Greenversations

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

For each month in 2009, the Year of Science—we will pose a question related to science. Please let us know your thoughts as comments, and feel free to respond to earlier comments, or post new ideas.

The Year of Science theme for April is Energy Resources.

Do you know what energy resource you get your electricity from? Have you looked into switching to a “green” alternative?

About the Author: Aaron Ferster is the science writer-editor in EPA’s Office of Research and Development, and the Science Wednesday Editor.

Coming home on New Year’s Eve this year we noticed a “squishing” sensation underfoot as we walked across the carpet in the downstairs playroom. A big, soggy wet spot had mysteriously formed in a place well away from any obvious source of water. Yuck. I pulled up a big swath of carpet to reveal a considerable puddle on the concrete floor beneath.

New Year’s celebration over.

One week, and a hefty plumbing bill later, the mysterious source water was revealed: a steel pipe behind the kitchen wall upstairs had rotted out.

Since we had to take the walls down anyway, we decided it was time to update the 1970s-style kitchen. This week our contractor led me into the basement. “You’re out of space,” he explained, pointing to where a neat circle of clean, new wires coming from the kitchen met the old fuse boxes. He gently informed me it was time for me to make yet another decision.

I had two options: (1) replace the fuse boxes with a circuit breaker with more lines available, or (2) “heavy up,” in which the electrician would also essentially double the flow of electricity that could come into the house, from 100 amps to 200 amps.

Apparently, sometime between when my house was built and the time the kitchen pipe failed, the standard for electricity changed. Today’s homes are typically built with a minimum capacity of 200 amps, so they can easily handle modern loads from clothes dryers, central air conditioning, home offices full of computers and other electronics, various chargers for cell phone batteries and the like, and mega television screens.

It seems like a safe bet that my family and I will want more juice flowing into our home at some point. Doing the heavy up now would allow me to expand in the future, and I’d get a discount by doing the work now instead of essentially repeating some of it later.

Then I got to thinking about this month’s Year of Science Theme: energy resources. Will the current emphasis on conservation, efficiency, and the need to develop new, clean alternative sources of energy lead us in a new direction?

Perhaps by the time the kitchen needs its next overhaul, the future owner will have a good laugh about how the previous owner once thought they needed the capacity to have some 200 amps of electricity flow into the house.

Now that’s something to celebrate.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the Author: Jay Messer, Ph.D. is a Senior Science Advisor at the National Center for Environmental Assessment in EPA’s Office of Research and Development. He is a lead writer of EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment.

Watching my retirement recede into the future as the financial crisis deepened put me in mind of EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment.

The purposes of the Report are to “provide valuable input to EPA in devel­oping its strategic outlook and priorities, and [to] allow EPA and the public to assess whether the Agency is succeeding in its overall mission to protect human health and the environment.”

The release of the Report last spring marked the first time that such a wide range of objective, transparent, and scientifically-solid information about environmental status and trends has appeared under in a single EPA publication. I believe that it makes a valuable contribution in telling us how we’ve done over time (not bad!), but I’m less sanguine about its influence on planning for the future.

We in EPA are certainly familiar with “performance measures:”

• EPAstat presents measures of quarterly performance, primarily aimed at short-term management “outputs,” and
• EPA’s Annual Performance and Accountability Reports present measures of annual performance aimed at output and longer-term (e.g., 5-year) “outcome” targets for specific programs.

Performance measures are important management tools, but most of the agencies responsible for overseeing banks and securities received scores of “adequate” or better on their latest performance reviews. Apparently we needed more to protect the economy. So we probably need more to protect the environment.

Rather than measuring the performance of particular programs, the indicators in the Report on the Environment ideally reflect more on the outcomes of the way resources are allocated across and among programs, and on multi-program and multi-agency efforts to solve environmental problems and fill critical data gaps. EPA’s latest Strategic Plan notes that many of its targets are consistent with the trends in the Report, but there is no forum in which the Report is systematically used to inform strategic thinking at a higher level.

This is not a problem unique to EPA. Environmental agencies around the globe are facing the same challenge, and a review of several major environmental decisions suggests that environmental indicators seldom demonstrably inform strategic decisions. I’d argue that this needs to change and that EPA can and should provide international leadership in effectively using indicator information in strategic planning.

Because we all look forward to a healthy, well-protected environment that we can (eventually) retire to!

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Julie A. Layshock is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Environmental & Molecular Toxicology at Oregon State University. Her work is funded by an EPA Science to Achieve Results (EPA STAR) Graduate Research Fellowship. She is looking forward to a career focused on reducing human exposure to pollutants.

