J.C. Moore Online
Current events from a science perspective.

Posts Tagged ‘Environment’

Older Entries
Newer Entries

It’s Not Cap-and-Tax and Reagan Made It Work

Fri ,18/02/2011

Our current Congressional leaders, particularly those who would ignore science or derogatorily call Reagan’s system “cap-and -tax”, should look to Reagan as an example.

The U.S. has been unable to make much progress on environmental issues because of opposition by our Republican leaders. They have inflated the cost while ignoring the benefits, labeled environmental issues as “liberal” to discourage support by conservatives, spread false “science”, and biased voters against a cap-and-trade approach by labeling it cap-and-tax.  My own Congressman, Frank Lucas,  espouses the current Republican leaders’  views and calls it “cap-and-tax” in his town hall meetings and in his “Frankly Speaking” articles that he sends to small town newspapers in Oklahoma.

Many Republicans recently celebrated Ronald Reagan’s hundredth birthday as he is considered a unifying figure who skillfully blended principle, pragmatism, and service to the nation. He was a thoughtful, traditionalist conservative who was mindful of our stewardship obligation to future generations. He preserved many wilderness areas so they could not be damaged by economic development. The way he solved two pollution problems should set an example for Republican politicians today.

During the 1980s, scientific evidence mounted that the CFCs from spray cans and refrigerants were damaging the ozone layer. The layer filters out UV light which can cause skin cancers and environmental damage. Reagan ignored the political disputes, the ideological posturing, and the claims of economic disaster – and followed the advice of the scientists. He signed into effect the Montreal protocol, banning emissions of CFCs into the atmosphere. The economic catastrophes never came to pass and the ozone layer is recovering.

When Canada became alarmed that emissions from Northeastern power plants were drifting into Canada and acidifying their lakes, Reagan proposed a market solution to the problem. He devised a cap-and-trade system whereby polluters had to pay by buying credits while companies who reduced their pollution would receive credits. In spite of initial complaints, the system worked well and it cost far less than the power companies claimed it would – and none went out of business.

The scientific evidence has become clear and convincing that man’s release of CO2 is causing our climate to change, endangering the environment and the health of future generations. Yet, many of our Republican leaders are unwilling to accept the scientific evidence. The industries involved are saying it will be too costly, and some are claiming it will ruin our economy. The cap-and-trade system put forward to address the problem is stalled by misinformation and political controversies. Our current Congressional leaders, particularly those who would ignore science or derogatorily call Reagan’s system “cap-and -tax”, should look to Reagan as an example.

(C) 2011 J.C. Moore

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Climate Change, Oklahoma Politics | No Comments »

Arsenic and the Water of Death

Mon ,31/01/2011

Pabitra Mukhopadhyay has written an excellent article focusing attention on a serious environmental problem, that of arsenic in drinking water. Some areas of the U.S. have high arsenic levels in groundwater, but they are in less populated regions that have been able to find other sources for drinking water. However, many of the tube well drilled in Bangladesh and West Bengal, the adjoining Indian state, bring water to the surface that is highly contaminated with arsenic. The problem is serious as it was not discovered for a long time, and many people have been sickened or died from arsenic poisoning. Many more have been exposed to levels that will cause further health problems. Exposure at even low levels may cause cancer later as arsenic is a potent carcinogen. While Pabitra’s article dealt with the arsenic situation in general, this is an account of the physical and chemical processes related to arsenic contamination in ground water.

Arsenic is a reactive metalloid that is rarely found uncombined in nature. There are at least 50 minerals that have arsenic as a component. Most of these occur in areas that have had volcanic activity in the past. Weathering breaks down the minerals and streams pick up the arsenic compounds and carry them along. Evaporation, particularly in desert areas, will concentrate the arsenic compounds and the arsenic concentration may become very high in pools and shallow lakes. In many areas, the minerals eventually becomes covered with sediments so that they do not affect surface waters. However, water in aquifers still may come into contact with the minerals and leach out the arsenic compounds. Wells drilled into those aquifers will bring arsenic to the surface and the arsenic levels in the water may be too high for safe drinking water.

Human activities such as mining brings arsenic minerals to the surface, and leaching from mine tailings contaminates surface waters and shallow aquifers. Mobilization of arsenic in the sedimentary aquifers has been attributed to changes in the geochemical environment due to agricultural irrigation. In deeper wells, elevated arsenic concentrations are associated with compaction caused by groundwater withdrawals. A more recent concern is that our increasing use of coal may lead to increased levels of arsenic in groundwater. Coal contains an average amount of about 14.5 parts per million (ppm). That is a trace amount but since we burn about 4.5 billion tons of coal each year, coal mining brings about 67,000 tons of arsenic to the surface each year. When coal is burned, the arsenic ends up mostly in the coal ash, which is then disposed of in landfills, cements, and even by agricultural use. Once in the environment, some of the arsenic ultimately finds its way into the groundwater.

Arsenic in water is in the form of either As(V) compounds, called arsenates, or As(III) compounds, called arsenites. As(III) species are more toxic than As(V) species. However, one form may be converted into the other by chemical reactions depending on the environment. Oxidation converts As(III) to As(V) and reduction reactions convert As(V) to As(III). Water tests do not discriminate between the forms of arsenic and water standards usually have a standard for the total arsenic level of no more than 10 parts per billion, though some areas have even stricter standards. For comparison, the standard for cyanide in drinking water is around 200 ppb, so arsenic is about 20 times more toxic than cyanide. Also, arsenic is bioaccumulated and a carcinogen and the chances of poisoning or cancer goes up as the total exposure over time.

