The Problem With Coal and Politicians

The EPA has been charged with reducing the pollutants released into the environment, but they are meeting opposition from power companies, politicians, and people who want cheap energy, though other people and the environment may suffer the consequences.

 The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking a 95 percent reduction in emissions at three of Oklahoma's coal-fired power plants. This has brought howls from the utility companies and from Oklahoma's politicians. Utility companies claim that installing scrubbers or converting to natural gas will cost them billions of dollars and drive the rates for electricity up by 10 to 12%. The utility companies have defined the costs for the plant conversions or upgrades in the worst possible terms, without considering the long-term savings. Conversion to natural gas would eliminate the problem of coal combustion products such as acidic gases, mercury vapor, fly ash, and bottom ash. Although coal is cheaper than other fuels, it delivers less energy per unit of CO2 produced. Coal produces 314 kJ/mole while natural gas produces 890 kJ/mole, almost 3 times that of coal. Considering Oklahoma's abundant supplies of natural gas, it would make sense for Oklahoma to begin switching power plants to natural gas.

The power companies and the politicians have tried to define the problem as the cost of the "elimination of haze", as if there were no other environmental damage done by burning coal. That is because the elimination of haze under the Clean Air Act is all the EPA is presently empowered to do. Coal is 65 to 95 % carbon. What about the rest? Coal contains small amounts of mercury, chromium, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur, particulates, and radioactive isotopes. Man burns 6 billion tons of coal each year, releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the air and leaving several hundred million tons behind in the coal ash. Some pollutants eventually find their way into the water, the food chain, and into us. Oklahoma has adopted limits on fish consumption because of high levels of mercury. For comparison, mercury is 100 times as toxic as cyanide, arsenic is 20 times as toxic, and chromium(VI) is 4 times as toxic. These three are also are carcinogenic and accumulate in tissue. Even exposure below the allowed levels increases the chance of cancer over time. The small town of Bokoshe, Oklahoma is located near an uneregulated fly ash disposal site. The incidence of cancer among the residents of the town is extraordinarily high, though the power company claims there is no link between that and their fly ash.

The sulfur and nitrogen oxides released by coal combustion harms plants and produce acid rain. A recent article headlined "Pecan growers say coal-fired plant killing trees" described the plight of orchards downwind from a power plant with inadequate pollution controls. One farmer said his pecan crop dropped over the years from 200,000 to 8,000 pounds. The combustion of coal also releases 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Because of CO2, the oceans have become over 20% more acidic in the last century. That has lead to the destruction of coral reefs and endangered crustaceans and the phytoplankton that convert CO2 to oxygen. Without phytoplankton, life in the oceans would be impossible. The concentration of CO2 in the air has increased 38% as well. As a potent greenhouse gas, it is causing the Earth to warm, glaciers and polar ice to melt, and the climate to change in ways we will not always like. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, ordered the EPA to make a determination as to whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The EPA has found, based on the best scientific evidence, that CO2 is an endangerment to public health and has moved forward to regulate it.

Oklahoma's politicians, such as Sen. Jim Inhofe and Congressman Dan Boren, are working on a solution- for the power companies benefit. They want to strip the EPA of some of its power to regulate pollution. They also claim it is a states rights issue, and that the EPA has no business regulating Oklahoma industries. However, the pollution generated by Oklahoma's power plants does not stay within its borders, nor is all the pollution in Oklahoma from Oklahoma sources. Much of it blows up from Texas, the state with the most power plants out of compliance. Acidic gases released by coal combustion, and even mercury vapor, can travel for thousands of miles before being brought to Earth by precipitation, and much of the CO2 will stay in the air for centuries. Regulation of carbon emissions needs to be done on a national and even international level. It is a bad idea to focus on short term economic costs while ignoring the environmental costs, such as polluting the Earth and letting rural Oklahoma become a dumping ground for the power companies' waste.

