Stop Environmental Pollution
There are a lot of things that you can do to stop environmental pollution. If you don’t know how to get involved, you can start by following these tips.
Make An Online Donation: There are a lot of organizations that can use your financial support. If you do not have a lot time, you can help out by making online donation.
Donate A Used Automobile: If you have an old car, you can also make donation to a program like Car Program LLC. They will use your car to save the earth.
Recycle: Believe it or not, there are tons of things that you can recycle. For instance, you probably know that you can recycle aluminum, metal, paper, and plastic. Do you know that you can recycle mobile phones and car batteries? If you have old clothes, you can donate them to charity. That is one type of recycling. Recycling is not only limited to aluminum, metal, paper, and plastic. Be creative. You will realize that your potentials for recycling are limitless.
Save Energy: Save energy can be simple thing like turning off the light. If your home use incandescent light bulb, you should change it to fluorescent light bulb. Although fluorescent light bulb is a little more expensive, it usually lasts longer. Saving energy can also save your money. Saving environment and saving your money are like killing two birds with one stone.
Encourage Your Friends And Neighbors To Help: Stop environmental pollution is everybody’s duty. It is important to encourage your friends and neighbors to help.
When Do You Need Environmental Insurance
For someone who is in the real estate market looking to make some profit by obtaining or purchasing real estate property for commercial uses, it is always advisable for them to check their property for possible pollution or toxic waste of any kind. The source of the contamination could be from the polluted soil or land, underground or the construction itself. Besides causing harm to its owners, it might be causing health problems and more to properties that are located near it. If the stated problems do exist, then the property owner will be looking at clean-up costs that could build up to quite a large amount, sometimes exceeding the value of the property itself! Worse still, the property owners might be paying even more for unseen payments to the relevant authorities that are related to the environmental laws and decree.
Being the owner or the past owner of the property could mean that you will be held responsible for the toxin and poisons spreading to buildings nearby. Possible charges against you would include personal injury lawsuits or property damage. In such cases, how do you protect you and your company from getting into trouble?
The many levels of law enforcements in regards to environmental safety is still new and every now and then they will be amended to keep up with new developments. Trying to keep in touch with the latest changes can be tiring to potential and current property buyers. But the reality is that only a few main decrees are essential in helping you understand the possible penalties as a result of environmental issues.
One of the most well-known and important laws is CERCLA, which stands for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, where it is passed as an official law in the year 1980. Another revised and improved version of CERCLA is SARA, which stands for Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act) where it was authorized in the year 1986. There are currently a few active funds in the world today where the money is intended to help pay for the clean-up costs of deserted commercial sites that are too contaminated to be used and to cover the liability costs of the owner of the property.
If you have checked the premiums for insurance policies covering environmental risks of commercial properties, and you think that it might be too expensive or it might make you initial investments in purchasing the building seem too large of an amount, then you can go check the current Commercial General Liability, or CGL, policy that you have been keeping and paying for. Some of the CGL policies do cover for such incidents of environmental lawsuits though it was not openly declared. However, in recent years, due to the escalating lawsuits involving the very same area and insurance companies ended up paying for liabilities as a result of pollution, the insurance companies have since readjusted their clauses to not cover for such incidents.
With rising news coverage on the pollution problems and the large amount of money property owners have to pay for the damages and cleaning up, insurance companies have come up with policies which provide coverage especially for environmental damages and pollutions. This type of insurance will cover costs and damages resulting from pollution and contamination of toxic waste, damages and harm to the estate or physical harm to a third party, the cleaning-up bills of a third party’s estate that is not considered the policy owner’s estate, the cleaning costs of an estate that is not owned by any individuals but damaged by the policy holder’s estate, and finally the transportation costs of products or waste which have caused pollution and contamination problems.
If you are thinking of purchasing and developing a brownfield site, which means the commercial site that has been left undeveloped because of its excessive pollution problems, take note that there are insurance companies willing to offer you coverage for these areas. If there is no insurance coverage offered for these sites, this land may be left undeveloped since the risks of incurring clean-up costs and the further financial payments in penalties is too high.
In order to cut down the risks involved, check with the local authorities regarding the laws and regulations regarding the pollution and environment concerning commercially run estates. Take note on your potential accountability in financial terms and also the legal requirements if something should happen to the buildings and estates near your property.
