Bugging Out: Biological Pollution?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8533671/Bugs-in-the-atmosphere-may-cause-bad-weather.html

Bugs in the Atmosphere May Cause Bad Weather

Summary

Reseachers have begun finding bacteria and in the center of hail stones. The hail is formed around the microbes, causing there to be precipitation where there wouldn't have been otherwise. In fact, the discovery suggests that the bacteria play an important role in not only the formation of hail, but other sorts of precipitation, too. One bacteria, Pseudomonas syringae, is very well-studied as a biological precipitation-causer, and has been found to "possess a gene that encodes a protein in their outer membrane that binds water molecules in an ordered arrangement, providing a very efficient nucleating [(the core of the precipitation)] template that enhances ice crystal formation". So not only can precipitation be formed around living organisms, those organisms may create superior precipitation than more traditional forms. The researchers have run simulations which suggest that high concentrations of biological particles have numerous effects, including cloud cover and ground precipitation levels. It is even thought that they can affect the way the planet is insulated from solar radiation.

Reflection

I think this is absolutely amazing. I was shocked that the microbes even made it that far up in the atmosphere. I guess once they're up there, it makes a lot of sense that they become the nuclei for precipitation, but it's still intriguing. I'm also surprised that scientists didn't discover this before. It seems like someone would have realized that there was bacteria in the center of the hail, while running tests or something. If I'm interpreting this correctly, then the fact that P. syingae posses a gene that assists in the precipitation-forming process suggests that this isn't a recent development, and that bacteria have been the nuclei of precipitation for so long that they have begun to evolve to do it better. I just think that is so amazing. And the possible effects that having bionucleis can cause? All I can say is wow, I would never expect such a small change could have such results. I'm really excited to hear more about this, and an update about how accurate the computer simulation was.

Questions

1) Do the researchers' findings surprise you?

2) What do you think of the computer simulation?

3) How do you think the bacteria got so high? Is it our doing?

4) P. syringae is a bug that infects plants. Do you think bioprecipitation can spread disease?

Arctic Ozone Depletion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42429967/ns/world_news-world_environment/Transparent

Scientists: Arctic Ozone Depletion ‘unprecedented’

By: Stephanie Nebehay
An article from World Environment on NBC.com
April 4th, 2011

Summary

The article I read is all about how the ozone layer has had a record loss this past winter. In fact, the United Nations agency said that from the beginning of the winter to late March, the ozone column lost 40 percent of its mass. That’s a lot, and was an amount unheard of until now.
In previous years, the highest mass ever lost was 30 percent. This occurred during several seasons for 15 years, so for the ozone layer to lose 40 percent in one winter, that’s just unbelievably terrible.

The area where the ozone layer is depleted can move. And if it moves toward lower latitudes, ultraviolet (UV) radiation will be higher than normal in the upcoming seasons for those areas. So a depleted ozone layer doesn’t just affect one spot, it affects a large, widespread area. A spokesperson from the World Meteorological Organization advised people to check UV forecasts for their areas, because less of the ozone layer means less protection from the sun’s harmful rays.

If the depleted ozone layer is to move away from the Arctic towards lower latitudes, it would affect some of Russia, Canada, Nordic countries, and even Alaska in the US. However, a UV radiation increase in those parts of the world would be less intense than if the increase was to take place in the tropics.

Not only people are affected by UV rays (which contribute to immune system damage, skin cancer, and cataracts in humans). Marine life and crops can also suffer from harmful effects.
Over Antarctica, large ozone loss is not uncommon. In fact, it occurs every year. This is extremely different from the Arctic stratosphere, because conditions there vary each year.
The Montreal Protocol was an international agreement to cut production and consumption of halons, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and other ozone-destroying chemicals. It was thought to be very successful (The 1987 pact eliminated substances like CFCs and halons that used to be used in fire extinguishers, spray cans, and refrigerators), but for some reason the drastic ozone mass loss still occurred.

Any way you look at it, the recent ozone mass loss was extremely drastic and is going to have adverse effects on humans, marine life, and crops alike.