Toxicity: Arsenates are chemically similar to phosphates, and their toxic effect is expressed by interfering with reactions involving phosphates. Arsenate toxicity occurs when it replaces phosphate in the oxidative phosphorylation processes. This leads to mitochondrial impairment and inhibition of glycolytic energy metabolism, which causes cell damage and muscular weakness. Many biological systems carry out reducing reactions that convert As(V) to the more toxic As(III). As(III) is more reactive and forms strong bonds with functional groups such as the thiolates of cysteine and the imidazolium nitrogens of histidines. Arsenic toxicity depends on its chemical form and some plants and animals accumulate arsenic as relatively nontoxic organoarsenic molecules. Plants grown using water high in arsenic may not themselves be toxic.

Arsenate is predominant in water containing high levels of dissolved oxygen, while As(III) species occur under more reducing conditions such as found in deeper wells and anaerobic environments. The distribution of arsenite-oxidizing bacteria in upper layers and arsenate-reducing bacteria in lower depths of the sediments  impact the type of arsenic released into nearby tubewell groundwater.

Removal: Metal arsenites are much more soluble than the corresponding metal arsenates. Arsenates are more likely to be removed from water by being adsorbed by solid phases, such as sediments and soils. As(V) compounds exist in water in ionized forms that may be removed by precipitation with many metal ion, principally iron ions. In the pH ranges found in drinking water, As(III) exist as H3AsO3 which does not ionize enough to combine with metal ions, so As(III) is hard to remove by normal precipitation methods.

To overcome this problem, a very innovative and cost effective arsenic removal technology has been devised at Jadavpur University by Dr. Bhaskar Sengupta, and his colleagues. The method, subterranean arsenic removal (SAR), uses aerated groundwater that is recharged back into the aquifer to create an oxidation zone. The oxidation zone created by the aerated water boosts the activity of the arsenic-oxidizing microorganisms and oxidizes As(III) to As(V), which is then precipitated by the iron ions present in the water. No chemicals are used and the method has a very long operational life. This method shows great promise in making the water well contaminated with arsenic safer to drink.

(C)  2011 J.C. Moore

V   Share this.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Energy and the Environment | No Comments »

Poll: Vote for the 2010 Hall of Fame/Shame Candidates

Fri ,21/01/2011

Please vote for the nominee  you think has most affected the environment through word or deed. The 2010 winners in the in the Environmental Hall of Fame poll will receive the “Most Noble Prize in Environmental Science” and a suitable gift. The winner in the Environmental Hall of Shame category will receive the “Ignoble Prize in Environmental Science” and also a mostly suitable gift. The poll will close on February 15th.

If you wish, please post a reason for your vote and a suggestion for a suitable gift for your favorite candidate. Some great gifts have already been proposed and they will be mentioned when the winners are announced. The author will buy the gifts from his copious blogging  earnings so please don’t worry about the expense.

Hall of Shame Nominees:

> Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Head of NOAA – For her role in the Gulf oil spill, being in bed with the oil companies she was to regulate, and damage to the fishing industry.

>Tony Hayward, ex-chairman of BP – For decisions leading up to the oil spill and for saying, “I want my life back.”

>China – For surpassing the U.S as the number one country in pollution emissions.

>The Koch Brothers, owners of Koch Oil – For slowing progress on a sound energy policy by funding climate change deniers.


Hall of Fame Nominees:

> China – For making real efforts to develop alternate energy sources.

> RealClimate.org – For providing facts to counter the propaganda by climate change deniers.

> Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger – For helping defeat Proposition 23, an effort to gut California’s environmental laws and heavily funded by Texas oilmen.

>Senator John Kerry – For his efforts to usher a Cap-and -Trade bill through the U.S. Senate.

Vote below. Please do not click “Vote” until you have picked a candidate from each category. Pick one Hall of  Shame candidate – then scroll down, using the little microphone symbol, and pick a Hall of Fame candidate. Then click “Vote” to register your choices.

Poll is closed. See winners at http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/02/24/the-2010-environmental-hall-of-fameshame-winners/.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Environmental Hall of Shame | No Comments »

Is the Increasing CO2 Better for Plants?

Mon ,10/01/2011

The concentration of CO2 in the air is increasing rapidly due to our use of fossil fuels. Since plants require CO2, it would seem that the CO2 increase would be good for plants. However, that is a great simplification as the increased CO2 levels may not be good for most plants or for mankind.

CO2: In 1900, Arvid Hgbom found that factories were emitting about the same amount of CO2 as all the world’s volcanoes. This worried some people – but they were told not to worry, the plants and oceans would soon take up any excess. However, that has not been the case. We have destroyed many of the forests that take up CO2. Our factories and other activities now are emitting thirty billion tons of CO2 each year, around 200 times as much CO2 as all the world’s volcanoes. The CO2 dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, which has made the oceans 20% more acidic in the last century. This has damaged the coral and phytoplankton that take up CO2. Also, since CO2 is less soluble in the more acidic waters, the oceans are losing their ability to take up the excess CO2. Measurements by Charles Keeling of atmospheric CO2 levels have shown that the plants and the oceans are not taking up the CO2 nearly as fast as we are producing it. The concentration of CO2 in the air has increased rapidly over the last century, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 385 ppm, a 38% increase. It would seem that one bright spot might be that the higher CO2 level would be good for plant growth. However, that may not be the case.

