1. Keonhwa Sung 2. Climate Change Already Affecting U.S. Water, Land, And Biodiversity, Report Finds 3. Although people might think that it is not too serious, climate change already affects our environment appreciably. Whenever I read articles about environment's issues, they arouse attention though. It is not easy to carry out how to protect environment. ------------------------ The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) has released "Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3): The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States." The CCSP integrates the federal research efforts of 13 agencies on climate and global change. This report is one of the most extensive examinations of climate impacts on U.S. ecosystems.
The report finds that climate change is already affecting U.S. water resources, agriculture, land resources, and biodiversity, and will continue to do so.
Specific findings include:
Grain and oilseed crops will mature more rapidly, but increasing temperatures will increase the risk of crop failures, particularly if precipitation decreases or becomes more variable. Higher temperatures will negatively affect livestock. Warmer winters will reduce mortality but this will be more than offset by greater mortality in hotter summers. Hotter temperatures will also result in reduced productivity of livestock and dairy animals. Forests in the interior West, the Southwest, and Alaska are already being affected by climate change with increases in the size and frequency of forest fires, insect outbreaks and tree mortality. These changes are expected to continue. Much of the United States has experienced higher precipitation and streamflow, with decreased drought severity and duration, over the 20th century. The West and Southwest, however, are notable exceptions, and increased drought conditions have occurred in these regions. Weeds grow more rapidly under elevated atmospheric CO2. Under projections reported in the assessment, weeds migrate northward and are less sensitive to herbicide applications. There is a trend toward reduced mountain snowpack and earlier spring snowmelt runoff in the Western United States. Horticultural crops (such as tomato, onion, and fruit) are more sensitive to climate change than grains and oilseed crops. Young forests on fertile soils will achieve higher productivity from elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nitrogen deposition and warmer temperatures will increase productivity in other types of forests where water is available. Invasion by exotic grass species into arid lands will result from climate change, causing an increased fire frequency. Rivers and riparian systems in arid lands will be negatively impacted. A continuation of the trend toward increased water use efficiency could help mitigate the impacts of climate change on water resources. The growing season has increased by 10 to 14 days over the last 19 years across the temperate latitudes. Species' distributions have also shifted. The rapid rates of warming in the Arctic observed in recent decades, and projected for at least the next century, are dramatically reducing the snow and ice covers that provide denning and foraging habitat for polar bears. "The report issued today provides practical information that will help land owners and resource managers make better decisions to address the risks of climate change," said Agriculture Chief Economist Joe Glauber.
The report was written by 38 authors from the universities, national laboratories, non-governmental organizations, and federal service. The report underwent expert peer review by 14 scientists through a Federal Advisory Committee formed by the USDA. The National Center for Atmospheric Research also coordinated in the production of the report. It is posted on the CCSP Web site at:
USDA is the lead agency for this report and coordinated its production as part of its commitment to CCSP.
USDA agencies are responding to the risks of climate change. For example, the Forest Service is incorporating climate change risks into National Forest Management Plans and is providing guidance to forest managers on how to respond and adapt to climate change. The Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Services Agency are encouraging actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration through conservation programs. USDA's Risk Management Agency has prepared tools to manage drought risks and is conducting an assessment of the risks of climate change on the crop insurance program. ----------------------- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080528101708.htm
2. I think eco -labels influence behavior. I think that is result Institutionalization, Regulation, Legitimation. So eco - labels increase eco friendly goods. And that allure consumer. So eco labels need extension.
3. Eco-labels Impact Consumer Behavior
Eco-labels influence consumer behavior in two ways. First, they introduce green as a considered attribute at the point of sale. Second, they enable consumers to comparison shop based on green. Over the past few years, there have been many new eco-labels launched by governments, manufacturers and retailers. Many of these labels are listed on Consumer Reports’ Greener Choices site. Interestingly, the Natural Marketing Institute’s 2007 LOHAS Consumer Trends Database report determined that not all eco-labels have the same impact. In fact, consumers indicate that they are more likely to make eco-friendly purchase decisions if the eco-labels are also widely recognized and trusted brands in of themselves. Familiar labels for programs like the EPA’s Energy Star have a more significant influence on consumer behavior than others.
