costs of construction in flood-prone areas but saved much in the long run.

One accounting suggests the Trump has repealed or rolled back 60 different rules that protect our health and the environment. These actions are out of step with most Americans. Polling consistently shows that three-quarters of the electorate favor increased environmental protection whereas less than a quarter feel the current efforts to protect the environment have gone too far.

Hottest Year Ever

Drum roll please, and the hottest year in recorded history is…wait for it… 2016! Actually this is not so surprising. The previously hottest year in history was 2015, and the next hottest before that 2014. If you think you see a trend there you do.

With the exception of 1998, the 15 hottest years ever occurred in this century. 2016 was 2 degrees hotter than the average of the 20th century. In contrast the last recorded coldest year was in 1911, over a century ago. These records have been recorded in the troposphere, the atmospheric layer closest to the ground. Sea surface temperature measurements are congruent.

The culprits for the heating are anthropogenically generated (man- made) releases of green house gases to the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide causes over half of the radiative forcing so it is the major player but Methane, otherwise known as natural gas is a close second. The concentration of Methane in the atmosphere has recently been spiking and the likely source is fugitive emissions from fracking.

The new president has claimed that his EPA will “protect the environment and human health”; however, he has on numerous occasions called global warming a hoax. He has claimed that because it is cold outside (in the winter of course) that global warming doesn’t exist. He has claimed that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by climate scientists profiting from their research. The only thing making any sense here is that he would see money as the driver for any research outcome.

It’s not just the scientists here in the USA, every scientific body on earth that has addressed the issue agrees, global warming is real and a threat to both the environment and human health. This bears repeating: No scientific body of national or international standing holds a formal opinion denying the reality of global warming.

The actions so far in the new presidency seem to reinforce his prior proclamations. His selection to head the EPA is Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s Attorney General. Attorney General Pruitt has sued the EPA over numerous regulations designed to clean our air and water. He has begrudgingly accepted that it is getting warmer, but questions humanity’s responsibility. Further he questions what if anything we should be doing.

Rick Perry, former governor of Texas and the selection to head the Department of Energy is similarly poorly informed on climate science. Perry has recently softened his stance. Previously he claimed the science of global warming was a “contrived phony mess.” Now he thinks it’s real but efforts to combat it should not cost American jobs. Study after study has shown that there are many more jobs created with sustainable energy over continuing to exploit fossil fuels.
Regulations in the sights of the president include previous efforts of several presidents going back to Jimmy Carter. Look for lifting of the transportation fuel efficiency standards, blocking the clean power plan to regulate power plant emissions, and reduced restrictions on coal mining and use.

Preventing additional accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is a zero sum game. You either add or you don’t. Utilizing fossil fuels adds, using sustainable energy supplies such as wind and solar don’t.

Exxon valdez cleanup

Trump, the Environment, and the Cabinet

It would appear that president-elect Trump thinks our air and our water are too clean and If he is successful we are likely to have less of both (and there is no reason to assume he won’t be successful due to the republican majorities in both houses of congress.)

Oddly, in 2009 he signed a letter along with numerous business leaders to President Obama encouraging him act. “”We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today” … and further “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”

Now his pronouncements are just the opposite. In 2010 he said that Al Gore should have his Nobel peace prize revoked because he decided that global warming was a hoax. His evidence du jour was the fact that it was winter and snowing. Later still he expanded on the hoax idea claiming that not only were the world’s scientists conspiring to promote a hoax but apparently doing so at the bidding of the Chinese who invented the hoax in the first place.

So when Trump takes office in January which one will show up ? Will it be the Trump of “catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity …” or the more contemporary Trump of 2015: “it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, okay? It’s a hoax.” Some how it is not surprising that Trump sees money as the only motivation.

Based on a few cabinet nominations it looks like the recent Trump will show. Scott Pruitt, nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency is currently the Attorney General of the state of Oklahoma, the politics of which are dominated by the oil and gas industry. In this position he has sued the EPA numerous times to block the EPA from enforcing regulations aimed to protect our air and water. If the Senate approves the nomination, it will mark a sea change at EPA. Every previous administrator at EPA has worked to protect the environment and relied on sound science.

