The land of the Somali people, much of it arid and inhospitable, has been close to civilization and international trade for thousands of years.

Situated on the Horn of Africa, jutting out into the India Ocean, Somalia’s harbors are natural ports of call for traders sailing to and from India. Somalia’s coastline is frequented by many foreigners, in particular Arabs and Persians. But, in Somalia’s interior, the Somali are on their own.

Most urban households use charcoal for everyday cooking. It has been estimated that some families use a full sack of charcoal every four days due to their large family size. And, with this exacerbated charcoal use comes a significant amount of environmental fallout.

Because of an insufficient and cheaper alternative to charcoal and a large former refugee population, tree felling and a great dependence on charcoal in the self-declared republic of Somaliland are adversely affecting the environment. A 2007 study by the Academy for Peace and Development reports that greater than 2.5 million trees are felled each year and burned for charcoal in Somaliland. The report further stated that each household in Somaliland consumes an average of 10 trees a month.

Considering this extensive use of trees, the serious affects of deforestation should be noted. Deforestation not only exacerbates soil erosion, it also reduces rainfall availability. In addition, trees are a vital component in carbon fixing, which is the natural process of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Interestingly, the demand for charcoal remains very high, despite charcoal prices going up since 1991 with the resettlement of former refugees. Roughly 10 years ago, one sack of charcoal cost Somalis only about 5,000 Somaliland shillings, or 0.76 US dollars, but now the price is about 30,000 Somaliland shillings, or 5 US dollars. And, this price is only aggravated by rainfall, because when it rains, the trees become wet and the charcoal becomes more expensive.

It is not difficult to see that the ever rising gas prices have helped to encourage charcoal use. In past years, gas was actually cheaper than charcoal, but the price has increased dramatically. Now, one liter of gas costs approximately 4,000 Somaliland shillings or 0.61 US dollars, which is up from 1,500 Somaliland shillings or 0.23 US dollars.

Nowadays, charcoal is even the preferred fuel in hotels, which obviously consume even larger quantities of this valuable and environmentally important commodity. It has been estimated that some hotel chefs even use a full sack of charcoal for a single day’s cooking.

It is no wonder that researchers have determined that one of the main driving forces of African deforestation is the need for fuel.

It is also estimated that in sub-Saharan Africa, only 7.5 percent of the rural population has access to electricity. A 2009 report on the state of the world’s forests reports that “as household incomes and investment in appropriate alternatives remain low, wood is likely to remain an important energy source in Africa in the coming decades.”

Going back as far as forecasts made in 2001, it was suggested that there will be a 34 percent increase in wood fuel consumption from 2000 to 2020. However, as the price for fuel continues to rise, this increase is likely to be even greater. In other words, the share of wood fuel in the total energy supply is likely to decline, while the number of people dependent on wood for fuel and energy is likely to grow.

The report goes on to say that “the forest situation in Africa presents enormous challenges, reflecting the larger constraints of low income, weak policies and inadequately developed institutions.”

With this ever-increasing demand for fuel, many environmentalists are concerned that the trade in charcoal will eventually wipe out some species of trees. For example, one species of trees used for charcoal production is the Acacia bussei tree, which can produce between eight to 10 sacks of charcoal per tree. Researches are worried because the Acacia is the most preferred tree specie for charcoal production, timber and fencing, and its extensive use could force it to the brink of extinction in the Somaliland territories.

Efforts are being made, however, to stop or slow down the felling of Somaliland trees. On April 30, 2009, concerned with the impact of charcoal burning on the environment, Maroodi Jeeh, regional governor of Hargeisa (a city in the northwestern Somaliland region of Somalia), banned trade in charcoal as well as the burning of trees. Other attempts at protecting the environment have included the introduction of gas stoves and solar cookers in the main urban centers of Burou, Las-anod, Gabiley, Wajalea and Borama.

Since January, Somgas Company has been supplying gas to residents. A typical household uses an 11-kilogram cylinder for approximately six weeks. Although initial gas and cylinder prices remain high, an 11-kilogram gas cylinder plus gas costs $44.50 and is recharged at just $19.
This is certainly not expensive compared with the monthly charcoal consumption of about $15 for three 20-kilogram sacks of charcoal per household. (The gas cylinders range from two to 22 kilograms.)

According to Somaliland’s Ministry of Pastoral Development and Environment, there is still great cause for concern, even though charcoal consumption fell in 2008 compared with 2007.

Mohamoud Ibrahim Mohamoud currently heads the forestry section in the ministry. He says he is concerned about environmental degradation caused by the charcoal trade, and is working with several organizations to search for alternatives to charcoal energy. The problem that seems to drive the tree felling and forest burning for charcoal is the poverty throughout the countryside and the high demand for charcoal energy in the urban areas.

Overall, the demand for charcoal appears to be increasing daily and the burning of trees is also increasing. But, many leaders and environmentalists are now trying to encourage awareness and education among the people of Somalia and give them other sources of income, such as helping young people become involved in alternative activities such as bee-keeping.

It is obvious that other sources of income and further education and research are needed if the problem of deforestation and charcoal burning will be successfully addressed and redirected in Somalia.

Lately the U.S. Federal Government has been making a lot of noise about green fuel. It started with President Bush’s comment about “switch grass” in his State of the Union Address. He got a few chuckles out of that. While we’ve all heard of using corn to make ethanol, and the importance of trading our SUVs for hybrids, I don’t know anybody who is talking about using switch grass.

