CT Green Scene

Is Nuclear Energy as Bad as We Think?

by Dr. Amy Wiesner

In light of the devastating earthquakes and tsunami in Japan, and the damage done to the nuclear power plant in the affected area, it seems important to have as many facts as possible regarding the consequences of the nuclear plant’s breakdown.

Nuclear energy was first discovered just before World War II, when scientists experimented with splitting atoms to create large amounts of energy, or fission. Initially in the US, this new technology was solely used in a military capacity, but after the war, continuing experimentation was accomplished via the Atomic Energy Commission to find nonviolent uses of nuclear energy, including using it for electricity. The first nuclear energy plant in the US became operational in 1957 and more plant construction quickly followed.

Commentary: Copenhagen

by Michael A. Cuomo

First steps can be frustrating. The climate accord reached early last Saturday morning in Copenhagen is a first step toward achieving a comprehensive, enforceable agreement among members of the United Nations. But while the accord furthers the dialogue of influential players such as China, India, Brazil, the EU and the U.S., it fails to come through with specific targets for the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions. Instead, it contains a vague promise to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. 

Feelings were mixed about the end results of the summit. Gordon Brown described the negotiations as "frustrating” and the Obama administration hailed the meeting as an “important breakthrough.” Most notable among the accord’s successes: A commitment by wealthier countries to provide an annual fund of $100 billion by 2020 to countries who do not have the financial resources to develop their industries. With little to no financial backing, these countries must simultaneously follow ever stricter environmental regulations. 

Balancing the needs of developing versus developed nations has been a sticking point at previous climate summits. Developing nations have been hesitant to sign an agreement that may cripple their economic advancement. Industrialized nations, on the other hand, have been disdainful of granting more achievable emissions restrictions to their less developed neighbors.

Climate Change: In The News

by Eileen Weber

There has been great debate over the effects of global warming, how carbon emissions play a role, and even if it really exists at all.

According to this article in today’s Washington Post, the East Coast may see rising sea levels as a result of melting polar ice caps. Climate change experts say “rising seas are one of the most tangible consequences of a changing climate.”

The U.S. and China have been dancing around each other in a global warming game of chicken. According to this article published in The New York Times on June 7, 2009, the “clock is ticking” between the two countries to resolve issues before the summit in Copenhagen later this year.

In this article dated May 29, 2009 from the Los Angeles Times, global warming doesn’t affect everyone the same. There are more oil refineries and power plants in low-income neighborhoods. How cities and towns handle carbon emissions may effect the people who live in those areas.

But there are still some who are disbelievers. Take this article from the Memphis Flyer dated June 2, 2009 in which two signs from Burger King chains between Mississippi and Tennessee claim “Global Warming Is Baloney”. Keep in mind that the signs also indicate the Drive-thru is 24 hours and they accept Visa. Just in case you were wondering.

Photo courtesy of Vanity Fair via Treehugger.com

Food Safety Gone Wrong?

by Eileen Weber

Salmonella. E. coli. Listeria. These are just a few of the scary names that pop up with food borne illnesses. It’s been found in our spinach. It covers our tomatoes. Even peanut butter is not immune.

"We have a crisis in food safety in this country," said Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro in an interview with the Hartford Courant on April 8th. "We've watched nine people die of salmonella poisoning from peanut butter. ... This bill is an attempt to address that issue in a very reasoned and thoughtful [way]."

DeLauro has good reason to be alarmed by the illness rate. According to an April 9th article in The New York Times, the Food Safety Modernization Act, or H.R. 875, is addressing these illnesses in the food that we eat. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) listed 16 in 100,000 people were diagnosed with food-related illnesses. That’s roughly 48,000 people. Only three years earlier, that number was 14 in 100,000 or about 42,000 people.

And that’s only the ones that were diagnosed. It takes someone being sick enough to be hospitalized and the illness to be properly diagnosed. For truly accurate statistics, it gets a little tricky.

It’s because of this kind of information that DeLauro is putting her agenda forward to regulate the food industry. The goal here is to break the Food and Drug Administration into two separate bodies. It will require food companies to meet standards for contaminants in the food they sell. It will also offer a system of certifying safe imports. There will be stricter food inspections, mandatory recalls, and civil penalties for policy violations.

While regulating our food sounds like a noble cause, there are many people who think the bill is not such a good idea. Blogs abound with vehement outrage against the bill. There has been plenty of fodder on YouTube. Shouts of “This is just big government trying to shut down the little guy!” and “It will be the death of all things good, right and organic in this world!”

