Summary:
This article starts by stating that the European Union(E.U), after their immense actions concerning greenhouse gases has been pushed to the sidelines of the Copenhagen conference. It continues by talking about how America's lack of effort to become environmental has ruffled some feathers with the E.U. After talking about some successful attempts over CO2 cap and trade in the E.U., it states that the E.U.'s purpose behind this conference is for all the developed countries to pay the bill which will help undeveloped countries to deal with the effects of climate change. At the end of the article however, it says that Italy , Poland and some east European countries disagree with this approach because of its expenses. This could become bad if there was an internal political fight in the E.U. in this time in which we need leadership.
Personal response:
When i read this article i could believe what i was hearing. In an environmental conference, the two most polluting countries in the world are trying to set the rules? How can the E.U allow such travesty to take place? We all know that both the U.S.A and china don't really care for the environment, or at least their government. What we need is a strong leadership from Europe. It is true that the E.U. has been recently been created, and that they lack regulations, but if we can ever hope for any solution they need to get their act together. Concerning the successful cap and trade experiments in England and New Zealand, i wonder why they don't just say in actual meetings that this experiments were successful.
Article source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/science/earth/02iht-euclimate.html?_r=1
Monday, December 14, 2009
http://http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121378547
This was a study on the rising CO2 levels in ocean waters around the world. They study the effects of the CO2 on the shells of aquatic animals, the result, lobsters were incredibly well suited for the environment. The other animals in their tests however where weakened if not destroyed in the tests.
This shows that the CO2 levels on earth effect more than just the air and global climate, but the waters as well. If we do not reduce emissions and clean up what is already in the air we are headed down a terrible path. The worlds atmosphere will no longer be condusive to life, instead becoming a death trap for any remaining organisms.
This was a study on the rising CO2 levels in ocean waters around the world. They study the effects of the CO2 on the shells of aquatic animals, the result, lobsters were incredibly well suited for the environment. The other animals in their tests however where weakened if not destroyed in the tests.
This shows that the CO2 levels on earth effect more than just the air and global climate, but the waters as well. If we do not reduce emissions and clean up what is already in the air we are headed down a terrible path. The worlds atmosphere will no longer be condusive to life, instead becoming a death trap for any remaining organisms.
BOBOLINKS!
Bobolinks and other field birds have been struggling to survive, and their habitat has been suffering greatly. The reforestation and agriculture intensity in Vermont have cost these birds a great deal of their habitat. The harvesting time in the fields they do live in causes the birds to lose their nests often times, making the offspring population decrease drastically.
The breeding season is a 9-week period, and if the mowers could be kept away during this time the population would flourish. If awareness was raised about these birds then people may be able to avoid destroying the birds habitat and this problem could be avoided.
The breeding season is a 9-week period, and if the mowers could be kept away during this time the population would flourish. If awareness was raised about these birds then people may be able to avoid destroying the birds habitat and this problem could be avoided.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Carp Fear
Recently, in an attempt to remove an invasive species of carp from the Great Lakes, forest rangers spread a poisonous chemical in the lakes. The chemical was supposed to kill them, but they turned up with a grand total of… one carp. The carp was first brought into the area for its aggressive algae-eating, but they bred quickly since they have no natural predators and soon began to push other species of fishes out of the ecological niche. The carp in this lake and many of the other niches it has invaded have overtaken the natural roles of native species, a trait that could lead to the demise of many of the area’s most precious inhabitants. This could have disastrous effects on the ecosystem, and wreak havoc on the area’s wildlife.
Personally, I believe the whole idea of poisoning an entire lake in an attempt to get rid of one species of carp is insane, since this seems detrimental to the habitat of the other wildlife. I’ve heard recently of an attempt to sequester all the carp into one area of the great lake system, using invisible fences. This idea could be used to also remove the fish from the lake entirely, and help get rid of the menacing species. I also believe that the government should take more action against the import of invasive species, and help try and eradicate the invasive species taking over various habitats. Without their help of some kind many of our most beloved ecosystems will be destroyed, leaving only a single species remaining. The carp problem like all other invasive species problems needs serious thought, and tough action, with collaboration between Washington, scientists, and volunteers- it cannot be solved just by putting a chemical in a lake.
Personally, I believe the whole idea of poisoning an entire lake in an attempt to get rid of one species of carp is insane, since this seems detrimental to the habitat of the other wildlife. I’ve heard recently of an attempt to sequester all the carp into one area of the great lake system, using invisible fences. This idea could be used to also remove the fish from the lake entirely, and help get rid of the menacing species. I also believe that the government should take more action against the import of invasive species, and help try and eradicate the invasive species taking over various habitats. Without their help of some kind many of our most beloved ecosystems will be destroyed, leaving only a single species remaining. The carp problem like all other invasive species problems needs serious thought, and tough action, with collaboration between Washington, scientists, and volunteers- it cannot be solved just by putting a chemical in a lake.
EPA rules greenhouse gases harmful to humans
And starting next spring, large emitting facilities will be required to incorporate the best available methods for controlling greenhouse gas emissions when they plan to construct or expand.”
Noticed health affects included a higher likelihood of getting lung cancer, other cancers, and skin diseases.The evidence of human induced climate change has been seen around the world, from melting polar ice caps to shifting weather patterns. Even if carbon dioxide emissions were to be brought to a complete stop, the set of dominos already set in place by humans will continue to fall and cause general damage about the planet. I personally believe the ability for people to take legal action against companies is just a small step for men, but a giant leap for the green movement. Previously, the only incentives for American businesses to change their ways was the gentle reprimands and pleadings of the weak Kyoto Protocol that America didn’t even sign. Now, they’ll be facing potential lawsuits from hypochondriacs around the world who are blaming their problems on the rapidly warming environment. This, plus added pressure from the United States Government after the Copenhagen talks, will hopefully result in a greater decrease in carbon dioxide emissions.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4956
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091118-oceans-carbon-sink-global-warming_2.html
Ocean Losing Its Appetite for Carbon
This article is pretty interesting because it is talking about the amount of carbon that is being absorbed. In this article it shows that the amount of carbon that the ocean absorbs has decreased in the speed that it absorbs it in. This could cause some serious problems in the world today. The rate dropped from twenty seven percent to twenty four percent which does not sound dramatic, but it is actually quite dramatic. With this decrease more carbon is left in the atmosphere causing problems. A theory as to why this has happened is because with all of the carbon in the ocean it has become more acidic, and acidic water cannot absorb carbon as efficiently. But scientists are still unaware as to why this has occurred.
This article is pretty interesting because it is talking about the amount of carbon that is being absorbed. In this article it shows that the amount of carbon that the ocean absorbs has decreased in the speed that it absorbs it in. This could cause some serious problems in the world today. The rate dropped from twenty seven percent to twenty four percent which does not sound dramatic, but it is actually quite dramatic. With this decrease more carbon is left in the atmosphere causing problems. A theory as to why this has happened is because with all of the carbon in the ocean it has become more acidic, and acidic water cannot absorb carbon as efficiently. But scientists are still unaware as to why this has occurred.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070209-wingsuit.html
Will "Flying Squirrel" Suit Let Skydivers Jump Without Chutes?
This is probably one of the coolest articles that I have read in a while. It is about how we have used technology that we learned from animals to do something that is absolutely amazing. This is article is about how we have taken the idea of how a flying squirrel works and created a skydiving suit to resemble it and to land without a parachute. The suit is comprised of rigid wings on the arms and between the legs. The suit slows the falling rate of a human from one hundred and twenty miles an hour to just thirty miles an hour which is survivable but the only problem is that with the suit there is also forward speed that plays into part that could potentially be lethal. They are working on a forward breaking system so that you can use the suit without a parachute.
This is probably one of the coolest articles that I have read in a while. It is about how we have used technology that we learned from animals to do something that is absolutely amazing. This is article is about how we have taken the idea of how a flying squirrel works and created a skydiving suit to resemble it and to land without a parachute. The suit is comprised of rigid wings on the arms and between the legs. The suit slows the falling rate of a human from one hundred and twenty miles an hour to just thirty miles an hour which is survivable but the only problem is that with the suit there is also forward speed that plays into part that could potentially be lethal. They are working on a forward breaking system so that you can use the suit without a parachute.
Understanding Ocean Climate
Summary: Scientists are beginning to look deep into the effects that the arctic ocean temperature can have on the overall ocean climate. Everyone has begun to notice a drastic loss of ice in the arctic, leading to freshwater flooding of ocean water. There is a worry that this influx of freshwater “could ultimately slow the overturning circulation of the North Atlantic,” possibly having disastrous consequences. Now scientists are trying to map out new routes for the ocean currents and are using computers simulate these hypotheses.
Personal Response: For centuries we have known that the ocean plays a large role in our climate. This is perhaps best shown through the consistent climates of coastal areas, where the ocean prevents a great change in temperature throughout the year. If there are any changes in the currents of the ocean it could have drastic effects on worldwide climate. Most climate results from these currents, combining with wind currents to create certain temperatures and weather patterns. It seems impossible to control things like ocean currents, but perhaps learning as much as possible about them will get us somewhere. In this way, we can begin to determine their complete impact on our world's climate. Most people have heard plenty about how the polar ice caps are melting and how this affects the animals that inhabit those ice caps, but many don't understand the effects it is having on all of our oceans. Unless you actually stop to think about it, changing the water a couple degrees or slightly altering the salinity doesn't sound like a very big deal. However, many organisms are incredibly sensitive to such changes, as are the currents upon which we so heavily depend. As a result, understanding these currents and doing whatever possible to keep them stable and continuing the way they always have is of the utmost importance to the health of our planet.
Askenov. "Understanding ocean climate." Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology. 13 Dec. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009..
Personal Response: For centuries we have known that the ocean plays a large role in our climate. This is perhaps best shown through the consistent climates of coastal areas, where the ocean prevents a great change in temperature throughout the year. If there are any changes in the currents of the ocean it could have drastic effects on worldwide climate. Most climate results from these currents, combining with wind currents to create certain temperatures and weather patterns. It seems impossible to control things like ocean currents, but perhaps learning as much as possible about them will get us somewhere. In this way, we can begin to determine their complete impact on our world's climate. Most people have heard plenty about how the polar ice caps are melting and how this affects the animals that inhabit those ice caps, but many don't understand the effects it is having on all of our oceans. Unless you actually stop to think about it, changing the water a couple degrees or slightly altering the salinity doesn't sound like a very big deal. However, many organisms are incredibly sensitive to such changes, as are the currents upon which we so heavily depend. As a result, understanding these currents and doing whatever possible to keep them stable and continuing the way they always have is of the utmost importance to the health of our planet.
Askenov. "Understanding ocean climate." Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology. 13 Dec. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
Europe's Flora is Becoming Impoverished
Summary: Many forests in Europe are suffering due to the introduction of invasive or nonnative species. Although the introduction of these species technically increases biodiversity, these species can easily take over native species. This can quickly lead to a homogeneous area, which is incredibly unhealthy. A lack of variation in a forested area means this area is more vulnerable to be harmed by changes in the environment. Scientists in Europe have been gathering “information on all known alien species across Europe” in hopes of learning more and coming up with a possible solution.
