Warning this water is unfit for human consumption
By Melvin J. Howard
I knew an attractive young lady that would not and could not drink from her tap. She carried a water bottle with her everywhere she went. I would tease her constantly she had water jugs placed in strategic locations in her car, her gym bag, brief case etc. I thought if Armageddon happens today I know where I am getting my drinking water. That was then this is now. I would no longer tease her about her concerns for her health when it comes to her drinking water. Most people take their drinking water for granted just go to the tap presto a nice cool drink of water. But do you know what you are really drinking you might be surprised and disgusted at the same time. People all over the world are getting sick because of their drinking water. So it begs the question are market solutions as efficient as Mother Nature's way of managing and distributing water? I think not because there is obvious waste in these market solutions. For example in order to clean water that has been polluted by human activities some electricity is needed, and this is extra energy that is simply not needed in the natural process. Not only is extra energy needed but there are waste products produced by the human processes, such as extra water treatment chemicals, that cannot be readily absorbed by natural processes and so create waste. Add to this the fact that human alteration of land has increased flood risk and drought risk that then gets adjusted for by all these human constructions - holding ponds, gutters and so forth - adding more and more energy input into the water cycle, that is in turn further disturbing the water cycle through channelling flows, which causes stream bank erosion and the list goes on and on. Surely it would be hard to argue that markets can run the water cycle - that cycle responsible for the stuff of every life we so depend on - more efficiently than Mother Nature can. Nature has had the opportunity to develop a most energy efficient water cycle millions more years than the humans have, and we are after all, creatures of nature ourselves.
Especially since land alteration pressures lie right at the heart and foundation of our mainstream monetary system. Unfortunately this approach only sees everything through profit and money tinted glasses. Industrial global concerns think of environmental problems in terms of dollar cost and often think of solutions in terms of getting more profits in monetary terms. Thus, much work in the field of sustainable economics often gets reduced to converting all natural processes into monetary equivalents. Continuation of this practice could very well lead to a situation where economic sustainability looks great on paper in terms of long term sustainable profits but completely misses the prediction of, say, catastrophic alteration to the water-cycle - increasing flood, drought and contamination risks of human and industrial waste which as already happening worldwide. As a country we must move from contemporary economics, which has historically ignored natural destruction, and to a more ecologically sensitive "Ecological Economics" we must move away from the practice of converting anything and everything to dollars terms in order to analyze them.
The necessity for this can be seen in the observation that money is an abstract human invention that doesn't obey natural laws, but Nature does! For example, when it comes to water, the primary measure for analysis should be water indicators - say probability of flood, drought, and contamination - NOT money. We can also use energy itself as an indicator, since distribution of energy is so much of what our markets are about.
After such analysis, and given that nature is the most efficient user of energy shouldn't we use natural solutions (preservation, conservation) to complement and mitigate the effects of human development, rather than energy intensive human mitigation efforts. Having established the right balance between human development and natural land features based on purely ENVIRONMENTAL indicators we can then bring money into the picture based on ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS and not the other way around, as it happens today. This approach finally would constrain the monetary system to recognizing the Laws of Nature, which it has never done before. Finally money would begin to respect the Entropy Law, the Second Law of Thermodynamics!
In summary, this would result in fundamental changes to the monetary system itself right at the point of money origination - a much more radical approach than proposed by any of the finance industry dominated groups such as the UNEP Finance Initiatives group. But it is an approach that seems necessary. For years manufacturing plants and gas exploration companies dumped its waste products into several landfills and waterways of the world. Often times leaving PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), dioxins (the killer chemical in Agent Orange) and many other chemical cocktails behind that I can’t even pronounce these reminders are a cause for concern. Because not only is clean drinking water become a problem in North America it is become a worldwide epidemic.
Written by the Sierra Club:
Toxic Tar Sands Oil
An Assault on American Water, Air, Health and Jobs
On July 26, 2010 an Enbridge tar sands pipeline ruptured in Michigan, spilling one million gallons of toxic crude into the Kalamazoo River, a major tributary of Lake Michigan. The crude oil contaminated more than 30 miles of river and forced evacuations for dozens of families. The lasting damage to the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan watershed may take years to resolve. This spill, the worst in Midwest history, is only the latest in a string of ongoing environmental disasters stemming from the production and distribution of the world's dirtiest oil from the Alberta tar sands.
Tar sands oil is an environmental and health nightmare. Stripmined in the boreal forests of northern Alberta, it is the most toxic form of oil on Earth. Tar sands oil is laden with sulfur, arsenic and heavy metals, and contaminates vast amounts of fresh water in processing. Mining and refining tar sands crude produces up to three times as much greenhouse gas per barrel as conventional crude oil. America currently consumes 1.35 million barrels of tar sands oil each day. Planned expansions will nearly triple our reliance on this toxic fuel.[1]
The safe life span of the average oil pipeline is only fifteen years, and most pipelines in the U.S. are much older. The Enbridge pipeline that burst in Michigan is 41 years old, and has no plans for retirement. Unfortunately pipelines are not always reliable even within the first fifteen years, and even the newest pipelines have already reported leaks.
