People and Resources:Water

Fuel of The Future

2009-12-19T20:50:00.000-08:00

Hydrogen Fuel/Power

Green Roofs

2009-12-11T20:40:00.000-08:00

Many people may be wondering "what is a green roof?" Basically green roofs which have also been referred to as “eco-roofs” are rooftop gardens or parks or meadows. These roofs carry a host of environmental and economic benefits. By using soil and plants on rooftops instead of hard, impenetrable roofing materials city governments, developers and/or individual homeowners can reduce air pollution, reduce rain water runoff, add insulation to a building, help reduce global warming by capturing carbon dioxide, create new habitat for birds and double or even triple the life of a roof. Many cities are offering incentives to encourage homeowners, developers and local businesses to install green roofs on new and existing buildings.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also known as the EPA encourages the creation of green roofs for solving the urban "heat island effect" whereby temperatures in crowded cities can soar some 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in less developed areas nearby. The green roof works by the cool roof reflecting and emitting the sun’s heat and rays back to the sky.

When it comes to outlasting traditional roofs, green roofs surpass them in lifespan. Metal roofs which are known to be relatively maintenance free and last longer than shingles don't even compare. Slate roofs also have an excellent reputation for lasting long, although getting work done on them can be expensive when they do need repairs. The Slate Roofing Contractors Association states that sea green slates can last anywhere from one to two centuries, depending on where the slate is obtained and how well it is installed.

I find that there are many benefits to a green roof. The idea of it is very simple and it does save you money in the long run also by not having to spend as much to maintain a roof. The green roof also provides many benefits, and people who have it would probably never even realize that. To me a green roof should definitely be considered by all.

Lithium Power

2009-12-11T13:22:00.000-08:00

The Salar de Uyuni in southwest Bolivia is the world's largest salt flat, the salts their contain large amounts of sodium, potassium, magnesium, and lithium. Lithium is a soft alkali metal and when put in its carbonate form it is a power source which can be used to power electric cars and plug in hybrids. Bolivia has nearly 35% of the world's lithium resources, and with the increase in the amount of the electric vehicles, this could lead to great things for South-America poorest country. As we have found out there is a coming of peak oil production and we will no longer be able to fuel our growing need for petroleum. We must find another source of energy and it could use Lithium powered batteries. There is enough lithium in the Salar de Uyuni for almost 4.8 billion electric cars. Another good thing is that lithium is recyclable, so we will be able to use then reuse over and over again.

Many believe that bolivia and other lithium producers could turn into a cartel like OPEC, by artificially inflating prices, blackmailing the rest of the world. But the thing is lithium is inexpensive and even if it did become expense new sources could be found via exploration. This is not the case with oil we have already found the vast majority of the sources. Also as we improve the technology of lithium recycling of it will also become better.

While there are many things that could go wrong with a dependence on lithium, we would be better off then our current situation with oil. It only takes a few pounds of lithium to make a battery that lasts for years, with oil you need to refuel with many gallons at least 2 times a week depending on the amount of driving you do. Lithium is another promising alternative and the sooner we cut or dependence from foreign oil the better off we will be as people, and a planet.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/bolivia-enough-lithium-for-billions-of-electric-cars.php

Is The Sky The Limit For Wind Power? High-Flying Kites Could Light Up New York

2009-12-11T12:26:00.000-08:00

A new study by scientists at the Carnegie Institution and California State University identifies New York as a prime location for exploiting high-altitude winds, which globally contain enough energy to meet world demand 100 times over. The researchers found that the regions best suited for harvesting this energy match with population centers in the eastern U.S. and East Asia, but fluctuating wind strength still presents a challenge for exploiting this energy source on a large scale.

Using 28 years of data from the National Center for Environmental Prediction and the Department of Energy, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology and Cristina Archer of California State University, Chico, compiled the first-ever global survey of wind energy available at high altitudes in the atmosphere. The researchers assessed potential for wind power in terms of "wind power density," which takes into account both wind speed and air density at different altitudes.

This would be a great way to produce alot of energy if we can get this working soon. Wind energy right now is very environmentaly friendly but it does not produce alot of energy. With this it would fix the problem that wind energy is missing right now which is to produce enough energy. With results that would light New York i feel that this is a very good way to produce energy and i hope we get on this project soon.

Ethanol and Water

2009-12-11T12:15:00.000-08:00

A recent article has found that farmers in the Northern plains are using much more water to produce a gallon of ethanol than farmers in other parts of the country. This comes from a study about whether or not an increased use in bio fuels could drain the nations water supply. Ethanol industry advocates report that the study offer little new insight consider that a majority of the ethanol is made with rain-fed corn.
The study showed that farmers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas use 323.6 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol from corn, with only 3 gallons used for irrigation. That's nearly 20 to 30 times the amount of water used by the nations other two main corn producing regions. In Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri they use about 10 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol, while the other region containing Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan uses almost 17 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol.
The demand for water is increasing in various sectors, it places more and more stress on our already dwindling supplies. We are wasting a valuable commodity on a fuel that is only causing more problems for our environment than we can handle at this moment. Vice president of research for the renewable fuels association said " it's disingenuous to suggest increased ethanol production is somehow driving irrigated corn acreage. He quoted a National Renewable Energy Laboratory article that said 96 percent of corn used for ethanol production is not irrigated." The VP also noted that new technologies are being used to develop more resistant seed that require less water and are drought tolerant.
I believe we are only wasting more resources and time on a technology that isn't holding it weight. Biofuels such as ethanol use much more time and energy to produce then they give off. We are only digging ourselves into a deeper hole, other energy sources are much more efficient and plentiful such as electric. But many people in positions of power are making way too much money on the production and consumption of corn derived products.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hHSDt2yCriLfRa-Tb1cua_yIGmKwD9CGVPC01
Image from: http://lifekills.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ethanol-is-bad.jpg

Climate Conference

2009-12-11T11:50:00.000-08:00

Today the United Nations climate conference called for the world’s greenhouse gas emissions to be cut in half in the next 40 years. This would be amazing if we could actually make it happen. Today 40 years seems far away but in reality it is a very short time in which to make such a dramatic reduction. This reduction would require developed countries and especially the United States to work together and devise a plan to bring our greenhouse gas emissions down. To do so we would have to cut our emissions by about 13% a decade this is fairly substantial. Developed nations would also have to work with developing nations and try to help them curb their desire to consume more energy and therefore emit more greenhouse gasses. We as a world would have to put aside our conflicts and work together. The United States would have to get over its fear of losing to China, and other developing nations. That is the only way that this lofty goal will be possible.

Solar Tower Energy

2009-12-11T10:45:00.000-08:00

While searching for alternative forms of energy I came across a very interesting video on You Tube, which showed a Solar energy tower in Australia that should be up and running in the year 2012. The tower combines the power of solar energy and convection to form an efficient and powerful energy source.
Technically it is known as a solar updraft tower and it is a proposed renewable energy power plant. The tower combines three proven technologies of the chimney effect, the greenhouse effect, and the wind turbine. In the solar updraft tower air is heated by the sun in large greenhouse structures that surrounds the base of the tower, which is basically a very large chimney. As convection occurs it causes concentrated airflow to rise up the the updraft tower. The resulting airflow from greenhouse to the updraft tower drives powerful turbines which produce electricity.
The solar updraft towers ability to generate power depends on two things, the size of the collector area and the height of the tower. One downfall of the tower is that is requires very large amounts of land for the collecting areas, if they want to produce comparative energy amounts to modern power plants. Therefore solar tower construction would mostly be in hot areas, with a low value such as deserts. Another disadvantage of the solar tower is that it has a much lower energy conversion efficiency than other solar energy concentrating power plants.
Even though these towers are expensive they do not leave a footprint on the environment, and the only fuel they require is the sun of which there is much abundance. I think that we should install a solar tower in the U.S. so we could be able to see the costs and benefits first hand of this innovative technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower#Botswana_test_facility

Oxidation and Remediation

2009-12-11T09:13:00.000-08:00

As I was researching climate change, I came across an interesting website called Intellishare Environmental. Their web page can be found at, http://www.intellishare-env.com. Intellishare Environmental is dedicated to engineering and manufacturing of oxidation technology for the environmental remediation industry. Intellishare is the leading manufacturer of thermal and oxidative technologies which aid in soil and groundwater remediation, violitale organic compounds, hazadrous air polluntants, odor abatement.
This company is at the forefront in the battle against climate change. They use the process of oxidation where they take harmful compounds and break them down into carbon dioxide and water vapor. Intellishare also uses thermal oxidation, which is process where extreme temperatures heat the containminated air, causing it to break into CO2 and water vapor. A third was in which Intellishare remediates the environment is by Catalytic oxidation. During this process hydrocarbons are combined with oxygen at certain temperatures, between 400 and 800 degrees farenheit, this process yield the same nonvolitale byproducts of CO2 and water vapor. With catalytic oxidation a catalyst is used as the name suggest, to accelrate the rate of a chemical reaction without consuming itself. The catalyst allows for the oxidation process to occur at a much lower temperature than that of thermal oxidation, and also has lower operating cost, because it requires less energy.
I think it should be mandatory for all companies that release harmful containments into the atmosphere, to install some variation of the Intellishare products. It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a large amounts and make our planet a cleaner and healthy place to live.

Ways to Reduce Global Warming

2009-12-11T08:24:00.000-08:00

Throughout the year we discussed many things that have been occurring on the planet. One of the most significant is global warming. I read an article recently about how we can reduce this problem.

Something that we many of us do already, recycle can contribute to a lot of the pollution we see as-well as reuse the materials we recycle.

During the summer and winter months we use all forms or electronics to either heat our homes or cool them down. This is huge being that we use an abundant amount of energy t heat our homes. If we can chalk our doors and windows to prevent heat loss and reduce heat use when we don't need it as much such as when we go to work or at night we can solve this problem.

If we can use more energy efficient products such as light bulbs or more energy efficient cars we can get rid of old products that are consuming more energy than we can prevent from being used.

The article also mentioned planting trees. Due to an increase in the demand for crops and other resources many forests are being demolished and although we will not be able to replant all the trees that have been torn down we can still make a contribution to replant one.

But the biggest way to reducing global warming to me, and to the article was to encourage other people to contribute to doing these small things like changing your light bulb, using less heat. Too many people don't think they need to do anything because they feel enough people around them are contributing enough as it is. In reality if everyone we to help out it would make these global affects less significant and i feel it is important to encourage people around you to be smart and more energy efficient.

Crude Oil Spill

2009-12-10T19:01:00.000-08:00

On November 29th ice build up was blamed for an oil spill in the Alaska which lead to 1,095 barrels or 46,000 gallons of crude oil to spill onto the tundra.

This is one of the worst oil spills since March 2006 when 200,000 gallons of crude oil were spilt. We talk about how oil is in such high demand and that we consume and consume without thinking their is an end. But with the way things are in our society and with this as a small example that the oil we use in our society today is being consumed at such a high rate and with mishaps like this can be gone sooner than we think. If more things like this were to happen and oil were to diminishing from our economy i really do not think people would know what to do let alone have a back up plan. Alaska is one of the largest oil reserves we have left in the US and without it we would become more and more dependent on imported oil. This spill is somewhat minor is seems to BP's Prudhoe Bay but is something to keep in mind with the way our economy has become and our dependance on oil.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574587491341878048.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Climate Change is REAL act now

2009-12-10T17:45:00.000-08:00

Whether we like it or not climate change is a real process, and this is the first time in our history, where our everyday activities have a drastic effect on our planet. " EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said. "Our commerce and trade, our population growth and our social behavior are having profound effects on our environment." The troubling thing is that we have only started to realize now what we are doing after we have caused 100's of years of destruction. Jackson spoke at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen on the third day. The conference is trying to address the problems of global warming by creating an international binding treaty to control greenhouse gas emissions that are believed to raise Earth's temperature.
President Obama will also be speaking at the conference and is scheduled to speak on the 18th of December. Since taking the job of President Obama has been a advocate for positive change, and many believe the climate conference is a steppingstone to a full accord in 2010. The presidents decision to be apart of the conference is a sign of his commitent and leadership to find a solution to the global threat of climate change. This will lead to a new era with a sustainable and prosperous clean energy future for our planet.
The new climate accord will take the place of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required 37 industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emission by an average of 5% by 2012. Nations like the United States, Japan, China, and India where at the center of the talks considering they are widely regarded as the main contributors to global warming. President Obama is prepared to set the U.S. target emissions reduction of 17% by 2020 and has his sights set for a 83% reduction by 2050.
On December 7th the EPA made a statement that greenhouse gas emissions pose a grave danger to the environment and human health. The Obama administration has also established new energy standard for commercial and residential products and strict fuel standards for cars and light trucks. The administration is also starting to promote offshore energy projects such as wind energy and the government has proposed new vehicle standards which require 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. Starting in January the government will be tracking 85% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, which is seen as the first move toward greenhouse gas reduction.
The government is starting to take many promising steps to reduce climate change and turn it in the opposite direction. We are developing new technology and energy efficent ways to get things done without the greenhouse gas emissions. This is only a start and much more will need to be done for a clean energy future.

Quoted from: http://allafrica.com/stories/200912100749.html

PCBs

2009-12-10T15:40:00.000-08:00

Polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, are toxic pollutants that cause a plethora of health problems. Recently, there have been traces of PCBs found amidst the snow atop the Andes Mountains. An article titled Snow at Highest Elevations No Longer Pure discusses the findings of scientists who have been testing the snow from the highest peak in the Americas. "PCBs are man-made organic chemicals that contain chlorine atoms, and are part of a larger group of compounds known as chlorinated hydrocarbons. Before being banned in the United States in 1979 (and around the world in 2001), these chemicals were found in a variety of products, including electrical equipment, paints, plastics and carbonless copy paper, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)" When testing the snow atop the Aconcagua Mountain in South America, they also found low concentrations of these PCBs. "However, it's interesting to see this contaminant in the Southern Hemisphere at all, said Ricardo Barra of the University of Concepcion in Chile, because most PCB use was in the Northern Hemisphere."
In our BIO230 class, we discussed the significance of the Northern Hemisphere. Because there is more land, there is more activity, meaning more emissions of chemicals into the air. This is why the finding of PCBs in the Southern Hemisphere is so peculiar. In the article, they state that climate change could potentially spread these pollutants. "The shrinking of the glaciers could lead to the pollutants stored in the glacier snow being carried down with the meltwater... Since the meltwater is used for agriculture and drinking, contaminants in the water could pose a health risk."

Plastic Bottles...Not So Good To Reuse Afterall

2009-12-10T09:47:00.000-08:00

Over and over again we hear about the importance of not putting things to waste which is why every so often you may see people refilling and reusing plastic bottles. With all this talk of recycling and not throwing anything away that can be reused, we may think that reusing bottles is a great idea. The reality is that it's not. In fact it can even cause many health problems to unsuspecting consumers assuming they're doing a good thing.

Studies have shown that drinks stored in such certain water bottles can contain a trace amount of Bisphenol A, also known as BPA, a synthetic chemical that interferes with the body’s natural hormonal messaging system. With the repeated re-use of such bottles due to wear and tear and excessive washing chemicals can increasingly leak out of the tiny cracks in the bottles that have developed over excessive use. According to Environment California Research and Policy Center BPA has been linked to breast and uterine cancer, an increased risk of miscarriage, and decreased testosterone levels. Not only that but due to BPA being found in most bottles and sippy cups, it can also get into and affect a child's system. In small dosages BPA has no harmful immediate effect on the body but the real concern is the long term effects due to eventual accumulation.

This is in no way trying to tell anyone to not try to find a way to recycle. The idea or finding a reuseable bottle is a resourceful and inexpensive thing to do. The important thing it to look at what the water bottle material is made of. If made out of polyethylene terephthalate, which is commonly referred to plastic #1 on bottles, it is only safe for one time use. Studies show that it may leak DEHP, a human carcinogen, harmful to anyone. Another bad bottle material is polyvinyl chloride/PVC, also referred to as plastic #3. This material can leak hormone disrupting chemicals into the liquid contents of bottles they are storing and will release synthetic carcinogens into the environment when incinerated. Polystyrene/PS, also referred to as plastic #6 has been shown to leak human carcinogen, styrene, into food and drinks as well. With this list of "bad" bottles one might thing what are the good bottles to drink from. Safer options are to look for plastics bottles made from materials such as high-density polyethylene, HDPE, known as plastic #2, low-density polyethylene ,LDPE, known as plastic #4 or polypropylene, PP, known as plastic #5. The best choice is an aluminum bottle, which can be found at most health food stores, and can even be recycled when done with.

A Reasonable Life

2009-12-09T16:15:00.000-08:00

After reading the exerts from “A Reasonable Life” by Ferenc Mate, I was thinking about the point he makes about people in our society today always wanting more and very infrequently being happy with what we have. I think that this is a very strong point and I think that this is one of the reasons we have come to face the environmental crisis we are facing today. For example we work for years to save up to buy our first house then when we get it and we make improvements and then we might decide we need something we consider better so we buy a bigger and better house and then when we get older the house is too big so we might sell it and buy a smaller house. We go through the same cycle with almost everything we buy. Most of the time we strive for a newer car, or a better cell phone, a bigger TV, newer furniture, the latest fashions, or a faster computer. Never are we truly satisfied with what we have, we continually want more.

This time of year is one of the best examples of this. We buy gifts for people that we hope they like but rarely are they gifts that they truly need. A few Christmases ago my brother got me socks, a more boring unexciting gift I could not think of, however, I used those socks all the time unlike most other gifts I received. We as a society have this idea that new shiny gifts are better, yet these are just contributing to the environmental problems we are facing today. Each year my parents give me gifts that I rarely use, some of these gifts I actually asked for. I have a guitar that sits in the case, clothes that fill my closets, books that overflow the bookshelf. All of these I wanted and I like, but I do not need them and in reality I rarely use them. It is sad to think about how much is wasted because we always feel we need newer and “better” things. One example is when the iPod first came out I got one and I loved it and used it all the time. When the newer smaller one came out I needed that one because it was smaller and easier to carry while I was running. So I got one and replaced my old one, never mind that it worked just fine. The same goes for almost everything I use and I’m sure many people can relate because most of the time the newer models always seem a little better than the previous.

I am unconvinced that this cycle is completely our fault, mostly but not totally. The media and society plays an important role. We always see advertisements telling us that in fact this product is better and suggesting that we run out and buy it. As a society we tend to admire and respect people who have the things that we strive for. Which in a way makes us strive for them more so we can be the people being admired and respected, but this is just a circle because most of the time when we gain these things something newer is already in style and then the cycle continues indefinitely. This is a cycle that needs to be stopped. One way to do this I think is to look to our grandparents for an example. My grandfather never throws anything out. He uses tools that he has had his whole life. Every spring he fixes his ancient lawnmower. Most of his clothes are older than I am. Before I used to kind of get annoyed and my dad still does when he refused to buy a new tool that we assured him would make his life easier, and my dad was furious when he bought him a new lawnmower that he told my dad to take back because his still worked just fine. Now however I think there is a whole lot of wisdom behind this, and besides my grandfather is the happiest person I know and he truly doesn’t need anything.

E.P.A. Issues Final Ruling on Greenhouse Gas

2009-12-09T14:30:00.000-08:00

On Monday, The Environmental Protection Agency confirmed what most have already suspected: greenhouse gases pose a danger to both human health and the environment. This ruling coincides with the Copenhagen Conference, thereby providing environmentalists with more ammunition. According to the NY Times' John M. Broder, the ruling will "[pave] the way for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, power plants, factories, refineries and other major sources." It's strange to think that the E.P.A. has just now officially declared its stance on greenhouse; it seems like something that should have been done long ago. In 2007, the Supreme Court finally ordered the agency "to weigh whether carbon dioxide and five other climate-altering gases threatened human health and welfare and, if so, to take steps to regulate them."

As you might expect, industry groups, primarily those of the auto-making industry, were quick to criticize and belittle the E.P.A.'s announcement. These groups condemned the ruling for the potential harm it may do to the economy. They fear it will lead to future legislation enforcing stricter regulation of emissions. Several Republican Congressman sought a delay in the announcement of the findings. The head of the E.P.A., Lisa P. Jackson, rejected their request, declaring the "overwhelming amounts of scientific study show that the threat is real.”

The author of the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/science/earth/08epa.html?_r=1&em) speculates that the E.P.A. may use this finding as an opportunity to apply some pressure to Congress, in order to spur action. While the White House prefers such action to be done through the legislative process, the E.P.A. will use its authority, if necessary, to limit harmful emissions.

The agency can expect some interest groups to file lawsuits with the hope of at least delaying any actions. The National Association of Manufacturer's Vice President, Keith McCoy, attacked the finding, invoking possible economic woes as a result of it. He says the decision will "put additional burdens on manufacturers", and that “It is doubtful that the endangerment finding will achieve its stated goal, but it is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy.”

There is certainly a possibility that the E.P.A.'s findings, and any subsequent regulations, will have negative economic consequences; America's floundering economy may face some further suffering. We should not forsake the long-term well-being of our environment merely so that we may alleviate a little pressure on the economy, however. The economy will always have its ups and downs; some years will be good, and some will be bad. If we continue to ignore the damage we are doing to the environment, however, we will eventually reach a point of no return. We need cooperation from every branch of the government, as well as agencies like the E.P.A., in order to find a way to reverse this destructive cycle. It's time we started taking responsibility for our effect on the environment. We are aware of the damage we can cause, and now we must take action to lessen, if not stop, it.

Unleashing The Power In Beer

2009-12-09T11:11:00.000-08:00

Wolfgang Bengel, the technical director at German biomass company BMP Biomasse Projekt, saw a business opportunity in solving the breweries’ grain waste headache. He reasoned that the leftover grain could be used to create steam and biogas, which would provide energy for the breweries, cheapening their energy costs as well as their costs of transporting grain to farms.