Mobile Carwash Business - History of Environmental Compliance - Storm Water Case Study
Polluting the environment is wrong, no one can deny that - Polluting the air or the water is just stupid and although it takes a little more thought to do it right, it is well worth it in the end. As the Founder of a Franchising Company that franchised mobile car wash units, it was mandatory that we comply with all BMPs - best management practices, that were required by law for the local NPDES permits - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.
As I remember our company was on the leading edge of all this when Richard Harris was the head of the California Regional Water Control Board in the 1990s. Tom McClintok, who ran against Arnold Schwarznegger for Governor of California was a California State Assemblyman at the time. He helped us get on the committees to address these issues for mobile washing companies. We quickly helped solve these issues back then to prevent waste wash water from going into the storm drains.
You see, it is easy for someone to wash their car on the grass at home, no run-off or in the case of parking lot washing, block off the storm drain, use a wet and dry shop vac to vacuum any wash water affluent that accumulates, usually it just evaporates since we only use 2.8 gallons per car. We have always complied with these rules. In fact, we helped write these BMPs for many California Counties when they were designing their NPDES permits, due to EPA mandates at the time.
We did this because it is the right thing to do and because the Car Wash Industry Association, for Fixed Site carwashes attacked us, when we took their volume and all the business of their members in many cities. You see, people would rather get a car wash at work or home than to wait in line at a car wash. Some car wash customers also believe that carwashes steal their change stolen from their ashtray or hire illegal aliens. I am sure some do, but that is not always the norm.
Warning to Marketing Companies and Businesses on Environmental Labeling and Claims
We all know that the Federal Trade Commission guards us against deceptive advertising, especially in things like Weight Loss Programs, Health Products and Business Opportunities. Many times the FTC goes over board, attacking honest companies, and other times they catch a scam artist red-handed.
What about environmental claims, you know the marketers that go after Green Consumers who want to help the environment and buy good products? Well, the Federal Trade Commission is looking into this too. From now on, if you cannot prove it, most likely you cannot say it on the Internet, in an advertisement or on the radio or TV. Why all the fuss, well apparently it is being abused.
Meanwhile the FTC is creating new “advertising rules” for those who claim “environmental friendly” on their labels, and that is going to cause alarm and concern to many companies who are not walking the walk. What the heck, perhaps buying green products is in your future.
This will very much will affect the Venture Capital crowd, AL Gore & Associates and the little guy, The Green Entrepreneur, who is trying, but got caught by the “rule maker - rule breaker” business as usual games. Accountability is the name of their game and deceptive advertising is something they are going after, this time in the name of the environment.
Will this make businesses walk their talk or will it cause companies to stop trying and go for price and do little if anything to help the environment? Will consumers pay more for green products and services or will we simply find fewer companies willing to go out of their way? Think on this, it is rather serious if you consider the ramifications of what this means to the future of Green.
L.A. environmental: Hollywood’s Best and Worst “Green” Movies
Name the speaker: “How many oil spills can we endure? Millions and millions of gallons of oil are now destroying the oceans and the many forms of life they support. Among these is plankton, which supplies 60 to 90 percent of the Earth’s oxygen, and supports the entire marine ecosystem, which forms the basis of our planet’s food supply. But the plankton is dying.”
If you guessed Ed Begley, Jr., then you were way off. The quote comes from a speech made by action hero Steven Seagal at the end of his 1994 directorial debut, On Deadly Ground. Perhaps the most twisted environmental movie ever made, it closes with Seagal’s answer to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a three-and-a-half minute soliloquy before the Alaskan capitol. Seagal’s compassion might be more apparent if he hadn’t just murdered 700 oil-rig and security guards and set off multiple catastrophic explosions on behalf of plankton. But as an escapist remedy for your frustration with President Bush and his cronies, this movie has no peers.
Environmentalism isn’t only explosions and kung fu, however, which explains Hollywood cinema’s disdain. Conservation activism may be dramatic, but it makes poor entertainment for the general audience. Green themes typically appear off-screen: think Charlize Theron and Joaquin Phoenix in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) anti- fur campaigns.
Still, a number of provocative environmental movies have slipped through the minefield of corporate censorship and escaped Los Angeles with their agendas intact. If you’re looking for a cheap night at home, a trip down memory lane, or discussion agit-prop for students and kids, then look for the following modern classics, all of which can be rented at a video store near you.