Since January, the photo-ops broadcast on television networks have been touting Bush’s concern for the environment. Since this is the administration that turned the Clean Air Act into the Clear Skies Initiative, while lowering the standards of environmental safety that energy companies are required to uphold, we should probably ask: how green is green anyway?

Take ethanol, for example. There is a refinery in Goldfield Iowa that has been making ethanol since late last year. It’s been hailed as the “clean, renewable fuel of the future.” But it uses fossil fuel to power the ethanol refinery, so just exactly what are we gaining from this experiment in so-called green energy?

According to a report from the Christian Science Monitor, Carbon Cloud Hangs Over Green Fuel, while other ethanol plants use natural gas, the Goldfield plant burns 300 tons of coal a day to make this clean, renewable fuel. In fact, Goldfield is the first of its kind to use coal. In Nevada, Iowa, just south of Goldfield, another coal-burning ethanol plant is currently under construction and there are, reportedly, plans to build at least three more in the mid-west.

There are now an estimated 200 similar plants under construction. So, environmentalists are getting a little worried. As well they should. According to the climate director for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, the coal producing ethanol plants may undo the environmental benefits of using ethanol in the first place.

So why would the industry deliberately build plants that feed on coal? The answer: the almighty dollar. It costs too much to use natural gas and it’s relatively cheap to retrofit plants to burn coal instead.

They’re calling it “clean coal” technology, but plants using it produce twice the environmental toxins that plants run on natural gas would create. This was substantiated by a group of scientists at the University of California at Berkeley, who concluded that running the almost 200 ethanol plants now under construction on “clean coal” would mean that all the benefits of running vehicles on ethanol would be eliminated by virtue of the CO2 emitted during the ethanol production process.

So what are the alternatives? According to a spokesperson for the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) it is possible to use methane from cattle dung to fire up the ethanol plants. Apparently, it is also possible to use a variety of plant material as well — which is likely where the switch grass reference came from — meaning it is possible to create ethanol without burning either coal or wood. But even if ethanol is produced by boiling switch grass, you can’t run a vehicle on straight ethanol.

Currently, E85, which uses 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, is being touted as the fuel of the future. According to the RFA web site, there is growing interest in E85 and the “flexible fuel vehicles” or FFVs that can run on it. But current ethanol/gasoline mixtures are using a much smaller percentage of ethanol–more like 10%.

Still according to a study done by Smog Reyes in 2004, even a 10% ethanol mix will reduce tailpipe fine particulate matter by 50%, and carbon monoxide emissions by up to 30%. So if we can push the industry to use cleaner fuel for firing up the ethanol plants, rather than relying on coal, as the newest plants appear set to do, we may actually see some progress.

The recently enacted Energy Policy Act (EPACT), which was signed into law by President Bush in August 2005, includes a Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) which some believe will considerably impact our dependence on foreign oil and our ability to create jobs, thus strengthening our economy while simultaneously improving our environment.

In a study conducted by LECG, LLC in May 2005, analysts project that adherence to the RFS will, by the year 2012, allow us to reduce crude oil imports by $2 billion and save $64 billion in payments to foreign oil producers. In addition, they are predicting that ethanol production will add $200 billion to the GDP between 2005 and 2012, create close to $240,000 jobs and increase household income by 43 million. All of which sounds great, but it doesn’t appear as if their study took into account just how the growing number of ethanol plants are going to be fueled. And if coal is used in the majority of the new plants being planned for construction in the coming years, who knows how valid any of these predictions will actually turn out to be?

In the meantime, while we struggle to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for powering cars and other gas guzzling vehicles, we mustn’t fail to consider all the other things we use oil for. Here’s a short list of things you might not think to connect to oil consumption. For the full list you can check out the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) web site:

clothing ink, heart valves, crayons, parachutes, telephones, deodorant, pantyhose, rubbing alcohol, hearing aids, motorcycle helmets, electrical tape, candles, denture adhesive, refrigerator linings, hair coloring, toilet seats, loudspeakers, movie film, tires, floor wax, electric blankets, lipstick, eyeglasses, life jackets, insect repellent. . . and the list goes on

This is not to say we aren’t making progress. After all, we can’t expect to rid ourselves of dependence on foreign oil overnight, despite the newest legislation and increasingly frequent lectures by the President about America’s shameful “addiction” to oil.

But I can’t help but wonder, in all the hoopla over green energy–just how green is green, anyway?

Photography By Bastian, Robenalt, Automatt via Creative Commons

Ideally, the dead bird would tip the miners off in time to evacuate the area before an explosion. But today, electronic sensors are used instead of canaries. One would think this would be better–certainly for the canary population–if for no one else. But apparently, something went wrong at the International Coal Group’s West Virginia Sago Mine.

Perhaps that should not have been entirely unexpected. The International Coal Group was cited for over 200 violations last year at the mine. That sounds like a high number, particularly for an industry that is already so inherently dangerous. Yet almost half of those violations resulted in the minimum fine of just $60 and none of them resulted in a fine higher than $900, despite the fact that violations can result in fines of up to $60,000. The bigger question, however, is if over 200 violations occurred, wouldn’t the sheer number of problems be enough to warrant serious concerns and to justify more than minimum penalties?

