this article explains to us the reason of the spill in the gulf of mexico is such a big deal. It tell us ways it coul've been prevented, and how it is not being treated with care right now.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?5177
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Despite Moratorium, Drilling Projects Move Ahead
Despite Moratorium, Drilling Projects Move Ahead
As the title suggests, at least 7 new permits for drilling have opened up and five environmental "waivers" have been granted, helping oil drill sites become even more dominant. The Department of the Interior and the Minerals Management Service state that they had "no intention on halting oil drilling and gas production."It makes me sad that there are even such things as "environmental waivers." The basic premise of these waivers is that any company who leaks oil into the ocean is let off the hook. This is, excuse my language, complete horse shit. It is incredulous that a company can be reinstated to do their job of drilling dirty oil and selling it for dirty money, and to be able to be waived of any fines by the federal government. It's sick. They should outlaw these "environmental waivers" because once you've destroyed a certain part of the Earth, you should be held responsible and made to reimburse the damage done. I also think that when they are charged for the damages that a certain percentage of the fine they pay should be sent as grants to environmental research facilities in order to make processes in cleaning up the damages made by these oil rigs, and not only that, but also to research renewable energy sources to make a cleaner Earth.
Not Dead, Only Resting? The Climate Bill
Not Dead, Only Resting? The Climate Bill
This article is about Obama's reaction to the oil spill that has crowded the news lately. The House has effectively passed a bill that will put prices on emissions and provide incentives for conservation. Obama states that he hopes to create more jobs centered on sustainable energy and create a comprehensive energy plan to build a strong economy based on low-carbon input and output.I would like more than anything for this bill to effectively push more conservation activities into the minds of Americans, and hopefully make everybody a little bit more aware of the dangers of such dirty fossil fuel and coal energy. With the help of new jobs, i think it is entirely possible to make an economy based on conservation. I also think that in order to achieve more awareness, there should be a bill passed that helps institute more education on environmental science and preservation of our natural resources, and not only that, but build trade schools that help run courses on topics such as wind energy mill building, solar panel assembly, and general recycling facility maintenance. This would be a wonderful world with more education input.
Biodiversity in Peril, the U.N. Warns
Biodiversity in Peril, the U.N. Warns
This article is about the loss of biodiversity in hundreds of species on the earth. What most people dont understand is our reliance on other animals and plants, and this makes people not care about how other animals presence is in decline. Articles like this are what we need to show people how important our planets inhabitants are to our survival, as it says we are at a "tipping point," and irreversible damage is going to be done.
BP Engineers Making Little Headway on Leaking Well
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/29spill.html?adxnnl=1&ref=earth&adxnnlx=1275238941-8u727Jf7Uai+jaBplE8mlQ
This article is about the oil spill that occurred recently in the Gulf. Basically, engineers are using a 'trial & error' approach to stopping the leak. Obama also decided to visit the gulf instead of going on vacation.
What is most frustrating about this oil spill, is that the risk of spilling in the ocean should have been thought out before they started drilling off shore. We should have had several methods in place that would have prevented the spill from getting this bad. America comes up with great ideas like off-shore drilling but they don't think about the repercussions. Engineers should have worked out how to stop the leak before the leak even occurred.
This article is about the oil spill that occurred recently in the Gulf. Basically, engineers are using a 'trial & error' approach to stopping the leak. Obama also decided to visit the gulf instead of going on vacation.
What is most frustrating about this oil spill, is that the risk of spilling in the ocean should have been thought out before they started drilling off shore. We should have had several methods in place that would have prevented the spill from getting this bad. America comes up with great ideas like off-shore drilling but they don't think about the repercussions. Engineers should have worked out how to stop the leak before the leak even occurred.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise in China
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88251868
China has been growing recently in greenhouse emissions and has passed the United states in their emissions of carbon dioxide. Their growth per year in emissions is about 10% meaning their emissions will double every decade. Some people think that this is all China's fault, but others think that because China makes goods for almost every other country, that the blame shouldn't all be placed on China, like Gregg Marland. He says that the blame can come back to the US because of our imports from China.
One viewpoint is that China should become more environmentally friendly, and reduce their emissions.
The other viewpoint is that it is other countries fault for putting so much pressure on China to create all of these goods, causing the emission in the first place.
I feel that China should implement some greener technologies. I think that China does carry some of the blame, because their government doesn't regulate emissions closely enough. While China should reduce its emissions, other countries, worldwide, should stop putting so much pressure on China to create all of the goods, causing the emissions in the first place. In my opinion, if people want to complain about China's emissions they should either buy products that are environmentally friendly, or they should help China to convert their current methods of processing goods into more environmentally friendly ones. The power in this situation is in the consumers and the government's hands, they should quit blaming each other and get to solving the problem.
Works Cited:
Harris, Richard. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise in China : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. NPR, 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 29 May 2010. .
Oil Impact Environment: NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126484584
One viewpoint could be for BP that they are trying to clean up this disaster, and that there is too much to clean up in the time that they had before it reached the coast. The article was heavily biased towards the side of the fishers who had been harmed by the effects of the oil spill.
The other viewpoint is that BP caused too big of a mess to clean up, they should have known this was going to happen, and they should take much more responsibility than what they are taking currently.
I feel that this whole incident has gotten way out of hand, and should have been stopped and controlled long before it reached the coastline and marshes. I think that it is horrible that BP is getting away with this huge devastation to the environment. They have caused such a big mess that I don't think this will be cleaned up for the next several years, maybe even decades. If this is another Exxon Valdez oil spill, then this won't be cleaned up entirely for several years to come. The environment cannot take any more of this environmental impact, especially after Hurricane Katrina harmed the area so much. I hope that the people and Obama will take more initiatives to help fix this huge mess, but most of all I hope BP sticks to its word and cleans up the oil spill.
Works Cited:
Bronis, Jason. "Oil Impact Environment : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. NPR, 28 May 2010. Web. 28 May 2010. .
Philips Unveils World's First 60 Watt LED Bulb
http://www.enn.com/business/article/41320
This article expresses that the company Philips has made a LED 60 Watt Lightbulb. With such an invention, the 60 Watt Incandescent lightbulb could be replaced with a much more efficient bulb. More than half the lightbulbs currently used are 60 Watts so this could be a major energy helper, considering the LED Version lasts up to 25 times longer than the incandescents.
I think this breakthrough is very great. We have had improvements with our lightbulbs and their energy use for quite some time, but none quite as large as this. LED lights have been proven time and time again to be much more efficient than Incandescents and Fluorescents. I myself find the fluorescent lights to be a bit of a hassle. They contain potentially harmful/toxic chemicals and with my personal use of them, they last a considerably shorter time than their incandescent counterparts. So the introduction of the more efficient LED's will be wonderful! By lasting a much longer time with much less harmful chemicals, LED's could save consumers money and the environment.
