The U.S. Geological Survey has released a study showing an increase in mercury emissions from human sources is affecting the fish population in the Pacific Ocean.

Scientists have predicted a 50 percent increase in mercury levels in the Pacific Ocean by 2050, if mercury emission rates continue as projected. Human contribution to mercury pollution includes coal burning power plants and waste incineration. The water sampled for this study — released May 1 — shows that the mercury levels in 2006 were already approximately 30 percent higher than the same samples in the 1990’s.

The paper presents the first evidence linking current atmospheric mercury deposition to methylmercury (the compound that mercury gets converted into) in Pacific Ocean fish. Scientists say it is plausible that a reduction in ocean mercury levels would follow if mercury emissions were decreased.

In the U.S., about 40 percent of all human exposure to mercury is from tuna harvested in the Pacific Ocean. Other previous studies have shown that 75 percent of human exposure worldwide to mercury is from the consumption of marine fish and shell fish. In 2004, the EPA and FDA released guidelines on fish consumption for pregnant women and children.

Many studies have been conducted involving mercury levels in freshwater; but less is known about mercury in marine environments. This study was one of the first to thoroughly analyze mercury levels in ocean waters, concluding that the methylmercury contamination could not just be from natural sources, as some have theorized.

According to the study, methylmercury is produced at mid-depth ocean waters from mercury that “originates from atmospheric fallout to the ocean surface”, and taken up the food chain by predators like tuna. For this study, scientist sampled Pacific Ocean water from 16 different sites. The results showed the increased mercury emissions were particularly high in off the coasts of Asia.

“It appears the recent mercury enrichment of the sampled Pacific Ocean waters is caused by emissions originating from fallout near the Asian coasts,” said USGS scientist and coauthor of the study David Krabbenhoft.

Don’t forget to read our story on How to shop for seafood before you head to the store.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

(Photo credit: NOAA)

Environmentalists, community activists and some state legislators are calling for a temporary moratorium on coal plants in Texas, where 12 coal-fired power plants are proposed.

The opponents gathered at the capitol in Austin on Tuesday, saying that halting construction of the plants would help fight climate change and protect the health of local communities by cutting out coal’s toxic wastes and emissions, according to advocacy group Public Citizen.

“The evidence is now abundantly clear: Climate change is already affecting Texans and impacts will only increase in severity if we fail to act quickly. Texas already leads the nation in global warming gases. If we were our own country, Texas would rank eighth in the world among carbon emitters,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office, in a press release.

“If all 12 of our proposed coal and pet-coke fired power plants were built, Texas would emit an additional 77 million tons of carbon dioxide,” Smith said, adding that capturing 90 percent of those emissions through a process known as “carbon sequestration” is  ”feasible with current technologies.”

The problem with carbon sequestration has been that existing coal operations find the technology too expensive, and consequently, there are no such “clean coal” operations.

Activists in Texas are targeting proposed new coal plants (and pet-coke plants which burn a byproduct of oil refining) because they’d like the state to hold them to a higher standard.

Two legislators have proposed bills that would require coal companies to ante up for sequestration. Each bill – Senate Bill 126, by state Sen. Rodney Ellis, and its companion bill in the house, House Bill 4384 by Rep. Allen Vaught — would place a temporary moratorium on coal-fired power plants that lack carbon “capture and sequestration” technology.

Among those opposing new coal plants that operate in the same way as existing “dirty” plants, are many health advocates. Robert M. Malina, Ph.D, a Bay City resident representing a group opposing the White Stallion pet-coke plant, says lead- and mercury-laced coal pollution takes a heavy toll on the human body, even before one considers its impact on global warming.

“My main concern is the potential influence of emissions from these coal-fired plants on childhood development. Our children are our future and their health and well-being should not be compromised. Both mercury and lead cause irreversible mental and physical health problems in children,” Malina said in the Public Citizen news release.

“What’s more, elevated mortality from lung cancer and increased prevalence of asthma are associated with coal-fired power plants emitting sulfur dioxide, nitrous dioxide and particulate matter. Everyone living near these plants or within reach of prevailing winds will be subjected to these health risks.”

The White Stallion Energy Center website touts the new plant as having “the most environmentally advanced, cleanest, commercially proven, emission lowering technology available”. The plant could supply energy for 650,000 homes and would be “much cleaner” than older generation coal plants, the website reports.

Another supporter of a Texas coal plant moratorium, Roger Landress, represents the Clean Economy Coalition of Corpus Christi, which opposes the Las Brisas Power Plant slated to be built in the Corpus Christi Bay.

The plant, which was the subject of a protest march in February, has “no plans to sequester the 10.4 million tons of carbon dioxide it proposes to put into the atmosphere each year, (and) will almost double the EPA regulated air pollutants in our city,” Landress said.

“Corpus Christi is already dealing with the environmental and health effects of being a refining town and this addition would likely push our county into non-attainment for ozone and sulfur dioxide,” he added.

For more information on pending coal plants in Texas or any state, see the Sierra Club’s coal plant directory.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

An overwhelming 86 percent of Colorado residents want to limit subsidies for oil shale production and halt new coal-fired power plants, according to a newly released poll.

The survey of 600 Colorado adults conducted by Opinion Research Corporation also found support for
federal and state investment in wind and solar energy, enhanced energy efficiency, and highly fuel-efficient vehicles. The study was conducted for TheCLEAN.org and the Civil Society Institute, and was released by Western Colorado Congress, a community action alliance focused on protecting and enhancing the quality of life in western Colorado.

Key findings of the poll include:

• A halt to construction of new coal-fired power plants is supported by most Colorado adults. Just over three out of four respondents in Colorado (76 percent) and 73 percent of Americans would support a five-year moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in the United States if there were stepped-up investment in clean, safe renewable energy — such as wind and solar — and improved home energy-efficiency standards.
• Only 9 percent of Colorado residents favor subsidies for unregulated oil shale production. Nearly two out of five state residents (38 percent) favor no subsidies at all for oil shale; roughly half (48 percent) believe that subsidies for oil shale should only exist with “strict environmental controls.” Taken together, the latter two data points mean that nearly nine out of 10 Colorado residents favor eliminating or placing strong conditions on oil shale subsidies.
• Nearly nine out of 10 Colorado residents (87 percent) believe that “natural gas companies should have to provide information to nearby communities and residents about hazardous chemicals used and produced in natural gas production.” Only about one in 10 (11 percent disagree on the grounds that “disclosure of hazardous chemicals would give information to competitors and harm the gas company.”

“Colorado residents deserve credit for understanding that more investment by the state and federal governments in coal and nuclear power is essentially the same thing as investing in subprime mortgages,” Civil Society Institute President and Founder Pam Solo said in a statement.

“If Colorado taxpayers are going to directly or indirectly underwrite energy development and energy-intensive industries — such as the auto industry — we need to insist that state officials in Denver and the next Congress and president make good, solid investments that make sense for the long-term of our country. The only energy investments that rise above the ’subprime’ level today are wind, solar and other clean renewable energy in concert with enhanced energy efficiency.”