Another critical cabinet position is the Secretary of Energy, currently headed by a theoretical physicist with a PhD, Ernest Moniz. The Energy Department oversees not only our overall energy policy but also controls our nuclear armaments. Trump’s pick is Rick Perry former Governor of Texas and a friend of the fossil fuel industry. In 2008 Perry ran for president. One of his planks was the elimination of the Energy Department. With no small irony, during a debate he was asked to name the departments he intended to eliminate. He only had to remember the names of three departments, but he remembered only two – Energy was not one of them.

Although the mission of the state department is only tangentially related to the environment, Trump’s selection speaks volumes. Nominated for Secretary of State is none other than the CEO of Exxon-Mobile, the world’s largest player in the fossil fuel industry. Rex Tillerson as head of Exxon-Mobile had planned a 500 billion dollar deal with Russia to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic. When Russia annexed Crimea and was implicated in shooting down a commercial airliner over Ukraine, sanctions from the US and other western powers made the artic drilling deal null and void. Mr. Tillerson noted at a news conference in 2015 that he looked forward to lifting the sanctions on Russia. Drill baby Drill.

Crude Movements

It seems that oil pipelines are in the news of late. Some of the new pipelines are to deal with the expanded production of crude oil here in the US. New and better technology – hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and directional drilling have resulted in the need for transportation of that oil, pipelines generally being the cheapest.

We produce about 10 million barrels of crude oil per day and import another 10 million barrels from sources all over the world. Most of this is turned into fuels such as gasoline and diesel fuel and only a pittance for non-fuel petrochemicals.

But are pipelines the best way to go? Other methods to move the crude oil from where it is produced to where it is refined include barges, rail cars and tank trucks. What is the best way to do it? It depends entirely on what metric you use to measure “best.”

If you simply want to compare the least oil spilled when normalized for amount of total oil transported per distance moved (ton/mile) the ranking is barges and tankers are better than rail is better than pipeline is better than truck.

If your metric is human deaths and property destruction we get a different rank: barge is better than pipeline is better than rail is better than truck. How about environmental damage? Because aquatic environments are more sensitive the ordering becomes: Rail is better than truck is better than pipeline is better than barge.

Oh but it gets more confusing, because so much of the crude oil moves by pipeline, about 70%. Another 23% by barge and tanker, trucking 4% and rail transport a mere 3%.

If a decision were made to go to more trucking for example the change for the better (or worse) would not necessarily be linear. More trucking would mean more congestion, hence an increased risk of untoward events even after adjusting for total oil moved.

There is already some evidence of the non-linearity of change. From 1975 to 2012 trains were much shorter and had very few spills, but the recent oil boom means a higher proportion of oil moving by train. Because of longer trains and more frequent crashes, more oil was spilled in 2013 alone than the previous 37 years.

It is just not a simple “what is the best.” This conundrum is reminiscent of a senate hearing back in the 1970s. Ed Muskie was conducting a hearing as to the risks of the supersonic Concorde flying over the United States. The committee’s chief scientist said, “Senator, we’re ready to testify,” and Muskie responded, “Okay, tell me what the answer is. Is this going to be a danger?” The scientist responded “I’ve got these papers here that definitely tell us this is going to be a danger.” Muskie was ready to conclude right there, but then the NAS scientist interjected, “On the other hand, I have another set of papers over here that says these papers aren’t good enough to know the answer.” Incredulous, the senator looked up and yelled, “Will somebody find me a one-handed scientist?!”

A one-handed scientist may produce a simple answer, but it won’t necessarily be the only or best answer.

Wood as Fuel


The capture and control of fire is right up near the top when one considers technology and human evolution. Whether simply warming the hearth, defending a home place from wild animals or cooking food, fire is a most essential ingredient. Estimates are that an ancestral species Homo erectus learned to control fire ½ a million years ago, and some scholars believe as early as 1.7 million years ago.

Wood fueled the production of the various metal ages up to and including the iron age. Wood was still the dominant fuel used in blast furnaces in early 19th century England. In fact it was the shortage of wood for the furnaces that stimulated the development of the use of coal. Forests were gradually cleared farther and farther from the furnaces until transportation costs made hauling the wood impractical.