Personal Response: The problem of invasive species is not a new one. However, just recently we have discovered the extent of the damage these species can cause. Upon entering an area, many immediately begin to take over, killing off or simply overcrowding native species. Most of these invasive species also prevent any species but their own from thriving in the same area, by taking up all the available ground space, releasing a poison, etc. Ultimately, this leads to a homogeneous environment, which, like a lack of genetic diversity among animal species, has the potential to be extremely harmful. If an environmental change occurs, and there are not variations among the plants, the entire area can be killed off. This is due to a lack of those few resilient plants that are able to withstand the change and later reproduce. Continuing to gather information about invasive species and learning as much about the specific species (what climates they thrive in, what kills them, etc) is an important step in beginning to eliminate them. Complete elimination is highly unlikely in most places now, but we can begin to develop technologies (such as specific pesticides) that only target the invasive species, as well as depend the work of volunteers. Though it's a slow process, it's necessary in order to prevent a complete takeover by invasive species.
"Europe's flora is becoming impoverished." Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology. 11 Dec. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009..
Personal Response: The problem of invasive species is not a new one. However, just recently we have discovered the extent of the damage these species can cause. Upon entering an area, many immediately begin to take over, killing off or simply overcrowding native species. Most of these invasive species also prevent any species but their own from thriving in the same area, by taking up all the available ground space, releasing a poison, etc. Ultimately, this leads to a homogeneous environment, which, like a lack of genetic diversity among animal species, has the potential to be extremely harmful. If an environmental change occurs, and there are not variations among the plants, the entire area can be killed off. This is due to a lack of those few resilient plants that are able to withstand the change and later reproduce. Continuing to gather information about invasive species and learning as much about the specific species (what climates they thrive in, what kills them, etc) is an important step in beginning to eliminate them. Complete elimination is highly unlikely in most places now, but we can begin to develop technologies (such as specific pesticides) that only target the invasive species, as well as depend the work of volunteers. Though it's a slow process, it's necessary in order to prevent a complete takeover by invasive species.
"Europe's flora is becoming impoverished." Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology. 11 Dec. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
U.S. Favors Early Action on Climate-Friendly Trade
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B84PI20091209
This article discusses the possibility of the United States working with other countries to “liberalize trade in products that reduce greenhouse emissions.” Carol Guthrie, a spokeswoman for the United States Trade Representative’s Office said that, "We would be interested in early action on climate-friendly technologies. We are discussing this possibility with other countries." With diplomats from across the globe in Copenhagen at the UN sponsored conference, this discussion has gotten more serious. The proposed bill currently in congress involves having a carbon tariff that would be imposed on countries that are not doing enough to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Hopefully with the Copenhagen conference going on right now the world can make a big step towards more actively working on the global climate crisis. Hoping for a lifestyle change in people is not enough to solve the current environmental issues at hand. Legislation must be passed to reduce carbon emissions and greenhouse gases and etc. The article discusses a “carbon tariff” which sounds like a good idea but the article also says that if we did impose a tariff such as this one we would be taxing over 20 percent on China and India. As a result we would have 20 percent less exports. This is where one of the biggest problems in environmental legislation comes into play. So many people have the idea that the environment conservation and protection has to be separate from the economy in order for both to be successful. This is definitely a wrong assumption. The hardest problem may be to find a compromise between the two but it must be done in order to fix this deep mess we are in.
Palmer, Doug. "U.S. favors early action on climate-friendly trade." Reuters. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2009.
This article discusses the possibility of the United States working with other countries to “liberalize trade in products that reduce greenhouse emissions.” Carol Guthrie, a spokeswoman for the United States Trade Representative’s Office said that, "We would be interested in early action on climate-friendly technologies. We are discussing this possibility with other countries." With diplomats from across the globe in Copenhagen at the UN sponsored conference, this discussion has gotten more serious. The proposed bill currently in congress involves having a carbon tariff that would be imposed on countries that are not doing enough to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Hopefully with the Copenhagen conference going on right now the world can make a big step towards more actively working on the global climate crisis. Hoping for a lifestyle change in people is not enough to solve the current environmental issues at hand. Legislation must be passed to reduce carbon emissions and greenhouse gases and etc. The article discusses a “carbon tariff” which sounds like a good idea but the article also says that if we did impose a tariff such as this one we would be taxing over 20 percent on China and India. As a result we would have 20 percent less exports. This is where one of the biggest problems in environmental legislation comes into play. So many people have the idea that the environment conservation and protection has to be separate from the economy in order for both to be successful. This is definitely a wrong assumption. The hardest problem may be to find a compromise between the two but it must be done in order to fix this deep mess we are in.
Palmer, Doug. "U.S. favors early action on climate-friendly trade." Reuters. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2009.
Broader Interpretation Sought for Endangered Species Act
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=endangered-species-protection-plant-animal
Several scientists are asking the Interior Department to revise a policy that was put in place during the Bush administration. The policy pertains to endangered species and the Endangered Species Act. Before 2007, the Endangered Species Act stated that animals that were considered to be endangered or threatened had to be protected in all of their range or a large portion of it. The policy was revised to state that the species would only be protected in areas where they were most at risk. The current restrictions on the ESA could be hurting species such as the gray wolf and cutthroat trout. The letter written to the Interior Department reads that, "we are concerned that these interpretations will result in imperiled species not receiving protection and limit where species that are listed are ultimately recovered.”
Endangered Species is a huge threat to the biodiversity of not only the ecosystems of the United States but all around the world. Every year about 50,000-55,000 species will go extinct. The restrictions on the Endangered Species Act will most likely only make these numbers higher. With the reduction of the range of endangered species covered it is harder to protect the species from habitat loss, poaching, and other things that are causing their population to decline. The policy in effect now does not fully protect the gray wolf which is worrying because the gray wolf is a keystone species. The extinction of this species could cause a drastic decline or collapse in the other species populations that inhabit the same land. I am hoping with the Obama administration many environmental laws and policies that were loosened during the Bush administration can be retightened, including this one that deals with endangered species.
"Broader Interpretation Sought for Endangered Species Act." Scientific American. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2009.
Several scientists are asking the Interior Department to revise a policy that was put in place during the Bush administration. The policy pertains to endangered species and the Endangered Species Act. Before 2007, the Endangered Species Act stated that animals that were considered to be endangered or threatened had to be protected in all of their range or a large portion of it. The policy was revised to state that the species would only be protected in areas where they were most at risk. The current restrictions on the ESA could be hurting species such as the gray wolf and cutthroat trout. The letter written to the Interior Department reads that, "we are concerned that these interpretations will result in imperiled species not receiving protection and limit where species that are listed are ultimately recovered.”
Endangered Species is a huge threat to the biodiversity of not only the ecosystems of the United States but all around the world. Every year about 50,000-55,000 species will go extinct. The restrictions on the Endangered Species Act will most likely only make these numbers higher. With the reduction of the range of endangered species covered it is harder to protect the species from habitat loss, poaching, and other things that are causing their population to decline. The policy in effect now does not fully protect the gray wolf which is worrying because the gray wolf is a keystone species. The extinction of this species could cause a drastic decline or collapse in the other species populations that inhabit the same land. I am hoping with the Obama administration many environmental laws and policies that were loosened during the Bush administration can be retightened, including this one that deals with endangered species.
"Broader Interpretation Sought for Endangered Species Act." Scientific American. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2009.
New Mexico Dairy Pollution Sparks 'Manure War'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121173780&ft=1&f=1025
New Mexican citizens are in crisis as the dairy industry threatens to irrevocably contaminate their groundwater. Contrary to the depiction of cattle conditions posted on many milk cartons, dairy cows live in confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, where they await their thrice daily milking, while wallowing in their own feces and urine. This animal waste flows into plastic or clay lined lagoons, which often leak, resulting in the degradation of groundwater conditions, due to waste runoff. Many residents can no longer drink the water, because it is so contaminated, and they must therefore buy large jugs of bottled water to drink and do dishes with. Despite these ecological travesties, New Mexico, and the southwest in general, is hesitant to do away with the cattle industry altogether, as it brings in an estimated 1.2 billion annually to the region. However, tired of acquiescing to dairy industry lobbyists, New Mexico is finally tightening regulations for "dairy discharge permits."
This is a classic example of a powerful industry taking advantage of areas where regulation is lacking and the economy is weak. As a vegan, I personally can not attest to how important dairy is to some people. However, I do know that it is not worth the destruction of Earth's ecosystems, whether locally or globally. The contamination of the water we drink, or the water with which we wash our children's clothes is not an acceptable "byproduct" of the dairy industry. While I do denounce the destruction of the environment, I also recognize the important role this industry plays in local economies. Many communities cannot afford to expel these dairy companies, as they provide jobs for the surrounding population. The money that such industries bring into states is partly responsible for funding schools, and building roads. We can't just ban the dairy industry, so we need to find a way in which industry and environmentalists can work together to achieve both of their goals. It seems reasonable that in the future, these dairy farms could subject themselves to examination, in order to assess their environmental impact, and determine ways in which they could mitigate their ecological footprint. This cooperation between environmentalists and industrialists is crucial to our survival as a species. With a concerted effort from those of every walk of life, we can solve the problems that will come to define our time, while learning from the past, and keeping an eye on the future.
In what other ways can environmentalists work with industry in order to protect and benefit both the environment and the economy?
Burnett, John. "New Mexico Dairy Pollution Sparks 'Manure War.'" NPR. N.p., 9
Dec. 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2009. .
New Mexican citizens are in crisis as the dairy industry threatens to irrevocably contaminate their groundwater. Contrary to the depiction of cattle conditions posted on many milk cartons, dairy cows live in confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, where they await their thrice daily milking, while wallowing in their own feces and urine. This animal waste flows into plastic or clay lined lagoons, which often leak, resulting in the degradation of groundwater conditions, due to waste runoff. Many residents can no longer drink the water, because it is so contaminated, and they must therefore buy large jugs of bottled water to drink and do dishes with. Despite these ecological travesties, New Mexico, and the southwest in general, is hesitant to do away with the cattle industry altogether, as it brings in an estimated 1.2 billion annually to the region. However, tired of acquiescing to dairy industry lobbyists, New Mexico is finally tightening regulations for "dairy discharge permits."