New Bottle Bill Considered: Increase Deposit to 10¢

Posted by the Connecticut Post, January 26, 2009

HARTFORD -- The nickel deposit on cans and bottles would increase to 10 cents under legislation that would expand the recycling law to include water and sports drinks.

But industry officials warned that such a cost hike would result in a huge wave of illegal containers purchased in neighboring states and result in higher consumer prices.

Legislative leaders predicted Monday that some kind of widening of the law will finally occur this year because one of the chief opponents, former Speaker of the House James A. Amann, has left the General Assembly.

"I do believe that the House does have a kinder view of this bill now," said. Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, co-chairman of the Environment Committee. "As much as I love the previous speaker --he's my mentor out of Milford -- he was one of the people who did not like this bill, overall." Proposals to include water bottles, sports, drinks and iced teas in recent years have passed the Senate, but died awaiting action on the House calendar.

Our first green president?

 

by Barry Katz

In five days we will inaugurate our first African American president. It's momentous. It's historic. And it's about time.

Back in the early days of the primary campaign some black leaders raised the question, is Obama black enough. My only question is this - is he green enough.

I think he just may be. I sure hope so. I have watched with pleasure and relief at the science/climate/energy/environment team he has put in place and each appointment raised my level of optimism. Could Barack Obama really be our first green president?

We are faced with an historic opportunity. At no other time would it have been possible to get Congress to approve the kind of spending that could really jump-start the new clean green economy we so desperately need. Only a financial melt-down of current proportions can shake that kind of money from the tree.

It will take bold action and a lot of very smart decisions to make this work, and I'm waiting with bated breath to see if Obama and his team can pull it off. Back in December I wrote a post for my blog, The Future is Green entitled "What we need now" in which I suggested that this administration should be judged primarily on the extent to which the next four to eight years is devoted to energy and climate policy. In my mind, nothing else matters. Nothing else matters because everything else hinges on this.

I'll be watching.

New Haven Groundbreaking for $5,000 Per Month Apartments; Condon Argues for Doubling Size of Downtown

By Mark Abraham via Design New Haven.

Great coverage in today's New Haven Independent on the city's official groundbreaking ceremony for the 360 State development. Shovels have been in the ground for over a month, so the ceremony was largely ceremonial, but the importance of the event was not understated:

The symbolic shovelers heralded a future vision for downtown. It’s a downtown populated by medical and university-connected renters who rely on their feet and mass transit rather than cars, buy organic groceries downstairs from their $1,000-to-$5,000-a-month apartments, and help save the planet by living in a green building. “People are paying that in today’s market,” Becker said. “There’s no vacancy at all for the better buildings here downtown,” such as the Eli on Church Street.

The Hartford Courant recently published an opinion piece about the development by the Senior Editor of New Urban News, criticizing its impact on the neighborhood, its massing and pedestrian-friendliness. The importance of walkable, bikeable, and transit friendly streets has been growing nationally, as travel mode undergoes a dramatic shift away from private automobiles. New media sites such as streetsblog.net, a large national blog network created to dovetail with the work of the Transportation for America Campaign, give a sense of this phenomenon.

Although DNH believes that the urbanistic impact of decisions such as where the building's use/program, massing, windows, stair towers and entrances were placed may take years to fully assess (and are combined with the positive stimulus of 1,000 new residents in a pedestrian-rich city core), downtown designers are generally hopeful that the apparent pedestrian safety problems can be alleviated well in advance of the project. For example, the impact of the three major curb cuts at State Street can be reduced through attractive paving, improved sightlines and intensive traffic calming, including bollards if necessary.

Also, the 360 State development promises ample indoor bicycle parking for every apartment - a huge step in the right direction. Yet there are no bicycle lanes or bike boulevards in the area, despite the fact that the streets on all four sides of the new tower are heavily-used crosstown bicycle routes, and even identified by the City of New Haven as such on its official bicycle map. How will the doctors streaming out of 360 State on their bicycles get to the medical district? A greater attention to this form of transportation is needed if the community wishes to provide realistic low-cost transportation alternatives to its citizens, which should be a no-brainer in a town where the vast majority of daily trips are a couple miles or less and where almost half of residents already walk, carpool, bike or take mass transit to work.

Finally, the goal of eliminating pedestrian injuries in the area can only be achieved if speeds are reduced, particularly along State Street. There are currently no signs of plans for significant traffic calming in the area, such as a tabled intersection or speed humps at State and Chapel Streets. Although there are rumors about a complete redevelopment and narrowing of State Street, which could ultimately address those concerns, such plans may be quite distant.

Click here for the developer's new website, 360statestreet.com, where they are already beginning a leasing list. Here's the developer's description: