Utilities, Manufacturers, Big Business & Pollution In Indiana
Utilities Behind Pollution Increase
MYTH: There is a "clean coal" and we have the technology to make coal-fired power plants clean, effective and economical.
FACTS: All coal burning produces TOXIC by-products and emissions which are harmful to all mammals, reptiles and birds. It pollutes our air, water and produces acid rain. Greenhouse gases are also produced and contribute to global warming. Coal mining is a dangerous profession BECAUSE the coal company lobbyists have, much like the oil company lobbyists, circumvented the process laid down by our founders and greased the palm of so many congress critters to deny basic safety equipment (i.e. effective breathing apparatus) and more stringent mining safety regulations. There is no such thing as a "clean coal" only a coal that produces LESS POISON... but still produces TONS of toxicity and pollution. We should be seeking alternative technologies and renewable resources.
IDEAS: We could use our organic wastes (i.e. garbage) as the base for producing ethanol and/or methane. The vegetable matters thrown away by our families, the chaff and waste products of farming, and the old vegetables from our grocery stores could be collected and processed for ethanol fermentation. The by-product fibers and sludge created from this processing could be used as the foundation for compost (adding other organic material like leaves, brush and certain livestock waste products [horse manure, poultry manure, or other "hard" manures]) and renewal of our top soil, gardens and farmlands.
The protein waste products, like leftover cooked meats and fats from households, waste products from meat packers and slaughterhouses, pig and cow manures [soft manures] from farms, restaurant fat and protein wastes, etc., could be collected and used to produce methane gas. This gas could be collected and used in place of (or in combination with) LPG and/or natural gas (in modified burners) for heating and cooling in both residential and commercial settings. Since methane is a clean burning fuel (in comparison to oil, LPG, gasoline, diesel, or coal) and produces 2 molecules of water for every 1 molecule of CO2, it can be easier to "clean" in smoke stacks and especially in the production of electricity at gas-burning plants.
In areas where the temperature remains over 50 degrees (F) over 6 months of the year, we can provide SIGNIFICANT incentives for installing solar panels on roofs and in empty lots to collect and use electricity, as well as provide a secondary source of water heating in residential settings (both electricity and water heating can be accomplished if the panels are configured properly).
In communities and neighborhoods with over 100, but less than 1000, housing units, a single windmill strategically placed could provide enough electricity to remove an entire rural community off the electrical service grid 8-10 months out of the year and a section of an urban community off a metropolitan city's electrical service grid 5-9 months out of a year. Additionally, the mechanical action of a windmill can pull "double duty" by operating a mechanical aerator for local ponds and water reservoirs for the purposes of adding oxygen to prevent stagnation, bacteria production (reducing the need for excessive chlorination) and movement that promotes natural cleansing processes in a water reservoir's ecosystem. Such a system could also be used in aquaculture, such as a "fish farm," for producing farm-raised fish in our own regions and markets. The use of windmills for these uses are growing in Europe, especially in Norway, Denmark, Germany and England... and a windmill produces no toxicity, no excessive greenhouse gases and no smog.
Northwestern Indiana's Lake County, with its industrial base, ranked as the seventh most toxic county in the nation, with releases of 50.3 million pounds of chemicals -- or 20 percent of the state's total output -- in 2005, according to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data released last week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In my younger days, if I brought home a report card reflecting this degree of failure and poor performance, my parents would have done more than ask me to voluntarily restrict my pollution-producing activities. There would have been some serious regulation and intervention imposed by the governing authority. Yet, in our state and nation, we are fooled by the propaganda offered by the big polluters into believing that any effort to significantly restrict the release of pollutants--especially the most toxic and/or harmful substances--would seriously injure our economy. Tell that to Nippon Steel, which is currently out-performing US steel producers not only in production and sales, but also in regard to reducing the pollution their steel industry dumps into the air, land and water (but of course, the Japanese signed on to the Kyoto accords).