This is a classic example of a powerful industry taking advantage of areas where regulation is lacking and the economy is weak. As a vegan, I personally can not attest to how important dairy is to some people. However, I do know that it is not worth the destruction of Earth's ecosystems, whether locally or globally. The contamination of the water we drink, or the water with which we wash our children's clothes is not an acceptable "byproduct" of the dairy industry. While I do denounce the destruction of the environment, I also recognize the important role this industry plays in local economies. Many communities cannot afford to expel these dairy companies, as they provide jobs for the surrounding population. The money that such industries bring into states is partly responsible for funding schools, and building roads. We can't just ban the dairy industry, so we need to find a way in which industry and environmentalists can work together to achieve both of their goals. It seems reasonable that in the future, these dairy farms could subject themselves to examination, in order to assess their environmental impact, and determine ways in which they could mitigate their ecological footprint. This cooperation between environmentalists and industrialists is crucial to our survival as a species. With a concerted effort from those of every walk of life, we can solve the problems that will come to define our time, while learning from the past, and keeping an eye on the future.
In what other ways can environmentalists work with industry in order to protect and benefit both the environment and the economy?
Burnett, John. "New Mexico Dairy Pollution Sparks 'Manure War.'" NPR. N.p., 9
Dec. 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2009. .
Tropical Forests Affected by Habitat Fragmentation Store Less Biomass and Carbon Dioxide
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091209113840.htm
Our current rate of deforestation may seem pretty bad, but recent studies suggest its actually a lot worse. Besides simply cutting down trees, we fragment forests, and are rapidly discovering that this fragmentation results in fewer numbers of trees than the total of how many we cut down. The combined biomass of large numbers of fragmented forests, when compared to a cohesive forest of the same size, is found to be forty percent less. Critics say that this loss in biomass isn’t as bad is it is portrayed to be, and that it is only temporary. The researchers who concluded that this side effect of deforestation was real, however, believe that it is much more permanently damaging than these critics predict. We can not afford to lose much more of these valuable forests, because of their ability to sequester large quantities of carbon dioxide, and due to the fact that twenty percent of Earth’s carbon dioxide levels results from their deforestation.
Tropical forests are crucial to humanity’s existence. They are the regulators of carbon dioxide emissions, which are largely responsible for earth’s changing climate. Global warming will only increase as forested areas decrease. It is critical that the government step in to regulate their rapid deforestation, in order to preserve a prosperous future for the human race. Without stricter regulation and a better understanding of the issue, we are doomed to failure. More research must me done in order to discover ways to mitigate this problem, whether through legislature or environmental activism. We have reached a point where we cannot afford to blindly harvest resources without first considering the consequences of our actions. If we continue to log our limited forests, we will lose biodiversity, aesthetic beauty, and our livelihood. We depend upon other species to survive, and as more die off we lose their unique abilities and benefits. Ecotourism ravaged forest environments will suffer greatly, and thus the economies of local communities. Our quality of life will decrease greatly in the advent of global warming, and we might even go extinct ourselves. It is for all these reasons that we must stop our deforestation, especially what fragments the Earth’s forests.
"Tropical Forests Affected by Habitat Fragmentation Store Less Biomass and
Carbon Dioxide." Science Daily. N.p., 10 Dec. 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2009.
.
Our current rate of deforestation may seem pretty bad, but recent studies suggest its actually a lot worse. Besides simply cutting down trees, we fragment forests, and are rapidly discovering that this fragmentation results in fewer numbers of trees than the total of how many we cut down. The combined biomass of large numbers of fragmented forests, when compared to a cohesive forest of the same size, is found to be forty percent less. Critics say that this loss in biomass isn’t as bad is it is portrayed to be, and that it is only temporary. The researchers who concluded that this side effect of deforestation was real, however, believe that it is much more permanently damaging than these critics predict. We can not afford to lose much more of these valuable forests, because of their ability to sequester large quantities of carbon dioxide, and due to the fact that twenty percent of Earth’s carbon dioxide levels results from their deforestation.
Tropical forests are crucial to humanity’s existence. They are the regulators of carbon dioxide emissions, which are largely responsible for earth’s changing climate. Global warming will only increase as forested areas decrease. It is critical that the government step in to regulate their rapid deforestation, in order to preserve a prosperous future for the human race. Without stricter regulation and a better understanding of the issue, we are doomed to failure. More research must me done in order to discover ways to mitigate this problem, whether through legislature or environmental activism. We have reached a point where we cannot afford to blindly harvest resources without first considering the consequences of our actions. If we continue to log our limited forests, we will lose biodiversity, aesthetic beauty, and our livelihood. We depend upon other species to survive, and as more die off we lose their unique abilities and benefits. Ecotourism ravaged forest environments will suffer greatly, and thus the economies of local communities. Our quality of life will decrease greatly in the advent of global warming, and we might even go extinct ourselves. It is for all these reasons that we must stop our deforestation, especially what fragments the Earth’s forests.
"Tropical Forests Affected by Habitat Fragmentation Store Less Biomass and
Carbon Dioxide." Science Daily. N.p., 10 Dec. 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2009.
Friday, December 11, 2009
EU climate cash pledge "not enough" say small nations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8408821.stm
Summary:Though European leaders decided to pay poorer nations $10.6 billion to help poorer nations deal with problems caused by climate change, these poorer nations did not think this would be enough. The sum would be paid over a time period of three years and is a part of a larger package intended to aid struggling countries face global warming. The poor nations pointed out that the money that is not new money but rather is composed in part by money that has already been paid or promised to the countries. Furthermore, they complained that after three years they would be on their own but would continue to face challenging problems.
Reflection:
The European countries gathering this money will certainly have to cope with challenges caused by global climate change over the next three years. They too will have to address energy that comes from unsustainable sources and reform their mindset about reasonable growth. However, their own difficulties are not an excuse to offer such an insignificant amount to countries that are less prepared to rectify their problems. "Hot, Flat and Crowded" discussed that to expect nations who had less of a chance to enjoy the explosive growth triggered by fossil fuel exploitations to bear equally the burden of cleaning up the mess created by this irresponsible and unsustainable boom is unreasonable and unjust. Furthermore, the European nations are acting as if breaking free from their own fossil fuel addiction will end their problems completely. Unfortunately for them, they share the same Earth, drink the same water and breathe the same air as the poorer nations, and environmental degradation anywhere results in a degraded environment everywhere. Therefore, paying the struggling nations a little more is not really a sacrifice at all, because they will reap the benefits of sustainable growth as much as the nations that receive the money. It is not as if they are paying the countries a large amount and the greedy and ungrateful nations are seeing if they can squeeze any more money out. The UK paid a ridiculously small amount--only $800 million a year, a tiny fraction of their GDP--but they were in fact the largest contributor of the EU nations. Besides, this money was largely composed of "repackaging or re-announcing existing aid commitments"--in other words, money that would already have to be paid anyway. Also, some nations even refused to pay cash at all and instead promised a percentage of future carbon credit sales--sales which may or may not take place.
I think that the United States, Europe and other developed countries should be leading the transition to sustainability, and paying such a small amount so grudgingly is not a good way to lead.
Bibliography:
"EU climate cash pledge 'not enough' say small nations.
news.bbc.co.uk 11/12/09. Web 10 Dec 2009.
Brazil Defends Biofuels
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/40810
I know from a project that i did in middle school that there isn't enough land to sustain the production of biofuels. We would run out of land for agriculture land which would lead to widespread famine. Brazil is really trying to push the idea of biofuels are the future but many are hesitating because Brazil has been in the hot seat for defending this energy source. So, from my own point of view, i don't believe that biofuels are the way to go; especially not for developing countries because it would even further damage their already-in-bad-shape economy. It would lead to more famine in these countries. Biofuels could be a small source of energy we use, but it could never become as universal as say coal or gasoline.
Poor nations getting the shaft at Copenhagen
Before I came upstairs to write this, i was watching the news and it just so happened to be centered around Copenhagen. What issue? The fact that, the poor nations are getting the shaft. America ate all the appetizers, entrés, and deserts, and now is calling over the rest of the world for coffee and asking to split the bill. So the debate goes, how do we get the third world nations to comply with our environmental laws? The third world nations want us to pay them off, essentially blackmailing us.
"The conflict over how best to balance climate control measures with Third World economic uplift exploded in bitter exchanges at a preliminary conference in Bangkok, Thailand in October. Third World delegates accused the rich nations of trying to wiggle out of their commitment to provide nearly $100 billion to a global donor's fund to aid poor nations promote economic development and growth. The European Union initially pledged to pump $15 billion into the fund by 2020."
So it comes down to this single question. Should we pay off the 3rd world countries, or should we let them have the jump start that America had from fossil fuels? In my opinion , we should pay them off. Not only will they be able to ruin everybody's experience by peeing into the pool persay, they are also human beings who deserve a higher quality of life.
"The conflict over how best to balance climate control measures with Third World economic uplift exploded in bitter exchanges at a preliminary conference in Bangkok, Thailand in October. Third World delegates accused the rich nations of trying to wiggle out of their commitment to provide nearly $100 billion to a global donor's fund to aid poor nations promote economic development and growth. The European Union initially pledged to pump $15 billion into the fund by 2020."
So it comes down to this single question. Should we pay off the 3rd world countries, or should we let them have the jump start that America had from fossil fuels? In my opinion , we should pay them off. Not only will they be able to ruin everybody's experience by peeing into the pool persay, they are also human beings who deserve a higher quality of life.
U.N. Report Calls for More Environmental Protection in Wartime
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/un-report-calls-for-more-environmental-protection-in-wartime/?scp=37&sq=environment&st=cse
Browne, Pete. "U.N. Report Calls for More Environmental Protection in Wartime." The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Nov. 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2009..
This article reports a statement made by the United Nations Environment Program and the Environmental Law Institute. It details the rather pathetic lack of wartime environmental measures and asks nations to observe certain environmental standards during times of internal warfare. Exploitation of aquifers, national forests and habitats of endangered species is much more common during times of warfare, in which the side with the most resources is more likely to win. If these measures are put into effect, some of the most severe environmental damage that can occur could be prevented. The article does express a certain doubt that nations will follow this recommendation. Even for those that agree to observe this statement, many a promise are forgotten during times of warfare; the effectiveness of this statement is yet to be determined.
This article demonstrates the lowly position that the environment holds in the world's list of priorities. The fact that the environment serves as a source of wartime resources rather than a source of biodiversity or natural value is nothing short of abominable, yet not surprising. The human race is nothing if not resourceful, unfortunately at the expense of other species and the planet in general. From the point of view of a warring nation, an aquifer does seem like the perfect free source of water and exploiting it would come second to providing water for troops. From an environmental standpoint, however, the use of protected natural resources for war represents yet again the constant side-stepping people do around environmental regulations. Also, while a nice gesture, the UN has little power with which to enforce this measure. Its noted hesitance to get involved in warfare hinders the UN's power in this area. The volatility of the internal environment of a warring nation also prevents the enactment of such environmental measures; even those that promise to abide by this statement could rescind during desperate times. As far as environmental implications, I believe that in order to truly care about the environment, we must place it first. While war determines a nation's fate in the short term, ultimately the state of the earth determines whether a nation exists at all. As a population, we need to stop being short-sighted and look to the future. It is the environmental impact of warfare and other events that prevents true advances from being made as it reverses the effects of other measures. Protecting the environment cannot be a part-time occupation, as this article implies is the common view, but a wholly embraced movement.