Interestingly, the main stream media is focusing on the “positive.” NBC news has a headline on their web site that reads “Safety improvements have made once-common coal mining disasters a rare event.” An odd choice for a headline in the wake of the industry’s recent disaster.

Still, the number of coal mining disasters has gone down in recent years, and many say the reduced disaster rate is due to government regulation. A Progressive Movement to improve mine safety was launched after a series of disasters in 1907 that killed over 600 people. Despite public concerns, however, the mining industry, which tends to see government regulation as interference, protested the movement. Still, by 1909, it had become clear to industry executives that poor safety regulations might actually cause a lack of productivity; and hence, lower profit margins.

So, in 1910, Congress created the US Bureau of Mines, which became an agency under the auspices of the Department of the Interior. While the Progressive Movement of the times was pleased, the Bureau had little power to enforce their own recommendations. As a result, industry executives implemented a few of their own safety measures, mostly to show a token level of cooperation, but those were reportedly minor and had “little effect on the safety of the workers.”

By 1968, however, the writing was on the wall. Eighty-seven men died that year in coal mining accidents, prompting Congress to pass the Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, which was updated in 1977.

One would think that the resulting legislation would have prevented the Sago Mine disaster by forcing the International Coal Group to shut down the mine until the noted infractions had been addressed–particularly since the infractions included 16 “related to failures to prevent or adequately monitor the buildup of explosive gases in the mine,” and nine citations were for failing to properly implement a “mine ventilation plan.” In addition, last year the company was cited seven times for failing to perform pre-shift mine examinations–something Tim Baker, deputy administrator for health and safety at the United Mine Workers of America, says is critical: “We look at that as an absolutely crucial first step of any mining operation.”

These don’t sound like “minor” infractions to me.

To be fair, the International Coal Group, which oversees 12 mining complexes in Kentucky, Maryland and West Virginia, only acquired the Sago Mine last November. So perhaps the regulatory powers that be decided it wouldn’t be fair to burden the company with the same restrictions they might have placed on them had they had more time to make the necessary improvements. But this begs the question: what is more important, protecting the safety of the workers or giving the company a grace period to correct deficiencies while allowing them to continue to make a profit ? The answer, clearly, is the latter.

To understand why, we need only look at the 1977 version of the Mine Health and Safety Act. While the act was ostensibly written for the protection of the miners, Congress always lists the reasons for their legislation (“findings and purpose” they call them) before the actual content of each measure. While the current Mine Health and Safety Act does cite the importance of protecting the health and safety of the miner, a key to the failure of the legislation is the fact that “miner” is defined not as a human being whose life has inherent value, but as the industry’s “most precious resource.”

The findings go on to say that mine safety legislation is justified because accidents have a negative effect on the growth of the industry and on future profitability. Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with securing business interests and making money. However, when we’re talking about legislation that is being created to promote worker safety, isn’t saving lives a good enough argument for such legislation, all by itself? Apparently not.

While International Coal may feel that it’s only fair to give them time to clean up the mess of a prior company’s poor (and very dangerous) habits, it seems clear that the bottom line was allowed to take precedence over the safety of the miners. While the company continued to profit from the coal their workers mined, the health and safety of their “most precious resource” took a back seat.

Perhaps we can’t fault the company for the violations they inherited, but surely they have responsibility for their decision to continue to operate despite the danger their operation so clearly posed to their workers.

Experts from the park and Western Kentucky University conducted the research, which was intended to measure the amount of the poisonous metal in park wildlife, including bats that inhabit Mammoth Cave.

Their work is now also shedding light on how pollutants, such as mercury, become concentrated in and saturate our natural environment.


During the park study, teams of researchers spent two summers using nets to capture hundreds of the estimated 6,000 to 8,000 inhabiting bats for evaluation. The teams strategically placed the nets at locations the bats were expected to fly during the evening hours, such as at the mouth of caves.

Once researchers caught the bats, locks of hair were trimmed from the animals, placed in sterile bags and sent to a Western Kentucky University laboratory for evaluation. As is the case with human beings, the level of mercury found in the bats’ hair has been revealed to correlate with the amount of mercury in their small, fury bodies.

This correlation is called “biomagnification.” Biomagnification is the process where concentrations of a specified pollutant, in this case mercury, increase at each link in the food chain. Prior to this groundbreaking research, mercury studies typically focused on humans and other animals that consume mercury-tainted fish, which are just one step higher on the food chain than the lowly insects. As it turns out, the recent research on bats verses mercury pollution is quite revolutionary because it is revealing that biomagnification even takes place in animals that feed on tiny insects.

In the case of bats, toxic mercury, derived primarily from power plants, falls to the ground and accumulates in a multitude of microscopic plants. These plants are then eaten by minuscule animals, which are then eaten by insects, which are finally devoured by our only truly-flying mammal, bats. Through each of these eating cycles, the quantity of mercury increases until it reaches the bat. In other words, the bat accumulates more mercury than the insect, the insect has more than the minuscule animal, and the minuscule animal has more than the microscopic plant. And so it goes.

Environmental groups and park authorities are placing the blame for the increased mercury contamination primarily on the emissions from Kentucky’s many coal-fired power plants. Utility companies, however, say they are reducing mercury emissions as a result of recent legislation. They point out that some mercury in the atmosphere comes from certain natural events, such as forest fires and volcanoes.