Historical Data shows that the concentration of CO2 in the air has varied widely over the Earth’s history, from over 7000 ppm in the Paleozoic era to a low of 180 ppm during ice ages. Ice core studies show that during the last four ice ages, the CO2 concentration was about 180 ppm during the cold periods and rose to about 280 ppm during the warmer interglacial periods. Warmer temperatures occur at the same times as the higher CO2 levels, so it is difficult to sort out the effect on plants caused by CO2 changes from those caused by temperature changes. Ancient plants that grew at higher temperatures and CO2 levels during the Paleozoic Era adapted to the drop in CO2 level and temperatures near the end of that era by developing leaves. Ancient leaved species, such as Ginko and Magnolia, when exposed to higher levels of CO2, change their leaf structures. Other plants have adapted by changing the altitude at which they grow. For the last 6000 years, we have been in an interglacial period. The Earth’s temperature has been relatively stable and the CO2 concentration has been about 280 ppm, except for the last century.

Plant Growth: According to Dr. Surendra Singh, a biologist with a background in botany, modern plants have adapted to the 280 million ppm CO2 concentration that has existed over the last thousands of years. There is no reason to believe that the increasing CO2 concentration would be better for plants as CO2 is seldom the limiting agent in plant growth and seed production. Plants also require water, nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, sunlight, and trace elements. Over-fertilizing, over-watering, or putting a shade plant in bright sun will harm the plant. More is not always better, and the increasing the CO2 levels might harm plants that are not adapted to higher CO2 levels.

Greenhouses: Commercial greenhouses have found that adding CO2 helps plants grow better. Some people claim that that proves CO2 stimulates plant growth, but that is not necessarily true. In an enclosed greenhouse, the plants quickly deplete the supply of CO2 if more is not made available. That may also be the case with hydroponic gardeners, who claim better production at higher CO2 levels. Specific crops may do better at the higher levels of CO2 – if all the other nutrients are supplied at an optimum level and plenty of water is available. That is not possible for plants in the outdoors. We do fertilize many crops, but doing so depletes the soil of other nutrients and there is an energy cost in producing and spreading the fertilizers.

Experiments: It is difficult to do outdoor experiments on the effect of CO2 levels on crop growth, but a few have been done. One experiment found that wheat grown at higher CO2 levels has more leaf mass and more kernels; however, the kernels are smaller and have less nitrogen, making them less valuable as a food source. In another experiment, higher CO2 levels in wheat used for grazing correlated with lower nitrogen in the leaves, making the crop less suitable for grazing. Agriculture experts are saying that the result of increasing CO2 levels coupled with increasing temperatures will lower crop yields or quality. That has been found to be true in rice production, and rice is a staple for half the world. In an inadvertent experiment, we have found that some invasive species, such as Kudzu, are well adapted to the increasing temperatures and CO2 levels. They have prospered and are expanding their range northward.

Certainly, plants need CO2, but to say more CO2 will make all plants grow better is a great supposition and oversimplification. The Earth’s atmospheric CO2 level is now 385 ppm, possibly higher than it has been in the last 20 million years, and it is increasing every year. By pouring more CO2 into the air each year, we are conducting a great experiment with unknown results. What will happen if the production from agricultural plants decreases significantly?

(C) 2011  J.C. Moore

V  Share this

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Climate Change | No Comments »

Climate Change and Future of Health – Human Adaptability

Sun ,12/12/2010

This is a guest article by Pabitra Mukhopadhyay who is an advocate for the indigenous people of the Sunderban wetlands in Bengali, who are fighting a losing battle against aggressive industrialization and the effects of climate change.

So what will it be like in a 1.5 degree warmer world? A world of 450 ppm CO2 in atmosphere? While there is a lot of discussion on bio-diversity loss, sea level rise, melting polar caps, Climate Change is going to affect the health and well being of humanity in a profound way putting adaptability in a test that 100,000 years history of human race has never confronted.

This is not the adaptability that is being discussed in Cancun now, the adaptability and mitigation of Climate Change as a series of planned actions. I am talking about the adaptation on biological scale, one that is associated with Darwinian principle of Natural Selection through evolution.

Humans are formidable adapters. For the last 100,000 years of the present Holocene, Global Climatic Conditions have remained relatively warm but highly variable. Between last 100,000 to 200,000 years (towards the end of Pleistocene and beginning of Holocene, there had been several dramatic periods of cooling and warming that led to major continental glacial advances and retreats. Humans adapted to that and still flourished. There had been migrations and dispersion of human race all the while, winning the climate vagaries each genetic strand by strand. By the last 5000 years, human habitat settled from Arctic to Pacific with a highly credible record of adapting to climate variations, from sub-zero temperatures to tropical heat, from rain forests to desert lands, from coasts and rivers to mountains. That’s a feat for a single species – and humans used all tools available for that. It remains one unique life form that used something beyond dumb biological evolution – societal and cultural evolution with it’s ingenuity and intelligence.

That being the record, why are we so scared about Climate Change, then? We are scared because all that record is for natural Climate Change. What is happening since last Industrial Revolution is anything but natural. We have interfered with the natural climatic cycles in such a huge way that the weather system, which is a fairly delicate system as it is, now shows signs of becoming further unpredictable and chaotic. Most unfortunately, the rate of such ‘forced’ climatic variations and changes are so fast that human prowess of adaption is falling short. Anthropogenic forcings are producing a condition where the earth is now absorbing 0.85+/-0.15 watts per square meter (of earth surface) more energy that it is emitting to space – so we are in a state of positive energy balace – earth is getting warmer every day.