While such a finding reinforces the value of eco-labels, it does challenge the notion that CPG companies and retailers should necessarily launch proprietary labels to differentiate themselves on green. Like all brands, eco-labels take significant time and resources to build. Moreover, given the sensitivities regarding greenwashing, for-profit entities may have to overcome a higher hurdle than government or a non-profit organization given the appearance of conflict if proprietary labels adorn their own products.
As such, Marketing Green recommends that product companies and retailers focus on disclosing product information about environmental impact to differentiate themselves in the market rather than trying to define new green labels. Disclosures provide consumers with information that can inform purchase decisions rather than certify a product’s greenness. This is what HP has done with its launch of Eco Highlights labels on its products.
Marketing Green also recommends that retailers simultaneously push for industry-wide labels. While some retailers may consider proprietary labels as a competitive differentiator, it is likely that broadly recognized labels will accelerate consumer adoption while reduce the cost to support them.
Moreover, retailers should differentiate themselves by sourcing more green products. Arguably, this is one of Wal-Mart’s strategic priorities today. Greater variety combined with recognized eco-labels will likely drive more sales as well as consumer loyalty. In the end, this approach is likely to have more impact for both business and the environment.
By David Wigder Published May 24, 2008 Marketing & Communications» Marketing;
2. South Korean plans for a grand canal: Savior or folly?
3. This article is about the grand canal issue of this Lee's regime.In Korea, there have been huge controversials about building canal. Two parites ' main argument is like this; One agrees the issue because it will make slowing economy booming, while others opposes that because they consider the envionmental catastrophe. Of course, there are many other worries and politics around this canal issue.
So, this article says that this is the first experiment of Lee's leadership in current government. And they point out that every president tried to leave his mark with a grandiose project such as building railway and international airport. In last regime, Roh tries to move the capital from Seoul. I do not oppose the trend of president's big project. However, we should remember that the influence of one policy leave forever even far after one president left that position. If a president just propel the policy for getting popularity and instantaneous development, the direct damage will go to the citizens.
In this grand canal project, we can see the similar intentions of one president. Environment can not be recovered once it is destroyed, and of course it can be recovered gradually, all the cost for recovery will be unbelievably huge. Who could support all the financial, psycological, and social damage? So, it is the time that we rethink how it is important for top leader to have a wise policy and long term perspective for our nation's future.
--------------------
Like its weed-infested, rusting railway tracks, this once-prosperous mining town was left behind in South Korea's economic growth - until President-elect Lee Myung Bak began pitching the country's most ambitious, and controversial, construction project.
If Lee's plan goes through, the craggy mountains behind this town where miners once dug coal will offer a new source of income: tourists sailing down a waterway blasted though the hills.
"The canal will bring prosperity back to our town," said Min Byung Do, 44, a high school teacher here. "It will put our town on the map. People will start moving in. They'll no longer put us down as yokels."
Mungyeong lies midway along the proposed "Grand Korean Waterway," a 540-kilometer, or 336-mile, canal cutting diagonally across the country between Seoul and Busan, Korea's two largest cities. Lee, who takes office on Feb. 25, hopes to complete it during his five-year term.
The most challenging engineering work will take place around Mungyeong. Once completed, Lee's engineers say, freight barges and tourist boats either will be lifted up through the mountains on a "skyway" of locks and lifts, or cruise underground through a 21-kilometer tunnel.
The engineers have yet to decide whether to build the skyway or the tunnel. Either way, their goal is to connect the Nakdong River, which flows into Busan, the country's largest port, in the southeast, and the Han River, which runs through Seoul and joins the Yellow Sea in the northwest. They will widen and deepen the rivers and straighten their courses to create a seamless waterway. A separate smaller canal would link Seoul to Incheon, the country's No. 2 port.
Lee's canal conforms to political tradition in South Korea: every president has wanted to leave his mark with a grandiose project, whether a high-speed railway or a new international airport. Five years ago, when Roh Moo Hyun became president, he attempted to move the capital away from Seoul, which the nation's political and business elite have called home for six centuries. When the Constitutional Court killed his plan, Roh was dealt a severe political blow.
Whether Lee can sell another major undertaking - which, depending on which side of the debate is speaking, will either provide a healthy jolt to Korea's slowing economy or set off environmental catastrophe - is the first major test of his leadership.