Bengel has successfully treated the residue from rice and sugar cane in boilers with atmospheric fluidized bed combustion systems, to produce energy in China and Thailand, and Bengel thought a similar process could be developed for the breweries’ spent wet grain. Water would first have to be removed from the wet spent grain, the grain would have to be dried and then burned to produce energy. “Beer making is energy intensive – you boil stuff, use hot water and steam and then use electric energy for cooling – so if you recover more than 50 percent of your own energy costs from the spent grain that’s a big saving,” says Bengel.

The Power Of Compassion

2009-12-08T23:18:00.000-08:00

This blog is in part a response to the TED.com video of Daniel Goleman and his thoughts on compassion

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/daniel_goleman_on_compassion.html

We humans unlike any other species on this planet are equipped with the tools needed to exhibit great acts of compassion. Everything from the wiring in our brains to the genes encoded by our DNA all at some level help us not only connect more with other people but demonstrate great acts of sympathy, kindness and compassion. In our brains for example we have the recently discovered neural-circuits known as mirror neurons, which fire when we see other people performing a particular task such as running or kicking a ball or even when we see other people experiencing any specific kind of physical pain such as getting hit in the head or stubbing a toe. These neurons not only fire when we see other people performing a task or experiencing pain but also fire when we ourselves perform the same task or experience the same physical pain, meaning to these neurons there is no real difference between seeing someone do something and you doing it yourself. More importantly there is no real difference between someone else’s pain or suffering and that of your own.

Yet another example is in child development and how it is only at a certain age or stage of development that children are able to see themselves through someone else’s eyes, or understand that what they see or know may not be what some else’s can see and vice versa, thus truly placing themselves in someone else’s shoes. This ability sets the foundation for greater communication, connection and understanding and occurs very early in child development. I believe the most profound example would be in our DNA where we actually have genes that encode for altruistic behaviors, behaviors that drive complete strangers to risk their lives for one another such as in the known cases of people jumping in front of a bus to save a baby or carrying a stranger with them out of a burning building. These tools for compassion are very powerful and do have the potential to help us do great things when it comes to the way we treat other people or our surrounding environment however they are only a set among many tools we as humans have to unsure our survival, meaning it is not the only voice in our heads so to speak and it does not have the final say when it comes to our actual behavior.

Although compassion is deep rooted in our biology, constantly urging us to show empathy and be compassionate we humans can suppress that urge just in the same way we can suppress many other biological urges or sensations like pain, hunger, sleep, and even the urge to use the bathroom. However unlike other biological urges there are no real physically harmful consequences for suppressing your urge for compassion, are at least not in the same way that suppressing your urge for hunger will cause you bodily harm and even death if done for too long. Therefore there is really no limit to how long or how often you can suppress the urge for compassion where as not giving in to hunger can lead to death and ignoring the urge to urinate can only be done for so longer before the body takes back control and gives in, compassion has no real physical tides to the body and thus no way to enforce itself. This is why compassion has become so easily ignored in today’s society. We are so easily distracted by our fast placed culture with our almost endless assortments of toys and gadgets, advanced technologies, high work expectations, extreme levels of stress and anxiety and very little free time, that we forget to act on and even sometimes fail to notice that the moments where caring or compassion is needed.

As in the video where Daniel Goleman talks about getting on the train and seeing everyone walking right pass a man laying on the side of the steps in obvious pain failing to notice that something is wrong. Well that’s us right now we are all just going about our day failing to notice that our planet is in pain and in need of some serious help because we are too busy with all the distractions taking away our attention. In the video all it took was one man, Daniel Goleman to notice and take action not only helping the poor man but getting other people to realize that there was in fact and problem and the man did in fact need help. After that the man got the help he needed and was back on his feet within a matter of minutes, showing that all the people previously walking over the man were not bad people without compassion just distracted and once the distraction was gone all that was need was to give in and yet the urge of compassion take over and do what is has been trained for millions of year of evolution to do –give aid to a person in need. Just as the people in the story did this for a man on the side of a subway staircase we can do it not only for the people we encounter on the street but for the planet as a whole because it too can be seen as a person and it too is in desperate need of help.

This is why when it comes to the many problems we are facing with the environment I like Daniel Goleman am optimistic because if there is any species on the planet that can save the planet my guess would be on the one best able to show compassion and we humans are that species. Once our eyes are open and we become fully aware of the problem there is no limit to the things we can do and with all the tools needed to exhibit great acts of compassion already at our disposable we won’t need to go any further then look into our own hearts for guidance. Our instincts have already been there all this time telling us what we should do all we have to do now is listen and give in to the urge that we have been suppressing for so long. Even a small child knows when someone needs help (picture below) the only difference between that small child and we adults is that we are just not paying enough attention.

Recycle Your Cell Phones

2009-12-08T19:51:00.000-08:00

With newer models emerging everyday people are always on the race to get the hottest model on the market, replacing their phones every 18 to 24 months. In the case of cell phone what that means is new cell phone in, old cell phone out. The question is what happens to that out cell phone after you get that upgrade? Maybe they get donated or maybe they end up in a landfill somewhere, left to pollute the Earth with hazardous materials like lead, mercury, cadmium, brominated flame retardants and arsenic, and in the end amounting close to about 65,000 tons of waste . The truth of the matter is, a consumer who upgrades their phone doesn't really know, so the best thing they can do is to take the matter into their own hands: recycle their own cell phone.

Luckily their are alternatives to having this happen. Americans can either have their phones recycles by an electronics recycling company or donate them to a non profit organization that allows poorer citizens to be able to have cell phones. Call2Recycle is a non profit organization that allows consumers and retailers to find drop box in their area where they can recycle their old cell phones. Many people are taking part in this including major electronics retailers, such as Radio Shack and Office Depot. Call2Recycle recovers the phones and sells them back to manufacturers, which either refurbish and resell them or recycle their parts for use in making new products. Another organization called the Collective Goods organization takes donated cell phones, refurbishes them and then re-sells them to distributors for use primarily in developing countries to afford communication for poorer citizens. Another organization, ReCellular, works along with major cell phone companies such as Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, tries to get their customers to change their attitudes about recycling to a point where it's just a natural thought.

In my opinion I think that these organizations are doing a great thing. Cell phones are thing that are constantly getting updated and older models basically have no use. The organizations are putting them to use instead of having them take up space in land fills where they could be potentially dangerous. I like the idea of refurbishing them and distributing them to less fortunate people in countries unable to afford communication means that the US has. It shows that we are able to make use of these old cell phones and give them to some one who can use them. We're not just trying to make money off of them, it's going somewhere for a good cause. I also like that by doing that, they're building a communication bridge between the people of different societies.

There are many things out there that we throw away that can be put to good use. This made me realize all the things that can be recycles, such as old TV's, movies, books, furniture, all of which are good use to others yet we just throw them away. I'm sure if people just look into ways to recycle them, just as we do with salvation army and goodwill, we can find ways to donate items of great value to others. "One person's trash is another person's treasure." I never realized how true that quote was and with the help of people we can provide people with their "treasure."

New Way to Get Electricity from Natural Gas

2009-12-08T06:11:00.000-08:00

MIT researchers could provide electricity with zero carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere with a new type of natural-gas electric power plant. The costs of this natural-gas electric power plant will comparable to or even less to that of natural-gas plants and coal-burning plants meaning it's even cheaper and better on the planet. The U.S. Congress and other governments are considering this as a way to bring about a change or slow the progression of climate change. The way the system works is that, without requiring any new technology just a combination process of old, existing ones, a proposed system is that it uses solid oxide fuel cells and produce power from fuel without burning it. This system runs on natural gas, saving an equivalent of half to one-third the emissions from coal plants a year. There is hope to be some sort of carbon pricing, which attempts to take into account the true price exacted on the environment by greenhouse gas emissions. The natural-gas electric power plant is quite possibly the lowest. The market for the best, lowest system will be a competitive market, which would be a great thing. Although haven't being built yet, small prototypes are on the way and they show initiative on the progress of at least future thinking on how to save the environment. Its an idea to consider, well thought out and a foot in the right direction.

The Man Who Planted Trees

2009-12-07T19:33:00.000-08:00

Today in class we saw a narrative true story video called "The Man Who Planted Trees" written by Jean Giono. The story is a bout a man who's been walking for a while until he come upon an empty treeless valley where there is no trace of any kind of civilization except for the remains of old buildings of small towns that eventually died off due to the harsh environment, resulting in the bitterness of the people to only want to help themselves even at the cost of everything else around them. The narrator is thirsty but has no water until he is saved by Shepherd who takes him to a well feeding his thirst. The Shepherd houses the unknown man and at night the man watches as the Shepherd carefully selects perfect acorns and bags them up not stating what they are for. The next day the man follows the Shepherd and realizes that he is planting the acorns to grow trees in the barren land, which was dieing in need of trees and that the Shepherd felt he needed to solve that problem. The Shepherd knows that not all his seeds will grow, only a portion, but he hopes to grow so much that his efforts now would only seem like a drop in the ocean. The man leaves but every year continues to visit the Shepherd, now turned Bee Keeper, who continues to plant and tend to his trees. The few seeds planted everyday have eventually turned into a beautiful forest that no one is sure how it came about but environmentalist place a governmental protection act over it, hoping to protect its marvel and beauty.

This story shows something that we've been talking about throughout the entire semester, which is that every single has person has the potential to bring about change. In the story the Shepherd single handedly created a forest to save the land. He shows that if one person has an idea on how they can do their part to protect or save the environment, all they need to do is take action. No deed is useless. One person is able to make a change. Most of the time that is not the mentality people have. The believe that change can only happen if everyone does it and if that's not the case then what's the point. The point is that one person is better than none. One person trying to make a difference is one less person killing the environment. Not only is that the case but also one person doing his or her part also bring inspiration. By being headstrong and doing what you feel is right and doing your part to save the environment, others notice and reciprocate and do the same. They are inspired by seeing that if one person can try to make a difference, then why can't I? Why can't I be apart of the change for the better? The answer is that anyone can be apart of the better. Just take the iniative and do your part to save the world.

The Hempire

2009-12-07T17:09:00.000-08:00

I stumbled upon a youtube video the other day presenting a brand new sports car - the Lotus Eco Elise. At first glance, I found it to be extremely attractive. The shape, color, and overall style of the vehicle really captured my attention. When investigating further, I found an article from carscoop.com which stated, "the Brits tried a holistic approach to ecology by using sustainable materials, cleaner manufacturing processes, renewable energy generation and of course, by reducing the car’s weight." Hemp (industrial cannabis) is used to make the car's body, spoiler, and seats, which makes it extremely durable. As a person who is pro-legalization, I was so happy to find this, a perfect example to show the plant's multiple uses. "As for renewable energy generation, the Eco Elise’s hemp hard top incorporates a set of solar panels that provide power for the car’s electrical systems." These environmentally friendly changes help save 70 pounds from the weight of the car. Wow...could this car get any better?
The youtube video called Building With Hemp shows how using hemp in construction projects is extremely energy efficient. It eliminates carbon emissions that would have been used with traditional materials and also saves money and energy as the building would not have to use any heating method whatsoever...hemp provides natural insallation!
These new methods for reducing our carbon footprint by using hemp is radically efficient as well as beneficial. I hope these kinds of changes are adopted by the U.S. in the near future.

Good Guide Making Headlines

2009-12-07T16:24:00.000-08:00

If our new acquaintance goodguide.com needed some exposure to grab the masses attention, it certainly succeeded this past weekend. The San Francisco-based group made a splash recently for it's allegation that the popular kids' toys known as Zhu Zhu Pets contain "higher-than-allowed levels of the chemical antimony", according to Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091206/ap_on_bi_ge/us_zhu_zhu_pets_safety). This story is huge due to the outrageous adoration of the toy hamsters. Zhu Zhu Pets have reached the feverish Christmas-time popularity of toys such as Tickle Me Elmo and Cabbage Patch Kids.

On Good Guide's 10 point scale, Zhu Zhu Pets received an overall rating of 5.2, and a health rating of only 4.5. Ignored by the article, tin was also red-flagged on the breakdown of toy contaminants. The website contends that "This product contains tin, which is potentially harmful to the immune and nervous systems.", and "This product contains antimony, which may be linked to cancer, lung, and heart problems."

Unsurprisingly, the toy's maker, Cepia LLC, responded swiftly , with their CEO, Russ Hornsby saying, "I have been in the toy industry for more than 35 years, and being a father of children myself, I would never allow any substandard or unsafe product to hit the shelves." While he denied any danger from the toys, he provided no data or evidence to support his claim.

Despite this negative publicity, Zhu Zhu Pets do not appeared to have suffered any significant damage to their reputation or sales, reports Kelsey Volkman of the St. Louis Business Journal. One projection predicts sales to hit $70 million by the end of the year.

I think there are two ways to view this controversy. On one hand, it's great to see Good Guide making noise and trying to protect the public. They did not back down in the face of corporate heavyweights and legal repercussions. They trusted their findings, and stood by them. On the other hand, it's disheartening to hear the total lack of response American shoppers. You would think parents would shy away from buying their children a toy that could be linked to cancer and ulcers. I think it's kind of a sad commentary on the state of consumerism in this country. Parents worry more about disappointing their kids on Christmas than health concerns. At the very least, hopefully many discovered the existence and usefulness of goodguide.com. People may not take it seriously yet, but it's influence may grow exponentially over time.

Another Bit for Congress to Chew on Regarding Healthcare Reform

2009-12-07T12:24:00.000-08:00

“People are more likely to buckle their seat belt than follow the speed limit”
This is how Washington Post reporter Alec MacGillis starts his article about people’s behavioral response to the new healthcare legislation entitled, “If you build a coverage mandate, will they come?”. He has an interesting speculation that combines the idea of behavioral economics with something that was also spoken about in our class often.
MacGillis begins by setting up his argument against compliance by explaining that the proposal would force all Americans to either receive healthcare through their employer or purchase a plan as an individual. It’s something that we should all think about seeing as a large amount of current college students would have to think about purchasing a plan if they don’t qualify for healthcare through their employer and don’t meet the age requirement to remain on their parent’s plan. Would this be a difficult transition for your average student? MacGillis points out that if noncompliance becomes set as the social norm for the younger generations then a majority of young people would end up, “pay[ing] the penalties [for noncompliance] instead of buying coverage… [which will] upset the legislation's balance, resulting in higher premiums for less-healthy people or bigger costs to the government.” (MacGillis)
MacGillis uses the general opinions of behavioral economists to validate the use of behavioral theories to healthcare. “[Economists] point to the large number of eligible people who fail to take advantage of Medicaid, food stamps and Pell grants as a sign that perceived inconvenience can keep people from taking steps in their economic interest. By contrast, the Medicare drug benefit program has achieved high enrollment partly because low-income Medicare recipients did not need to apply for subsidies if they already qualified for Medicaid.”
His article continues to criticize the proposed health-care bill by attacking the penalties themselves. When a similar mandate for insurance was adopted in the state of Massachusetts they quickly altered their penalty for non-compliance to about $1000 per year, which was taken immediately through use of the state’s tax system. This mandate proved to be successful in Massachusetts raising their percentage of insured residents from 91% to 97%. This type of penalty is not seen in the Federal bill where a penalty will not be enforced until the year after the bill goes into effect and the penalty for noncompliance will slowly increase but only to a max penalty of roughly $750 per year.
However, is it fair to say that these penalties are quite similar? In addition MacGillis’ comparison of the Medicare drug benefit to Medicaid is misleading. Anyone that has applied for Medicaid could tell you that the conditions for approval are less transparent and quite convoluted, a veritable shell game for coverage, while the process itself is not just “inconvenient” but demeaning. Imagine a DMV-esque scenario at the end of which you are processed like a convict. Applicants are forced to be fingerprinted and have a “mug shot” taken despite having a valid photo ID and then, after revealing every detail of their current income and expenses and filling out numerous forms, are released back into the world awaiting an answer in 2 to 3 weeks.
I’m not saying that MacGillis doesn’t have a good point though. As we’ve seen in lecture when reading the report done by Goldstein, Cialdini and Griskevicius social norms can be incredibly powerful influences on behavior. Therefore regardless of your view on his comparisons we should all agree that were it to be generally perceived that applying for healthcare through this new system is difficult and/or not being done by the majority of those without healthcare then it could mean bad news for the planned financing measures of the bill. There is hope though. Just as we did with the switch to digital broadcasting of television and just as Massachusetts did in its mandate of healthcare coverage we can inundate the public with advertising. What better way is there to sway a potential social norm of noncompliance than the use advertising to produce a social norm of compliance and the ease of transition? Therefore I cannot see why this hurdle could not be crossed when we come to it. I wonder what my fellow students would say.
Link to Article- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502607_pf.html

Climate Change and water

2009-12-07T11:43:00.000-08:00

I came across an interesting article on the Ottawa Citizen website (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Climate+change+about+water/2311041/story.html) which spoke about climate change and the important of water. Even though water is a basic necessity of life, billions of people all over the world do not have access to safe and portable water, also billions more do not have access to sanitation.
When we talk about the impacts of water from climate change, it often involves melting glaciers, increased flooding, or severe drought. What we do not realize is the our abuse, mismanagement, and treatment of water is actually one of the causes of climate change and environmental destruction. It is hard to believe that water will not be a part of the official agenda at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen, where government officials from around the world will be talking about ways to reduce emission and adapt to the impact of climate change. As climate change increases, "all of the world's climate refugees will be water refugees. Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington argues that in 1995, 166 million people lived in areas lacking sufficient water for basic needs. In 2050, that number will rise to 1.7 billion." This is a staggering statistic considering the number of people without suffcient water for basic needs will rise almost ten fold in just 55 years. Also with the water quantity and quality dropping, this could lead to great food shortages and poverty among rural farmers in the global south. Water is a necessary part of our survival and I believe every person on the planet should have access to adequate supply of clean water. This should never come into question. Many members of the Canadian union for public employees are taking the water crisis message to Copenhagen with members of other groups in order to try and make it a key element in the climate talks.
The private sector is also attempting to get into the water business. On a recent trip the Canadian water industry minister Tony Clement dogmatized the water crisis situation then made a sales pitch promoting Canadian technological solutions which would not only delete government protection of freshwater but, also take water out of the hands of communities and sell them to corporations seeking large profits. This has already begun in Michigan with their Blue Economy. The rules of trade are much stronger than international human rights laws or environmental agreements and they undermine the power of government to protect the environment and public policy against their right to make a profit. "The North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, allows foreign investors to sue governments if a social or environmental policy were to restrict profits."
We must start to promote ways to make water a central aspect of maintaining healthy communities. Every person has a right to have sufficent clean water for whatever use they deem necessary. Climate change and the coming water shortages must not be allowed to add life to a failed economic model of unregulated free trade. We as a people must learn from the past to adapt to what the future brings. If we do not it could lead to the end of humanity as we know it.

The Factory Assembly Line That Is Your Education

2009-12-07T11:10:00.000-08:00

I believe the problem with education is not the system but the current approach. We currently have a system that approaches teaching and learning the same way a factory or industry approaches product production - let’s put the fewest resources needed in order to get the maximum amount of product out. The same way cars are manufactured on an assembly line students are pushed through the education system in a uniform step by step manner with little attention to detail or concern about specific differences. Students are treated as if they are all the same just as the car parts on a assembly line and although this system may work well for a few it doesn’t work for all. Those who are different and need more attention in specific areas are left out of the equation and are allowed to fall through the cracks. They are assembled as you will incompletely or with all the wrong parts, parts that works well for others but not for them, parts that have now become the new standard. If the student does not succeed he or she is made to believe it is their fault, made to believe that it is their lack of skill or ability when in reality it is the system itself, the assembly line that is not designed to meet their personal needs, an assembly lines whose attempt to be uniform results in the lost of anything that does not fit the standard, not matter how skilled or talented that anything might actually be.

Another major problem with the assembly line approach is that it cut cost at every possible corner and when it comes to education the goal should not be to cut coast but to increase quality. The problem is that higher quality is often correlated with higher coats and if cutting coast is all you are concerned about then you can grantee there will be great losses in quality, but you won’t care because in your mind you will have the cheapest product money can buy and where you loss out in quality you can make up in quantity. This thinking is wrong and although it may work great for a factory setting it can be very detrimental to education. The best example of this would be when it comes funding for extracurricular activities, after school programming, the arts, vocational studies, and even physical education. These programs are not seen as important or necessary to a “standard education” and are easily cut to save on coast. While one can easily make the arrangement that these are important and are not only inductive but vital to a high quality education, if quality is not the goal then it is clear to see how and why these programs would be the first to go. In addition to this those students who especially take refuge in these areas or even excel at them now become left without the area or areas that best suits them and are forced to accommodate to the new much cheaper standard.

In a sense the assembly line approach is doing itself a huge injustice because every student is not the same and treating them as if they are is not doing anyone any real good. The students loss out in that not all of them may succeed even ones who do have talent and the system losses out in that there will be less highly talented and skilled students turned further workers to continue the cycle and replace those currently in charge of running the system. In reality the system does not benefit from a constant swam of standard students but from the occasional above standard students, those who excel way beyond the standard and create the new innovations that keep this country going, the new ideas, the new policies, the new technologies that keep this country on the cutting edge. The assembly line approach is not inductive to these students and does not activity seek them out but instead just pushes them through the line with the hopes that they will somehow retain their skill and find their own ways to practice and use those skills. Yes there are always a few select students that do rise above in despite of all the problems in the education system and accomplish great things, a few even become the further leaders of these country, but why have it this why when there is so much more potential out there that is being overlooked and going untapped.

I strongly believe that In order to successfully tackle many of the problems we and facing in this country, problem like globe climate change, peak oil production, and the loss of biodiversity, we are going to need all the talent and skill we can get and that starts we making serve changes to our education system. We can no longer afford providing our children with a very cheap very standard education anymore. We have to put the focus back on quality and not quantity, even if that does mean we have to spend more money, because in the end the money is only really going back to ourselves in the form of the bright new minds of tomorrow who will have the challenge of solving those many problems that we ourselves have getting ourselves into. Why not equip them with the best education possible.

