ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
If you ask a caveman a chemistry question...
Fluoride in your water: How much is too much?
Borax: Not the green alternative it's cracked up to be
Bottled Water Industry to EWG: Shut Up!
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« A signature can save the Grand Canyon | Main | New studies show heightened toxics risks in newborns »
The value of clean water
Agricultural pollutants affect drinking water quality nationwide
Economic losses caused by nutrient pollution of U.S. freshwaters are felt by people all around the country, according to the policy analysis by the Kansas State University team of scientists led by Walter Dodds.
Repeated application of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, intensive tillage of soil, discharge of manure from animal farms, and lack of conservation vegetative buffers between plowed croplands and waterways result in a significant nutrient runoff from fields into rivers, streams and lakes that negatively impacts water quality nationwide as well as creates dead zones in coastal areas.
How severe is the problem of freshwater contamination with phosphorus and nitrogen? With the exception of certain forested areas, 90% of rivers and lakes across the U.S. contain levels of these nutrients much higher than what is normal for these freshwater ecosystems, scientists report. And just as excess food intake is harmful for human health, high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in freshwater affect environmental health, leading to excessive growth of algae, algal toxins in water, fish kills, and foul look, taste, and smell of water.
These are ecological consequences - and economic harms follow closely, with negative impact on drinking water quality; livestock and human health; swimming, angling and other forms of water recreation; commercial fisheries and aquaculture; stream biodiversity; as well as diminished values of waterfront property that fall progressively with decreasing water clarity.
The present analysis sets the stage for economic valuation of social costs associated with nutrient pollution of freshwaters. As the authors acknowledge, the true costs are likely to be much higher than they can currently estimate. For example, how can we put a monetary value on clean drinking water? The authors correctly point out that when the quality of tap water declines, people turn to bottled water. As reviewed in the EWG's Bottled Water Quality Investigation, in 2008 bottled water sales approached twelve billions of dollars.
In contrast to the large amount of money spent on bottled water, a relatively non-essential commodity, an amount two and a half times smaller is allocated annually for all conservation programs that work towards improving water and air quality, decreasing soil erosion and sedimentation, and preserving availability of water for drinking and irrigation - essential programs that mitigate agricultural pollution of freshwaters.
Are we spending our money in the right place? Investing in conservation programs and decreasing nutrient pollution of rivers and streams would go a long way towards protecting tap water quality. In the opinion of water quality and environmental economics experts, as reported by Rhitu Chatterjee in January issue of Environmental Science and Technology, "it is cheaper to prevent pollution than to clean it up." Otherwise, the costs of pollution now inflicted on the environment, "will still have to be paid by our children and our children's children." All Americans, present and future, deserve access to safe, healthy drinking water. Protecting freshwaters from nutrient pollution is the key step in ensuring that this public health goal would be met.
Photo by shyb
Check out this Green Home Show promoting awareness to the Green Movement Coming next year to TV, looks good.
It is produced by Carbon America.
Carbon America intends to promote awareness of the world’s green movement and America’s carbon footprint reduction. Their strategies is to show America and the world how being green can be affordable and the return on investment to the planet and our pockets can be sizable. Their intention is to help the global environment by appealing to the general public through the mass media. Specifically, by capitalizing on “Green Game Shows” and “Green Reality Show" trends.
The Show is called “America’s Gone Green” along with two spins off shows “Green Improvements” and “Green Seeding”
“America’s Gone Green”
The Game format is as follows.
The purpose of game show is for America to determine which contestants home is the greenest and has the smallest carbon foot print while retaining mass market appeal or “green sex appeal”. Once the home has been qualified contestants receive cash to improve on their homes and carbon footprint and compete with other qualifying round winners.
The format will be similar to other shows consisting of Subject Matter Experts (SME) as panel judges intermixed with celebrities or other notable figures that are currently identified with the “Green” movement. These SME judges could include professionals and members of organizations such as LEED, Green Building Council, and Energy Star.
The final winner will receive a lump sum cash prize donation for to their favorite Green organization.
The process will consist of qualifying rounds and a final round elimination. Outlined below are the proposed recommendations for each round.
Check out the rest of the Game info at www.carbonamerica.net
Looks great, I think these guys got the right ideas appealing to the mass media, what do you think?
Hi there:
Thanks for the great post. I used your article as inspiration to write a post on the new SuperEco website about the policy analysis. If you're interested in seeing the article, you can see it at: http://www.supereco.com/news/2009/01/30/fertilizing-our-rivers-to-death/
Have a great day!
Alex
Thanks, Alex!
And thanks for the great post - I look forward to reading more environmental policy articles on the SuperEco website.
Olga