Legal Heroes
Some of the strongest environmental messages play out in courtroom drama. Stephen Zaillian’s A Civil Action (1998) stars John Travolta as a sleazy personal-injury lawyer. In litigating on behalf of small-town residents–whose children have died or mutated as a result of chemical dumping–he transforms into a soulful justice hunter. The film also notably exposes the intricate shenanigans of civil litigation.
In Steven Soderbergh’s Erin Brockovich (2000), Julia Roberts’ titular character delivers justice to Californians devastated by a Pacific Gas and Electric plant. In the process, she stumbles through child-rearing, new love, and the demands of a career she talks her way into. Rarely has a movie portrayed the “good” guys with such emotional credibility. Between its true-story realism, and Roberts’ unreal looks, it’s the perfect propaganda. Steven Soderbergh’s film should have launched a generation of activists from both genders. Time will tell.
Mike Nichols’ 1983 drama Silkwood is the true story of a radiation-contaminated would-be whistleblower in Oklahoma who strangely disappears before she is able to meet with a New York Times reporter. Similar to Erin Brockovich, the movie centers around her personal life and her friends, lending credibility to the main character’s heroism.
The China Syndrome (1979) features lack Lemmon as a nuclear plant employee who stumbles into a conspiracy to cover-up the plant’s faulty safety mechanisms. Pro-nuke critics blasted the movie for its bias, then shut their mouths tight when Three Mile Island suffered its core meltdown 11 days later–one of history’s most disturbing examples of life imitating art.
And Speaking of Art …
In pop-surrealist Terry Gilliam’s 12 Monkeys (1995), scientists from the future send Bruce Willis back in time to stop a plague that forces humanity underground. In one of the most magically chilling scenes ever filmed, Willis ventures above ground into wintertime Philadelphia to collect animal specimens, and spots a lion roaring on the ledge of a building. Brad Pitt steals the show as a radical lunatic.
Koyaanisqatsi (1982) matches the arresting music of Philip Glass to a series of stop-motion films of nature being nature, technology being technology, and mankind being mankind. There are no characters, and no plot, hut the movie is entrancing and perhaps, artistically, the finest environmental movie ever made. Even impatient viewers may be surprised to discover themselves rapt. Director Godfrey Reggio made two similar, and beautiful, sequels, Powaqqatsi (1993) and Naqoyqatsi (2002); followers of this intensely visual form might also enjoy Ron Fricke’s Baraka (1993).
For the Wee Ones
When an industrialist ignores the voice of nature in the 1972 film of Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax (”I am the Lorax … I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues”) it naturally leads to his downfall. In Ferngully: The Last Rain forest (1992), forest pixies save (and miniaturize) a lumberjack who is nearly killed by clear-cutting bulldozers. This animated adventure fable also features a bat who escaped an animal testing lab. The same year spawned a sequel, Ferngully 2.
Most kiddie flicks don’t address environmental themes so directly, but because they personify animals they may lead to eco-empathy. Free Willy (1993), The Little Mermaid (1992), and the highly regarded Finding Nemo (2003) send positive messages about undersea life. A Bug’s Life and Antz (both released in 1998) do likewise for the underappreciated world of insects.
In The Secret of Nimh (1982), rats escape the National Institute of Mental Health and adjust to life in the field. More mature kids might be ready for the cartoon of Richard Adams’ Plague Dogs (1982), in which two dogs escape a testing laboratory and are hunted as possible anthrax-carriers. If you found Bambi disturbing, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Also too grim for toddlers, Watership Down (1978) faithfully follows the same author’s book, detailing the trials and tribulations of rabbits forced by man to leave their original warren.
Blockbuster Shlock: Movies to Avoid
In recent years Hollywood wreaked havoc on the silver screens of the world in a succession of natural disaster flicks. Watch Twister, Volcano, Dante’s Peak, Deep Impact, Armageddon, The Perfect Storm and The Core, all in a row, and you’ll be running for the nearest space shuttle. In their only real nod to environmentalism, major elements of these movies were recycled: namely, the plots, lifted from the glut of identical movies in the 1970s (e.g., Earthquake and Avalanche). These films teach one primary lesson: fear nature.