Additionally, Kentucky’s coal-fired power plants are likely not the only mercury contributor as bats do migrate and can acquire the lethal mercury during their travels to neighboring states. Mercury, like bats, is also able to travel long distances before settling in bodies of water or being soaked up by tiny plants.

While Kentucky’s power plants are not the lone mercury bandit, many environmentalists call Kentucky a mercury “hot spot” due to the sheer number of coal-fired plants. In fact, state officials have had to issue mercury warnings cautioning people against eating fish taken out of rivers, creeks, lakes and ponds located in all 120 Kentucky counties.

Although it is yet to be determined whether or not the amount of mercury found in these bats is actually causing serious harm, such as damage to the central nervous and reproductive systems, researchers have already found mercury in the bats’ hair at nearly 10 parts per million.

10 parts per million is an extremely elevated level, a concentration beyond which detrimental health effects are detected in humans and a variety of rodents. In fact, the United States Environmental Protection Agency reports that human mercury exposure should be limited to 1 part per million. This is a whopping 10 times lower than the level found in bats during the Mammoth Cave National Park study.

It is now understood that bats are especially susceptible to the toxic metal due to their high metabolic rate, which requires the bats to consume an excessive amount of insects every night. In fact, bats are better than your average bug zapper light as many can easily eat close to their body weight in insects in just one night. That’s a lot of bugs.

Because of the sheer number of insects bats must eat to survive, it is believed that mercury has the obvious potential to seriously affect a bat’s ability to reproduce, thus hindering their capability of keeping their species alive. Mercury contamination can also alter the way the baby bats’ brains develop as well as impair the adult bats’ ability to care for their new babies.

For the furry-faced Indiana bat, which is found throughout the eastern states, the future is uncertain as they are still facing the threat of extinction. At one time, this tiny flying mammal, only weighing as much as three pennies, is estimated to have numbered up into the tens of millions in and around Kentucky’s Mammoth Cave National Park.

Urban development, increased farming and deadly tree diseases depleted and, in fact, removed a significant amount of these tiny bats’ maternity habitat and food supply. Prior to 1941, when Mammoth Cave was designated as a national park, much of its 52,000-plus acres were used as cattle grazing-ground, farmland as well as a prime location to harvest a great deal of timber.

Dutch elm disease also eliminated 90 percent of the nation’s American elm trees; a member of the elm tree family that the Indiana bats used to raise their young. Currently the Dutch elm tree has made a comeback, however the current woodlands are still too young to support the needs of the many roosting females. This serious decline in suitable roosting trees presents quite a challenge for mammals that only produce one offspring each year.

Scientists have estimated that, at one point in history, as many as ten million bats wintered in Mammoth Cave. That number has been reduced to zero. When the Indiana bat was added to the Federal Endangered Species List in 1967, their numbers had declined drastically; by greater than 60 percent. It is now estimated that the current national population of this bat is only roughly 330,000.

The Mammoth Cave National Park research findings, which are still being scrutinized, will most likely turn into a conflict between environmentalists, Kentucky power plants and, of course, government environmental authorities over the effects that toxic mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants has on the environment, including the bats who reside at the park.

In 2005, Environmental Protection Agency authorities imposed a seemingly significant limit on mercury emissions from power plants. These new regulations should reduce mercury emissions by approximately 70 percent over the next 13 years.

Many environmentalists, however, are still not convinced that these new mercury pollution regulations will be enough to protect the environment. Some groups have even challenged the new policy in court saying it is still too weak and will take too long to make a significant environmental difference.

While some may not give the future of creatures that often provoke fear because of their Halloween-like, spooky reputation of sucking human blood and attacking unsuspecting people, the importance of bats should not be underestimated.

Insect control, particularly of the dreaded mosquito, is just one of the benefits offered to the world by the bat. Consider the little brown bat that can swallow approximately 600 mosquitoes an hour.

The mosquito is just one insect different varieties of bats love to devour. The big brown bat can devour about 18 million rootworms every year, while the long-eared pallid bat can actually hear its prey – various walking insects, such as scorpions, centipedes and grasshoppers.

Not all bats eat insects, but they still provide other benefits to humans and our environment. Some bats, like the lesser long-nosed bat, drink nectar. Just like bees and hummingbirds, they carry pollen from one flower to another, thus aiding in the pollination of plants.

Photo:Doug Bowman

Some bats, like the short-tailed fruit bat, eat delicious fruit and scatter the seeds as they fly. Some 60,000 seeds can be distributed in one night by a single short-tailed fruit bat living in South and Central American rain forests.

Finally, take a minute to think of the mysterious vampire bat of Central and South America. While these bats do suck the blood of certain larger mammals, they pose no threat to humans. In fact, vampire bats have actually helped the medical profession.

Photo:bubblemonkey

Vampire bat saliva is unique and is made up of three ingredients that keep their preys’ blood freely flowing. An anticoagulant is the primarily component and works to keep the blood from clotting. A relatively new drug, Draculin, has been developed as a result of research and testing on the anticoagulant element of vampire bat saliva. This drug is now used to the benefit of human patients with heart ailments.

It should be obvious that there really is much to be lost if the diverse environments of the many bat species are not protected.