Scientists Oppose Nano- Dispersant Proposed for gulf
Schneider, Andrew. "Scientists Oppose Nano-Dispersant Proposed for Gulf." AOL News (2010): n. pag. Web. 28 May
2010.http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/scientists-to-epa-say-no-to-nanotech-dispersant-for-gulf-oil-spill-cleanup/19495279
In the wake of the massive oil spill that has been plaguing our country for weeks, there has been quite a rage coming from many environmentalists about the best way to handle this situation. Some say that a giant dome should be built, and others propose that we should put bacteria on the oil. Still others, in a new article, state that new nano technologies should be used in order to stop the spread of the oil. However, despite this interesting sounding and futuristic plans that could solve our issue, many environmentalists are ardently objecting to this plan. They say that this technology is untested and could possibly just make the problem even more severe. In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, Ian Illuminator, a health and environment campaigner for the Friends of Earth, he says, We should not blindly trust a company that will not disclose the exact nature of the manufactured nonmaterial it proposes to dump into the sea. You or I wouldn't trust a stranger who wanted to dump undisclosed chemicals in our backyards, and the EPA shouldn't trust this corporation. I agree with the environmentalists that we should not put our future in the hands of fate in solving this oil spill, and we need to make sure that it is safe before we test it out. Just because the oil spill is creating a stir, and the public is at a state of unrest about it, we still need to think deeply about our actions before we put them into play. We must not act hastily even though he situation has become very sever, and thousands of square mils of the coast are becoming barren and stricken with oil. Although the company, Green Engineering Technologies, assures that it is safe, the Environmental Protection Agency is taking extra precautions before they jump into this plan. I believe that this is definitely the right thing to do and in order to keep our nation looking beautiful, we must make sure that we choose the best method to preserve ourselves. By doing this we can make sure that we prevent a horrible situation from getting even worse.
2010.http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/scientists-to-epa-say-no-to-nanotech-dispersant-for-gulf-oil-spill-cleanup/19495279
In the wake of the massive oil spill that has been plaguing our country for weeks, there has been quite a rage coming from many environmentalists about the best way to handle this situation. Some say that a giant dome should be built, and others propose that we should put bacteria on the oil. Still others, in a new article, state that new nano technologies should be used in order to stop the spread of the oil. However, despite this interesting sounding and futuristic plans that could solve our issue, many environmentalists are ardently objecting to this plan. They say that this technology is untested and could possibly just make the problem even more severe. In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, Ian Illuminator, a health and environment campaigner for the Friends of Earth, he says, We should not blindly trust a company that will not disclose the exact nature of the manufactured nonmaterial it proposes to dump into the sea. You or I wouldn't trust a stranger who wanted to dump undisclosed chemicals in our backyards, and the EPA shouldn't trust this corporation. I agree with the environmentalists that we should not put our future in the hands of fate in solving this oil spill, and we need to make sure that it is safe before we test it out. Just because the oil spill is creating a stir, and the public is at a state of unrest about it, we still need to think deeply about our actions before we put them into play. We must not act hastily even though he situation has become very sever, and thousands of square mils of the coast are becoming barren and stricken with oil. Although the company, Green Engineering Technologies, assures that it is safe, the Environmental Protection Agency is taking extra precautions before they jump into this plan. I believe that this is definitely the right thing to do and in order to keep our nation looking beautiful, we must make sure that we choose the best method to preserve ourselves. By doing this we can make sure that we prevent a horrible situation from getting even worse.
Worry About Dispersant Rises as Men in Work Crew Complain of Health Problems
Summary: The dispersant the BP has been using to manage the massive oil spill in the Gulf may have negative health impacts. Reports of workers who had handled the dispersant and then been admitted to the hospital raised these concerns. It is unclear whether the chemical actually caused their symptoms, or if they felt sick due to dehydration or some other cause. The EPA requested that BP reduce the amount of dispersant they are releasing each day. The future environmental and health impacts are unknown, but potentially harmful.
Personal Response: It is concerning that the future effects of the dispersants are unknown, and the chemical has never been used on such a great scale. Even more disconcerting is the fact that the dispersant has been banned in Britain, but continues to be dumped into the Gulf at alarming rates. Some people may argue that the dispensing of the dispersant should be stopped immediately until we know how it will impact the ecosystem, wildlife, and human health. If we continue, the devastation from the cleanup could become even greater than the oil spill itself. Still, there are proponents of the dispersant who think that if the dispersant use is discontinued, then the oil spill will become unmanageable and damage the coast irreparably. There is the threat that a severe storm or a hurricane could bring the oil far inland and result in the death of the wetlands. One must ask what comes first – do we value human health over the environment? What is the best way to handle a crisis? Should we go with an immediate solution or take the time to develop the pros and cons of each option? For now, I think that it is best for BP to discontinue use of the dispersant because the potential environmental and health impacts are too frightening and unknown for me to agree with distributing enormous quantities of something we don’t know much about. Other methods of containing the oil should be developed, such as using booms or less harmful dispersants. Surely, BP should be punished legally and financially for causing such environmental harm; as news comes out, it becomes clearer that perhaps the oil spill could have been prevented. I hope that BP does not escape the consequences of their actions, because they deserve to be punished.
Kaufman, Leslie, and Elisabeth Rosenthal. "Worry About Dispersant Rises as Men in Work Crew Complain
of Health Problems." New York Times 27 May 2010: n. pag. Web. 28 May 2010.
.
Link for article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/science/earth/28workers.html?ref=science
Personal Response: It is concerning that the future effects of the dispersants are unknown, and the chemical has never been used on such a great scale. Even more disconcerting is the fact that the dispersant has been banned in Britain, but continues to be dumped into the Gulf at alarming rates. Some people may argue that the dispensing of the dispersant should be stopped immediately until we know how it will impact the ecosystem, wildlife, and human health. If we continue, the devastation from the cleanup could become even greater than the oil spill itself. Still, there are proponents of the dispersant who think that if the dispersant use is discontinued, then the oil spill will become unmanageable and damage the coast irreparably. There is the threat that a severe storm or a hurricane could bring the oil far inland and result in the death of the wetlands. One must ask what comes first – do we value human health over the environment? What is the best way to handle a crisis? Should we go with an immediate solution or take the time to develop the pros and cons of each option? For now, I think that it is best for BP to discontinue use of the dispersant because the potential environmental and health impacts are too frightening and unknown for me to agree with distributing enormous quantities of something we don’t know much about. Other methods of containing the oil should be developed, such as using booms or less harmful dispersants. Surely, BP should be punished legally and financially for causing such environmental harm; as news comes out, it becomes clearer that perhaps the oil spill could have been prevented. I hope that BP does not escape the consequences of their actions, because they deserve to be punished.
Kaufman, Leslie, and Elisabeth Rosenthal. "Worry About Dispersant Rises as Men in Work Crew Complain
of Health Problems." New York Times 27 May 2010: n. pag. Web. 28 May 2010.
Link for article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/science/earth/28workers.html?ref=science
U.S. Environment Not the Best for EVs
Gartner, John. "US Environment Not the Best for EVs." Environemtnal News Network (2010): n. pag. Web. 28 May 2010.
U.S. Environment Not the Best for EVs
http://www.enn.com/business/article/41367
In a new study done by the Environmental Protection Agency, it has been found that the economy of the United States is not fitted in the best way that would allow for he best participation of new fuel sources. With the recent launch of the electric vehicles and the enormous potential that those have for boosting the reduction in the amount of gasoline that is consumed in our border. Due to the higher prices in fuel costs, we need now, more than ever to have access to a method of powering our expanding economy, but the system will now allow it to prosper. The most fuel efficient cars are not coming from the United States, but another upcoming global leader, China. I believe that this method of helping our environment should be pursued because it is proven to work by the models and precedents set forth by other countries. The environment should always come forth. It is important to save the environment to save ourselves. They will have sold a quarter of a million electronic vehicles by the year two thousand fifteen. I believe that in order to be a competitor in the global market, we need to make tax exemptions and other economic advantages to be given to those who are willing to make the switch to greener alternatives to the dirty fuel that is not only polluting our environment, but also the economy. If we effuse to do this, our neighbors who are going to be more timely and futuristic will break barriers in becoming an upcoming world power. In China, people are offered a tax break of up o two thousand dollars for making the conversion, and we need to offer similar or better tax breaks to compete on the global market. The best way that people will go green is by making them feel economically obligated to make the switch, and tax breaks would be a perfect way to incite this conversion. I feel like he United States might be loosing ground in the global market and in order to gain back what we have lost, we must be give economic tax breaks to those who are willing to go green.