The canal, like Roh's attempt to relocate the capital, both defines Lee and divides the country. Lee first rose to national fame as CEO of Hyundai Construction & Engineering, the nation's iconic builder. In the 1970s and '80s, he built dams and factories, highways and railroads around the world with a speed and confidence that earned him the nickname "Bulldozer." His get-things-done reputation persuaded South Koreans to give him a landslide victory in the Dec. 19 election in the hope that he could revitalize the economy.
But there is growing doubt whether the state-sponsored focus on economic growth, which served South Korea so well in the 1970s and '80s and is reflected in Lee's corporate career, is the best strategy for the 21st century.
"Lee thinks he can push a project through like a bulldozer," said Hong Seong Tae, a sociology professor at Sangji University and a critic of the proposal. "A civil engineering project is the only way he thinks he can show quick results for economic growth."
According to a survey conducted this month by the mass-circulation daily Chosun, the canal was the least popular among Lee's top policy proposals, with only 30 percent of respondents supporting it. Still, his transition team has reconfirmed it as a priority task. "I believe there are many good reasons to build the canal," Lee said in a recent television interview. "We will let experts at home and abroad discuss this issue so that people will say, 'O.K., let's do it then.' "
So sharp is the debate that supporters and critics hardly seem to be talking about the same project.
Lee has said it will create 300,000 jobs and revitalize moribund inland economies. He said the volume of industrial cargo would double by 2020, and a canal would provide cleaner and cheaper, if slower, transport, taking heavy goods off the country's congested roads and railways.
But there are plenty of detractors, from the political opposition and environmental groups to Roh, the departing president whose capital relocation plan was once opposed by Lee, who was then mayor of Seoul. In an anti-canal forum last month organized by 80 professors at Seoul National University, speakers accused Lee of a boondoggle that would "delude the nation and deceive the people."
One speaker, Hong Jong Ho, an economist at Hanyang University, said the canal would create an "environmental disaster" that would worsen flooding and pollute the two rivers, which supply drinking water for two-thirds of the nation's 48 million people. He also said the waterway would be the most expensive construction project in South Korean history, costing up to $50 billion.
Lee, for his part, puts the cost at about $16 billion and says that 60 to 70 percent of that cost will be recovered by selling sand and gravel scraped up from the river beds, with the rest coming from private investment in such projects as harbor development and tourist facilities. His aides say that the waterway's dams will control flooding, and that dredging riverbeds will leave water cleaner.
Hong, the Sangji University professor, argues that the canal may even cause religious friction. He notes that Lee is a Christian church elder, and his top aide for the canal project, Choo Bu Gil, is a Christian pastor, while Buddhist groups have voiced fears that the waterway would submerge Buddhist relics.
Meanwhile, canal fever is sweeping towns along the two rivers.
"If you oppose the canal, you are not one of us," reads a roadside banner at Yeoju, a town south of Seoul. A sign posted by a real estate broker advertises a plot "only five minutes from the canal."
"Our town suffered many restrictions on land development because the central government wanted to protect the water quality of the Han River," said Chung Jong Sop, 54, a Yeoju farmer. "If the canal comes, it will put an end to those restrictions."
Farther up the river, Kwon Jae Yoon, a real estate broker in Chungju, said land prices there had doubled in the past month. But there have been few sales so far, he said, because property owners expect the prices to increase further once digging for the canal starts.
Farther south lies Mungyeong, a mountain-locked town now festooned with signs welcoming the canal. Over the streets, where farmers hawk apples and dried herbs, banners display panoramic views of a future Mungyeong as a thriving inland harbor with high-rises and a waterfront amusement park. Politicians competing to represent the town in the parliamentary elections in April have posted photographs of themselves with Lee.
In ancient times, Mungyeong was a famous way station where travelers stopped to rest before tackling hills so rugged that local legend has it that even birds must take a break before flying over them. The old hilltop inns are preserved as cultural relics.
For much of the 20th century, Mungyeong was an important coal producer. In recent years, however, its mines have languished as the country switched to oil. Over the past two decades, its population has dropped by half to 75,000.
"Until now, we saw no future, no way to turn around our economy," said Baek Young Ja, 43, a restaurant owner. "Talk about possible environmental damage the canal might cause doesn't mean that much to me. I think more about all the engineers who will come in and eat at my place once construction starts."
