As you become more aware of environmental issues, you will be surprised how often these issues are discussed in the media.
Your first assigment has three parts. First, look at some newspapers and magazines and find a recent article (published in August) that relates to the environment(for the purpose of this exercise it would be useful to have a copy of the article available on-line, but that should not be too much of a problem). Second, summarize the article for your classmates and comment "critically" on the article (this should take only one or two paragraphs). Finally, post a link to your article and attach your summary as a comment to this blog post.
Here are two important points. First, all assignments must be posted by noon on Friday. Second, I don't want to see duplication of articles. Thus, if you have chosen an article, but someone else has already posted that article then you will need to find a new one.
A High Cost to Deal With Climate Shift
ReplyDeleteNew York Times- August 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/energy-environment/31iht-green31.html
posted by Mark McGinley
One response to global climate change is for society to 'adapt" to the new conditions that we will face. Because it is impossible to predict exactly how, when, and where the environment will change it is especially difficult to predict the ultimate costs of adaptation to global climate change. Experts predict that the costs of adaptation will be too high for many poorer nations to pay, so that it is likely that the developed nations will need to help foot the bill for adapatation. The United Nations is sponsoring the first international meeting about the costs of adaptation to global climate change in December.
This article did a nice job of pointing out how difficult it will be to predict the costs of adapation and show how widely current estimates have varied. They encourage people to start thinking about how we are going to effectively predict the costs of adapting to climate change so that we can start figuring out how to pay for it.
China and the US: The potential of a clean-tech partnership
ReplyDeleteMcKinsey Quarterly - August 2009
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Energy_Resources_Materials/Environment/China_and_the_US_The_potential_of_a_clean-tech_partnership_2419
China and the United States, the world’s dominant producers of carbon emissions, have adopted aggressive programs to reduce oil imports, create new clean-energy industries and jobs, and generally improve the environment. Unless the two work together to provide the scale, standards, and technology transfer necessary to make a handful of promising but expensive new clean-energy technologies successful, momentum to curb global warming could stall and neither country will maximize its gains in terms of green jobs, new companies, and energy security. Electrified vehicles, carbon capture and storage (CCS), and concentrated solar power, among other emerging “green tech” sectors, will need massive investment, infrastructure, and research from the Chinese and US governments to get off the ground.
This article helps show that the US and China need to both work together since they are the two greatest producers of CO2. It talks about how without these two governments causing momentum, the "green" movement could potentially stop and there would be a large potential loss in energy diversification and new companies and jobs. It says that a cooperation between China and the United States could make clean technology feasible.
Climate Change = Beets in December?
ReplyDeleteNew York Times – August 25, 2009
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/climate-change-beets-in-december/?scp=4&sq=climate%20change&st=cse
posted by Sarah Rock
A new non-profit organization in New York City, the Green Guerillas, claim that global warming offers an opportunity to grow vegetables through the holiday season, which could help urban farmers grow hundreds of additional pounds of food each year. Agricultural studies have found that the season for growing certain vegetables has been elongated by as much as 14 days in the past 19 years.
This article, though seemingly trivial, does make the point clear that global warming is indeed affecting our lives more and more with each passing year, though not necessarily in a bad way. It also points out that hundreds of extra vegetables are being grown each year, which is definitely not a bad thing with the world’s population slowly but surely rising.
Researchers woried about Pacific Ocean garbage patch
ReplyDeleteThe Associated Press-August 27, 2009
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OCEAN_JUNK&SITE=ORBAK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
posted by Emily Powell
There is a huge patch of trash floating in the Pacific Ocean. This garbage patch developed recently, and little is known about it, or its impact on ocean ecology. A group of University of California scientists went out to study this mass, and the findings are disappointing, but unconclusive. First, the volume of trash is larger than expected, and, second, researchers are unsure how the small, bite-sized particels of degraded plastic will effect the fish, plankton, and birds that eat them. The plastics and trash travel long distances on wind and water to reach the North Pacific Gyre: a place where ocean and wind currents meet to form a vortex. Scientists studying the Great Pacific Garbage Patch hope to illuminate the effects of large amounts of trash in a delicate ecosystem. These studies may also brace scientists for what they find in the Southern Hemisphere, where the gyre is 4 times bigger.
This article gives the reader insight into the consequences of the careless and wasteful lifesyle supported by the present industrial age. More importantly, the article provides a starting point for critical analysis of environmental problems. And such analysis is the first step to finding a solution.