U.S. Environment Not the Best for EVs
http://www.enn.com/business/article/41367
In a new study done by the Environmental Protection Agency, it has been found that the economy of the United States is not fitted in the best way that would allow for he best participation of new fuel sources. With the recent launch of the electric vehicles and the enormous potential that those have for boosting the reduction in the amount of gasoline that is consumed in our border. Due to the higher prices in fuel costs, we need now, more than ever to have access to a method of powering our expanding economy, but the system will now allow it to prosper. The most fuel efficient cars are not coming from the United States, but another upcoming global leader, China. I believe that this method of helping our environment should be pursued because it is proven to work by the models and precedents set forth by other countries. The environment should always come forth. It is important to save the environment to save ourselves. They will have sold a quarter of a million electronic vehicles by the year two thousand fifteen. I believe that in order to be a competitor in the global market, we need to make tax exemptions and other economic advantages to be given to those who are willing to make the switch to greener alternatives to the dirty fuel that is not only polluting our environment, but also the economy. If we effuse to do this, our neighbors who are going to be more timely and futuristic will break barriers in becoming an upcoming world power. In China, people are offered a tax break of up o two thousand dollars for making the conversion, and we need to offer similar or better tax breaks to compete on the global market. The best way that people will go green is by making them feel economically obligated to make the switch, and tax breaks would be a perfect way to incite this conversion. I feel like he United States might be loosing ground in the global market and in order to gain back what we have lost, we must be give economic tax breaks to those who are willing to go green.
Majority of firms will spend more on climate change
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64O0T720100525
This article explains how many large companies are investing more in being green. "Seventy percent of firms with revenue of $1 billion or more say they plan to increase spending on climate change initiatives in the next two years"
Most are also becoming more energy efficient. It also explains that companies are doing this on their own, apart from government.
I think that this switch will be a very good entrepreneurially and environmentally. When businesses invest in new technologies and ideas, many others (consumers) get the benefits. It subsequently gets easier for the consumer to acquire such ideas and technology, as more research has been put into by the industry. So as more businesses invest in greener technologies and greener practices, it becomes easier and cheaper for the average consumer to also make such changes, resulting in more efficient energy uses over time. It is very good that companies have realized that being green is not just for the press, it can be good for business and saving money to maximize profit. I am also surprised of how many companies are doing this, especially in the timeframe. 70% switching in a few years is quite an improvement.
Indonesia Agrees to Curb Commercial Deforestation
Summary: This article discusses Indonesia’s newly announced ban on deforesting natural forest areas for the next two years. This program is part of the UN’s REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) plan. It involves wealthier nations helping support poorer nation’s efforts to curb deforestation in their countries. Since talks in Copenhagen flopped, REDD programs are considered one of the best paths to stopping global climate change. Indonesia has a large paper and lumber industry, and thus is the third largest producer of greenhouse gases, after China and America.
Personal response: On one hand, reducing deforestation is a key step in combating global climate change effectively. Deforestation reduces habitat and thus biodiversity, leads to erosion and soil degradation, and releases an abundance of greenhouse gases. Indonesia is a prime target for REDD programs because they produce so much CO2 as a result of deforestation. Still, there are some negative aspects to this proposition. For example, the ban is only for two years, which will not be enough time to have an extensive impact upon the environment. Also, a major portion of Indonesia’s economy relies upon the exploitation of natural forests to produce paper and a large supply of lumber. I would imagine that poor suppliers of trees for paper and lumber could suffer economic hardship as a result of this moratorium on deforestation. In addition, the ban will be difficult to enforce because of an inadequate enforcement agency and difficulty in defining “natural forest.” As a solution, I propose extending the ban with additional economic support from the UN’s REDD program and continued support of more developed countries. As well, the ban needs to be reworked to clearly define who is responsible for enforcing the ban and what land qualifies as “natural forest.” I think that ultimately the ban will have a positive impact. Indonesia should focus its economy on ecotourism, which would provide more incentive to maintain natural forests. Also, deforestation is unsustainable and results in global climate change. As a low-lying chain of islands, Indonesia is especially vulnerable to sea level rising. Therefore, Indonesia will benefit more from the ban in the long-run to outweigh any potential negative economic impacts now.
Belford, Audrey. "Indonesia Agrees to Curb Commercial Deforestation." New York Times 27 May 2010: n.
pag. Web. 28 May 2010.
Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/asia/28indo.html?ref=science
Personal response: On one hand, reducing deforestation is a key step in combating global climate change effectively. Deforestation reduces habitat and thus biodiversity, leads to erosion and soil degradation, and releases an abundance of greenhouse gases. Indonesia is a prime target for REDD programs because they produce so much CO2 as a result of deforestation. Still, there are some negative aspects to this proposition. For example, the ban is only for two years, which will not be enough time to have an extensive impact upon the environment. Also, a major portion of Indonesia’s economy relies upon the exploitation of natural forests to produce paper and a large supply of lumber. I would imagine that poor suppliers of trees for paper and lumber could suffer economic hardship as a result of this moratorium on deforestation. In addition, the ban will be difficult to enforce because of an inadequate enforcement agency and difficulty in defining “natural forest.” As a solution, I propose extending the ban with additional economic support from the UN’s REDD program and continued support of more developed countries. As well, the ban needs to be reworked to clearly define who is responsible for enforcing the ban and what land qualifies as “natural forest.” I think that ultimately the ban will have a positive impact. Indonesia should focus its economy on ecotourism, which would provide more incentive to maintain natural forests. Also, deforestation is unsustainable and results in global climate change. As a low-lying chain of islands, Indonesia is especially vulnerable to sea level rising. Therefore, Indonesia will benefit more from the ban in the long-run to outweigh any potential negative economic impacts now.
Belford, Audrey. "Indonesia Agrees to Curb Commercial Deforestation." New York Times 27 May 2010: n.
pag. Web. 28 May 2010.
Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/asia/28indo.html?ref=science
Shaky Rule in Madagascar Threatens Trees
This article discusses the current deforestation that is occurring in Madagascar. Due to an unstable government extremely valuable Rosewood trees are being cut down illegally. Many of these trees end up being exported to China. The past year these trees brought in expected values of $167 million dollars. It has been hard for the country to enforce the laws about chopping down these trees because of the corrupt government. The government also profits from the sell of these trees. Protecting these trees is extremely important because the forest where these trees exist are home to about 14,000 species of plants 90% of which exist no where else on the planet.
Deforestation is occurring in many countries of the world, mainly poorer developing nations. The rainforest's are extremely important and are an international issue because they are the biological hot spots. They hold a huge variety of plant and animal species and the majority of them and endemic to that area. These trees are also important because they help to absorb the millions of pounds of CO2 that are released every year. The article discusses how many of the people chopping down the trees and selling them are poor villagers. These villagers however are not the one profiting from the sell of the trees. The government plays a large role in the continuation of the exporting. However it is a large issue to tackle and control, I feel that Madagascar's government is not doing enough to stop the people in charge of the efforts.