Opinion/Reflection

I personally think that the ozone loss is extremely terrible. It’s almost unbelievable that 40 percent of the ozone layer’s mass could be lost in one winter when previously the highest amount heard of was a 30 percent loss. That just shows how bad people are. We need to stop using ozone-depleting substances.

I feel that until the UV rays start increasing in many areas of lower latitude around the world, people won’t realize what they’ve done. Sure, people will see news stories (like this one) and hear scientists talk about the damage, but they won’t understand the full impact until they see some changes. It’s sad, though, because UV rays cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system damage, so by the time people truly realize what they’ve done, it will be too late. People will have to learn the hard way, unfortunately.

I believe it is extremely unfair for marine life to have to suffer on our behalf. They’re not doing anything to harm the ozone layer, they’re not using ozone-depleting substances, so why should they be affected? The thing is they shouldn’t. But humans and animals are all on the same earth, so anything that one species does will affect the other. It’s extremely sad, and I feel really bad for the animals who have to suffer despite the fact that they aren’t doing anything wrong.
I also feel bad for people who don’t pollute atmosphere. If people don’t want the ozone layer to keep losing its mass, then everyone has to work together to try and stop it. This doesn’t just mean the people in America, though. People from all over the world have to pitch in and stop using ozone-depleting substances, or the damage that we have caused will continue to get worse.

Finally, I thought that the Montreal Protocol was a very good idea, and it’s sad that more people don’t abide by its rules. After all, the agreement was made for the well being of humans and the only people we’re hurting by not following is ourselves. And that’s just sad.
This article relates to class because we started learning about the atmosphere and one of the important parts of the atmosphere is the ozone layer. It helps protect people from the sun’s harmful rays, and without it, I don’t know if humans or other forms of life would be around.

Ask Questions

1. What other effects can UV rays have on humans?
2. Name some ways in which marine life and crops will have to suffer because of the ozone layer depletion.
3. Why do you think people keep using ozone-depleting substances, even though they make the ozone layer lose mass?
4. Do you think people will realize what they’re doing soon, or not until it’s too late? What do you consider that too late to be?
5. Why do you think that having ozone depletion over the tropics would be more intense than having ozone depletion elsewhere? (by intense I mean it makes people suffer more)

I realize now that this question should say more intense, but I didn't want to change it and mess everyone's comments up.

6. How come the ozone lost so much mass recently, other than the obvious fact that people are continuing to use ozone-depleting substances?

Graphics

Left: This image shows the logo for the Montreal Protocol

Right: This picture shows the UV radiation that hits towns and people when the ozone layer is there compared to the amount of UV rays that hit towns and people when the ozone layer is gone.

Why has the weather gone cuckoo by Anthony R. Wood
May 23, 2011
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/122431754.html

As many have noticed the weather has been acting very strange lately. There's been a flood around the Mississippi River, and a record number of tornadoes, including one in Northeast Philly. Not surprisingly, some people think global warming is involved. Various studies are showing that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is increasing. In fact The World Meteorological Organization reported (2000-2009) to be the wettest decade on record dating since 1850. Also the twisters were fueled by vapor-rich water off an abnormally warm Gulf of Mexico. This doesn't automatically make it global warming, however. While precipitation has been increasing in the Northern Hemisphere, in other places, such Africa, it has actually been decreasing. Many other factors are being taken into account, such as air pressure (though some things surprised them, as no huge changes were shown to have taken place in key air circulation patterns that govern the globe's weather).

Once again people are blaming global warming. I do think so myself, but I don't think its the whole problem. I think we might be going through another pattern, though how act still affects the weather. I think we can all see that the weather has been acting up, I mean we had a tornado warning at school. Getting a tornado where we live, that's just unheard of. People have to stop contributing to the effects of global climate change. While we're not fully responsible, we could at least do our part not let it get any worse.

1. Do you find global warming to blame for the odd weather?
2. Were you scared when we got the tornado warning?
3. How has the weather affected your recent life?