2. Marine Chemist Says 'Not So Fast' To Quick Oil Detection Method
3. A method for assessing environmental contamination after oil spills is now applying to the wrong situation. A new method (whatever it is) has to be tested and people should have the standard guidelines to prevent this kind of problems.
-----------------------------------
A new method for assessing environmental contamination after oil spills is in danger of being applied in situations where it doesn't work and might produce false conclusions, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has warned.
Private firms and government agencies have recently started using long strands of absorbent polypropylene snares, also called “pom-poms,” as a means to check for contamination of the seafloor in the wake of an oil spill. The method is becoming popular because it is rapid and low-cost.
But according to WHOI marine chemist Christopher Reddy, the approach may give a false sense of security. In a recently published letter to the Marine Pollution Bulletin, Reddy notes that while the pom-pom method is effective in locating areas where excessive amounts of oil have sunk to the bottom, it does not necessarily identify the fractions and compounds of oil that can linger in sediments and have long-term impacts on ecosystems and public health.
Following a 2004 oil spill in the Delaware River, emergency response crews employed the new pom-pom method to quickly determine the locations of large oil patches on the river floor. The information was invaluable for the emergency response and cleanup.
After the M/V Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay in November 2007, the pom-pom method was used again. But this time, the goal was to determine if sediments near the Port of Oakland were safe to be dredged and re-used in restoration projects.
“This approach is flawed,” Reddy wrote. “It relies on the assumption that the lack of visible oil on the snares”¦indicates a total lack of oil contamination in the sediment”¦While testing of sediments with snares delivers rapid, low-cost data, it is only an indicator of gross contamination.”
“Before this approach becomes standard practice for determining whether sediments have been contaminated at levels that may impact ecosystems,” Reddy added, “prudence dictates much more rigorous testing of the test itself.”
Funding for this research was provided by the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and the WHOI Coastal Ocean Institute.
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
4 comments:
1. Keonhwa Sung
2. Climate Change Already Affecting U.S. Water, Land, And Biodiversity, Report Finds
3. Although people might think that it is not too serious, climate change already affects our environment appreciably. Whenever I read articles about environment's issues, they arouse attention though. It is not easy to carry out how to protect environment.
------------------------
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) has released "Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3): The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States." The CCSP integrates the federal research efforts of 13 agencies on climate and global change. This report is one of the most extensive examinations of climate impacts on U.S. ecosystems.
The report finds that climate change is already affecting U.S. water resources, agriculture, land resources, and biodiversity, and will continue to do so.
Specific findings include:
Grain and oilseed crops will mature more rapidly, but increasing temperatures will increase the risk of crop failures, particularly if precipitation decreases or becomes more variable.
Higher temperatures will negatively affect livestock. Warmer winters will reduce mortality but this will be more than offset by greater mortality in hotter summers. Hotter temperatures will also result in reduced productivity of livestock and dairy animals.
Forests in the interior West, the Southwest, and Alaska are already being affected by climate change with increases in the size and frequency of forest fires, insect outbreaks and tree mortality. These changes are expected to continue.
Much of the United States has experienced higher precipitation and streamflow, with decreased drought severity and duration, over the 20th century. The West and Southwest, however, are notable exceptions, and increased drought conditions have occurred in these regions.
Weeds grow more rapidly under elevated atmospheric CO2. Under projections reported in the assessment, weeds migrate northward and are less sensitive to herbicide applications.
There is a trend toward reduced mountain snowpack and earlier spring snowmelt runoff in the Western United States.
Horticultural crops (such as tomato, onion, and fruit) are more sensitive to climate change than grains and oilseed crops.
Young forests on fertile soils will achieve higher productivity from elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nitrogen deposition and warmer temperatures will increase productivity in other types of forests where water is available.
Invasion by exotic grass species into arid lands will result from climate change, causing an increased fire frequency. Rivers and riparian systems in arid lands will be negatively impacted.
A continuation of the trend toward increased water use efficiency could help mitigate the impacts of climate change on water resources.
The growing season has increased by 10 to 14 days over the last 19 years across the temperate latitudes. Species' distributions have also shifted.