Westerly winds over the Pacific Ocean efficiently carry sea salt and dust from the Gobi Desert to the western United States. Recently, scientists have begun to detect other, less welcome, things in the wind, too: air particles laden with pollutants from fossil fuels.

People from countries around the world cause tons of pollutants to be emitted into the air we breathe. Everything from operating vehicles, to burning coal and natural gas for heat and electricity, and manufacturing and industry activities all contribute to the global transport of air pollution. The contribution this global transport makes to local air conditions is poorly understood, and the impact it makes to human health can not yet be estimated.

That’s where my research comes in.

I am working toward answering questions concerning long-distance air pollution and how China might contribute to pollution in the United States. In my travels to China, I have seen first-hand the effects air pollution can have on human health. Understandable questions arise: Can we really quantify the contribution of pollutants from China and determine the how they affect a person in the United States?

I spent several months in China collecting air particles that I can use to compare with ones I have collected in the Pacific Northwest. My goal is to identify specific pollutants arising from en route chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Using the chemical “signatures” of the particles, combined with powerful meteorological and wind mapping models, I aim to distinguish Chinese sources from our locally produced air pollution. In the laboratory, I am also designing toxicity tests using the collected particles and identifying the most toxic combustion byproducts.

The results of my research could provide much needed insight into the global movement of these combustion-derived pollutants that are attached to particles in the air.

Demonstrating that these pollutants are capable of traveling half-way around the world highlights the need to reduce this type of pollution. Alternative energies and creative pollution control techniques are just a few of the directions that could result from my research.

For further information, I can be reached at layshocj@onid.orst.edu.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Dr. David Reif is a Statistician in the National Center for Computational Toxicology with the EPA’s Office of Research and Development in Research Triangle Park, NC. He holds degrees in Biology, Statistics, and Human Genetics—giving him an abiding appreciation for the lasting impact of Darwin’s theories.

From an evolutionary perspective, should we be surprised that our bodies sometimes react inappropriately to novel chemicals encountered in the environment? According to the principles of adaptation by natural selection laid out by Darwin, the answer is “not at all.”

Each of us alive today is the product of tens of thousands of years of environmental adaptation. This long evolutionary process allows modern humans to respond appropriately to a remarkable set of naturally-occurring substances.

In contrast, people have had comparatively zero time to figure out how to handle the myriad of man-made chemicals introduced since industrialization. Even at the earliest centers of the Industrial Revolution, we’ve had less than 10 generations to obtain evolutionary solutions to previously unseen combinations of substances. Given that Darwin posited “incomprehensively vast” time periods for natural selection to arrive at workable solutions, he would not be surprised that humans have yet to adapt. Neither should we.

Modern civilization has given us all sorts of incredible tools for fighting diseases, making more efficient use of natural resources, and dealing with identifiably toxic substances. However, along with this progress, we have burdened ourselves with an unquantified volume of synthetic substances to which we are all exposed (to various degrees) on a daily basis. This tension between the needs of modern society versus the volume of new chemicals introduced into the environment puts enormous pressure on our bodies to appropriately respond.

Does that mean we must wait patiently while hoping that natural selection weeds through humanity to settle on appropriate adaptations for continuously shifting environmental conditions? No! Thankfully, a key adaptation of modern society is compassion—meaning that we must explore potential toxic effects of all new chemicals through smart science and careful consideration of relevant ethical, legal, and social consequences. Darwin would be proud.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: April Richards is an environmental engineer with EPA’s Office of Research and Development, where she helps manage EPA’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. She recently organized the SBIR kick-off meeting for the new early-stage technology developers that received funding from EPA.

We recently held our kick-off meeting for new small businesses awarded EPA funding to develop innovative technologies for solving environmental problems. It was so exciting to have a room full of entrepreneurial engineers and scientists putting their collective brainpower toward solving such important issues as climate change, air pollution, renewable energy, infrastructure, and water quality monitoring.

“It’s great to know EPA wants us to succeed,” was one company’s way of summing up the meeting. We sure do!

The original idea of the SBIR Program was to tap into the wealth of engineering and scientific expertise of small businesses to address federal government’s pressing research and development needs. Given that small business (particularly in technology) is often referred to as the “engine of U.S. economic growth”—providing the majority of the country’s new jobs—this idea makes more sense now than ever before.

There’s never been a better time to match the need for economic growth with environmental protection through the creation of “green jobs.”

