What to do wtih all the trash?

I've been thinking a lot lately about what can we do about all the trash that we produce. I'm not just talking about the Americans, cause holy cow we produce a lot of trash, but I'm talking world-wide. Australia is looking at reconfiguring their carbon pricing scheme for a cap & trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The one big problem they are having is with the landfills and the large amounts of methane that they produce. In the US there are a couple of places that are using the methane for electricity. The S.C.Johnson Company actually uses methane from a local landfill near one of their plants to power some portions of their factory. pretty cool. And there are a few other areas in the US where they are attempting to use the methane from landfills for energy, whether it be electricity or fuel for cars. While that is a great idea for the landfills that already exist, what are we going to do about the trash that we are still throwing out. Recycling is a great way to reduce our waste stream, but there are people that don't recycle anything. Take my neighbors for instance. They recycle NOTHING, not one little piece of paper. Just cause they don't feel like it. I'm not sure if maybe some confusion is the reason behind the lack of effort or just because they are lazy in that area. There are people in our neighborhood that put out at least 3 huge bags of grass a week. ugh,  horrible space waster in a landfill. Me, I recycle EVERYTHING. Everything that can be put in that can, goes. We even "recycle" our food waste, grass and leaves. Otherwise known as composting. It makes our garden grow :)  This is yet another area where I feel completely inadequate. I have ideas on how to improve recycling, but it won't work unless people are willing to change. one idea I had for existing landfills is to go and find the stuff that is recyclable within the landfills. I'm sure there are billions of tons of newspapers in the landfills, dating back to the turn of century. oh, that would be 1900, not 2000 :) Forgot what century I was in there for a minute. Anyway. And the plastic and glass that could be found from before we figured out how to recycle. Holy jackpot batman!! Someone needs to figure out a way to tap that resource. The number of permitted landfills is decreasing in the US. We are running out of places to put our trash, so what are we going to do with it? If we are able to use the resources within the landfills then there will be space to put more crap.  Plastic is a petroleum product. Can you imagine how much we could save if we were able to tap into the waste stream and tap the landfills for that resource? So now all I have to do is figure out a way to get the "stuff" out of the landfill efficiently. I guess once the price is right this will be something one of the big companies think of all on their own. Right now it's just cheaper to throw everything away and make new. sigh, people just don't get it, do they?

Jill Stein for President

As much as I'd love to run for president, I don't have the politcal savy to do it right. And I'd get so angry at idiots I'd probably get fired within a month :) So, I was reading an article at work today about Jill Stein. She's running for president for the Green party, and I am TOTALLY VOTING FOR HER!!!! One of her comments was the the political system is broken. oh, yeah, totally is! And it needs to change. She probably won't make it into the oval office, but maybe if enough people know about her she will have a shot!! Wish I had more than one vote. Here's a link to her website. http://www.jillstein.org/ Vote for Jill Stein!!!

Feeling frustrated

I read an article yesterday about people not believing in climate change or global warming, and a million thoughts ran through my head. First of all, how can these people not believe what is right in front of them. HELLOOOOO, climate change means bigger, meaner toranadoes, bigger, meaner hurricanes, longer droughts, horrible flooding, and any other weather event you can think of, just multiply it times 10. So, anyone hear about the tornadoes this past weekend. but I digress. I guess these people think that since climate change isn't happening, they don't need to do anything to conserve what they have. Or maybe they think if they don't believe it's true, then they don't have to change the way they do things and can continue doing things in the wasteful way they are. Speaking of, I have a neighbor that refuses to recycle....she can't be bothered. HUH?! really, doesn't her family realize that by them not recycling they are wasting tons of resources and causing tons of pollution? Seriously, if everyone recycled, just their plastic bottles, can you imagine the amount of trash that wouldn't make it to the landfills. Don't even get me started on landfills and how they are filling up at an alarming rate and there aren't very many new places to put them. yeah, wonder what happens then. So, back to the people with their heads in the sand. Even if you don't believe in climate change, lets talk about water. Yeah, I know, I've been on a water kick lately. It's been bothering me. There are already civil wars being fought for water in the developing countries. The Sahara desert is growing due to desertification because people are trying to scratch out a living on marginal land and there isn't enough water in the area to sustain their farms. Even here in the US there are fights in the west over water. Just read my last post about Las Vegas. They're just the recent problem. Southern California is another area that keeps begging for water and is looking all over the place to find it. There are lots of articles about India and the villages there that will be in dire straits once the glaciers that feed the streams that feed their villages are gone. Yeah, but climate change isn't happening. Science has proven that the glaciers are indeed shrinking, and they are shrinking fast. So, then there will be all those people without water. What are we going to do then? So, not only is the amount of fresh water available dwindling we are doing a damn fine job of polluting what we have. Think of all the stuff we put on the ground, guess where it ends up. Yep, you guessed it, in the water. And then there is the fracking to get natural gas out of the ground. They use fresh water to do that. like 30 million gallons of water to do that. And once they use the water, it's unusable for anything other than more fracking. But it isn't always reused. The chemicals that they put in the water has to be an exact mix, so they don't like to use "dirty" water, cause they have to think more and make up a new additive to put in the water so the combination comes out correct. Now, not  only are there more people needing freshwater for themselves, there are natural gas companies needing freshwater for their wells. This doesn't even take into account the agriculture and industry that will need more water to create more food and more products for the increasing number of people. Know what the sucky part is, there is a finite amount of water on the earth. Yeah, that's right, what you see is what you get, so when we mess it all up with our chemicals and overuse, we are soooo screwed.