Like Albert Einstein said - You can't solve a problem with the same thinking that created it

Thus we cannot expect our children to solve the problems of tomorrow with the same education that we were given, an education from a much older time, a time where these problems did not even exist. Because if we do then our children are Destined to fail just as we are currently failing now.

Artificial vs. Real Christmas Trees

2009-12-07T10:03:00.000-08:00

Every holiday season, there is a growing debate on whether artificial or real Christmas trees are, in the end, better for the environment. There are advantages and disadvantages to each type of Christmas tree, but in the end one type of tree is better for the environment.

For a growing number of families, the artificial tree is hands-down the better option. The thought of cutting down a brand new tree each year seems somewhat harsh to many families. The biggest advantage of buying an artificial tree is its convenience. Families will only need to buy an artificial tree once and it will last them nearly a decade. Their convenience is also appealing to families because they don’t need watering, they don’t leave pine needles all over the floor and transportation from tree farm to home isn’t an issue. But when considering the life-cycle, artificial Christmas trees are not as environmentally friendly as they appear. According the Earth911.com, today’s artificial trees are typically manufactured with metal and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a non-biodegradable, petroleum-derived plastic. Also, many older artificial Christmas trees may contain lead, used as a stabilizer in the manufacturing process. Along with their PVC contents, artificial trees are non-recyclable and non-biodegradable, meaning they will sit in a landfill for centuries after disposal. Finally, according to the National Christmas Tree Association (NCTA), nearly 85% of artificial trees sold in the U.S. are imported from China, adding to their overall emissions.

As for real Christmas trees, one of my favorite characteristics is the smell. I, along with many U.S. families love the fresh smell of a real Christmas tree inside our home, instead of the smell of cheap plastic. But other characteristics of real Christmas trees show that they are very environmentally friendly. According to the EPA, nearly 33 million real Christmas trees are sold in the U.S. each year and about 93% of those trees are recycled through more than 4,000 available recycling programs. Christmas trees are recycled into mulch and used in landscaping and gardening or chipped and used for playground material, hiking trails, paths and walkways. They can be used for beachfront erosion prevention, lake and river shoreline stabilization and fish and wildlife habitat. According to the EPA, a single farmed tree absorbs more than 1 ton of CO2 throughout its lifetime. With more than 350 million real Christmas tress growing in U.S. tree farms alone, you can imagine the yearly amount of carbon capturing associated with these trees. In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of real Christmas trees is that this growing industry employs more than 100,000 Americans full-time. Although real Christmas trees seem completely environmentally friendly, they are farmed as agricultural products, meaning repeated applications of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers may be used throughout their lifetime.

So which tree is better, when considering the environment and economy? Believe it or not, real Christmas trees are in fact the better buy. Although cleaning up needles is not appealing, the advantages of real Christmas trees outweigh those of artificial trees. Real Christmas trees are grown and sold in the U.S, making them a U.S.-based product. Unlike artificial Christmas trees, real Christmas trees are carbon-neutral, and their nutrients can be returned to the soil through recycling.

Climate Conference

2009-12-07T08:53:00.000-08:00

Today the international climate conference opened in Copenhagen Denmark. 190 nations will send delegates to this two week conference. Barack Obama and 110 other world leaders are expected to attend the final meeting at the conference. The conference hopes to achieve many things. One of the main things is to replace the Kyoto protocol which will end in 2012. As we learned the United States was one of the only countries not to sign the Kyoto Protocol. The conference also hopes to gain financial support for less wealthy nations we are affected by climate change. The conference opened today with dire warnings and examples of what might happen if officials fail to come to an agreement on how to curb climate change. As the delegates entered the conference they walked past a melting ice sculpture symbolic of the melting ice around the world. Demonstrators and protestors from around the world are in Denmark this week to try to help persuade the delegates to make changes and come to decisions to try to help our environment.

It will be interesting to see the decisions the conference will come too in these next few weeks. It will also be interesting to see if the United States will sign the new protocol. This conference will attempt to find ways to solve environmental issues in two weeks that have taken hundreds of years to make. While I think good things will come out of this conference, I think many people have unrealistically high expectations. New protocols and treaties will help us work towards our goals. But it will take decades to really start to see the results of these changes we are trying to make.

US Energy Use Drops In 2008

2009-12-05T22:01:00.000-08:00

Americans used more solar, nuclear, biomass and wind energy in 2008 than they did in 2007, according to the most recent energy flow charts released by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The nation used less coal and petroleum during the same time frame and only slightly increased its natural gas consumption. Geothermal energy use remained the same.

I saw this and thought it would be good to share. Even though the US needs to make more steps in lowering energy use it is good to know that as a country we did improve our energy usage. Hopefully we lowered it even more this year.

Key Step Made Towards Turning Methane Gas Into Liquid Fuel

2009-12-03T17:39:00.000-08:00

Researchers at the University of Washington and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have taken an important step in converting methane gas to a liquid, which would make it more useful and easier to get.Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is plentiful and is an attractive fuel and raw material for chemicals because it is more efficient than oil, produces less pollution and could serve as a practical substitute for petroleum-based fuels until renewable fuels are widely useable and available.

If this is possible and easy to produce this would be a great way to replace oil until we can find a renewable resource to use. Methane in its gas state is very expensive to transport so that would not work because no one would be able to afford it. It is stated in the article that converting mathane from a gas state to a liqued state without the use of high temperatures is still fareaway, i think the investment in time could be worth it to have a new form of fuel we can use until we find a renewable resource.

Antarctica

2009-12-03T14:13:00.000-08:00

Scientists still struggle to find the exact cause of the first Permian extinction, but they believe it was most likely global warming, possibly caused by volcanic eruptions. I have located an online article entitled, "Antarctica Served as Climatic Refuge in Earth's Greatest Extinction Event." It states, "A new fossil species suggests that some land animals may have survived the end-Permian extinction by living in cooler climates in Antarctica. Jörg Fröbisch and Kenneth D. Angielczyk of The Field Museum together with Christian A. Sidor from the University of Washington have identified a distant relative of mammals, Kombuisia antarctica, that apparently survived the mass extinction by living in Antarctica."
So if global warming continues to escalate, the planets align and the poles switch, and we are faced with cataclysmic events, could we find refuge in Antarctica?
Another article titled "Fossil Record Supports Evidence Of Impending Mass Extiction" reveals scientific data which shows "future predicted temperatures are within the range of the warmest greenhouse phases that are associated with mass extinction events identified in the fossil record." Dr. Peter Mayhew, a population ecologist and supervisor at the University of York, is quoted saying, "Our results provide the first clear evidence that global climate may explain substantial variation in the fossil record in a simple and consistent manner. If our results hold for current warming — the magnitude of which is comparable with the long-term fluctuations in Earth climate — they suggest that extinctions will increase."
Yet another article, titled "Mass Extinction's Cause: 'Sick Earth,'" states that "a warming of the earth and a slowdown in ocean circulation made it harder to replace the oxygen sucked out of the water by marine organisms...microbes would have saturated the water with hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic chemical."
With all of this scientific data and evidence supporting global warming as the cause of mass extinction, it is clear that the present rise in global climate is bad, to say the least. But would Antarctica really be the place to escape to if it all came crashing down? Let's examine the Earth for a moment: it is spherical with a bulge in the equatorial region which suggests that as the Earth spins on its axis, the middle ground is what gets thrown outwards by gravity, much like a merry-go-round. Antarctica and the Arctic Circle region, being at the bases of the axis, seem to be the steady and sturdy ground to be upon if our world should experience significant changes.
After reading through these articles and support for climate change causing extinction, I am ready to suggest that us human beings should start preparing for an arctic climate...just to be on the safe side.

Rise in Cancer Near Nuclear Plant

2009-12-03T13:21:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, I found out that my friend's mother was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. My friend told me that thyroid cancer has been on the rise in Rockland county due to a rise in emissions from a nearby nuclear power plant, called Indian Point. I decided to see if this was in fact the case.

I was able to find a Fox News report dated March 8, 2009 called "Cancer Cluster" that reviewed this trend. Thyroid cancer, which is highly sensitive to radiation, is caused by radioactive iodine found only in nuclear weapons and reactors. This radioactive iodine destroys and injures cells in the thyroid gland, leading to cancer and other disorders. The Fox News story reported that the four counties surrounding the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant (Orange, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester) had the highest rate of thyroid cancer in the state, and among the highest in the U.S. The report stated that between 2001-2004 there were 992 reported cases of thyroid cancer, the highest amount in the country during this period.

Joseph Mangano of the research group called the Radiation and Public Health project also reported on this trend. Mangano reported that "before the Indian Point reactors began operating, the thyroid cancer rate in the four surrounding counties was 1.5 percent below that of the state. Now they are 54 percent higher." In his attempt to have the plant completely shut down, Mangano analyzed data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which he says showed that "from 2001-2005, the thyroid cancer rate for the four counties was 66% above the U.S. average The rate of the disease in Rockland County is 106 percent above the national average; 102 percent above in Putnam; 87 percent higher in Orange and 42 percent higher than average in Westchester."

This trend, in my opinion, can be linked to the actions of Enron right before they went bankrupt. The "it's just business" practice of nearly all companies seems to apply both to Enron and Indian Point. These companies simply turn their heads and focus primarily on gaining profit. It is confusing to me when some businesses put "customer satisfaction" at the top of their priorities, when, in this case, their very own customers are becoming diagnosed with cancer. Instead of "customer satisfaction" at the top of the list of priorities, I think many companies put "comany satisfaction" at the top, ignoring the satisfaction of their very own customers.

Sweet Solution to Energy Production

2009-12-03T11:43:00.000-08:00

Engineer Vikram Seebaluck of the University of Mauritius and energy technology Dipeeka Seeruttun of the Royal Institute of Technology, in Stockholm, Sweden, have demonstrated that an optimal blend of sugarcane agricultural residues (30%) mixed with 70% sugarcane bagasse (the fibrous residue left after sugar production) can be used to generate electricity at a cost of just 0.06 US dollars per kilowatt hour. That figure is on a par with the costs of other renewable energies, including wind power at $0.05/kWh.

I saw this artical on line and thought this would be a pretty good source of energy. Sugar is a huge industry and to use the residue left over to produce energy is a really good idea. It is also very cheap to produce just being 1 cent more than the cost to produce wind energy. If this works well i think this would be a very effective way to produce electricity.

5 Ways to Save the Planet

2009-12-02T20:22:00.000-08:00

Today I stumbled across this article titled “Five Ways to Help Save the Planet in 30 Minutes or Less” and after reading it I thought it summed up a lot of what we have discussed in class. The first thing the article mentions is to drive less. If you are only going a short distance ride a bike or walk, and when traveling longer distances take public transportation if available. This article says that a family who uses public transportation may save enough money to cover their food costs for a year. The second thing the article suggests doing is to eat more vegetables. The article talks about how the raising of animals contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and how vegetables are better for you anyway. The third and fourth items the article suggests is to use reusable shopping bags and to change your light bulbs to more energy efficient ones. The last suggestion the article makes is to pay bills online, as this will cut down on paper mail, and paper being thrown away.
These are all small changes but as we have discussed in class these small changes can make a big difference. Many of these small changes we can make are not only better for the environment but can also save us money, time, keep us healthy, and help make our lives more hassle free. These changes not only benefit the environment they benefit us. There is no reason that all of us can’t make small changes in our everyday lives, we just need to find the motivation to do so. What we need to realize is that there is motivation for every person to make these changes. Whether one wants to save money, get healthier, or help the environment motivation can be found. We just have to teach ourselves to think differently. For example if one wants to lose weight, they might join a gym; they pay for their membership, then drive to the gym then drive home. Instead why not go for a run outside, or eat more vegetables, or walk to work or school. We need to learn to think differently and teach ourselves not to keep buying more and more.
http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/30_minutes.htm

Global Warming is a Hoax?

2009-12-02T17:01:00.000-08:00

About two weeks ago, one of the world's leading climate change research centers was hacked into, revealing shocking files and emails. Hackers targeted the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and published the files, including some personal messages, on the internet. After the emails and files were read, the research center was accused of manipulating data on global warming. "There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request", George Monbiot of the UK Gaurdian states. He continues and says Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change." The CRU, which plays a leading role in compiling UN reports and tracks long-term changes in temperature, has repeatedly refused to provide detailed information about the data underlying the temperature records. It is thought that this could have triggered the theft. Climate change skeptics claim that some of the leaked messages discuss ways of manipulating data that fails to comply with the establishment view that climate change is real and is being driven by man. Here is an excerpt taken from an email sent by Phil Jones, the director of the Unit:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90."

Now what I found interesting is that this excerpt taken from ONE email that was sent by Phil Jones was sent nearly 10 years ago. In an interview with Phil Jones, he angrily stated to the reporter "Do you remember exactly what an email you sent said 10 years ago? No, didnt think so". Since the integrity of the global warming theory is being questioned by the media, I am now questioning the integrity of the media and their pattern of blowing stories way out of proportion. Should the entire global warming theory be viewed as a scam due to a variety of emails sent by three or four scientists? Should all physical evidence of global warming now be entirely ignored because of a few emails? Do these few scientists represent the entire global field of science? Is every scientist a liar and merely creating a scam for no reason? These are my questions for every skeptic and the media. I believe that the media is fighting to downplay global warming and yet again manipulate the publics opinion. Will it work? Nope.

The Copenhagen Conference

2009-12-02T15:50:00.000-08:00

Starting on December 7th, and stretching until the 18th of the same month, representatives from 192 nations will work together to develop a collective strategy for combating global warming. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark to discuss the best way to follow up the expiring Kyoto Protocol. Needless to say, the eyes of the world are watching China and the United States, the biggest CO2 contributors, and hoping the two giants will be a part of the proposal this time around.

Let us all hope that China and the US will find the terms of any agreement reached acceptable, for the sake of the planet. According to NY Times' Elizabeth Rosenthal, "In 1997, 37 industrialized nations and the European Union agreed to emission targets in a pact known as the Kyoto Protocol. (American lawmakers declined to ratify the pact, which took effect in 2005 and must be renewed or renegotiated by 2012.)" The US refused participation in Kyoto due in large part to China's rejection. China passed on the protocol because they felt it would severely hinder their flourishing economy. Their country is considered "developed", but they are still developing in many parts, and emission caps would hamper them. The US turned down Kyoto because they felt in unfair for them to agree when China would not. China believes, justifiably, that they deserve the opportunity the US had to build up their country.

Copenhagen aims mostly to provide a bridge between now and 2012, when Kyoto expires. Kyoto has fallen short of many of its goals. Its successor, Copenhagen, shares the same goals, for the most part, primarily aiming for "reductions in emissions and aid for developing nations to adapt to a changing climate." It's time the two world leaders stopped shirking their responsibilities to the world at large and to future generations. We need to find a way to work together, with the rest of the world, to set ambitious, yet realistic goals for reducing emissions. This is not just about Americans or Chinese. It's about the world. If we continue to fail planet, we will all lose. If we find a way to work together, however, there is still hope. The world is watching our country and China. Let's not let them down this time.

COFFEE CUPS

2009-12-01T12:41:00.000-08:00

Today I got a coffee and after I was finished I was looking at the sleeve I put on the paper coffee cup to keep my hands from being burned. This particular sleeve advertised saying it was eco friendly and was made from 100% recycled paper. At first when I thought about this I thought it was good. Then I realized that probably all these “eco friendly” sleeves are going to be thrown out. So really we just used an old resource that we no longer found useful and used more energy to make it into something else useful then we throw it away. Yes it is made from recycled paper so it is better than using paper we just cut down new trees to make. But a coffee sleeve is something that we really should not be using anyway. So in reality it is just a waste of energy and resources.
We use an enormous number of disposable coffee cups every single day. These coffee cups are sometimes made from recycled paper, sometimes from Styrofoam and when we are finished with them we throw them away. Billions of coffee cups are thrown away every year. They fill up our landfills and are one item that we could easily go without. It would be easy for everyone to purchase a reusable coffee mug and use it instead of using a new disposable coffee cup every time. I know for me sometimes I forget my reusable mug, and I’m sure this is the case with many other people as well. There are things we could do to promote people to use reusable mugs instead of disposable ones. For example I know some places offer a small discount if you bring your own mug. The discount may not be significant if you get it once but it you get it every day for a year it could be quite substantial. We need to make reusable mugs more of a habit in our everyday lives rather than something we use when we remember it. It is a small change in our daily lives that could have a large impact on our environment in the long run.

Junk Mail

2009-11-30T19:58:00.001-08:00

Everyday we go and check the mail only to find it filled with tons of ads, coupons, promotions, letters, "pre-approved" cards and fliers. Yes...junk mail. We all know what its like to go through these countless pieces of mail only to throw a good 85% of them away. Junk mail is constantly sent to many peoples homes in hopes that they will be interested in the item being advertised. Most times the person receiving the mail doesn't give it any thought. Instead they discard of it. If these letters are sent out in bulk to numerous people across the world and at the same time being discarded by numerous people around the world that can only lead to one thing: waste.

I did some research and found some interesting facts about the amount of waste produced due to the junk mail that ends up in land fills:
-In the US, the Enviormental Protection Agency estimates that 44% of junk mail is discarded without being opened or read
-The amount of junk mail being thrown away equals four million tons of waste paper per year
-Only 32% is recycled
-In 2002 advertised mail accounted for 500,000 and 600,000 tons of paper, only 13% of it being recycled.
-5.6 million tons of catalogs and other direct mail advertisements end up in U.S. landfills annually.
-The average American household receives unsolicited junk mail equal to 1.5 trees

The best way to help with the problem created by junk mail is to get you name off the advertisement mail isting. This prevents companies from sending letters that will go unopened to your house. Start by contacting the companies that are already contacting you and have them put you on a do not promote list. Next off try investigate websites that help find junk mails such as JunkBusters.com.

New Form Of Energy

2009-11-30T17:17:00.000-08:00

Researchers from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory are looking for a new, clean alternative fuel source and are now looking to hydrogen. The question they are trying to figure out is how to obtain and form this hydrogen without turning to any high energy processes? One overlooked way is right above us. The sun provides photosynthesis, a process by which plants regenerate using energy from the sun. This process may be the answer to our source of a sustainable, clean source of hydrogen. Hydrogen has the quite possibly to be the cleanest fuel alternative. It also emits no greenhouse gas production. This new innovation allows hydrogen to be readily produced from non-hydrocarbon sources

It was found that when coupled with a platinum catalyst, algae has a inner machinery of that of photosynthesis which allows, when exposed to light, the production of hydrogen. A benefit of this method is that it cuts out the unnecessary in the process of solar conversion. It cuts out the the time normally required for the plant to capture solar energy leading to it to grow and reproduce where it will then die and eventually become fossil fuel. It also cuts out the substantial amount of energy required to harvest and process plant material into bio fuel. By ridding these options, we are taking a giant leap forward in helping our planet in a much better and efficient way.

How Big a Difference Can GoodGuide Make?

2009-11-30T16:26:00.000-08:00

I think goodguide.com has tremendous upside. Just by casually browsing, it became obvious to me that the site was young and imperfect. It certainly needs to expand and cover more products, but I think its concept can help us and the environment at the same time. That being said, I'm not as optimistic as Daniel Goleman that knowledge of environmental friendliness will sway consumers.

I decided to look up three different categories of food on GoodGuide, and see how two companies compare within each category. I matched Frito-Lay against Wise Foods, Pepsi against Coke, and Peter Pan against Jif. I wanted to see if these companies, competing for the same consumers within their category, had significantly different ratings in the database.

First, the match-up between chip companies. Unfortunately, GoodGuide lacked the thorough breakdown of ratings for both companies. It did say that Frito-Lay earned a 4.3 brand rating, and Wise Foods edged them out with a 4.4 rating. I don't believe this to be a significant difference, but considering how seldom I actually eat chips, I would have very little difficulty being loyal to Wise Foods over Frito-Lay.

Second, I checked the ratings for the two soda behemoths. This time, GoodGuide had a full breakdown of the colas, but not the entire soda companies. Considering how similar in product and business the two are, I was surprised to find that Coke rated higher than Pepsi, 4.2 to 3.8. Though neither overall rating instills much confidence, Coke led the environment category 7.0 to 5.5. I will keep this in mind when next purchasing soda. If both products are interchangeable, why not choose the more eco-friendly one?

Lastly, I compared Peter Pan peanut butter to one of it's competitors, Jif. The difference between the two was a mere 0.1; the edge going to Jif. Whereas with chips and soda, I have very little preference, with peanut butter, I heavily favor Peter Pan. In the environment category, Jif prevailed by 0.2, but I don't feel like that difference is enough to make me abandon a product I prefer. This, I think, could big a problem for GoodGuide.

I don't believe consumers, especially Americans, will feel strongly enough about environmental impacts to avoid products they prefer. In the video we watched in class, Daniel Goleman and Bill Moyers discuss two shampoos, and their ratings on GoodGuide. They point out that the cheaper of the two is actually the more eco-friendly, and that this should dissuade consumers from the belief that pricier items are better. What they fail to mention, however, is which shampoo leaves the hair in better condition. If the more expensive, less green product outperforms the other, in terms of hair care quality, people will continue to buy it. Knowing a product is better for the environment will persuade some consumers to buy it, but many people will continue to buy the product they prefer, no matter the environmental impact.

Holiday's

2009-11-30T09:10:00.000-08:00

I was reading today about 10 tips for having an environmentally friendly Thanksgiving, and I thought it was interesting that we have talked about all of these ideas that were listed in class. The ideas range from eating local and organic food to staying at home and inviting neighbors. Some other ideas are to reduce, reuse and recycle, and making your own decorations. The ideas are all very basic and something that every person could do this holiday season.
The holidays are a time of travel and shopping and in most aspects are a very environmentally unfriendly time. We buy things we don’t need and many times these things are packaged in plastic. We travel places we don’t need to go. We use electricity we don’t need to use; most of us light our trees and have decorations that use electricity. Many of us also make way more food than we eat. So much food is thrown away on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and at our holiday parties. For example for Thanksgiving my family had dinner for 7 people we had one large turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes, green beans, corn, Brussels sprouts, rolls, squash, and 4 pies for desert. There was so much food left over like I’m sure there was around the country. All the leftover food was saved but not all of it will get eaten. I think that this is a time of year we should cut back a little we don’t need everything we get this time of year, and we need to realize that so we can have what we think we need to have for a happy holiday season other people around the world are being exploited and are not able to have even a fraction of what we have.