You may hate Jurassic Park for its plywood characters–or for author Michael Crichton’s stated belief that environmentalism is a cult–but politically it stands as a somewhat environmental film in its retelling of the myth of Prometheus. Ill-considered science, driven by ruthless capitalism, might–as a reincarnated Tyrannosaurus Rex would explain before eating you–cause a few problems for humankind. In contrast, many natural disaster films scapegoat weather, a politically convenient target. Armageddon and Deep Impact, for example, both foretell massive destruction caused by asteroids colliding with the Earth; in the latter, tidal waves destroy coastal cities in excessive computer graphic detail. The parallels with global warming’s swamped shorelines are lost, however, with technology’s inevitable triumph.
America’s vaunted space program, led by Bruce Willis as a psychopathic oilrig captain, manages to explode the devastating meteor threatening global Armageddon. In effect, the movies send the message that science will always save the day. The quotidian, scientific self-sacrifice of millions of environmentalists worldwide–such as installing environmentally safe windows or investing in responsible stocks–never appears on the playbill. Such movies reinforce a message of individual powerlessness, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Even 2004’s The Day After Tomorrow–Hollywood’s one riff on climate change, in which the urban world winds up flooded and frozen in a few days–manages to find a sort of happy-sappy ending for most of its characters, despite the four billion or so off-screen deaths. Climatologists largely agree that the film’s scenario is dramatically exaggerated–a relatively rapid deep freeze could occur, but not that fast. Still, as a pro-green shocker, it rises above the rest of the disaster flicks, and after the cheap thrills it might lead to some provocative discussion. CONTACT: For an enjoyable scholarly take on the same topic, check out David Ingram’s book Green Screen: Environmentalism and Hollywood Cinema, which gives close scrutiny to hundreds of relevant films, organized by theme.
Environmental catalysis
Perhaps the best known environmental catalytic process is the destruction of stratospheric ozone by atomic chlorine whose elucidation led to the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry. In this volume covering concepts, applications, techniques, and methods involved in environmental catalysis, Grassian (chemistry and chemical and biochemical engineering, U. of Iowa) presents 25 papers that look at environmental catalysis from the perspectives of natural systems of air, water, and soils; environmental remediation; and green chemical processing. Bringing together contributors from the disciplines of chemistry, atmospheric science, plant and soil science, civil and environmental engineering, chemical engineering, and geoscience, among others, the papers explore such topics as precipitation and dissolution of iron and manganese oxides, applications of nonlinear optical techniques for studying heterogeneous systems relevant in the natural environment, surface science studies of DeNOx catalysts, theoretical modeling of zeolite catalysis, nanoparticles in environmental remediation, bioengineering for the in situ removal remediation of metals, and green biphasic homogeneous catalysis.
The Future of Large Dams: Dealing with the Social, Environmental and Political Costs
This thorough analysis of the social impacts of large dams in developing countries serves as an extension of the World Commission on Dams’ report (Dams and Development, Earthscan, 2000). Author Thayer Scudder was one of 12 commissioners and also brought to both books the insights of 50 years of observation, analysis, and advising in this field. This most recent publication was written primarily for policymakers responsible for global water and energy planning, but it is also a rich source for researchers.
The Future of Large Dams focuses primarily on the resettlement process and its accompanying human stresses. The book begins with Scudder’s theory of successful resettlement, which is based on a four-stage time framework: the lengthy presettlement period, the initiation of physical removal, the post-settlement period of community formation and economic development, and the transition of leadership and systems to the second generation of settlers. A statistical survey of the social and economic conditions of 50 resettlement cases follows. This analysis provides a major extension of available data and analysis of resettlement successes (few) and failures (many). The major causes of failure of resettlement are drawn from this analysis.
The book also looks at the ways in which river basin communities can benefit from resettlement, providing success stories from the Mahaweli Project in Sri Lanka, Kariba in Zambia, Sardar Sarovar in India, the South Okavango Integrated Water Development in Botswana, and Quebec’s Grande Baleine Project.
While criticizing past and current practices for the planning and evaluation of dams, Scudder has practical recommendations centering on adherence to the World Commission on Dams’ “seven strategic priorities,” which include gaining broad public acceptance, considering an extensive range of alternatives, and sharing benefits from dam operations in equitable ways. He also recommends an international Board for Arbitration and Compliance to which affected populations and cooperating nongovernmental organizations can appeal when bad results start showing up. Strong criticisms are aimed at the World Bank, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other international organizations in connection with common shortcomings discussed at length.