Browne, Pete. "U.N. Report Calls for More Environmental Protection in Wartime." The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Nov. 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2009.
This article reports a statement made by the United Nations Environment Program and the Environmental Law Institute. It details the rather pathetic lack of wartime environmental measures and asks nations to observe certain environmental standards during times of internal warfare. Exploitation of aquifers, national forests and habitats of endangered species is much more common during times of warfare, in which the side with the most resources is more likely to win. If these measures are put into effect, some of the most severe environmental damage that can occur could be prevented. The article does express a certain doubt that nations will follow this recommendation. Even for those that agree to observe this statement, many a promise are forgotten during times of warfare; the effectiveness of this statement is yet to be determined.
This article demonstrates the lowly position that the environment holds in the world's list of priorities. The fact that the environment serves as a source of wartime resources rather than a source of biodiversity or natural value is nothing short of abominable, yet not surprising. The human race is nothing if not resourceful, unfortunately at the expense of other species and the planet in general. From the point of view of a warring nation, an aquifer does seem like the perfect free source of water and exploiting it would come second to providing water for troops. From an environmental standpoint, however, the use of protected natural resources for war represents yet again the constant side-stepping people do around environmental regulations. Also, while a nice gesture, the UN has little power with which to enforce this measure. Its noted hesitance to get involved in warfare hinders the UN's power in this area. The volatility of the internal environment of a warring nation also prevents the enactment of such environmental measures; even those that promise to abide by this statement could rescind during desperate times. As far as environmental implications, I believe that in order to truly care about the environment, we must place it first. While war determines a nation's fate in the short term, ultimately the state of the earth determines whether a nation exists at all. As a population, we need to stop being short-sighted and look to the future. It is the environmental impact of warfare and other events that prevents true advances from being made as it reverses the effects of other measures. Protecting the environment cannot be a part-time occupation, as this article implies is the common view, but a wholly embraced movement.
EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and Can Be Regulated
West, Larry. "EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and Can Be Regulated." Web log post. About.com. 7 Dec. 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2009. .
The EPA has made a claim that greenhouse gasses affect the air conditions around the world. Since this is the case, the EPA said that the Clean Air Act protects us against these changed air conditions. This way, the 6 major greenhouse gasses must meet the standards of the EPA. Greenhouse gasses come from many places, but one of the places that may be regulated is automobiles. It has been confirmed that automobiles emit greenhouse gasses. Copenhagen has also been discussing this issue in hopes of stopping global climate change and regulating the greenhouse gas emissions.
The main issue in this topic is how much the gas emission should be regulated. Some think that the gasses should be heavily regulated to stop the greenhouse effect given off by the greenhouse gasses. Others believe that the gasses should not be regulated because of the heavy costs that would be involved with stopping the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. To stop these costs new fuels would need to be researched, manufactured, and spread across the nation. The problem with this, is that it will be expensive, and it will take time before any benefit will show. Some people think that this is a step we have to take to help the environment, some believe it is too late, and some believe that it wont do enough good from the expenses that the transition would take. Those are the main arguments from the cases.
New Mexico Dairy Pollution Sparks 'Manure War'
This post is also by Kaegan Perry and I am again posting it for him.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121173780&ft=1&f=1025
New Mexican citizens are in crisis as the dairy industry threatens to irrevocably contaminate their groundwater. Contrary to the depiction of cattle conditions posted on many milk cartons, dairy cows live in confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, where they await their thrice daily milking, while wallowing in their own feces and urine. This animal waste flows into plastic or clay lined lagoons, which often leak, resulting in the degradation of groundwater conditions, due to waste runoff. Many residents can no longer drink the water, because it is so contaminated, and they must therefore buy large jugs of bottled water to drink and do dishes with. Despite these ecological travesties, New Mexico, and the southwest in general, is hesitant to do away with the cattle industry altogether, as it brings in an estimated 1.2 billion annually to the region. However, tired of acquiescing to dairy industry lobbyists, New Mexico is finally tightening regulations for "dairy discharge permits."
This is a classic example of a powerful industry taking advantage of areas where regulation is lacking and the economy is weak. As a vegan, I personally can not attest to how important dairy is to some people. However, I do know that it is not worth the destruction of Earth's ecosystems, whether locally or globally. The contamination of the water we drink, or the water with which we wash our children's clothes is not an acceptable "byproduct" of the dairy industry. While I do denounce the destruction of the environment, I also recognize the important role this industry plays in local economies. Many communities cannot afford to expel these dairy companies, as they provide jobs for the surrounding population. The money that such industries bring into states is partly responsible for funding schools, and building roads. We can't just ban the dairy industry, so we need to find a way in which industry and environmentalists can work together to achieve both of their goals. It seems reasonable that in the future, these dairy farms could subject themselves to examination, in order to assess their environmental impact, and determine ways in which they could mitigate their ecological footprint. This cooperation between environmentalists and industrialists is crucial to our survival as a species. With a concerted effort from those of every walk of life, we can solve the problems that will come to define our time, while learning from the past, and keeping an eye on the future.
In what other ways can environmentalists work with industry in order to protect and benefit both the environment and the economy?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121173780&ft=1&f=1025
New Mexican citizens are in crisis as the dairy industry threatens to irrevocably contaminate their groundwater. Contrary to the depiction of cattle conditions posted on many milk cartons, dairy cows live in confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, where they await their thrice daily milking, while wallowing in their own feces and urine. This animal waste flows into plastic or clay lined lagoons, which often leak, resulting in the degradation of groundwater conditions, due to waste runoff. Many residents can no longer drink the water, because it is so contaminated, and they must therefore buy large jugs of bottled water to drink and do dishes with. Despite these ecological travesties, New Mexico, and the southwest in general, is hesitant to do away with the cattle industry altogether, as it brings in an estimated 1.2 billion annually to the region. However, tired of acquiescing to dairy industry lobbyists, New Mexico is finally tightening regulations for "dairy discharge permits."
This is a classic example of a powerful industry taking advantage of areas where regulation is lacking and the economy is weak. As a vegan, I personally can not attest to how important dairy is to some people. However, I do know that it is not worth the destruction of Earth's ecosystems, whether locally or globally. The contamination of the water we drink, or the water with which we wash our children's clothes is not an acceptable "byproduct" of the dairy industry. While I do denounce the destruction of the environment, I also recognize the important role this industry plays in local economies. Many communities cannot afford to expel these dairy companies, as they provide jobs for the surrounding population. The money that such industries bring into states is partly responsible for funding schools, and building roads. We can't just ban the dairy industry, so we need to find a way in which industry and environmentalists can work together to achieve both of their goals. It seems reasonable that in the future, these dairy farms could subject themselves to examination, in order to assess their environmental impact, and determine ways in which they could mitigate their ecological footprint. This cooperation between environmentalists and industrialists is crucial to our survival as a species. With a concerted effort from those of every walk of life, we can solve the problems that will come to define our time, while learning from the past, and keeping an eye on the future.
In what other ways can environmentalists work with industry in order to protect and benefit both the environment and the economy?
Tropical Forests Affected by Habitat Fragmentation Store Less Biomass and Carbon Dioxide
This post is by Kaegan Perry but his account is malfunctioning so I am posting it for him...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091209113840.htm
Our current rate of deforestation may seem pretty bad, but recent studies suggest its actually a lot worse. Besides simply cutting down trees, we fragment forests, and are rapidly discovering that this fragmentation results in fewer numbers of trees than the total of how many we cut down. The combined biomass of large numbers of fragmented forests, when compared to a cohesive forest of the same size, is found to be forty percent less. Critics say that this loss in biomass isn’t as bad is it is portrayed to be, and that it is only temporary. The researchers who concluded that this side effect of deforestation was real, however, believe that it is much more permanently damaging than these critics predict. We can not afford to lose much more of these valuable forests, because of their ability to sequester large quantities of carbon dioxide, and due to the fact that twenty percent of Earth’s carbon dioxide levels results from their deforestation.
Tropical forests are crucial to humanity’s existence. They are the regulators of carbon dioxide emissions, which are largely responsible for earth’s changing climate. Global warming will only increase as forested areas decrease. It is critical that the government step in to regulate their rapid deforestation, in order to preserve a prosperous future for the human race. Without stricter regulation and a better understanding of the issue, we are doomed to failure. More research must me done in order to discover ways to mitigate this problem, whether through legislature or environmental activism. We have reached a point where we cannot afford to blindly harvest resources without first considering the consequences of our actions. If we continue to log our limited forests, we will lose biodiversity, aesthetic beauty, and our livelihood. We depend upon other species to survive, and as more die off we lose their unique abilities and benefits. Ecotourism ravaged forest environments will suffer greatly, and thus the economies of local communities. Our quality of life will decrease greatly in the advent of global warming, and we might even go extinct ourselves. It is for all these reasons that we must stop our deforestation, especially what fragments the Earth’s forests.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091209113840.htm
Our current rate of deforestation may seem pretty bad, but recent studies suggest its actually a lot worse. Besides simply cutting down trees, we fragment forests, and are rapidly discovering that this fragmentation results in fewer numbers of trees than the total of how many we cut down. The combined biomass of large numbers of fragmented forests, when compared to a cohesive forest of the same size, is found to be forty percent less. Critics say that this loss in biomass isn’t as bad is it is portrayed to be, and that it is only temporary. The researchers who concluded that this side effect of deforestation was real, however, believe that it is much more permanently damaging than these critics predict. We can not afford to lose much more of these valuable forests, because of their ability to sequester large quantities of carbon dioxide, and due to the fact that twenty percent of Earth’s carbon dioxide levels results from their deforestation.
Tropical forests are crucial to humanity’s existence. They are the regulators of carbon dioxide emissions, which are largely responsible for earth’s changing climate. Global warming will only increase as forested areas decrease. It is critical that the government step in to regulate their rapid deforestation, in order to preserve a prosperous future for the human race. Without stricter regulation and a better understanding of the issue, we are doomed to failure. More research must me done in order to discover ways to mitigate this problem, whether through legislature or environmental activism. We have reached a point where we cannot afford to blindly harvest resources without first considering the consequences of our actions. If we continue to log our limited forests, we will lose biodiversity, aesthetic beauty, and our livelihood. We depend upon other species to survive, and as more die off we lose their unique abilities and benefits. Ecotourism ravaged forest environments will suffer greatly, and thus the economies of local communities. Our quality of life will decrease greatly in the advent of global warming, and we might even go extinct ourselves. It is for all these reasons that we must stop our deforestation, especially what fragments the Earth’s forests.
Women Coping with Climate Change
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4941
This article is basically stating how the climate affects women of developing nations living in poverty. They are living off of less than a dollar a day and that small source of income is all they have to live off of. The human effect on global climate change is affecting agriculture which these poverty-stricken women rely to earn their income. Another important point made is that even though they are the most affected by climate change, the article even states that the majority of the 1.5 billion impoverished people in the world are women, they have the least opportunity to have a say in environmental politics.