Climate Change and Global Warming are often misconceived as large-scale heat waves or draught. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The worst effects of Climate Change are fast and unprecedented Climate variations. Unexpected rainfalls in places that has no history of such weather (Floods in Pakistan) or heat waves in historically cold places (heat waves in Russia). When incidents as strange and rare as these start to happen, the human biological, societal and cultural adaptability cannot handle it effectively. Research has already shown that warming has a direct correlation with human morbidity and mortality and the most affected are children, sick and old people.

1. Temperature extremes (both hot and cold) appear to increase mortality, although there is disagreement about which sex, age group, or race seems most affected.

2. Low relative humidities in winter appear to be directly related to frequencies of various illnesses and mortality.

3. Winter snowfall accumulations appear to correspond with periods of high mortality.

4. Rapid changes in the weather often induce a series of negative physiological responses from the body, like cardio-vascular constrictions, immune deficiency, asthma and skin problems.

The future of world health will come under 3 critical stresses owing to Climate Change. Health standards and health care of post 2030 will largely be determined by these vectors.

a) Heat Stress: Environmental Heat Stress that will affect humans will be in two categories – hot-wet (high humidity) and hot-dry (low humidity). Hot-wet Heat Stress is basically limitation on evaporative cooling (sweating) which is farther worsened by viral and mosquito carried diseases. Hot-dry Heat Stress on the other hand limits water resources, which links with draughts, famines or low-productivity added with ozone depletion related UV radiation and related skin problems. Heat Stress will increase mortality through dehydration (heat exhaustion), total failure of thermoregulatory system (heat stroke) and stress on cardio-vascular system. Most vulnerable will be very young, very old and people doing physical labor in exposed conditions.

Areas that will come under heat stress are: southeastern and mid-continental US, parts of Europe, southeastern Asia (Indian sub-continent) and most parts of Africa. The future of health care in these areas will require new regimes of work, leisure, physical activities and inoculation programs.

b) Nutritional Stress: One likely effect of Climate Change is movements of iso-thermals towards poles. Warming will be greater in higher latitudes compared to temperate and tropical belts. This will cause shift in agricultural pattern and temporarily some regions may even benefit from it. But Climate Warming is also likely to cause increase in plant pests and diseases. The vulnerability of agricultural crops will increase as new insects and pathogens move into newly warm areas. There is general consensus that Climate Warming will lead to water scarcity in dry areas that are already suffering from water stress (India is one). Crop production will be further reduced in quantity and quality in these areas due to increased soil salinization from irrigation and depletion of aquifer reservoirs. Total arable land will be reduced due to sea level rise. All these factors will influence agricultural production and availability of food both regionally and globally. Human dietary habits and health are deeply correlated; the food habits change much slower than we think. So a nutritional stress will affect world health unless less wasteful feeding luxuries are given up and scarce food stock is intelligently utilized. The heath and dietary adaptation in this low yield food scenario will be completely different from the present. New food cycles with insects as one chief source of protein are one possibility and marine grass is another.

c) Disease Stress: The Heat and Nutritional Stress will indirectly cause many diseases during Climate Warming but one scary aspect of Climate Change is the changes in insects and other disease causing vectors and epidemiology of vector-borne diseases like Malaria, Dengue Fever, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Trypanoso-miasis, Guinea warm, Schistosomiasis and Chagas Disease. Global Climate Change can shift some marginal areas from sporadic epidemic to endemic and other areas from disease free to epidemicity. The disease stress will, in my opinion, have the greatest impact on human health and well being and the genetic scale of adaptive changes denied by rapid Climate Change the average life-span of human will be diminished in the last half of this century.

References:

Global Impacts of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Human Health and Adaptability by Michael A. Little and Ralph M. Garruto

Climate Effects On Human Health by Laurence S. Kalkstein and Kathleen M. Valimont

(c) 2010 Pabitra Mukhopadhyay   Pabitra is an Honors graduate in Civil Engineering from Jadavpur University, Kolkata,  who has  spent two decades  fighting erosion  and developing tools for cost effective and natural means of anti-erosion technology.  Reprinted by his  permission from http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/
v  Share this.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Climate Change | 3 Comments »

Global Warming’s Subtle Changes

Fri ,10/12/2010

Global warming may not have much effect on those in the U.S. Midwest, but others may find it very difficult to “Just adjust”.

Redbud that thinks it's Spring.

Pears that have not seen frost by Thanksgiving.

These are not great pictures, but I was not planning to write an article when I took them the day before Thanksgiving this year. But, they have a message. One shows our redbud tree that budded into green leaves as if it were Spring after going dormant for the year. The pear tree still had pears and green leaves not yet bitten by frost. They reminded me of my family’s Thanksgiving photo taken in front of my dad’s apple tree in1998. We were all in shirtsleeves and the apple tree still had green leaves, as it had not yet frosted that year. My father, then 88, said that never in his memory had a frost been so late. It turned out that 1998 was one of the hottest years on record but this year may set a new record. It is interesting that two of the latest frosts in our area in almost a century have occurred after Thanksgiving – and in the past 12 years.