Bearak, Barry. "Shaky Rule in Madagascar Threatens Trees." 24 May 2010: n. pag. Web. 28 May 2010.
Hurricane Season may be “extremely active”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/hurricane-season-extremely-active-forecast-atlantic-nation/
This article is describing how the 2010 hurricane season will be potentially catastrophic. In addition to the heavy hurricane season ahead, the recent oil spill will have unknown consequences on the Gulf Coast where the hurricanes occur. Some predict that it will drive the oil further along shore, since its already reached the coasts of Louisiana. Others say that it’s not going to make matters any worse than they already are.
I believe that all of these problems have been caused because of humans. The oil spill, obviously, was caused by us. And the heavy hurricane season i believe is caused by global climate change; which humans have caused for the most part. We’re clearly destroying the environment we live in and we can’t even predict what will happen because of it. These unknown hurricane events are just a great example of this.
Scramble on to gather data on oil spill affects
Researchers from across the country have traveled down to the gulf of mexico where the recent oil spill occurred. They are looking to gather data that can help to understand the effects that crude oil has on the food chains and food webs of the organisms living in the waters. They are curious to see if animals like shellfish are absorbing the oil through the water themselves or if the oil is entering their system through the plankton that they consume. Some researchers believe that the food chains of the ocean are being shifted because of the presence of oil. They think that some organisims are shifting to different food sources due to the oil.
The oil spill in the Gulf has been devastating to the region and the species that live in the ocean. Many people are just thinking about the short term affects of this problem--how many fish is it killing? But the bigger and more serious issue is that the oil spill may be causing an alteration of the aquatic food web. A shift in the feeding habits could be even more drastic of a change than a bunch of fish dying. If a large shift was made than it could lead to a slippery slope of problems including overpopulation of species as well as endangering a species. The research these scientists are doing is very important when it comes to protecting the biodiversity of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. If scientists and researchers can understand what is occurring in the Gulf they may be able to help solve the problem. Too often these types of oil spills occur and this calls for stricter laws for preventing these disasters but also stricter and better protocols for dealing with the spills. Swifter action needs to be taken next time an oil spill occurs, which is hopefully far in the future.
Marshall, Jessica. "Scramble on to gather data on oil spill affects." 27 May 2010: n. pag. Web. 28 May 2010.
Shade of Green
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?5152
This articles is actually quite unique. Its describing a new product on the market that goes along with the idea of green living; Eco Sunglasses.
This isn’t a new invention, but a better version of something that was already available. They have made it affordable for everyone and they have a variety of different styles for them.
This may sound insignificant; however, this makes these appeal to a wider range of people.
glasses could become a hit and sell out, and the more people that see them will cause those people to be aware that they can help the environment in another way that they hadn’t previously thought of. Recycled materials and bamboo are the main components of these glasses, and they work just as well as any other pair of sunglasses, so why not get them?Shaky Rule in Madagascar Threatens Trees
Summary-The article talks about how the recent governmental shift in Madagascar has allowed an explosion in illegal logging of an increasingly rare tree, the rosewood. The wood is mostly being exported to China because they have already cut through their share of rosewoods. The number of rosewoods is dwindling so much that even experienced loggers can take up to two days to find one.
Personal Response-I think that as a duty to the environment, all governments should be held accountable for stopping illicit trade of illegally logged trees. Also the Chinese importers should face penalty as well for taking in illegal goods, much like drug traffickers. All in all this is a drop in the bucket, with all the environmental degradation we should use this and other stories like it as a poster child to the world. To show that even endangered species are not safe from crime on the international market.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/africa/25madagascar.html
Personal Response-I think that as a duty to the environment, all governments should be held accountable for stopping illicit trade of illegally logged trees. Also the Chinese importers should face penalty as well for taking in illegal goods, much like drug traffickers. All in all this is a drop in the bucket, with all the environmental degradation we should use this and other stories like it as a poster child to the world. To show that even endangered species are not safe from crime on the international market.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/africa/25madagascar.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/photogalleries/100506-nation-animals-oil-spill-gulf-pictures/#gulf-oil-spill-wildlife-threatened-bluef
This article is about some of the animals that are being affected by the oil spill. This particular article is about the blue fin tuna and how it is about to be in some serious trouble. Right now is the blue fin tunas spawning time. And to make things worse one of the tunas major spawning grounds is right near the site of the spill. It only takes a few drops of crude oil to kill a tuna egg. The older and larger blue fin tuna are at an even larger risk because they eat a smaller fish that has ingested the oil then they too become infected.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100507-science-environment-gulf-mexico-oil-spill-cleanup-bacteria/
This article is about how Mother Nature is doing its own thing to fight off the Goulf of Mexico's oil spill. The oil spill reached the shore of Louisiana on Thursday May sixth. When the oil hit the shore there was a foul odor in the air and it was Mother Nature doing her own thing to fight off the oil. One of the ways that it was fighting off the oil is by evaporating the oil from the surgace of the water and letting itvaporize fro the sun light. Another way that it is fightig the oil is small microbes that love eating the heavy oil that sinks to the bottom, they said it is like their butter so that is a great way to get rid of it.
New, Greener Version of Ivory Towers Proliferates
Summary- Plants are very important, especially when they are not just there to look pretty. Many architects have enacted designs to place vertical growing plants on the sides of buildings. So instead of using industrial insulation you could just grow your own insulation on the side of your house. This technique has been proven to reduce temperatures inside the building by up to 6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Personal Response-I think this is a very intriguing technology. The potential for this is great, considering that there are so many buildings. Not only would the use of “living walls” cut down on energy use such as heating and cooling, but it also takes carbon dioxide out of the air. Plus, if added to an already efficient house, it is easily believable to see that household becoming carbon neutral, or even positive. Some of the drawbacks of this system, are that the plants do need to be watered, the house needs to be fitted with equipment so that the plants don’t hurt the structural integrity, and the plants can only live in certain places. Even with those negatives in mind, I don’t see them outweighing the benefits the vertically growing plants provide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/business/energy-environment/28iht-rbogwall.html
Personal Response-I think this is a very intriguing technology. The potential for this is great, considering that there are so many buildings. Not only would the use of “living walls” cut down on energy use such as heating and cooling, but it also takes carbon dioxide out of the air. Plus, if added to an already efficient house, it is easily believable to see that household becoming carbon neutral, or even positive. Some of the drawbacks of this system, are that the plants do need to be watered, the house needs to be fitted with equipment so that the plants don’t hurt the structural integrity, and the plants can only live in certain places. Even with those negatives in mind, I don’t see them outweighing the benefits the vertically growing plants provide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/business/energy-environment/28iht-rbogwall.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37197396/ns/us_news-environment/#storyContinued
April was the warmest on record. The adverage temperature for april was 58.1 degrees fahrenheit the hottest since recording began in 1880.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37231675/ns/gulf_oil_spill/
This article is talking about how there is a small portion of the oil spil going into the loop current. If this happens this can devistate any thought of being able to clean up the spil. It will go into the marshes in south florida and even up the easter coast. This can cause even more distruction then the original spill did not to mention the fact that it is even on the coast.
Geothermal Energy
Geothermal energy has been used for many many years and the supply is greater than oil. Wouldn't that make this alternative the prefect switch? 20 plus countries already use geothermal energy. Why not increase the number? Geothermal also has an advantage over other alternatives because it is available at all times, it's not explosive, and it is found to be much cheaper. The main flaw geothermal energy has is its smell at even small concentrations. Is a bad smell more important than sustainability or vice versa?
