Energy magnate T. Boone Pickens welcomed U.S. plans to expand offshore drilling and said, “the Obama announcement was “an important step” to help the U.S. energy market decrease its reliance on foreign oil.” (Source: UPI.com)

While the big oil companies are probably happy with the announcement, environmentalists have widely criticized the plan to expand offshore drilling. Tommy Landers, policy advocate for Environment Maryland said that “At a time when we need to tackle both our dependence on oil and the threat of global warming pollution, this proposal takes us backward,”. (Source: hometownannapolis.com)

Some environmentalists in Alaska say Obama’s new offshore drilling plan is a disaster for wildlife and climate (Source: ktva.com). Doug O’Malley, field director for Environment New Jersey said, “Environment New Jersey is outraged by President Obama’s announcement today on offshore drilling. It makes no sense to threaten the east coast of America, including the Jersey Shore, with spills and other drilling disasters when we’re about to unleash the real solutions to oil dependence — cleaner cars, cleaner fuels and clean energy,”. According to the Environment New Jersey, the new offshore drilling could meet at best a tiny fraction of U.S. daily consumption.

We like to hear your opinion on the topic. Do you think offshore drilling is the right direction for the United States?

Please post your comments here!

Photo Source: eva8*

Twenty percent of Americans do not want to drink tap water (America’s Environmental Report Card, MIT). About 27 percent of the population in England and Wales refuse to drink water directly from the tap (The Independent). People who avoid drinking tap water cite quality and safety of the tap water as the main reasons. On the other hand, many organizations in number of countries have started to promote increasing tap water consumption. For instance, Veolia Water in the Czech Republic is promoting using tap water in restaurants and cafes. CBCNews reported that Metro Vancouver campaigned for promoting municipal tap water during the recent Winter Olympic games. New York city also ran a campaign to promote consuming tap water (NPR).

Drinking tap water has many environmental benefits as it reduces the use of plastic bottles. There are many other benefits of drinking tap water. For instance, some believe drinking tap water reduces the consumption of sugary beverages, helping to reduce obesity and diabetes.

What’s your take on drinking tap water? Do you think it is safe enough for everyone? If not, what steps are needed to remove safety concerns?

Please post your comments here!

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received petition from environmental advocacy group to implement strict pollution control upgrades at the Four Corners Power Plant. The goal is to reduce emissions of haze-causing pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and particulate matter in the vicinity of the plant. The estimated cost of upgrades at the plant range from $500 million to reduce at least 30 percent of the pollution to $1.06 billion upgrade to reduce as much as 90 percent of haze-causing pollutants.

Although APS recognizes the benefits of upgrades at the plant, the company is concerned that higher upgrade costs could force shutting down portion of the plant, resulting in loss of 300 jobs at the area plant and affecting additional coal mining jobs at the San Juan Mine.

According the EPA, the agency is in the process of reviewing 6,700 submitted public comments on the issue and drafting the proposal of potential improvements at the plant. While the agency is busy, we like to know your views on the issue.

Do you think the EPA should ask the APS to implement the expensive improvements to improve the air quality at the expense of potentially job loss?

Please post your comments here!

Sources: Daily-Times , PNM

The industry and environmentalists continue to argue about using coal tar sealant. So, let’s look at advantages and disadvantages of coal tar sealant. Hopefully, it would help you form your individual opinion.

Some of the advantages of coal tar include; (1) Coal tar provides better chemical resistance over Asphalt coating. (2) Coal tar has higher durability (3) Coal tar is less expensive (4) and coal tar has extremely low permeability to moisture and there high dielectric resistance, both of which contribute to the corrosion resistance.

However, coal tar has significant health related issues. Some of the chronic effects of coal tar elements are; changes in liver and harmful effects on the kidney, heart, lungs, and nervous system. The federal agency claims that coal tar contains probable cancer-causing chemicals. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, contaminated house dust is linked to parking lots with Coal Tar Sealant. In addition, PHAs that are part of coal are considered toxic to fish and other aquatic life.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to announce ruling this year in September on whether the coal tar should be classified as hazardous. Many cities have voluntarily banned the use of coal tar sealant. Should all remaining cities ban coal tar sealant immediately?

Submit your views here.

The use of corn-based ethanol as a renewable fuel has been always surrounded with the controversies. The proponents claim that the ethanol will help reduce future fossil fuel or gasoline shortages, improve farmers’ income, prevent global warming, and would be a great investment. The opponents are concerned that ethanol as a fuel is quite corrosive, has less net gain energy, uses large amount of water, increases food prices, and has adverse impact on the environment.

Both sides present their cases with strong arguments. Ed Wallace in his column on BusinessWeek wrote that ethanol is a scam. He said, “Don’t let anybody mislead you: The new push to get a 15% ethanol mandate out of Washington is simply to restore profitability to a failed industry”. Growth Energy which is an ethanol trade group responded with another article rebutting all claims made by Ed Wallace. Growth Energy mentioned, “In his column, Mr. Wallace fails in his journalistic duty to provide readers with the facts. He relies on anecdotal evidence in support of his erroneous claims while completely ignoring the large body of scientific literature that supports the use of higher blends of ethanol in vehicles”. To read full counter arguments of Growth Energy, read Growth Energy Responses to BusinessWeek.com Article.

Each group may have their own agenda. We like to know your views as an independent person. Do you consider corn-based ethanol as a renewable fuel and worth the investment? or you think that ethanol based fuel is a scam favoring a particular industry on the expense of oil industry?

Post your comments here!

The Vermont Nuclear Power Plant is located in Vernon, VT and run by its umbrella company, Entergy.  The plant produces enough energy for one million homes and employs approximately 600 workers. The company states that rules and regulations are followed meticulously. They also contribute 19 million dollars to the state’s Clean Energy Fund.

For the last few years the plant has struggled with tritium leaks. The most recent being found in January 2010 in one of the monitoring wells on site.   Though it was determined by the Vermont Department of Health that the levels found were not dangerous if encountered, concerns have been made over the leak possibly reaching the nearby Connecticut River, a major body of water. The source of the leak is still undetermined.

Vermont Yankee is in the process of renewing the license for the facility for another twenty years.  This is where the division begins.  Activists, environmental groups, and residents of three states (totaling seventy people) came together with a signed petition against the renewal of the VT Yankee’s license. On January 19th, they walked 126 miles from Brattleboro to Montpelier, VT, the state capital.

Governor Jim Douglas, one who has supported VT Yankee, is beginning to (like others) distrust Entergy and VT Yankee officials after several misleading or false statements, such as the existence of underground pipes. Entergy has been accused of being dishonest and deceitful.

Again, this issue highlights the common argument over nuclear energy.  Some of the main objections many have heard or said pertain to the fear of possible accidents and nuclear waste disposal, while popular advantages boast no atmospheric pollution and reliable and powerful energy production.  Both these points have legitimate examples, too.  There have certainly been nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl. In the case of VT Yankee, energy production, jobs, and monetary values are the good examples.

There are so many aspects to each side of this debate.  This debate will continue and be more frequent as we increasingly rely on science to solve our problems. What is your opinion on nuclear energy?  The situation of Vermont Yankee?  Could more strict regulation help, or should we decide not to take the risk of producing nuclear energy?

Post your comments below!