Water, Water everywhere....NOT

The states in the west has a serious problem. They have a serious lack of water. Especially those states in the southwest, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, you get my drift. I've read a few articles in the last month or so about how Nevada, specifically Las Vegas, is fighting for more water. At the end of March the Nevada State engineer issues a decision to allow the Southern Nevada Water Authority to pump 84,000 acre feet of water from 4 rural valleys. The water in some areas will be pumped as far as 300 miles to get to Vegas. Currently Vegas gets about 90% of its water from Lake Mead. As you probably know, Lake Mead has issues of its own. You've probably seen pictures of the lake were there is a HUGE white stripe around the edge. That's because the water level of the lake has fallen over 120ft, which is about 35% of its capacity. There are docks sitting in mud and sand because the water level has retreated miles from the previous shoreline. Last year the lake did rise about 30ft from the wet weather and large snowfall, but this summer is predicted to be just as dry and hot as previously and the lake will be back down to previous levels. The drought that created this problem started in 2000, and hasn't relented. So, you ask, what is the big deal. Vegas is dry, always has been always will be, what's so different about that? The stupidity of the predicament is what annoys me. As I noted earlier Vegas has been granted access to water elsewhere, other than Lake Mead. About a month ago I came across an article from the Las Vegas Journal that talked about how stalled housing developments, of which Vegas has many, are expected to WASTE 3 days worth of water. After the housing bubble burst, and it happened on a large scale in Vegas, the Las Vegas Valley Water District had branches of treated water pipelines going to dozens of unfinished subdivisions. Without circulation the water would sit in the pipes and the residual chemicals would degrade, making the water undrinkable. In 2009 the water authority gave the owners a choice: pump enough water to flush out the pipes every three days or be disconnected from the system. If the owners are disconnected from the system, they have to pay to be reconnected at a high cost. So, this policy has created a problem where water is wasted constantly in a desert town, that has just asked for, and received, 84,000 acre-ft of water that will be shipped over 300 miles. now, lets do a little math. Sorry, I'm an engineer, everything is math to me :) On average, an American consumes 176 gallons of water a day (yes that is A LOT!!!). So say these houses have 4 people in each, that equals 704 g/day per family home. Now, these pipes have to be flushed every three days, that's 2112 g/3day per family home. Now, lets just say that there are 10 houses in each development (I'm all about easy math) that is 21120 gallons per development. Articles I've read on the Vegas housing market states that DOZENS of housing developments have been stalled. So, I multiplied by 12 to get one dozen developments that include at least 10 houses and that was 253,440 gallons, Since the articles said dozens, I did a ballpark of 10 (more easy math), there are probably lots more than that, but I don't live there so I can't drive around and check. Which leads to a grand total of 2534400 gallons of water that is wasted in 3 days in Vegas, and that is just for ONE pipe clearing event. And it's probably a a low estimate. This converts to 7.8 acre-ft. EVERY THREE DAYS! Each year has 365 days in it (last time I checked). If water is wasted every three days, then it's wasted 121.7 days out of the year. This equals ~950 acre-ft of water wasted a year. Let's just round that up to 1000, cause you know that there are more than 10 dozen stalled housing developments and there are more than 10 houses in each development, probably more like 20, in each category. I'm not sure what the duration of the 84,000 acre-ft request was, so I don't know if it was a year or total and how long it was going to take to remove. Comparably speaking 1000 isn't even close to 84,000, but to my way of thinking you need to start/stop somewhere. If the city of Vegas is wasting water in this idiotic way, how else are they wasting water?