China says 2 environment officials investigated
ReplyDeleteThe Associated Press- Aug 22, 2009
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g7wv0eo5eoz5m7jhnU24w4NIk6GQD9A7TI200
posted by Rebecca Lelko
A manganese processing plant in China has caused the lead poisoning of over 1300 children in Wenping, China. The plant was built very close to a kindergarten, primary school, and middle school. The environmental bureau had ordered the plant to stop operating because it had not completed an environmental evaluation, but the plant recently opened up again. The lead poisoning can cause serious problems for the children, and sadly this is not the only place in China that has faced this problem. Two of the city's environmental officials are under investigation for not properly completing their duties.
This article really shows the danger of not monitoring what we do to the environment. It is a vivid example of how the actions of one group of people can effect thousands of others. We have to take care of the environment not just to protect ourselves but to protect all those around us.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEngineering a Climate Solution
ReplyDeleteNew York Times - Sept. 1, 2009
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/engineering-a-climate-solution/?ref=science
Posted by Katie Nguyen
As Earth’s climate continues to change, many options to cool the planet begin to arise. One new method that has surfaced is a climate-altering geoengineering in which engineers pump chemicals into the atmosphere to increase the amount of sunlight reflected away from the Earth. Although it may be a successful attempt, the debate still stands whether the consequences of the method may or may not be acceptable. With geoengineering still being a new method, the effects that it may have are still unsure of and have the need to be further researched. The ongoing research of geoengineering leaves it as simply an idea and the search to find a solution to Earth’s climate change still remains.
This article tries to reach out to the public by introducing the one of many possible solutions to adapt to Earth’s changing climate. Although it informs the public on what geoengineering is and the ongoing controversy behind it, its intent is to make people more aware of what is happening to the planet. By introducing a more drastic method to adapt to the climate change, it draws the attention to the need to find a more efficient solution.
Roads are Ruining the Rainforests
ReplyDeleteNewScientist - August 30, 2009 by William Laurance
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327236.700-roads-are-ruining-the-rainforests.html
posted by Erin Yen
As a result of globalization, technological changes, and an increase in population, Brazil is constructing another road that will cut through another forest. Though these roads may be beneficial to hunters and loggers, they are threatening to the species who reside there, as the roads (which require clearing of the forest) will completely alter the environment. In addition, law enforcement in some areas of the road is weak, leading to many illegal activities, one of which includes illegal logging and possibly illegal road-construction. One road can lead to the more roads, which can lead to more deforestation, which also can lead to the extinction of many species and even indigenous peoples (who can contract diseases from invaders). Though the damage has already been done, we can still delay deforestation by only building better-planned roads (that will do the least damage possible) and dispute the proposals of destructive roads.
This article highlights the destructive nature of roads and, as a result, condemns society for its selfish nature. Although the title of this article states that the "Roads are ruining the rainforests," it also implies that we, as the people who create such harmful creations, are the responsible for the onslaught of these biomes and all that/who reside in them. Ultimately, this article serves to inform us of the damages done, while also encouraging us to prevent them in the future.
Lead Poisoning of Children in China Leads to Disturbance
ReplyDeleteNew York Times – August 17, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/world/asia/18china.html?ref=earth
Posted By: Danielle Jade Ang
China’s great economic development has made much of their environment polluted. Many people are outraged and blame the smelting plant in Northern China for the lead poisoning of almost all the children in the villages. At least six out of seven children in the villages were tested positive for lead poisoning, which could cause memory loss, damage in the nervous and reproductive system and it could also cause high blood pressure. Local officials try to close down polluting operations but back off because of their importance in the economy. Families have already moved their children farther away. The local officials plan to relocate the families within 1600 feet of the factory in the next two years.
This article informs us of how polluted China is and how it is affecting the lives of the local residents. Even though people are starting to be affected by the dangerous pollution, this article has also made it clear that the industrial operations are too important to close down because it will affect their economy, which shows that the economy is more important to them than the health of the people.
Grid Lock: New Transmission Lines Key for Clean Energy-And Coal
ReplyDeleteThe Wall Street Journal- August 31, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/08/31/grid-lock-new-transmission-lines-key-for-clean-energy-and-coal/
Posted By: Joshua Sterling Sanderson
Many environmentalists in America feel we must beef up our power grid in order to allow for clean energy to become widespread; however these environmentalists argue that without proper restrictions being placed on the types and quantities of energy allowed into the grid the plan could have a detrimental effect. Environmentalist are hoping that the Senate will see the big picture and consider all aspects of the situation before acting. Creating new transmission lines could technically support a greater amount of energy to be transmitted period, clean energies or energies with high pollutant byproducts. Although our grid would better support clean energy once updated, there is the possibility that more unclean energy would also infiltrate the system.