Bike Lanes in NYC

2009-11-29T19:48:00.000-08:00

On my way home for Thanksgiving Break i noticed something different about the streets of my neighborhood. Looking out the bus window I realized that there was only one lane of traffic where there used to be two. The "missing" lane had now been transformed into a bicycle lane. At first I thought about the bike lane and felt that it was a stupid idea. I felt that it would probably make traffic go much slower than normal, causing problems for many commuters. It was soon after watching the lanes in use that I realized how much of a great idea this was.

Most people who do use their bikes, whether for recreational uses or as a means of transportation, have to compete with the dangers of traffic. A new bike lane reduces accidents from happening and protects bicyclists. The increased safety this provides may also attract new people to riding their bikes to where ever they have to go. Using a bike instead of a car reduces pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from the air. Encouraging more and more riders to rely on their bikes will all together reduce the amount of carbon emissions that person would normally have emitted. In regards to my original thought about the bike lane slowing down traffic, I was wrong. I noticed that traffic flow was much more smoother. The two lanes before used to hit heavy traffic when it came to merging to another road however kepping the sinlge road prevents this buildup and keeps cars flowing at a much calmer pace.
Once skeptical, I am in great support of bike lanes and hope that the city continues to place them in more and more reads. Its great for the planet and the people.

How Boxed Wine Can Help Our Planet

2009-11-29T18:45:00.000-08:00

Many times we hear about products and automatically associate stereotypical terms with them. This weekend I was watching the morning news and an special on boxed wine came up. Automatically I thought "cheap wine" just because the norm is that wine is suppose to be elegantly poured out of an dark, tinted bottle. Never do we see elegant commercials about wine being poured out of a box. It was later in the special that I learned all the important aspects of boxed wine and how it can truely help out planet.

Boxed wine has many benefits to our pockets and our planet. The first is that is it much more cheaper that the bottled version. In Australia it is valued at about $8 US dollars for four liters. Also unlike bottles wine, the boxed version lasts longer. When exposed to the air for a certain period of time, wine starts to go bad. The boxed version is in a vacuumed-sealed bag within the box, keeping it fresh due to the lack of exposure to the air. The benefits of boxed wine to the environment are also seen in the fact that the manufacturing of glass contributes greenhouse gas emissions, generates nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide all of which when inhaled can cause tiny particulates that can damage lung tissue. Transporting wine across the country also causes a lot of problems. Transporting wine from the West Coast to the East Coast generates a lot of carbon footprinting. A standard wine bottle which holds 750 milliliters of wine generates about 5.2 pounds of carbon-dioxide emissions when it travels from a vineyard in the West side to a store East side. However a 750 milliliters standard 3-liter box generates about half of that. By switching to boxed wine we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about two million tons which is also the equivalent of removing 400,000 cars from the roads.

A brand of boxed wine advertised is called Yellow+Blue. As the name suggests it is environmentally green. It is certified organic wine, made with no pesticides and no synthetic fertilizers. It is produced in Tetra Paks which are made from 75% paper harvested from responsibly managed forests. They weigh far much less and is less bulky than bottled wine when it comes time for shipping. If people start making small changes which greatly helps themselves save money, theay can also greatly help the environment.

population growth

2009-11-29T18:24:00.000-08:00

Today the population of the world is growing at an exponential rate. If this growth continues eventually the human race will meet and then exceed the carrying capacity of the earth can support. At that time there will be drastic consequences and an almost yo-yo like effect on the human population. The population will probably drop rapidly then grow again then drop rapidly and repeat this process with less death and less growth each time until the population eventually stabilizes. We might be able to avoid this devastating effect if we can curb and stabilize our populations now.
Today the fastest growing populations are in countries that are less developed and less stable. Because even though they have a higher death rate and a higher infant mortality rate the number of children each woman has is much larger than in more developed countries. These are the countries that we need to focus on and help them find ways to lower the rate at which their population is growing. One way to do this would be to educate the woman. Better educated woman have more prospects and are less likely to have a large number of children. In less developed countries children are sometimes used as a source of free labor or cheap income. This is a way of life that needs to be stopped in order to lower the population growth of the world to a more manageable rate. Family planning is helpful but unless the women have control and are allowed to have a say in their pregnancies this method will not be as effective as we need it to be. Population growth is a serious problem we face today, as serious and as catastrophic as global warming and pollution. There are many things we can do to help under developed countries bring their birth rates down and keep the population at a stable rate that the earth can sustain. Population growth is a problem that is not as publicized as other environmental concerns. But as more and more people live on this planet the environment is strained more and more.

pollution changing gender?

2009-11-29T12:22:00.000-08:00

I was watching the news the other day and something caught my eye about pollution in the Mississippi river. Apparently male bass fish in the Mississippi are now getting female genes. They estimated about 75% of the samples they took have female genes. The male bass fish were now seen with female eggs in them. This is now another reason why we need to stop polluting our rivers. Even though this has been limited to the bass fish in the river so far it makes you wonder what other animals could be affected in the same way due to the pollution.

Population Control: A Cure for Global Warming?

2009-11-20T12:55:00.000-08:00

I believe overpopulation is a big factor which contributes to global warming. More humans means more food which means more fossil fuels burned. The article Fight Global Warming: Wear a Condom by Maria Cheng highlights the importance of birth control nowadays. The UN's Population Fund executive director is quoted saying, "We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster." They believe that "the battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available." Though this seems like a great idea to curb overpopulation, other sources show this may not be enough.
Our course text The Cartoon Guide to the Environment examines the dangers of overpopulation. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote a book titled The Population Bomb. "Ehrlich saw an exploding population and concluded that mass starvation was just around the corner." (Gonick & Outwater, p.207)
As we all know, history repeats itself. As seen on page 118 of The Cartoon Guide to the Environment, "Human history has seen the population growth curve drop several times." So what's stopping it from dropping again? The answer is: nothing. It seems to be a natural re-occurrence which leads me to believe birth control cannot stop it from happening, although if utilized globally, could slow the pace.
Another quote from the article Fight Global Warming: Wear a Condom states, "Using the need to reduce climate change as a justification for curbing the fertility of individual women at best provokes controversy and at worst provides a mandate to suppress individual freedoms." Our second course text The Party's Over quotes Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel saying, "some people believe that for humans to limit their numbers would infringe on their freedom to reproduce. This may be true, but a continued increase in human numbers will infringe on our freedoms from malnutrition, hunger, disease, poverty, and pollution, and on our freedom to enjoy nature and a quality environment." (Heinberg, p.246) While it seems like a good idea to curb human reproduction, most people have the mindset of saving themselves individually over our species as a whole. Thinking this way may even lead to increased reproduction which is why we must get the word out about birth control and make it more available.
We must think of our carrying capacity as a balloon and each human being as an air particle. If we keep filling the balloon, it will most definitely pop at some point. Birth control may help limit the number of new particles, but unless we can find a means to enlarge the balloon or find a whole new one, our carrying capacity is sure to explode - or something big may suck the air right out and we'll have to start all over.

Dublin Plant Recieves Enviormental Award

2009-11-19T21:23:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, Orion Energy System gave Flexsteel Industries Inc. an Environmental Stewardship Award for reducing their consumption of electricity, their consumption of water and their waste. The company located in Dublin, is an Iowa-based company which designs and manufactures mostly wooden furniture for residential, commercial, recreation use. The company has contributed to the environment by reducing over one million kw hours which saves 80 thousand dollars on power billing, saved 683 tons of carbon dioxide and reducing electricity to an amount equivalent enough to power 100 homes per year, and saving 85,889 gallons of gasoline per year.

The methods the plant is using isn't negatively affecting any of its workers or employees. In fact they are proud to be apart of this effort to save the environment. The company plans to hold an award ceremony to celebrate its accomplishments and that of its employees. In additions to the Environmental Stewardship Award, Flexsteel is also being recognized by "Keep Georgia Beautiful." They are doing what they can to help the planet and in the process companies are taking notice.

I feel that more companies should take the effort to do what they can to save the planet themselves. A lot of industrial companies are the ones that are smoking up the skies, contributing to the pollution problem all in the name for faster, cheaper production. However Flexsteel is making effort to help. If more companies take the initiative to do what they can to help we can begin to see a major change. Many of these changes not only help the enviorment but also helps the company itself. As mentioned before Flexsteel saved 80 thousand dollars in its power bill. This saved money can greatly help companies and lets face it for anyone the more money saved the better. I feel that being awarded and recognized is a great incentive for other companies to do the same. Not only is it recognition but it gets the companies name out there and not for a negative reason. People appreciate efforts that big companies can make and the planet appreciates it too.

Reusable Bags

2009-11-19T17:35:00.000-08:00

As I was at the grocery store today I was thinking about changes that every person can make in their everyday lives that will help change the world. What if grocery stores no longer offered plastic bags? What if people had to bring their own reusable bags and use them for their purchases? Many people today use reusable bags; I know I try to remember mine when I go to the store and when I am at the store I always see people using them. However I always see many more plastic bags leaving the store than anything else. Reusable bags are something that every person can switch to. Not only are they affordable (I saw them at Price Chopper today for 99 cents) they also hold so much more than a plastic bag and I find them much easier to carry.
What if grocery stores just did not provide bags for people anymore? The stores would save money because they would not have to purchase bags. Eventually these savings might lead to a slight decrease in food prices. The bags would also lead to less trash going into our landfills and a slightly healthier planet. Everyone has the ability to purchase a 99 cent reusable bag, and there is no reason Plastic bags are still being used today. Plastic bags are a product that are harmful to the environment and tehy are something that every person could stop using today. This is a small change and will not solve our environmental problems but it is an easy change and even small changes like this one will add up and help over time.

Overburdening Earth's Oceans

2009-11-18T15:20:00.000-08:00

In an article published in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/science/earth/19oceans.html?_r=1&ref=science), Sindya N. Bhanoo describes the decreasing efficiency with which our planet's oceans absorb CO2. Apparently Earth's oceans are no longer able to absorb CO2 as well as they did in the pre-industrial era. Samar Khatiwala was the lead author of a 20 year study which collected tens of thousands of ocean samples. Their research enabled them to estimate the efficiency with which the oceans absorbed carbon dioxide each yeah from 1965 to 2008.

Earth's oceans have long been considered dependable "carbon sinks" by the scientific community at large. This study suggests that this logic, while sound for now, may not always be the case. As humans continue to burn fossil fuels at alarming rates, carbon emissions into the atmosphere consistently increase. The oceans are now overtaxed; the more CO2 they are forced to absorb, the more acidic they become. This is a serious problem because as the oceans grow more acidic, they are even less efficient at absorbing CO2. Put simply, the more carbon emissions an ocean absorbs, the worse it becomes at absorbing more CO2. So now, Earth's oceans are stuck in a positive feedback system with CO2, and the situation will continue to worsen.

According to Khatiwala, "It’s a small change in absolute terms. What I think is fairly clear and important in the long-term is the trend toward lower values which implies that more of the emissions will remain in the atmosphere." If we cannot rely on our oceans to help relieve some of the CO2-induced stress on the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect will become even more profound.

Khatiwala's findings are supported by a 2004 study done by Christopher Sabine. Sabine's team investigated carbon uptake levels in the oceans up to 1994, by collecting data on more than 100 cruise ships. Each team used slightly different methods, but their conclusions are in accordance with one another. Khatiwala reports that "the oceans’ uptake rate growth appears to have dropped by 10 percent from 2000 to 2007." Much of, if not all, this decrease in efficiency can be attributed to increasing human-generated CO2 emissions. This cycle is almost certain to continue unless there is a significant decrease in CO2 emissions, which would have to result from a decrease in fossil fuel consumption.

The end of the article does mention something interesting, and possibly optimistic. Khatiwala's team also estimated CO2 absorption by land, and their conclusion was that Earth's land was actually absorbing more CO2 than it was admitting. Khatiwala admits to not being "land people", but their hypothesis is that land plant's could be consuming more CO2 in order to grow bigger. However, they said that while their research about land absorption was interesting, it up to another team to conduct further research. If the oceans are becoming less adapt at absorbing carbon emissions, perhaps hope can be found if we find a way to take advantage of the absorption efficiency of Earth's land.

Public Transportation Paradox

2009-11-18T10:37:00.000-08:00

Recently, more and more daily commuters have been going green by using public transportation. Mass transit is viewed as highly efficient, and a step in the right direction. There is a variety of positive aspects of mass transit besides energy efficiency. The most important aspect of mass transit is that it provides very cheap transportation for those who cannot afford to drive or are able to drive. It also helps reduce congestion at rush hour as well as parking congestion. Mass transit is also much safer, producing fewer accidents and injuries than cars. There is also the social aspect of mass transit that people tend to overlook. Public transportation almost forces someone to step out of their "inverted quarantines" and actually interact with others in the community. Seeing familiar faces on a bus or train builds up the sense of community, rather than looking at yourself in your rear-view mirror.

Unfortunately, mass transit is not as efficient as many may think. Brad Templeton, a private researcher who interviewed both the Department of Energy and the Department of Transportation stated that: "I was disturbed to learn that city diesel buses and electric trolley buses are both mildly worse than the car in energy efficiency." How can this be, you ask. When viewed at logically, a paradox presents itself.

A full busload or trainload of people is much more efficient than private cars. But that same bus or train is not ALWAYS full. That bus or train is only filled to capacity at specific times of the day, like rush hour or lunch hour. Also, when that full bus or train reaches its destination, it unloads and then must return empty back to the original stop. Another aspect of the paradox is the design of these mass transit vehicles. A bus tends to start and stop frequently, which consumes a lot of energy. Now imagine that same bus filled to capacity starting and stopping frequently. Much more energy is consumed. Another aspect of the paradox is the lack of progress of design for these mass transit vehicles. Brad Templeton reports that "Over the past 30 years, private cars have gotten 30% more efficient, while buses have gotten 60% less efficient and trains about 25% worse." So, as buses and trains get less aerodynamic, they become less efficient.

Although this slight paradox makes public transportation seem less green, in the end it is in fact more efficient than driving. It is believed to be much more efficient for an individual to take already existing mass transit than their car. Since the transit is already running, adding one more individual to the transit is more energy efficient than driving individually.

The Weird and The Strange...is Global Warming to Blame?

2009-11-18T08:53:00.000-08:00

More recently, there has been discoveries of weird animal species and mutations. Starting at my homeland of Long Island, the "Montauk Monster" was discovered last summer. It resembles something like an over-sized rat but with a beak. No one knows where it came from or what it is, but another creature like it was found and killed in Panama. The next animal, which I was surprised to find out that it's not the only one of its kind, is a two-faced kitten born in Ohio. Another feline frenzy happened in China - a cat actually sprouted wings. They say it was during a 'hot spell' and genetic experts claim it is a "a genetic defect or a hereditary skin condition." This blogger believes the heat, most likely from global warming, defected the cat's genes which caused the mutataion. Although there are bones in the pertrusions, they doubt the cat will gain the ability to fly...it would be fun to see though.
So many animal deformities and mutations make me wonder if the increased global temperature is to blame. Humans have also been affected by mutations such as mermaid syndrome or the girl born in India with 8 limbs, who is believed to be the reincarnation of the goddess Lakshmi.
Whether it be the changing global climate or simply the effects of evolution, we cannot ignore the fact that our world is constantly changing and the beings and creatures that change along with it. One can only wonder what the Earth will look like in the years to come.

How The Evolution Of Cooperation Has Helped Lead To An Increase In Greed, Selfishness, And The Overall Destruction Of The Planet

2009-11-16T23:02:00.000-08:00

It is well known that humans are social animals. This fact is clear to anyone who has noticed our ability to show sympathy, our need to assign ourselves to political, religious, and social groups and our tendency to love gossip. However the reasons behind why we have evolved to be social animals are not always as well understood. What is even less understood, or even mentioned for that matter, is the ever growing gap between the social animals we have evolved to be and the increasingly greedy, selfish, unsocial animals we are now becoming. Most importantly, it is ever metioned how this gap or shift in our evolution is only further contributing to all of our current ecological and environmental problems.

Our early ancestors developed cooperation and social skills for many reasons, the principle reason being that IT WAS KEY TO THEIR SURVIVAL. Being a part of a group meant you had a higher chance of survival then if you were on your own, you were able to hunt better in a group then alone meaning you got more food, you were able to better protect yourself from predators, meaning you had a lesser chance of dying or being eaten, you also got to benefit from all the services the people in the group provided you such as grooming each other or caring for each other’s young…etc. This lead to the evolution of increased cooperation skills because those groups who members cooperated with each other the most were that most productive and therefore the most successful when compared to other groups. These memebers would then pass on and spread the genes that allowed them to be more cooperative then the others.

This form of cooperation is similar to old saying I’LL SCRATCH YOUR BACK IF YOU SCRATCH MINES. This obviously worked and worked very well for our ancestors allowing them to not only survive but prosper and flourish in their environment. Our ancestors begin to grow in number and thus grow in group size which unfortunately help give rise to cheaters within the group- individuals who though I'LL LET YOU SCRATCH MY BACK BUT I WON’T SCRATCH YOURS. Where as in smaller groups these cheaters would be easy to notice and track in large groups it becomes ever more difficult allowing these cheaters to work the system getting all the benefits but none of the cost- I’ll GET MY BACK SCRATCHED FOR FREE AND NOW I CAN GO DO OTHER THINGS WITH MY TIME AND ENERGY. These cheaters of course only made up a small part of the group and if they were to ever grow too large in number the whole system would fall apart NO ONE WOULD SCRATCH ANYONES BACK and thus no scratching would get done leaving the whole group to suffer and in extreme examples (where the behavior is important to survival then scratching) leave the group to die.

Our ancestor (both the ones that cooperate within the group and the few that cheat) passed on the genes that allowed them to perform these complex cooperating social skills along with ability to cheat to us their descendants. However, unlike our ancestors we currently live in an environment in which WE DO NOT DEPEND ON GROUPS FOR OUR SURIVAL. Cooperating and working together (at least for the most part) in today’s society does not increase our survival. In fact the opposite is mostly true the more greedy we are and the more selfish we act the higher our fitness –i.e. the more money we make, the more food we can buy and the more children we can support. Thus all the cheaters within the group can now grow without limits and are in fact selected for. At first glance this would seem like it wouldn’t be a problem in today’s society because if the cheaters grew to numerous the cooperating social system would fall apart but since we no longer rely on that system for our survival anymore it wouldn’t make much of a difference to us. AS LONG AS I CAN DO WHAT I HAVE TO DO FOR MYSELF AND CAN SURVIVE WHO CARES ABOUT THE PERSON NEXT TO ME.

However, unlike our ancestors and unlike any other species on the planet we as a collective group and even to a small extent as individuals now have the power to severely impact our environment and our overall planet in very harmful ways. If I as a greedy and selfishness person (cheater) do something that benefits me but harms not only the people around but MY ENVIRONMENT in a way that doesn’t directly harm me I am gaining an advantage. BUT what I don’t see is that that advantage is only temporary and where in cheating a person or multiple people around me will not cause any server consciences (other than losing that person or people as trustful members of my group) cheating my environment does have server consciences that in turn come back around to harm me.

When I as a CEO of a chemical power plant decide it will be beneficial to me (and maybe even a small group of share holders) to drop toxic waste into a nearby river or water system, saving me the cost of having to pay for properly disposing of that waste, at the cost of other people around who may depend on that river in a way that I do not I am gaining an advantage- i.e. making money. Although I think I am just losing the trust of all the people I just cheated I’LL DIRTY YOUR RIVER WHICH YOU KEPT CLEAN BUT I WOUNDN’T CLEAN IT BACK, I am losing much more. I am losing the river which is part of the nearby ocean which is part of more complex water recycling and cleaning system, which if I damage enough may affect the water everywhere; including the water I get and need located somewhere else or the fish and crab I like to eat bought miles away.

Thus acting as a collective group of selfish individuals who do not truly care about each other or care about cooperation in any large collective sense leads to massive ecological and environmental damage. Not caring if the product my factory makes pollutes the waters in the area used to make it, or if the computer I buy in the U.S requires the mining of toxic heavy metals somewhere in Africa destroying their rain forest, or if the car I use pollutes the air of someone else around me who doesn’t have home air filtration, or if the garbage I throw away stays in a land fill miles away for me where other people live, all has a combined negative impact on the environment.

The environment that once required intense cooperation to survive is now one in which little cooperation is necessary and greed and selfishness flourish and is running wild. The worst apart of all is that that greed and selfishness originally arose from cooperation. Without people cooperating there would be no one for the greedy and selfishness to exploit or take advantage of. The problem now is unlike our ancestors we live in a society where greed and selfishness is not the controllable expectation but the irresistible norm. If we are to have any chance at reversing the harm we have done to the environment and any hope of living a peaceful existence with nature we must change our current view on our social system based on individual gain. We must change the saying from I’LL SCRATCH YOUR BACK IF YOU SCRATCH MINES( a saying which can lead to cheating and in our case the destruction of the planet) to I’LL DO MY PART IN TAKING CARE OF THE PLANET AND YOU’LL DO YOURS (a saying that promotes cooperation without leading to cheating while at the same time preserving the planet). In the end all we really have is one planet earth and if I do not do my individual part to take care of that planet we all will suffer equally in that there will be no planet left for us to live on. It shouldn't be about scratching backs but preserving that in which we all have to share - the planet. You can be greedy and selfish all you want about the things that belong to you but not with that in which no one person owns. You can be greedy and selfish all you want but not in a way that harms that in which you need the most - clean air, clean water, and a safe place to live, and without a healthy planet no one person can truly have any of those things.