The statistics of the article surprised me and made me realize that not everybody has a say in what we do for the earth. I feel that we need to get more say from the developing countries since they are impacted the most but thats not an option since women in developing countries are usually considered below men; thus, they wouldn't get much say if we did somehow get more information from these countries.
Since we have all the power to change the direction that the worlds going in, i think that we, the developed, third world nations, should step up and make decisions that will in the long-run help out not only our country but those all around the world to provide for a better future for these people.
Solar Power!
http://www.nytimes.com/info/solar-energy/
This article explains the distribution and function of solar power, as well as its drawbacks and benefits. We all know that solar power is good for the environment, but what else does it have to offer? It's renewable, clean and cost efficient. There will always be sun and we will always be able to harness the sun's power. There are no carbon emissions or greenhouse gases, and it doesn't devastate the land to harness solar power. There is no waste. Though the installation is expensive, it only takes a couple weeks to a couple months to make your money back. And when your panels collect more energy than you can consume, you can sell the extra to your local energy corporations. Though it may not be as aesthetically pleasing to have panels on your roof, it is great for the environment and is an awesome alternative to coal.
This article explains the distribution and function of solar power, as well as its drawbacks and benefits. We all know that solar power is good for the environment, but what else does it have to offer? It's renewable, clean and cost efficient. There will always be sun and we will always be able to harness the sun's power. There are no carbon emissions or greenhouse gases, and it doesn't devastate the land to harness solar power. There is no waste. Though the installation is expensive, it only takes a couple weeks to a couple months to make your money back. And when your panels collect more energy than you can consume, you can sell the extra to your local energy corporations. Though it may not be as aesthetically pleasing to have panels on your roof, it is great for the environment and is an awesome alternative to coal.
Changing Rains
-Naturally occurring climate changes have occurred for millennium. For example, in 4300 BC, it is believed that a drought brought about the end of the Fertile Crescent society. But the environment's changes now are not solely due to natural causes. Because warm air holds more moisture than cold air, with the global climate changes that are occurring, the rain patterns will change dramatically. This will have a large impact on farmers, and other people who depend on the rain patterns for their livelihood. The rains will come in more extremes and the dries will be drier and the wets will be wetter. But there is also a lot of variability that will occur year to year. The changing environment will create huge implications on the rain and its effect on mankind.
-I believe that the natural events that have already happened in our world should have been enough to concern people to change their ways. These events need to have changed the minds of politicians to act in a more environmental way. If we do not change our intrusion of ourselves into the environment, we could experience the changes on more personal levels. The ice storms and torrential rainfalls could become more common occurrences. The fact that warm air holds more moisture than cold air should be alarming for most people. If we know that a lot of moisture could be tied up, and suspended in the air instead of in our ecosystems, I would think that people would be more proactive in fixing this problem. This problem directly effects nearly every aspect of our lives. Unlike many other problems in politics, we are all the victims and the ones guilty for the crime. Not only that, but we are also able to fix our mistakes through a jointed effort to correct and clean our environment. Hopefully our politicians and representatives in Copenhagen will be able to get past the political differences and notice that our common cause should be enough to make us all on the same team. Due to the problem of increasing global climate change, we need to invest more time and effort in raising public awareness and finding the cure for the potential increase of moisture in our air. How should we convince the public that this is an important issue?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/04/changing-rains/kolbert-text
Kolbert, Elizabeth . "Chainging Rains." National Geographic. Web. 11 Dec 2009..
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/04/changing-rains/kolbert-text
-I believe that the natural events that have already happened in our world should have been enough to concern people to change their ways. These events need to have changed the minds of politicians to act in a more environmental way. If we do not change our intrusion of ourselves into the environment, we could experience the changes on more personal levels. The ice storms and torrential rainfalls could become more common occurrences. The fact that warm air holds more moisture than cold air should be alarming for most people. If we know that a lot of moisture could be tied up, and suspended in the air instead of in our ecosystems, I would think that people would be more proactive in fixing this problem. This problem directly effects nearly every aspect of our lives. Unlike many other problems in politics, we are all the victims and the ones guilty for the crime. Not only that, but we are also able to fix our mistakes through a jointed effort to correct and clean our environment. Hopefully our politicians and representatives in Copenhagen will be able to get past the political differences and notice that our common cause should be enough to make us all on the same team. Due to the problem of increasing global climate change, we need to invest more time and effort in raising public awareness and finding the cure for the potential increase of moisture in our air. How should we convince the public that this is an important issue?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/04/changing-rains/kolbert-text
Kolbert, Elizabeth . "Chainging Rains." National Geographic. Web. 11 Dec 2009.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/04/changing-rains/kolbert-text
U.K.-Based Financier Invests in Guyana’s Rain Forest
Approaching the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen, Guyana has offered to conserve all of its pristine rain forests — 75 percent of its territory — as part of a national economic development plan. It hopes to earn income from the international community for carbon storage under a section of the treaty called Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, or REDD.
But Guyana is also thinking beyond carbon storage, to all the other ecosystem benefits that healthy rain forests provide to humans. Those include generating oxygen; making rain; cleaning and storing water; cooling the atmosphere; stabilizing soil; protecting biodiversity and a wealth of medicinal plants; and supporting people whose livelihoods depend on forests.
Separate studies by Roni Avissar at Duke University in North Carolina and Yabzinda Mali at Oxford University in England show that tropical rain forests generate rainfall as far away as the United States and Europe.
“The forest should be seen like a giant public utility,” said Andrew Mitchell, the director of the Global Canopy Program, an alliance of 37 scientific institutions dedicated to forest canopy research, education and conservation.
Historically, the benefits have been free. But science shows that when forests are cut, those benefits diminish, and coming up with substitutes is very expensive.
Mr. Mitchell is also executive director of Canopy Capital, an investment vehicle set up in 2007 in London in which the canopy program has a 20 percent stake, with the remainder held by international investors. Canopy Capital has invested in Guyana’s forests, gambling that as natural ecosystems become increasingly rare, ecosystem services will have increasing monetary value. For precedent, Mitchell points to the carbon market.
“Ten years ago, you might have said that carbon could never be valued or traded; you can’t see it, smell it, or touch it,” Mr. Mitchell said. “But it shows that with government regulation, you can create these markets.”
Canopy Capital’s experiment in marketing ecosystem services is focused on the Iwokrama International Center for Rainforest Conservation and Development, a 371,000-hectare, or 917,000-acre, state-owned reserve in central Guyana intended to show how rain forests can be managed economically and sustainably.
In March 2008, Iwokrama sold a five-year license to Canopy Capital to market the ecosystem services of the forest through the issue of bonds or other financial instruments.
“The agreement was not in any respect the transfer of land rights,” said Edward Glover, chairman of Iwokrama’s board of trustees, addressing a primary concern of the indigenous people who live near Iwokrama.
Eighty percent of Canopy Capital’s profit would go to Iwokrama and to Guyanese people through partnerships with local communities and the private sector. Indigenous people, who are represented on the board of trustees and are involved in forest management decisions, could expect to benefit from any profit, Mr. Glover said.
Of course, investors in Canopy Capital would want to see verification of the ecosystem services, Mr. Mitchell said.
While some research exists, much more is needed. An Iwokrama Science Committee was formed last year and will begin studies in early 2010. Its work is independent of Canopy Capital, but the scientists hope that it can be useful to all entities that are interested in Iwokrama.
Elizabeth Losos, a tropical biologist who is on the board of Iwokrama, said the committee would look at three big questions: “One, what are the values of the forest? What are those services? Second, to what degree can they be perturbed and still retain their capacity to provide these services? And third, how does this interrelate with the human capital of the communities that are living nearby and their dependence on the forest and what they add to the forest?”
There is a growing recognition that living carbon offers much more than dead carbon, Mr. Mitchell said. “Storing dead carbon as liquid CO2 underground gives you no added value, whereas storing a ton of carbon in a rain forest gives you all of these other services.”
“And it may be that the market will differentiate that in the future,” he said.
REFECTION
It's interesting to see that rain forests thousands of miles away affect us so greatly. Not that it shouldn't be common sense, but most people seem to think cutting down parts of the Amazon won't affect us at all, or impact South America in very small quantities. Here's solid, science-based evidence that proves them wrong.
Single Asian Carp Found in Chicago-Area Fish Kill
Earlier this month, wildlife officials found a single specimen of Asian carp during a scheduled fish kill, in a canal leading to Lake Michigan. Asian carp are an invasive species, which were first released in the southern Mississippi and have since spread throughout the entire Mississippi River Basin. The carp breed easily, and have destroyed the natural ecosystems in much of the Mississippi River. Previously, an electric fence has kept the Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes. However, this finding is proof that the fish have breached the fence, and are close to reaching the Great Lakes, if they haven’t already.
Humans have abused the Great Lakes for hundreds of years. We have dumped our waste in them. We have drained them to build homes in the desert. We have overfished them to the point of ecological destitution. Worst of all, we have permanently altered the natural ecosystems with the introduction of invasive species. The Great Lakes already suffer from a plague of zebra mussels, and are just starting to recover from years of use as a dump for Detroit’s car factories. Now, they face a new threat, in the form of the Asian carp.
I have a personal connection to the Great Lakes. My grandmother lives on a canal of Lake Saint Clair. My uncles take all of the grandchildren out fishing and boating. Asian carp (which can grow up to four feet) pose a serious threat to boaters. There have been reports of jumping Asian carp breaking the bones of innocent boaters. Next time I go tubing with my cousins, I don’t want to be attacked by giant leaping fish.
The carp must be stopped, and the electric fence obviously isn’t up to the job. The Fish and Wildlife Service should make the invasion of the Asian Carp their top priority. If the fish make it into the Great Lakes, the entire region’s economy will suffer.
Tarm, Michael. "Single Asian Carp Found in Chicago-Area Fish Kill." Associated Press. 4 Dec. 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2009.
Banker Seeks to Put a Price on Nature
Summary
Pavan Sukhdev is banker collaborating with the UN to create a cost-benefit analysis for nature, by estimating the cost and economic gain from biodiversity, ecosystem services, and other natural resources. He believes that this is the only way to show the importance of protecting the environment so that steps can be taken to resolve global climate change. As other economists have agreed, it is more cost-effective to fight global warming now than it is to deal with later consequences. This applies to protecting biodiversity loss as well; prevention is always easier and cheaper than fixing the problem later on. The study hopes to achieve a “cap-and-trade”-like system for water rights, biodiversity credits, and forest credits.
Response
The economic implications of this article are huge – it involves quantifying the value of our environment in order to “trade” for biodiversity credits, forest credits, etc. If implemented, this system would greatly impact the world economy as more emphasis would be placed on sustainability rather than growth. This would lead to an even greater ecological impact because it would be financially prudent for industry and individuals to protect the environment, ultimately leading to more protection of the natural world and biodiversity.