Burn baby burn

O’Malley will sign waste-to-energy bill

by Matthew Cella

The Washington Times

8:28 p.m., Tuesday, May 17, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/17/omalley-will-sign-waste-energy-bill/

Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland announced on Tuesday that he will be signing a bill that will classify waste-to-energy as the same renewable energy as solar or wind. Maryland currently gets 5.5% of its energy from renewable sources, and they hope to reach their goal of 20% by 2022. While some supporters of this waste-to-energy bill say that it is more environmentally friendly than landfills, others argue that it releases pollution, removes the incentive for recycling, and competes with other cleaner modes of renewable energy. O'Malley points out that Maryland is not the first state to do this. In fact, over half the states that have a renewable energy goal classify municipal solid waste as a renewable energy source.

In theory waste-to-energy, or incineration, is the ideal method of renewable energy. You take care of the trash problem, and the energy crisis at the same time. Unfortunately, incineration causes air pollution, which is very bad for the environment. However, how good or bad something is for the environment doesn't have anything to do with whether its renewable or not. Renewable means that its being made faster than its being used, and seeing that that is the case with trash and waste, it is technically renewable. Therefore by all means I believe that incineration should be classified as renewable. Saying that it's not is like saying nuclear power is. You have to put the right label on things. Keeping this in mind it should also be noted that renewable energy shouldn't be labeled as automatically clean.

Do you think that someday there might be a way to get rid of the air pollution from incineration?
Do you think incineration should be classified as renewable?
How would you feel if you lived near an incineration plant?

Ay Caramba!

According to Green, a New York Times environmental blog, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a government agency responsible for monitoring nuclear power plants, said in a statement this week that an incident last fall at the Brown's Ferry plant in Alabama was much more serious than previously thought. The NRC says that a valve controlling the residual heat system, which allows the reactor to cool down when shut off, got stuck inside the plant, raising the threat level to "red," the most serious of the NRC's color-based threat scale.

Last week, the Oyster Creek and Nine Mile Point 1 plants in New Jersey and Syracuse, respectively, separately announced that General Electric had given them faulty math calculations regarding the uranium fuel rods it shipped to them. The error, if GE hadn't realized and notified the plants in time, would have caused the fuel to overheat past the intended levels.

The NRC says that the public was never in danger, but the valve issue at Brown's Ferry apparently might have been MONTHS OLD before operators discovered it. This is serious, because the failure of the residual heat systems was the cause of the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown in Japan.

Despite the assurances of the NRC and the lack of any damage or injuries resulting from either of these three events, it seems likely that this will lower the public's confidence in the American nuclear power industry even further. However, as proponents note, it is a major source of "clean" energy.

You can read more by clicking on the link to the original article either above or here.

Reflection

I think these incidents reflect on the flaws of our nuclear policy. These mistakes were thankfully realized before they could have a negative effect, but we can't expect to get that lucky every time. I think safety should come first, especially when we're dealing with radioactive materials near populated areas. The federal government needs to close these holes so more mishaps don't slip through.

Questions

1. Do you think people are right in being concerned over these incidents, or are we just having a bit of hysteria because of Japan?
2. Which should come first: Energy independence, which could save our nation millions, or safety?
3. How do you think we should prevent these types of problems from happening again and causing serious damage?
4. Is nuclear energy worth the risks it can present?

UN Renewables ‘Bible’ Says Clean Energy Can Outstrip Demand

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-04/un-renewables-bible-says-in-report-that-clean-energy-can-outstrip-demand.html

A graphic showing the great disparity between current alternative energy instalments and total possible clean energy instalments in India alone. Notice that solar power is literally off the charts for potential, but has the fewest instalments.

Summary

My article reported on a recently released report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The highlight of the report is the conclusion that there is far, far more possibilities for clean energy available that we have yet to tap into. In fact, we've only hit the tip of the iceberg for most alternatives, especially solar, as the graphic notes. The really exciting part, though, is that the report concludes that there is more potential for clean energy then there is demand for power! Isn't that great? The report goes on to say that wind and solar may grow twenty-fold over the next four decades. The lownote of the article was the report's belief that less than 2.5% of the total potential will in fact be used in practice. The report also predicted that up to 5.1 trillion dollars in investments would be required to meet it's predictions and transition to a fossil-fuel free existence.