The same song and dance is being sung regarding our tax structure. Bigger corporations are always crying foul about the taxes they are required to pay, crying that US taxes make it harder to compete. But, as David Sirota states in his recent book, Hostile Takeover, our big businesses are paying a de facto tax rate of 5 percent while the vast majority of Americans are paying between 28-42% of their income to state and federal taxes, without the benefit of major tax shelters, loopholes, deductions and obstruction of auditors:
If Big Business is busy peddling the lies about taxation being so burdensome, what makes us think that they are not peddling similar lies and propaganda about the cost of reducing and/or preventing pollution? If these same big businesses are so busy crying poor mouth when it comes to dealing fairly with workers and wages--all the while posting huge record profits and awarding top executives windfall bonuses and retirement packages--what evidence is there that they are telling the truth regarding the costs?
One has to wonder what schools, college or training institute produced such a wonderkind like Mr. Easterly. The IDEM and TRI data, as well as data by other researchers and research agencies, have been pointing out the same trends and facts for over 40 years. It would appear that being the commissioner responsible for reading, understanding and responding to these data and facts requires an "ostrich with his head in the sand" approach to the job. The statement that Easterly makes here appears to suggest that the data, trends and facts are news to him. But we have to ask how this could be news when almost every legitimate study over the last 50 years has demonstrated that we are polluting our environment and the vast majority of those pollutants are coming from our use of fossil fuels and other chemicals we pour into our environment by the ton on an hourly basis. The average intelligent American doesn't need a cartoon anvil to drop on their head to arrive at the insight that we are doing a crappy job of dealing with the pollution our major corporations are dumping into and onto our earth. The average seventh-grader can tell that our industries are polluting our world without the benefit of either the IDEM or the TRI data sets. Why does it take our government officials so long to realize what the rest of us recognize as a "no brainer"?
This is what David Sirota calls the "purchase of our government officials" by the big businesses that buy and sell access to our governmental leaders, which in turn co-opts these leaders and officials into selling the propaganda and public relations campaigns of the big corporations to the public. Elstro's statement, brief as it is, is a PR setup for us to swallow the real pill... nothing will be done to effectively force these utilities to reduce their reliance on polluting fuels and technologies to produce the power we use, because the utility companies do not want to give up any of the record profits they are making. Requiring a utility company to add new technology to reduce pollution, change fuels or employ "greener" technology is just as easy as telling consumers to conserve, buy "Energy Star" appliances and reduce consumption. And doing so would save more power, reduce more pollution and decrease our reliance on fossil fuels (including Middle Eastern oil supplies)... but might also reduce their profits (not due to the changes but due to reduced consumption of their services and supplies)... so it will not be done. More importantly, doing so would reduce the willingness of these corporations to "give" their money to the politicians... and they do not want these corporations to stop that money train.
I STRONGLY URGE ALL OF YOU TO READ DAVID SIROTA'S BOOK: Hostile Takeover!
Huh! Elstro's lie is revealed! Proof that my claim--and David Sirota's claim--that the corporate PR spin machine is genuinely present in the way our own officials present issues, problems, data and information to us is valid. Anyone want to bet that Elsto got a set of marching orders from his superiors or someone in the chain connected to the money flowing to some politician? I know what side of that bet I would want to be on, but you decide for yourself.
Here in Northwest Indiana, we are so happy to have any of the steel mills producing again that we don't seem to mind the pollution and contamination that they are producing. Work is always presented to us as an "either or" dilemma whenever anyone raises the issue of industrial contamination of our air, water or land. But--and this is a huge BUT!--such doesn't have to be the case. Employing cleaner fuels, cleaner technologies and newer methods can actually produce more jobs... just not the same jobs that we once knew and appreciated. Imagine jobs centered around making sure that industrial pollution is reduced and/or completely mitigated. Imagine an entire industry born out of the need to reduce, eliminate and/or remediate the industrial pollution that has contaminated our region since the 1830s. While it is true that remediation of pollution, such as reclaiming industrial brown fields, is an expensive proposition, reducing and/or eliminating pollutants is cost effective and produces jobs. We do not have to buy into the jobs or pollution dilemma presented to us by the big businesses that have been lying to us and manipulating us for over a century. Nor do we have to elect, or condone, the corporate buyout of our government by those who consistently grease the palms of the politicians and grease the wheels of the government process in such a way that it derails government from its most vital obligations of promoting our general welfare... that is OUR welfare, not the welfare of big money and/or big business.
