Dear EarthTalk: Has China been making any progress reducing its output of global warming gases, and/or in tackling other environmental problems?

Decades of rapid-fire development and lack of government oversight has meant that China now faces some serious environmental challenges. According to research by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China surpassed the United States as the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases in 2006—and hasn’t looked back. (While the Chinese emit some eight percent more carbon dioxide than their American counterparts, the U.S. still leads the world in greenhouse gas emissions per capita, due to its significantly smaller population size and higher standard of living.)

Beyond its contribution to global warming, China is also a world leader in other forms of pollution, given its huge population and its ambition to become the next international economic superpower. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), current levels of air pollution in China far exceed international environmental standards. A recent analysis found, for example, that the air in some four dozen Chinese cities contained as much as seven times as much particulate pollution—which can get lodged in human lungs and cause a wide range of health problems—as deemed safe by WHO.

But critics say blaming China for its rampant pollution is unfair, given all the manufacturing the world’s developed countries outsource to Chinese companies. Qin Gang, China’s foreign ministry spokesman, refers to China as the “world’s factory” and says: “A lot of what you use, wear and eat is produced in China… “On the one hand, you increase production in China; on the other hand you criticize China on the emission reduction issue.” Yang Ailun of Greenpeace China agrees: “All the West has done is export a great slice of its carbon footprint to China and make China the world’s factory.”

Despite its efforts to go green, China still depends on coal—the dirtiest of all the fossil fuels—for some two-thirds of its energy needs. Chinese officials have strenuously opposed the binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions set by developing countries, arguing that already industrialized nations are to blame for most of the emissions already in the atmosphere.

According to Isabel Hilton, a journalist with the UK’s Guardian, industrialized countries should feel an obligation to shoulder at least some of the burden of helping China become a greener nation. “This means drastically reducing our own emissions and helping China with the finance and technology required to move to a sustainable, low-carbon economic system.”

There is progress afoot: Meetings between top Chinese and U.S. officials earlier this year led to the creation of a joint research center to address issues related to clean energy, with each country contributing $15 million to pay for initial research efforts.

CONTACTS: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, www.pbl.nl; World Health Organization, www.who.int; Greenpeace China, www.greenpeace.org/china.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

Check it out! I just started putting together a store for The Good Human, filled with all sorts of natural products, reusable bottles, etc. – It’s not done yet, but it’s getting there!

You may also enjoy:

1. Riding Your Bike And Dealing With Pollution.
2. Pesticides, Fertilizers, Herbicides And Water Pollution.
3. Is Clean Coal Really Clean? Not Really…
4. What Does ‘Carbon Neutral’ Really Mean?
5. Global Warming, Human Illness And Loss Of Life.

Dear EarthTalk: What effects do fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used on residential lawns or on farms have on nearby water bodies like rivers, streams—or even the ocean for those of us who live near the shore?

With the advent of the so-called Green Revolution in the second half of the 20th century—when farmers began to use technological advances to boost yields—synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides became commonplace around the world not only on farms, but in backyard gardens and on front lawns as well.

These chemicals, many of which were developed in the lab and are petroleum-based, have allowed farmers and gardeners of every stripe to exercise greater control over the plants they want to grow by enriching the immediate environment and warding off pests. But such benefits haven’t come without environmental costs—namely the wholesale pollution of most of our streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and even coastal areas, as these synthetic chemicals run-off into the nearby waterways.

When the excess nutrients from all the fertilizer we use runs off into our waterways, they cause algae blooms sometimes big enough to make waterways impassable. When the algae die, they sink to the bottom and decompose in a process that removes oxygen from the water. Fish and other aquatic species can’t survive in these so-called “dead zones” and so they die or move on to greener underwater pastures.

A related issue is the poisoning of aquatic life. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Americans alone churn through 75 million pounds of pesticides each year to keep the bugs off their peapods and petunias. When those chemicals get into waterways, fish ingest them and become diseased. Humans who eat diseased fish can themselves become ill, completing the circle wrought by pollution.

A 2007 study of pollution in rivers around Portland, Oregon found that wild salmon there are swimming around with dozens of synthetic chemicals in their systems. Another recent study from Indiana found that a variety of corn genetically engineered to produce the insecticide Bt is having toxic effects on non-target aquatic insects, including caddis flies, a major food source for fish and frogs.

The solution, of course, is to go organic, both at home and on the farm. According to the Organic Trade Association, organic farmers and gardeners use composted manure and other natural materials, as well as crop rotation, to help improve soil fertility, rather than synthetic fertilizers that can result in an overabundance of nutrients. As a result, these practices protect ground water supplies and avoid runoff of chemicals that can cause dead zones and poisoned aquatic life.

There is now a large variety of organic fertilizer available commercially, as well as many ways to keep pests at bay without resorting to harsh synthetic chemicals. A wealth of information on growing greener can be found online: Check out OrganicGardeningGuru.com and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Alternative Farming System Information Center, for starters. Those interested in face-to-face advice should consult with a master gardener at a local nursery that specializes in organic gardening.