Reflection

Isn't that fantastic?  A world that doesn't rely on fossil fuels won't be some sort of anarchic dystopia, as is sometimes suggested! And, if we get a move on converting to these alternative energies now, we can save some of what's left of the environment, too! I can't believe how little clean energy we use considering how much is out there, waiting for us to harness it. Before I read this article, I had been under the impression that clean energy sources were rare and difficult to find. While this is true for some sources (eg geothermal and wave), for many sources that is completely untrue. In fact solar and wind power, which also happen to be the two sources most accessible for home owners, have loads of possible plants completely untapped! This article has significantly changed my perception of the fossil fuel dilemma. It bothers me how little of the potential the report predicts will actually be harnessed, though.

Questions

1) Do you think that the UN's assessment and predictions sound reasonable? 

2) How do you think we can increase the number of clean energy instalments?

3) Where do you think the $5.1 trillion dollars will come from, the public or private sector?

4) How do you think governments could help make the transition from fossil fuels to clean energies?

Photovoltaic Cells

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/transparent-photovoltaic-cells-turn-windows-into-solar-panels/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Transparent Photovoltaic Cells Turn Windows Into Solar Panels
By: John Collins Rudolf
An article from Green, A Blog About Energy and the Environment
April 20, 2011

Summary

Recently, a new kind of photovoltaic cell was developed. It can transform a windowpane into a solar panel without obstructing the passage of visible light. Hopes for the future include turning skyscrapers into enormous solar collectors, and integrating the photovoltaic cells into other tall buildings.

For a long time, photovoltaic cells have failed because they block too much light (so they can’t be used in windows) or they haven’t been able to achieve high efficiency. However, the new photovoltaic cells are designed to only absorb the near-infrared spectrum. There is a possibility that these cells could transform light into electricity very efficiently in the future.

For the time being, the efficiency of the photovoltaic cell is around 2 percent. However, this is just a prototype model, and scientists predict that by further modifying the cells, their efficiency could be increased to about 10 percent.

Efficiency and light blocking isn’t the biggest challenge that needs to be overcome with these photovoltaic cells. Instead, it is the longevity of the cells themselves. Right now, the cells don’t have a long enough life to be installed in window panes. Photovoltaic cells need to be modified to last for 20 plus years, or at least the lifespan of a typical window. Otherwise it would be pointless to install them.

A professor of electrical engineering, Vladimir Bulovic stated that the longevity problem won’t be too difficult to overcome, and that it will be resolved within a decade.

If the photovoltaic cells are modified to last a long time, then it will be cheap to put them into windows. This is in part because the cost of installing traditional photovoltaic cells is mainly from the materials the cells are resting upon, not the cost of the cells themselves. The cost for installing new photovoltaic cells would be no different. And if these cells are installed in windows or previously existing buildings, then the majority of the cost would have already been paid for.

Dr. Lunt believes that the power photovoltaic cells generate could “offset the energy use of large buildings.” The cells wouldn’t power the whole building, but rather be used for lighting and everyday electronics.

All in all, these new photovoltaic cells have great potential.

Opinion/Reflection

I personally think that these photovoltaic cells are really cool. Since coal is going to run out maybe not in the near future, but eventually, it is great that scientists are coming up with other ways to get energy. Photovoltaic cells are a very interesting form of alternative energy that I think could be very beneficial to us when they are modified to be more effective and have a longer life.

I think it’s amazing that little photovoltaic cells can generate so much energy. They’re also extremely transparent, thus they won’t block light from shining through windows. This quality makes them perfect to install in large buildings, which are often built from head to toe with windows.

I was surprised when I read that the efficiency rate of the cells is only 2 percent. Yes, what the percentage is based off of is a prototype, but still, I expected it to be much higher, especially because of the way in which the article highly praises the photovoltaic cells.

Even though Mr. Bulovic is extremely optimistic about being able to engineer the cells so that they have a longer life, I don’t think it’s so easy. I’m not a scientist or anything, but I feel like that would be a pretty difficult challenge to overcome. However, he does state that the task could be accomplished in “a decade” or so. The article may be very optimistic about photovoltaic cells, but figuring out the longevity issue is one they can’t hide. Unless you read the article carefully, though, you may not have caught what he said.