This article informs the reader of the controversial actions and consequences of beefing up America's power grid. Even though creating new transmission lines would be done with good intentions, it could lead to detrimental effects if proper restrictions are not set in place as related to the usage of the extra support. The Senate must put constraints on the amount of carbon emissions in order to protect our environment and preserve the intended purpose of creating these new transmission lines.
The Climate and National Security
ReplyDeleteNew York Times - August 17, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/opinion/18tue1.html?_r=2
Posted By: Seth Knochel
Many politicians believe that the impact of global warming will not be felt for decades and are unwilling to sacrifice any of their current luxuries to prevent it from worsening. Due to this belief, many who support the green revolution have shifted their argument, and are now focusing on the impact global warming could have on our national security. Global warming is predicted to lead to famine, drought, an increase in disease, and many other serious problems. If the threat of global warming is not addressed now, these problem could induce conflict, posing a threat to our national security, and forcing military involvement. This new perspective on climate change is expected to be heard by an audience that was once deaf to any problem associated with climate change.
This article highlights a side of global warming that is not usually talked about: the impact of climate change on national security. Looking at global warming in a new light could very well sway politicians who have never supported green legislation to support the cause.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSome Buildings Not Living Up to Green Label
ReplyDeleteOriginal Article By MIREYA NAVARRO
Published: August 30, 2009
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/science/earth/31leed.html?_r=1
In order to curb the growing issue of climate change, more widely known as global warming, companies have began using buildings that are more energy efficient to conduct their operations. Whether or not the companies actually care about the condition of the environment is debatable; however, they are awarded a special status if they meet certain requirements set forth by the EPA. The conditions mainly concern the use of energy. The United States Green Building Council issues LEED status, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, for buildings who are meet the aforementioned standards and thus are considered “environmentally conscience”. The title allows the owners of the building to advertise themselves as green. Unfortunately, several of the previously certified buildings failed to live up to their predicted capability to be green.
The LEED status is awarded based on predicted energy usage of a building, not the actual data. Currently the status of a building is not monitored after certification is awarded. However, the flaws are widely known and it is the general consensus that the LEED label should be withheld until a building proves itself energy efficient and, as a result, aids in the decrease of carbon emissions. Yet there are still flaws. Luckily most of these are recognized in the community. One such flaw is the point system used to decide whether or not a building deserves LEED certification. For example, a building could rack up points in a simple area that does not contribute to the overall efficiency of the building. The system is a good one, but it does require a certain amount of reform. Action is being taken to keep a system that means well, but is flawed.
The articles main concern is that a problem that is supposedly solved will continue to linger unnoticed. This is potentially more detrimental than knowing that a building is belching pollution. Following the normal chain of events, a problem is recognized and then solved. Being blind to a certain subject is one issue, but thinking that progress is being made where there is none is worse as the general public would not question a plaque awarded by an organization stating a building is energy efficient. As a result, this issue goes beyond deception, and ventures into the realm of self-destruction.
Thankfully the problems are recognized among a community of experts, and steps are being taken to solve the issue. One of the most effective actions taken causes the certification to only be valid for the year it was given. As a result, buildings would have to reprove themselves is they desire the coveted label for yet another year. However, if the predicament had not been recognized a much bleaker outcome could have been expected.
New Zipline Tour Helps Protect Trees (With Video!)
ReplyDeletePopular Mechanics - August 22, 2009
http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/adventures/4325427.html?page=2
Posted By: Matt Hagstrom
Class VI, a company that builds canopy tours around the nation, is trying to help save a forest of hemlock trees from the woolly adelgid insect. It is believed that these bugs could destroy forests if the trees aren't treated. The treatments are expensive and Class VI is donating money from every ticket sold to help pay for them. If their tours are successful, they should be able to help keep the bugs from wiping out these trees for quite some time.
This article introduces its readers to something that is threatening our environment and a way to help stop this threat. This "fun" way of helping could attract more people to help save these hemlock trees.
