Non-Point sources of Pollution

by: Jimie Demonte

The policy issue that I have become increasingly interested in and am writing my term paper on concerns non-point source pollution sources and how they affect our waterways. The current issue is very complicated, but the main issue is that we have not solved the full issue of non-point source pollution. According to the Clean Water Act “Diffuse pollution sources (i.e., without a single point of origin or not introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet)”. So even if we may think we know where a pollutant comes from, such as storm water run-off into streams, there is not a policy we can make about it because it is not coming out of a pipe. My problem with this issue is that there most likely are ways to solve this problem, or ways that the government or the EPA can provide incentives to the general public. I’m thinking monetary rewards/ incentives every time the waterway in a county is tested and there are less traces of motor oil or soap from washing your car on the street, etc. And – what about the non-point sources of pollution from agricultural run-off? This is a problem since farms or CAFO’s (concentrated animal feeding operations) need to be a certain size before they must attain a permit. So where is the incentive for small local farms to obtain a permit, unless they are very environmentally inclined, even so- permits are expensive!! So where is the incentive? Again, I’m thinking we could give monetary incentive to use organic fertilizers or minimize herbicide use, or even incentive to buy a permit, by rewarding small farms in a rivers drainage area when there is a decreased amount of pollution from year to year. This problem is a difficult one to institute, and the monetary incentives need to come from somewhere, but I know that pollution mitigation and pollution testing is very expensive and if the EPA saved more money because they didn’t have to mitigate the issue, that money could go directly to residents or farm owners.

Water Contamination

by: Mikaela Madalinski

Externalities Involved in Water Contamination

I recently read an article that focused on a man that had been drinking contaminated water that came from a nearby spring to the tap in his cabin in Western Colorado. About a year and a half ago, he took a drink of the bad water and it resulted in throat burning, head pounding, stomach pain and feelings of suffocation. The reason that his water is contaminated is due to surrounding oil and gas fields. Before this incident, Ned Prather had no idea that he had been drinking contaminated water. Tests showed that the water from the spring he had been drinking from for years and years is heavily contaminated with BTEX – Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzine and Xylene, which is a mix of chemicals that are not only damaging to the nervous system but are also carcinogenic. This case is a great example of an externality. It is clear that the BTEX in Prather’s water is from oil and gas production because it is exactly the mix of chemicals that comes to the surface in the production water of oil and gas wells.
The sad truth is that 16 months after Prather drank the terrible throat burning water; there is not one source that has been pinned down for the contamination. His tap water still yields a very strong odor, similar to that of diesel fuel. Water contamination is very common anywhere where oil and gas are being sequestered. In fact, in 2008 there were 206 spills in Colorado that were connected to or suspected to be connected to 48 cases of water contamination. I am sure that this issue of externalities is being dealt with all across the world. What is the proper way to handle the externalities involved in water contamination?

Link to the article I read:
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13535728

Hydraulic Fracturing

by: Ross Maestas

Hydraulic fracturing is a process that allows the oil and natural gas drilling companies to extract more product from their oil shale drilling sites. They do this by pumping a huge amount of water, sand and chemicals into the ground. This prevents the cleats, or cracks, in the rocks from closing, thus allowing them to produce more natural gas. Recently there has been concern in Colorado that the chemicals used in this process are contaminating the groundwater tables. There have been numerous reports of gas workers and even nurses becoming very ill after exposure to these chemicals. Also, people in Colorado have been able to literally light their tap water on fire as it comes out of the spout. The companies responsible for these injuries has refused to release the formulas for these chemicals because they cite them as "trade secrets." They claim it would be like asking Coca-Cola for the formula to Coke. Do you think that legislation should be passed to force these drilling firms to release the chemical formlas of what they are pumping into our ground?

Nobel Peace Prize

by: Myles McReynolds

It used to be that the Nobel Peace Prize was given out for actually doing
something amazing or leading a very influential and inspiring life. Recipients
like Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, and the 14th Dalai
Lama resemble extremely influential and inspirational attitudes and values that
definitely merit the Prize. But these days it seems that you don’t even have to
do anything and you can be a legitimate candidate. Granted, the most recent
recipient, Barack Obama, has already done a great thing for this country showing
that it is possible for an African American to be president – something that 30
years ago people would say is impossible. But what else has he done to deserve
this coveted award? He received this award for a promise - a promise to change
our nation and get it back to what it used to be. One thing that this does is
place an extreme amount of pressure on him to turn his eloquently expressed
vision into real improvements in what are some of the world's most difficult
problems.
Even though the Nobel committee will say that the award was given for
his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy", not all will
agree and some may offer a counter argument saying where have those efforts led?
The committee also awarded him the Prize based on his "vision of and work for a
world without nuclear weapons." But, our world still has nuclear weapons, if not
more than before, so once again it is easy to ask – what has that vision done?
Did they give Terrell Davis the Super Bowl XXXII MVP trophy in the middle of the
first quarter? No, he had to work hard for it, suffering through pain, hit after
hit, and migraine headaches the entire time – the same rule applies in this case
(excuse the football analogy but it is a good way to look at it). Let Mr.
President prove something and change something before crowning him with the
Nobel Peace Prize. Instead give it to someone more deserving that has actually
done something to preserve the peace. I am interested and excited to see what he
can do with this added pressure and the question now is whether the president
can render his vision into a policy that protects this country's interests and
lives up to the promise of his words. What do you guys think? Was the award
merited or do you think it was a bad idea and should have gone to somebody else?

