Simon

In western Hunguary in October 2010 a retaining wall around a reservoir filled with toxic waste from an aluminum company burst open and released hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of deadly sludge. The stinking and toxic red sludge flooded the surrounding areas, rivers, and towns killing nine people and injuring hundreds with chemical burns. Spanish photographer Palíndromo Mészaros has in a series of photos documented buildings, roads, and trees that were stained by a rust-red line after the two meter high toxic sludge had finally disappeared. [caption id="attachment_10382" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Photo by Palíndromo Mészáros.[/caption] The sludge contained heavy metals, including lead, and was slightly radioactive. If ingested it was toxic and could cause lung cancer if inhaled. All in all, an area of 40 square kilometers was affected by the Ajka alumina plant accident. Numerous villages had to be abandoned and the final clean-up bill ended at tens of millions of dollars. The head of the Ajka alumina plant was later arrested for criminal negligence and several employees at the plant were suspected of negligence in connection with the spill. These photos were taken six months after the accident when, as Mészaros puts it, “the silence takes the place of the headlines and just The Line is left”. Mészaros “The Line” was exhibited at the Festival des Promenades Photographiques in Vendôme, France, last month.

In a rather surprising move Apple, the computer manufacturer, decided to pull out its entire line of around 40 products from the EPEAT green certification registry last month. According to anonymous sources within the company, Apple no longer wanted their computers to be EPEAT certified because Apple’s new "design direction was no longer consistent with the EPEAT requirements". Apparently the problem lies with Apple's new MacBook Pro laptop with Retina Display. The people over at iFixit found the new MacBook to be extremely difficult to disassemble. By using proprietary pentalobe screws (among other things) and gluing the laptop's battery cells to the aluminum shell, Apple has managed to make the new MacBook even thinner than before. But as iFixit notes, this makes it harder, almost impossible, to recycle the case and other parts of the computer. As a consequence the new MacBook computer earned only 1 out of 10 points in repairability, the lowest score ever on iFixit. So the new Apple computers slim design comes at a price, namely recyclability and repairability. One of the many criteria that EPEAT uses to score products includes the ease of disassembly. And because the new MacBook computers are completely unserviceable and almost non-recyclable, Apple would most likely have lost the gold rating on the EPEAT registry. "In order to meet the standards, recyclers need to be able to easily disassemble products, with common tools, to separate toxic components, like batteries. The standards were created jointly by manufacturers, including Apple, advocacy groups and government agencies," Joel Schectman writes. So instead of losing face, and a gold star, Apple decided it would just be better to simply pull out form the EPEAT certification registry. In the days following this decision Apple received massive criticism from ordinary consumers and environmental organizations. "Apple is pulling out of EPEAT so it can make some products in a way that's less recyclable," said David Pomerantz from Greenpeace. "In doing so, Apple is pitting design against the environment, and choosing design as the priority. That's a false choice, and Apple should know better," he said. Kyle Wiens, from iFixit, said in a blog post that "the EPEAT standard is common sense", and that "Apple's decision to opt out of the most basic of eco-standards demonstrates that, despite the costs, design supersedes the environment." The massive criticism had an effect on Apple. Only days later, Bob Mansfield, who is the Senior Vice President of Hardware Engineering at Apple, wrote in a letter on the Apple website that it was a "mistake" to pull out from the EPEAT registry and that "many loyal customers" had been disappointed with the move. But Mansfield continued the public letter by reiterate Apple's green credentials: "It's important to know that our commitment to protecting the environment has never changed, and today it is as strong as ever. Apple makes the most environmentally responsible products in our industry. In fact, our engineering teams have worked incredibly hard over the years to make our products even more environmentally friendly, and much of our progress has come in areas not yet measured by EPEAT." Mansfield went on to highlight other green areas in which Apple has made progress on. For example that Apple is the only computer manufacturer to report greenhouse gas emissions for each of their products. He also mentioned that each of its products exceeds the government-standard Energy Star 5.2 rating. "No one else in our industry can make that claim," said Mansfield. While public outcry probably played a large part in Apple's decision to backtrack and return to the EPEAT green certification registry once again, a bigger reason might have been that Apple's seemingly unpopular decision also could have had a rather serious economic impact for the company. Since 2007 all federal agencies in the US are required to conform to the EPEAT standards when purchasing new computer systems. That would have meant that no federal agency would be able to purchase desktops, laptops or any other products from Apple. Shortly after Apple's decision to leave the EPEAT, San Francisco's Department of Environment told CIO Journal that the city would not purchase any more Apple computers. Jon Walton, San Francisco's chief information officer, said that "it's going to be very problematic to procure Apple products." And it's not just federal agencies that would not be able to buy any more Apple products. Many schools and universities have over the years introduced tough environmental standards for their IT-departments forcing them to only buy EPEAT-certified computers. Many American corporations also require their CIOs to purchase computers from sources that are EPEAT certified. Either way, it doesn't matter what pushed Apple into returning to the EPEAT certification registry. The good thing is that they are back, at least with some of its products. But that won't change the fact that the new Apple computers are impossible to repair and recycle - making it hard for the environmental conscious consumer to purchase them.

