Category: Environment

From Reuters:

Japanese motorists may one day pump their cars full of sake, the fermented rice wine that is Japan’s national drink, if a pilot project to create sake fuel is a hit with locals in this mountain resort.

The government-funded project at Shinanomachi, 200 kilometres (124 miles) northwest of Tokyo, will produce cheap rice-origin ethanol brew with the help of local farmers who will donate farm waste such as rice hulls to be turned into ethanol.

"We want to present the next generation a preferable blue print — a self-sustainable use of local fuels," said Yasuo Igarashi, a professor of applied microbiology at the University of Tokyo who heads the three year project.

I will be amazed if this works, but maybe this is what Japanese Prime Minister Abe was referring to when he proposed to cut greenhouse emissions by 50%.  No word yet on the potential fuel benefits of soju. 

So says the environmentalists:

South Korean fishermen caught 80 percent more whales than they officially reported, a finding that is fuelling suspicions that — far from accidentally netting cetaceans — they deliberately try to snare them, New Scientist says.

In a report carried in this Saturday’s issue, the British science weekly cites DNA experts, who estimate South Korean trawlermen caught 827 minke whales between 1999 and 2003.

This compares with the figure of 458 that the fishermen officially reported to the authorities. Whale meat can be sold legally in South Korea if the animals are caught by accidentally in fishing nets, but these deaths must be reported to the authorities.

I wouldn’t be surprised that some illegal whale hunting is going on in Korea, but I have to wonder about the data collection methods of the researchers to determine this:

Scientists led by Scott Baker of Oregon State University bought minke meat in South Korean markets and used DNA "fingerprinting" — getting the genetic ID of each animal — to calculate how many individual whales had been caught.

The figure of 827 is arrived at mathematically, using the number of signatures to estimate the whales’ population and the size of the so-called bycatch over the four years.

I fail to see how genetically testing a few strips of whale meat leads to the number of 827?  I like whales as much as the next person, but whale protesters have very little creditability with me, especially when read things like this and the fact that the top whale environmentalist Paul Watson preaches that mankind is a virus that needs to be wiped out. 

Just another reason why you should only drink bottled water in Korea:

Tempers flared as about 100 Hannam Village housing residents unloaded frustrations with mercury-tainted drinking water during an emergency town hall meeting Sunday.

Yongsan Garrison commander Col. Ronald Stephens hosted a 90-minute meeting to discuss Friday’s announcement that drinking water samples showed higher-than-tolerated levels of mercury at Hannam and the nearby Army Corps of Engineers Far East District Compound.

Residents were warned Friday not to drink the water — or use it for cooking — until additional tests taken Friday could be evaluated Tuesday. On Saturday, the military confirmed the samples were taken on April 6 — nearly a month before they learned about the mercury.

This also another reason why the USFK plan to close down Yongsan and relocate to Camp Humphreys is needed, so families do not have to live in the Hannam ghetto anymore. 

In a prior posting, I posted about how the changing Pacific Ocean weather patterns were caused allegedly by pollution from Asia along with Asia’s participation in the Kyoto Protocol. I have been meaning to post a follow up to the prior posting and news that Korea experienced its warmest winter in a century has given me the perfect excuse to:

(more…)

Maybe global warming isn’t so bad after all:

The nation is expected to become a subtropical zone in about 70 years owing to the effects of global warming, the Meteorological Research Institute said.

“An analysis of the change in the climate of 68 places from 1971 to 2000 shows that the subtropical climate in Cheju and a few southern areas is expected to spread to Seoul and other places nationwide between 2071 and 2100,” it said.

Another reason why I would never drink Korean water:

Uranium levels 54.6 times the U.S. standard were found in water supplies in a village near Icheon, about 25 miles northeast of Osan Air Base, according to a South Korean government environmental report.

South Korea’s Ministry of Environment said it was not ready last week to release its full uranium survey of 93 sites in South Korea, but it issued a news release on its findings.

“None of the nationwide locations included where U.S. military installations are positioned,” Yoon Jung-gi of the National Institute of Environment Research told Stripes.

Uranium levels measured 1,640 micrograms per liter in Janpyeong-ri village near Icheon.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Web site mandates that safe drinking water remain under 30 micrograms of uranium per liter. South Korea does not have its own standard.

“Most drinking water sources have very low levels of radioactive contaminants (“radionuclides”), most of which are naturally occurring, although contamination of drinking water sources from human-made nuclear materials can also occur,” the EPA says on its Web site.

Exposure to high levels of uranium can be toxic to the liver, according to the EPA.

When a man from Janpyeong-ri had his hair tested by U.S.-based Trace Elements last year, the laboratory found uranium levels 302 times the safe level, according to South Korean media reports.

It isn’t just uranium in the drinking water that is contaminating people as well:

Meanwhile, a survey of elementary school students released last month showed 2.42 parts per billion of mercury in their blood, compared to 0.34 ppb in the United States, according to the survey.

The survey did not indicate reasons for the higher levels. Mercury can affect neurological development in fetuses and young children, according to the EPA.