Other subtle changes have taken place in my lifetime. We used to be in gardening zone six but we are now in zone seven. That means we are now having warmer winters, later frosts, and earlier warm-ups in the spring. Several times our fruit trees bloomed during a false spring in February only to have the blossoms nipped by a later freeze. We have a longer growing season which sounds good. That also means a longer season for insects and pests and they have shown up in greater abundance. Our gardening is a hobby so it is not a serious matter if we lose a crop to early freezes or pests. We recently have had record rainfall in the spring and three years ago the ground was wet for so long it drowned some of our fruit trees. But, we are now experiencing dryer weather in late summer and early fall – and the redbud tree in the picture had its leaves turn brown by September from dry weather. Scientists cannot predict the weather but only that the warming Earth will cause weather to become more extreme – and we seem to be observing that.

The signs of a warming Earth are sometimes subtle and it is rather hard to tell if that is the cause of changes we see. Biologists are telling us that some species are extending their range to the North. We now have fire ants and armadillos which were not around when I was growing up. I recently found some Kudzu growing over at the lake and some along a fence near my house. Kudzu is an invasive plant that chokes out other vegetation and kills trees; it thrives in higher CO2 levels and warmer temperatures. I certainly hope it doesn’t get started here. And sadly, the quail which were plentiful during my childhood have disappeared from the hills and fields in this area. Some say foraging armadillos are responsible by destroying their nests, but no one really knows for sure. I’m not sure the quail’s disappearance had anything to do with global warming but they have come to symbolize for me that subtle changes are taking place. It’s sad that good things may change and my grandchildren may never be aware of the things that are gone.

There is sound scientific evidence that the Earth is warming and those who long denied the evidence have now shifted their message, saying we should “just adjust”. I’m not sure what that means, but those of us who live in the Midwestern United States will probably be able to do so. It may be more difficult for other people in the world. The people of Kashmir are concerned that the glaciers that feed their streams in the summer are receding – making less water available. The Sherpa of Tibet are worried that their villages may be flooded by lakes that now form each summer from melting glaciers . The lakes are held back by ice dams and, if a dam breaks, it will be a catastrophe for their villages. The Inuit in the Arctic are having to move their coastal villages to keep them from being eroded away by wave action of open seas which were year round ice before. Their inland villages are threatened as well as the permafrost upon which some were built now becomes a quagmire in the summer. Telling the people whose lives will be changed forever by global warming to “just adjust” seems a little hollow.

(C) 2010 J.C. moore

v  Share this.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Climate Change | 1 Comment »

Man Made Disasters: Where Were the Engineers?

Mon ,22/11/2010

“Many man made disasters are caused by a failure of ethics.”

Disasters: Most man made disasters are sudden with explosion, fires, deaths, and highly visible damage. The public is outraged, the incident is investigated, blame is assigned, and laws are made to prevent it from ever happening again. It is not the same with the climate change disaster taking place. It is happening slowly, with thousands and thousands of CO2 sources, and its full effect will not be known for generations. Who is responsible for preventing the disaster?  Although many individuals take responsibility on a personal level, many businesses put their short term profits first, and politicians lack the will or do not want to offend their big donors.

Scientists now have clear and convincing evidence that  the climate is changing but their role, however, is limited to education and research. It is the engineers who have the knowledge and the power to respond – as they design, build, operate, and approve every major project. It may not be fair to put such responsibility on the engineers, but their ethics requires it. The most important responsibility of engineers in performing their duties, according to the Engineering Code of Ethics, is to

“Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”

Many disasters at first seem to be failures of engineering, technology, or materials, but on further examination the real cause is often found to be a failure of ethics.  Two recent major disasters could have been prevented or the damage mitigated if the engineers had followed – or been allowed to follow -  their code of ethics. When technological disasters happen, the first question should be” Where were the engineers?”.

The Gulf Oil Disaster: To satisfy our need for oil, we have had to search wider, drill deeper, and take greater risks. The Deepwater Horizon platform was a technological marvel, capable of drilling oil wells where the ocean was a mile deep. As British Petroleum was completing its Maconda Well from the platform, an explosion and fire occurred. Eleven men were killed and 17 injured by the explosion and fire. The platform eventually sank, breaking the pipe. The blowout preventer, designed to shut off the oil flow in case of such a disaster, failed. Over 4.5 million gallons of oil poured into the Gulf before the flow could be stopped. The environmental damage to the oceans, wildlife, and estuaries from the oil and from the million gallons of corexit, a toxic detergent sprayed to break up the oil, may not be known for decades.

There were a number of key decisions that led up to the disaster that should have been approved by the engineers. Any one of them, had it been made with engineering ethics in mind , could have  prevented  the disaster or ameliorated its effect on the workers and the environment. BP claimed the explosion was caused by the gas released at the sea floor warming as it rose to the surface. However, the gas would have expanded and cooled. Clearly, there was a source of ignition at the surface. Why weren’t the ignition sources that might lead to an explosion eliminated. The workers quarters could have been explosion proof – why weren’t they? Why did Halliburton proceed with cementing the well when the results of the pressure tests were inconclusive? Why was a particular type of cement used on the well, when it had given inconclusive performance tests? Who made the disastrous decision to replace the drilling mud with seawater? Why were problems with the blowout preventer not addressed? Were early efforts directed at trying to save the well or to prevent a major oil spill disaster? Were efforts directed toward covering up the disaster rather than trying to mitigate the environmental damage? And the list of questions goes on. The most critical of which is why BP ever started  drilling in a very risky and unstable zone alongside  a salt dome.