Immigration and Evangelical Christianity

An interesting discussion of immigration policy by Evangelical Protestants here.

Boulder Open Space

An interesting attempt to limit externalities with relation to Boulder open space here.

Lithium Run

Stephanie Lance

Just as we depend on oil for gas-powered cars today, our future will be depending on scarcely mined Lithium with electric cars. Lithium is the world’s lightest metal, with the smallest solid density. It holds a charge well, which is why is has become so valuable for delivering the appropriate energy to electric cars without weighing them down, or requiring frequent recharging stops. The versatility of Lithium helps to charge laptops, and even treat bipolar disorder as a mood-stabilizing drug. Lithium is mined in briny solutions found beneath salt flats. Recently, Bolivia has found an estimated 5.95 million tons of lithium reserves beneath a high-altitude desert, the Salar de Uyuni salt flat sheds. They have to potential to become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” but at what cost? A group of salt gatherers and quinoa farmers on the edge of the desert know that the lithium may be Bolivia’s, but it is also their property. Bolivia doesn’t know how to proceed with the mining, and electric car companies are starting to put cars on the market, but with very expensive batteries because of the limited supply. If Bolivia begins to mine this area, the people who exploit the land now will need to find their resources in other places, however, Bolivia’s economy will boom with this large, lucrative, and highly demanded lithium export. Will this 12,000 foot-high desert prove to be integral in the reduction of the United States dependency on foreign oil? Will Bolivia’s nationalization of the lithium industry have an impact on world energy?

Congrats to Ostrom and Williamson...

...recipients in the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Geo-engineering to Solve Climate Change?

by: Kerstin Johansson

Geo-engineering is planetary engineering. Geo-engineering projects are large scale and would and transform the environment to combat global warming and keep the Earth at optimum conditions for human use. Geo-engineering has become more researched ever since global warming has become a widely accepted problem. Geo-engineering projects include projects to control the amount of solar radiation (sunlight) reaching the Earth’s surface and projects to control the amount of heat re-radiating and leaving the Earth’s surface. The technology is available today to do many of these projects.
Some examples of geo-engineering projects that could be implemented in the future if we become desperate enough are: increase the cloud cover and cloud density over oceans by creating sea spray that reaches high altitudes, sulfur-aerosol injection to change the proportions of the atmospheric makeup and lower Earth’s temperature, and add large amounts of iron to the ocean to create enormous algae blooms that can intake lots of carbon dioxide. We have the technology to do all of these projects now if we wanted to. One method of climate reversal that has been proposed but is not technologically feasible now is quite outrageous. The idea is to create sun shields by shooting millions of ceramic disks into space.

Geo-engineering climate change reversal methods are extreme, dangerous, and many times irreversible with unknown effects. They are considered for use only when the situation needs to be solved immediately. Because they are so inexpensive one person could potentially start one of these projects this could be very dangerous. Could geo-engineering projects be our solution in the future if we don’t get climate change under control now?


Wood, Graeme. “Energy & Earth: Moving Heaven and Earth.” The Atlantic July/August 2009. 70-76.

Cash for Clunkers

By Nick Ludolph

For those who do not know, the “Cash for Clunkers” program was a Cash Allowance Rebate System used throughout the summer of 2009 where consumers who traded in their “clunker” received a voucher for $3500 to $4500 to be used towards a new car with better fuel economy. The idea behind the program was to stimulate the economy while replacing fuel-guzzling vehicles with more efficient vehicles thus theoretically reducing carbon emissions. I am writing to offer criticism of some of the economic and environmental implications of the program.

The “Cash for Clunkers” program was advertised as a great thing for the environment as well as the economy. Although the program had an exceptionally high turnout, its economic and environmental impacts were covered by a veil of misconceptions about the actual improvement it was making. Although the program successfully took almost 700,000 “clunkers” off the roads, there were external environmental impacts created by the production of the new vehicles that replaced the “clunkers” as well as the specific disposal requirements of the program.

Under the “Cash for Clunkers” program, “clunkers” that were disposed of had to be destroyed to ensure that they were not resold and put on the roads again. The disposal method used involved running the engines with sodium silicate replacing the motor oil, causing the engine to seize and become useless. Because the engines were destroyed, there were strong economic implications for scrap yard owners and workers who would normally sell the engine and other parts to offset the price of disposing of the old cars. In this sense, the “Cash for Clunkers” program was harmful economically causing some car recyclers to not participate in the program. This disposal method also created a large amount of waste because all of these disabled engines and parts next had to be disposed of somewhere instead of recycled. The emissions created by the production of new cars were also an issue. Participants in the “Cash for Clunkers” program were often unaware that the emissions for producing their new car would take on average five years to offset with driving their new car, depending on how much they drive and the fuel economy difference between the traded in car and the replacement.

I believe that we could have created this program to be more environmentally and economically helpful if we allowed the parts to be recycled and reused for other vehicles. This would require some regulation but many of the parts that were destroyed under the program do not affect fuel economy. Also, if we adopt a program similar to this in the future, I stress the importance of properly advertising the program so that people understand the full implications both economic and environmental.