SlowpokeBlog

Living in present-day bonkers America puts me in a survivalist frame of mind. Not an underground-bunker-full-of-canned-lima-beans frame of mind, mind you, but the sense that we really must watch out for ourselves because regulatory agencies sure ain't doing it anymore.

For example, it's imperative that mercury pollution from coal-fired plants stop immediately. As a woman of childbearing age, there are some species of fish I'm not supposed to eat at all because they contain so much mercury. Frankly, I don't feel comfortable eating the "mercury-lite" varieties either. But what did I read in the Nov. 20 Times?

Fuel of the Future? Some Say Coal

Altogether, energy companies in the United States have announced plans to build more coal-fired power plants in the last 12 months than they did in the last 12 years...

The electricity industry's back-to-the-future approach to coal is soon expected to pit dozens of communities around the country against energy companies that are planning coal-based expansion strategies in their midst.

The article hints at possible spending by the Energy Dept. on cleaner technology, but: a) fat chance of this whacked administration doing anything truly bio-friendly, and b) environmental experts say even so-called "cleaner" coal plants are disastrous. So fuck fish forever, I guess.

(I'd link to the article, but it's now pay-only.)

There was another article in today's Times about the possibilty of oil deposits under the Arctic Ocean, which reminded me of this tidbit that appeared in the Washington Post on Nov. 12 (not archived):

Scientists behind an eight-nation report saying the Arctic sea ice could almost vanish in summer by 2100 because of global warming said offshore oil and gas operations would be easier, but melting permafrost could destabilize installations on land.

An oil company executive went on to say he wasn't sure the melting ice cap would help or hurt drilling, but it sure is an interesting possibilty to ponder, isn't it?

I also read recently that the administration is pouring $3.7 billion into nanotechnology research, but only some $3 million (I think -- it was definitely in the single millions) towards researching nanoparticles' effect on humans and the environment. Considering that certain nanoparticles have been known to cause tumors in rats, it would seem moral to provide more funding for safety testing.

Unfortunately, it seems there's only so much a Bush administration survivalist can do.