Swine Flu Vaccine-is it safe?

2009-11-16T20:55:00.000-08:00

Recently, there has been a somewhat sigh of relief when the H1N1 vaccine emerged and was widely available. Many Americans rushed to get the shot, bringing their children along to get the shot with them. But two weeks ago I was in Albany Medical Hospital getting a mandatory physical so I could become a volunteer. The physical required that I get a seasonal flu shot and, if available, an H1N1 shot. While I was getting the flu shot, I asked the nurse if I was also getting the H1N1 shot, and she replied no and almost under her breath she said "you're better off without it". At the moment I didnt question her statement but it got me thinking, and I went ahead and checked up on the safety of the H1N1 vaccine.

One issue that I became aware of was the overall speed that the H1N1 vaccine reached the public. Most vaccines pass through a series of tests to ensure that it is relatively safe for the public of all ages. Natural News reported that "The FDA usually requires rigorous testing of any new drug, but concerns about the H1N1 pandemic has sped the vaccine through the channels without the same clinical testing as other vaccines. Even health care workers are concerned, as they are the first ones to receive the swine flu vaccine and will, in effect, be human guinea pigs."

In July of 2009, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported that the H1N1 vaccine contained thimerosal, which is a mercury based additive which has been specifically removed from many other vaccines due to long-term side effects. In various websites and postings that I found, it was stated that thimerosal has been linked in causing autism and other neurological disorders. Representatives from the CDC have recently rejected the statements linking thimerosal to autism and any other long-term side effects. Many videos describing the effects of thimerosal on the brain are available on youtube.

The CDC also reported that the H1N1 vaccine contains squalene which is another additive not found in many vaccines. Squalene was last found in the vaccine given to Gulf War soldiers and is now known to be the main cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Gulf War Syndrome became present shortly after the war when veterans began experiencing a range of medically unexplained symptoms. These symptoms included chronic fatigue, loss of muscle control, headaches, dizziness and loss of balance, memory problems, muscle and joint pain, indegestion, skin problems, shortness of breath, and even insulin resistance. A sudden rise in Lou Gehrig's disease after the war has also been linked to the pressence of squalene in the Gulf War vaccine.

Recently, many medical facilities have forced their employees to get the H1N1 vaccine. These medical facilities are very serious about their employees getting the vaccine that if any employee refused to get the shot, he/she would lose their job. There was recently a variety of protests in front of the capital building in downtown Albany which included hundreds of health care workers who refused to receive the forced vaccination. These protestors believed that the vaccination was not properly tested and contained additives that were more harmful than H1N1 itself.

So, if you have gotten the shot already I would not be too concerned. But if you have not gotten the shot yet I would seriously consider researching what exactly is in the vaccination and what long-term effects it might have. I have yet to get the vaccination, I think I'll just take my chances.

Under the Guise of Lamentations

2009-11-16T20:26:00.000-08:00

Is it possible to change our behavior in a way that can overcome our reliance on goods and services that are the product of injustice? In class we discussed how our everyday lives are lived through the menial labor of underprivileged people around the world and the abuse of our planet’s resources. How we justify these things is a matter discussed at length by Albert Bandura in his article on Moral Disengagement. Of course the work of the poor and disenfranchised people of the world has always allowed the posh lives of the nobility of their time to exist. In modern times however we have seen in America, Europe and other developed areas a new rank of citizens in the middle class.

Unlike the relatively small merchant classes of feudal times this group of people is much larger and much more demanding. As Heinberg stated at the beginning of The Party’s Over this group of people is relatively rich when compared to the majority of people in the world. Now, if were you to take a look at yourself would you consider your situation in life as highly desirable? Most would say no. In fact most would give you numerous reasons for why their lives are not any sort of pinnacle to be sought after by anyone in their right mind. I for one could list how many things I still desire to do or to have and almost all would require a better occupation than the one I currently have or, to be more direct, more money.

Bandura would have us believe that our greatest hindrances to ecological sustainability lie in our inability to see the moral wrongs we have committed through our displacement of responsibility for them. I on the other hand believe that we have seen these wrongs and we know them very well. The naivety of the populace in their own wrong doing is a nice way to explain why people act the way they do yet moral justification also has another well known cause and it’s the ugly truth that we try to keep hidden.

For the younger generation our lifestyles are all that we have ever known. In addition our sense of ownership for our own destiny has been ingrained in all of us since we heard in grade school that old line of rhetoric, “anyone can be president”. This privilege has continued to be nurtured in every movie where the hero wins fame and fortune or in the novel that ends in true love. We have been a very greedy species. The avarice of the nobles has been passed down and treasured by our middle classes and we are loathe to relinquish our grasp on our relatively lavish lifestyles when given a glimpse of the poverty experienced throughout the world by others.

Warning Signs of Climate Change

2009-11-16T15:07:00.000-08:00

Climate change and global warming are widely discussed topics that have brought many questions to the front of our minds. What causes are to blame for climate change? Is it humans? Or is it a natural phenomenon? While we can't justify the blame to any one source, we can't neglect the signs that it is actually happening.
Animals have always stuck true to their natural instincts because it is survival of the fittest and that is all they have to rely on to survive. In movies, they are portrayed as the warning sign that a disaster is coming. As discussed in our BIO230 class today (11/16), because of the cooler and dryer climate changes in Africa, one line of apes have adapted to the Savannah territory. As humans, we have somewhat strayed from our instincts because although there is still competition within our race, we've all pretty much conformed to support each other as a whole. Not to mention that we've made our way to the top of the food chain. This may have been brought about from our bipedalism, as it has brought many advantages to our survival.
An article I found called "Jellyfish swarm northward in warming world" tells how fishermen are seeing swarms of poisonous and deadly jellyfish in their catch. "Scientists believe climate change — the warming of oceans — has allowed some of the almost 2,000 jellyfish species to expand their ranges, appear earlier in the year and increase overall numbers, much as warming has helped ticks, bark beetles and other pests to spread to new latitudes." One fisherman said they get depressed when they see jellyfish because it can severely taint and ruin the fish. "In 2007, a salmon farm in Northern Ireland lost its more than 100,000 fish to an attack by the mauve stinger, a jellyfish normally known for stinging bathers in warm Mediterranean waters. Scientists cite its migration to colder Irish seas as evidence of global warming." One researcher from the University of British Columbia said, "These increases in jellyfish should be a warning sign that our oceans are stressed and unhealthy."Seeing as how this phenomenon is severely penetrating the fishing industry, I'm wondering if this could be the beginning of the downfall of the vast empire. As "they" say, all good things come to an end, unless we can find a way to reverse what is happening, but at this point it doesn't seem like it can be controlled.
We don't need a giant billboard or an ex-presidential candidate to tell us that climate change is happening; we can see the signs all around us. They vary from tsunamis, tornadoes, and hurricanes to animal migrations, diseases, and overall instinct. Maybe if we tap into our own animal instinct we could find a solution to our worries of the changing world...or just quite possibly migrate to an alternate location. I hear they've found water on the moon...

Wind Turbines

2009-11-16T09:14:00.001-08:00

I was reading the other day about the wind farm they are trying to build on Nantucket Sound and I found some of the information and the problems they are facing very interesting. A Massachusetts energy company is trying to build 130 wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod. They are proposing to build the towers over five miles from the closest shore, and the proposed towers will be able to provide 75% of Cape Cod’s electricity. This is a project that had a proposed completion date of 2010but because of problem after problem they have yet to even complete the permitting stages of the project. One of the main arguments against building Cape Wind is that some say it will ruin Cape Cod’s view. Many people have huge expensive houses and are concerned that the view of the windmills will degrade their multimillion dollar homes. The windmills from the closest shore will only be visible 1/2 an inch above the horizon on a very clear day. Below there is a visual stimulation of what the views will be on a clear day. As you can see the windmills are visible, but not so visible as to ruin a view.
This picture is a stimulation of a view from Cotuit which is 5.6 miles away.

This is a stimulation of a view from Nantucket which is 13.8 miles away.

There have been many other arguments against building the wind turbines and they range from spiritual to the degradation of the marine ecosystem. One of the things that people who are against this project need to think about is that wind turbines are not the perfect solution to our energy problems. However, we depend on oil for so many aspects of our everyday lives. Not only is oil running out, but our country is in so much debt from buying oil and people are dying while fighting for the oil that we have come to depend on. We need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and clean up our environment. Windmills give us an opportunity to start to do both. It is not a perfect solution, as windmills have been shown to be hazardous to birds and other animals. However I do not believe they are more hazardous overall than the oil we use every day. Windmills would give us a way to start to lessen our dependence on oil, and I think that it is an idea that needs to be considered with a more open mind.
Source: http://www.capewind.org/index.php

Perpetual Motion

2009-11-15T15:07:00.000-08:00

Perpetual motion, in theory, is a system of energy production that produces more energy than the amount of energy put into the system for generation. In other words, perpetual motion would go on forever and we would never run out of energy. The idea of perpetual motion is great and would solve our current energy crisis however; it violates the second law of thermodynamics that states that the entropy or randomness of a system always increases. Perpetual motion is regarded as very fictitious among the scientific community on the basis that if perpetual motion is possible, then most of what we believe to be true in physics is false. With that being said, I have found a video in which perpetual motion is displayed (or edited to appear to be perpetual motion) using just a few small magnets. Is this real or fake? And can this be produced on a large scale?

Drip Irrigation

2009-11-15T14:33:00.000-08:00

Drip irrigation is a method used to water plants and it conserves a considerable amount of water, as compared to the typical sprinkler-like system. Drip irrigation allows water to slowly drip to the roots of plants or to the surface of soil. The main concepts behind the efficiency of drip irrigation are that the water soaks into the soil before it can evaporate or run off and the water is only applied where it is needed, as compared to sprinklers that spray water everywhere. The tools required for drip irrigation are cheap and there is even a “Drip Irrigation Kit for Dummies” available at Sears for $39.99. Some of the disadvantages to drip irrigation include a short longevity, clogging of equipment, and drip irrigation might be unsatisfactory if herbicides or top dressed fertilizers need sprinkler irrigation for activation. Comparing the two irrigation systems (sprinkler vs. drip), sprinklers are ~ 75-85% efficient while drip irrigation systems are ~90% efficient or higher.

Climate Change

2009-11-14T22:02:00.000-08:00

Many times people talk about climate change, but after speaking to my younger cousin I realized that not many people actually know what climate change is. In basic terms all climate change really is is a change in modern climate that can span a certain region over a certain period of time. Hearing this one may ask " So whats the big deal?" In reality climate change is a big deal and affects people, agriculture, the ecosystem and Earth in general!

The negative effects of climate change is mainly a result of the increasing heating up of the Earth. Adaption to this change can be both costly and difficult. In fact an increase anywhere from 2-3 degrees Celsius within the next 100 years can result in great damage. Thing like the ecosystem, agriculture, health, water, temperature, and energy are all affected. The ecosystem is affected by changing function and structure which has an effect on the animals of that system. Agriculture is affected in a way that even thought CO2 levels can help crops, loss of vegetation may harm crop growth. Health is affected due to an increase in heat related health illnesses such as heart and respiratory issues. Water is affected in many ways. When it comes to the water cycle evaporation increasing makes way for more storms while at the same time drying up the land. Sea levels are also rising at an increasing pace due to the melting of polar regions. And extreme floods and droughts are more likely to occur. Extreme temperature changes are more likely to occur in ways of extreme heat which in itself has a lot of consequences. And finally energy is affected in due to the costly ways to temporarily cure the problem in ways such as in billing. It also affects the hydro system in their attempts to help energy crisis.

Energy Efficiency and The Jevons' Paradox

2009-11-11T19:39:00.000-08:00

Given all the concern over rising oil prices, global climate change, and the overall energy crisis we are facing in this country there has been a large scale movement towards energy efficiency. Whether it be in the use of energy, the transportation of energy, or the simple production of energy, it is believed that if there is an increase in efficiency then there will be an increase in savings and thus a decrease in all the environmentally harmfully effects the use, transportation, and production of that energy brings. For example, it is believed that the more energy efficient a car is the less oil it needs to run and thus the less CO2 or pollution that car releases into the atmosphere and as a result the less affect that car contributes to the environment. In concept, increase energy efficiency can in fact have this effect of decreasing our overall energy consumption and ultimately reducing our carbon footprint; however, this is just in concept and when it comes to the real world the concept doesn’t always hold true (especially in our American economy).

The reason for this is something called the Jevons’ Paradox also known as the rebound effect, which is the phenomenon in which increased efficiency paradoxically leads to increased overall energy consumption. This phenomenon can be seen all throughout the U.S economy. For example, (keeping the same car example ) the more energy efficient a car is the less oil is needed to run the car and thus the more miles you can go in that car for the same prices as before (when you had a car that was not as efficient). Now it is cheaper to go the same distance, but instead of putting aside the oil or money you save by this efficiency in usage what ends up happening is that oil or money just gets put right back into the system by 1) being encouraged to drive more miles now because it is cheaper to do so as a consequence using up more oil then you normally would 2) allowing more people to buy and drive the same energy efficient car (people who may have not been able to do so before) again using up more oil 3) taking the money that is saved and buying or doing something else with it that again may use lager amounts of oil or may not be as energy efficient as the car like buying food imported from another country.

The biggest factor contributing to the Jevons’ paradox is the fact that we live in an economy that is based on growth, meaning the economy only does well if it grows. Every quarter more and more jobs must be created, more and more products must be produced, and more and more consumer goods must be purchased in order for the economy to do well and prosper. Therefore, whatever energy is saved through efficiency will almost automatically be put right back into the system to create new economic growth because without it, the economy declines. This is why so much emphasis is placed on consumer spending because it is one of the only ways to insure continued economic growth. If people are continually spending money, purchasing products, then more products will need to be made, more jobs will need to be created, and more economic growth will occur.

Another factor contributing to the Jevons’ paradox is this strong concept of self present in the American society, the concept of self interest, self greed, and self preservation. In this society, there is very little sense of community and instead of acting as a whole we act as a “sea of selves” which in turn helps lead to consume more energy. Every individual person in the sea of selves consumes energy to his or her own liking or ability regardless of what the person besides them is consuming (they eat as much as they want buy as much as they want and use as much as they want or can afford). Thus, leading to a mentality of – “if I like to or can afford to consume more energy why wouldn’t I do so” versus – “I can afford to consume more energy but I would rather give that energy to someone else who needs it more than I do or truly save it so it does not go to waste because other people need energy too not just me”. If there was a stronger sense of community then we would not only be able to save more energy but share more energy among our community thus limiting the waste or the need for excess.

One solution to the Jevons’ paradox, as mentioned by Jeff Dardozzi, is to do just that - increase the sense of community through the use of the elements of the civic and divine. Civic in the sense of community and responsibility and divine in the sense of a having a higher purpose one that is about more than just taking care of yourself. If you know for a fact that the energy you save goes directly to another person who needs it; then, you will be more inclined to save. Similarlly, if you know what the energy you use and waste can do for someone else, (i.e. if you know how important that energy is) then again you will be less inclined to misuse it. But in today’s society there is such a huge disconnect between people. They are not aware of these things and are in a sense completely isolated from each other leading to many of the problems we are facing today with respect to energy consumption.

For this reason, I strongly believe in Jeff Dardozzi’s analysis of the Jevons’ Paradox. The only way to truly decrease our overall energy consumption and ultimately reduce our carbon footprint in despite of the Jevons’ paradox is to renew this concept of community and higher purpose. This is not something that is hard for Americans to do. In fact, we do it all the time when it comes to other thing besides energy. The best example of this is our U.S military and all the men and women who enlist and serve our country and fight for a purpose that is greater than themselves. They take their most valuable form of energy – their own human bodies, their own lives and risk it putting it on the line for the safety and well being of others (their fellow Americans). We even honor them every year for their service and devote this day to them and their service. However, over the year this day has continued to become more and more transformed into a day that is about cheap deals, discounts and sales, which according to the Jevons’ paradox translates into more overall energy consummation and the continued gap between those who have money and the ability to buy and use energy and those who don’t. This day has become more and more about greed and selfishness versus community and higher purpose. The two very things we need more of if we are to solve the energy crisis. What we need is to truly honor the military and take the sayings like “UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL” and “WE ARE AN ARMY OF ONE” to heart and apply them to more than just the military. It can be done, we know we have the capacity, all that is needed is the motivation. Unlike the military where it is easy to see the need to unite against a common threat overseas, it is hard to see the need to unite against the threat that is present right here under our very noses- the threat that is energy consummation. Once we realize this, the threat it is not hard to see. We can stand up unite and put our energy consummation on the line the same way our veteran put their bodies and their lives on the line for the safety and well being of their fellow Americans. All we have to do is remember the concepts our veterans understood very well – the concepts of community, unity, and having a higher purpose.

Reference Jeff Dardozzi – The Spector of Jevons’ Paradox

Jevons' Paradox

2009-11-11T17:57:00.000-08:00

Jevons’ Paradox is the idea that as people gain the technology to increase resource efficiencies the demand for that resource increases as well, thus increasing the rate of consumption instead of decreasing it. This is a rebound effect. By making a resource more efficient thus more affordable the demand and thus the consumption increases. There are many examples of this throughout history. One example is gold. Gold used to be a resource and a luxury that very few could afford. Over time the efficiency of mining gold has improved leading to more available gold that can be sold at lower prices. Today many people can afford to buy gold jewelry and other items made of gold. Another example of this paradox is the use of airlines today. In the past travel by air was inefficient and unreliable. Over time and with improved technology the efficiencies have improved making air travel more affordable and therefore the demand and the number of people relying on air travel has increased greatly over the years.

There is a great deal of emphasis of consumer spending and consumer shopping. One of the reasons for this is because the government wants to keep the economy going. Another reason is that people are trying to keep up with each other. I think many people especially in this country are very materialistic and everyone wants what someone else has. This materialistic attitude fuels shopping, and the availability of credit cards allows many people to spend when they don’t have money to spend. If consumer spending were to decrease the economy would probably become more unstable but many people would probably be better off. If people were to focus more on the things they do have than the things that they don’t have we would probably be happier and healthier.

The term “sea of selves” refers to the way we usually only think about ourselves. Sometimes we think about others but very rarely do we do something to change things. We act on behalf of ourselves and do what is best for us not usually what is best for society or for the world and the environment. Dardozzi talks about the idea of civic and divine. He means that people need to think more of their communities and the bigger picture not only of themselves and their families. People need to become part of something bigger like a community so that the focus is not totally on self.

I think the article by Jeff Dardozzi is very interesting. I agree with the idea that people are focused almost exclusively on themselves and the people closest to them. I also agree with the idea that people have very little sense of community, and are unable or unwilling to see the effects of human actions on the world and the environment. I think that that this assignment is due on Veterans Day because veterans’ day is the act of honoring those people who have given their lives for us and our country. These people probably think about people other than themselves. Today however Veterans Day is about something different. All over today I saw ads and signs for Veterans Day sales and specials. Today we are supposed to be honoring people who fought for our country but we have turned it into a consumer shopping holiday

The Rebound Effect (Veteran's Day Blog)

2009-11-11T12:20:00.000-08:00

The rebound effect, also known as Jevon’s paradox, is the belief that increases in the efficiency of energy usage within technology does not lead to a reduction in the consumption of that energy. The main idea behind the rebound effect is that when a person saves money, with respect to efficiency, they will just end up spending more. An example of the rebound effect that is prominent in the United States is the availability of food and it’s link to the obesity epidemic. According to a study published in the October 27, 1999 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the number of obese Americans increased by 50% between 1991 and 1998. This increase in obesity is a direct result of the availability and low price of food. Relating back to the rebound effect, although the efficiency or abundance of food has increased, the consumption has exponential increased and effectively negated the benefits of the efficiency.

Essentially, the rebound effect places the responsibility, or the reason why the advances in efficiency will never end the energy crisis, on the consumers and their inability to stop spending. One of the proposed solutions to the rebound effect is to negate the savings earned from the increased efficiency in order to deter extra spending. However, the rebound effect overlooks the fact that if consumers spend significantly less money the economy will suffer and it can fall into a recession. Less spending = lesser demands for goods and services.

The phrase “sea of selves” refers to the overwhelming amount of selfish individuals who only think about themselves (and sometimes the people closest to them) in terms of survival. The concept of “sea of selves” is adverse to Bailey’s notion of the civic and the divine, which he proposes is the solution to a successful society. The civic refers to the rights, obligations and responsibilities that bind the collective to the individual. The divine refers to the belief of something greater than one's self and that the activities of the collective are significant in relation to the world. After reading about the “sea of selves” and the concept of the civic and the divine, it became apparent to me why this blog assignment was due on Veteran’s day. The individuals who fight for our country express an extreme sense of patriotism and selflessly only think in terms of the collective. Perhaps if people were required to enroll in a boot camp for ecology then the Earth would be in a better condition.

In response to Jeff Dardozzi’s very intuitive essay, I agree with his belief that anti-social elements of the human characteristic are destroying any chances of creating a successful collective and that reorganization will have to be done through force (not necessarily violently) because most people in this society only think about themselves and are content in their ignorance of the problems that we will all suffer from as a collective.

Veteran's Day Blog

2009-11-10T15:47:00.000-08:00

The rebound effect is an unintended negative consequence to increased efficiency. Rather than causing an overall decrease in the consumption of a resource, the rebound effect causes an overall increase in the consumption of this resource as a result of heightened efficiency. According to the rebound effect, the initial decrease in consumption will be followed by a reduction in price of the resource. A lower price will then result in increased consumption, thereby increasing overall consumption of the resource. One example of this is the sales of SUVs a few years back. As hybrids became mainstream, and gas prices skyrocketed, SUV prices had to be dropped. As a result of lower prices, sales picked up again. Another example, as noted by Dardozzi, is the increase in paper consumption as a result of technological advances in offices. As the cost per word to print plummeted, paper consumption greatly increased.

