Candidates for the environment

Which of the 2008 candidates have the most credibility to serve environmental causes? Certainly no republicans, and surprisingly not even half of the democrats. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich's unimpressive general statements about what environmental policy measures they would enact as president, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson offer specific solutions.

Each of the aforementioned candidates supports reducing carbon emissions 80 percent or more by 2050 and increase automobile fuel efficiency, but beyond this consensus they each offer very different solutions to address global warming. Do any of the candidates' plans have potential?

Dodd wants to eliminate U.S. dependence on oil from the Middle East by 2015. Edwards proposes to establish an annual $13 billion fund, financed by polluters, to be used towards renewable energy initiatives, as well as reduce imports of oil by 7.5 million barrels a day by 2025. Obama plans to decrease the carbon content of all U.S. transportation fuels 5 percent by 2015 and 10 percent by 2020. He would also provide automakers health care assistance in exchange for their investing 50 percent of the savings into technology to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. Finally, Richardson supports introducing 100 mpg in the market as a means of reducing oil imports to only 10 to 15 percent.

Renewable energy in Utah's future?

Utah currently lags behind other states in the Rocky Mountain region in terms of energy efficiency, but this could change dramatically The state is positioning itself to be the next major producer and exporter of renewable energy sources. However, industry leaders are unable to move forward with development without government incentives and tax credits.

Using today’s energy consumption levels, experts in the field say that Utah has enough geothermal and wind resources to provide 9.9 million people with power. Moreover, solar technology could meet the needs of 1.4 billion people. The Utah Clean Energy commission states that adopting renewable energy policies would save the state more than $7 billion.

The cost-benefits are clearly unmistakable. It’s about time, the state and federal government start subsidizing clean energy alternatives, and reduces funding to traditional fossil fuel and nuclear energy corporations.

Dirty air looms over Colorado's Front Range

This year, Denver and parts of the Northern Colorado Front Range, which include Boulder, Larimer and Weld counties, exceeded air quality control standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Under EPA’s Clean Air Act, ozone levels are not to surpass .08 parts per million. According to Environmental Defense consultant Isaac Silverman, levels need to remain between .06 and .07 to protect human health.

Ozone levels in Fort Collins alone reached as high as .088 last summer, placing Larimer County in violation. There will be many repercussions in addition to the obvious environmental impact. “Once you’re in non-compliance, it’s very difficult to get out of it,” said Mike Silverstein of the Colorado Air Pollution Control division.

Despite hurting economic development, it will be beneficial for area industries to face tighter pollution restrictions, and for the State of Colorado to implement more stringent vehicle emissions standards. After all, poor air quality is unhealthy for us and the environment.

Natural gas drilling yields NORM

The Barnett Shale, located in North Texas, is the second largest producing natural gas field in the United States and is responsible for generating more than $5 billion in revenue each year. Drilling of this underground reservoir continues at a fervent pace; however, lately it was discovered that all this mining is stirring up more than just profitable fuel—naturally occurring radioactive material, known as NORM is also surfacing.

NORM, which is odorless and colorless, can travel through natural gas pipelines, contaminate groundwater and concentrate in houses and buildings. It’s dangerous to people and animals if ingested or inhaled. Health experts warn that continued exposure to radioactive material is known to cause various forms of cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, it's a leading cause of lung cancer.

Despite the known threats, and over 1,000 barrels of radioactive waste produced from the decontamination of Barnett Shale sites in Denton, Tarrant and Wise counties, oil and gas companies forge ahead. Drilling operators are even practicing urban leasing, offering attractive royalty payments to homeowners in return. Thankfully more residents are being informed of the health risks and are and putting up a fight.

The downside of rock climbing

The trend of rock climbers leaving their mark on national treasures doesn’t appear to be changing for the better. Yosemite National Park, Joshua Tree National Park, Arches National Park and Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area are all being marred by participants of this popular sport. Erosion, holes drilled into bare rock faces, cut trees, and abandoned gear strewn through forest floors are just a few of the offenses.

Like Marek Warzawski of the Fresno Bee put it, “As the number of people climbing boulders increases, so too do concerns about the damage they can do to the ecosystems that surround these rocks.”

Some climbing enthusiasts and park rangers believe that much of the disrespect to nature is owed to fact that many city slickers partake in the sport; they learn in artificial rock gyms and then try to transition that man-made environment to the outdoors during weekend getaways. Imparting ethics to this novice group is a challenge rangers and fellow climbers will be facing in years to come.

Mile High City battles the brown cloud

Only three decades ago, Denver’s air quality trailed Los Angeles, ranking second worst in the country. Today, the Mile High City is meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency. Despite tremendous improvement, the city is battling to continue reducing air pollution as the population swells, construction escalates, the number of automobiles on the roads increase, and oil and gas companies drill ardently to meet consumer demands.

The six most common pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and lead. Ground-level ozone, predominant in cities, is usually caused by industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, car exhaust, and chemical solvents.

Who’s to blame for Denver’s infamous brown cloud? Most pundits, including the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, fault the energy corporations for producing these contaminants. In their defense, industry officials accuse the laggards who still drive of older, gas-guzzling vehicles which don’t adhere to current emissions standards.

Regardless of who or what is responsible for the degradation of Denver’s air quality, people’s health is at risk. When the Air Quality Index is especially high, the Colorado Health Department warns residents to limit their time and activity outdoors, to avoid developing respiratory problems. Young children, the elderly, and people with pre-existing health conditions are especially vulnerable.

Does Kyoto have a fighting chance?

The short answer is probably not. There are a number of reasons why the fate of the Kyoto Protocol appears so bleak. One reason is that the United States was influential in shaping world policy at a recent convention, hosted by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, that focused on limiting environmental policy.

The U.S., led by President George W. Bush, and some of the world's top polluters reconsidered policies that aimed to reduce greenhouse gases and instead chose to circumvent the Kyoto Protocol altogether. The mission of the meeting was to create new energy strategies like developing nuclear power and storing carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants. Bush also proposed a plan that would essentially turn the new pollution policies over to the next presidential administration.

America's decision to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol remains very controversial because 112 countries, including two of the world's fastest growing polluters, India and China, have now signed it. Initially, U.S. exclusion was based on the worst perpetrators not being a part of the protocol, but that claim can no longer be made since the U.S. now ranks among them.

The success of the Kyoto Protocol in regulating the environment is dependent on forward momentum and the guidance of a global leader. It's unlikely this will be achieved now.