But all of you are big boys and girls who can examine an issue and arrive at your own conclusions. By the way, this particular news report and analysis involved Indiana, but it is reflected all over the United States, in every community I have ever visited or resided. The Bible tells us that there is nothing new under the sun. So it is with corporate behavior and political corruption.
Fish Tainted, Utility's Lake Closes
As if we needed further evidence of the pollution that the last article addressed, now comes a story about a utility contaminating a man-made lake and the soils surrounding it. While the cause of such pollution is identified as unknown by the state and the utility, the reporter filing this article is astute enough to note that the very process of running an coal burning electrical plant can produce large quantities of selenium, as noted and reported by the US Department of Health and Human Services.
One would think that, if selenium is known to exist in natural rock and soil, that before a man-made lake was dug and lined, some testing of the soils and the rocks used to line the lake would have been tested for a baseline presence and the potential for seepage into the environment. Certainly the Indiana DNR, IDEM or the US EPA should have required such testing and some sort of prevention, should it not? But as noted above, Indiana is so desperate to bring business and jobs--any business and any jobs--into the state that it will overlook any damage, pollution or harm done to the environment as long as a tax base, a certain number of jobs and a certain amount of political fodder is gained.
Increases in pollution from Indiana's coal-fired power plants sent the state's overall toxic releases up nearly 5 percent in 2005 despite efforts by manufacturers to reduce their emissions, state and federal environmental officials say.
So much for our efforts to reduce emissions by testing our vehicles and instituting "voluntary" controls on factories and mills in the region. And so much for the idea of "clean coal" being pushed by the Bush administration and the majority of GOP members of congress.
MYTH: There is a "clean coal" and we have the technology to make coal-fired power plants clean, effective and economical.
FACTS: All coal burning produces TOXIC by-products and emissions which are harmful to all mammals, reptiles and birds. It pollutes our air, water and produces acid rain. Greenhouse gases are also produced and contribute to global warming. Coal mining is a dangerous profession BECAUSE the coal company lobbyists have, much like the oil company lobbyists, circumvented the process laid down by our founders and greased the palm of so many congress critters to deny basic safety equipment (i.e. effective breathing apparatus) and more stringent mining safety regulations. There is no such thing as a "clean coal" only a coal that produces LESS POISON... but still produces TONS of toxicity and pollution. We should be seeking alternative technologies and renewable resources.
IDEAS: We could use our organic wastes (i.e. garbage) as the base for producing ethanol and/or methane. The vegetable matters thrown away by our families, the chaff and waste products of farming, and the old vegetables from our grocery stores could be collected and processed for ethanol fermentation. The by-product fibers and sludge created from this processing could be used as the foundation for compost (adding other organic material like leaves, brush and certain livestock waste products [horse manure, poultry manure, or other "hard" manures]) and renewal of our top soil, gardens and farmlands.
The protein waste products, like leftover cooked meats and fats from households, waste products from meat packers and slaughterhouses, pig and cow manures [soft manures] from farms, restaurant fat and protein wastes, etc., could be collected and used to produce methane gas. This gas could be collected and used in place of (or in combination with) LPG and/or natural gas (in modified burners) for heating and cooling in both residential and commercial settings. Since methane is a clean burning fuel (in comparison to oil, LPG, gasoline, diesel, or coal) and produces 2 molecules of water for every 1 molecule of CO2, it can be easier to "clean" in smoke stacks and especially in the production of electricity at gas-burning plants.