I think there is so much emphasis on consumer spending because it's the one thing Americans have always done; it's what our economy is based on. America functions as a free-market system. In stark contrast to the former Soviet Union, our country's businesses face very little government intervention. Consumer saving appears to be the answer because our government does not involve itself in the marketplace. It is up to us to save our own way of life. If consumers stop spending so much our economy faces possible ruin. Without consistent consumer spending, the American economy could collapse in on itself. If we stop spending, there will be consequential job loss, which will only further the cycle.

"Sea of selves" is the term applied to the American citizens who continue to refuse to forfeit their "illusions of freedom for the sake of collective survival." Put in another way, the people of this country view survival in individual terms. We try to protect ourselves, and maybe a few others close to us, at the expense of the country. America is a "sea" made up of "selves".

When Bailey discusses his notion of the civic and divine, he is referencing two different ways in which people relate to the collective. Civic concerns the responsibility and obligation the individual feels toward the collective. The civic is what attaches the individual and the collective. The divine, on the other hand, refers to the individual's concept of something altogether "bigger". Bailey believes the individual must believe in something grander for self-interest as well as the best interest of the collective.

I don't think that Dardozzi's essay provides the complete solution to Jevon's Paradox, but I believe it is a good place to start. Unfortunately, I think it will be difficult to convince Americans to abandon their individualism and begin thinking in terms of the country as a whole. It is too easy and convenient for each of us to "quarantine" ourselves; we try not to worry about any of these issues as long as they don't directly affect us. If we could each learn to think in terms of the civic and divine, we could certainly establish a jumping-off point. However, I am not totally optimistic that we can think of the collective as much as the individual.

I think I understand why Professor Hirsch made this assignment due on Veteran's Day. America's veterans serve the country as a whole, not the individual. They sacrifice personal freedoms and opportunities for the good of us all. These are men and women who serve the ideals of civic and divine. I also believe Professor Hirsch hopes we can learn from our veterans; their loyalty and sense of duty is a perfect model for what must be done for the country in the near future.

Jevon's Paradox

2009-11-10T13:49:00.000-08:00

The application of an interesting paradox to our current social and economical aspects of life was presented by Jeff Dardozzi. Jevon's paradox, or the rebound effect simply states that technological progression of a particular resource leads to an increase in the efficiency of that resource which ultimately leads to an overall increase in the rate of consumption. In other words, if something becomes more efficient and cheaper to use, people will use it more frequently. Jevon's paradox can be applied to the increase in production of the Smart Car. Consumers had never before seen a car with better gas mileage. When the production of the Smart Car increased, sales increased due to a lowering in the price. But having a Smart Car with better gas mileage than every other car allows the driver to drive even more than he/she would have with a normal car. So, the increase in production of the Smart Car lead to a decrease in price and an overall increase in consumption. Another example of a resource that exhibits jevon's paradox, is air conditioning. Recently, new air conditioners have been installed in homes that use almost half of the overall energy than the original air conditioners. Production of these new energy-efficient air conditioners has greatly increased, causing the price to go down. More and more homeowners are now buying these new air conditioners. When a homeowner learns that their new air conditioner is much more efficient, he/she will use it much more frequently. And if more and more people are buying them and using them more frequently than their old air conditioners, the net energy consumption will be greater than before.

The has been a very large emphasis on consumer spending in our economy in the past century primarily because it sustains the system. The present consumer spending supports the economic and political order whose power is sustained primarily by maintaining growth and "capital accumulation". Since the economic system requires the constant externalization of its operating costs to maintain itself, a decrease in consumer spending would cause an overall systematic collapse of our economic and social system.

Adam Curtis' idea of corporate America turning our society into a "sea of selves" describes each member of our society focusing primarily on the health of themselves, rather than focusing on the overall health of the system and community. Curtis' "sea of selves" describes an entire popultion that has an "inverted quarantine". He believes that corporate America has influenced and allowed each member of our society to concern themselves with only themselves.

Bailey's notion of the civic and the divine describes, what he believes, the social aspects of our collective personalities. He believes that for a community or organization to be successful, the elements of the civic and divine must be placed at the center of its structure. The civic and devine, he sates, describes an organization's reason to be. The civic element of our personalities is found in our set of rights and obligations that bind the collective to the individual while the divine element describes the notion of something greater than one's self and that the activities of the collective effect the overall system.

I think that Dardozzi's essay paints a very accurate picture of the structures of our entire society. From economically, politically and socially, Dardozzi describes how each aspect will be affected by an overall decrease in available energy and the problems that appear with energy efficiency. Dardozzi's essay makes us as consumers think twice about using energy efficient technologies rather than simply using less. I do appreciate his description of our very fragile system and how one simple flaw will have destructive consequences. I also appreciate his description of the rise of our somewhat selfish personalities. I think he was very accurate when he described our "survival of the fittest" type of attitude, in that most members of our society think and act only for the success of themselves, rather than the success of our system. Although his description is somewhat depressing, I think it is a wake-up-call for members of our society. I think Dardozzi accurately describes who the individual is and why the individual should work more for the collective in order to survive any oncoming crisis.

This assignment is appropriate for veteran's day because of the mentality of the soldier. At the beginning, the soldier is broken down and the "self" is taken out of his/her personality. After the soldier is broken down, he/she is rebuilt to focus on the health and success of the collective unit. A soldier soon learns to fight not for himself, but for the soldiers around him, and the success of the entire operation. A veteran is someone who has fought for the success of the people around them, and for the success and health of the entire nation. The veteran knows that a "sea of selves" will not survive. The veteran exhibits more than others the civic and devine and knows their reason to be. If this nation was filled with a "sea of veterans", our society as a whole would prosper.

Bottled Water

2009-11-04T15:33:00.000-08:00

By now we've all heard about the unnecessary burden bottled water puts on the environment. Still, I most of us probably continue to drink it. It has become fairly common knowledge that tap water, which must be rigorously tested and treated, is typically cleaner than bottled water, which has much more lax regulations. Still, Americans continue to buy it. The most common excuse is that it's just more convenient, and this is true; it's easier to just grab a bottle of water on your way out the door than to pour yourself a glass of tap water. But, as our guest lecturer pointed out on Monday, the plastic used to make bottled water comes from petroleum. Not only that, but these plastic bottles are extremely non-biodegradable, and tax our landfills.

If American citizens don't care enough to stop drinking bottled water, someone else will have to step in and try and resolve the issue. Thankfully, some people are paying attention. According to an article by Julie Knapp, on http://www.tapitwater.com, the state legislature of North Carolina has, effective as of October 1, banned the deposition of "all rigid plastic containers, including plastic water bottles, in their landfills." She says state officials are optimistic this will encourage people to recycle their plastic bottles. This after "nearly 7 billion pounds of plastic bottles were dumped in landfills nationwide" in 2007. In addition to increasing plastic recycling, I think this new law will cause North Carolina's residents to think more carefully about buying bottles water in general. If they're going to have put in extra effort to get rid of their plastic trash, they'll probably try to avoid amounting such trash in the first place. Instead of grabbing a bottle of water on their way out the door, maybe now they'll just fill up a Nalgene bottle from the tap and take that with them.

London city officials are also taking measures to cut down on plastic bottle waste. London's bus and railway stations have recently been equipped with water refilling stations known as "Hydrachills". For the cost of about 30 US cents, people can refill any bottle they have with them with cool, clean water. According to Hydrachill's website (http://www.hydra-chill.com/), all proceeds will benefit an environmental charity known as Waste Watch. With these Hydrachill stations, London's residents and tourists can save themselves money that would have been spent on another bottle of water, while reducing plastic waste.

I think both of these initiatives, particularly the introduction of Hydrachill, are steps in the right direction. If most people are going to continue to rely on the convenience of bottled water, the government is going to have to either provide a comparable alternative, or draw up legislature to help save us from ourselves.

Environmental Progress of the Great Lakes

2009-11-04T10:51:00.000-08:00

After reading Szasz's text, specifically his discussion on the pollution of the Cuyahoga River and when in burst into flames in 1969, I decided to check up on the environmental progress of that specific region. I became very interested primarily because the waters of the Cuyahoga River flow into Lake Erie. Lake Erie is connected to Lake Ontario by the Niagara River (below) and the Welland Canal that was built. I happen to live about 5 miles from the shores of Lake Ontario, so when Szasz mentioned the catastrophic pollution of the Cuyahoga River, I became intrigued. Before I discuss the history of pollution and of recovery, I will first discuss why the Great Lakes are so important.

According to an Elementary School Geography class posting from Detroit, Michigan, the Great Lakes are some of, if not the most important lakes in the U.S. and Canada. The Great Lakes hold about one-fifth of the world's surface fresh water. The Great Lakes are the center of North America's industrial heartland, which supports the ecosystem 8 U.S. states, and two Canadian provinces which in turn supports nearly 40 million Americans and Canadians. These 40 million Americans and Canadians help support a multi-billion dollar tourist and fishing industry. So, as you can see, the Great Lakes are pretty important.

According to the Great Lakes Information Network, "Water pollution is defined as a change in the chemical, physical and biological health of a waterway due to human activity. Ways that humans have affected the quality of the Great Lakes water over the centuries include sewage disposal, toxic contamination through heavy metals and pesticides, overdevelopment of the water's edge, runoff from agriculture and urbanization, and air pollution." As industry boomed in the 18th and 19th century, companies used the Great Lakes and rivers as their own garbage cans, under the widespread belief that water could dilute any substance. The pollutants that enter the Great Lakes come from a variety sources, but the main three sources of pollutants are point source pollution (drainpipe draining directly into a lake), nonpoint source pollution (runoff that picks up pollutants), and atmospheric pollution (air pollutants from coal-burning energy plants and waste incinerators). After a century or two of disposing of waste in these ways, their consequences soon became apparent. The picture below shows the pollution in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

The water pollution in the Great Lakes has greatly affected and altered many aspects of the ecosystem. One example of these effects and alterations has been the overall health of fish and wildlife that bases their health on the overall health of the waterway. Heavy metals such as mercury and lead, along with pesticides that enter the overall food chain create various deformities and death among sealife. These deformities include large tumors in fish and three-legged frogs that have been spotted in the past decade. The pollution of the Great Lakes has also greatly affected human health. People surrounding the Great Lakes ingest large amounts of fish taken from the lakes themselves. So eating contaminated fish will have drastic effects on human health such as sickness and disease. According to the Great Lakes Information Network, "studies have suggested that toxic chemicals (present in fish) can lead to reproductive problems, cancer and neurological disorders." Water pollution from industrialization has also created "eutrophication", or increased biological growth. Before industrialization, the Great Lakes naturally contained little plant nutrients which created high levels of animal life. When industry started to emerge, new nutrients were introduced to this natural cycle. These new nutrients were quickly loaded into the lakes which was much more than the natural waterbody could handle. This excessive nutrient loading into the lakes stimulated excessive plant growth, which soon decreased the amount of available oxygen in the water and eventually killing off certain species, therefore greatly altering the ecological balance of the Great Lakes.

After the Cuyahoga river incident and an increase in eutrophication, the U.S. and Canada signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) in 1972. The GLWQA established pollution control levels (mainly to reduce phosphorus levels in Lakes Ontario and Erie), water quality research and monitoring regulations. Since then, countless agreements and regulations have been made to reduce the amount of pollution from nearly every source. GLWQA reports that "since 1970, the levels of toxic pollutants in Lakes Erie and Ontario have decreased by nearly 80%".

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) soon stepped in and reported that between 1992 and 2001 the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the awarded 71 demonstration grants totaling $4,855,459 to States, Tribes, academic institutions, non-profit organizations, county and municipal governments, technical assistance providers, and others. These grants have leveraged $2,156,584 in contributions from grantees and others." These various organizations worked to reduce and prevent future pollutants entering the Great Lakes. Below is a list created by EPA in 2002 of various reductions in pollutants that could be measured from 1992-2001.

-8236 Lbs of mercury removed from use or uncontrolled storage
-5790 mercury thermometers collected from residents within the Great Lakes states and exchanged for alternative thermometers
-105275 Fluorescent lamps containing mercury collected and recycled.
-500 mercury containing auto switches collected from autos (both end of life and in-use) and properly disposed of
-451 PCB Transformers removed, and the PCB materials properly disposed of, while the metal, etc. has been recycled

-262,073 Lbs of Pesticides properly disposed of
-7041 Lbs. Of household hazardous waste collected and properly disposed of

-In addition thousands of pounds of electronics and computer equipment containing lead solder, mercury, and other precious metals have been collected from residents within the Great Lakes states and properly recycled.

These efforts and numbers will continue to grow as more and more residents within the Great Lakes states turn their "inverted quarantines" back outward and find systematic solutions to various systematic threats.

Community Gardens

2009-11-03T21:31:00.000-08:00

In class we had a guest speaker who made me realize the importance of fresh food and its impact on the bosy and the enviorment. My family comes from a country that grew and relied on agriculture so my parents did thier best to bring what they could of that here, when the moved to America. In my back yard we grow tomatoes, cucumbers, string beans, pumpkins and hot peppers. We're lucky enough to have a space to grow these crops however living in the city, also known as the concrete jungle, many people don't have much green space to do this. This is where community gardens come to play.

A community garden is a plot of land in which many people come together to take care of in order to be able to use it to plant what they want. This allows people without a yard to be able to grow what they want to. They are open to the public as long as those who participate agree to take care of the land in which they are using.

Comming from the Bronx I was surprised to hear that there are many community gardens located there. I never really saw any but then figured that I never really was looking. I did research to see where many of these gardens where located and came up with a long list. The only problem with this list was that many of these gardens are at risl of being threatened which means that if more people don't get invovlved the government may replace the green land with what they seem necessary, which according to them is anything thay can make money off of. Its the people who need to spread the word and utilize these community gardens so that we may be able to live fresh and healthy while saving the Earth.

Saving Ourselves

2009-11-03T09:24:00.000-08:00

The lecture in class yesterday proved to me that indeed, before you can save the world, you have to save yourself. Signing that petition requesting more locally produced food really made me believe we can make a difference, one little step at a time.
Another little step we can take, which was discussed in class, is providing students the option to learn how to farm or garden important foods so that we can all eat healthier. I've been feeling for a while that the foods I eat really are not as nutritious as they should be because they have been processed and shipped. Not to mention the fact that our government has been proven, time and again, to care only about the profits instead of what's best for us. By implementing courses in the school curriculum that teach growing and sustainability with a hands-on perspective, we could really see a change in the way we live our lives. I would love to say I have a major/minor in farming/gardening.
Seeing as how there are community gardens popping up in crowded, industrialized cities like the Bronx, it shouldn't be hard for the university to find a patch of land for students to harvest and run, whether it be for a class or optional enjoyment.

ELECTRIC CARS

2009-11-03T08:58:00.000-08:00

For a class I was required to read an article titled "Warren Buffet takes charge" from fortune 500 magazine. I found this article really interesting. It is about a Chinese automobile manufacturing company who is now manufacturing electric cars. The company is called BYD and is run by Wang Chuan-Fu. The company began as a small battery manufacturing company; Chaun-Fu expanded the company and became a leading manufacturer of rechargeable cell phone batteries. When BYD purchased a small automotive company they began to engineer and produce electric cars and in late 2010 these new cars are expected to hit the markets. Electric cars are far from a perfect solution to the internal combustion gasoline cars we all use today, but they could be a step in the right direction. If these cars are manufactured and are able to be sold at a reasonable price, the electricity still has to be generated somehow to fuel these cars. Many forms of electricity generation are harmful to the environment just like CO2 emissions. However if some of the electricity could be generated from renewable sources such as wind or solar energy it could cut down on a lot of our CO2 emissions from automobiles.

If these electric cars are affordable they could save people money as well. The article states...

"Assume you drive 12,000 miles a year, gas costs $2 a gallon, and electricity is priced at 12¢ per kilowatt, about what most Americans pay. A gasoline-powered car that gets 20 miles to the gallon - say, a Chevy Impala or a BMW X3 - will have annual fuel costs of $1,200 and generate about 6.6 tons of carbon dioxide. Equip those cars with electric motors, and fuel costs drop to $400 a year and emissions are reduced to about 1.5 tons. "

400 dollars a year is a significant savings especially when you multiply that by the millions of people who could save this. This could also drastically reduce our dependency on foreign oil. The emissions would be reduced by almost 5 tons per year; multiply that by even one million people and the emissions would be reduced dramatically. If we all came to depend on electric cars like we depend on gas run cars today there would be an increase in the demand for electricity, we would just have to find ways to keep the emissions from the generation of electricity to a minimum and it might really help lower the CO2 levels.

One of the other things I found really interesting about this article is that BYD says that they reduced the cost of their batteries by replacing robots and machines with workers. In a time like this where unemployment rises everyday it is interesting to think maybe other companies could do the same and see similar results. More jobs would mean less unemployment and less poverty and would have huge impacts on the economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/13/technology/gunther_electric.fortune/

The Economy Vs. The Environment

2009-10-28T16:21:00.000-07:00

The Obama administration is faced with an extremely difficult period in our history in which to try and address climate change. In the midst of a crippling recession, climate change is rarely the primary concerns of American citizens. However, recession or no recession, steps need to be taken to protect the planet. After class, I read the NY Times article by John M. Broder that Professor Hirsh showed us a glimpse of. According to the arcticle, "the (Obama) administration promoted measures to cap greenhouse gas emissions and support new means of fueling homes and vehicles with far less carbon dioxide intensity." At the same time, five Obama officials appeared before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee "to speak in support of a bill to address global warming and encourage development of nonpolluting energy sources. They said such measures were important not only to the environment but to the nation’s economic competitiveness."

The proponents of the bill, named after John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, hail it as a way to lessen the impacts of climate change while creating new jobs in the alternative energy sector. The bill's opponents, however, criticize it for "overly complex", and fear it "will harm the economy, kill jobs and favor some parts of the country over others." I think the latter group is missing the point and thinking on a much-too-small scale. Whether or not this bill's passing would create or eliminate jobs is not something I pretend to be able to predict. I do believe, however, that the United States' continued reluctance to join the rest of the industrialized world in the struggle against climate change could be devastating. According to climateprogress.org, "China’s leaders are investing $12.6 million every hour to green their economy." (http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/primer-solar-pv-wind-us-china-europe/) So, while the US economy struggles and America tries to close its eyes and pretend climate change isn't happening, the Chinese have a thriving economy and are spending billions to go green.

While the recession may be the main concern for America at the moment, more attention needs to be paid to the future, namely, the environment. The Kerry-Boxer bill may, as White House hopes, help heal the economy in some way. Or, it may offer no help whatsoever. This is not really relevant. The point is that its better to act now and risk making a mistake than to do nothing and accept our dismal fate.

Curitiba

2009-10-27T17:50:00.000-07:00

One of my other classes this semester is history and culture of Latin America. Today in class we were discussing a city in Southern Brazil and I found some of the information very interesting and thought it would pertain to this class as well. Curitiba is a city of two million people, and with growing transportation problems they established one of the best public transportation systems in the world. This system relies on a bus rapid transport system. There are lanes in the cities on which only the buses and a person can ride the bus system for one fare no matter how far they are going. This makes the bus rapid transport system fast efficient and affordable for Curitiba citizens. In fact 85 percent of Curitiba citizens rely on public transportation. In addition to this incredible public transportation system Curitiba also has established many public parks. The city has 580 square feet of green space per Curitiba resident. Today the city of Curitiba is looked upon as a model for other cities trying to develop more efficient public transportation systems. In 2007 Curitiba ranked 3rd on a list of “green” cities. I find it really interesting that a country like Brazil with a somewhat unstable economy and political and social unrest boasts one of the cleanest well organized cities in the world.

The Day After Tomorrow - could it ever happen?

2009-10-27T12:05:00.000-07:00

As Professor Hirsch mentioned in class yesterday The Day After Tomorrow is a typical Hollywood exaggeration of the consequences of rising carbon dioxide levels and the effects of a climate shift that would result. For those of you who have yet to see it, the situation is this. Due to a gradual increase in global temperature, oceanic glaciers have continued to melt, allowing more freshwater to enter the ocean. As described yesterday in lecture, adding freshwater to the ocean disrupts natural currents and wind patterns that help maintain a somewhat "homeostasis" of the ocean and weather patterns (picture shown below). In The Day After Tommorow scientists first notice that the temperature in a few spots in the Atlantic ocean decrease rapidly. This temperature drop is the first indication the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. In the movie, the collapse of the Atlantc thermohaline circulation launhces the globe into a new ice age, with ice covering nearly the entire Northern Hemisphere in less than a week. But are all aspects of the movie inaccurate?

First, the theory of an abrupt climate shift which occured in The Day After Tomorrow is somewhat accurate and has been proven to occur in the past. One of the most well known and most studied abrupt climate shifts started and ended the the Younger Dryas interval. The interval began with a rapid drop in temperature of about 10 degrees C that began about 12,800 years ago, and ended with a relatively rapid increase in temperature of about 8 degrees celsius which occured in less than a decade. The interval began about 12,800 years ago and ended abruptly about 11,600 years ago, representing a gradual climate shift that lasted nearly 1,200 years. So, the first and probably most obvious inaccuracy of The Day After Tomorrow is the speed of the global climate shift. Evidence shows that a global climate shift could not occur as fast as a week, rather it would occur gradually over thousands of years. But the overall aspect of a climate shift is accurate in that past abrupt climate changes have been especially common when the climate system itself was being rapidly altered.

Although it is not clearly known what exactly caused the abrupt climate shift of the Younger Dryas, a shutdown of the North Atlantic circulation is considered to be an unlikely cause. According to the National Academies, "A shutdown of the circulation would not induce a new glacial period, but it would cause major changes both in the ocean (major circulation regimes, upwelling and sinking regions, distribution of seasonal sea ice, ecological systems, and sea level)and in the atmosphere (land-sea temperature contrast, and the intensity, frequency, and paths of storms)." So the collapse of the North Atlantic circulation might not cause a new global ice age.