Alternative energy sources always seems to be the topic of discussion. We are searching for the perfect alternative. Their is no such thing as a perfect alternative source of energy, hence to the reason we are in this oil crisis now. We learned oil and fossil fuels were not perfect the hard way. It is time we move on to the next source and continue progression until we are close to the infamous "perfect alternative" Geothermal may be just that but the bad smell will loose a lot of supporters.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/geothermal-profile/
Alternative energy sources always seems to be the topic of discussion. We are searching for the perfect alternative. Their is no such thing as a perfect alternative source of energy, hence to the reason we are in this oil crisis now. We learned oil and fossil fuels were not perfect the hard way. It is time we move on to the next source and continue progression until we are close to the infamous "perfect alternative" Geothermal may be just that but the bad smell will loose a lot of supporters.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/geothermal-profile/
Ending Anonymity in Food
Many people do not know where the food they consume, is originated. The food that is consumed could be filled with dangerous pesticides and chemicals, but the consumer is not aware because that information is not provided with the food. Is it fair that we are unaware of what exactly is in the food we eat? Or even where exactly thee food was made? The technology in order for such information to be provided, so why isn't it? one reason is the cost. The other reason could be as simple as big corporations don't want that information being distributed to the public. Could the certain precautions taken and handling of the food also have to do wit the pricing? Would this kind of awareness produce a better/ healthier consumer?
I personally feel the public should be aware of the origin of the foods they consume. It's my body and i should be able to decide what goes in it. Nothing is free, so an additional cost in order to educate should not be a problem. I think poorly handled food would be cheaper than carefully handled food. This kind of public consumer would create a better consumer, without a doubt. People won't purposely eat toxic pesticides or chemicals. I feel this kind of information is greatly needed with the purchase of food.
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/thegreenguide/2010/03/ending-anonymity-in-food.html
I personally feel the public should be aware of the origin of the foods they consume. It's my body and i should be able to decide what goes in it. Nothing is free, so an additional cost in order to educate should not be a problem. I think poorly handled food would be cheaper than carefully handled food. This kind of public consumer would create a better consumer, without a doubt. People won't purposely eat toxic pesticides or chemicals. I feel this kind of information is greatly needed with the purchase of food.
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/thegreenguide/2010/03/ending-anonymity-in-food.html
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Efficiency, Not Just Alternatives, Is Promoted as an Energy Saver
Summary:
While some wish to be in the midst of a “Green Revolution”, our attitude towards the electric vehicles is still relatively chilly when compared to foreign markets such as Japan and Europe. However, since we have some of the lowest prices of oil and electricity in the world, it is not seen as much as a necessity to switch to these more fuel efficient vehicles. Americans cling to their large SUVs and other gas guzzlers as signs of status and are unwilling to give them up if they do not have to. It is proposed that Americans should take a better look at the environmental impact the switch to electric vehicles could cause instead of their personal prowess associated with large vehicles.
Personal response:
America’s rather unwelcoming reception to what could have great benefits for not only our nation, but planet as a whole is frankly appalling. We are already perceived to be a country that cares more about our own well being than that of the rest of the world. The benefits of EVs should be promoted through education so that our citizenry can be informed of their many positive impacts such as a reduction in carbon emission and step away from the middle eastern nations who have governments that questionably treat their citizens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business/29efficient.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
While some wish to be in the midst of a “Green Revolution”, our attitude towards the electric vehicles is still relatively chilly when compared to foreign markets such as Japan and Europe. However, since we have some of the lowest prices of oil and electricity in the world, it is not seen as much as a necessity to switch to these more fuel efficient vehicles. Americans cling to their large SUVs and other gas guzzlers as signs of status and are unwilling to give them up if they do not have to. It is proposed that Americans should take a better look at the environmental impact the switch to electric vehicles could cause instead of their personal prowess associated with large vehicles.
Personal response:
America’s rather unwelcoming reception to what could have great benefits for not only our nation, but planet as a whole is frankly appalling. We are already perceived to be a country that cares more about our own well being than that of the rest of the world. The benefits of EVs should be promoted through education so that our citizenry can be informed of their many positive impacts such as a reduction in carbon emission and step away from the middle eastern nations who have governments that questionably treat their citizens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business/29efficient.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
American's renew environmental awareness after oil spil
http://planetsave.com/blog/2010/05/28/oil-spill-renews-american-fervour-for-environment/
This, is a pretty devastating realization. The article outlines the American "care-o-meter". Once the oil spill happened, environmental awareness skyrocketed, but the really sad numbers are the numbers before the oil spill. Our nation that has "supposedly" been going green has been declining. No longer are we trying to beat it green, our only goal is to mass produce that energy. This article just disturbs me how little we care about the environment, what will happen in ten years? Do we wait for oranges to go extinct before we care about the environment?
This, is a pretty devastating realization. The article outlines the American "care-o-meter". Once the oil spill happened, environmental awareness skyrocketed, but the really sad numbers are the numbers before the oil spill. Our nation that has "supposedly" been going green has been declining. No longer are we trying to beat it green, our only goal is to mass produce that energy. This article just disturbs me how little we care about the environment, what will happen in ten years? Do we wait for oranges to go extinct before we care about the environment?
American's renew environmental awareness after oil spil
http://planetsave.com/blog/2010/05/28/oil-spill-renews-american-fervour-for-environment/
Ready to Ship in Hawaii: 20,000 Tons of Garbage
Summary:
Hawaii has run out of immediate and viable options for trash disposal and so they are currently collecting large quantities of garbage until it reaches a certain capacity and then shipping it to the mainland where it will be discarded. Without major road ways connecting the island to the rest of the country, Hawaii is confined to a restricted numbers of means to get rid of their refuse. The process of transporting the trash was only meant to be a temporary effort, but has carried on because of such reasons as the expansion of the incinerator and the soon to be terminated landfill. Opposition to the smell of the trash and anesthetically pleasing sight of garbage concerns some residents, while others are dissatisfied with the mere amount of waste that the state produces and how much is thrown out and not reused. Proponents for this measure, argue that it is the only present option that is a feasible way to alleviate the ever compiling trash dilemma. One solution to this problem is to try and reduce the amount of trash that is generated and advocate recycling programs.
Personal response: I agree with those who are opposed to the idea of shipping off their garbage to the mainland. This process would only be a temporary fix to a ever present problem. If they do not have their facilities do not have the capacity to handle their rubbish, than this is an indication that there is too much to begin with. Instead, effort s to promote sustainability and recycling would greatly benefit the island not only economically by not having to pay to ship off their trash, but also environmentally since the residences would be require fewer new items and less fossil fuels would be used in production. Also, the transport of the trash would need fuel to sustain each voyage and increase our dependence on foreign oil and petrodictatorships as well as negatively contribute to our carbon footprint.
Cooper, Michael. "Packed and Ready to Go in Hawaii - 20,000 Tons of Garbage - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 21 May 2010. Web. 27 May 2010..
Hawaii has run out of immediate and viable options for trash disposal and so they are currently collecting large quantities of garbage until it reaches a certain capacity and then shipping it to the mainland where it will be discarded. Without major road ways connecting the island to the rest of the country, Hawaii is confined to a restricted numbers of means to get rid of their refuse. The process of transporting the trash was only meant to be a temporary effort, but has carried on because of such reasons as the expansion of the incinerator and the soon to be terminated landfill. Opposition to the smell of the trash and anesthetically pleasing sight of garbage concerns some residents, while others are dissatisfied with the mere amount of waste that the state produces and how much is thrown out and not reused. Proponents for this measure, argue that it is the only present option that is a feasible way to alleviate the ever compiling trash dilemma. One solution to this problem is to try and reduce the amount of trash that is generated and advocate recycling programs.