High Resolution Images from this article

What’s the first thing you think of when you sit down to a delicious, seafood dinner? If you enjoy eating seafood even half as much as I do, you are probably already salivating at the very thought of it. You probably are not looking at this masterfully cooked cuisine and wondering whether the catfish was farmed or wild or whether the grilled Salmon once swam in one of the Great Lakes or the great Pacific Ocean. Of course not. There is, however, one question that we all may be forgetting to ask… just how much mercury has accumulated in my broiled mahi mahi?

This question should be of particular concern to Hoosiers as Indiana’s coal-burning power plants emit the fourth-largest volume of mercury in the country. Indiana is one of the most coal-dependent states in the United States and actually generates approximately 95 percent of the state’s electricity from fossil fuel at its 21 plants. As a result, Indiana’s dirty power plants have helped the state receive very high marks among our nation’s top polluters. In fact, Indiana is ranked among the top-five polluting states in the country.

But just what is mercury and how does burning coal result in the emission of mercury into our environment?

Mercury is a naturally-occurring metal found in water, air, soil, and is actually an element of the earth’s crust. Humans cannot create or destroy mercury. Mercury can exist in many forms; however, pure mercury is actually a liquid metal that is also known as quicksilver. Traditionally, mercury has been utilized in the production of, to name a few, thermometers, some types of light bulbs, and switches; although, most people are exposed to mercury primarily by eating contaminated fish.

As an element of the planet’s crust, mercury can be found in many types of rocks. One very useful mercury-containing rock just happens to be coal. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the air. Once in the air, mercury will eventually settle in water or on land where it is swept, along with other pollutants, into the water as storm water runoff. After mercury enters a pond, river, or lake, various microorganisms that live in the water begin to transform the element into the very toxic methylmercury.

This is where the real problems start as methylmercury is a highly poisonous substance that collects in the bodies of certain shellfish, fish, and many fish-eating animals, including us humans. And, because fish and shellfish are the leading cause of human methylmercury exposure, it is important for us to remember that some types of fish and shellfish are more susceptible to methylmercury and will build up higher levels of the toxin than others.

For this reason, we need to pay particular attention to the types of fish we are eating. This can be a confusing subject though as the amount of methylmercury found in fish and shellfish will depend on several factors: What did my large mouth bass typically dine on, how old was he, and just how high on the food chain did he rank. It can be assumed that the bigger the fish, the higher on the food chain (the more little fish he gobbled), the higher the risk of eating a mercury-laced dinner.

Not very appetizing, huh?

So, what does this mean for those of us in Indiana?

For one thing, data collected by the United States Geological Survey at four Indiana monitoring stations has determined that the quantity of mercury falling from the Hoosier state’s sky is roughly 25 percent higher than the national average. When you consider the size of Indiana compared to the nation as a whole, 25 percent is considerable. Further, even though the southwestern part of Indiana has one of the greatest concentrations of coal-fueled power plants in the United States, it is interesting to mention that currently there are no monitors in that part of the state.

As an attempt to curb methylmercury poisoning and contamination, Indiana’s coal-burning power plants must now, for the first time, slash mercury emissions as a result of a recent federal ruling. This new regulation, signed into effect in March 2005, is intended to radically reduce the release of toxic mercury by 70 percent nationwide over the next 15 years.

The majority of the pollution reduction will be a result of tighter controls on smog and soot-type contaminates. Having a reduction in these types of pollutants as a result of new pollution controls will present Indiana utilities with a price tag in the billions. Indiana will also have to fork over the necessary funds to cut the toxic mercury levels back to the new stricter standards by the year 2018.

Similar to the smog and soot regulations, the EPA’s new mercury strategy sets a national limit on emissions. What this really means is that all utilities that successfully reduce mercury pollution will be permitted to sell pollution “credits” to those companies who do not meet the standards. This “bartering” can take place as long as the nationwide cap is not surpassed.

Currently, 48 tons of mercury are discharged into the environment each year. By the year 2010, this figure will reportedly be restricted to 38 tons. By the year 2018, the limit should be 15 tons; however, it could very likely take several more years to fully realize this level because the utilities that significantly reduce their emissions during the early years will actually have more time to comply with this important environmental ruling.

What all of this indicates is that the amount of overall mercury emissions will decrease over time; however, some of the “dirtier” power plants will be allowed to purchase the right to continue releasing the elevated levels of mercury. The obvious, possible result would be mercury “hot spots.” These hot spots would be the waterways around the power plants that still emit the higher levels of mercury. These elevated levels of mercury would eventually work its way up the food chain, of course, concentrating its efforts in fish.

Do you feel that these emissions and pollution regulations are really enough? Some medical doctors and environmentalists are saying that even these pollution reductions are not extensive enough, nor immediate enough, for Indiana. Some who work in the power plant and utilities industries are saying that these new regulations are a clean-air landmark; however, quite a few environmentalists are not satisfied and believe these new regulations to be too lax to ensure the health of Hoosiers.

In fact, many are coming to the worrisome conclusion that the mercury problem in Indiana is actually putting Hoosier kids in danger. According to the Hoosier Environmental Council, for many Indiana kids, predominately from lower-income and/or minority families, state-caught fish is actually one of their biggest sources of protein.

To illustrate this danger, take a look at a couple of startling statistics:

In Indiana alone, there are roughly 1,127,326 kids living just about 30 miles away from a coal-burning power plant. 30 miles is the estimated area in which the most damaging and severe health impacts are realized. Using the same geographical closeness, research has found that infants exposed to consistently elevated levels of particulate matter pollution are at a 26 percent increased risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome as well as a 40 percent increased threat of death as a result of severe respiratory illness.