There is so much potential for developing technology that both benefits the environment and keeps the U.S. competitive in the global market. As EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a recent e-mail to Agency staff, we shouldn’t have a “false choice of a strong economy or a clean environment.” The concepts are mutually beneficial.

New, “green” technologies that use less raw and toxic materials, generate smaller streams of waste, and emit fewer emissions are good for the environment and the bottom line. For example, several of the SBIR companies represented at the meeting are exploring ways to harvest what is now considered waste to create building materials, cleaner energy, or other valuable commodities.

Companies face many hurdles getting their technologies into the marketplace, where they can ultimately have a positive impact on the environment. But the potential is tremendous, and it’s reassuring to know that so many smart people are working on this common goal, and with some help from EPA, can develop technologies which help the planet and the economy.

For more information about EPA’s efforts to match technology innovation with environmental needs, visit: http://www.epa.gov/etop/

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays. 

For each month in 2009, the Year of Science—we will pose a question related to science. Please let us know your thoughts as comments, and feel free to respond to earlier comments, or post new ideas.

The Year of Science theme for March is Physics and Technology.

What technologies do you use to be more green? What one technology do you hope is available soon?

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Doug Pabst is the chief scientist for the OSV BOLD’s Puerto Rico voyage. He leads the dredging, sediments and oceans team in EPA Region 2, comprising New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

Gone Fishin’

Feb. 13, 2009 – 8:00 pm (Day 5)

The crew of the OSV BOLD spent today fishing with University of Puerto Rico (UPR) scientists and students. It’s not what you think; we towed bongo nets—they’re called that because the opening looks like the drums—behind the ship to collect floating marine debris (garbage, plant material, plastic, etc.) and plankton (small animals and algae).

Marine debris is a problem in oceans, coasts and watersheds throughout the world. It can result from human activities anywhere in the watershed, from an overturned trash can many miles from the ocean, or from litter left on a beach. Detergent bottles, plastic bags, cigarette butts, and discarded fishing line can become marine debris. Birds, whales, turtles, dolphins and other marine animals become injured or die by becoming entangled in debris or by confusing it with their natural food.

To collect marine debris, the bongo nets are towed through the water at the surface for 30 minutes or longer. We then retrieve the nets onboard and examine the contents. The UPR scientists also collect and preserve animals and algae in the bongo for counting and identification back in their laboratory.

Our first stop was off the north shore by Arecibo. The trade winds continued to blow hard, making our “fishing” all the more difficult. We continued west off the Rincon Lighthouse for more floatable fishing. Here we were more protected from the large ocean swells on the north coast. Several humpback whales appeared out of the water upon our arrival as if to say hi and welcome us to the west coast. Our last fishing stop of the day was off of Mayaguez. The good news, so far, is we found very little garbage. Our main catch was small jellyfish and the blue variety of a little animal called a copepod, which looks like a blue flea. We were treated to a spectacular sunset as we completed operations for the day and sailed east along the south coast towards our next mission off Jobos Bay.

Hunting for Treasure

Feb. 14, 2009 - 6:00 pm (Day 6)

The day started at 5 a.m. in the darkness off the Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, a chain of 15 tear-shaped mangrove islets known as Cayos Caribe and the Mar Negro area in western Jobos Bay. The Cayos Caribe islets are fringed by coral reefs and sea grass beds with small beach deposits and upland area. The Mar Negro area consists of mangrove forest and complex systems of lagoons and channels interspersed with salt and mud flats.

The reserve is home to the endangered brown pelican, peregrine falcon, hawksbill sea turtle and West Indian manatee. It is commercially important for marine recreation, commercial and recreational fishing and ecotourism. The area is managed by the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and our data will be provided to the two agencies to assist in their management of this important and beautiful area. Our main goal is to map of the seafloor south of the reserve.

We towed the side scan sonar, which resembles a small rocket, off the side of the ship. The side scan sonar uses sound waves to detect seafloor types (sand, mud, silt) and objects (coral, rocks, manmade debris, ship wrecks, etc.). With good images you can see sand waves and identify objects about size of a car tire. In order to produce a map of the survey area, we tow the side scan sonar in tightly spaced overlapping lines. We call this mowing the lawn because our survey pattern mimics how you’d typically mow your lawn. Sadly we didn’t find any sunken treasure, but several resident dolphins paid us a visit, which was reward enough.

We left Jobos Bay and conducted several bongo net tows looking for marine debris and marine life on our way to our next port of call in Ponce. We arrived in the Port of Ponce around 9 p.m. to transfer scientific personnel and stayed overnight.