In areas where the temperature remains over 50 degrees (F) over 6 months of the year, we can provide SIGNIFICANT incentives for installing solar panels on roofs and in empty lots to collect and use electricity, as well as provide a secondary source of water heating in residential settings (both electricity and water heating can be accomplished if the panels are configured properly).
In communities and neighborhoods with over 100, but less than 1000, housing units, a single windmill strategically placed could provide enough electricity to remove an entire rural community off the electrical service grid 8-10 months out of the year and a section of an urban community off a metropolitan city's electrical service grid 5-9 months out of a year. Additionally, the mechanical action of a windmill can pull "double duty" by operating a mechanical aerator for local ponds and water reservoirs for the purposes of adding oxygen to prevent stagnation, bacteria production (reducing the need for excessive chlorination) and movement that promotes natural cleansing processes in a water reservoir's ecosystem. Such a system could also be used in aquaculture, such as a "fish farm," for producing farm-raised fish in our own regions and markets. The use of windmills for these uses are growing in Europe, especially in Norway, Denmark, Germany and England... and a windmill produces no toxicity, no excessive greenhouse gases and no smog.
Northwestern Indiana's Lake County, with its industrial base, ranked as the seventh most toxic county in the nation, with releases of 50.3 million pounds of chemicals -- or 20 percent of the state's total output -- in 2005, according to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data released last week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Overall, Indiana ranked fifth worst among states in the amount of toxic chemicals released into the air, water and land. The annual survey tracks nearly 650 chemicals, including many linked to cancer and other serious health problems, but does not include some sources of pollution such as automotive emissions.
In my younger days, if I brought home a report card reflecting this degree of failure and poor performance, my parents would have done more than ask me to voluntarily restrict my pollution-producing activities. There would have been some serious regulation and intervention imposed by the governing authority. Yet, in our state and nation, we are fooled by the propaganda offered by the big polluters into believing that any effort to significantly restrict the release of pollutants--especially the most toxic and/or harmful substances--would seriously injure our economy. Tell that to Nippon Steel, which is currently out-performing US steel producers not only in production and sales, but also in regard to reducing the pollution their steel industry dumps into the air, land and water (but of course, the Japanese signed on to the Kyoto accords).
The same song and dance is being sung regarding our tax structure. Bigger corporations are always crying foul about the taxes they are required to pay, crying that US taxes make it harder to compete. But, as David Sirota states in his recent book, Hostile Takeover, our big businesses are paying a de facto tax rate of 5 percent while the vast majority of Americans are paying between 28-42% of their income to state and federal taxes, without the benefit of major tax shelters, loopholes, deductions and obstruction of auditors:
"Yes, it is true, the official corporate tax rate in America is 35 percent. It is also true, however, that because of lax enforcement, loopholes, and evasion, most corporations never come close to paying that rate. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2004, 94 percent of major corporations pay less than 5 percent of their income in taxes. Because of this, corporate tax payments in the United States are at their second lowest level in sixty years. In all, the actual corporate tax rate (as opposed to the official one) is lower in America than in every other industrialized country other than Iceland. Put another way, unless your company studies subartic volcanic islands in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean or can't survive without the music of Bjork, there is no better place in the industrialized world than this country to base a corporation intent upon evading taxes." - David Sirota, "Hostile Takeover" : page 31
If Big Business is busy peddling the lies about taxation being so burdensome, what makes us think that they are not peddling similar lies and propaganda about the cost of reducing and/or preventing pollution? If these same big businesses are so busy crying poor mouth when it comes to dealing fairly with workers and wages--all the while posting huge record profits and awarding top executives windfall bonuses and retirement packages--what evidence is there that they are telling the truth regarding the costs?