In sum, the book asks, will more large dams be built? The answer seems to be “yes” but only in limited numbers and within an institutional framework that assures compliance with the lessons and recommendations cited above. Large dams are seen by Scudder as “flawed yet still necessary development options,” flawed for the oft-ignored negative social and environmental impacts but perhaps necessary to meet short- and medium-term human needs. This constitutes what Scudder calls “a tragic dilemma of our times.”
Choosing Environmental Policy: Comparing Instruments and Outcomes in the United States and Europe
Anyone with even a passing interest in environmental policy is familiar with criticisms of so-called “command and control” regulation as overly rigid, intrusive, expensive, and ultimately ineffective. In recent years, conversations about environmental policy in the United States and Europe have broadened to include a number of different policy instruments beyond the command and control approach, many of which rely on economic incentives such as effluent fees and tradable emissions permits. Economic-incentive policies encourage abatement but do not specify the methods or even the quantity permissible to discharge. These instruments are touted to allow more flexibility, promote technological innovation, and minimize compliance costs. However, loss of control over the amount and spatial distribution of pollution, along with other concerns, means that many policymakers continue to perceive a need for “direct” command and control regulation. The current environmental policy landscape involves a mix of policy designs that begs for a better understanding of just how successful different environmental policies have been. For example, relevant questions include how much pollution was abated, how much it cost administrators and polluters to implement, and how that cost was distributed among polluters and other segments of society.
The goal of this book is a “systematic comparison” of policy instruments to better inform future decisionmaking. Toward this goal, the authors have assembled a series of case studies that allow comparison of policy instruments designed to deal with some of the major environmental problems of recent decades, including water pollution, acid rain, leaded gasoline, and hazardous solvents. The case studies are arranged to compare a regulatory policy on one side of the Atlantic with an incentive policy on the other. As might be expected, clear conclusions about policy effectiveness are difficult to make outside of specific context. The role of public scrutiny and cultural expectations about property rights are two such contextual factors. Nevertheless, the editors offer an informative review, especially for readers interested in the specifics of how economically developed countries have, in different ways, often successfully controlled major sources of pollution such as leaded gasoline, industrial water pollution, and sulfur dioxide emissions.
The stain in sustainability: cosy deals and revolving doors—it looks to Sharon Beder as if some mainstream environmental groups are fronts for corporate business
If the thought of The Nature Conservancy drilling for natural gas on the last known breeding ground of the Attwater prairie chicken strikes you as incongruous then you are behind the times. Gone are the days when environmentalists laid down their bodies in front of the bulldozers to save the environment from rapacious corporations. Today these same corporations are doling out large amounts of money to environmental groups. The modern professional career environmentalist has swapped the placards for a briefcase and is more at home negotiating with officials and executives than on the front line of environmental conflict.
Environmentalists in the late 1960s and 1970s argued that exponential growth could not be sustained without seriously depleting the planet’s resources and overloading its ability to deal with pollution and waste materials. They did not hesitate to blame industry, Western culture, economic growth and technology for environmental problems. They questioned Western paradigms and criticized the inequitable distribution of wealth and resource use.
Then along came ’sustainable development’. It offered the promise that environmentalists and businesspeople could overcome previous differences and work together towards achieving common goals. Instead of being the villains, technology and industry were now expected to provide the solutions to environmental problems. In the process the old-style campaigners were squeezed out by professional career environmentalists, who were more comfortable negotiating in corporate boardrooms and who presented a more ‘respectable’ face to the mainstream media.
Sustainable development seeks ‘win-win’ solutions to environmental problems that do not interfere unduly with business activity. Gone is the cultural critique of modern society for its excess consumption and limitless economic growth. In its place are solutions promoted by economists from corporate-funded think-tanks which ‘harness the power of the market’ to protect the environment. These economists claim that if we put a price on the environment then profit will motivate businesses to protect it rather than exploit it.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) reinforces this view. It uses the market to purchase the land it wants to protect. According to former CEO John Sawhill: ‘Some people at the Conservancy think our customers are the plants and animals we’re trying to save, but our real customers are the donors who buy our product, and that product is protected landscapes.’