CONTACTS: CDC, www.cdc.gov; Organic Gardening Guru, www.organicgardeningguru.com; USDA’s Alternative Farming System Information Center, www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881 USA; submit it at EarthTalk; or e-mail us. Read past columns at our archives.

Check it out! I just started putting together a store for The Good Human, filled with all sorts of natural products, reusable bottles, etc. – It’s not done yet, but it’s getting there!

You may also enjoy:

1. China’s Pollution Problem.
2. To Organic Or Not To Organic – It’s An Obvious Choice.
3. Riding Your Bike And Dealing With Pollution.
4. Reasons To Be Concerned About Chlorine In Water.
5. The Environmental Impact Of The Fashion Industry.

Here is a list that you don’t want to read…but you have to. The Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at UMass has updated their list of the Top 100 corporate polluters in the U.S. for 2009, which “identifies the top U.S. air polluters among the world’s largest corporations. The index relies on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) project. The starting point for the RSEI is the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which reports on releases of toxic chemicals at facilities across the United States.”

Here are the top 10 worst polluters, along with their Toxic score (pounds released x toxicity x population exposure):

• E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. – 285,661
• Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) – 213,159
• Dow Chemical – 189,673
• Bayer Group – 172,773
• Eastman Kodak – 162,430
• General Electric – 149,061
• Arcelor Mittal – 134,573
• U.S. Steel – 129,123
• ExxonMobil – 128,758
• AK Steel Holding – 101,428

The Top 100 list also has plant and pollution locations, so you can see how close you live to any of these worst offenders. Some scary stuff on here, even from companies who try to greenwash their way onto sustainable environmental sites!

Check it out! I just started putting together a store for The Good Human, filled with all sorts of natural products, reusable bottles, etc. – It’s not done yet, but it’s getting there!

You may also enjoy:

1. Corporate Paper Waste: Comcast Sent Me 7 Letters Saying The Same Thing – In One Day.

Dear EarthTalk: Are plans to mine uranium near the Grand Canyon, as proposed by the Bush administration in 2008, still underway?

The Obama administration has been quick to overturn several anti-environmental moves ushered in during the 11th hour of George W. Bush’s presidency, but halting uranium exploration and mining near the Grand Canyon has not been one of them.

Last fall, Bush’s Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, circumvented a prohibition on mining activities by authorizing uranium exploration within a million acre buffer zone around Grand Canyon National Park. Recent spikes in the price of uranium—perhaps due to renewed interest in nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels as global warming makes its presence felt—have led to a surge in applications for new uranium mining permits on otherwise protected federal lands.

Green groups fear that once mining starts near the Grand Canyon, similar destructive plans will also get the green light in and around other protected areas, including Arches National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, Canyonlands National Park and the proposed Dolores River Canyon wilderness area.

When Kempthorne first proposed opening up the land to uranium mining, several concerned parties—including dozens of elected officials, public utilities and Native American tribes—complained about potential threats to surface and ground water from such activities. They fear that uranium mining in the area could lead to the release of radioactivity and heavy metals like selenium into the Colorado River and its watershed, including within Grand Canyon National Park.

In lieu of federal action on the issue, green groups have taken up the cause. Some, like the Pew Environment Group, are lobbying President Obama to overturn the mining allowances; others are working the judicial angle. Three organizations—the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club—filed suit in federal court in October 2008 to block the Bureau of Land Management, which manages the area, from allowing uranium mining in what they consider risky and nationally significant areas. “This is an agency in dire need of leadership from the new administration,” says Taylor McKinnon, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Grand Canyon deserves it.”

The battle over uranium mining near the Grand Canyon sheds light on an even larger issue: the 1872 Mining Law, enacted under President Ulysses S. Grant and still in effect today. Long a bone of contention along partisan lines, the law has so far opened up of some 350 million acres of public land across the western U.S. to virtually unchecked mining. Green groups maintain that the law, put in place to encourage westward expansion, no longer makes sense in the modern era of dwindling natural resources.

“Current federal policy that allows the mining industry to operate next to America’s national icons and against the will of local communities must be changed,” said Jane Danowitz, Pew’s U.S. public lands program director. “It’s time to modernize the nation’s 1872 mining law.”

CONTACTS: Center for Biological Diversity, www.biologicaldiversity.org; Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org; Pew Environment Group, www.pewtrusts.org.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881 USA; submit it at EarthTalk; or e-mail us. Read past columns at our archives.

Check it out! I just started putting together a store for The Good Human, filled with all sorts of natural products, reusable bottles, etc. – It’s not done yet, but it’s getting there!

You may also enjoy:

1. Tell The EPA To Not Let A Massive Mining Project Ruin The Everglades.
2. House Passes $6.4 Billion Modernization Plan To Green Public Schools.
3. Why Oil Shale Extraction Is A Very Bad Idea.
4. EarthTalk: Zoos’ Species Survival Plan (SSP) Programs.
5. EarthTalk: Why They Won’t Admit That Polar Bears Are In Trouble.