South Korea has said that they plan on hunting endangered whales that are protected by a global moratorium. Just like Japan, the South Koreans are trying to justify this by claiming that the whaling is done for scientific reasons. In 1982 the International Whaling Commission (IWC), an international body set up in 1946 with the mission to regulate the whaling industry, adopted a global moratorium on commercial whaling. But due to a loophole in the treaty it is possible for countries such as Japan, and now also South Korea, to engage in so-called “scientific whaling” – and this even though the whale meat will later on be sold in markets for consumption. While Japan hunts hundreds of whales in international waters the South Koreans only plan on hunting mink whales in their own waters. It was during the annual IWC meeting in Panama that delegates from South Korea announced their whaling plans. "We've submitted a proposal to the IWC's Scientific Committee to resume scientific whaling in our waters and will await the committee's assessment," a Korean official said. According to Kang Joon-Suk, South Korea’s head envoy at the summit, the mink whale population has recovered since the global moratorium on commercial whaling went into effect in the 1980’s. Whale meat in South Korea, he noted, "dates back to historical times" and the moratorium has been painful for people who have traditionally been hunting whales. "Legal whaling has been strictly banned and subject to strong punishments, though the 26 years have been painful and frustrating for the people who have been traditionally taking whales for food," he told the conference. Criticism against South Korea’s whaling plans did not wait. New Zealand's commissioner, Gerard van Bohemen, called the plans "unnecessary” and “reckless”. Julia Gillard, Australia's Prime Minister, said that she was “disappointed” and that her country remains firmly opposed to whaling: "I am very disappointed by this announcement by South Korea. We are completely opposed to whaling, there’s no excuse for scientific whaling, and I have instructed our Ambassador in Korea to raise this matter today at the highest levels of the Korean Government. Our Ambassador will speak to counterparts in South Korea at the highest levels of the South Korean Government and indicate Australia’s opposition to this decision”, Gillard said during a press conference. “The resumption of whaling by Korea after a quarter of a century would be a huge step back for the IWC,” said Wendy Elliott, head of WWF’s delegation to IWC. “Korea already sells meat from whales caught in fishing gear, and we believe this move is a thinly veiled attempt by Korea to conduct commercial whaling under the guise of scientific research, similar to hunts conducted by Japan in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary.” John Frizell from Greenpeace called the South Korean delegates justifications for resuming whaling “complete bogus”: “Their claim that the minke whale population in the north Pacific has recovered and needs to be hunted is completely bogus. Blaming whales for declining fish populations is like blaming woodpeckers for deforestation. Whales do not cause declines in fishing stocks – overfishing and mismanagement by humans do. It has been proven time and time again that we don't need to kill whales to study them. Only those interested in commercialising whaling are interested in lethal research, and this proposal by South Korea clearly has the fingerprints of Japan’s dying whaling industries on it.” It is worth noting that Iceland and Norway are both ignoring the moratorium. Russia and a number of other countries also oppose the moratorium. Denmark, for example, allows the slaughter of hundreds of protected pilot whales every year.

