Guest Blogger: The Adirondacks and Acid Rain: Still a Problem

We sometimes forget that the mountains to our North are in constant danger from an invading enemy. This enemy has slowly but surely destroyed complex ecosystems in the Adirondack lakes, and has severely decreased the vegetation on mountain tops. And while public attention in the Northeast was focused on this issue in the 1970s and 1980s, it is sad to think that the attention has slowly subsided. The enemy which strikes silently, but indeed does kill is acid rain. Acid rain is a mixture of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide which mixes with the natural water molecules in the air. When normal rain falls, there is usually enough of a natural barrier where any acidity in the rain can be neutralized. However, in the most recent decades in the Adirondacks, “Precipitation [has been] more than 200 times more acidic than natural rain” (Student Case Studies 1). Naturally forming bases that counter the acidity simply can’t keep up with the amount of acid rain that is falling.

Acid rain does not just form naturally in high doses on a common basis, so it must come from somewhere. The nitrogen and sulfur dioxide is air pollution spewed out by factories and other industrial sites in the mid-west. This air pollution is carried on the natural wind belts, where it is dumped in the form of precipitation over the Adirondacks. This is the part of the acid rain debate that becomes complex. While it is easy to assume that less air pollution will mean less acid rain, that means industrial centers in places such as Illinois and Ohio will take an economic hit because regulations on production will cause those companies to lose money. And in this modern age of capitalism, we know how important money and profit is to everyone, so wouldn’t it be a shame if some of those companies lost some profit? It is an even bigger shame to
lose a natural wonder like the Adirondack Mountains, which at one point in the history of the earth, were taller than the Himalayan Mountains are now.

A solution to this problem is not easy to find. If all pollutants are cut substantially, people in the mid-west will be angry that their businesses and livelihoods are being threatened. This in turn gets the political side of the debate involved. Representatives from that part of America begin to attack representatives from the Northeast who are also hearing complaints from their constituents who want tighter rules to protect natural sites. It is interesting to learn that, “Utility companies that burn coal and produce the most acid rain also produce the cheapest electricity in the country” (Adirondack Council 23). So cheap and profitable electricity is fighting against lakes, trees, and dozens of different types of wildlife. Seems like a one sided fight, especially since the electricity is being backed by big businesses.
In 1992 in light of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the EPA created an acid rain control program, “Designed to reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions by 50 percent nationwide” (Adirondack Council 23). Experts on the subject still argue that this is still not low enough, and this does not solve the problems with nitrogen based air pollution, which still causes acid rain. According to a report created by the Adirondack Council, there are only a few solutions which are plausible in the political world of the present. One is to give the EPA more authority in making cuts as it sees fit. The EPA argues that it does not have the authority to make any more cuts by itself. A drastic measure which would surely help the acid rain problem, but would most likely anger people in the mid-west would be to, “Reduce the cap another 50 percent. This would bring the total reduction in pollution down to 75 percent below 1990s levels” (Adirondack Council 23). Of course all attempted solutions will now come with a political debate, as well as scrutiny from all angles of observation.
I have come to believe that many people think the problem of acid rain has dissipated since the 1980s when it was a major public concern. This essay has proven that there are many problems still unsolved in the issue of acid rain. Poisonous rain still falls, so not enough has been done yet. As a profound believer in the protection of our national parks, and with the Adirondack Park being one of the biggest, acid rain destruction must be stopped.
Matthew Barron is a History and Political Science Double Major at Rider University, and is an avid hiker, camper, and enthusiast of the Adirondack Park.
Bibliography Adirondack Council, 1998. Acid Rain: A Continuing National Tragedy.
Student Case Studies, Environmental Geology, 1997. Acid Rain in the Adirondacks. Colgate University.

Hurricane Irene Outliers

Lawrence Solomon discusses a new article in Nature regarding a link between solar hot spots and climate change.

Editors at the WSJ argue for President Obama to delay new EPA rules on air pollution.

Paul Krugman employs a subtle attack at the relatively uniform position of many of the GOP’s presidential candidates, except Huntsman, on climate change.

Are the spoils of war detrimental to the environment?

How good, or bad, were the National Hurricane Center’s (NHC) predictions of Hurricane Irene?

Toby Harnden felt the lead up to Hurricane Irene was too hyped.