Currently, throughout the state of Indiana, all women and children are cautioned to monitor the amount of fish and shellfish we eat from any of the many state waterways due to the dangerous threat of methylmercury. It has been proven that, due to its neurotoxic effects, abnormally-high amounts of methylmercury in the bloodstreams of fetuses and young children harm the youngsters’ developing nervous system which in turn causes the child to be less likely to think and learn at normally-expected levels. More specifically, the effects of mercury exposure are much like the results of lead poisoning in children – delayed mental development, significant cognitive and language deficits, and difficulties developing normal motor function, attention, and memory.

If all of you Hoosier men are breathing a sigh of relief, think again. Exposure to elevated levels of mercury proves harmful to the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system of everyone, not just women and young children. Therefore, all Hoosiers need to watch their fish and shellfish intake. And, remember, Indiana has standard warnings advising every Hoosier to limit their consumption of and completely avoid eating many different types of fish taken from any of its 35,673 miles of rivers and caught in any of its 47,806 acres of lakes – this, in a large part, is because of mercury contamination.

Research suggests, however, that for the majority of us, fish consumption, when limited or minimal, will not present a significant health concern. However, we all might want to remember the old saying: “You are what you eat.” Conversely, there are still areas of specific concern even when fish consumption is limited. For example, 2003 research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control determined that approximately 10 percent of American women already have elevated mercury levels – levels high enough to put an unborn fetus at a potential risk for neurological damage and delays.

So, considering the fact that coal-burning power plants are responsible for the largest human-caused mercury air emissions in the United States combined with the real and present danger that methylmercury can pose to all of us; it is definitely an environmental issue that warrants much serious attention – Not just for those of us in Indiana, but across the nation.

In the case of Indiana, three of its coal-burning power plants made the Environmental Integrity Project’s “America’s Most Dirtiest Power Plants” top 50 for 2002. The EIP, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that strives for more effective enforcement of current environmental regulations, report that three of Indiana’s power plants were among the top 50 dirties mercury polluters – Rockport’s AEP – ranked 18th, Gibson’s Cinergy – ranked 34th, and Petersburg’s AES – ranked 46th – out of a total of 491 total plants evaluated.

When I take a look at the list of fish that you and I should not consume more than once a month (canned tuna, mahi mahi, blue mussel, eastern oyster, cod, Pollock, Great lakes salmon, channel catfish (wild), and Lake whitefish) along with the pregnant and nursing woman’s inventory of black-listed fish (shark, swordfish, tilefish, and king mackerel), I feel a little sad. A “natural resource” such as our waterways and the fish who reside there should not have “warning labels.” I can see warning labels on cigarette packs, beer and liquor bottles, chewing tobacco, household chemicals, etc. But, something is definitely a little strange when we have to consider putting warning labels on the fish that we eat.

Industry officials argue that, at this time in history, the commercially-available technology to reduce mercury pollution by at least 90 percent does not yet exist. Some environmentalists are saying that the technology is out there and just has to be utilized properly. Both could be partially right; however, I would think that if we can send astronauts into space to walk on the moon, we should be able to strategically and successfully be capable of tackling methylmercury emissions.

A power generation plant near Washington DC has voluntarily ceased production to protect the health of people living nearby. Seriously. Really!

It sounds like a fairy tale but it’s the official story being given by Mirant Corporation, owner of the power plant. What lies below the surface, however, is another matter entirely. Years of bitter fighting between the residents of a densely populated urban area and the owners of a coal-burning power plant in their midst have left both sides alienated, angry, and advocating permanent solutions.

Mirant’s Potomac River Generation Station (PRGS) was built in a lower density neighborhood near Washington, D.C. circa 1949. But sprawl happens, and now there are high-rise condos neighboring the plant.

Computer Models and Reality

On August 19, 2005 the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) received the results of a computer simulation study on emissions from Mirant’s plant in Alexandria, VA. The results showed that if the plant operated all five of its generators at full tilt and certain wind conditions were present, the emissions of three substances (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particles) would exceed acceptable limits in the area immediately surrounding the plant. Virginia DEQ gave Mirant less than a week to propose a solution.

The study was jointly commissioned by Mirant and DEQ. While the worst-case scenario results show that Mirant could generate excess pollution, Steven Arabia of Mirant has pointed out that actual emissions from the plant are within Federal guidelines. There are pollution monitors around the plant and on the neighboring condos.

Mirant and DEQ failed to come to an agreement in a teleconference on Wednesday, August 24. At midnight Mirant shut down power generation at the plant, stating that they would re-start when a solution was agreed to. DEQ claims that they never requested nor suggested that Mirant should cease generation there.

Mirant representatives have held fast to the line that they are doing this out of concern for the health of people living in the area. But if one looks at Mirant’s record, this just doesn’t ring true. And the question must be asked: What could Mirant hope to gain by temporarily halting generation?

The plant, which is still in the same place, is now located in a densely populated urban area, and is woven into the complex network that supplies electricity to the Nation’s Capitol. While there is enough excess production in the network to cover the loss of Mirant’s 482 megawatts, it leaves the Capitol without a safety net. If there is a heat wave (above 96° F) or other disaster, the grid could falter.

When dealing with the complex machine that is the electrical power grid, a falter can quickly turn into a chain-reaction failure given the complex power needs of the region.