Obviously, what happened cannot be changed but, as the investigation into the cause continues, it is important to know who made the key decisions and why. The role of the management in the decision making was to make a profit for the company and to weigh the benefits and risk against the costs. The role of the government in the disaster is clouded by the cozy nature of the relationship between the regulators and the oil companies it was charged to regulate. The role of the engineers should have been, first and foremost, to protect the public.

The Challenger: It was a different type of disaster, but  it has some important lessons as the Challenger Space Shuttle is one of the most studied disasters. Most people think that an engineering failure led to the disaster, but in fact, it was a failure of ethics. One difficult problem in the design of the space shuttle was how to transport the large fuel tanks to the launch site. Morton Thiokol won the contract by designing fuel tanks that could be transported to the site in sections and sealed back together with rubber O-rings. The O-rings were effective down to 40°F, but below that, the rubber stiffens and its ability to seal the tanks had not been tested.

The January 1986 Challenger launch was to carry Christa McAuliffe, the teacher the year, into space. The weather had been cool and uncooperative in Florida that January and there had been several delays in the launch. President Reagan was planning to include the education aspect of the shuttle launch in his State of the Union speech and, for that and other reasons, pressure was building on the shuttle team to proceed with the launch. However, the temperature was predicted to be 29°F on the morning of January 28 and the engineers strongly recommended against the launch. The decision whether to launch was the responsibility of Bob Lund, the vice president of engineering for Morton Thiokol. On the advice of his engineers, he recommended against the launch.

However, Jerald Mason, the general manager of Morton Thiokol, called a meeting to discuss the decision. He asked Bob Lund to “Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat.” He was asking Lund, in effect, to put aside his engineering ethics and weigh the very unlikely possibility of an accident against the public relations benefits of launching on schedule. Apparently, that argument worked as Lund approved the launch, despite the fact that the predicted launch temperature was outside of the operational specifications. At 59 seconds into the launch, the O-rings failed and the rocket exploded, plunging the Challenger into the ocean and killing all seven astronauts. It was the worst disaster in the U.S. space program’s history.

“Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” In our increasingly technical world, the public, you, me and everyone else, must trust our safety to the engineers who design, test, and make decisions about the products we use. Engineering schools now include the study of professional ethics in the curriculum and try to convey to students their importance. However, in some instances, engineers do not follow their ethical code because of financial rewards, job security issues, peer pressure, or company loyalty. Many ethical violations are discovered and investigated only when they lead to a major disaster. But, what about environmental disasters whose full effect may not be be known until far into the future? It is particularly important that engineers begin to see protecting the environment as part of their ethical obligation to protect the public.

(c) 2010 J.C. Moore

Share This:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Climate Change, Environmental Hall of Shame | No Comments »

Is It Climate Change or Global Warming?

Tue ,02/11/2010

The term climate change and global warming are often used interchangeably as they refer to the same environmental problem. Some people prefer to use climate change as climate is more evident to us and climate change is not as controversial as global warming. It is probably okay to use either term, but for those who like precision in language, we will take a tour through climate science to sort out the difference.

Climate and Weather: It is said that no one can predict the weather and that is true as no one can predict very far in advance whether it will rain or storm or how cold or hot it will be. However, if we observe the weather of a region over a long period of time, a pattern emerges. That pattern is the climate and, though we cannot predict the weather accurately, we have a much better chance of predicting climate. If we observe such things as the high and low temperatures, the amount of rain, when the first frost and the last freeze usually occurs, a pattern emerges. The climate is quite important to us as it determines the crops we grow, the types of house we build, and the clothing we wear. Climate determines the plants, animals, and insects that live in our region and even the types of health problems and diseases. The factors that determine climate have been observed to vary slowly with time and we expect the climate in a region to remain relatively stable over long periods.

Climate Change: In the last century, and particularly in the last three decades, we have noticed that climates in many regions of the Earth are changing. The daytime high temperatures are higher, the nighttime lows are warmer, the patterns of drought and rainfall have changed, and storms seemed to have become stronger. Frost occurs later in the year and the last freeze occurs earlier, which has caused gardening zones to move. The ranges of many species of plants, animals, insects and bacteria have shifted, and there has been invasions of non-native, sometimes invasive, species into new areas. Our observations have shown that the climate is definitely changing, and those changes are sure to have consequences for us.

Global Warming: Since the early 1800′s, scientists have been concerned with whether our use of fossil fuels has affected the temperature of the Earth. With an increasing understanding of the role greenhouse gases play in stabilizing the temperature of the Earth, scientist wondered whether burning fossil fuels might affect the energy balance of the Earth. Burning carbon fuels releases carbon dioxide, CO2, which they knew to be an important greenhouse gas and there was speculation about whether an increase of CO2 in the air could actually cause the Earth to warm. Critics of the idea argued that water was a much more important, that the relatively small amount of CO2 in the air would not make a difference, and that the amount of CO2 man produced was minuscule compared to what was already there.

The Role of CO2: With a better understanding of the atmosphere and the advent of computers, G. N. Plass in 1956 was able to calculate the climate sensitivity of the Earth to CO2. He found that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the air would cause a 3 to 4 °C increase in the Earth’s temperature. A number of more recent studies have confirmed his work and have shown that, though the concentration of CO2 in the air is small, it accounts for about 25% of the greenhouse effect. Certainly, increasing the amount of CO2 in the air should cause the Earth to warm. In the last century, our emission of CO2 has increased from a minuscule amount to over 50 billion tons annually and the concentration of CO2 in the air has risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 385 ppm. But, has that caused global warming?