Environmental Action Day

A student of mine just sent me a link to Environmental Action Day set for Monday June 20, 2011 beginning at 9am in Trenton, NJ. The event has been coordinated by a coalition of environmental advocacy groups in the state including Environment New Jersey, NJ Sierra Club, NJ Highlands Coalition and other concerned organizations. The agenda for the event includes focusing on the following issues:

  • Protecting the Delaware River from Gas Drilling (Fracking)
  • Defending existing climate change legislation (RGGI and the NJ Global Warming Response Act)
  • Protecting clean energy funds
  • Defeating Gov. Chris Christie’s environmental loophole rule (waiver rule)
  • Opposing Assembly member Burzichelli’s Bill to weaken environmental standards.

If you can’t make the lobbying in the morning, there will also be a rally at noon on the steps of the state capital building. If you’re in Trenton tomorrow, try to make it out and support the cause!

For more information or to register for the event, contact Doug O’Malley at 609/ 392-5151, ex. 311 — domalley@environmentnewjersey.org
Matt Elliott at (609) 392-5151, ex. 310 – melliott@environmentnewjersey.org

Environmental Action Day

Sponsored By
Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, CWA Local 1036, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Environment New Jersey, Food & Water Watch, New Jersey Audubon Society, New Jersey Conservation Foundation, New Jersey Environmental Federation, New Jersey Environmental Lobby, NJ Highlands Coalition, NJ Sierra Club, NY / NJ Baykeeper, Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, Teamsters Local 877, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, Work Environment Council

Monday, June 20th
9:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m., Committee Room 16, 4th Fl., State House Annex
12 p.m. Rally on the State House Steps

Guest Blogger: It isn’t easy being green…

And it certainly hasn’t generated any green to date.   We keep hearing about investments in green technology and all of the “green jobs” that will be created, but I don’t see any progress on either front, especially here in Pennsylvania.  What I do see is the Pennsylvania legislature hiding behind the issue of the environment as they raise corporate and energy taxes.   Our esteemed leaders in Harrisburg seem to be ignoring the lessons to be learned by New Jersey’s eight year experiment in passing the costs of government fiscal irresponsibility on to private businesses and corporations:  their cash cows are moving out of state in search of greener pastures.
Suspicious of state Representative Steven Santasiero’s call for a new severance tax on the natural gas already being drilled on state land, I did a little research.   The severance tax is linked to the legislator’s opposition to a proposal to expand the amount of state land to be offered for lease for gas drilling in 2011.[1] Obviously, the state earns revenue from the leasing of their land and expanding the program would generate additional revenues.  Taking the expansion off the table would leave an even wider gap in an already unbalanced budget, and my esteemed representative proposes to fill that gap with an additional tax on gas drilling.
So how much does the commonwealth currently earn on land leases for gas and oil drilling? According to the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNR) website, the commonwealth receives at least $2,000 per acre plus an 18% royalty on the resources harvested there.[2] Now Mr. Santasiero’s wants to tax these corporations – Gulf/Chevron, Cabot Oil & Gas, Texaco, Inc., Berea Oil  Gas, Amoco Production Company, Delta Drilling Company, Consolidated Gas Supply – even more on top of the lease amount and the royalties they already pay.  How many times can you go to the same source for more money?
Eventually it won’t make sense for these employers of a large number of Pennsylvanians to do business with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  At that point we will no longer receive lease payments, royalties, or the additional tax proposed by Mr. Santasiero, creating an even wider gap in the fiscal budget and putting more Pennsylvanian’s out of work.
Just three years ago under the State Forest Resource Management Plan 2007 Update, the DCNR recommend a lifting of the “ban” on shallow gas- leasing, along with a revised oil and gas lease.[3] Now Mr. Santasiero wants to stop that plan dead in its tracks by introducing the additional burden of a severance tax on all current and future successful gas drilling.
If you haven’t noticed, Mr. Santasiero, we have enough problems to solve without creating additional barriers to business in the Commonwealth.  You would better serve your constituents by focusing on the development of long term solutions to our fiscal and energy issues – even creating green technology and green jobs if that’s a viable way out – without sacrificing successful programs already in place.
With a burgeoning shortfall and upcoming national and state elections in November 2010, our political hopefuls will say and do just about anything to get elected.  They’ll continue linking the economy with environment in their campaign messages – and a real solution may actually exist in that linking – but don’t be fooled by their vague references to green technology, green jobs, punishing polluters, etc.  They’re going to make decisions about our forests, our natural resources, our economy, our jobs – they have to be able to balance it all or they shouldn’t get the job! 