A planned expansion of tar sands pipelines and refineries in the United States poses a grave threat to our farmland, water, and communities--not just from massive spills like the one in Michigan, but from toxic pollution known to lead to health problems like cancer and emphysema.
Tar Sands Oil Poisons Our Air
Processing tar sands oil releases pollutants directly linked to asthma, emphysema and birth defects into American communities. Because tar sands oil is a heavy, low-quality form of crude, it requires extensive 'upgrading' to be transformed into fuel. Refining tar sands crude creates far more air pollution in American communities that are already burdened with cancer and poor air quality as a result of oil industry activities. Tar sands oil contains, among other toxic metals, 11 times more sulfur and nickel, six times more nitrogen, and five times more lead than conventional crude oil.
Heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons released in tar sands refining have been linked to pre-natal brain damage. Nitrogen oxides, along with volatile organic compounds released in tar sands refining are the principle causes of smog and ground-level ozone. Exposure to nitrogen oxides is a direct cause of asthma, emphysema and other lung diseases.
With plans to triple refining and transportation of tar sands by 2015, there is no question that air pollution--and health problems--in communities from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast will increase.
Tar Sands Oil Contaminates Our Clean Water
Tar sands production wa stes and contaminates tremendous amounts of water. Every barrel of oil produced requires four barrels of water. In this process, water is pumped into toxic waste reservoirs large enough to be seen from space. The mercury, lead and arsenic in tar sands waste threaten human health, even at small levels of exposure. Already, communities downstream from tar sands mines in Canada report 500 times more incidents of rare bile duct cancer than those who do not live near the tar sands. Expanded reliance on this dirty oil would put important American water sources at risk. Canadian pipeline companies currently operate 1,900 miles of oil pipelines in and around the Great Lakes watershed, which supplies 25 million people with drinking water.
Tar sands oil contains elevated levels of many known carcinogens and toxins. In a recent study, tar sands wastewater 'tailings' from extracting oil were found to contain ammonia, benzene, cyanide, phenols, toluene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, copper, sulphate, and chloride[6]. Many of these chemicals are highly toxic and known to cause cancer, and regularly leach into groundwater from the massive lakes used to store tailings. These chemicals are present in tar sands oil before and after processing, and will end up in American groundwater when pipelines leak.
From Montana to Texas: American Communities at Risk
The Keystone XL Pipeline: A Threat to America's Heartland
The largest proposed tar sands pipeline expansion, the Keystone XL, will slice through six states, including Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas.
This massive pipeline is nearly 2,000 miles long. It threatens hundreds of acres of wetlands and 91 streams that support large recreational and commercial fisheries, in addition to thousands of smaller streams and waterways. Worse, the pipeline jeopardizes one of the most important agricultural aquifers in the nation, the Ogallala aquifer. Equal in volume to Lake Huron, the Ogallala aquifer supplies the breadbasket of America with fresh water. Onethird of all irrigated American farmland relies on water from this single aquifer, supporting one-fifth of all cattle, wheat, and corn grown in the United States.
To make matters worse, TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, has proposed using cheaper steel for the pipeline, needlessly exposing American communities along much of its route to risk of spills.
Nebraska
In addition to the Ogallala aquifer, the Keystone XL pipeline will traverse some of Nebraska's most important rivers and fisheries, including the Niobrara River, the Elkhorn River, Cedar River, Loup River, and the West Fork of the Big Blue River. Even the oil industry admits it can't prevent pipeline spills. Despite their continued assurances of safety, pipeline companies know their products are inherently unsafe. A spill in this area of Nebraska would be disastrous for the Ogallala and major Nebraska Rivers. The Niobrara River area is of particular concern, since it flows above shale deposits that are highly prone to fracturing and sinking, making underground pipes especially risky.
These important rivers are home to a vast array of birds and aquatic life, as well as large recreational fisheries, which are particularly vulnerable to oil contamination.
Oklahoma
In Oklahoma, the Keystone XL pipeline will cut through the Okmulgee State Park and Deep Fork Wildlife Management Area. The Deep Fork Wildlife area is one of the only public hunting areas in Oklahoma. The Canadian River, Red River, and six other sensitive and protected waterways in Oklahoma will be exposed to threats from tar sands contamination in construction and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline.
In addition to thousands of Oklahoma farmers who rely on fresh water from the Ogallala aquifer, anglers and residents living near these waterways will be hit hard by a pipeline spill.
Montana
In Montana, the Keystone XL pipeline will cut through historic sites near the confluence of the Milk and Missouri Rivers--sites so important that they are under consideration for Montana State Park designation. The pipeline will also cross some of the state's largest and most vital rivers, including the Missouri and the Yellowstone.
The Missouri is the second-largest tributary of the Mississippi River, and the longest river in the country. The Yellowstone River is the longest undammed river in the lower 48 states. These massive rivers serve as major sources of fresh water to Montana's arid regions. Spills in these rivers would prove disastrous for the state.
The Keystone XL pipeline will also cross nearby tributaries of Lake Fort Peck. This lake is among the largest in eastern Montana, supporting a large fishing and boating community and tourism industry. The Keystone XL pipeline would threaten Montana residents and visitors who count on clean water and fresh fish from Lake Fort Peck.