TNC champions an approach that doesn’t threaten the rights of property owners to do what they want. Rather than lobbying governments to implement regulations, or highlighting the activities of corporations in degrading the environment, TNC seeks out solutions that do not threaten those corporations. While TNC seeks to preserve areas of forest, for example, it does not publicly speak out against practices such as clear-cutting. It preserves areas of land for grizzly bears but it does not oppose hunting or developments that endanger those bears and destroy their habitat. Hunting is even allowed on some of its own land and TNC officers may go hunting with potential donors as part of the negotiation process.
This approach is attractive to donors because they know TNC will not turn around and expose a corporation’s dirty record or damaging activities. What is more, TNC will accept donations from any company, no matter what its record, no questions asked. In return for support, TNC promises donors publicity as corporations that care about the environment.
TNC’s 1,900 corporate sponsors include ARCO, BHP, BP, Chevron, Chrysler, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, General Mills, General Motors, Georgia-Pacific, McDonald’s, Mobil, NBC, Pepsi-Cola, Procter and Gamble, Toyota and Pfizer. Some of these companies, including Monsanto, even get a say on how TNC is run by being on its International Leadership Council.
Such an approach is very lucrative. TNC has 3,200 employees in 528 offices across the US and in 27 countries. In 2003/4 its revenue was $866 million. This included over $350 million from dues and donations, $180 million from investments, almost $100 million from government grants and another $101 million from sales of land. Its total assets–including nature preserves–are now valued at over $4 billion.
TNC claims to have protected over 60,000 square kilometres in the US and over 400,000 square kilometres in other parts of the world. However, several hundred thousand square kilometres of ecologically sensitive land that it is ‘protecting’ in the US are now being grazed, logged, farmed, drilled or put to work in some fashion. Timber companies such as Weyerhaeuser and Georgia-Pacific are allowed to log on TNC preserves in several states. In some cases it is even paying ranchers and farmers to continue working the land.
TNC’s aim is to provide examples of private, multipleuse conservation where forestry, ranching and drilling can be done in a sustainable way. However, its conservation efforts have many critics who argue that it is too ready to compromise environmental values and that these activities degrade and threaten the integrity of protected areas. This was also recognized by some of TNC’s own scientists.
Science director Jerry Freilich recognized that the pounding hooves of cattle degrade fragile environments. He claims that in 2000 he was physically bullied by his boss to sign documents certifying that specific cattle ranches, which he had never visited, were environmentally sound. He signed, subsequently left and made a complaint to the police, which led to a settlement with TNC a year later. All but 3 of the remaining 95 scientific staff at headquarters were subsequently dispersed to branch offices or reassigned to a new organization that services TNC and sells its biological data.*
Corporate donations are only one of the ways that big business has influenced the agenda of environmental groups. Another is through a revolving door between the world of business and the world of environmental advocacy. Take the example of Greenpeace. Not only have people like former economist Thilo Bode moved from industry to head Greenpeace, but individuals like Paul Gilding, former CEO of Greenpeace International, and Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, found career opportunities as industry consultants when they left.
The formula today, according to Greenpeace Australia’s web pages, is: ‘We work with industry and government to find solutions.’ This seems to be far removed from the earlier Greenpeace formula, which involved raising consciousness of environmental problems at the grassroots.
Greenpeace’s change in direction became most obvious in the lead-up to the 2000 Olympics, which were sited in the midst of a former toxic-waste dump in Sydney’s Homebush Bay. With the help of Greenpeace, Sydney organizers were able to market the Games as Green. The fact that Greenpeace had campaigned against hazardous landfill dumps for many years meant that its support for the Olympic site reassured those who might otherwise have been concerned about its toxic history.
Under the Greenpeace-endorsed development plan, the toxic wastes were not removed nor treated but simply concentrated in parts of the site, covered with a metre of earth and landscaped. Some drains were put in place to catch the flow of toxins leaking from the waste mounds into the creek. But as Greenpeace Australia toxics campaigner Robert Cartmel admitted: ‘When it comes to leakage of toxic materials, it is not a question of if, it is a question of when. There is no such thing as a safe landfill.’
For Greenpeace, participation in developing a showcase Olympic village offered the opportunity to transform its own image. Instead of sounding the alarm on environmental problems the ‘new Greenpeace’ would be seen as promoting solutions. It was therefore convenient to ignore the toxic waste.