The data showed manufacturers in the state decreased toxic pollution by 1.6 million pounds, but electric generating facilities increased toxic releases by 7.4 million pounds, according to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). Utilities accounted for 45 percent of the state's total toxic releases while manufacturers accounted for 53 percent of the total. IDEM Commissioner Thomas Easterly said the data from the Toxic Release Inventory helps his agency better understand trends in toxic releases.
"Examining TRI data and talking to the source helps IDEM understand the reasons behind increases and how we can help sources integrate pollution prevention practices," he said.
One has to wonder what schools, college or training institute produced such a wonderkind like Mr. Easterly. The IDEM and TRI data, as well as data by other researchers and research agencies, have been pointing out the same trends and facts for over 40 years. It would appear that being the commissioner responsible for reading, understanding and responding to these data and facts requires an "ostrich with his head in the sand" approach to the job. The statement that Easterly makes here appears to suggest that the data, trends and facts are news to him. But we have to ask how this could be news when almost every legitimate study over the last 50 years has demonstrated that we are polluting our environment and the vast majority of those pollutants are coming from our use of fossil fuels and other chemicals we pour into our environment by the ton on an hourly basis. The average intelligent American doesn't need a cartoon anvil to drop on their head to arrive at the insight that we are doing a crappy job of dealing with the pollution our major corporations are dumping into and onto our earth. The average seventh-grader can tell that our industries are polluting our world without the benefit of either the IDEM or the TRI data sets. Why does it take our government officials so long to realize what the rest of us recognize as a "no brainer"?
IDEM spokesman Rob Elstro said the increase in toxic releases by utilities was caused by three factors: an increase in the amount of power generated, changes in the blends of coal burned, and a revision in how toxic emissions at power plants are calculated.
This is what David Sirota calls the "purchase of our government officials" by the big businesses that buy and sell access to our governmental leaders, which in turn co-opts these leaders and officials into selling the propaganda and public relations campaigns of the big corporations to the public. Elstro's statement, brief as it is, is a PR setup for us to swallow the real pill... nothing will be done to effectively force these utilities to reduce their reliance on polluting fuels and technologies to produce the power we use, because the utility companies do not want to give up any of the record profits they are making. Requiring a utility company to add new technology to reduce pollution, change fuels or employ "greener" technology is just as easy as telling consumers to conserve, buy "Energy Star" appliances and reduce consumption. And doing so would save more power, reduce more pollution and decrease our reliance on fossil fuels (including Middle Eastern oil supplies)... but might also reduce their profits (not due to the changes but due to reduced consumption of their services and supplies)... so it will not be done. More importantly, doing so would reduce the willingness of these corporations to "give" their money to the politicians... and they do not want these corporations to stop that money train.
I STRONGLY URGE ALL OF YOU TO READ DAVID SIROTA'S BOOK: Hostile Takeover!
The update in the way utilities calculated emissions resulted in more accurate emissions reporting, Elstro said. However, an IDEM announcement said the increase was mostly due to increased power production and the type of coal burned.
Huh! Elstro's lie is revealed! Proof that my claim--and David Sirota's claim--that the corporate PR spin machine is genuinely present in the way our own officials present issues, problems, data and information to us is valid. Anyone want to bet that Elsto got a set of marching orders from his superiors or someone in the chain connected to the money flowing to some politician? I know what side of that bet I would want to be on, but you decide for yourself.
Vectren's A.B. Brown power plant in Posey County reported an increase of more than 214,000 pounds while its F.B. Culley generating station in Warrick County reported a 10,800-pound increase.
Vectren spokesman Mike Roeder said power generation rose from 6.51 million megawatt hours in 2004 to 7.24 million megawatt hours in 2005. "One of the issues that we constantly struggle with is our customers are using more energy. We are working very hard to try to do the right thing in environmental stewardship and leadership. It's a balancing act," he said.
Duke Energy's Gibson Station near Princeton showed an increase of more than 1 million pounds. Spokeswoman Angeline Protogere said the addition of other pollution controls at the plant contributed to the higher levels of other pollution reported. She added the burning of more coal to generate more electricity also played a role.