As with any issue, there are two sides – one in support, and one in opposition. Support for this plan may come from a more economic-focused audience. If the value of the environment was placed, it may show people the true value of protecting the natural world, leading to more support to combat global climate change and species extinction. Estimating the value of the Earth would make people and businesses realize that these resources need to be recognized for their irreplaceable value. In class today we watched The Eleventh Hour, where it was estimated that the cost to completely replace the environment and all of its ecological services would be $35 trillion. This article is particularly relevant to class because it brings up the issue of the importance of protecting the environment, and whether or not one can put a number on all that the world does for us. Others may argue that cost-benefit analysis is ineffective because it is only an estimate of the true value of the ecosystems, and can never be verified to be completely accurate. Still, more people may object to the idea of simply placing a value on the environment because it can be subjective and because you can never truly place a value on all of the aesthetic and ethical values of preserving nature.
I believe that although it is difficult to measure the value of the environment truly accurately, in our capitalist society, finance has a voice. This should be recognized, and taken advantage of in order to stop global warming before it is too late. Showing the astronomical value of ecosystem services gives evidence in support of saving the environment to people opposed to environmental policy due to potential economic harm. This study will be effective in proving the necessity of biodiversity and ecosystem protection, leading to something nearly everyone supports – a healthy biosphere teeming with beauty and biodiversity.
What do you think about putting a price on nature? Do you have any other possible solutions for raising support for environmental policy?
Kanter, James. "Banker Seeks to Put a Price on Nature." Green Inc. New York Times, 13 Nov. 2009.
Web. 11 Dec. 2009.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/banker-seeks-to-put-a-price-on-nature/?scp=6&sq=biodiversity&st=cse
Pavan Sukhdev is banker collaborating with the UN to create a cost-benefit analysis for nature, by estimating the cost and economic gain from biodiversity, ecosystem services, and other natural resources. He believes that this is the only way to show the importance of protecting the environment so that steps can be taken to resolve global climate change. As other economists have agreed, it is more cost-effective to fight global warming now than it is to deal with later consequences. This applies to protecting biodiversity loss as well; prevention is always easier and cheaper than fixing the problem later on. The study hopes to achieve a “cap-and-trade”-like system for water rights, biodiversity credits, and forest credits.
Response
The economic implications of this article are huge – it involves quantifying the value of our environment in order to “trade” for biodiversity credits, forest credits, etc. If implemented, this system would greatly impact the world economy as more emphasis would be placed on sustainability rather than growth. This would lead to an even greater ecological impact because it would be financially prudent for industry and individuals to protect the environment, ultimately leading to more protection of the natural world and biodiversity.
As with any issue, there are two sides – one in support, and one in opposition. Support for this plan may come from a more economic-focused audience. If the value of the environment was placed, it may show people the true value of protecting the natural world, leading to more support to combat global climate change and species extinction. Estimating the value of the Earth would make people and businesses realize that these resources need to be recognized for their irreplaceable value. In class today we watched The Eleventh Hour, where it was estimated that the cost to completely replace the environment and all of its ecological services would be $35 trillion. This article is particularly relevant to class because it brings up the issue of the importance of protecting the environment, and whether or not one can put a number on all that the world does for us. Others may argue that cost-benefit analysis is ineffective because it is only an estimate of the true value of the ecosystems, and can never be verified to be completely accurate. Still, more people may object to the idea of simply placing a value on the environment because it can be subjective and because you can never truly place a value on all of the aesthetic and ethical values of preserving nature.
I believe that although it is difficult to measure the value of the environment truly accurately, in our capitalist society, finance has a voice. This should be recognized, and taken advantage of in order to stop global warming before it is too late. Showing the astronomical value of ecosystem services gives evidence in support of saving the environment to people opposed to environmental policy due to potential economic harm. This study will be effective in proving the necessity of biodiversity and ecosystem protection, leading to something nearly everyone supports – a healthy biosphere teeming with beauty and biodiversity.
What do you think about putting a price on nature? Do you have any other possible solutions for raising support for environmental policy?
Kanter, James. "Banker Seeks to Put a Price on Nature." Green Inc. New York Times, 13 Nov. 2009.
Web. 11 Dec. 2009.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/banker-seeks-to-put-a-price-on-nature/?scp=6&sq=biodiversity&st=cse
A new beginning: time to think about Environment
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4890
Look at this imagine, isn't it great? That shows how the green sector can provide jobs as well as the usual one we used to have. It means that economy won't suffer from green dcissions, but benifit. I agree with most of Al Gore's ideas I found in "Fat, Hot and Crowded". He is absolutely right saying that: "Environmental change will not only not hurt jobs, it will create them."
Now it's evident that we should create new economic and political systems that could exist in harmony with clean environment. We shouldn't look for changing we should creat brand new, effective system. That is what happening in Copenhagen right now - nations try to find the decission for all the problems the humanity has created since industrial revolution. Though in Copenhagen we hear voices of scientists and politics, voice of each of us is important. Yes, we do not make agreements and do not sigh the documents, but we make DIFFERENCE. Each of us is important, if we show the Goverment that we are ready for changing, for a new begging, we will find how faster things can go. We blame factories and plants, but keep buying trucks and waste water. It's time for all of us to think about who I am and what I do. I know, efforts of one person seem to be uneffective, and that's one of the reason why many people are still sceptic about going green. However, we can try and see what we will get in 30 years: we will either say "we were so close to the end, but could change this world" or will blame ourselves for not being able to stop consuming and polluting. Or in the worst way, we won't be here in 30 years, if we don't think about Environmen now.
Turtles are Casualties of Warming in Costa Rica
This article describes the efforts of one beach to preserve their remaining leatherback turtle populations. Sea turtles are especially susceptible to global warming. The rising oceans destroy nesting grounds, and rising temperatures destroys the delicate eggs. The resort town of Playa Grande has created a hatchery and a small force to protect the turtles, in an attempt to restore the eco-tourism the town has lost to global climate change.
The endangerment of sea turtles does not bode well for our oceans. Sea turtles have been around for millions of years. They have survived and adapted to the cyclic global climate before. The fact that not one, but all seven species of sea turtles are now endangered is a very bad sign. The turtles are a canary in the coalmine for our oceans, which are obviously in serious trouble.
An especially interesting aspect of this issue is the fact that the temperature of their eggs determines the gender of sea turtles. The higher the temperature, the more prevalent females are within a nest. If the temperature rises only two degrees, all of the eggs will be female, which is obviously a death sentence for the species. This is one example of the unpredictable effects of climate change. Everyone knew that rising oceans would destroy beaches, and damage turtle’s nesting grounds. But no one could have guessed that changing temperatures would create an imbalance between the sexes. Nature is impossible to predict.
http://www.blogger.com/www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/science/earth/14turtles.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=turtles%20costa%20rica&st=cse
Rosenthal, Elisabeth. "Turtles Are Casualties of Warming in Costa Rica." New York Times 13 Nov. 2009: A8. Print.
The endangerment of sea turtles does not bode well for our oceans. Sea turtles have been around for millions of years. They have survived and adapted to the cyclic global climate before. The fact that not one, but all seven species of sea turtles are now endangered is a very bad sign. The turtles are a canary in the coalmine for our oceans, which are obviously in serious trouble.
An especially interesting aspect of this issue is the fact that the temperature of their eggs determines the gender of sea turtles. The higher the temperature, the more prevalent females are within a nest. If the temperature rises only two degrees, all of the eggs will be female, which is obviously a death sentence for the species. This is one example of the unpredictable effects of climate change. Everyone knew that rising oceans would destroy beaches, and damage turtle’s nesting grounds. But no one could have guessed that changing temperatures would create an imbalance between the sexes. Nature is impossible to predict.
http://www.blogger.com/www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/science/earth/14turtles.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=turtles%20costa%20rica&st=cse
Rosenthal, Elisabeth. "Turtles Are Casualties of Warming in Costa Rica." New York Times 13 Nov. 2009: A8. Print.
Carp Fear
Summary:
Asian carp is an invasive species first imported to America in the ‘70s, wreaking ecological havoc by driving out native species and disrupting the ecosystem. They now run rampant in the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois rivers. In response to fears that they would invade the Great Lakes, Illinois sprayed rotenone, a type of poison, to kill the Asian Carp before it could cross the electric barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, making its way to the Great Lakes. The project cost $3 million, with only one Asian Carp killed along with thousands of other fish.
Response:
This project is controversial because it was costly and was far from succeeding in killing Asian Carp. Also, DNA sampling suggests that the fish may already be in the Great Lakes, therefore questioning the legitimacy of such expensive projects. Not only was the distribution of broad-spectrum piscicide expensive, it potentially could have a high ecological cost: the piscicide kills many species of fish, not just the Asian Carp, so there is the possibility of disrupting fragile ecosystems in an attempt to protect them from an invasive species. Alternatively, the issue of invasive species is especially pressing to the Great Lakes area, a region already heavily damaged by an invasion of zebra mussels. Something must be done to prevent Asian Carp from crossing the electric barrier into the Great Lakes, or a method to manage the invasive species if it is already in the area. Continuing to spray the piscicide would most likely lead to more Asian Carp deaths and Great Lakes protection, so there are some supporters. However, others may think that the ecological and economic costs outweigh the gain for this particular program of native species protection.
I have a personal connection to the article because it is important to me that the Earth’s natural species and beauty are preserved for future generations. Invasive species, we learned, are a major factor in species extinction. Biodiversity is critical for ecosystem services, economic gain from products like pharmaceuticals, and aesthetic qualities. The Asian Carp threatens to lessen biodiversity in the Mississippi watershed as well as the Great Lakes. I agree with Illinois’ plan to poison the fish because it appears to be the only effective way to remove Asian Carp. Although the first round was unsuccessful, I think that with some fine-tuning, the policy will be the most successful method of invasive fish removal. A DNR spokeswoman said, "If used properly there should be no affect to humans or other wildlife." Still, I think that prevention is the best, most effective policy. When the guest speaker came to discuss biodiversity, he recommended that we eat as much Asian Carp as we can get our hands on. This will help, at least a little, so I think we can solve this invasive species problem by the combination of piscicide, consuming Asian Carp, and by concentrating on prevention by barrier methods in unaffected areas.
What do you think is the most effective way to resolve the issue of invasive species? Why is biodiversity important? Is it ok to kill a species because it is invasive, or does that species have a right to thrive?
Patton, Jessica Rae. "Carp Fear." E: The Environmental Magazine 8 Dec. 2009: n. pag. Web. 11 Dec.
2009..
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4955
Asian carp is an invasive species first imported to America in the ‘70s, wreaking ecological havoc by driving out native species and disrupting the ecosystem. They now run rampant in the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois rivers. In response to fears that they would invade the Great Lakes, Illinois sprayed rotenone, a type of poison, to kill the Asian Carp before it could cross the electric barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, making its way to the Great Lakes. The project cost $3 million, with only one Asian Carp killed along with thousands of other fish.