Texas
In Texas, the Keystone XL pipeline will traverse sixteen large rivers. It will crisscross several rivers that are listed as sensitive and protected, including Big Sandy Creek, Angelina River, Neches River, and the Pine Island Bayou.
These rivers and drainages feed 21 lakes and municipal reservoirs, including the Pat Mayse Lake, Lake Tyler, and Lake Cypress Springs,[10] supporting robust fishing and tourism industries. As the BP disaster in the Gulf showed, oil spills can be devastating to tourism. It's not worth putting these major Texas lakes at risk from a toxic pipeline disaster.
Water contamination isn't the only concern, however. Ninety percent of the increased refining capacity accompanying the proposed Keystone XL pipeline will likely occur in Port Arthur and Houston, an area already plagued with poor air quality. In fact, a Rice University study found that levels of cancer-causing chemicals produced in oil refining are already much higher in Houston than in any other city--in some cases, twenty times higher.[12] If the Keystone XL expansion is built, Houston residents can expect to see an increase in the kind of air pollution that leads to these serious health problems.
Tar Sands Expansion: Putting the Great Lakes Region at Risk
The Great Lakes region is already home to the largest overland pipeline network on the planet, Enbridge's Lakehead system, and one of the highest concentrations of pipeline leaks and breakages in North America.
Up to seventeen major tar sands refinery expansions are in the works or already developed in and around the Great Lakes, threatening to bring air pollution and health problems to residents in the region.
Indiana
In Whiting, Indiana, a refinery owned by BP is expanding to handle thick tar sands crude oil. Because it lies in a densely populated area just outside Chicago, at the corner of Lake Michigan, this expansion will impact air quality for millions of residents across three states. Studies estimate emissions of particulate matter may increase 21 percent with the expansion.[15]The BP Whiting refinery already discharges forty five toxic compounds into Lake Michigan, including benzene, toluene, mercury, lead, nickel and vanadium.[16] The refinery is the top industrial source of lead, nickel and ammonia, and one of only two industrial polluters that still dumps mercury directly into Lake Michigan.
In Fact, the BP Whiting refinery is also the number one source of mercury in Lake Michigan.[18] A permit loophole has allowed the refinery to release an average of 671.5 pounds of mercury into Lake Michigan every year.
Michigan
We've already seen the impacts of a pipeline spill in Michigan. Now, tar sands refinery expansions threaten the state's air. The Marathon refinery in Detroit recently approved plans for a massive expansion to process tar sands crude, in the heart of Michigan's Oakwood Heights neighborhood. The neighborhood, which sits adjacent to the Marathon tar sands refinery, has the highest rate of pollution in Michigan, according to the University of Michigan and Karmanos Cancer Center. Thirteen of Detroit's twenty-seven polluting industries operate in the Oakwood Heights area. Bringing toxic tar sands to this area would increase health threats in a community that is already unfairly burdened by pollution.
Tar Sands Oil:
A Barrier to America's Clean Energy Future
Tar sands oil has no place in America's clean energy future. America's addiction to oil has created a growing threat to our national security, and importing toxic tar sands oil will make it worse. Canadian oil companies stand to make windfall profits from our addiction, and industry front groups for major tar sands developers are waging a massive lobbying and legal campaign against policies to reduce our dependence on oil, like California's low carbon fuel standard.
While measures to reduce global warming pollution and oil dependence--like a national Low Carbon Fuel Standard--would spur development of cleaner fuels and American jobs, tar sands companies are spending millions lobbying Congress to block them.
We already send over one billion dollars a day to foreign countries in exchange for oil, bolstering their economies instead of making clean energy at home. In 2010 tar sands became the number one oil import in the United States, and we are projected to spend $47.4 billion on Canadian crude this year. Instead of exporting billions of dollars and putting American farmland and water at risk with foreign crude pipelines, we could be investing in self-sufficiency and clean, homegrown American energy. Every dollar we spend importing oil is a dollar taken away from growing green, clean jobs at home.
Clean energy is already a thriving business in the United States. The number of clean energy jobs in the United States grew 9.1 percent between 1997 and 2008, while jobs overall only grew by 3.7 percent.
In just one example, Michigan, the site of the massive Enbridge pipeline disaster, has seen sixteen new electric vehicle technology plants open in the past year alone, creating new jobs in the wake of a crashing auto market. These plants are projected to create 62,000 new jobs over the next decade. What's more, American wind energy continued its pattern of growth in 2009, despite the recession.
Efficiency measures alone can save more oil than the tar sands can provide, and will save billions in American dollars--money that could be invested in domestic clean energy jobs.
Expansion of tar sands pipelines and refineries will only bring health problems, air pollution, water contamination, and a constant risk of oil spills. The only way to make our nation more secure, healthy and prosperous is to reduce our dependence on oil by building a 21st century transportation system and investing in clean energy like wind and solar power.
The Keystone XL pipeline will deepen our reliance on foreign, dirty fuels and undermine American clean energy jobs. A massive tar sands expansion stands in the way of our clean energy future, threatens our most precious agricultural and water resources, and puts American health at risk.
