Thursday, November 25, 2010
Environmental news from California and beyond - Greywater Report looks at Wastewater's Potential
LA Times
Environment
Environmental news from California and beyond
Greywater Report looks at Wastewater's Potential
November 23, 2010
About 50% of the water used inside U.S. homes can be reused to irrigate landscapes and flush toilets, according to a greywater report released by the Oakland-based Pacific Institute last week. The Overview of Greywater Reuse examined the application of greywater systems worldwide to determine how the wastewater generated from sinks, baths, showers and clothes washers could be reused to reduce demand for more costly, high-quality drinking water.
"In California, there are a lot of reasons why we're looking for new and innovative water sources, including the legal restrictions that are coming to bear on our ability to move water around the state," said Juliet Christian-Smith, senior research associate at the Oakland-based research institute. "Climactic changes are occurring.... We are looking at a future with less of a natural reservoir in our snow in the Sierras and less water available from the Colorado River system."
In 2009, California modified its plumbing code to allow the reuse of certain types of gray water. The Pacific Institute was interested in examining how that change might affect the state and aid its development of a "soft path of water management."
"The 20th century was dominated by a paradigm of water supply and water extraction which focused on large-scale centralized resources like reservoirs, canals and pipelines that have been very successful at moving water and providing a higher standard of living but also come with social, environmental, energy and economic costs that weren't apparent from the beginning," said Christian-Smith. "As we move into the 21st century, we're starting to think about other options ... such as demand management -- conservation and efficiency -- and to look at new technologies that reuse water."
Australia is the most progressive country in terms of gray water policy. The government for this drought-prone continent not only promotes gray water reuse but provides monetary incentives for systems that recycle wastewater from showers and sinks to flush toilets and irrigate outdoor plants. Korea, Cyprus, Japan and Germany are also at the forefront of gray water technology implementation.
While there is no national policy in the U.S. regarding gray water, about 30 of the 50 states have some sort of gray water regulation, some of which require treatment of the wastewater before its reuse. Other states, including Arizona and California, use a landscape's soil as a natural filter to reduce potential contaminants.
According to the report, which cited a study conducted in Barcelona, Spain, this year, factors determining public acceptance of gray water include a perceived health risk, perceived cost, operation regime and environmental awareness.
The Overview of Greywater Reuse is a starting point, Christian-Smith said, to "a larger project that will start to outline supportive and protective instruments" for understanding the long-term impacts of gray water reuse.
LA Times Editorial: Don't Drill, Baby!
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-anwr-20101124,0,2720419.story
Los Angeles Times.com
Editorial
Don't drill, baby!
President Obama should designate the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a national monument, ending the battle over oil exploration there.
November 24, 2010
Right about now in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, dozens of pregnant female polar bears are preparing to give birth in dens they dug into the snowdrifts last month, unaware that the fate of their home, and possibly their species, hinges on the price of gasoline. The Obama administration can and should change that.
Big Oil and its congressional allies have been mounting attempts to open the refuge to oil and gas development since the 1970s. There is no immediate danger that they'll succeed. Although the GOP electoral landslide this month ended Democratic control of the House and produced an incoming class of congressional freshman who are ardently pro-drilling, the Senate is still controlled by Democrats who oppose opening the refuge. More important, gas prices have been stable for more than a year. But should they spike — which is likely to happen if the economy significantly improves — the false perception that we could drill our way out of the problem would increase public support for opening the refuge, pressuring centrist Democrats to change their stance.
This is why half the members of the Senate (all of them Democrats except Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut) sent a letter to President Obama last week urging him to grant the "strongest possible" federal protection to the refuge, thus ending the perennial battles over drilling. Several environmental groups have joined in, urging Obama to designate the land as a national monument, which would prohibit most forms of development.
The refuge is a diverse and extremely fragile ecosystem that teems with animals, such as the Porcupine caribou and muskoxen, that would be seriously harmed by drilling activities. It is thought to be the most important onshore denning habitat for polar bears, a threatened species, in the United States. Oil development would bring road and pipeline construction, noise and pollution, and spills would be deadly to local wildlife. And drilling would have little impact on oil prices. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that output from the refuge could reduce the world oil price by just 75 cents a barrel in 2025 (crude is currently trading at about $81 a barrel, and such a small decrease would be next to meaningless at the pump). Moreover, OPEC would be able to wipe out any savings simply by restricting its supplies. Oil companies would certainly profit from the opportunity to drill, but consumers probably would not.
A monument designation by Obama would most likely lead to a legal battle, because it's not clear whether federal lands available for state use in Alaska can be withdrawn without congressional approval. But that's a fight well worth having. The refuge is a threatened treasure that must be guarded.
Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles Times.com
Editorial
Don't drill, baby!
President Obama should designate the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a national monument, ending the battle over oil exploration there.
November 24, 2010
Right about now in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, dozens of pregnant female polar bears are preparing to give birth in dens they dug into the snowdrifts last month, unaware that the fate of their home, and possibly their species, hinges on the price of gasoline. The Obama administration can and should change that.
Big Oil and its congressional allies have been mounting attempts to open the refuge to oil and gas development since the 1970s. There is no immediate danger that they'll succeed. Although the GOP electoral landslide this month ended Democratic control of the House and produced an incoming class of congressional freshman who are ardently pro-drilling, the Senate is still controlled by Democrats who oppose opening the refuge. More important, gas prices have been stable for more than a year. But should they spike — which is likely to happen if the economy significantly improves — the false perception that we could drill our way out of the problem would increase public support for opening the refuge, pressuring centrist Democrats to change their stance.
This is why half the members of the Senate (all of them Democrats except Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut) sent a letter to President Obama last week urging him to grant the "strongest possible" federal protection to the refuge, thus ending the perennial battles over drilling. Several environmental groups have joined in, urging Obama to designate the land as a national monument, which would prohibit most forms of development.
The refuge is a diverse and extremely fragile ecosystem that teems with animals, such as the Porcupine caribou and muskoxen, that would be seriously harmed by drilling activities. It is thought to be the most important onshore denning habitat for polar bears, a threatened species, in the United States. Oil development would bring road and pipeline construction, noise and pollution, and spills would be deadly to local wildlife. And drilling would have little impact on oil prices. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that output from the refuge could reduce the world oil price by just 75 cents a barrel in 2025 (crude is currently trading at about $81 a barrel, and such a small decrease would be next to meaningless at the pump). Moreover, OPEC would be able to wipe out any savings simply by restricting its supplies. Oil companies would certainly profit from the opportunity to drill, but consumers probably would not.
A monument designation by Obama would most likely lead to a legal battle, because it's not clear whether federal lands available for state use in Alaska can be withdrawn without congressional approval. But that's a fight well worth having. The refuge is a threatened treasure that must be guarded.
Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)