FIGHTING FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER IN FLINT

On April 25, 2014, officials looking to save money switched Flint, Michigan’s drinking water supply from the Detroit city system to the Flint River. This new water was highly corrosive. Because city and state officials broke federal law by failing to treat it, lead leached out from aging pipes into thousands of homes.

Soon after the switch, Flint residents complained about dark-colored, foul-tasting, smelly water as well as skin rashes and hair loss. Independent tests found that a significant proportion of samples had lead levels well above the “action level” for lead set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, some samples showed lead levels more than 100 times the action level. Some 9,000 children, who are particularly sensitive to lead and its effects, were exposed to contaminated water.

As more and more citizens voiced their concerns, state officials were “callous and dismissive,” according to a report by the independent Flint Task Force, established by Michigan’s governor Rick Snyder in October 2015. Government officials acknowledged a problem only after residents elevated public awareness and garnered national attention, but unfiltered tap water remained unsafe to drink, and not enough was being done to ensure that all Flint residents had safe drinking water at home.

In January 2016, Concerned Pastors for Social Action, Flint resident Melissa Mays, NRDC, and the ACLU of Michigan filed a lawsuit to compel the City of Flint and Michigan state officials to follow federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements for testing and treating water to control for lead and to order the prompt replacement of all lead water pipes at no cost to Flint residents.

In November 2016, the federal court ordered Michigan state officials and the City of Flint to ensure that every Flint home had access to safe drinking water. Until that point, the burden of tracking down safe drinking water daily had been on residents, an exhausting struggle that disrupted their lives. The court ordered that Flint homes must receive bottled water delivery unless the government verifies, on a regular basis, that the home has a properly installed and maintained faucet filter, or the home declines delivery.

Despite this ruling against them, and despite our efforts to force the city and state to comply with the court order, they refused, citing “financial, logistical, and practical difficulties...” In December 2016, the court appointed a mediator to help resolve the issues in the case related to providing Flint residents with safe drinking water. And finally, in March 2017, the city of Flint and state of Michigan agreed to replace the lead service lines and institute an effective lead-monitoring system.

Airborne nitrogen pollution affects not only the quality of the air we breathe, but also the land and the water. Nitrogen is the most abundant element in the air and is essential to plant and animal life. Sources of nitrogen from human activities, such as electric power generation, industry, transportation and agriculture, can upset the natural balance of nitrogen in the environment.

When fossil fuels are burned, they release nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, which contribute to the formation of smog and acid rain. The most common nitrogen-related compounds emitted into the air by human activities are collectively referred to as nitrogen oxides. Ammonia is another nitrogen compound emitted to the air, primarily from agricultural activities, but also from fossil fuels. Most of the nitrogen oxides released in the U.S. due to human activity are from the burning of fossil fuels associated with transportation and industry.

Major sources of nitrogen oxide emissions include:

The presence of excess nitrogen in the atmosphere in the form of nitrogen oxides or ammonia is deposited back onto land, where it washes into nearby water bodies. These excess nutrients contribute to pollution, harmful algal blooms and oxygen-deprived aquatic zones. Excess ammonia and low pH in these areas are toxic to aquatic organisms and affect their survival.

Solutions:

The plants that nourish us won't disappear entirely. But they may have to move to higher and cooler latitudes, or farther up a mountainside. Some places may find it harder to grow anything at all, because there's not enough water.

Here are five foods, and food-growing places, that will see the impact.

Wheat, source of bread and a foundation of life in much of the world, will suffer from hotter temperatures — and the country where the impact may be greatest also is among least well-equipped to cope with a shortfall. India is likely to see a large drop in wheat production due to heat stress — about 8 percent if average global temperatures rise by 1 degree Celsius, according to one recent study. Temperatures are expected to rise more than that; according to a recent report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius will require heroic and dramatic action. It will take significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions within 15 years, plus efforts to recapture some of the carbon that's already been emitted, perhaps by planting new forests.

Globally, though, wheat may not be in short supply in a warmer world. Russia, which is already a major wheat exporter, may be able to expand the amount of land devoted to this crop.

Despite Georgia's claim to be the Peach State, California is the country's biggest peach producer. Farmers there grow about half of the country's fresh peaches, and almost all of the fruit that's canned and processed in other ways.

Many fruit trees, including peaches, have a peculiar requirement. If they don't experience enough chill during wintertime, they get confused and don't bloom properly. No bloom, no harvest. The peach trees currently grown in California's Central Valley require about 700 "chilling hours" during the winter. But scientists are predicting that by the end of the century, only 10 percent of the valley will reliably see that much chilling. And even if plant breeders create peach varieties that need less chilling, there's another problem: Peach trees also yield less fruit when it gets too hot in summertime.