Wetlands

If you've ever read any of my previous posts, you know i have a thing for wetlands. Don't know why, I just do. Love the Everglades, have done several research projects on them. Have also done several research projects on wetlands in general. Fascinating stuff. If I go back to school for a PhD it will be in wetland restoration, mitigation or the like. So, on with today's worry. Wednesday the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that property owners facing potential enforcement from the EPA can take their case before a judge for a ruling. This all came about because a couple in Idaho put a gravel pad on their property to put in a house. The EPA came in guns blazing, screaming that these people would have to pay a huge fine and then put the land back the way they found it. Meanwhile, if you are an industry, you can fill all the wetlands you want as long as you say you are going to "mitigate." grrr. anyway. back to the story. This couple ended up taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court where it was decided that, yes, John Q. Public has a right to question the EPA and their enforcement of regulations. I have a couple of issues with this ruling and the way the EPA goes about its business.

Problem #1: Ever hear the phrase " It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission" ? yeah, this is what is going to happen. Because the EPA went in there heavy handed, the new policy for builders and developers will be to build what you want, then worry about the consequences later, because the people can take the EPA to court. It may also lead to the EPA looking the other way when wetlands are filled because they don't have the time, money or personnel to deal with the mess that someone has created. I think this may lead to an increase in the destruction of wetlands.

Problem #2: What the hell was the EPA thinking going in there the way they did? Seriously? Everyone hates them right now and then they pull this crap? Where were the brains in that office?!! IDIOTS! Ever hear the phrase, "Catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"? Seriously what frickin' idiot thought that filing charges against a couple building a home in a neighborhood that ALREADY had houses in it was a good idea?! And did they actually go out to the property and check it out? What even clued them in that this place might be a problem? I think the EPA could have gotten a little further and spent a lot less on court costs if the conversation went a little more like this....." Hey so & so, we think you might have started building on a wetland, can we look at your property and make an assessment? You know there is part of this that is on a wetland, we need to work out a way to either return to area to its natural state or you will have to pay a fine. How can we work together to get this accomplished?" I think the ordeal would have been a lot less public and the outcome a lot more beneficial to both parties involved if someone with a cooler head had prevailed. Although I think the EPA works on the policy of hammer now ask questions later.

I think the EPA has such a bad rep now that they definitely need to change the way they do things. They do lots of good for the environment and public health in the US, but their tactics have much to be desired. And I'm one of the people that like to defend the EPA, but I think they've given themselves a big black eye on this one, and I dread what is to come because of it.

Update on the drama: It seems the individuals in this case are not as honest or unaccountable as originally suspected. It seems they did know that they were about to build on a wetland and it also seems that the EPA did try to work with them on the whole project. Those documents were not allowed into evidence for some reason when this went before the Supreme Court. It's that whole ask for forgiveness thing. it sucks that people... they just suck!

Broken Levees

Earlier I posted about not building your house in a flood plain. You know, those areas that are most likely to flood. ESPECIALLY when climate change increases the amount of rain in various areas, thereby increasing the risk of flooding. So, I was reading another article about the levees in the U.S. These are earthen works that are built to keep water out of people fields, homes, and keep chemicals from seeping out. There is no standard for building these and some in the U.S. have been around for a hundred years. There are over 30,000 miles of levees and 80% of them are "not accredited," meaning the people and property behind them are in a high risk area for flooding. The areas behind the levees might as well not even have one there, at least that is the stance of FEMA. (I totally agree with this opinion) Because of the rating of those areas the houses behind the levees need to be built to withstand floods and also have to have flood insurance, which of course, drives the price up. So, typical of our crappy congress, a bunch of the idiots got together and whined to FEMA saying, "you're hurting the economy of certain areas." "You're making it difficult for people to build houses, and your devaluing potential property." How much you want to bet these idiots have some developer funding their stupid campaign? Serioulsy, you idiots?! Are you going to be the ones voting for the bailout of the home owners when their houses flood because FEMA told them it was a risky area in the first place? So now, FEMA has to look into different scenarios in relation to flooding. Wasting tax payer dollars to look into something better left alone. HELLLLOOO!!! Floods are going to continue to get worse, and bigger, why in the HELL would you make it EASIER to build a house in a flood prone area? And on top of that, how much does it cost the federal govenrment(aka US) to send out federal troops to increase the size of levees, fill sand bags, and help with recovery once a flood has done its damage? Wouldn't it just be cheaper to keep the regulations in place and disuade people to live in flood prone areas? Oh, wait, my bad, I forgot who I was talking about. Congress likes to waste my money and are more worried about the developers that are giving them kickbacks, lining their pockets.

Vote for me!