The Temperature Scorecard: The temperatures over the Earth vary widely from place to place with the weather and the season. However, the temperature of a particular place measured over a long period of time has a pattern and we can use the pattern as a scorecard. There are temperature records that go back to about 1850 and these have given us a way to keep track of whether the Earth is warming. By using ships logs, weather stations, and satellite measurements, NASA has compiled the Earth’s annual mean temperature from 1880 to the present. Though it varies widely from year to year, the Earth’s annual mean temperature shows an upward trend and the Earth is definitely getting warmer.The scorecard shows that over the last century the Earth has warmed about 1.3°F, which does not sound like much. However, since that is the average over the whole Earth, it represents a tremendous amount of energy and it is the energy in the atmosphere that drives our weather and determines our climate.

So there we have it, a cause and effect relationship. Climate change is caused by global warming, which in turn is caused by the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and the CO2 is increasing because of our use of fossil fuels. Though it is probably irrelevant whether we call it climate change or global warming, it is very relevant that we understand the relationships and think about our role. The way we use fossil fuels has consequences for us and for the rest of the species on the planet.

(c) 2010 J.C. Moore

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Climate Change | 1 Comment »

Lord Monckton: A British Sophist in the U.S. Congress

Mon ,07/06/2010

Sophists: Originally, a sophist was someone wise or clever. With the rise of Democracy in Athens, sophists found it profitable to serve aspiring politicians. For a fee, they would argue on behalf of their patron or provide constructed arguments, or talking points, if the politician wished to appear learned. Expert Sophists claimed that, by skilled argument, they could convince an unwary citizen that black was white.

The Congressional Hearing: Recently, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming met in Washington to decide what actions Congress should take to ensure our energy dependence and a sustainable environment.. (1) Some of the U.S.’s best scientists in atmospheric science, oceanography, environmental science, climatology, and ecology were called to testify before the committee. They testified that the Earth was indeed warming at an alarming rate, that the cause was primarily CO2 from man’s activity, and that undesirable changes were taking place in the Earth. Those observed changes were melting glaciers and ice caps, rising oceans, acidification of the oceans, invasions of undesirable species, and extinction of species. Their testimony was based on the best scientific evidence and was consistent with a statement on climate change adopted by every major scientific organization in the world. Things looked bad for the fossil fuel industry and those who received large donations from them. Clearly, some sophistry was needed.

Lord Monckton’s Credentials: The minority party in Congress called as their only witness Lord Monckton from England. His resume says he is a member of the House of Lords, that he was a science adviser to Margaret Thatcher, and that he has a peer reviewed paper on climate sensitivity in the well respected journal of the American Physical Society (APS). He is now the Chief Policy Adviser at the Science and Public Policy Institute. Lord Monckton is extremely qualified to deliver the message he brought. It was as misleading as his resume.

Oops: Strangely, Lord Monckton is not exactly a Lord. He claims to be but, to set the matter straight, the House of Lords has stated that

“Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords.”

And, Lord Monckton is not a scientist. He was more of an economic advisor to Margaret Thatcher. One of his main projects was a policy that contributed to the UK’s version of the recent housing bubble called by some the “Right to Buy” scheme. Lord Monckton has written no “peer reviewed article”. In response to his claim, the APS reaffirmed its position that climate change was occurring and pointed out that Monckton’s article was in a newsletter of the APS Forum that carries the disclaimer that

“This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.”

The APS further added a disclaimer to the top of Monckton’s article stating:

“Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”

Finally, Lord Monckton does actually advise the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). It is an organization critical of government actions to prevent climate change that has recently morphed from the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, an Institute that had received over $1 million in funding from Exxon/Mobil. Some of the SPPI’s members are scientists with compromised objectivity and who are affiliated with other institutes funded by the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon/Mobil, and interests happy with the inaction in Washington.

The Testimony: Lord Monckton’s testimony was consistent with his credentials and a number of articles have been written debunking his claims. (3) A few inaccuracies are listed below to give the flavor of his testimony, which was clearly sophistry:

Levels of CO2 : For instance, he compares today’s CO2 levels with those from 750 million years ago when they were 300,000ppm and then argues

” Therefore, today’s CO2 concentration, though perhaps the highest in 20 million years, is by no means exceptional or damaging. ” … “It is also known that a doubling of today’s CO2 concentration, projected to occur later this century would increase the yield of some staple crops by up to 40% (lecture by Dr. Leighton Steward).”

The problem is that 750 million years ago was about 745 million years before man and modern plants appeared on the scene. The increase in CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 380 ppm in the last century will have an unknown effect as the Earth’s plants and animals are adapted to levels less than 300 ppm. The higher CO2 levels and warming climate seem to favor invasive species, such as Kudzu. The Dr. Leighton Steward he refers to has never done any plant research. Dr. Leighton Steward is a director at EOG Resources, an oil and gas company (formerly known as Enron), and he is an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute.

Ocean Acidification: According to Lord Monckton:

” It has been suggested that the oceans have “acidified” – or, more correctly, become less alkaline – by 0.1 acid-base units in recent decades. However, the fact of a movement towards neutrality in ocean chemistry, if such a movement has occurred, tells us nothing of the cause, which cannot be attributed to increases in CO2 concentration.”

However, the “0.1 acid-base units” he refers to is a pH scale, which is logarithmic. A decrease of 0.1 unit means the oceans are now over 20% more acidic than a century ago and the cause is most certainly CO2. Adding CO2 to soda makes it acidic and CO2 is certainly doing the same to the oceans. If the oceans get much more acidic, the coral, the fisheries, the shellfish, and the oxygen-producing plankton that give life to the oceans are threatened.