In Lake County, Mittal's Indiana Harbor East facility in East Chicago released 25.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals, a more than 10-fold increase from 2004, the EPA reported. Indiana Harbor East ranked second on the list of Indiana polluters, behind only Nucor Steel in Crawfordsville, and 16th nationwide.
Here in Northwest Indiana, we are so happy to have any of the steel mills producing again that we don't seem to mind the pollution and contamination that they are producing. Work is always presented to us as an "either or" dilemma whenever anyone raises the issue of industrial contamination of our air, water or land. But--and this is a huge BUT!--such doesn't have to be the case. Employing cleaner fuels, cleaner technologies and newer methods can actually produce more jobs... just not the same jobs that we once knew and appreciated. Imagine jobs centered around making sure that industrial pollution is reduced and/or completely mitigated. Imagine an entire industry born out of the need to reduce, eliminate and/or remediate the industrial pollution that has contaminated our region since the 1830s. While it is true that remediation of pollution, such as reclaiming industrial brown fields, is an expensive proposition, reducing and/or eliminating pollutants is cost effective and produces jobs. We do not have to buy into the jobs or pollution dilemma presented to us by the big businesses that have been lying to us and manipulating us for over a century. Nor do we have to elect, or condone, the corporate buyout of our government by those who consistently grease the palms of the politicians and grease the wheels of the government process in such a way that it derails government from its most vital obligations of promoting our general welfare... that is OUR welfare, not the welfare of big money and/or big business.
But all of you are big boys and girls who can examine an issue and arrive at your own conclusions. By the way, this particular news report and analysis involved Indiana, but it is reflected all over the United States, in every community I have ever visited or resided. The Bible tells us that there is nothing new under the sun. So it is with corporate behavior and political corruption.
Fish Tainted, Utility's Lake Closes
As if we needed further evidence of the pollution that the last article addressed, now comes a story about a utility contaminating a man-made lake and the soils surrounding it. While the cause of such pollution is identified as unknown by the state and the utility, the reporter filing this article is astute enough to note that the very process of running an coal burning electrical plant can produce large quantities of selenium, as noted and reported by the US Department of Health and Human Services.
One would think that, if selenium is known to exist in natural rock and soil, that before a man-made lake was dug and lined, some testing of the soils and the rocks used to line the lake would have been tested for a baseline presence and the potential for seepage into the environment. Certainly the Indiana DNR, IDEM or the US EPA should have required such testing and some sort of prevention, should it not? But as noted above, Indiana is so desperate to bring business and jobs--any business and any jobs--into the state that it will overlook any damage, pollution or harm done to the environment as long as a tax base, a certain number of jobs and a certain amount of political fodder is gained.
A lake at a southwestern Indiana power plant was placed off-limits to anglers because high levels of selenium were detected in fish.
Fishing will not be allowed in the 3,000-acre manmade Gibson Lake that provides cooling water for the coal-fired Gibson Generating Station west of Princeton, pending a study of the fish and water quality, said Duke Energy Indiana spokeswoman Dawn Horth.
"We don't know exactly the source of the selenium," she said, noting it was detected in fish tissue but not in the lake water. "Selenium is biocumulative; that is, it's within the food chain for the fish."
The selenium may have come from limestone used to line the lake, she said. Selenium dust can also be produced by burning coal, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The company in Princeton, 30 miles north of Evansville, will work with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources to find the source of the selenium, Horth said.
Selenium is a naturally occurring mineral found in rocks and soil. At high levels, it can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Long-term exposure can cause hair loss, brittle nails and numbness.
Horth said preliminary data indicate selenium levels in Gibson Lake fish are below the EPA's recommended guidelines for recreational fishing, but higher than levels recommended for people who rely on fish for subsistence or as a primary part of a regular diet.
posted by Jim Downey at 9:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home