Personal response: I agree with those who are opposed to the idea of shipping off their garbage to the mainland. This process would only be a temporary fix to a ever present problem. If they do not have their facilities do not have the capacity to handle their rubbish, than this is an indication that there is too much to begin with. Instead, effort s to promote sustainability and recycling would greatly benefit the island not only economically by not having to pay to ship off their trash, but also environmentally since the residences would be require fewer new items and less fossil fuels would be used in production. Also, the transport of the trash would need fuel to sustain each voyage and increase our dependence on foreign oil and petrodictatorships as well as negatively contribute to our carbon footprint.
Cooper, Michael. "Packed and Ready to Go in Hawaii - 20,000 Tons of Garbage - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 21 May 2010. Web. 27 May 2010.
Arizona's Smoking Ban Reduced Hospital Visits
http://www.enn.com/lifestyle/article/41362
Arizona started a smoking ban on May 1, 2007. A study done by two universities say that there were less visits to hospitals due to the ban. It reduced hospital charges by $16 million dollars in the first 13 months. To make sure it wasn't just a reduction in visits all together they tested admissions for AMI, which was reduced by 13%, angina admissions dropped 33%, acute strokes dropped 14%, and asthma, which dropped 22%. These are all from secondhand smoke. Also there were no significant drops in visits that did not deal with secondhand smoke.
I think this is a great way to reduce the visits to hospitals. Tobacco products are still a major role for some of the deaths in America and this can help reduce that number. Tobacco is very addicting and many people would like to quit. This ban could help them get off their addiction and live healthier lives. I do realize that this will hurt the economy but it is worth the change. Instead of draining the soil from its nutrients we could use it for other crops that could be grown in Kentucky. Also the amount of horse farms in Lexington is greatly being reduced. This could either provide more land for horse farms or even more room for houses and other residential buildings. That way it would be helping make up for the loss of money the tobacco brought in. Also people would not have to pay as much for insurance so that money could also go back into the economy. As I stated the ban in Kentucky would help more people the opportunity to live healthier lives which is extremely important.
Coast Guard Approves Protective Sand Barrier
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/coast-guard-approves-protective-sand-berms/?ref=earth
This article talks about a sand barrier being designed to protect parts of the Louisiana coast. Some of the targets are the mouth of the mississippi river and coastal islands near the coast. The Army Corps of Engineer and the Coast Guard are working together to create this quick fix. This will eventually lead to an even bigger barrier that is more permanent that will cover up to 65 miles of coast.
While i think this is good that there are solutions trying to be done, i feel like this will not work very well. i dont feel like simply building barriers is going to do much. it might protect the coast but it does not really fix the problem, the oil in the ocean. i also feel like if a hurricane comes then the oil out sitting in the ocean will get to the coast. I think the barriers are a good short term solution but eventually we will have to adress the real problem.
This article talks about a sand barrier being designed to protect parts of the Louisiana coast. Some of the targets are the mouth of the mississippi river and coastal islands near the coast. The Army Corps of Engineer and the Coast Guard are working together to create this quick fix. This will eventually lead to an even bigger barrier that is more permanent that will cover up to 65 miles of coast.
While i think this is good that there are solutions trying to be done, i feel like this will not work very well. i dont feel like simply building barriers is going to do much. it might protect the coast but it does not really fix the problem, the oil in the ocean. i also feel like if a hurricane comes then the oil out sitting in the ocean will get to the coast. I think the barriers are a good short term solution but eventually we will have to adress the real problem.
Oil spill sets precedence
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/o/oil_spills/gulf_of_mexico_2010/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=oil%20spill&st=cse
This article gives some of the information on the oil spill in the Gulf Coast. it has to be one of if not the worst environmental catastrophes to happen in America. this oil spill has already released twice as much crude oil as the Exxon Valdez in Alaska. not only that, there is still more oil being released. so the problem is only getting worse and it has no clear solutions right now.
This disaster will be setting precedence over off shore drilling because now we know the consequences of this environmental destroying process. President Obama will want to avoid anything like this from ever happening again so he is going to be against anymore propositions. i think this is a good thing because maybe now we will start to realize offshore drilling isnt the best idea.
This article gives some of the information on the oil spill in the Gulf Coast. it has to be one of if not the worst environmental catastrophes to happen in America. this oil spill has already released twice as much crude oil as the Exxon Valdez in Alaska. not only that, there is still more oil being released. so the problem is only getting worse and it has no clear solutions right now.
This disaster will be setting precedence over off shore drilling because now we know the consequences of this environmental destroying process. President Obama will want to avoid anything like this from ever happening again so he is going to be against anymore propositions. i think this is a good thing because maybe now we will start to realize offshore drilling isnt the best idea.
Effiecency, Not Just Alternatives, is Promoted as an Energy Saver
Using energy efficently will allow you to use less of it which will help with energy costs and energy needs. This like alternative resources is also going to help the environment and the fossil fuel crisis. However 75% of consumers will only install energy saving appliances and systems if it saves them money withing a maximum of 2 years. Companies as a result are starting to subsidize energy efficent appliances and systems.
The subsidizes are an excellent idea. It is shocking that over 75% of consumers wont buy energy effiecent materials without an immediate result. This is possibly why we are having so much trouble starting and sustaining a green revolution. People are, as always, more interested in their pocketbooks and how it is good for them but for the world in general. This is a very unfortuante view of the world especially when it comes to things like this. Future impacting things, I believe personally should get more of a view besides the immediate(next 2 years) economic return.
http://http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business/29efficient.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
The subsidizes are an excellent idea. It is shocking that over 75% of consumers wont buy energy effiecent materials without an immediate result. This is possibly why we are having so much trouble starting and sustaining a green revolution. People are, as always, more interested in their pocketbooks and how it is good for them but for the world in general. This is a very unfortuante view of the world especially when it comes to things like this. Future impacting things, I believe personally should get more of a view besides the immediate(next 2 years) economic return.
http://http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business/29efficient.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Roots Meshed in Waste Materials Could Clean Dirty Water
The article is about a new filtering system designed by researchers out of Penn State. They have begun testing a new filter that uses wetlands plants to filter waste water that travels down a vertical pipe. As the water filters through the plant roots it is also passed through alternating layers of porous rock, tire crumbs, crushed limestone, potting soil, and peat moss. This system is extremely efficient. It removed 90% of the wastes from washing machine wastewater in 3 days.
This new system would do wonders for our current filtrations systems. It is living, so almost all wastes are recycled in some way, and with statistics showing it's efficiency and it's removal rate, it sounds very promising. The system itself is also very cheap. This means that it could be installed in many different facilities. This would allow different areas to reduce their purification costs to allow for more focused spending on the really needed things. Although some people might be worried that the system's plants are not native need not worry. The used plants remain in the filter pipes for their "lives". Overall, the system seems t be almost perfect. Some issues might involve the removal of major synthetic chemicals are thier effects on the plants. Tests so far have shown the plants(papyrus and horsetail reed were the test plants) able to remove most of the chemicals and harmful bacteria from the waste water.