The rapid rates of warming in the Arctic observed in recent decades, and projected for at least the next century, are dramatically reducing the snow and ice covers that provide denning and foraging habitat for polar bears.
"The report issued today provides practical information that will help land owners and resource managers make better decisions to address the risks of climate change," said Agriculture Chief Economist Joe Glauber.
The report was written by 38 authors from the universities, national laboratories, non-governmental organizations, and federal service. The report underwent expert peer review by 14 scientists through a Federal Advisory Committee formed by the USDA. The National Center for Atmospheric Research also coordinated in the production of the report. It is posted on the CCSP Web site at:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/default.htm.
USDA is the lead agency for this report and coordinated its production as part of its commitment to CCSP.
USDA agencies are responding to the risks of climate change. For example, the Forest Service is incorporating climate change risks into National Forest Management Plans and is providing guidance to forest managers on how to respond and adapt to climate change. The Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Services Agency are encouraging actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration through conservation programs. USDA's Risk Management Agency has prepared tools to manage drought risks and is conducting an assessment of the risks of climate change on the crop insurance program.
-----------------------
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080528101708.htm
1. Hea Joung Lee
2. I think eco -labels influence behavior. I think that is result Institutionalization, Regulation, Legitimation. So eco - labels increase eco friendly goods. And that allure consumer. So eco labels need extension.
3. Eco-labels Impact Consumer Behavior
Eco-labels influence consumer behavior in two ways. First, they introduce green as a considered attribute at the point of sale. Second, they enable consumers to comparison shop based on green. Over the past few years, there have been many new eco-labels launched by governments, manufacturers and retailers. Many of these labels are listed on Consumer Reports’ Greener Choices site.
Interestingly, the Natural Marketing Institute’s 2007 LOHAS Consumer Trends Database report determined that not all eco-labels have the same impact. In fact, consumers indicate that they are more likely to make eco-friendly purchase decisions if the eco-labels are also widely recognized and trusted brands in of themselves. Familiar labels for programs like the EPA’s Energy Star have a more significant influence on consumer behavior than others.
While such a finding reinforces the value of eco-labels, it does challenge the notion that CPG companies and retailers should necessarily launch proprietary labels to differentiate themselves on green.
Like all brands, eco-labels take significant time and resources to build. Moreover, given the sensitivities regarding greenwashing, for-profit entities may have to overcome a higher hurdle than government or a non-profit organization given the appearance of conflict if proprietary labels adorn their own products.
As such, Marketing Green recommends that product companies and retailers focus on disclosing product information about environmental impact to differentiate themselves in the market rather than trying to define new green labels. Disclosures provide consumers with information that can inform purchase decisions rather than certify a product’s greenness. This is what HP has done with its launch of Eco Highlights labels on its products.
Marketing Green also recommends that retailers simultaneously push for industry-wide labels. While some retailers may consider proprietary labels as a competitive differentiator, it is likely that broadly recognized labels will accelerate consumer adoption while reduce the cost to support them.
Moreover, retailers should differentiate themselves by sourcing more green products. Arguably, this is one of Wal-Mart’s strategic priorities today. Greater variety combined with recognized eco-labels will likely drive more sales as well as consumer loyalty. In the end, this approach is likely to have more impact for both business and the environment.
By David Wigder
Published May 24, 2008
Marketing & Communications» Marketing;
1. Gowoon JUNG
2. South Korean plans for a grand canal: Savior or folly?
3. This article is about the grand canal issue of this Lee's regime.In Korea, there have been huge controversials about building canal. Two parites ' main argument is like this; One agrees the issue because it will make slowing economy booming, while others opposes that because they consider the envionmental catastrophe. Of course, there are many other worries and politics around this canal issue.
So, this article says that this is the first experiment of Lee's leadership in current government. And they point out that every president tried to leave his mark with a grandiose project such as building railway and international airport. In last regime, Roh tries to move the capital from Seoul. I do not oppose the trend of president's big project. However, we should remember that the influence of one policy leave forever even far after one president left that position. If a president just propel the policy for getting popularity and instantaneous development, the direct damage will go to the citizens.