One aspect of The Day After Tomorrow is not inaccurate, but rather simply exaggerated. In the movie, the sea level rose about 50 feet in a matter of seconds, destroying New York City. What appeared to be a tsunami, was instead the outcome of rising sea levels. Again, the speed of this action was exaggerated. In the movie, the sea level rose in a matter of seconds, but in reality, it would take centuries. But, the rise in sea level due to global warming is not inaccurate. In fact, the sea level has been rising in many global areas, but at a speed that is not noticable. Increasing emissions and an overall rise in temperture would lead to a large rise in sea level. Shown below is a picture of the outcome of a rise in sea level of about 1 meter, which according to the Department of Geosciences, is believed to happen during this century.

So, although the movie was blown way out of proportion, the aspect of an induced abrupt climate shift resulting in a rise in global sea levels, is believed to be accurate. Although we are not likely to see any of these major changes in our lifetime, we should act as soon as possible to decrease our emissions.

Copenhagen consensus on climate

2009-10-27T10:40:00.000-07:00

In 2009, the Copenhagen consensus on climate assembled a panel consisting of five economists to consider the foremost solutions to the issue of climate change and global warming, and prioritize the solutions based on variables such as cost and efficiency. The number one ranked solution was titled An Analysis of Climate Engineering as a Response to Climate Change and was written by Dr. Eric J Bickel and Lee Lane. This solution basically entails that a fleet of unmanned wind-powered ships would be used to conduct marine cloud whitening. Marine cloud whitening is a process by which seawater droplets are sprayed into marine clouds to make them reflect more sunlight. The ships would draw water from the ocean to produce plumes of seawater mist that would whiten the clouds and effectively reflect about 1 to 2 percent of sunlight that would otherwise be fixed on the ocean, adding to its temperature. The cost of this project was estimated to cost $9 billion, which is very low compared to the amount of money spent by nations to reduce carbon emissions. Some of the other highly ranked solutions include launching fine material into the stratosphere to scatter and absorb sunlight, and launching tiny transparent screens into space that would focus a small amount of the sun's light away from Earth. The list of rankings can be found here as well as summaries of proposed solutions: http://fixtheclimate.com/component-1/the-result-prioritization/#at

Oil in Cuba

2009-10-23T22:39:00.000-07:00

After watching the video in class I decided to do some more research on the oil in Cuba. Apparently the United States Geological Survey estimates that Cuba holds reserves of 4.6 billion barrels of oil, something which American companies are raving over on how to get their hands on it. Unlike deep water offshore fields, Cuba's reserves can be tapped on from land saving money in its accumulation making profits much more higher. In exchange for oil, Cuba is asking for energy investment and many companies are willing to comply.

The United States Department of Energy knows that new oil production is "dependent on the discovery of substantial new reserves." This basically means The US needs to find new oil reserves and in Cuba that is what they have found.

Following Cuba's Example

2009-10-21T18:07:00.001-07:00

As we saw in the video, when Cuba reached peak oil, they were faced with dire circumstances. Considering the United States will one day soon be faced with the same problem, I think we should take note of their situation and response. For just about the first time since the class began however, today I felt like there might actually be a way for us to cope with peak oil. Rather than repeating the mistake of the Cubans and waiting for catastrophe to strike before responding, I think we should start considering solutions now.

The Cubans made many impressive changes in everyday life after they reached peak oil. To me, however, the most impressive was how they shifted the emphasis of their agriculture. With the help of their government, who allowed citizens to use available land to farm, free of tax, Cubans transitioned from energy-intensive,conventional farming to smaller scale farming, which requires very few non-renewable resources. With the use of fossil fuels to create fertilizer becoming an impossibility, Cubans had to be very creative. They abandoned the use of tractors to turn the soil of huge acres of farmland, and instead reverted back to using animal-pulled plows. The focus shifted from machinery to manual labor. In addition, they started using biopesticides and biofertilizers instead of conventional pesticides and fertilizers. The result? A Cuba that is much healthier now than before peak oil. Cuba now uses less than 5% of the conventional fertilizer than they did prior to peak oil, and 85% of Cuba's agricultural production is organic. With the implementation of crop rotation, compost, manure, and worm humus, Cuba was able to break free of their dependency on fossil fuels for agriculture.

That begs the question: will the US be able to respond and recover like Cuba? There is no way to know for sure. Our country is different from Cuba in several aspects. Its much larger and more populous, for one. Also, we do not have quite as favorable a climate for farming throughout the country as Cuba, and we are not ruled by a dictator. These difficulties aside, I think we stand a chance of surviving peak oil, as the Cubans did, if we don't delay too long. It took Cuba nearly four years to recover from the strains imposed by peak oil. The thought that the world's superpower, the envy of the planet, could spend four years in peril is a tough pill to swallow for Americans. This is why we need to begin making provisions soon, if not now. The government should assemble some kind of team of analysts with the intent to prepare the country. We need to explore the possibilities of small scale farming like that used in Cuba. Any realistic alternative to fossil fuels that can be used in agriculture needs to be looked into. We should leave no stone unturned as we prepare for the coming crisis.

Cuba

2009-10-21T18:05:00.000-07:00

After watching the video on Cuba today I was thinking about the question raised about whether the United States could implement some of the same policies that Cuba was forced to implement. I think it would be possible to implement some of these policies especially those in regards to agriculture. Although Cuba has a much smaller population than the United States they have more people per square mile than we do in the United States. Cuba has a population of about 11 million and the total area of Cuba is 42803 square miles. The population of the United States is 304 million people and we have 3718711 square miles of land. Cuba has approximately .003 square miles of land per person while here in the United States we have approximately .012 square miles per person. The people of Cuba were able to overcome huge food shortages by coming up with innovative ideas like rooftop gardens and urban agriculture. Here in the United States we have much more land available per person than is available in Cuba, and we also have a wide range of climates which supports different varieties of crops and agriculture. Cuba was a country that was forced to implement policies that changed the way people lived. Because of trade embargos that caused oil shortages people were forced to make changes in their lifestyles. These changes are helping Cubans live a more sustainable lifestyle. Here in the United States we are not facing the same drastic measures that Cuba was facing but if we were to start making changes before oil shortages become too severe I believe the transition would be easier.

Wegmans Food Markets

2009-10-20T13:23:00.000-07:00

I have noticed that most people in the city of Albany have not even heard of Wegmans Food Markets. Or, that someone has heard of it, but is unsure of what it is. Wegmans is a privately owned grocery chain. It is a family owned business that emerged out of my hometown, Rochester, New York. It has grown into a 74-store chain in the mid-atlantic region. Wegmans was named "Best Grocery Store" in 2007 by the Food Network, and was ranked the top large grocery chain the the U.S. by Consumer Reports. I myself have been an employee at Wegmans for about 5 years and have noticed firsthand large progessions the company has made.

The reason why I am introducing Wegmans Food Markets to everyone is because of its local support and its growing environmentally-friendly movement. One of the most important aspects of the company that many customers tend to overlook, is Wegmans' "Locally Grown Program". As you can probably tell by the name, Wegmans' produce is obtained primarily from small, local family farmers. These family farmers are able to bring large selections of fresh fruits and vegetables to Wegman’s customers, going directly to the stores and bypassing distribution centers and warehouses. That means, consumers can purchase fresh produce within hours of being picked. In an interview discussing this Locally Grown system, the president, Danny Wegman stated: "Such an initiative is good for the environment because it reduces fuel costs, which helps the grocer offer competitive prices to shoppers”. One might think that as an employee I have an inside scoop on Wegmans' operations and where they obtain their produce. But in fact, I, and every other customer can learn more about Locally Grown Sustainable Produce on our company website (Wegmans.com). Here, customers can learn more about the actual growers in each region. So in turn, there is no barrier between the company and the customer, which seems to be the case in most large grocery stores (coughWAL-MARTcough).

Wegmans is also in the process of going green, and conserving. As an employee, I have noticed firsthand this transformation and extra steps to reduce any further stress put on the environment. One of my favorite characteristics of all Wegmans stores, which most stores lack, is that next to EVERY trash can, is a recycling bin. Many stores, I have noticed, have numerous trash cans throughout the store while their recycling bins are in remote places. Another characteristic of Wegmans that is environmentally-friendly, is their Reusable Bag movement. 2 years ago, Wegmans began producing larger, and stronger reusable bags that cost $0.99. Advertisement for these bags was enormous. Many stores, including my own, had contests to see which store could sell the most reusable bags. These reusable bags were created to replace the not-so environmentall friendly plastic bags. Since 2007, production of plastic bags has decreased by nearly 30%, while production of these reusable bags has increased by about 50%. Many Wegmans stores, I have heard, are beginning to charge customers if they want to use plastic bags, in an effort to promote reusable bags. I have also heard that intensive meetings have been held with Wegmans representatives and local farmers. Wegmans is requesting that these local farmers seek certification in Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), which sets standards on the use of water, fertilizers, manure, and pesticides. Local farmers have also been encouraged to either use recyclable cardboard boxes to deliver their produce, or sturdy, washable and reusable plastic boxes. They have also been encouraged to deliver to a number of Wegman’s stores in one day to save fuel and time.

This is only the beginning for the advancement of Wegmans and their local and environmental movements. Wegmans has continued to grow, creating new stores and supporting more and more local family farmers. I have heard that there is a possibility of a Wegmans appearing in Albany within the next few years. When this happens, customers will stray away from Wal-mart and shop at one of the most customer-friendly company's in the country.

No Impact Man

2009-10-19T21:45:00.000-07:00

I have just come across a must see documentary for everyone in our class and in the country!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The name is NO IMPACT MAN

No impact man movie trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fITT6rVPds

The documentary is about Colin Beavan and his family (wife Michelle and two year old daughter) and their attempt to live ONE year without making NO net environmental impact, The documentary highlights the all the steps taken by Colin and his family in their systematic shedding of all the modern comforts of urban family life: No transportation, no TV, no trash, no restaurants or take-out, no newspapers or magazines, no toilet paper, no plastic diapers, no store-bought cleaning products or cosmetics, and no electricity. Beavan wants to prove to the world that one person can in fact make a difference and I believe through this film he accomplishes just that.

I believe the point of the documentary is not to say that everyone must give up all of the comforts of a modern lifestyle and live like they did in the documentary, but to show that if it's possible for one family of 3 to reduce their environmental impact to 0 for one whole year then we can all reduce our impact substantially with less effort than we think.

Most of the movie critics however did not agree and I feel miss the point of the movie. The New York time, for example mocked Beavan and his family’s efforts by naming their article about the film The Year Without Toilet Paper. Many others also said that Beavan is just another self-promoting wannabe trying to make himself an instant celebrity the same way Morgan Spurlock did with his documentary “Supersize Me." There are even some who criticized the very idea of what he is trying to do, the idea of having NO Impact on the environment, and seeing it as stupid and pointless.

As seen through this comments like this one

“By the way, of course the family's efforts were more than undone by all the energy expended to make this film, not to mention all the people who further defiled the ozone by going to see it in theaters. At least I didn't notice any bikes in the parking lot when I saw it.. Oh, and they'll be printing a book soon, too, as well.

Goodbye trees...”

As you can see I believe these critics are not only missing the point but are completely undermining the opportunity to get people in this country to think about their energy use, something that I feel is desperately needed this country and throughout the world. I believe that most of these critics are not fully aware of the current energy crisis we are facing in this country and how dependent we are on fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and natural gas) and how our overuse of these fuels are not only contributing to globe climate change but having a severely detrimental effect on our environment. Therefore without a clear and vivid understanding of this it is hard for these critics to truly appreciate the message Beavan is trying to get across in the film, a message that I believe is well worth all paper used to print the book and even all the energy used to create, and distribute the film. If only half the people who go to see the movie or read the book go out and take part in Beavan’s project to reduce their impact on the environment, even by a small amount, then Beavan through the actions of thousands (if not millions) of other people will be able to save ten, a thousand, or maybe a million times more energy than he saved in that one year and thus well making up for all the energy or paper used to get the message across.

Do not just take my word for it, go out and see the documentary for yourselves…..

In addition to the film, Beavan has written a book about the experiment which goes into a lot more detail about the project, information about the environment and resources on how to get involved.

No Impact man book

Beavan has also started the No Impact Project to empower people to live their own no-impact lifestyle and has created a 7-day action plan to show how to do it.

I CHALLENGE EVERYONE WHO READS THIS TO GO ON THE SITE FOLLOW THE GUIDE AND TRY TO LIVE JUST 7 DAYS WITHOUT HAVING ANY IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

No impact man website http://noimpactman.typepad.com/

No impact man project http://noimpactproject.org/

Zero Waste

2009-10-19T14:45:00.000-07:00

A new movement is arising across national parks, schools, restaurants, stadiums and big corporations in which the plan of action to help with recycling is to produce less waste. This may seem like a no brain idea however actually executing it is more difficult that said. The best way is to ideally not use any non biodegradable materials, recycle what you can and to make compost instead of throwing away certain garbage.

What is normally just talked about being done is actually executed. The cafe at Yellowstone National Park is now using plastic, plant-based utensils, which if left out on the heat and sun for too long will "magically" dissolve. Eight North American Honda plants have implemented a recycling plan to recycle unused parts to such a degree that they no longer even have garbage disposals. Ecco, a popular restaurant no longer throws away table scraps from leftover meals. Instead they are taken to a giant compost heap out back. As you can see this strategy is slowly spreading across the nation and may be a bright solution to helping our environment.

One of the reasons for strongly implementing this method is the fact that landfills are running out and it is becoming difficult to secure permits for new landfills in additions to the decomposing methane needed for the landfills which also play a factor in the heating of the Earths atmosphere. A spokesperson from the Environmental Protection Agency realized the value of landfills and understands that we don't need to fill them up with the unnecessary.

This zero waste policy is becoming increasingly popular and is now even spreading to the packaging industry. The executive director of the Biodegradable Products Institute stated that companies across the world are coming to then and inquiring about their packaging and plastics.

Hopefully growing interest and implementation will continue on its path helping out the Earth.

Solar Decathlon

2009-10-18T19:55:00.000-07:00

For three weeks during this month the Department of Energy hosted a competition called the Solar Decathlon. In this competition 20 teams comprised of college and university students were challenged to design and build the most efficient and appealing solar powered house (disappointedly SUNY Albany was not one of the competitors) . The teams had to raise funds to build their houses and also had to work with contractors. After the construction of the houses was complete, the houses were opened for viewing by the public. Personally, I believed that competitions like the Solar Decathlon are what this country needs to motivate the youth to take an interest in whats really happening to this planet and work together to find solutions to problems like finding alternative energy. In addition, these competitions can help make the people who are oblivious (and sometimes ignorant) to ecological issues more aware. While sitting in my Nutrition class last week as my Professor briefly talked about global warming, I overheard a girl sitting behind me ask her friend "what's global warming"? Thinking back, maybe if competitions like the Solar Decathlon were more publicized in schools (or even mandatory) that girl would not have made that comment and I would not have flashed her the "how stupid could you be" look. You can find more information about the solar decathlon and even take virtual tours of the houses here: http://www.solardecathlon.org/2011_rfp.cfm

Why the Objection to Wind Energy?

2009-10-15T14:39:00.000-07:00

Something that has mystified me for some time, long before taking this class, has been the inevitable public opposition to the construction of windmills. Any time I come across a story, whether it be on the news or the internet, involving an attempt to build windmills, it is, without fail, accompanied by some small but vocal minority voicing their objection. When asked why they are so set against wind energy, the protesters almost always point out that the windmills detract from the aesthetics of the natural environment. While it is true that such construction would alter the outlook of its surroundings, can windmills really be that much of an eyesore? It seems to me that most people would regard a windmill as more of a feat of technology than a blemish on nature. Plus this vocal minority always ignores the tremendous benefits of wind energy. Some of these individuals claim to be environmentalists, defending nature against mankind's destructive nature. While I am all for anyone trying to protect the environment, indeed, not enough people do so, these people are misguided. Wind energy is an ally of environmentalists; it is basically inexhaustible, and it alleviates some reliance on fossil fuel. These people can "defend" nature all they want, but what they are really doing is furthering the deterioration of the planet.

In searching for more information on wind energy, I came across a website for the Community Environmental Council (http://www.cecsb.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61&Itemid=100&gclid=CKyegceBwJ0CFVlM5QodMDk1jA), based in California, a state constantly facing energy difficulties. According to the website, strategic construction of wind turbines "in our region could theoretically produce over 100 times our current demand for electricity." Wouldn't a few "eye sores" be worth this kind of energy conservation? Lastly, the website states that:

"It is for these reasons – the competitive cost, the strength of the industry, and the regional potential – that wind power is a major component of our plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in our region. We propose that our county develop about 1,100 megawatts of wind power from both onshore and offshore sites - enough to meet our total current electricity demand and almost 100 percent of our projected electricity demand in 2030."

With such great benefits to wind energy, and such insignificant drawbacks, isn't it time everyone abandoned such pointless protests?

Geothermal Enery

2009-10-12T11:34:00.000-07:00

When looking for alternative sources of energy, I have heard of Geothermal energy, but i did not know much about it. I even had a geothermal heating and cooling system installed in my high school but I still didn't know how it worked. I found out that Geothermal works by circulating water in underground loops which are natural parts of the earth. These loops are known as heat exchangers which are buried underground about 150-300 feet below the earth's surface because of the constant temperature. Heat exchangers consist of high density polyethylene pipe which is able to withstand the conditions and temperature underground. The constant temperature of the earth helps to balance the temperature of the air that is being circulated through the heat exchangers. Next the circulated water is transported to air heat pumps located in the buildings and heated air is pumped out to warm your rooms. Geothermal is a very safe and natural way to control the heating of cooling of your home or office no matter its size. It also helps to reduce global warming and helps to contribute to the goal of geothermal exchange. These geothermal systems are also very easy to use and can help people save 25 to 40 percent on their energy efficiency. Geothermal can also be used to generate electricity by the use of steam to drive turbines which generate the electricity.

Although their are many advantages to Geothermal energy systems they are disadvantages are well. One of the biggest disadvantages is the low number of proper locations for a powerplant. An ideal locations has suitable hot rocks at depths that allow for easy drilling, also the rock above the hot rocks must be easy enough to drill through. Another disadvantage of geothermal energy is that sometimes locations my temporarily run out of steam, which won't leave the power plant with enough power to generate electricity. Also geothermal energy is not easily transported and can only be used but people of business's that are in close vinicity to the power plant. In addition geothermal energy extracting also releases hazadorous gases and minerals which can come up through the steam. Geothermal energy extracting can also cause a number of low level earthquakes in the producing areas which damage homes and foundations.

Hopefully the Advantages out way the disadvantages and more people will start to use geothermal enery.

Solar Ponds

2009-10-11T20:55:00.000-07:00

An general source of water, ponds are very impotant and fundemental to man. They have been alterered and recreated to fit different needs and wants of man. They are an important factor in domestic, agricultural and recreational usages. Ponds, whether natural or man made, hold many deposits which have had an preserving effect on materials that naturally would have deteriorated over time. This is of great interest to paleo-enviormentailist. They are able to examine and study preserved matter that give much greater insight to the some aspects of the past. Modern day ponds can be utilized for agricultural usages in which water is retained and irrigated to moisten and fertilize the soil. Recreational usages include swimming, aesthetic design and fishing. Alot of commercial fisheries use ponds for thier easy availability. In addition there are solar ponds, which are designed to store solar energy.

Solar ponds are basically large soler thermal energy collectors. They are used for many reasons such as heating, solar power generation,desalination, refridgeration and drying. Solar ponds are saltwater sourses that forms vertical saline gradients of different concentrations. The bottom layer, which has the highest salinity, has high optical absorption and gets easily heated, increasing temperature and causing thermal expansion. The heat from the bottom layer can reach well over 90 degrees Celcius, levels three times that of the upper layer. The heat stored can be used for industrial hot water, heating buildings, Stirling engine for generating electricity and to drive an organic Rankine cycle. ( A Sterling engine operates by cyclic compression and expansion of air at different temperature levels so that there is a conversion of heat energy to work. Organic Rankine cycle uses liquid vapor phase changes and allows heat recovery from lower temperature sources.

Solar ponds are great for developing courntries because large area collectors are set up for a small price, the price of the pond liner. It also doesn't require a a seperate collector for thermal storage. The disadvantages include the fact that the evaporated water portions needs constant replenishment and removal of aslt crystals becomes expensive.

2012

2009-10-11T14:10:00.000-07:00

For a while now, a hot topic for debate and discussion is the so-called 'apocalypse' coming December 12, 2012. Not to mention the movie "2012" coming out next month. It's been said that the Mayan calender 'runs out' and the poles will shift making the world one giant catastrophe leaving mankind extinct from Earth. Other doomsday theorists suggest that this is just a Western myth. According to an article by Mark Stevenson of the Associated Press of Yahoo! News, "Scientists say that, at best, the poles might change location by one degree over a million years, with no sign that it would start in 2012."
While research and other proven theories object to the apocalypse, I couldn't help but notice some things while I was reading our Cartoon Guide to the Environment textbook. For instance, in Chapter 3 (p.33), they show some graphed relations between population size and time with respect to carrying capacity. The first shows population size leveling off just below the carrying capacity. The second ("more typically") shows the population 'wobble' around the carrying capacity until it evens out. The third shows the population overshooting the carrying capacity so far that it leads to catastrophe. This "disrupts the ecosystem so badly that its carrying capacity is reduced, and the species suffers a die-off from which it never fully recovers." The 2012 doomsday theory popped into my mind the second I read that statement. Is our population going to level off at our carrying capacity or will we create even more baby booms to throw our ecosystem out of balance? Is this the 'end of the world' that has been predicted?
Even television is hopping on the bandwagon. History channel features shows discussing possible explanations for all these possible coincidences that have been predicted by researchers who did not have the kind of technology we have today. They simply studied the stars and patterns of the Earth. How can we really know their data is true?
The article 2012 isn't the end of the world, Mayans insist reveals much about the theory I had not known before and I encourage you to take a look. It eased some of my concerns and skepticism surrounding the whole idea. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

A Look at Clean Coal

2009-10-08T15:09:00.000-07:00

After our class lecture detailing carbon cycles, and the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, I decided to do a little research on the fossil fuel type I knew least about: coal. More specifically, I decided to investigate what is commonly referred to in the political arena as "clean coal". Finding an adequate definition of clean coal was a daunting task alone. As best I could tell, there is virtually no difference between clean coal and ordinary coal, except in the hopes and aspirations of politicians. Apparently, clean coal is coal that power plants attempt to burn with less CO2 emission.