Because of the risk this presents to the nation, the D.C. Public Service Commission has already petitioned the U.S. Department of Energy and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to force the plant back into service.

Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO), the company that buys electricity from Mirant and sells it to customers in the D.C. area, has contingency plans in place and assures that customer service will not be interrupted. So long as there are no extreme weather events, like a 98 °F heat wave in late August, for example. They have been instructed to create contingency plans for their contingency plans.

Clean Air or Electricity?

Obviously, we need both. But half of Maryland’s electricity is generated in coal-burning plants. In the D.C. area, 180,000 residents go to the hospital each year with respiritory ailments that have been directly linked to air pollution from coal fired power plants.

The air pollution puts infants and the elderly at even greater risk. In 2005 an estimated 687 Maryland residents are expected to succumb to their last gathering involving slow singing and flower bringing because of particulate pollution created in coal-burning power plants. Mirant has finally heard the alarm ringing.

Residents and politicians in the area of the Potomac plant have been concerned about emissions for years. When the Alexandria plant was built in 1949, the height of its stacks was limited to 165 feet by the FAA to ensure the safety of planes approaching and leaving what was then Washington National Airport.

Marina Towers condominiums (501 Slaters Lane) was then built near the plant’s stacks by developers eager to take advantage of the real estate boom. But the proximity and height of the Marina Towers structure produces a downwash effect that causes harmful pollutants to settle in the area rather than drift away. The residents of Marina Towers and others have been working to either cut emissions from the plant or close it down. Locals complain of respiratory problems that are most likely brought about by emissions from the Potomac plant.

It’s worth mentioning that the plant is no secret, so it’s not like the residents who bought condos somehow didn’t know it was there. It’s a huge industrial power plant, and the smokestacks, even at their dangerously low height, are visible for miles. The condominium complex at issue is very close to the power plant.

Lots of people live near coal-fired power plants that continue to operate, causing disastrous health consequences for persons nearby and downwind. Usually these persons don’t live in highrise condominiums. Those living nearby power plants may lack the sophistication to order a computer model but they are at risk just the same.

The air traffic approach to the airport has since been re-routed over the Potomac River, so the stacks can be extended. According to the computer model, they should be at least 100 feet taller to alleviate the downwash effect. The taller the better is what you would be asking for, if you are breathing nearby.

Environmentalists are calling on the federal government and energy industry to fill the gap created by the halt in generation with renewable and green energy sources, such as solar and wind. But such generation fields are not brought about overnight. For some inexplicable reason, it still takes years of planning and construction to create a solar or wind farm. So the lack of a planning fast track and an efficient design methodology for renewable power generation could be an issue. But this is arguably a management issue.

Mirant has taken the first step by placing the five generators at the plant into standby mode. But does the current executive leadership of the company have the courage to lead the power generation industry into sustainable, health-friendly production of electricity?

While their spokespeople express a great concern for people’s health, Mirant’s action in shutting down production at PRGS says “Which do you want? Clean air or enough electrical power to keep the Nation’s Capitol stable..? Well?”

Mirant as a Neighbor

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) has held protests at other Mirant plants around DC and spent years pressuring both Mirant and PEPCO to provide cleaner energy. They’ve had some pleasant successes, including PEPCO now offering wind-generated electricity to its customers.

Mirant was negotiating with Federal agencies to reduce emissions during the Clinton administration. Once President Bush started easing environmental restrictions on coal-burning plants, Mirant simply walked away from that table. If they are not required by law to reduce emissions they will not do so voluntarily. Going a step further, Mirant has regularly lobbied against environmental laws that could affect the energy industry at both the State and Federal levels.

And then there is the tax problem. Rockland County had expected Mirant to pay their full tax bill. But Mirant has taken the County to court with a demand for lower taxes, stating that they are unable to pay the full amount. This is causing school taxes in Rockland to go up between 7% and 40% which comes out to as much as $250 per month in additional taxes for residents of Tomkins Cove. Mirant has been also delinquent on taxes in Charles, Montgomery, and Prince Georges counties according to CCAN.

A Little History

Mirant has had a tough life since it was spun off from Southern Company in 2001. Southern Co. stripped the company of $2 billion in assets and left it with a $60 million liability tied to the Enron scandal. In July 2003, Mirant management filed for bankruptcy.

In the wide and wild wake of Enron, they could not convince competent creditors to extend them any more credit and could not meet a $1.1 billion loan payment. Thus, the tenth largest bankruptcy in the U.S.

Its expenses have far outpaced expectations. Final costs for the bankruptcy may reach as high as $700,000,000 — seven hundred million dollars — most of which is paid to lawyers and consultants.

Mirant may be able to emerge from the bankruptcy by September 5. They have secured $2.35 billion in credit to pay off their loans and become solvent. Yet they shut down the five generating stations at the plant because of some criticism and a computer model.

Could this be a turning point in the operation of the company toward one that takes responsibility for the health problems that older coal-fired plants are known to produce in urban areas?

Mirant purchased the Potomac plant from PEPCO. Part of their agreement has Mirant selling discounted energy back to PEPCO. Mirant will not increase production at its other three facilities in the area—they say that these are already near capacity. So perhaps this helps get them out of the discount power business.