Wood, straw, dung, etc are still major fuels in the underdeveloped world. Worldwide wood is the fourth largest source of fuel after the fossil fuels – coal, oil, and natural gas. Wood and derived products like charcoal are about one third of all fuel use in Africa and over half in Oceania.

Industrial fuel wood use in the United States is limited. Certain industries that produce significant amounts waste wood can burn it to produce steam for process heat or to drive turbines.

The amount of heat derived from burning wood varies as the density of the wood with hardwoods such as oak and hickory having the highest fuel values. At the other end of the scale are softwoods such as pine. This is only true where the wood is measured by volume such as a cord (a stack of wood 4 feet by 4 feet by 8 feet- 128 cubic feet.)

When measured by mass all wood has about the same fuel value which is the same as the fuel value of carbohydrates like sugar or potatoes. A toothpick and a piece of spaghetti of the same weight will produce the same amount of heat when burned.

In rural areas where available, wood is used for space heat. It may be hard to think about it now in August, but come January or so, there will be nothing like a hot wood stove to back up to on a cold morning. An air tight wood stove can be a useful source of heat, but an open fireplace, regardless of how attractive, will actually remove heat from a room.

Wood can be a renewable energy source but just how “green” is it? Not all that much. There is much waste when wood is harvested for fuel, it’s call the “roots and shoots” issue. The roots below ground and the unused branches and leaves mean that a lot of biomass is wasted.

The biggest drawback about use of wood as fuel is the burning. Any time something burns varying amounts of noxious products are produced. Fine particulates damage respiratory systems and cause asthma, especially in children. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons produced by combustion are carcinogenic. Carbon Monoxide production can be deadly. It interferes with oxygen absorption in the blood and result in acute respiratory failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

It is estimated that over 4 million premature deaths a year can be blamed on cooking and heating with biomass, essentially all in the underdeveloped parts of the world.

Toxic Beaches

algal bloom

algal bloom

Beaches in several counties on Florida’s Atlantic Coast are currently closed due to the presence of slimy, malodorous and most importantly toxic algae. The algae growth comes from nutrient laden water being released from Lake Okeechobee to prevent flooding. For the back story read on.

Thomas Malthus was a English cleric who in 1798 published an essay which suggested that human disaster loomed due to over population. He postulated that population grew logarithmically [1,2,4,8,16…] whereas food production only grows arithmetically [1,2,3,4,5…] Malthus predicted famine and starvation were the only possible outcomes without controlling population growth.

The Malthusian Catastrophe of course didn’t come about. Although population is growing logarithmically agricultural practices have been able to sustain burgeoning human populations. Improved tools, irrigation, mechanization, fertilizers, pesticides,plant breeding and ever larger farms averted the catastrophe.

An important agricultural innovation was called the Green Revolution of the 1950s-1960s. Food production was increased by careful selection of plant cultivars which responded favorably to large increases of Nitrogen and Phosphorous fertilizers. Application at rates far above what a crop could actually absorb did result in increased production, but resulted in fertilizer run-off. Increased profits from the crops offset the wasted fertilizer.

But everything goes somewhere. The excess fertilizer washes off the farmland and into adjacent low areas to rivers and lakes, and ultimately into the oceans. Just as the fertilizer increases crop production in farm fields, it increases algal growth in the rivers and lakes.

The Atlantic beaches in South Florida are being fouled with algal blooms from water draining from Lake Okeechobee. The fertilizer laden water is the result of run-off from sugar cane fields which have replaced much of the Everglades.

Besides the inconvenience and costs associated with lost tourism dollars, there is significant secondary environmental damage. After an algae bloom comes an algae crash. As the algae dies off it decomposes aerobically. That means it consumes the Oxygen in the water. The same Oxygen that all the animals require, from the simplest aquatic insects up to and including all the fish.

In certain locales there are “dead zones” with little if any animal life. All the coastal areas of the US, including the Great Lakes, are plagued by dead zones at the mouths of major rivers. They are know scientifically as hypoxic (low-Oxygen) zones and range in size from less than a square mile to over 25,000 square miles. The largest is essentially all of the Baltic Sea. The hypoxic zone at the mouth of the Mississippi is about 7,000 square miles

Around the world there a several hundred of these sterile areas. We have averted the Malthusian Catastrophe for us, but created a catastrophe for the native flora and fauna of the planet.