After performing a search on the term "clean coal" (it's worth noting that the second item on the drop-down menu that google provides to show common searches, for clean coal, behind "clean coal technology", was "clean coal myth"), I came across a plethora of websites spanning all sides of the political spectrum. In my best effort to stay unbiased, I chose a website with an .org ending, hoping to get facts not politics.

What I came across was a website called "This is Reality", and I checked out their section called "the facts" ( http://action.thisisreality.org/facts ). Obviously, this website is heavily anti-clean coal, but unlike many websites, it is not just a list of stats and information with scarcely available citations. Thisisreality.org basically shattered my optimism for clean coal to be the "greener" fuel of the future, as many politicians contend. Among the abundance of scary facts concerning clean coal (bear in mind that each of these facts has an attached citation) are these highlights:

-Burning coal is the dirtiest way we produce electricity.
-CO2 emissions from U.S. coal-based electricity are greater than emissions from all the cars and trucks in America.
-There are roughly 600 coal plants producing electricity in the U.S. Not one of them captures and stores its global warming pollution.

and these two gems from NBC's Brian Williams and attorney Blan Holman, respectively:

-"While you might have heard the phrase ‘clean’ coal during the presidential campaign, it's actually an oxymoron."
-"'Clean' coal is like a healthy cigarette."

After hearing politicians, lobbyists, and PR companies hail clean coal as the technology that will save the planet, I decided to finally look into it. I'm glad I did, because now I understand that it is not some miracle technology that will save us from global warming. Burning clean coal seems to be just as harmful, in terms of CO2 emissions, as burning any other fossil fuel. I encourage anyone curious about this topic to look into it themselves, by all means don't take my word for it. But along the way, check out Thisisreality.org for some concise, coherent information.

Tenuous Tundra

2009-10-08T12:58:00.000-07:00

I wanted to discuss the somewhat ignored Tundra Biome. I have this feeling that whenever we discuss green alternatives and enviromental responsibility we have selfish motives for caring about these things. If it's a forest we don't want cut down, it's because we're concerned about losing that "special" cure-all plant; if it's filling in wetlands we're concerned about our loss of clean water. So, you may ask, what's the difference with the Tundra?

Well, for one, the very small amount of diversity in the Tundra make it the least likely place on the globe, besides maybe the deep sea, where we will find some unique plant that we can grind up into the next lipid killing elixir. Second, ice caps will never be a prime location for fresh water (consider the amount of energy needed to even consider that). No, Tundra's are not actually low on the totem pole of at risk biomes. It's probably the most endangered enviroment on the globe but, unfortunatley, it's also of least concern.

The Tundra is a land where life is abundant for only a few months but what life there is is amazing. Summer residents include scores of insects and migrating birds, such as the vibrantly colored Harlequin Duck, to feed on them. Permanent residents consist of large mammals such as the majestic Caribou and ferocious Grizzly Bears. The most permanent resident of all is the Musk Ox which have existed in an enviroment such as this since the Ice Ages.(Whitney,2002) This land has been claimed by these animals and people are once again invading it with no abandon.

The obvious question here is "What reason could we possibly have for invading and colonizing this bitter land so ill-suited to humanity's basic needs?" What else for but oil. Drilling for oil has become a staple of these lands. Russia has been doing it since the turn of the 20th Century and Alaskan residents get a sweet dividend check each year as a thank you from the oil companies for allowing them to smash a huge pipeline through their peaceful wilderness and chug oil from it.

Of course oil wells brought people along with them and roads and towns have been built near, beside or directly on top of previously animal inhabited areas. Displacement of food sources, blockage of migration routes and extermination of millions of insects has completley disrupted these flora and fauna already so tenuously clinging to their existence. Why must we do this to every enviroment? Can the human race respect any life form besides itself? Well, I think it's time I withdrew the ace from my sleeve. When I said previously that the Artic Tundra is of little concern to us I was lying through my teeth.

If you've ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth" a memorable scene is when they drill a huge hole into Antartic ice and pull out a long tube of frozen H2O. They of course are looking for evidence of carbon deposits increasing throughout each subsequent layer of new ice. Well, the Artic Tundra shares this same trait. This carbon is the remnants of all the dead animal and plant life over the course of each subsequent Summer.(Whitney,2002) Every Winter this rich bed of detritus is coated over with large amounts of snow and ice making it permanently part of the permafrost layer.

This layer is actually not as permanent as it once was. Recent changes in global temperture, probably a result of global warming are now melting this layer.(Whitney,2002) The result of this will be as incredible as it will be unpredictable. Whatever does happen there is no doubt this will affect humans directly.

Yet, what will happen to the Tundra? Why we worry about Manhattan sinking under water and the Neatherlands becoming Eupope's largest lake the Tundra will change beyond recognition. This will most likely spell severe endangerment or extinction for the humble species of the Tundra. This more than anything beckons the need to change our attitude towards the world. This planet cannot be our plaything to do what we like with. Maybe if we find a way to co-exist with Nature we can find our way to sustainability. If only it's not too late.

References:
Whitney, S. (2002). Tundra. Retrieved from http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/tundra.htm

Images courtesy of Biomes.org and www.marietta.edu/~biol/biomes/tundra.htm

The Importance of Wetlands.

2009-10-07T19:35:00.000-07:00

Today in class we mentioned wetlands while discussing different kinds of biomes. I always assumed wetlands where just muddy, disgusting pieces of land but many of my classmates brought up the fact that wetlands are actually very important. I decided to look up more about the importance of wetlands and found that these peices of land that i thought where gross actually serve many important jobs.

One important job of wetlands is that it is a natural water purifier and re-filler for water supplies. During the wet season wet lands absorb the water and slowly release it into the streams that normally dry up during the dry season. This provides a re-filler for water suppliers. It also cleans it by filtering out contaminations and pollutants. This is done by the roots and sediments forming together as a giant filter, purifying water that passes through it.

Another important role wetlands play is in flood control. In coastal areas where water accumulates due to heavy rainfall, wetlands decrease the velocity of excess running water. The land allows water to be spread out, acting as a barrier and reducing flood speeds. This allows for less damage on neighboring lands.

Wetlands are also a vital habitat to many different kinds of life forms, including many different endangered species. The vegetation provides shelter and food for underwater life and small creatures. In addition it's also a feeding ground for many migratory animals.

I never realized that wetlands do so many things for the Earth and its land and inhabitants. It was once an underestimated piece of land but now I know how important it really is.

Our Planet without Humans

2009-10-01T11:57:00.000-07:00

As I was looking around, trying to find relevant articles for our discussion on carbon cycles, I came across one by Bob Holmes (found here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427281.300-posthuman-earth-how-the-planet-will-recover-from-us.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg20427281.300). This articles takes a worst-case-scenario look at how global warming could violently affect "carbon-rich peat locked in permafrost". In Holmes' catastrophic scenario, "As the Arctic warms, the peat could decompose and release trillions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere - perhaps exceeding the 3 trillion tonnes that humans could conceivable emit from fossil fuels."

This could then kick off a monumental greenhouse gas effect that would drastically raise the temperature of Earth's atmosphere. According to some conservation biologists, this may then lead to "one of the greatest mass extinctions ever - one that would alter the trajectory of evolution."

While sharp spikes in Earth's atmosphere are far from unprecedented, within the history of our planet, this one could be very different. During the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, which saw an increase of 9 °C, living species were able to merely migrate to areas of the planet with more suitable living conditions. Now, however, with the irreversible changes humans have made to the planet, by building cities, highways etc., such migration is unrealistic.

On top of the destruction of natural habitats we've caused, we've also created a "perfect storm as far as biodiversity is concerned", says David Jablonski. According to Jablonski, "We're not just overhunting and overfishing. We're not just changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and acidifying the oceans. We're not just taking the large-bodied animals. We're doing all this stuff simultaneously."

After the possible mass extinction, the article goes on to say that it would be a fairly random selection of plants and animals that would survive. There is some good news, however. Sort of. While the Earth would, over the course of many millions of years, probably experience a rebound of living species, humans, almost certainly would not be a part of it.

In the last line of his article, Holmes remarks that "even if we manage to overpopulate and overconsume ourselves back to the Stone Age, the Earth will probably survive. Life will go on." So here is one of the possible results of the damage we've done to our planet: the Earth will go on, but it will do so without us.

Energy Paradox with Future Cars

2009-09-30T10:22:00.000-07:00

Before I begin to discuss various problems I have encountered with future automobiles, I would just like to state that I am in no way trying to be pessimistic about the future of energy efficiency. I do not believe that we, as a civilized society are incapable of producing alternative energy and resources, I am merely discussing problems that we may face while going green. Considering these issues before we grasp on to an alternative resource may save us from future problems.

One major issue with decreasing our use of oil and lowering our emissions into the atomsphere can be considered in a philosphical manner. It may be somewhat obvious, but it is something to consider with the phrase: we don't know what we had until it is gone. I believe that members of our modern society will not thouroughly understand the importance of energy efficiency until our major resource (oil) is depleting. Although going green is becoming a stylish concept for people, they still continue to drive their SUV's. Convincing an entire society to voluntarily lower the amount of oil they use is much easier said than done. Telling people to stop using the most popular, and most used resource in the world that is technically still available, is going to be extremely difficult.

Enough of my philosphical interpretations. One present problem that was touched upon in our class discussion, is the lack of seriousness for energy efficient cars by automobile companies. Every now and then you will see a commercial or an add for a shiny new energy efficient car that will revolutionize energy efficiency. They even have car shows where companies can display their shiny new creations for everyone to see. But does the public really know if these shiny new cars are truly more efficient? In my opinion, no. These shiny new cars merely give automobile companies the opportunity to appease to the "going green" fad. In the public's eyes these shiny new cars are energy efficient because they look different than our normal cars and they are smaller. Automobile companies that please the public by putting a weird-looking shiny new car on a revolving platform are viewed as "going green". But are these new weird-looking cars lined up at an auto dealership? Do automobile companies make a few new weird-looking cars and label them as energy efficient to please the "going greeners"?

The rush to produce the most energy efficient car seems to be a growing competition between various nations. Being the first to create the latest and greatest energy efficient car will in theory be great from an industrial standpoint. The demand for these new cars will increase as people rush to buy them, which will help the auto industry and create many new jobs in the process. But environmentally, many paradoxes and issues are presented.

For one, this rush to find alternative fuel is actually creating more greenhouse gas emissions, more pollution, more deforestation, and more food shortages. Although companies are attempting to find and create alternative resources, they are adding to the problem. In order to find or create alternative energy, a larger amount of energy is needed to produce it. The idea of biofuels is interesting, but it also creates further problems. In order to match the gasoline fuel consumption, more crops are required. Since the crops need land, deforestation seems to be the answer. Also, since biofuels are food, rather than feeding an entire family for a week, this food fills the soccer-mom's SUV tank.

The "going greeners" hope that we will soon see an entire fleet of energy efficient cars that will ultimately replace our gas-guzzlers. But the energy efficient cars might lead to more production and consumption. This leads to an efficiency paradox presented in 1865 by an economist named William Stanley Jevons who believed that the more efficient you make machines, the more energy they use. This is because the more efficient they are, the better they are, the cheaper they are, leading to a mass purchase of and mass use of them. Realizing that these new energy efficient cars are cheaper to buy and use, that public will use them more leading to an increase in fuel consumption.

Another issue that seems to slip from everyones mind is that although we will soon have much more energy efficient cars, we still need a place to drive them (roads, bridges, and other infrastructure). To build or even maintain these various components, an enormous amount of steel, concrete, asphalt and plastic is needed. Alec Dubro of the Washington Pox reports that concrete production alone generates as much as 10% of all greenhouse gas. Scientific America of August 2009 reports that in 2007, the U.S. produced about 95 million tons of cement by burning fossil fuels and, according to the EPA, is the 3rd largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S. The production of asphalt also requires the use of petroleum.

The issues and paradoxes I have presented have created even more questions. Should, or will human civilization be forced to abandon the automobile once and for all? Are energy efficient cars truly the answer, or are they merely contributing to the problem? If they are creating more of a problem, should society focus on ways to survive and prosper without the use of cars?

Solar Energy

2009-09-28T19:28:00.000-07:00

One of the largest sources of renewable energy sources on Earth is solar energy, unfortunately only a minuscule amount is used. This form of energy has been around for many years and can be used for a number of things. Solar energy can be harnessed for two main things: heat and electricity. Heat energy, also referred to as thermal energy, can be harnessed and converted into thwo things: photovoltaic devices and concentrating solar power plants. Photovoltaic devices or pv devices, which convert sunlight directly into electricity, are mostly seen in calculators. Concentrating solar power plants on the other hand generate electricity by using the heat from solar-thermal collectors to heat a fluid that produces steam which is used to power a generator. Like many things, solar energy does have its drawbacks. First of all it's not consistant meaning that the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface of the Earth is never constant and second, although it is cheaper in the long run, it's expensive in the short term view and that's something people tend to focus on most of the time.

In my opinion solar energy has been something everyone should take great investment in. Getting solar panels on houses, especially if you live in warm, sunny climates is the best thing to do because your basically gaining from a free resource. A main problem with a lot our resources out there is that no one is really looking at what is going to happen in the long run and that is why many of our resources are running out, well same goes here. With this natural great resource, everyone look as at the price but doesn't look at the fact that in a few years that it will pay for itself and save its owner and the environment much more.

Fishing: a Public Resource or a Manageable Resource?

2009-09-27T15:07:00.000-07:00

After watching the fishing video I was thinking about the question raised in the discussion about whether marine wildlife is a public resource or a manageable resource for the maximum benefit of the nation. I think that the answer is a little bit of both. I think the main problem with fishing is the commercial industry that uses long lines and huge nets and depletes fish popularizations faster than they can regenerate. I think that this is the part of the industry that needs to be more highly regulated. Today it would be impossible to regulate fishing on an international level. But if we were to start to implement some regulations here and start enforcing them we might start to see changes in the populations of fish around our shores. Eventually it might be possible to implement regulations on an international level. I think that there also needs to be an education process involved for those people who wish to fish commercially. In the video there appeared to be some fishermen who did not think there was a problem with the fishing industry. I believe that if someone wants to go out fishing they should be able to do so, However I think that there needs to be stricter regulations and more enforcement on commercial fishing.

Some Help for the Fish Farms?

2009-09-24T14:54:00.000-07:00

After our discussion yesterday, during which, at one point, we considered more efficient ways to use energy, I began thinking of something else that needs to be made more efficient: fish farms. According to the video on Monday, many fish farms are harmful to the supply of fish in the ocean, which is counter-intuitive. It would seem that raising fish in farms, apart from the ocean, would spare the dwindling oceanic supply. This is untrue, however, because in many farms, the farmed fish must be fed with smaller fish, which must brought in from the ocean. Coincidentally, the video also mentioned that many commercial fishing boats, in search of a specific type of seafood (shrimp, tuna, etc.) bring in enormous quantities of other unwanted fish, which are then thrown out as waste. It just seems to me that it would be worth exploring a way to help solve both of these problems. If there were a way to convince the commercial fisherman to bring their excess "waste" seafood back with them, perhaps we could have a new source of food for the fish farms. Instead of just ending up dumped back into the ocean, the unusable seafood could be chopped up and put to good use as food in farms.

Of course, the fishermen would probably not just take on the excess weight for no good reason, so they would have to receive some kind of incentive. Here, the government may be able to help. As we all know, the government has given out subsidies for much less helpful endeavors. If they were to reward commercial fishermen for recycling their waste fish, they would probably be able to support fish farms with exponentially more food. Most importantly, this could all be done while sparing the smaller fish in the ocean normally gathered to feed the farms.

National Pride, National Unity

2009-09-24T12:03:00.000-07:00

Question: Soon we will have a shortage of oil and an increase in demand, how do we rectify this situation?

How do we solve a problem that we don't have yet? This is a tough request to make of anyone, much less a pompous undergrad. I thought it was funny when in class we read a blog post by someone who was alive during the early 20th Century laughing at how foolish we were to be so worried about a world without oil. This is funny because even when we try to face things directly we always tend to diminish the adversity of them. This person obviously feels as though we didn't yet depend on fossil fuels during the early 20th Century and their observation is wrong. The change from oil to no oil; from coal to no coal and so on will be a major change that I don't think we have the foresight t0 predict it. Or that we could even imagine the scope of it. What we do when we get there will be a combination of things. Preparedness, invention and unity strike first as necessities in my mind. Well necessity is the mother of invention so it will remain to be seen what can be done as far as furthering our technology to deal with a drought in oil. In addition being prepared is not something we can do alone, it just won't work. This leaves us with unity.

For a majority in America the end of oil is the end of society. Our government is not prepared to handle a country overflowing with people and direct them in their discourse in any way, shape or form without the technologies we have in place currently. To put it blatantly the laws that hold our society in check will cease to exist. It will remain to be seen how long until the law of the fittest will once again pervade as people who want more will be able to take more. Maybe this is pessimism but I don't see law holding up long in a land where we can't enforce it. Why, because we live in an environment where "the self" is valued above all. Capitalism has many nice benefits but a glaring negative is its ability to separate a group into individuals.

We see this happening right now with Health Care Reform. We have our Representatives coming out of debate decrying the bill because they feel that the American public in general doesn't want to pay for others to receive health care if these others cannot afford it themselves. They're reinforcing the notion that as Americans we should take care of ourselves and let the less fortunate suffer; because if these people could possibly have a lower standard of living in our fine country of prosperity then it must be their own fault. What happens when we all become less fortunate? Will this attitude still pervade our nation? What could happen as a result of this?

As I said before our country is overflowing with people. As the supply of food in markets will diminish our major cities will no longer be able support such populations as we currently have. Millions of people will find themselves migrating away from these overcrowded areas with hopes of finding a better life elsewhere. Many rural homes may attempt to live a life of self sustenance which will be equally as difficult as most farmers use synthetic fertilizer to supply their food with nitrogen to grow. For those farmers prepared to farm without any modern assistance they better make sure to stock up on ammo now as some migrating urbanites may see their farm as welcoming as the families that currently reside there. We'll have to pardon the police response here, as they're attempting to learn how to ride a horse without breaking their necks.

Is this the worst case, doomsday scenario? I believe I may be exaggerating some. Yet, our country will certainly be bleeding out of multiple wounds at once. Consider the following:

Oil + America's Major Industries = America's Economy

Oil Shortages + Decreasing Consumer Confidence = Economic Depression (we've seen this one first hand)

So, what have we discovered? The solution to our oil dependency will not be a quick fix that will easily alleviate all of our woes. This once again brings us back to unity. In our current system we’ve isolated ourselves from a majority of the world and even our own countrymen. We can easily proclaim ourselves to be our #1 priority and we’ve let this distract us from what those in power are doing, in the name of America of course. (A good read is Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins but this is another cause for another time) We’ve bastardized our local communities and shunned the global community. Is it really any wonder that when a leader comes along that truly inspires us to be better than we’ve shown so far that we would pack our problems right onto his shoulders and watch him carry the burden alone while we sit here and do nothing and say nothing to help him? Not really. We’re worried about our “self”. Be it our family, our pets or our car we care more about what’s ours than about anything else.

Maybe it’s time we remedied that. I suggest each and every one of you to go and actually read what the Health Care Reform will do for us. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
This is not a perfect plan in my opinion, but every plan has its faults. The key to this plan is that it is a significant change in the right direction. For the sake of our National Community and our own integrity I pray that you agree that this is necessary and understand that this will go a long way towards establishing a Nation that is unified. A Nation that is ready to deal with any adversity. If we can get enough support for this perhaps we can even have a rally and truly voice our opinions together in a constructive way. Just think…if we can do this then maybe we can obtain the organization we would need to let our voices be heard with a truly major issue; when it comes to the end of oil.

Hydropower

2009-09-20T19:37:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday September 15 in class while discussing energy we briefly mentioned the idea of hydropower and that made me realize that I didn’t really know much about the subject so I decided to do some research about it. After looking up the topic online I learned that hydropower is basically harnessing energy from water for irrigation purposes and machine uses like windmills, sawmills and textile machines. Hydropower has been around for hundreds of years in countries like China, India, Rome and Britain and to this day continues to be growing.
In today’s world hydropower is mainly used to generate electricity and large dams are being built to harness this energy. Hydropower is an optimal way to gain energy in that in doing so no carbon dioxide is being emitted harming the environment. In addition it’s a low cost way to store energy and much cheaper than electricity from fossil fuels. In my opinion hydropower is an amazing way to gain energy. Its good for the enviorment, seems safe and gains energy needed. We should definitly look more and invest deeper into it.

Eating Garbage = Better Consumption of Resources?

2009-09-20T17:25:00.000-07:00

I watched a show on the Discovery channel recently about the weirdest things that humans eat and they described a society of people called "freegans" who for the most part do not agree with the amount of resources that are wasted in our world so they gather the majority of their food and possessions by rummaging through garbage dumpsters. I decided to do a little research on "freeganism" and found that these "freegans" forage through mainly supermarket and restaurant dumpsters keeping the edible foods and anything that can be recycled and reused. There are a few reasons why people embrace "freeganism" including environmental reasons, religious reasons, and political consciousness. Personally I think that this is a very radical solution to issue of resource consumption and eating food obtained from garbage dumpsters is just plain unsanitary no matter how thoroughly you clean it. Any thoughts?