This new system would do wonders for our current filtrations systems. It is living, so almost all wastes are recycled in some way, and with statistics showing it's efficiency and it's removal rate, it sounds very promising. The system itself is also very cheap. This means that it could be installed in many different facilities. This would allow different areas to reduce their purification costs to allow for more focused spending on the really needed things. Although some people might be worried that the system's plants are not native need not worry. The used plants remain in the filter pipes for their "lives". Overall, the system seems t be almost perfect. Some issues might involve the removal of major synthetic chemicals are thier effects on the plants. Tests so far have shown the plants(papyrus and horsetail reed were the test plants) able to remove most of the chemicals and harmful bacteria from the waste water.
Scientists Detect Huge Carbon 'Burp' That Helped End Last Ice Age
The article is about a recent discovery of a major carbon reserve found in ice dated from the last ice age. Studies have shown that this carbon deposit may have been one of the main causes for the end of the last ice age. It was discovered while researchers were searching for the tiny remains of small marine creatures, the foraminifera. These remains aid in finding the carbon composition of the ancient oceans.
This article's findings show that the ice ages of Earth's past were greatly affected by CO2 just as much as it is affecting us today. The ice ages apparrently were started and ended based around the solar cycles and on the CO2 levels. With this discovery, I think that we now have a much clearer picture of our planet's past. With this new knowledge we can more fully understand our current predicament of extremely high CO2 levels. This may help us find a more efficient way of reducing our emmissions, and slow the process so that we don't become a hot and dry wasteland. This information will also tell us how to avoid another ice age, as it shows that sufficient amounts of carbon can halt cold temperatures. I think that this knowledge is fundemental for our future developement as a race and for maintaining our current way of life. Without the unnescecary use of carbon based fuels.
This article's findings show that the ice ages of Earth's past were greatly affected by CO2 just as much as it is affecting us today. The ice ages apparrently were started and ended based around the solar cycles and on the CO2 levels. With this discovery, I think that we now have a much clearer picture of our planet's past. With this new knowledge we can more fully understand our current predicament of extremely high CO2 levels. This may help us find a more efficient way of reducing our emmissions, and slow the process so that we don't become a hot and dry wasteland. This information will also tell us how to avoid another ice age, as it shows that sufficient amounts of carbon can halt cold temperatures. I think that this knowledge is fundemental for our future developement as a race and for maintaining our current way of life. Without the unnescecary use of carbon based fuels.
Obama Halts Drilling Projects, Defends Actions
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127205462
For some reason we haven't heard much about the oil spill until now when BP has started trying solutions. I'm proud that Obama could admit to being wrong and that he has moved on to stop worrying about what he said and what he is going to do. But this spill is the perfect chance to switch off oil. CNN stated that this is the worst spill in American history. It has also been estimated to be twice the size of Exxon Baldez disaster. Clearly it is a very cheep energy and a lot of the country runs on it. But you have to ask are the negative impacts worth it? Oil spills not only destroy the environment but even when handled correctly their pollution is very hazardous. Therefore we need alternative resources. Yes nuclear power produces radiation but that has been controlled much better than these oil spills. Wind energy and tidal may destroy environments but I believe that anything is better than oil if it can cause this much destruction and still not close to being cleaned up.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18971-bacteria-help-to-clean-up-deepwater-horizon-spill.html
This article discusses a topic not unfamiliar to AP Environmental Science students: Bioremediation. For those of us who have forgotten, bioremediation is defined as, "the use of biological organisms, usually microorganisms, to remove contaminants, especially from polluted water." This definition holds true, as bioremediation is being used for this very purpose in the Deepwater Horizon Spill that the article discusses. The bacteria work to dissipate the oil which damages the environment, and then consume the breakdown products for their own use. The process has shown successful thus far.
I see bioremediation as a highly beneficial manner towards dealing with ecological disasters such as oil spills. They correct the issue by harnessing the power of nature, not the artificial power of man. The only issue with employing the use of organisms in such a way is that it can often upset the delicate balance of food webs in complicated ecosystems. The paradigm for this unintended consequence is the Cane Toad, which was introduced as an invasive species to serve as an insecticide, but soon became more of a pest itself.
Sailing ships could harvest fuel from the ocean
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18970-sailing-ships-could-harvest-fuel-from-the-oceans.html
This article from the New Scientist Environmental Review discusses the unveiling of a novel, and unconventional renewable energy source. The article describes how sailboats would harness wind energy, which would be converted into hydrogen. The energy could be stored on the ship in that medium until it were transported to shore to be applied as electricity.
Dealing with the energy crisis is going to require more than implementation of what is preceived to be a panacea energy source. It is going to require ingenuity, creativity, and research, as this proposal seems to have. This source of energy holds merit, and needs government subsidization in order to become widespread enough to have a profound effect.
It is continued interest in new energy sources, and the ability to think outside the proverbial box which will elicit sustainability in energy generation. I see this energy proposal as a hopeful sign of the possibilities, in hopes of a cleaner today and a brighter tomorrow.
Green Machine: Hitting the lights in wasteful offices
I have this distict memory of staying in a hotel in Chicago and looking across at the office building and wondering why they didnt turn their lights off at night. Well this new system could help with that problem as well as help monitor energy use. These new systems that have been developed can observe when there is sunlight streaming into the building and turn the lights down in certain areas. It also allows people to contro the lights by remote at their own desks or offices. It will also allow the electric company to observe the energy use in more detail then it can currently and the company can also observe it in close detail as well. Basically it is giving building owners more control of lighting but they dont need to rewire the whole building.
This seems like a genius idea! Some of the facts in this article were incredible. Such as when you allow people to control their own lights at their workstation energy consumption is reduced by 72% Imagine how much energy could be saved if all of the office buildings just in New York began using this to monitor and control their energy consumption. This could be a revolutionary development! Not only for the environmental reasons but also econmically. Because businesses no longer have as high energy consumption they also have lower utilities costs. As the developers believe as well I dont think these developments should stop here. Air conditioning and heat, water use reguation and maybe even something having to do with paper could all be extremely helpful to the environment and again economically as well. One of the main incentives for businesses to purchase these new technologies im afraid is not going to be the ecological incenteves but rather the economical incentives. This provides both without being lots of work or a major change to the workplace as far as peoples actions are concerned. Im not sure who would oppose this idea. The energy companies perhaps but even then I dont think they would oppose it. Overall, this seems like a wonderful new technology that will lead itself to many others shortly all which will have great environmental impact. http://http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18955-green-machine-hitting-the-lights-in-wasteful-offices.html
This seems like a genius idea! Some of the facts in this article were incredible. Such as when you allow people to control their own lights at their workstation energy consumption is reduced by 72% Imagine how much energy could be saved if all of the office buildings just in New York began using this to monitor and control their energy consumption. This could be a revolutionary development! Not only for the environmental reasons but also econmically. Because businesses no longer have as high energy consumption they also have lower utilities costs. As the developers believe as well I dont think these developments should stop here. Air conditioning and heat, water use reguation and maybe even something having to do with paper could all be extremely helpful to the environment and again economically as well. One of the main incentives for businesses to purchase these new technologies im afraid is not going to be the ecological incenteves but rather the economical incentives. This provides both without being lots of work or a major change to the workplace as far as peoples actions are concerned. Im not sure who would oppose this idea. The energy companies perhaps but even then I dont think they would oppose it. Overall, this seems like a wonderful new technology that will lead itself to many others shortly all which will have great environmental impact. http://http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18955-green-machine-hitting-the-lights-in-wasteful-offices.html
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Fishing restrictions bring better catches, says study
http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/41359
This article is discussing a 12 year research project that studied how where you fish effects fishing yields. In places where fishing is common there are usually some sorts of restrictions, this can be regulating gear or closing certain areas to fishing completely. Interestingly enough, the study found that fishermen brought in more fish when they fished near the places that are closed to fishing. This is due to the fact that larger, more rare fish are entering fisheries indirectly through the closures. Also, the fish in the closure have a higher chance of growing bigger and therefore having a higher reproductive rate which gives the fishermen more fish to catch.
