Natural Environment Blog

Two men have been sentenced to prison for dumping toxic waste two years ago that killed seventeen people in Abidjan, Western Africa.

Salomon Ugborugbo, 39, director of a local company was sentenced to 20 years in prison.  Ivorian shipping agent Desire Kouao was sentenced to 5 years in jail for his involvement as an accomplice.

But Greenpeace only partially happy with the verdict. They wanted to see Trafigura, the company who originally wanted the toxic waste disposed of, part of the criminal prosecution.

Trafigura chartered a boat containing 500 cubic meters of toxic waste to Abidjan, then hired a local company to dispose of the waste.

As a result, seventeen people died and more than 100,000 people sought medical attention. 

Marietta Harjono from Greenpeace said about the case ”This is nothing more than a showcase,” she said. “And we are very disappointed that Trafigura, the big fish that actually decided to dump the toxic waste, is not part of the criminal prosecution.”

Trafigura had originally tried disposing of the waste in the Netherlands before sending it to Africa. As a result, the company faces criminal charges in the Netherlands.

A couple of days ago I wrote about the new report for the Great Barrier Reef. In that article, I spoke about the Queensland and Australian governments agreeing to update their plan for protecting the Great Barrier Reef.

Well, the Queensland Farmers Federation (QFF) have now accused the state government of overreaction. 

The QFF are concerned that the government will try to regulate the farming industry to protect the reef. QFF spokesman, John Cherry, believes that this isn’t necessary (yet). Mr Cherry says:

Efforts are being made by a whole range of bodies up the coast and well-funded by the Federal Government are underway. None of that is occurring from the State Government and I think the State Government is a group here who hasn’t done anything else but talk about it.

Ms Bligh has indicated that the current arrangement - voluntary land management improvements - are not working. She says that there may need to be regulation of farm and mine run-off. Ms Bligh says:

Not enough is happening and not quickly enough … we are already seeing irreparable damage to our reef, so the time to act is now.

It’s nice to think that some farmers and mining companies are making voluntary changes in order to protect the reef. I’d be interested to know how many farmers and mining companies are actually voluntarily improving their land management practices - just for the reef? 

Farmers are in business. So are the mining companies. Not many are going to change their practices unless it’s financially viable to do so. If it makes sense financially, then I’m sure we’ll see some results. 

When it boils down to it, the government has three choices:

1. Raise the financial incentive for improving land management practices
2. Regulate farm and mine run-off
3. Come up with something better…

A new report released yesterday shows that the Great Barrier Reef is in dire need of help - and it’s more urgent than previously thought. 

The report, released by the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, shows that the water quality around the reef is not improving. The report 2007 Water Quality Report for the Great Barrier Reef was the first in a regular series of reports on the health of the Great Barrier Reef - the largest natural feature on earth.

The water quality around the reef has been deteriorating over the last 150 years due to sediment run off from the mainland. This sediment is mainly caused by activities such as agriculture, grazing, tourism, mining and urban development.

Monitoring at the end of rivers, in priority catchments, has revealed that approximately:

End of river monitoring in priority catchments shows an estimated:

• 6.6 million tonnes of sediment is discharged in the reef lagoon – four times higher than estimated pre-European settlement levels;

• 16,600 tonnes of nitrogen – five times higher than estimated pre-European settlement levels; and

• 4,180 tonnes of phosphorous – four times higher than estimated pre-European settlement levels.

When announcing the report, Ms Bligh said: 

Our Great Barrier Reef is one of the natural wonders of the world,

She continued:

It fringes our north east Australian coast for approximately 2,000 kilometres, covers 348,000 square kilometres and has more than 3,200 coral reefs with a stunning array of marine habitats and species.

Ms Bligh says that both she and Peter Garrett (the Australian Environment Minister) agree that more needs to be done to protect the reef. Ms Bligh says that they will be updating the existing plan to “give it more grunt”.

I wonder if this means that the government will place more funding than the current $200 million it has allocated to “Reef Rescue”?

While Energy efficient light bulbs (also known as a Compact Fluorescent Lamp, or CFL) help address one environmental issue, they cause another. Fortunately, the later can be addressed quite easily - as long as governments make it easy.

The Benefits of CFLs

Energy efficient light bulbs are being encouraged by green groups, electricity providers, and governments around the world, and for good reason. For the same light output, an energy efficient light bulb uses between a fifth and a quarter of the energy that a traditional light bulb (also referred to as, incandescent lamp) uses.

And what’s more, over it’s lifetime, an energy efficient light bulb can save over 2000 times it’s weight in greenhouse gases.

But, like so many environmentally friendly solutions, there is a dark side to energy efficient light bulbs.

The Problem with CFLs

Each energy efficient light bulb contains a small amount of mercury. In fact all fluorescent lamps contain mercury, and energy efficient light bulbs are a form of fluorescent lamp . The amount of mercury is usually quite small - around 5 or 6 grams.

The problem with mercury is that, if it’s not disposed of properly, it will lead to air and/or water pollution. Currently, most CFLs are dumped into landfills or incinerators. This is because people simply through them in the bin when finished with them.

How to Address this Problem?

The simple solution is to recycle your CFLs and other fluorescent lamps.

Under normal circumstances, the mercury in each CFL isn’t an issue. As long as the light bulb is discarded correctly and doesn’t break before it’s discarded, everything will be alright. CFLs should never be thrown out with the normal rubbish. This is because it will end up in landfill. From there it could break and mercury will end up in surrounding waterways. Or it could burn and release mercury into the air.

Energy efficient light bulbs (and any other fluorescent lamp) should always be recycled. This obviously requires you have a recycling station to take it to. Ideally, local governments should provide education and easy access to these recycling stations.

For example, you should be able to simply throw your light bulb into a recycling bin at your home (which is separate from your normal garbage). You could place your recycling out on the street say, once per month (or more frequently). Then, a recycling collection service could pick up your recyclables as they drive past and take them to the recycling station.

Some governments are starting to become aware of this issue, but there’s still a long way to go.