The Midnight Watch

Feb. 17, 2009 - 12:30 am (Day 9)

It’s just after midnight and we’re 20 miles south of La Parguera conducting water column profiles, a series of scans that help create a cross-sectional view of the sea. Our crew, along with University of Puerto Rico (UPR) researchers, is sampling down to 3,280 feet (1,000 meters) every two hours and made one profile down to 8,200 feet (2,500 meters). The ship and scientific crew are working around the clock in 24 hour mode (four hours working and eight hours off).

This far out at sea, you are unable to see the lights of land, but the moon is brightly shining. However, by looking out from the opposite side of the ship, staring out into the abyss, you can’t help but be humbled by the stars and seemingly endless ocean night. You tend to get philosophical on the midnight watch. It seems like we left Ponce a week ago, but we only left at 6 a.m. yesterday and have been working out here since about 9 a.m.

Our water column profiler consists of an electronics package with many sensors that measure ocean parameters (salt content, temperature, density, depth, dissolved oxygen, and many more) as the instrument is lowered through the water column. Water sampling bottles are placed around the instrument package and allow us to collect water samples at up to 12 different depths. We’re providing ship time to UPR to allow them to collect information to better understand this area of complex ocean water layers.

There are many different layers of water in the deep ocean. Some start in the North or South Pole and slowly work their way deep below the warmer surface water of the Caribbean Sea. The surface temperature in this area starts at 81 degrees Fahrenheit, drops to 41 degrees at 3,280 feet and seems to level off at 39 degrees at 8,200 feet. Cooler water is heavier and sinks below the warmer, lighter water. In addition to using the data to protect the environment, scientists are also studying this layering of ocean water as a potential way to generate energy using the different physical properties of the water layers.

I’m off watch now and getting ready to get some sleep. We plan to tow the bongo nets later today on our return trip to Ponce. We will be transferring scientific personnel and mobilizing for our next adventure off La Parguera later today.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Alan D. Hecht is the Director for Sustainable Development in EPA’s Office of Research and Development. He has also served as the Associate Director for Sustainable Development, White House Council on Environmental Quality (2002-2003), and the Director of International Environmental Affairs for the National Security Council (2001-2002).

Three Star Clusters Shine in the Night Sky

The brightest one is “Academiasta,” a cluster of colleges and university committed to running their institutions and educating their students on sustainability principles and practices. Not very distant from Academiasta is “Industrina”, a growing group of energy and manufacturing companies working to turn their landscapes green. Further away is “Neuvo Federalvo,” a cluster of dim stars, flickering on and off in the night sky.

In the Neuvo Federalvo cluster sits one sleeping giant whose internal energy has been growing and who is now ready to shower the night sky with a new light. All eyes are on EPA watching for a super nova sustainability explosion in the days ahead.

EPA and the Office of Research and Development (ORD) showed remarkable foresight and leadership in developed a Sustainable Research Strategy (2007) emphasizing a systems approach to dealing with environmental issues. The Strategy has been influential in affecting the direction of a number of EPA policy and research programs:

• our Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation’s Sector Reports on Energy and Manufacturing include sustainability measures
• the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances’ Pollution Prevention Program is reassessing its long-term goals bases on the Sustainability Strategy
• an interoffice Vision 2020 working group is currently revising the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response’s RCRA 2020 report with a major focus on shifting from waste to materials management
• the Office of Water has developed a strategy for Sustainable Water Infrastructure.

The need to focus on sustainable outcomes and implement sustainable management practices is more urgent today than ever before.

ORD created a sustainability Web site to advance EPA as a GoTo Agency on sustainability. The site is a onestop source for hundreds of EPA sustainability and research programs.

The site has just been updated and new sections have been added in four cross-cutting EPA program areas: urban sustainability and green building, water and ecosystem services, energy, climate and biofuels, and materials, toxics and human health.

The three clusters in the sky—Academiasta, Industrina and Neuvo Federalvo—could create a new constellation larger and more impressions than anything that has been seen before. In this constellation, EPA can be one of the brightest stars.

All astronomers are welcome to navigate the EPA cluster.

For each month in 2009, the Year Of Science, we will pose a question related to science. Please let us know your thoughts as comments. Feel free to respond to earlier comments or post new ideas.

Ponder. Observe and discover. We are all born scientists, naturally curious to figure out more about the world around us: how we affect the environment, and how the environment affects us.
2009 is the Year Of Science, the Year of Science theme for February is evolution.

How do you think environmental science is related to evolution?