Coffee can't take freezing temperatures, but it doesn't like extreme heat, either — at least the highly prized Arabica type doesn't. So it's mainly grown on relatively cool mountainsides in the tropics. Brazil is the biggest coffee producer in the world, by far, but as the globe warms up, most of its main coffee-growing regions probably won't be suitable for growing this crop anymore, due to heat as well as more frequent rainstorms. Coffee could move to cooler parts of the country, but researchers don't think those new growing areas will make up for what's lost.

Meanwhile, rising temperatures could threaten native coffee trees that grow wild in the forests of Ethiopia and central Africa. The wild trees represent an irreplaceable storehouse of coffee's original genetic diversity. The world's commercial coffee trees are genetically very similar to each other, and those genetically diverse wild trees could be the source of genetic traits that plant breeders may need in order to create commercial trees that can thrive in tomorrow's climate. Some of the wild trees, however, are preserved in "gene banks" in Ethiopia and Latin America.

Nothing says Iowa quite like fields of corn. Climate models, though, see a different future. They're predicting that a warming climate will bring several changes, most of them bad for growing corn. Rain will come less often, and when it comes, the storms will be more intense — neither of which is helpful for a crop that demands frequent rains, but doesn't do a good job of preventing soil erosion. In addition, corn suffers when it gets too hot — especially when it's too hot at night. Add it all up, and one study estimates that corn yields in Iowa will fall substantially, anywhere from 15 percent to an astounding 50 percent. "By 2100, the Corn Belt is going to be in Canada, not in the United States," says Jason Clay, senior vice president for food and markets at the World Wildlife Fund.

So what will replace corn on Iowa's fertile land? According to one study, by the end of the century this part of the Midwest will be more suited for growing cotton, soybeans, grass and forests.

California, the biggest single source of America's fresh vegetables and nuts, and the primary source of almonds for the entire world, is a dramatic illustration of how subtle shifts in climate can have huge effects. California's farms rely heavily on snow that piles up in the Sierra Nevada mountains during the winter, and then slowly melts during the summer, delivering a vital flow of water to the state's irrigation canals. As the climate warms, though, winter precipitation will arrive more often as rain, and the snow that does fall will melt much more quickly, leaving farmers scrambling for water to keep crops alive in late summer. Also, there will be more variation from year to year; wet years will be wetter, and dry years will be even dryer.

Both trends increase the chances that from time to time, farmers will face catastrophic shortages of water. And that's especially bad for tree crops, of which almonds are the biggest, because losing an orchard is much more devastating than losing a single crop of, say, tomatoes. California's farmers may be forced to reduce the amount of land devoted to orchards, since there there's a chance that they will not survive a major drought.

            Un problème connu est la consommation d’énergie. Par exemple, les humains utilisent l’énergie charbon, l’énergie pétrole, et l’énergie gaz. Ce type d’énergies sont mal pour l’environnement parce qu’ils produisent de gaz toxique, les produits chimiques, et la pollution d’air et d’eau. C’est important pour les gens utilisent l’énergie durable pour sauvegarder l’environnement. Dans l’article L’Innovation Portée Pour la Houle, il explique un type d’énergie qui est bon pour l’environnement. L’énergie est encore expérimentale, et il transformera la force de la houle des vagues en électricité. Utilisant les vagues pour l’énergie réduira la pollution de la Terre parce qu’ils ne produisent pas le gaspillage toxique. L’article dit aussi que c'est le soir et en hiver que les vagues sont les plus fortes, au moment des pointes de consommation des ménages. Il réduira la consommation d’énergie et pollution d’air et d’eau. Un autre article qui est mentionner, c’est Panneau Solaire : Quel Impact sur L’Environnement ? Dans cet article, l’auteur explique que l’énergie solaire est plus saine pour l’environnement que les combustibles fossiles. Dans le passé, il a fait en moyenne 1 à 5 ans, en fonction de l’ensoleillement, à un système photovoltaïque pour produire autant d’énergie qu’il en a fallu pour le fabriquer. Cependant, avec les avancées de technologie, « le rendement des cellules augmente et que les concepteurs de systèmes prennent soin d’optimiser la production. » Alors, il y a une réduction d’énergie qui est nécessaire pour produire les panneaux solaires. De plus, en France, c’est nécessaire pour les panneaux solaires être recyclé à la fin de leur vie. Ces matériaux peuvent être recyclés et ensuite réemployés dans la fabrication de nouveaux panneaux ou dans d’autres processus industriels. Le recyclage aide l’environnement parce qu’il réduit la quantité de gaspillage qui détruit la Terre.  

            Je chois ces articles parce que je pense qu’ils ont l’information qui est important pour tous les gens de connaitre. Les humains consument l’énergie comme c’est infini et inoffensif, mais ce n’est pas vrai. Le plus d’énergie qu’on utilise, le plus que l’environnement souffre. Un jour dans le futur, la Terre mourra à cause des pollutions des humains. Ces articles explique comment les gens peuvent réduire la quantité d’énergie nuisible qu’ils utilisent. L’énergie durable comme les panneaux solaires et les vagues aident l’environnement et tout le monde doit commencer de les utiliser.