Yesterday explosives were found at the Ringhals nuclear power plant in Sweden. In response to this, the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority increased security levels to “yellow”, which is the second level of a three-point scale, at all Swedish nuclear power plants. The explosives were found on a large truck that was about to enter the inner area of the nuclear power plant where the reactors are located. To be able to enter this inner area of the nuclear power plant you need to go through another and more rigorous safety screening. And it was here that the nuclear plant’s own security personnel found the explosives strapped on a fire extinguisher on the truck. Apparently the explosives were found earlier yesterday afternoon, Swedish time, but it wasn’t until just before midnight as the incident became public knowledge. Yesterday night the police continued to search through the nuclear power plant and surrounding areas with bomb dogs. Gösta Larsen, head of communications at Ringhals, calls the incident "worrying". - It's not so nice to find something that we believe to be explosives in a vehicle that is entering Ringhals. It's an event that puts some thoughts into motion. We have strengthened our own preparedness and we will step up the security checks of everyone who is entering the area even more for now, Larsen said. According to the police there was no danger of explosion because there was no ignition device connected to the explosives. Security levels at all Swedish nuclear power plants will remain high. Police are still very cautious with information but say they are classifying the incident as sabotage. There are no suspects at this time. Ringhals' four reactors have a production capacity of 28 terrawatt hours per year and produce nearly 20% of Sweden’s electricity. The nuclear plant is located on the southwest coast of Sweden near Gothenburg, the third biggest city in Sweden. Ringhals has previously received harsh criticism for its lack of proper safety procedures and follow-ups from both officials and former employees at the plant. Between 2009 and 2011 the nuclear plant was put under special supervision of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. This is not the first time explosives have been found in connection with Ringhals. In the 1980s about 30 kilos of explosives were found in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant. The bomb was successfully defused before it could detonate. And in 2008 at the Swedish nuclear power plant Oskarshamn, two men were arrested when they tried to enter the premise of the nuclear plant with explosives. The two men had under a longer period worked with repairs at the nuclear plant. Swedish sources: Aftonbladet, SR, Krisinformation, Sydsvenskan, DN.

And so the 24-hour Twitterstorm against fossil fuel subsidies is over. And with an amazing rate of 3+ tweets per second, the storm certainly didn’t go unnoticed. The campaign which was launched yesterday by 350.org, Avaaz, Greenpeace, and other environmental organizations called on people to flood the popular social network site Twitter, using the #EndFossilFuelSubsidies hashtag, with demands for an end to unnecessary and climate killing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. These subsidies globally amount to as much as $1 trillion dollars every year, or $1.4 billion per day. The organizers are hoping that the Twitterstorm will push world leaders to agree to end fossil fuel subsidies at the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development which is being held in Brazil tomorrow. So how much support did the campaign manage to get? The #EndFossilFuelSubsidies hashtag was trending on second place around the world and it was ranked as the second most popular topic in both the United States and Australia. Globally it was one of the most talked about topics online in the entire world yesterday. According to the campaigners more than 100,000 tweets was sent under the hashtag. Celebrities and politicians didn’t miss the storm. For example, Stephen Fry asked his 4.5 million followers on Twitter to join the Twitter Storm and sign the already one million signature strong petition from Avaaz. Was the campaign a success? Clearly it was. Did it make any difference? That remains to be seen.

A 24-hour “storm” against fossil fuel subsidies was launched today by 350.org, Avaaz, Greenpeace, and other environmental organizations on the popular social network site Twitter. The event is expected to involve hundreds of thousands of people from around the world who will join forces in demanding an end to subsidies to the fossil fuel industry by tweeting under the same #EndFossilFuelSubsidies hashtag. At the same time as thousands of people are posting on Twitter the organizers will deliver a 1 million signature strong petition to world leaders, as well as projecting the #EndFossilFuelSubsidies tweets near iconic locations in Sydney, New Delhi, London, and Rio. The campaigners behind the event hopes that the Twitterstorm will flood the social network and help put pressure on politicians and delegates at Rio+20, the upcoming United Nations conference on sustainable development that is being held in Brazil in two days. Governments around the world are spending $1.4 billion per day, or as much as $1 trillion dollars annually (PDF), to keep us all hooked on climate killing fossil fuels. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) the world could cut global greenhouse gas emissions in half (PDF) by just ending these subsidies. Fatih Birol, chief economist of IEA, recently went as far as saying that we need to end fossil fuel subsidies “or face catastrophe.” So by just stopping these unnecessary subsidies we could go a long way in preventing a 2 degree rise in global temperatures, a temperature threshold most scientists say we need to aim for to be able to stop catastrophic climate change. “We are giving twelve times as much in subsidies to fossil fuels as we are providing to clean energy, like wind and solar. World leaders shouldn’t be subsidizing the destruction of our planet, especially since these subsidies are cooking our planet,” said Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. And it’s not just about the climate. According to US Senator Bernie Sanders, USA could reduce its deficit by more than $40 billion over the next 10 years by just ending their subsidies to corporations such as Exxon. The Twitterstorm has been going on for a few hours now and already it’s trending worldwide and placing itself among the top trending Twitter topics in the UK, USA, Sweden, Australia, and other countries. So it seems the #EndFossilFuelSubsidies event is off to a powerful and successful start. Hopefully people can keep the momentum up for the remaining hours so that the social media event can contribute in a meaningful way to end the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.