Its involvement in the Sydney bid soon went beyond simply offering ideas. Karla Bell, Cities and Coasts Campaigner for Greenpeace Australia, who helped to draw up environmental guidelines for the Games, became a vocal supporter. After the Games she left to become a consultant to companies seeking contracts to construct future Olympic facilities. The director of the Sydney Total Environment Centre, Jeff Angel, argued that significant environmental problems had been ignored by Games organizers: ‘The state of Sydney’s environment has been misrepresented to a serious degree,’ he said.
Corporations and their business magazines are now labelling Greenpeace ‘mature’. ‘Mature’ is also a word used by former Greenpeace campaigner turned industry consultant Michael Bland. The approach is ‘now more sophisticated,’ he says. It recognizes ‘the potential to use the market when that is appropriate’. After being Olympics campaigner for Greenpeace. Bland became head of environmental communications for Sydney 2000–the Sydney Olympics PR company–and most recently media officer for a new Sydney motorway company.
A combination of factors, including corporate donations, promising career options and the mirage of ‘win-win’ solutions, has subverted the ability of many mainstream environmental groups to confront the causes of environmental degradation and employ strategies to achieve change. Some of these groups are becoming little more than front groups for the interests of big business.
Sharon Beder is author of several books including The Nature of Sustainable Development and Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism. She is Professor of Science and Technology Studies at the University of Wollongong, Australia.
Guided to gather: toy plane upgraded with telemetry; GPS/INS and infrared optical sensors propel USGS’s transformation of a remote-controlled one-quarter-scale recreational aircraft into a low-cost unmanned aerial vehicle designed for environmental particulate collection
Tropical trade winds transport clouds of dust originating from storms in North Africa’s Sahara and Sahel regions. Scientists have long suspected that the dust clouds are effecting the health of humans and ecosystems (coral reefs and terrestrial life) in the Caribbean and Americas–and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global Dust Program now has the task of studying the hypothesis scientifically.
One of the primary focuses of the USGS Global Dust Program is to characterize the types of microorganisms (both pathogenic and nonpathogenic) that can survive long-range atmospheric transport in desert dust clouds. By studying the distribution of microorganisms in the atmosphere during normal or clear atmospheric conditions and contrasting these populations with those present during dust events, the USGS hopes to better define the potential negative effect of dust clouds.
To accomplish this task, we needed to develop a low-cost, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that comprised commercial off-the-shelf components. The UAV had to meet the program’s extensive, precise air survey and data collection needs. It also needed to be be as easy to operate as its cost was to justify.
Floating Ideas
Many scientists hypothesize that microorganisms can survive long-range atmospheric transport in desert dust clouds because particles within the clouds shield them from harmful ultraviolet rays. In the past, researchers have collected dust samples aboard ships of opportunity and at ground-based sites.
Some scientists proposed the use of helium blimps to collect high-altitude samples and prevent ground-level contamination. However, this method proved to be inefficient and expensive because it required the deployment of personnel and gas canisters at each field site. The blimp-based data collection method also required safe storage of the dirigibles during inclement weather.
In the interest of capturing aboveground samples and having the capability of conducting vertical profiles, it was imperative that we develop a mobile and inexpensive method of airborne sampling. USGS’s answer to this challenge was the transformation of a scaled, remote-controlled, recreational plane into a UAV that allowed the rapid collection of samples from various altitudes. The adapted UAV leveraged GPS/inertial navigation system (INS), infrared optical, and other sensors for inexpensive autonomous aerial navigation and integrated air data collection.
The UAV platform needed to be easy to set up and capable of carrying airborne sampling equipment, including a dual-membrane filtration device for culture-based studies of microbes and scanners for determining the size distribution of airborne particulate matter. We also needed:
* telemetry technologies for real-time precision positioning and for gathering altitude data, aircraft-flight parameters, and other scientific data;
* autonomous scientific instrumentation control;
* autonomous flight and ground control; and
* lightweight precision vision systems.
Just as important, due to budget and time constraints, all these components had to be readily available.
Launch Platform
We selected a scaled, remote-controlled recreational airplane for our low-cost UAV transformation project. We upgraded the airplane, which we purchased from a hobby store, with various technologies used by recreational pilots for navigation and guidance and other systems used by microbiologists to gather research data. An almost-ready-to-fly (ARF), one-quarter-scale Super Cub aircraft with a 100-inch wingspan and flaps served as our starting point. The aircraft and engine combination was capable of lifting 30 pounds of equipment and staying aloft for approximately 1 hour at an altitude of 1 kilometer.