In addition to being a recent graduate of political science at Rider University, Lisa Hibbs serves as a volunteer for the Bucks County Republican Committee.

[1] Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus Representative Steven J. Santasiero, “Santasiero Urges Governor to Call Off Additional Land Lease for Gas Drilling,” Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus, http://www.pahouse.com/PR/031020410.asp (accessed March 1, 2010). [2] Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bid Notification, “Notice to Bidders: Oil and Gas Lease Sale,” Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/Forestry/gaslease.aspx (accessed March 1, 2010). [3] Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau of Forestry, “State Forest Resource Management Plan (SFRMP) 2007 Update Executive Summary,” Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/Forestry/gaslease.aspx (accessed March 1, 2010).

Guest Blogger: Dredging the Delaware detrimental to local environment – and economy

There is no question that the Delaware River is not the busy shipping channel it once was, but is an extensive dredging project with a 9-figure price tag really the best way to revitalize it? Punctuated by the closing of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in 1995, the Delaware has experienced a decades-long decline in traffic. For almost 20 years, the battle over dredging the river has raged on.
Following a ruling by a federal judge last month, the Army Corps of Engineers was ready last week to begin the project. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and several environmental groups have expressed concerns over the environmental and economic impact of the dredging. Work has been delayed while the appeals court hears a case from five environmental groups seeking to block the project, and this court should strongly consider overturning the ruling made in January.
The environmental impact of this project is unquestionable. The Army Corps of Engineers plans to dispose of the dredged-up soil in South Jersey, but the last time these sediments were tested for quality was over a decade ago. Without up-to-date data, the Army Corps should be finding it difficult to provide a reasonable estimate of the effects the dredging project would have on the ecology of South Jersey. Instead, they propose to more forward as is, already seeking approval for remaining sections of the river. As Christie noted, “It is irresponsible for the Army Corps to push this dredging project forward.” The Army Corps of Engineers and local governments should be taking time to more carefully assess the environmental impact this project will have on the Delaware River Valley.
The emphasis on this renewed push to begin the dredging has much to do with the current economy – proponents assert that deepening the river will attract larger shipping companies, whose ships have deeper drafts, thus bringing much-needed jobs to the region. I do not disagree with this point. However, it seems like the costs and benefits have not been properly analyzed. The project is currently expected to cost about 300 million dollars. With the number of organizations, governments and interests involved, it is likely that this figure will become larger as the project wears on. The states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey are virtually drowning under their budget woes, freezing spending in some areas and issuing large budget cuts in others. The federal government will be unlikely to provide much aid, with the national debt growing exponentially and the current administration fixated on healthcare reform. It is unreasonable to say the potential economic gains will outweigh the great monetary cost of this project at this time.
In the long run, deepening the Delaware River will likely attract more companies, and jobs to the region. Similar projects have been undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers in other shipping lanes around the country, including North Jersey / New York a few years ago. However, as Governor Christie noted, it seems as though this particular project is not being treated with the same environmental caution as in New York. Done properly, dredging the Delaware can certainly bring economic benefits to the region without harming the environment. Proper caution cannot be exercised without recent, reliable data, one thing that seems to be missing from the planning of this project. I am not saying that environmental and marine science groups need to spend another decade analyzing sediment samples, migratory fish patterns, etc. But this project should not proceed until there is a clear picture of what harm will come to local environments and what economic benefits will come to the region. Old data are unreliable for forecasting environmental impact. Creation of jobs is far from guaranteed. The facilities for naval transport in Philadelphia, Wilmington and Camden have all deteriorated after years of sitting vacant or being underused. Large companies like Hanjin and Maersk will not want to spend the funds needed to rehabilitate docking facilities.
The Army Corps of Engineers and local planning councils have a good idea in dredging the Delaware, but hasty initiation and haphazard planning will undoubtedly lead to a project that does not achieve the goals it was designed for, while harming the local environment in the process. Proponents of deepening the channel should continue to assert the economic benefits of the plan, while coming up with a better way of disposing of the waste.

 

James Onofrio is a senior at Council Rock High School North who does not approve of the current plan to deepen the Delaware River