There’s no question that the Potomac plant create hazardous pollutants in excess of the allowed amounts. In the ozone season of 2003 it exceeded its Nitrogen Dioxide (Nox) permit by 1,117 tons, and was fined $500,000. Since then it has appeared to stay within limits for all pollutants.

Politicians Jump In

Maryland’s Governor is retiring, and the office is up for grabs. County Executive Douglas M. Duncan has thrown himself into this issue with gusto. After the Alexandria plant powered down, he asked the Maryland Governor to do additional testing at Mirant’s three generation facilities on the Maryland side of the Potomac. On the Dickerson coal-burning plant the smokestack is 700 feet high, as opposed to the 165-foot stack in Alexandria, so that one probably won’t cause the same problems nearby—instead those problems will be widely dispersed over the Chesapeake Bay and the Eastern Shore. The jury is still out on the other two. Presumably we will hear back on this issue from Mr. Duncan.

Mirant wholesales electricity in the U.S., Philippines, and Caribbean. The Alexandria plant supplies electricity to between 500,000 and 700,000 customers in Washington, D.C. and surrounding areas. Their common stock can be traded under the symbol [MIRKQ] on the “pink sheets,” and shares in this company may actually end up having no value at all. Mirant’s stock (MIRKQ:PK) closed at $0.80 on Friday, August 26, 2005.

A Judicial Decision

Right now, it all rests on an upcoming decision to be made by the Honorable D. Michael Lynn, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. Several of those following this case closely have suggested the actions of Mirant management and creditors establish a new precedent for corporate manipulation.

Pre-bankruptcy shareholders and disciples of The Mirant Mindset are hoping Judge Lynn remains mindful of these actions when making his judgment. While the interested parties are sweating it out, the neighbors of the Alexandria plant will at least be breathing a little easier this Labor Day weekend.

References and Sources for this story

An industrial city founded in 1935 as a slave labor camp, the Siberian city of Norilsk, Russia is the northernmost major city in Russia. After Murmansk, it’s the largest city above the Arctic Circle. It’s also the most polluted.

Right now, in June and July, the sun stays up all day, but the furnaces in the Nadezhda Metallurgical plant run round the clock all year long, smelting nickel and other ores and spouting a steady fountain of toxic, sulfurous smoke. Two million tons of sulfur dioxide per year since the 1950s. That they reported.

As a result, the Norilsk region is the home of the world’s largest pollution induced forest decline. For forty kilometers around the smelters, the soil contains 10-1000 times the normal background level of heavy metals.

As a result, the snow is yellow and black.

As a result, move to Norilsk to work, and your life expectancy will drop by ten years.

“Norilsk is the world’s biggest nickel and palladium producer, having overtaken Inco several years back. Since data first emerged from the ex-Soviet Union in the early nineties, it has established itself as one of the world’s single biggest ambient air polluters – if not the biggest. Indeed, despite early technological assistance from outside Russia (notably from Finland’s Outokumpu Oy), its contribution to the country’s sulphur dioxide burden has increased in relative terms.” Mines & Communities

“[Norilsk] is a city where the bus driver tells you, ‘If a Norilsk man gets sick in Moscow, the way to cure him is to move him closer to the car’s exhaust.’” Howard Weaver

“In my estimation, about 400,000 people took part in the construction of this complex. Due to the cold and the bullets, about one-fifth of them died,” Anatoly Lvov says. “At the same time, tens of thousands of volunteers worked shoulder to shoulder with the prisoners, and they object to those who say Norilsk was built on people’s bones. The prisoners who survived also are proud to have built this.” Howard Weaver

"In 1997, with the old combine in disarray, one of Russia’s richest men, Vladimir O. Potanin, bought its mines and factories and began a modernization that has cut the work force nearly in half, to 60,000, and jettisoned many of its obligations to support the city’s basic services." New York Times

“Officials say the environmental depths of Norilsk pollution was reached in 1984, but the plants even by official admission still emit many times the allowable norms and acid rain is killing hundreds of thousands of acres of forest and tundra nearby. Water pollution also is severe, with officials admitting to more than 100 polluted kilometers of river.” Howard Weaver

“The Norilsk Mining Companies… produce one seventh of all the factory pollution in Russia. Each year they churn out over two million tonnes in waste gas, and 85 million cubic meters of dirty water, according to the few figures provided by the Russian government. Its impact, ecologists say, is felt in Norway and Canada, and is killing off the forest tundra for hundreds of miles. Locals say the snow is yellow for 30 miles around the town.” Mines and Communities

“They took everything from me,” said Olga I. Yaskina, who was sent to the
Gulag in Norilsk in 1952 when she was just 16 for writing a letter to a friend in exile that said: “Don’t cry. The sun will rise for us again.”

She never left after she was released from the prison camp three years later. Now 67, she receives a pension and works as a concierge at an apartment building, supporting herself and an unemployed son on little more than $300 a month.

She stays not because she wants to but because she has no better alternative. “I have nothing left on the continent,” she said.

New York Times

"The [charitable donations] represent a “goodwill gesture” to the people of Montana from the Russian company that bought controlling interest in Stillwater Mining Co. in 2003. The donation marks ZooMontana’s largest corporate donation to date. Frank McAllister, CEO at Stillwater, said the idea was born when the company was in the midst of transactions with Norilsk two years ago.

“We were concerned about our image and needed to explain to the community exactly who Norilsk is,” he said.
Billings Gazette

Thanks to Dave Greten