(C) 2011 J.C. Moore
References for this article are available at http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/03/17/the-problem-with-coal-and-politicians/.

Dr. J.C. Moore is a physical chemist whose interests are spectroscopy,computational chemistry, professional ethics, and science education. He taught chemistry, physics, and general science at the college level for 38 years. Since retirement, he has established http://JCMooreonline.com, a website that examines current events from a science and research perspective.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jesse_C_Moore

Cigarette Butts - A Problem Pollutant

Flick. One cigarette butt leaves the car via the window and lands at the side of the road. Nobody gives it a second thought until later, when viewing the news, there's a report of a serious fire that destroyed acres of woodland, several buildings and threatened the lives of both humans and animals.

Yes, it happens, and far too often. A cigarette butt that isn't properly extinguished, even when dropped on the ground as we walk, can cause incredible damage. They've been known to blow into front-gardens where they've settled by a flammable object, and within a few minutes a butt dropped without thought has damaged an innocent person's property. They've rolled under cars where they've ignited oil leaks and blown into the faces of small children. Improperly extinguished cigarette butts have a lot to answer for.

But extinguished or not, cigarette butts are still one of the major pollutants of our time.

Wherever people tend to gather, there are always an increased number of cigarette butts to be seen. I think most will agree that they're ugly, but aesthetics aside, it's the toxins in the accumulated butts that are the real problem.

During storms and heavy rainfalls, the accrued butts are likely to find their way into drains where they are carried to rivers and/or the sea. Within each butt is a collection of dangerous toxins that were never meant to enter our bodies. That's why the filters are there, they're designed to catch and collect those toxins. Smoking tobacco --Nicotiana tabacum -- is a member of the nightshade group of plants and contains deadly poisons. In fact, nicotine, in its pure form, is the deadliest of all plant products known to man.

A spent cigarette butt holds a high concentration of nicotine which, once wet, leaks out into our rivers and seas along with 165 other substances, including arsenic, lead, benzene, butane and formaldehyde. Don't you think it's strange that lead's been banned from use in paint and yet is perfectly legal in cigarettes?

Since it's become increasingly popular to ban smoking inside buildings, more and more butts are finding their way into the environment. They're the most common form of litter worldwide and, unbelievably, make up almost half of all litter found outdoors. That's a lot of dog-ends!

Another problem is the time that the plastic wrapping and the filters themselves stay in the environment. Contrary to popular belief, cigarette butts aren't biodegradable. They're made of 95% cellulose acetete, a form of plastic that takes up to 25 years to decompose. Maybe one small cigarette butt isn't going to make a huge difference to the environment, but when several trillion of them are thrown away annually, they pose a very definite threat to our collective well being.

The Solution
If you're a smoker, consider using a portable ashtray. You don't need to buy one that's specially designed for the job, any foil wrapping (such as that found around mints and some other types of sweets/candy) will do.
If you manage a public building where people congregate in numbers, install ashtrays where smokers are likely to gather. You may feel that by doing so you're encouraging smoking, but the truth is, smokers will smoke regardless of whether there's an ashtray available; they just won't pollute quite as much.

Organise a local clean up. While nobody likes to clean up after others, it's a better alternative than leaving the butts to pollute our environment.

Conclusion
You may think that your few butts won't make any difference as long as others continue to pollute, but you'd be wrong. Changes can only come about when some go forward as good examples for others to follow.
And if a child in your neighbourhood becomes seriously ill through ingesting a cigarette butt (s)he found on the street (yes, it happens), at least you'll know it wasn't your butt.

Sharon Jacobsen, a full-time professional writer based in the UK, is an ex-smoker now embarrassed at having once been part of the problem. Hopefully, by helping others become aware of the problem, she'll be able to ease her own conscience somewhat.

If you'd like Sharon to write compelling and informative articles for your website, ezine, newsletter, or print magazine, please visit [http://www.sharon-jacobsen.co.uk] for further information.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sharon_Jacobsen