Response:
This project is controversial because it was costly and was far from succeeding in killing Asian Carp. Also, DNA sampling suggests that the fish may already be in the Great Lakes, therefore questioning the legitimacy of such expensive projects. Not only was the distribution of broad-spectrum piscicide expensive, it potentially could have a high ecological cost: the piscicide kills many species of fish, not just the Asian Carp, so there is the possibility of disrupting fragile ecosystems in an attempt to protect them from an invasive species. Alternatively, the issue of invasive species is especially pressing to the Great Lakes area, a region already heavily damaged by an invasion of zebra mussels. Something must be done to prevent Asian Carp from crossing the electric barrier into the Great Lakes, or a method to manage the invasive species if it is already in the area. Continuing to spray the piscicide would most likely lead to more Asian Carp deaths and Great Lakes protection, so there are some supporters. However, others may think that the ecological and economic costs outweigh the gain for this particular program of native species protection.
I have a personal connection to the article because it is important to me that the Earth’s natural species and beauty are preserved for future generations. Invasive species, we learned, are a major factor in species extinction. Biodiversity is critical for ecosystem services, economic gain from products like pharmaceuticals, and aesthetic qualities. The Asian Carp threatens to lessen biodiversity in the Mississippi watershed as well as the Great Lakes. I agree with Illinois’ plan to poison the fish because it appears to be the only effective way to remove Asian Carp. Although the first round was unsuccessful, I think that with some fine-tuning, the policy will be the most successful method of invasive fish removal. A DNR spokeswoman said, "If used properly there should be no affect to humans or other wildlife." Still, I think that prevention is the best, most effective policy. When the guest speaker came to discuss biodiversity, he recommended that we eat as much Asian Carp as we can get our hands on. This will help, at least a little, so I think we can solve this invasive species problem by the combination of piscicide, consuming Asian Carp, and by concentrating on prevention by barrier methods in unaffected areas.
What do you think is the most effective way to resolve the issue of invasive species? Why is biodiversity important? Is it ok to kill a species because it is invasive, or does that species have a right to thrive?
Patton, Jessica Rae. "Carp Fear." E: The Environmental Magazine 8 Dec. 2009: n. pag. Web. 11 Dec.
2009.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4955
Are Aesthetics a Good Reason Not to Be a Fan of Wind Power?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-talks-aesthetics-good-reason
Ask yourself the question you read at the beginning of the article: "Are Aesthetics a Good Reason Not to Be a Fan of Wind Power?". For me the answer is clear - it is not a reason at all. This article atracted my attention because I was wondering what arguements people have, who argue against power-generating wind farms.
The only reason I could find is that people just fell uncomfortable looking at the weels. They treat the wind-farms as ‘spoiling’ and ‘ruining’ the landscape. Well, how about coal-fired power plant then? Does it look better? People who blame wind-plans have probably never lived next to coal-fired power plant, and have no idea how ugly it is. There are three plants around my home-time, and I everyday I saw how they polluted the air. You can not change it, you can not make it look better. Those are just ugly plants. But look at the windmills. They can be decorated in any ways you can imagine, they don't have an harm, orat lt much less than other sourse of energy. Even if the mills were the ugliest constractions in the world, but let people get "clean' energy without polluting air and using the est ofouratural non-renewable sours, I'd be glad too have them as many as possible.
Now it's not the time to worry about our comfortables, especialy such small as somebody's aesthetics. We should think globally, and if there is a chance to go better way we should use it.
Plume of Pollutants From a Small Airport
Plume of Pollutants From a Small Airport
SUMMARY: This was a short and sweet article which proposes and issue other than noise that is associated with airports and airports near neighborhoods. Air quality is something that has been studied very little within smaller airports, but as you can only imagine, the multi-ton aircraft in small-city airports tend to put of quite a bit of emissions, too. What was surprising was that the researchers, who studied Santa Monica Airport, found "ultrafine particles of organic carbon and sooty black carbon" 2,000 feet downwind of the aviation field. Studies are few and far between which focus on the health effects of emissions from airports, but as Dr. Paulson (one of the lead researchers) said, "I wouldn’t personally choose to live there."REFLECTION: I thought that this article was appropriate not only because we're currently studying air pollution, but because it's an example that can be directly applied to all of us. After all, we all live in Lexington, a city with an airport within its limits. Thankfully (for many reasons) none of us go to Dunbar, because the high school and its surrounding suburbs are definitely within the 2,000 foot radius of the airport. Having it conveniently located next to Keeneland and some of our nicest cookie cutter neighborhoods makes it a dangerous melting pot of greenhouse gases that are harming much more than our environment. The only options we have are to create energy efficient airplanes which run on something other than fossil fuels, or to be a little bit smarter about where we decide to place our carbon-coughing machines in the future.
SOURCE: "Fountain, Henry. "Plume of Pollutants From a Small Airport." The New York Times (2009). Nytimes.com. Web."
At Odds Over Land, Money and Gas
Upstate New York is home to many gorgeous farms, some of which have been in the family for generations. With the discovery of natural gas in recent years, some have been willing to turn away from their previous livelihoods in order for the assurance of the financial security promised by the gas companies. In response to the drilling that has occurred in this area, many are outraged to the contamination of ground water used for drinking and the deaths of animals due to the toxicity of the chemicals needed in the drilling process. Some residents see the presence of natural gas as a godsend, others see it as a curse, either way it has had a major environmental and social impact on this region.
With such a detrimental ecological bearing, natural gas drilling seems to benefit only a marginal group of the population. It leaves others who are blameless for these efforts with hard prices to pay such as tainted water or dying farm animals. Natural gas is not a sustainable measure for long term energy solutions and I think the focus should be turned to those that are. Instead of putting stock in a resource that will run out sooner rather than later, why not set aside land for solar or wind energy? We could even set aside effort to create engineered natural gas from the microorganisms that already produce the necessary methane. Though ideas such as these are still in production, they have less environmental impact and will have greater advantage years to come. We should not rely on quick fix solutions like natural gas which will do nothing in the fight against climate change and our energy crisis. It will in fact have only a grievance impact on our already drained planet and augment the ongoing environmental degradation. Drilling for natural gas has unintended negative social impacts as well, such as the rifts it causes between families and neighbors. It also propagates the desire for easily made money, creating cycles idleness and dependency others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/science/earth/28drill.html?pagewanted=1&ref=earth
"The New York Times Log In." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 11 Dec. 2009..
With such a detrimental ecological bearing, natural gas drilling seems to benefit only a marginal group of the population. It leaves others who are blameless for these efforts with hard prices to pay such as tainted water or dying farm animals. Natural gas is not a sustainable measure for long term energy solutions and I think the focus should be turned to those that are. Instead of putting stock in a resource that will run out sooner rather than later, why not set aside land for solar or wind energy? We could even set aside effort to create engineered natural gas from the microorganisms that already produce the necessary methane. Though ideas such as these are still in production, they have less environmental impact and will have greater advantage years to come. We should not rely on quick fix solutions like natural gas which will do nothing in the fight against climate change and our energy crisis. It will in fact have only a grievance impact on our already drained planet and augment the ongoing environmental degradation. Drilling for natural gas has unintended negative social impacts as well, such as the rifts it causes between families and neighbors. It also propagates the desire for easily made money, creating cycles idleness and dependency others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/science/earth/28drill.html?pagewanted=1&ref=earth
"The New York Times Log In." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 11 Dec. 2009.
Bloomberg Drops an Effort to Cut Building Energy Use
Mayor Bloomberg has initiated a string of legislation that will thrust New York City to the forefront of the environmental stage. The bills he proposes will affect the commercial buildings that comprise such a large proportion of the city. In addition to improving environmental standards on some of the city’s largest carbon emitters, it would also pledges to establish thousands of new jobs for the subsequent work that will have to be done for buildings to be on par with the new environmental standards. However, skeptics of this legislation believe that with the poor nature of the economy, the number of jobs promised would not be nearly as high as predicted. Also, there is much controversy over whether the financing of such a large undertaking. Many do not feel that building operators would be receptive to the impending costs associated with such necessary changes.
I believe this series of bills is an innovative and much needed step for a city renowned for its carbon emissions. New York’s forward motion on this green matter, coupled with the city’s prominence on the national and global level, would hopefully spur others to create their own changes to progress down a long overdue turn towards green living and commercial space. I am concerned with the means of financing such an undertaking in our current economic downturn. I am also worried that building owners would not concede to the needed changes since this legislation relies heavily on their cooperation. I propose that they implement these alterations in gradual shifts which would make it easier to come up with the allotted funds. I think that ensuring that the owners of the building understood the significance of these modifications would make them more open about their occurrence. The fact that these bills relay information on energy consumption to the residents of the affected buildings will proliferate the spread of more eco-friendly energy use. Educating the public is an intelligent means for spreading the popularity of this concept. I commend this legislation on its revolutionary tactics for improving energy use and carbon emission, but am still left with the question from where will the funding will be attained? I am a full proponent of its intentions, but am concerned that with the economy’s current state, it will not be feasible. I advise that New York should take a better assessment of its budget and the pockets of its citizens before enacting such a burdensome legislative measure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/science/earth/05bloomberg.html?ref=earth
"The New York Times Log In." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 11 Dec. 2009..
I believe this series of bills is an innovative and much needed step for a city renowned for its carbon emissions. New York’s forward motion on this green matter, coupled with the city’s prominence on the national and global level, would hopefully spur others to create their own changes to progress down a long overdue turn towards green living and commercial space. I am concerned with the means of financing such an undertaking in our current economic downturn. I am also worried that building owners would not concede to the needed changes since this legislation relies heavily on their cooperation. I propose that they implement these alterations in gradual shifts which would make it easier to come up with the allotted funds. I think that ensuring that the owners of the building understood the significance of these modifications would make them more open about their occurrence. The fact that these bills relay information on energy consumption to the residents of the affected buildings will proliferate the spread of more eco-friendly energy use. Educating the public is an intelligent means for spreading the popularity of this concept. I commend this legislation on its revolutionary tactics for improving energy use and carbon emission, but am still left with the question from where will the funding will be attained? I am a full proponent of its intentions, but am concerned that with the economy’s current state, it will not be feasible. I advise that New York should take a better assessment of its budget and the pockets of its citizens before enacting such a burdensome legislative measure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/science/earth/05bloomberg.html?ref=earth
"The New York Times Log In." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 11 Dec. 2009.
South Africa’s Fire Kingdom
South Africa's Fire Kingdom
SUMMARY: As we are all aware, global climate change tends to be devastating mainly because it has extreme effects - it makes wetter areas wetter and drier areas drier. Unfortunately, the "Cape Floral Kingdom" in Southern Africa manages to be one of the areas that is crusting over and losing its biodiversity to drought and wild fires. The Indiana-sized area is home to thousands of plant species that can't be found anywhere else on the globe, and the frequent, raging fires are wiping out all of the proteas, a native wildflower important to South African culture (it's carried by the national sports teams). The increasing temperatures are not only eradicating flora and fauna, but are also destroying the land, making it hard on humans as well.