In this grand canal project, we can see the similar intentions of one president. Environment can not be recovered once it is destroyed, and of course it can be recovered gradually, all the cost for recovery will be unbelievably huge. Who could support all the financial, psycological, and social damage? So, it is the time that we rethink how it is important for top leader to have a wise policy and long term perspective for our nation's future.
--------------------
Like its weed-infested, rusting railway tracks, this once-prosperous mining town was left behind in South Korea's economic growth - until President-elect Lee Myung Bak began pitching the country's most ambitious, and controversial, construction project.
If Lee's plan goes through, the craggy mountains behind this town where miners once dug coal will offer a new source of income: tourists sailing down a waterway blasted though the hills.
"The canal will bring prosperity back to our town," said Min Byung Do, 44, a high school teacher here. "It will put our town on the map. People will start moving in. They'll no longer put us down as yokels."
Mungyeong lies midway along the proposed "Grand Korean Waterway," a 540-kilometer, or 336-mile, canal cutting diagonally across the country between Seoul and Busan, Korea's two largest cities. Lee, who takes office on Feb. 25, hopes to complete it during his five-year term.
The most challenging engineering work will take place around Mungyeong. Once completed, Lee's engineers say, freight barges and tourist boats either will be lifted up through the mountains on a "skyway" of locks and lifts, or cruise underground through a 21-kilometer tunnel.
The engineers have yet to decide whether to build the skyway or the tunnel. Either way, their goal is to connect the Nakdong River, which flows into Busan, the country's largest port, in the southeast, and the Han River, which runs through Seoul and joins the Yellow Sea in the northwest. They will widen and deepen the rivers and straighten their courses to create a seamless waterway. A separate smaller canal would link Seoul to Incheon, the country's No. 2 port.
Lee's canal conforms to political tradition in South Korea: every president has wanted to leave his mark with a grandiose project, whether a high-speed railway or a new international airport. Five years ago, when Roh Moo Hyun became president, he attempted to move the capital away from Seoul, which the nation's political and business elite have called home for six centuries. When the Constitutional Court killed his plan, Roh was dealt a severe political blow.
Whether Lee can sell another major undertaking - which, depending on which side of the debate is speaking, will either provide a healthy jolt to Korea's slowing economy or set off environmental catastrophe - is the first major test of his leadership.
The canal, like Roh's attempt to relocate the capital, both defines Lee and divides the country. Lee first rose to national fame as CEO of Hyundai Construction & Engineering, the nation's iconic builder. In the 1970s and '80s, he built dams and factories, highways and railroads around the world with a speed and confidence that earned him the nickname "Bulldozer." His get-things-done reputation persuaded South Koreans to give him a landslide victory in the Dec. 19 election in the hope that he could revitalize the economy.
But there is growing doubt whether the state-sponsored focus on economic growth, which served South Korea so well in the 1970s and '80s and is reflected in Lee's corporate career, is the best strategy for the 21st century.
"Lee thinks he can push a project through like a bulldozer," said Hong Seong Tae, a sociology professor at Sangji University and a critic of the proposal. "A civil engineering project is the only way he thinks he can show quick results for economic growth."
According to a survey conducted this month by the mass-circulation daily Chosun, the canal was the least popular among Lee's top policy proposals, with only 30 percent of respondents supporting it. Still, his transition team has reconfirmed it as a priority task. "I believe there are many good reasons to build the canal," Lee said in a recent television interview. "We will let experts at home and abroad discuss this issue so that people will say, 'O.K., let's do it then.' "
So sharp is the debate that supporters and critics hardly seem to be talking about the same project.
Lee has said it will create 300,000 jobs and revitalize moribund inland economies. He said the volume of industrial cargo would double by 2020, and a canal would provide cleaner and cheaper, if slower, transport, taking heavy goods off the country's congested roads and railways.
But there are plenty of detractors, from the political opposition and environmental groups to Roh, the departing president whose capital relocation plan was once opposed by Lee, who was then mayor of Seoul. In an anti-canal forum last month organized by 80 professors at Seoul National University, speakers accused Lee of a boondoggle that would "delude the nation and deceive the people."
One speaker, Hong Jong Ho, an economist at Hanyang University, said the canal would create an "environmental disaster" that would worsen flooding and pollute the two rivers, which supply drinking water for two-thirds of the nation's 48 million people. He also said the waterway would be the most expensive construction project in South Korean history, costing up to $50 billion.