A friend and I were talking last night about how powerless we feel when it comes to election time. It seems that no matter what the people that we have to chose from for president aren't worth voting for. None of them. at all. We have to pick the best from the worst. Make sense? She said she had read that after the caucus' in Iowa, or New Hampshire 47% of the people leaving wished there had been someone better to pick from. Yeah, me too. Everyone is touting Mitt Romney and his values, and Jon Huntsman and his values, but I hate to say it, both of them are nothing more than wishy washy politicians! ALL the people we have to pick from are nothing more than wishy washy politicians. You can't trust a thing that any of them say. at all. nothing. sad, ain't it, that this is what our nation has come to. I just want a person that will be honest! and have some values. I'm not even going to say Christian values, I just want someone values period! They can be atheist, Jewish, whatever, I just want someone that doesn't have an agenda and has the best intentions for this nation. So I got to thinking, what if I were to run for President? hmmmm, what would my platform be? I honestly think we need a woman in the oval office, they take a lot less crap from everyone and are more likely to stick to their guns. But that is besides my point. So, my platform:
I'll go through the non-environmental stuff first, cause I know I'll be going on forever about that.

Education: get rid of "No Child Left Behind." What a waste of money. Outlaw standardized testing. Create a committee for education improvement that is made up of nothing but teachers. Real teachers, ones that are teaching right now, maybe 1 or 2 administrators to get their input, but we really need to know what the teachers are dealing with, and how to fix the real issues. Find a way to pay them more. Teachers are our kids future and they get the shaft! They need more money to deal with what they do.

Military: Keep them home, if at all possible. Pay them more, create a better support group.

Foreign Policy: Can't we all just get along? I think it's about mutual respect. For this I would need a strong VP who dealt with foreign policy. I really have no experience with that, but I know there has got to be a better way to do things than the way we are doing them right now.

Taxes: First order of business would be a massive audit! How the heck is the money being spent that we already have? Find out where we are hemorrhaging money and clamp it shut. Stop paying contractors that are gouging the government. I'm not going to say no new taxes, since we have a huge deficit and programs that need funded. If it can be done, then great, no new taxes, but if not, the money has to come from somewhere. Hopefully it could be done by cutting funding for worthless endeavors.

Welfare: No more money for any more kids. Make the system work so that people can get off welfare. Sliding scale type of thing. They find a better job, they get less welfare, don't completely pull the rug out from under them. I think part of the problem is that we have an inaccurate accounting of what it takes to live in the US. We need a reassessment of the cost of living and help people with those guidelines in mind. As for kids, they have more kids, they don't get anymore money! Limit the income to 2 kids, that's it, no more. If they have more kids, they need to find a way to pay for them, the government will refuse to.

Abortion: Personal feelings aside ( I think it's morally wrong), this is not a decision I can make for someone else. It's not for me to decide or to judge. I think everyone is entitled to the best medical care possible, and if that means an abortion, then, well, they should have that care. Do we really want women to return to back alleys for this type of care? As I said, I don't agree with it, there are thousands of families in the US that are waiting for a child through adoption for one reason or another and if there were less abortions I think those people would have those kids. But, as I said, that's not my decision to make. That decision is between that woman, her doctor, and her god.

Now onto the Environment!! Grrr! Climate change is occurring, we need to do more to stop it. Gasoline engines need to be more efficient. I'm not sure how Ford can sell cars in Europe that get WAAYYYY better gas mileage than the same cars they sell here, but they need to bring that technology home. So does VW, Jaguar, Toyota, and any of the others. All these companies have cars they sell in the EU, that get better gas mileage. Wonder why that is? Taxes on gas, or get rid of some of the subsidies. Maybe then people would stop using their gas hog SUV's and go for something that isn't as polluting. Work with the EPA. I really don't care what people think, the EPA doesn't have enough power! What they do have, is sometimes misused, and needs to be checked, but that happens in any organization, especially governmental. I'm not saying they should have more, but when they make regulations for air emissions, Congress shouldn't be able to squash them with a rider on an appropriations bill. There needs to be  more work on restoration of wetlands, and other natural areas. We need to stop the sedimentation that is destroying all our coastal wetlands. We need to work with farmers to improve their conservation plans and activities. I'd stop granting new oil drilling permits in the gulf, and in Alaska off the coast. (That alone would guarantee I would never be pres.) I'd push research for new alternative fuels. NOT ETHANOL! We won't even get into how bad ethanol is for the environment on an ecology stand point. It's wonderful on an emissions front, but the growing and production of it is soooo bad for conservation. Push for water conservation, there are way better ways to do things in relation to water than what we are dong now. Someone needs to listen to the scientists!! They have been telling us a lot for a long time and we continue on like we are deaf. Business as usual isn't going to cut it.

One more thing: I would refuse to sign into law any bill that would be submitted that had a rider on it. If that meant government shut down, so be it. The Congress has got to stop looking out for their own interests and start looking to the interests of the people. Quit with their own pay raises, and anything else that is to their advantage. They are there to do a job, and at the moment they are sucking at it. oh, yeah, and I'd get rid of lobbyists.

So, would you vote for me? lol, I thought so.