Transforming the scaled plane from a recreational to a scientific data-gathering vehicle posed many difficulties. We had to adapt the plane to accommodate, steadily hold, and lift all of the guidance and scientific equipment upgrades. We also had to integrate autopilot technologies with the existing hobby flight-control surfaces and systems. We chose an autopilot that the USGS already had modified successfully and used in an autonomous boat application (although the initial autopilot system was designed for aircraft).
The airplane’s physical and structural limitations forced us to make further modifications to turn it into a scientific data-acquisition platform. Creating space for the autopilot was one such modification and upgrading the aircraft’s electronic and scientific gear was another.
Piloting Pressures. Although the UAV had an autopilot, a pilot still was required for launching and landing the plane, as well as for monitoring the plane while it was airborne. The aircraft was designed to weigh 12 pounds, but our UAV adaptation tipped the scales at 24 pounds.
It looked easy to fly, but it wasn’t. It was a challenge to get the UAV off the ground and land in confined spaces. However, USGS’s UAV pilot had been flying remote-controlled aircraft since he was six years old, used to be a UAV-pilot consultant for Geodata Systems Inc., and had won numerous model-aircraft acrobatic titles.
The autopilot system weighed 15.5 ounces and measured 5.9 inches by 3 inches by 2 inches. It was mounted, along with its telemetry transceiver, in the aft fuselage and was accessible by a removable panel on the side of the aircraft. The autopilot and its transceiver operated at 5.5 volts direct current. The current draw for the autopilot was 200 milliamperes, and the current draw for the transceiver was 170 milliamperes.
Virtually any mapping program can monitor the navigation telemetry. For autonomous operation, software plans all the waypoints and track lines. The UAV’s 900-MHz spread-spectrum modems provided navigation and aircraft-parameter data.
Virtual cockpit software monitored aircraft flight parameters. The autopilot system performed all navigation and waypoint management, with waypoints and routes uploaded to the GPS receiver before launch.
The autopilot system was built to interface with a GPS receiver. One of the GPS receivers we used was a 12-channel, differential-ready receiver. Its acquisition time was 45 seconds from a cold start, and its update rate was 1 Hz. Horizontal position accuracy was 1 meters to 5 meters with differential corrections of 15 meters RMS. The unit operates at 5 volts to 8 volts direct current and 1000 milliamperes. Output is NMEA 0183 (GPGGA, GPGSA, GPGSV, GPRMB, GPRMC, waypoints in active route or GOTO [GPRTE], and waypoint location [GPWPL]).
When using this receiver, waypoints were uploaded to the unit prior to flight, and all navigation corrections and steering were issued to the autopilot. When in use, this GPS receiver was mounted in the cabin or glare-shield area of the aircraft, and it was powered by the autopilot.
Another GPS receiver we used was a 12-channel, WAAS-enabled GPS receiver. The hockey puck-shaped receiver was 2.4 inches in diameter and weighed 115 grams. It operated on 4 to 5.5 volts direct current and drew 50 milliamperes. The acquisition time when cold was 45 seconds with a reacquisition time of less than 2 seconds. The position update rate was 1 Hz. This receiver had a WAAS DGPS horizontal accuracy of less than 3 meters. The receiver had an RS-232 interface with NMEA 0183 v2.00, NMEA 0183 v3.00, and binary format output. NMEA sentences out were GPS almanac data (GPALM), GPGGA, GPGLL, GPGSA, GPGSV, GPRMC, and course over ground and ground speed (GPVTG). When using this receiver all waypoint data were uploaded directly to the autopilot, and all navigation corrections and steering were performed by the autopilot’s proprietary algorithms.
Flight Mission. In all flights conducted to date, the autopilot performed as expected. It has flown autonomously to the desired waypoints, orbited during sampling, and returned. All takeoffs and landings have been under piloted control.
The UAV was designed to enable autonomous navigation of routes immediately after launch, with radio control technologies providing launch and landing guidance. A flight mission involved setting waypoints for a sampling route. The UAV was programmed to loiter over each preset waypoint and collect data for 20 minutes. The aircraft then returned to the launch point to exchange scientific equipment.