This article reminded me of one of the worksheets we did where we had to choose where to fish and what equipment to use. There is a certain amount of guessing involved in fishing. It is hard to know the fish's migration patterns so it is helpful to fishermen when research is done to help them. It is interesting that the places that are closed to fishing allow for stronger, healthier fish that produce more offspring which helps the fishermen. There are many people who protest fishing restrictions in general and this study helps to prove to them that some restrictions are actually more helpful to fishermen than having unrestricted fishing. A lot of people think that all government restrictions of any kind are unnecessary but what they need to realize is that most government laws are aimed at helping the common citizen and not hurting them. They want the best for their people. This article also brought back thoughts about the Tragedy of the Commons and how some government regulation of some kind is necessary to avoid total environmental degradation.
"Wildlife and Habitat Conservation News." Environmental News Network -- Know Your Environment. Web. 27 May 2010. .
This article is discussing a 12 year research project that studied how where you fish effects fishing yields. In places where fishing is common there are usually some sorts of restrictions, this can be regulating gear or closing certain areas to fishing completely. Interestingly enough, the study found that fishermen brought in more fish when they fished near the places that are closed to fishing. This is due to the fact that larger, more rare fish are entering fisheries indirectly through the closures. Also, the fish in the closure have a higher chance of growing bigger and therefore having a higher reproductive rate which gives the fishermen more fish to catch.
This article reminded me of one of the worksheets we did where we had to choose where to fish and what equipment to use. There is a certain amount of guessing involved in fishing. It is hard to know the fish's migration patterns so it is helpful to fishermen when research is done to help them. It is interesting that the places that are closed to fishing allow for stronger, healthier fish that produce more offspring which helps the fishermen. There are many people who protest fishing restrictions in general and this study helps to prove to them that some restrictions are actually more helpful to fishermen than having unrestricted fishing. A lot of people think that all government restrictions of any kind are unnecessary but what they need to realize is that most government laws are aimed at helping the common citizen and not hurting them. They want the best for their people. This article also brought back thoughts about the Tragedy of the Commons and how some government regulation of some kind is necessary to avoid total environmental degradation.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
EPA to Texas: Enforce anti-pollution law
Fikac, Peggy. "EPA to Texas: Enforce anti-pollution Law." Mysa News. Mysa News, 25/05/2010. Web. 25 May 2010. .
This article outlines how Texas hasn't been in compliance with the regulations set forth by the Clean Air Act. As a reminder, the Clean Air Act focuses on reducing smog and air pollution in general and improving air quality, which could lead to less health concerns *asthma*. Texas however, hasn't been in compliance with the Clean Air Act.
"One main point of contention is the state's use of a so-called flexible permit, which sets an air emissions cap for an entire facility but allows leeway for various units within that facility. Regulators and environmental groups say that hinders enforcement of clean-air rules, and Armendariz said that type of permit has never been federally approved."
So through loopholes that aren't even legal, Texas has been able to slide through on the regulations and continue on with their business, the EPA has begun to require detailed permits from these facilities that aren't in compliance with the Clean Air Act but is this enough? The EPA wants to let them off with a slap on the wrist, but is this truly enough of a punishment for the pollution they've been creating? That remains the question and please post your own responses knowing full well that things such as Asthma have been on the rise due to increased air pollution.
This article outlines how Texas hasn't been in compliance with the regulations set forth by the Clean Air Act. As a reminder, the Clean Air Act focuses on reducing smog and air pollution in general and improving air quality, which could lead to less health concerns *asthma*. Texas however, hasn't been in compliance with the Clean Air Act.
"One main point of contention is the state's use of a so-called flexible permit, which sets an air emissions cap for an entire facility but allows leeway for various units within that facility. Regulators and environmental groups say that hinders enforcement of clean-air rules, and Armendariz said that type of permit has never been federally approved."
So through loopholes that aren't even legal, Texas has been able to slide through on the regulations and continue on with their business, the EPA has begun to require detailed permits from these facilities that aren't in compliance with the Clean Air Act but is this enough? The EPA wants to let them off with a slap on the wrist, but is this truly enough of a punishment for the pollution they've been creating? That remains the question and please post your own responses knowing full well that things such as Asthma have been on the rise due to increased air pollution.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The New Synthetic Cell
http://www.enn.com/energy/article/41351
"Alternative Energy and Fuel News." Environmental News Network -- Know Your Environment. Web. 22 May 2010. .
This article discusses the discovery of how to synthesize the genome of tiny organisms. This will eventually lead to the development of microbes essentially from scratch. The most direct implication of this discovery is that it is being planned to be used by Exxon to manufacture algae in order to up their production of biofuels. This is the next step in genetic engineering and the technology can be used to develop research in biofuels as well as vaccines and other products.
This discovery is a pretty big step in the world of genetic engineering. However, there are some obstacles and drawbacks that the article did not address very well. First of all, the scientists have only succeeded in synthesizing the simplest of organisms. This means that there will need to be a significantly more research done in order to be able to synthesize larger organisms such as algae. Also, this discovery could lead to an even larger increase in the amount of genetically modified organisms/food that will be put on the market. This will further the debate about GMOs as well. Despite all of these drawbacks, the long term goal of Exxon and other companies is environmentally helpful. We all know that the U.S. dependence on fossil fuels needs to stop and an increased production of cheap biofuels could potentially help the problem and ween us off our addcition. Overall, if we can properly utilize this new technology, then it will be a huge step for the United States.
This article discusses the discovery of how to synthesize the genome of tiny organisms. This will eventually lead to the development of microbes essentially from scratch. The most direct implication of this discovery is that it is being planned to be used by Exxon to manufacture algae in order to up their production of biofuels. This is the next step in genetic engineering and the technology can be used to develop research in biofuels as well as vaccines and other products.
This discovery is a pretty big step in the world of genetic engineering. However, there are some obstacles and drawbacks that the article did not address very well. First of all, the scientists have only succeeded in synthesizing the simplest of organisms. This means that there will need to be a significantly more research done in order to be able to synthesize larger organisms such as algae. Also, this discovery could lead to an even larger increase in the amount of genetically modified organisms/food that will be put on the market. This will further the debate about GMOs as well. Despite all of these drawbacks, the long term goal of Exxon and other companies is environmentally helpful. We all know that the U.S. dependence on fossil fuels needs to stop and an increased production of cheap biofuels could potentially help the problem and ween us off our addcition. Overall, if we can properly utilize this new technology, then it will be a huge step for the United States.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monsanto- Two Sides
Monsanto: 2010 Forbes Magazine Company of the Year
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/americas-best-company-10-gmos-dupont-planet-versus-monsanto.html
Supreme Court decision: Monsanto vs Geertson Seed Farms
http://truefoodnow.org/2010/01/15/supreme-court-to-hear-first-genetically-engineered-crop-case/#more-849
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/americas-best-company-10-gmos-dupont-planet-versus-monsanto.html
Supreme Court decision: Monsanto vs Geertson Seed Farms
http://truefoodnow.org/2010/01/15/supreme-court-to-hear-first-genetically-engineered-crop-case/#more-849
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)