REFLECTION: Upon first reading this article, it seemed a bit like deja vu. "I swear I've read that before..." I told myself. But the thing that managed to catch my eye was the last paragraph, which mentioned the effects of the situation on the villagers. As the old man in the beginning of the article portrayed, they aren't worried about what the fires are doing to the native species. “They are very quick to put out the fire when the mountain is burning, but when our shacks burn you never see them. They care about the birds and the tortoises and the antelopes more than they care about human beings!” he exclaimed.
But the last paragraph revealed one of the many roots holding this "global climate change" problem so steady - the fact that we are stuck in a downward spiral, a cyclical addiction we can't rid ourselves of. When his land finally becomes too dry to live off of, he is forced to move to the city, where he will (perhaps) find a factory job, mass produce a useless product to be shipped to America, and contribute to the very force which ruined not only his home, but the birds' and the tortoises' and the antelopes' too. The unfortunate thing is that what happens to his land and what happens to the Cape Floral Kingdom is not in his control. The fortunate thing is that it's in ours.
SOURCE: Mda, Zakes. "South Africa’s Fire Kingdom." The New York Times (2009). Nytimes.com. Web.
SUMMARY: As we are all aware, global climate change tends to be devastating mainly because it has extreme effects - it makes wetter areas wetter and drier areas drier. Unfortunately, the "Cape Floral Kingdom" in Southern Africa manages to be one of the areas that is crusting over and losing its biodiversity to drought and wild fires. The Indiana-sized area is home to thousands of plant species that can't be found anywhere else on the globe, and the frequent, raging fires are wiping out all of the proteas, a native wildflower important to South African culture (it's carried by the national sports teams). The increasing temperatures are not only eradicating flora and fauna, but are also destroying the land, making it hard on humans as well.
REFLECTION: Upon first reading this article, it seemed a bit like deja vu. "I swear I've read that before..." I told myself. But the thing that managed to catch my eye was the last paragraph, which mentioned the effects of the situation on the villagers. As the old man in the beginning of the article portrayed, they aren't worried about what the fires are doing to the native species. “They are very quick to put out the fire when the mountain is burning, but when our shacks burn you never see them. They care about the birds and the tortoises and the antelopes more than they care about human beings!” he exclaimed.
But the last paragraph revealed one of the many roots holding this "global climate change" problem so steady - the fact that we are stuck in a downward spiral, a cyclical addiction we can't rid ourselves of. When his land finally becomes too dry to live off of, he is forced to move to the city, where he will (perhaps) find a factory job, mass produce a useless product to be shipped to America, and contribute to the very force which ruined not only his home, but the birds' and the tortoises' and the antelopes' too. The unfortunate thing is that what happens to his land and what happens to the Cape Floral Kingdom is not in his control. The fortunate thing is that it's in ours.
SOURCE: Mda, Zakes. "South Africa’s Fire Kingdom." The New York Times (2009). Nytimes.com. Web.
Cattle Eating Grass, It’s Only Natural
Summary:
Scientists believe that “agricultural and drained peat lands” contribute their own share of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Therefore, many farmers have been advised to reduce their cattle grazing and animal-based farming in order to reduce carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Now, Martin Hesp and Graham Harvey have come upon a new method of grazing that releases emissions at all; in fact, the gases are stored back into the soil. Due to carefully managed grazing, Geoff Sayers describes his pasture as a carbon pump (carbon dioxide is taken in by grass and is then locked in the soil.) There are three main advantages to this kind of grazing: a smaller ecological footprint (because of grazing), fewer inputs of energy, and more natural food for the cows to digest (which leads to less chemically-altered food for us).
Response:
We didn’t cover this much in class. However, we did cover that agriculture takes up a large part of the Earth’s land and therefore, this article affects all of us, not just farmers. To find a new way to live a certain lifestyle is always drastic. Concerning farmers, they would have to completely forgo their old techniques and equipment in order to comply with this new method of grazing. Some people aren’t willing to give up their time to make such a change and often times, this is what causes backwardness in our lifestyles. Nevertheless, a lack of information can also cause a halt in action and this article exemplifies that. Since it only mentions the pros of such a meticulous style of grazing, this brings up lots of questions. Is it as effective as “mechanical” grazing? Do cows need more land and are we able to provide more land? Is it the most efficient way to raise livestock? Why hasn’t this issue been as heavily publicized as others, like the polar ice caps? After reading the article, it felt like it was too easy. Here was the answer to a problem that affects every continent and yet, many people have not switched to it. Why?
Let’s say there were no cons (which I highly doubt). This seems like a sound method of grazing that is both beneficial to the breeder and to nature. The three benefits that were mentioned in the article seem to tie up all the knots because not only does it protect the environment, in the end, it comes back to us. If the cows are fed less chemicals, our foods become much healthier to consume. That’s the point that many people would look for in terms of direct results in the human population.
Hesp, Martin, and Graham Harvey. "Cattle Eating Grass, It's Only Natural." Western Morning News. 2 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Dec. 2009.
Killing Carp: Chicago Canal Poisoned to Keep Invasive Fish Out of Great Lakes
Summary:
Sate and federal agencies have begun to poison a canal in order to kill off invasive Asian carp that has terrorized Lake Michigan. The carp can grow up to one hundred pounds and due to its intense breeding and ability to out-compete native species, it can permanently damage the water ecosystem. This is only the beginning in the process of eradication as some suggest a permanent separation between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River watershed is necessary. Besides removing a threat to the ecosystem, this also help preserve one fifth of the world’s freshwater. However, such a separation is arguably impossible since the waterways are a main source of shipping and business and the interests of the million-dollar fishing industry have to be considered.
Response:
Asian carp is a very important topic concerning invasive species – so important that it was one f the central case studies that we focused on in class. The carp has already brought serious harm to the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River and it has the capability to overturn entire ecosystems since it has few natural predators. It’s necessary to immediately lower or eradicate the carp population in order to successfully maintain what’s left of the feeble ecosystem. Poison seems like an effective way to target the carp. However, it needs to be tested very carefully so that it does not harm any species that are vital to the area. (There’s also the argument concerning the ethics of killing an animal. Why not just physically remove them instead of killing them? But that’s an entirely different story.) Mass poison spread could also become detrimental to us if we consume any fish that retains the poison in them (like pesticides in plants). In terms of the canal, it seems like there will be so much controversy stemming from it that I doubt it will help the cause until much later in the future. The fishing and shipping industries are fully capable of halting the entire operation and in cases similar to this one involving major industries, the concessions that are made are not enough to create desired results. I predict more clashing between environmentalists and industrial companies in the future.
http://www.nrdc.org/media/2009/091202.asp
Mogerman, Josh. "Killing Carp:Chicago Cancal Poisoned to Keep Invasice Fish Out of Great Lakes." National Resources Defense Council (1970). Natural Resources Defense Council. 2 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Dec. 2009..
Sate and federal agencies have begun to poison a canal in order to kill off invasive Asian carp that has terrorized Lake Michigan. The carp can grow up to one hundred pounds and due to its intense breeding and ability to out-compete native species, it can permanently damage the water ecosystem. This is only the beginning in the process of eradication as some suggest a permanent separation between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River watershed is necessary. Besides removing a threat to the ecosystem, this also help preserve one fifth of the world’s freshwater. However, such a separation is arguably impossible since the waterways are a main source of shipping and business and the interests of the million-dollar fishing industry have to be considered.
Response:
Asian carp is a very important topic concerning invasive species – so important that it was one f the central case studies that we focused on in class. The carp has already brought serious harm to the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River and it has the capability to overturn entire ecosystems since it has few natural predators. It’s necessary to immediately lower or eradicate the carp population in order to successfully maintain what’s left of the feeble ecosystem. Poison seems like an effective way to target the carp. However, it needs to be tested very carefully so that it does not harm any species that are vital to the area. (There’s also the argument concerning the ethics of killing an animal. Why not just physically remove them instead of killing them? But that’s an entirely different story.) Mass poison spread could also become detrimental to us if we consume any fish that retains the poison in them (like pesticides in plants). In terms of the canal, it seems like there will be so much controversy stemming from it that I doubt it will help the cause until much later in the future. The fishing and shipping industries are fully capable of halting the entire operation and in cases similar to this one involving major industries, the concessions that are made are not enough to create desired results. I predict more clashing between environmentalists and industrial companies in the future.
http://www.nrdc.org/media/2009/091202.asp
Mogerman, Josh. "Killing Carp:Chicago Cancal Poisoned to Keep Invasice Fish Out of Great Lakes." National Resources Defense Council (1970). Natural Resources Defense Council. 2 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Dec. 2009.
Afloat in the Ocean, Expanding Islands of Trash
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10patch.html?ref=earth
There are huge islands of trash accumulating in our oceans, most notably one in the pacific. It's built of all sorts of trash, with a lot of bottles, bottle caps and random things such as light bulbs. This island is only going to grow in size, as it is stuck in a whirlpool like part of the ocean. Currently it's approximately twice the size of Texas.
This is a major problem. Our heavy pollution is shown perfectly by this oceanic garbage patch. Researchers have traveled out to it this past summer and taken water samples. No where in this space (which is twice the size of Texas!) were they able to find a plastic free portion of water. This is extremely disturbing. We need to come down hard on our regulation of pollution, or else more things like this will continue to occur. There are already some other notable garbage patches, such as one that is outside Japan. The life in this area is taking a huge hit. The number of fish has declined greatly, and the ones that remain are extremely tainted. One rainbow trout that was tested was found to have 80 something plastic fragments in its stomach. We all know the effects of decreasing biodiversity globally, and this is something that needs to be fixed.
One quote from the article really sums this up, saying that the patch is "just a reminder that there’s nowhere that isn’t affected by humanity."
There are huge islands of trash accumulating in our oceans, most notably one in the pacific. It's built of all sorts of trash, with a lot of bottles, bottle caps and random things such as light bulbs. This island is only going to grow in size, as it is stuck in a whirlpool like part of the ocean. Currently it's approximately twice the size of Texas.
This is a major problem. Our heavy pollution is shown perfectly by this oceanic garbage patch. Researchers have traveled out to it this past summer and taken water samples. No where in this space (which is twice the size of Texas!) were they able to find a plastic free portion of water. This is extremely disturbing. We need to come down hard on our regulation of pollution, or else more things like this will continue to occur. There are already some other notable garbage patches, such as one that is outside Japan. The life in this area is taking a huge hit. The number of fish has declined greatly, and the ones that remain are extremely tainted. One rainbow trout that was tested was found to have 80 something plastic fragments in its stomach. We all know the effects of decreasing biodiversity globally, and this is something that needs to be fixed.
One quote from the article really sums this up, saying that the patch is "just a reminder that there’s nowhere that isn’t affected by humanity."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)