Cool People Care | World Water Week.

The research shows that pollution by phosphorous and nitrogen isn’t just bad for lakes, streams and other bodies of freshwater, it’s also bad for Americans’ pocketbooks.

Freshwater pollution impacts individuals on a level as basic as how much they spend on bottled water, said Walter Dodds, professor of biology at K-State. If you worry about what’s in the tap water, you might be shelling out more money for the bottled variety, he said.

If your municipal water plant has to spend more money to treat the water coming through your tap, your water bills will increase. If you own a house on a lake that is becoming increasingly polluted, your property values likely may drop. If that lake is a recreation destination, your local economy could take a hit, too.

“Monetary damages put environmental problems in terms that make policymakers and the public take notice,” Dodds said.

He and the K-State researchers looked at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data on nitrogen and phosphorous levels in bodies of water throughout the country. Nitrogen and phosphorous are applied to plants as nutrients.

Dodds said that the majority of this type of pollution is from nonpoint sources such as runoff from row crop agriculture across the surrounding countryside.

The researchers calculated the money lost from that pollution by looking at factors like decreasing lakefront property values, the cost of treating drinking water and the revenue lost when fewer people take part in recreational activities like fishing or boating.

The researchers found that freshwater pollution by phosphorous and nitrogen costs government agencies, drinking water facilities and individual Americans at least $4.3 billion annually. Of that, they calculated that $44 million a year is spent just protecting aquatic species from nutrient pollution.

“Although our accounting of the degree of nutrient pollution in the nation is fairly accurate, the true costs of pollution are probably much greater than $4.3 billion. Putting environmental problems in terms of dollars allows people to account for the actual costs of pollution.”

The report will appear online here after November 12th, 2008.

Edit November 12th, 2008: The report is now online at Economic damages from nutrient pollution create a “toxic debt”

While considerable media attention has focused on Florida Governor Charlie Crist’s reversal of his position on the issue, nearly every other coastal governor remains opposed.

“Coastal governors know that offshore drilling is bad news for the environment and for tourism,” said Mike Daulton, Director of Conservation Policy for the National Audubon Society. “It makes no sense for states to put our important beaches, fisheries and coastal habitats and multi-billion dollar tourism economies at such risk for so little gain.”

The statements from the coastal governors follow.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R): “California’s coastline is an international treasure. I do not support lifting this moratorium on new drilling off our coast.” US News and World Report

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire (D): “For 26 years, our coasts have been protected by that moratorium and I believe that it should remain in place in perpetuity. With soaring gas prices, there is no better time to end our dependence on oil. As a country, we should be pursuing clean energy sources and investing in alternative energy technologies.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer

North Carolina Governor Mike Easley (D): “It’s just too much squeeze for the juice when you’re looking at the real estate market that’s on the coast, recreational fishing, the tourism and other economic interests that would be adversely affected by some problem that could easily arise from off-shore drilling.” MSNBC

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine (D): “Our $35 billion economy is driven by tourism and the use of the shore.” Associated Press

Oregon Governor Theodore Kulongoski (D): Lifting the ban would be “a short-sighted response to a long-term issue of creating a sustainable and secure domestic energy economy.” Associated Press

Maine Governor John E. Baldacci (D): “We need an energy policy that looks to the future for answers, not to the past,” Democratic Gov. John Baldacci’s spokesman, David Farmer, said in a statement. “We need to cut consumption and develop renewable, clean sources of energy.” Morning Sentinel (Maine)

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R): Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said “We would certainly have some hesitation just based upon tourism and the natural beauty along the coast. We certainly wouldn’t want to do anything that would kill the goose that laid the golden egg.” Greenville News

Source: National Audubon Society

At Issue: US states must make at least 15% of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal, by the year 2020.

FIFTEEN Friggin’ percent people!

If we assumed that every state was starting at 0% now (which would be a faulty assumption), it’s only 15 PERCENT in thirteen years.

read more

Will the burgeoning "green" economy have a place in it for everyone? To a packed auditorium in Seattle last Wednesday, Van Jones said: It can. And to be successful, it has to.

In the chorus of voices against climate change, his message rings true and clear: "We have a chance to connect the people who most need work with the work that most needs to be done."

His point is this: You can pass all the climate legislation you want, but you have to provide the local workforce to make it happen on the ground. "We have to retrofit a nation," he says. "No magical green fairies are going to come down and put up all those solar panels. This is going to take skilled labor. We can make a green pathway out of poverty."