My pets (not the furry kind)

Our book discusses the movement of our dependence on renewable resources to a dependence on non-renewable resources. It's a topic I'm really interested in especially in reference to materials used for energy. So I chose two materials that can be used for energy as my "pet" materials, aka materials that I would like to learn more about: coal and thorium.  I know more about one than the other since I've been working on an anti-coal campaign for more than a year.  There are 13-14 (depending on who you ask) coal-fired power plants in the state of Georgia and 3 proposed coal-fired power plants. There is a proposed plant for Sandersville, which is located about 60 miles east of Macon. 

Using coal as an energy source has environmental impacts as well as social impacts. A major way that we obtain coal is through a process called mountain top removal primarily utilized in the Appalachian Mountains. The process can be linked to loss of jobs and the ruination of communities in Appalachia.  The coal sludge incident in Tennessee displaced an entire community. For more examples of these social issues, I suggest watching Coal Country, a documentary distributed by the Sierra Club. 

What about environmental impacts? Mercury in our water! Carbon emissions! Ash! Sulfur dioxide which is linked to acid rain. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) which is a greenhouse gas. 

Coal is local and "abundant," even though our reserves will run out eventually (some predict in a few hundred years).  Regardless we have focused our resources on this type of energy when we should have focused on developing renewable energy technologies. 

Thorium is a chemical element with atomic number 90. It is estimated to be more abundant than uranium and has been considered in the production of nuclear power. However, thorium cannot be used for nuclear weapons AND there is no threat of meltdown. Isn't that amazing? (I think so) I had no idea that thorium was an option for nuclear energy until I read this article. My objection to nuclear energy lies in the fact that it is not forgiving to human malice or human error, but with thorium as the power source, this would no longer be an issue. I also think that developing nuclear energy (using uranium or plutonium) in America is hypocritical if we dictate how other countries make their energy out of fear for their development of nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy has no carbon emissions and is quite efficient and inexpensive, and it's abundant in the United States.  It's an interesting avenue and option, but I'm sure more research needs to be done.  

Excellent. 

Federal Programming

"I like the environment...and oatmeal." At least that's what I wrote as my "interesting fact" on my student info sheet for ECN 151. I plastered by notebook with Power Vote stickers and carpooled to campus today. I recycle when my roommates allow me, and I generally buy used books. I bike and walk around Macon and unplug my appliances. I turn off lights when I leave a room and turn off the water while I brush my teeth. I TRY to live sustainably, but it's difficult in American society especially as a college student. Sometimes it's easier to buy prepackaged foods instead of fresh, organic produce, and to-go boxes in the cafeteria are quite convenient.

Individual efforts are essential; I'm a true believer of grassroots movements. However, the American federal government doesn't set a good precedence in sustainability. American society encourages over-consumption...and here I am at my blog topic: federal programs and their financial sustainability. I'm supposed to choose a federal program where I would allocate more money and one that I would cut funding to. I'll start with the budget cut: the Department of Defense. According to Wikipedia, my favorite encyclopedia for concise information, 23% of the federal government's budget goes to defense...in other words, $737 billion. This includes both money for DoD and Homeland Security. I realize that many will disagree with me, but I don't believe that the money is spent efficiently. I don't think our true motives to invade Iraq were public knowledge, and though the war is TECHNICALLY over, we are still allocating funds there. Also ... I admit: I'm a pacifist. 

I think the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) should be budgeted more money. To me this seems like a variation of "homeland security." The FDA has an allocated $2.3 billion of the $3.5 trillion American federal government budget. If you've watched Food, Inc. you've heard about the horrifying food industry. There are many opportunities for mass contamination of our food supply (that most think is safe) in an industrial system. Check out the website: it may surprise you. I think the FDA should be given more money to keep Americans healthy and safe. I love food, but I don't love our convenient/fast-food system. 

It would be (nearly) impossible for the American society to be truly sustainable, but all efforts are important. As individuals we should strive to change our lifestyles and influence our friends and family members to make changes as well. Also we should vote and support officials that work towards sustainability and write our representatives to remind them of our desires for sustainability. Small changes do make a difference. Also ... I'm an optimist.

LOOK: The greatest video ever (okay...exaggeration)