This news makes the claims about polluted USFK military bases seem pretty hollow.  Once again I ask, where is Green Korea?

Today news came out that pollution in Asia is changing Pacific Ocean weather patterns:

Pollution from Asia is helping generate stronger storms over the North Pacific, according to new research. Changes in the North Pacific storm track could have an impact on weather across the Northern Hemisphere. Satellite measurements have shown an increase in tiny particles generated from coal burning in China and India in recent decades, researchers report in Tuesday’s issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

If Asian countries like China and India are causing so much pollution than why aren’t environmentalists demanding they implement the Kyoto Protocol?  It is because they are considered "developing nations" and are exempt from the protocol.  This is the fundamental weakness of the Kyoto Protocol because it picks and chooses who would have to cut emissions.  If the threat of global warming is so great than why isn’t everyone required to cut green house gas emissions? 

So how does global warming and the Kyoto Protocol effect Korea?  Fortunately for Korea, not much because they are considered a "developing country":

For the time being, Korea is freed from concerns over the impact of the climate pact on the economy as it is categorized as a developing country.

The Kyoto Protocol requires only industrialized economies to accept obligations to cut emissions of carbon dioxide to an average 5.2 percent of 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, as “a first step.’’

I always find it humorous that Korea is considered a developing nation.  Korea is not a developing nation.  Korea has hosted the Olympics, the World Cup, and a APEC summit to form a short list of the many international events they have hosted.  A developing nation would not be able to host such events or have the world’s 11th largest economy. The developing nation tag is just something the Korean government uses as political cover to avoid having to implement the Kyoto Protocol. 

So what effect would the Kyoto Protocol have on Korea?:

However, many industrialized countries are expected to suggest Korea should adopt similar obligations beyond 2012 as Korea is one of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member nations and the 9^th biggest green gas producing country in the world.

If Korea has to comply with the climate pact, the report warned it would probably lose its competitiveness against China and India, both of which refused to accept the protocol, especially in the manufacturing sectors.

“The costs facing Korea from policies to reduce its emissions to meet any Kyoto target would exacerbate the stiff competitiveness challenge it already faces with China and India, which will never accept a binding Kyoto target,’’ the report concluded.

Korea shares the same position as the United States that economic growth shouldn’t be sacrificed unless all economic competitors share that same sacrifice.  Take a look at Japan the name sake of the Kyoto Protocol.  Japan is an industrial and manufacturing nation that has tried to do everything possible to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol and reduce greenhouse emissions, but Japan has not been able to do and has actually increased overall greenhouse gases:

The Kyoto Protocol entered into force in February last year, more than seven years after it was adopted at the third Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP3, in the ancient Japanese capital in late 1997. Under the protocol, industrialized countries must reduce their emissions of several greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2% from 1990 levels during the first commitment period of 2008-12. The protocol sets separate gas-reduction targets for individual industrialized countries — 6% in Japan’s case.

Despite its firm commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, however, Japan’s emissions have actually risen by 8% from 1990.

Resource-poor Japan, which imports almost all of its oil, has made strenuous energy-saving efforts and technological innovation since the two oil crises of the 1970s. The country is now the most energy-efficient in the industrialized world and faces great difficulties making further dents in greenhouse-gas emissions through domestic measures alone, such as further energy-saving efforts and carbon "sink" plantation projects.

This example of Japan is what I have always found hypocritical about the Kyoto Protocol.  The economy of a nation like Switzerland is based around non-polluting industries, which make implementing the protocol easy for them compared to a manufacturing nation like Japan.  However, what if the protocol forced nations who signed the agreement to not purchase any products from countries that did not implement or meet the standards of the protocol?

That would leave countries like Switzerland without the products that they rely on manufacturing nations to provide for them.  I think these nations would not have signed the agreement under those circumstances and at the very least would have to resume manufacturing within their own countries to produce these products increasing emissions in their own country.  By keeping the agreement the way it is now these same countries can play the holier than thou card while still enjoying all the benefits of buying cheap goods from "developing nations".  How is an agreement like this considered caring about the environment?

Can someone please tell me where is Green Korea on this?:

A bill that would allow seven national parks to be developed without concern for the environment is under consideration in the National Assembly, triggering a dispute among government offices, civic groups and lawmakers.

According to the Ministry of Environment, the Assembly’s Construction and Transportation Committee is likely to endorse the bill, which applies mainly to the development of the south and east coast, on Monday.

The bill would make studies on the environmental effects of construction in these areas non-binding.

The seven areas to be affected are Mt. Chiri, Hallyo, Wolchul, Kaya, Tokyu and Naejang national parks.

Kim Seok-joon, a lawmaker in the committee evaluating the bill, said the measure is essential to develop the eastern and southern part of the country.

He said that the government was only concentrating on the west coast, but the bill would also bring attention to other parts of the country.

For those that don’t know the word "development" in Korea is actually code word for allowing the building of even more apartments.  Korea’s national parks are quite beautiful and I’m willing to bet the developers want to build apartments on the national park land because they can charge higher fees to sell the apartments because of views of the parks.  I have to wonder the next time I go to Kayasan if I’m going to see an apartment complex next to Haeinsa temple? 