Lee, for his part, puts the cost at about $16 billion and says that 60 to 70 percent of that cost will be recovered by selling sand and gravel scraped up from the river beds, with the rest coming from private investment in such projects as harbor development and tourist facilities. His aides say that the waterway's dams will control flooding, and that dredging riverbeds will leave water cleaner.
Hong, the Sangji University professor, argues that the canal may even cause religious friction. He notes that Lee is a Christian church elder, and his top aide for the canal project, Choo Bu Gil, is a Christian pastor, while Buddhist groups have voiced fears that the waterway would submerge Buddhist relics.
Meanwhile, canal fever is sweeping towns along the two rivers.
"If you oppose the canal, you are not one of us," reads a roadside banner at Yeoju, a town south of Seoul. A sign posted by a real estate broker advertises a plot "only five minutes from the canal."
"Our town suffered many restrictions on land development because the central government wanted to protect the water quality of the Han River," said Chung Jong Sop, 54, a Yeoju farmer. "If the canal comes, it will put an end to those restrictions."
Farther up the river, Kwon Jae Yoon, a real estate broker in Chungju, said land prices there had doubled in the past month. But there have been few sales so far, he said, because property owners expect the prices to increase further once digging for the canal starts.
Farther south lies Mungyeong, a mountain-locked town now festooned with signs welcoming the canal. Over the streets, where farmers hawk apples and dried herbs, banners display panoramic views of a future Mungyeong as a thriving inland harbor with high-rises and a waterfront amusement park. Politicians competing to represent the town in the parliamentary elections in April have posted photographs of themselves with Lee.
In ancient times, Mungyeong was a famous way station where travelers stopped to rest before tackling hills so rugged that local legend has it that even birds must take a break before flying over them. The old hilltop inns are preserved as cultural relics.
For much of the 20th century, Mungyeong was an important coal producer. In recent years, however, its mines have languished as the country switched to oil. Over the past two decades, its population has dropped by half to 75,000.
"Until now, we saw no future, no way to turn around our economy," said Baek Young Ja, 43, a restaurant owner. "Talk about possible environmental damage the canal might cause doesn't mean that much to me. I think more about all the engineers who will come in and eat at my place once construction starts."
--------------
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/20/asia/canal.php
1. Nuri Na
2. Marine Chemist Says 'Not So Fast' To Quick Oil Detection Method
3. A method for assessing environmental contamination after oil spills is now applying to the wrong situation. A new method (whatever it is) has to be tested and people should have the standard guidelines to prevent this kind of problems.
-----------------------------------
A new method for assessing environmental contamination after oil spills is in danger of being applied in situations where it doesn't work and might produce false conclusions, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has warned.
Private firms and government agencies have recently started using long strands of absorbent polypropylene snares, also called “pom-poms,” as a means to check for contamination of the seafloor in the wake of an oil spill. The method is becoming popular because it is rapid and low-cost.
But according to WHOI marine chemist Christopher Reddy, the approach may give a false sense of security. In a recently published letter to the Marine Pollution Bulletin, Reddy notes that while the pom-pom method is effective in locating areas where excessive amounts of oil have sunk to the bottom, it does not necessarily identify the fractions and compounds of oil that can linger in sediments and have long-term impacts on ecosystems and public health.
Following a 2004 oil spill in the Delaware River, emergency response crews employed the new pom-pom method to quickly determine the locations of large oil patches on the river floor. The information was invaluable for the emergency response and cleanup.
After the M/V Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay in November 2007, the pom-pom method was used again. But this time, the goal was to determine if sediments near the Port of Oakland were safe to be dredged and re-used in restoration projects.
“This approach is flawed,” Reddy wrote. “It relies on the assumption that the lack of visible oil on the snares”¦indicates a total lack of oil contamination in the sediment”¦While testing of sediments with snares delivers rapid, low-cost data, it is only an indicator of gross contamination.”
“Before this approach becomes standard practice for determining whether sediments have been contaminated at levels that may impact ecosystems,” Reddy added, “prudence dictates much more rigorous testing of the test itself.”
Funding for this research was provided by the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and the WHOI Coastal Ocean Institute.
-----
http://www.enn.com/business/article/37221
Post a Comment