Temperature Consensus: Again, according to Lord Monckton

“There is no consensus on how much warming a given increase in CO2 will cause.”

Not exactly. Over 50 years ago, G.N. Plass calculated that doubling the CO2 concentration would bring a 3 to 4°C rise in the Earth’s temperature. (4) There have been a number of more accurate calculations since then but they all are in agreement with the range Plass calculated. Also, those calculations are in general agreement with the rising temperatures we are now observing.

“Just Adapt”: Lord Monckton finally gets to the point he was invited to make

” First, it would be orders of magnitude more cost-effective to adapt to any ‘global warming’ that might occur than to try to prevent it from occurring by trying to tax or regulate emissions of carbon dioxide in any way.”

There we have it. Rather than reasonably addressing climate change, Lord Monckton, and some politicians, wish for us to just “adapt to it”. Not really understanding science, Lord Monckton missed one small thing that might become important to England. As the Earth’s temperature increases, the large amounts of fresh water from the melting ice sheets may cause the Gulf Stream to shut down. Without the heat being brought across the Atlantic by the Gulf Stream, England would plunge to glacial temperatures with average winter temperatures of -25°C. I hope Lord Monckton is still around so he can tell his countrymen to “just adapt”.

(1)http://republicans.globalwarming.house.gov/Publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2797
(2) Much of Lord Monckton’s background can be found on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
(3) See, for instance: http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090327/congressional-hearings-amateurs-invited-confuse-climate-science or http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-shows-Monckton-wrong-on-Arctic-sea-ice.html
(4) Plass, G.N. , “Carbon Dioxide and the Climate.” American Scientist 44: 302-16 (1956), or see the review article at: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#M_25_

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Climate Change, Energy and the Environment, National Politics | 5 Comments »

The Gulf Oil Disaster: Where Were the Engineers?

Fri ,04/06/2010

Where were the engineers? At the Deepwater Horizon , a number of key decisions may have led to the disaster and affected the outcome. The role of the management in the decisions was to make a profit for the company and to weigh the benefits and risk against the costs. The most important responsibility of the engineers in performing their duties, according to Engineering Code of Ethics, was to

” Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” (1)

Questions that need to be answered as the investigation continues are : Could the ignition sources for the explosion have been avoided? Why were the workers quarters not explosion proof? Why did Halliburton proceed with cementing the well when the results of the pressure tests were inconclusive? Who made the disastrous decision to replace the drilling mud with seawater? Why were problems with the blowout preventer not addressed? Were early efforts directed at trying to save the well or to prevent a major oil spill disaster? Obviously, what has happened cannot be changed but, as the investigation into the cause continues, it is important to know who answered those key questions and why they were answered the way they were. When those key decisions were made, where were the engineers?

The Challenger, A Different Disaster. One of the most studied disasters is that of the Challenger Space Shuttle. (2) Most people think that an engineering failure led to the disaster, but in fact, it was a failure of ethics. One difficult problem in the design of the space shuttle was how to transport the large fuel tanks to the launch site. Morton Thiokol won the contract by designing fuel tanks that could be transported to the site in sections and sealed back together with rubber O-rings. The O-rings were effective down to 40°F, but below that, the rubber stiffens and its ability to seal the tanks had not been tested.

The January 1986 Challenger launch was to carry Christa McAuliffe, the teacher the year, into space. The weather had been cool and uncooperative in Florida that January and there had been several delays in the launch. President Reagan was planning to include the education aspect of the shuttle launch in his State of the Union speech and, for that and other reasons, pressure was building on the shuttle team to proceed with the launch. However, the temperature was predicted to be 29°F on the morning of January 28 and the engineers strongly recommended against the launch. The decision whether to launch was the responsibility of Bob Lund, the vice president of engineering for Morton Thiokol. On the advice of his engineers, he recommended against the launch.

However, Jerald Mason, the general manager of Morton Thiokol, called a meeting to discuss the decision. He asked Bob Lund to “Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat.” He was asking Lund, in effect, to put aside his engineering ethics and weigh the very unlikely possibility of an accident against the public relations benefits of launching on schedule. Apparently, that argument worked as Lund approved the launch, despite the fact that the predicted launch temperature was outside of the operational specifications. At 59 seconds into the launch, the O-rings failed and the rocket exploded, plunging the Challenger into the ocean and killing all seven astronauts. It was the worst disaster in the U.S. space program’s history.

“Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” In our increasingly technical and complicated world, we often use products and devices designed by engineers. The public, you, me and everyone else, must trust our safety to the engineers who design, test, and make decisions about those products. Engineering schools now include the study of professional ethics in the curriculum and try to convey to students their importance. However, in some instances, engineers do not follow their ethical code because of financial rewards, job security issues, peer pressure, or company loyalty. Often, small ethical violations go unnoticed and unreported unless, or until, they grow into a major problem. Many violations are only discovered and investigated when they lead to a public relations fiasco, a death, a lawsuit, or a major disaster. It is imperative that engineers steadfastly hold paramount their duty to protect the public. Engineers who violate their ethical code and managers who override the engineer’s decisions on safety should be financially and criminally liable for the disasters they cause.

(1) http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html

(2) http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/shuttle/shuttle1.htm

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Education, Energy and the Environment | 12 Comments »

Older Entries
Newer Entries