I find it interesting that Green Korea protested harder about a minor issue like the 2000 water dumping incident than about the "development" of seven national parks with more on the way.  How come Green Korea isn’t protesting the government and rioting in front of Cheongwadae like they do when they are protesting USFK?  I think it is safe to say we know the answer to that one.

Environmentalists have lost their court case against the US Army:

A Stryker Brigade, the Army’s most modern fighting unit, had been ordered to halt training after a federal appeals court in October found that the Army had acted illegally when it decided to set up the brigade in the islands. The Army already has set up the brigades at bases in Alaska and Washington state.

The environmental group Earthjustice sued the Army on behalf of three Native Hawaiian groups who argued the Stryker vehicles and their training grounds would harm cultural sites and the environment.

U.S. District Judge David Ezra said in his ruling that his court has profound respect for Hawaii’s cultural history and its unique environment. But, he said, "In this court’s view, there are few things that are more important than the lives of those men and women who serve in the armed forces."

The ruling allows the Army to train with new equipment and exercise both individual Stryker soldiers and units. It must also take extra steps to protect the environment.

For those who don’t know what a Stryker is here is a picture of one:

This law suit is IMHO is completely ridiculous because the Stryker is basically an armored truck with a machine gun.  If this wheeled vehicle is a danger to the environment than all trucks in Hawaii should be considered a danger to the environment.  Yet you don’t see anyone trying to ban armored trucks used by banks or large delivery trucks in Hawaii. 

Why I bring this up is because it has been speculated before that there is a possibility of Stryker based units conducting regular rotations to Korea if the Second Infantry Division is completely pulled off the peninsula.  This would allow the US military to keep a force projection on the peninsula without keeping permanently stationed troops there.  The US military has already on multiple occasions deployed Strykers to Korea to test this concept. 

If Strykers do make regular rotations to Korea, than a court ruling against the Stryker Brigade in Hawaii could become significant because anti-US groups like Green Korea can use that court ruling as justification to remove Strykers from Korea because if they harm the environment in Hawaii they must also harm the environment in Korea.  Yes I know this is ridiculous but this is Korea where anti-US groups successfully started an anti-US hatefest in 2000 over the dumping of formaldehyde down the drain in Yongsan, which supposedly harmed the environment while Korean companies continue to dump incredible amounts of industrial waste into the country’s rivers polluting them and no one cares.

So fortunately the Hawaii court case was dismissed, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the environmentalists come back with something else.  Environmentalists have long loved to go after the military.  If it wasn’t woodpeckers on Ft. Bragg it was turtles on Ft. Irwin they are suing the army over.  US environmentalists have much in common with Korean environmentalists in the regard that they don’t really care about the environment as much as using environmental issues to push their own political goals.  In the case of the environmentalists, they use the environmental issues to draw a wedge between the general public and the US military and shutting down training land in order to effect the readiness of the US military.  They do this because they are fundamentally opposed to the US military more so than protecting the environment.

From the Stars and Stripes:

South Korean Ministry of Environment officials have not decided whether to appeal the Seoul Administrative Court’s decision Wednesday that the results of environmental contamination research at the U.S. Army’s former Camp Page must be made public.

The Ministry of Environment’s Sung Soo-ho said Thursday that “at this point, we are examining the matter, including if we will appeal … the court’s decision.”

Court officials were unavailable for comment Thursday.

The Chuncheon Peoples’ Solidarity civic group, backed by the environmentalist organization Green Korea United, filed the lawsuit seeking the results earlier this summer, according to local news reports.

I for one hope they release the findings with the names and techniques used to determine the pollution. Here are some of the complaints from the anti-US hate environmental groups that just continue to be laughable with their claims:

In February, Green Korea and some media outlets said they acquired leaked Ministry of the Environment data that showed unsafe ground and water contamination levels at several sites. They included camps Page, Garry Owen, Greaves, Stanton, Edwards, Giant, Falling Water and Howze, the Kimpo post terminal, the Freedom Bridge and the Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas and North Carolina firing ranges.

Can you believe that firing ranges have lead contamination? I tell you I am shocked! What is even more laughable about this is that the firing ranges are not used exclusively by USFK but by the ROK Army as well. Why isn’t the ROK Army being investigated for pollution? I found the inclusion of Freedom Bridge even funnier because USFK soldiers guarded that bridge. How the heck do soldiers pulling guard duty which also includes Koreans by the way, pollute a bridge to the point that these environmentalists say it is unsafe for the public? If this bridge is unsafe than every bridge in Korea needs to be shut down!

That is why I say release the pollution findings with detailed data to check for errors because I wouldn’t be surprised if the findings were “Dr. Hwang-ed” for political reasons especially when these so call environmental groups have been linked to North Korean spies.

If USFK really wanted to prove a point they should have environmenal studies conducted by their own researchers on USFK bases compared to the surrounding communities. Does anyone think for example that Yongsan Garrison is more dangerous to the environment than Seoul?