BMW's New Vision: 155-MPH Plug-In Hybrid
ReplyDeleteWired - August 31, 2009
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/08/bmw-concept/
Posted By: Cord Scorgie
BMW has pulled out of Formula 1 racing in order to focus on the design and construction of more fuel efficient and ‘greener’ vehicles and the ‘Vision Efficientdynamics Concept’ is the first vehicle to be shown that seems to be the result of the company’s new commitment to efficient performance vehicles. The Vision is reported by BMW to be able to drive for 31 miles on battery power alone, without even using the high-efficiency diesel engine designed for the concept. The Vision gets a reported 62 miles per gallon and releases 99 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram, a number rivaling the Prius’ efficiency. Further, the Vision concept can accelerate from 0 to 62 MPH in 4.8 seconds and reach a top speed of 155, vastly outperforming the Prius. The car uses a 1.5 liter 3 cylinder diesel engine along with 4 electric motors mounted on each axle (much like the Chevy Volt concept). The diesel alone is capable of 163 horsepower and 214 foot-pounds of torque, but with the electric motors, the car peaks at 356 horsepower and 590 foot pounds of torque. The battery packs (made of a lithium polymer) can hold up to 10.8 kilowatt hours of power and can be charged from empty to full capacity in about two and a half hours. Since this is only a concept car (to be officially debuted at the Frankfort Auto Show) no pricing or a definitive design are available, but judging by the specs and the current concept design, the Vision will not come cheap and is sure to turn heads.
I think it’s a fantastic thing for BMW, a great automaker no matter how you look at it, to have realigned their company and their R&D so dramatically. The more companies focus on creating these hybrids vehicles, the faster, more efficient and cheaper they will become. This leads to my one disappointment however. BMW, and other vehicle manufacturers in general, need to be focusing more on making hybrid and green vehicle technologies cheaper before any real progress can be made. It is essentially useless to create these ‘green supercars’ (Tesla and Karma come to mind) if no one can afford them. If no one can afford them, they aren’t being driven in place of polluting vehicles. If they aren’t being driven, they aren’t being tested and refined and put through the paces of a normal driver’s routine. If they aren’t tested in the real-world like this, no progress is made. While BMW is, without a doubt, taking a huge step forward, the auto industry, in general, is walking the wrong way.
Plainview Daily Herald- August 18, 2009
ReplyDeletehttp://www.myplainview.com/articles/2009/08/18/agriculture/doc4a8afa2914ca7439007369.txt
posted by Tracy Jackson
Although Texas leads the nation in wind energy development, there is potential for more growth in the caprock region of the Panhandle despite the current depressed market condition. At the annual membership meeting of the Caprock Plains Wind Energy Association (CPWEA) held in August, industry experts explained the benefits that further wind energy development could bring to the Panhandle, such as job creation, additional income to farmers, and tax benefits. The Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ), a state law passed in 2005 which enables transmission development to wind-rich resource areas, is critical to facilitating growth. The CREZ process will allow the wind-rich Panhandle to send energy generated by wind to load centers like Austin, Dallas and San Antonio. Cross Texas Transmission, a privately owned company, was selected by the Public Utility Commision of Texas (PUCT) to permit, construct, own and operate over 230 miles of 345 kV transmission lines in the Texas Panhandle as a part of the CREZ process.
Although the article offered an optimistic perspective on the need for wind energy development in the Panhandle, it failed to address cures for potential environmental dangers in developing more wind farms (such as bird deaths), and ideas about making the Panhandle communities more reliant on wind energy. After doing further research on the CPWEA website, the issue of bird fatalities was addressed at the meeting. However, I did not discover anything on the website relating to the Panhandle becoming more “green”.
Feds to Consider Protections for Desert Tortoise
ReplyDeleteThe Washington Post - Friday, August 28, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/28/AR2009082801932.html
The feds have taken the task of deciding if another species is worthy of falling under The Endangered Species Act. These desert tortoises are found in southwest Arizona and northern Mexico. The population of the species has dropped by half which has led two groups to file for these creatures to be put under federal protection. The numbers of the population have dropped by 3.5 % a year since 1987 - 51 % total. These numbers were derived from a sample of the tortoises in Arizona, so the exact number is unknown. It is currently prohibited to take or return these animals from the desert, but it is noted that in the 50s and 60s, some gas stations would give a turtle away with every fill-up. As half of the tortoise population lives in Mexico where they are listed as threatened, environmentalists are "especially keen" to receiving information the their status there. The tortoise was just one of thirteen species filed in a petition by environmentalists as a part of their "Western Ark" project.
This is a great article on the environment because it brings up a very core issue that many are torn over today. Should we pay to protect a group of animals or should we let them die out? The question can be hard to answer, but we must decide. Currently, it looks as though there is substantial information presented in the petition to warrant the species as threatened or endangered from urban sprawl, off-road vehicle use and livestock grazing. I will be interested to hear the decision of the Feds.