Finally, I just have to say that I think the whole idea of photovoltaic cells is really great. While it may take a while for them to be modified to have a longer life and higher efficiency rate, I believe it could eventually be done. When those modifications are accomplished, the photovoltaic cells are going to be extremely beneficial and I feel that they will be installed in lots of buildings in the future.

This article relates to class because it talks about a type of alternative energy that has recently been developed. While it was not an energy source we learned about in class, it is a source other than coal that generates energy, so it can be considered an alternative energy source. In fact, photovoltaic cells are one of the forms of alternative energy that I find most interesting.

Ask Questions

1) Do you think photovoltaic cells are a good invention? When they are further modified, do you think they could be beneficial?
2) Are you as optimistic as Bulovic about extending the lifespan of photovoltaic cells?
3) About how much energy (do you think) could be generated if photovoltaic cells were installed in a typical New York City skyscraper?
4) Do you think that the energy photovoltaic cells generate would be enough to support people living in a single home (if they have these cells installed in all their windows)?
5) When these photovoltaic cells are finally sold, do you think they will be popular?
6) What problems can you think of involving photovoltaic cells?

Add a graphic

The above graphic is a picture of Dr. Lunt looking through a transparent photovoltaic solar cell.

BrightSource Goes Public!

http://bit.ly/iZO1P5

Summary:
A alternate-energy company which builds Solar Paneling and that is backed Google, named BrightSource Energy recently announced that in order to raise the $250 million it needs to begin expanding its' Southwestern U.S. solar thermal operations, it will begin selling stock in an Intial Public Offering (IPO). They specialize in the Solar Thermal form of Solar Panel energy, which allows for Solar energy to be stored. This is the mostly favored form of Solar energy because it can help power the places who are connected to it even when the sun is down.

Opinion:
I think this is great for the Solar Energy industry and the Alternate Energy industry in general. It will generate alot of revenue and if all goes well for BrightSource, possibly open up a new source of revenue garnering for other Alternate-Energy companies. It will also increase the willingness of investors to invest in these types of IPO's if they see big returns from this IPO. If all goes as expected this is exactly what will happen and we could possibly see many more such stocks crop up, and overall see a huge gain for the support and funding of Alternate Energy resources. If that is indeed the case we will looks back on BrightSource Energy as the pioneer that helped to kickstart the Altertative Energy industry.

Questions:
1) What do you think of companies offering these types of stocks? Good Or Bad? Why?
2) What would be the potential impact of this?
3) What do you think above impact will have on the rest of the Alternate Energy Industry both now and in the future? Good, Bad Or no impact? Why?
4) Would you do the same if you were the CEO of BrightSource Energy and you needed to raise $250 million to expand operations? Why or Why not?

Organic Farmers vs. Monsanto

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/04/organic-farmers-sue-monsanto-over-gm-seed.php?campaign=th_rss A group of organic farmers and seed dealers have filed a preemptive lawsuit against agribusiness and biotech giant Monsanto to protect themselves from any legal action that may result in case when Monsanto-owned seeds contaminte the farmers organic crops. This lawsuit is intended to protect the farmers from charges of patent infringement by Monsanto when said farmers crops are contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified and patented seeds. Under the current law, if Monsanto is legally entitled to sue farmers when their seeds are found in the farmers plants, even if the seeds drifted over by accident or by natural cross-pollination. The suit for the farmers was passed by the Pubkic Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of about 60 different farmers, seed businesses and organic agriculture organizations and in all respresent over 270,000 members. Monsanto called this lawsuit a publicity stunt and any allegations contained in the lawsuit "false, misleading, deceptive." They then go on to state that Monsanto "has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to excercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertant means." Yet despite that statement the article states that they're have been multiple cases of harassment and legal action by Monsanto against farmers over these alleged unatuthroized use of Monsanto genetically modified seeds products. Sourcewatch also claims that "Monsanto has an annual budger of $10 million and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers. Opinion/Reflection Okay I think that this is just downright brillant thinking by the organic industry in this case blocking a potential lawsuit from Monsanto a GMO giant that could have easily bankrupted hundred of farmers. I am not usually the type of person who believes that all bigger companies that compete with a smaller counterpart are all "evil, corrupt, corporations intent on bankrupting small companies." But this is a case where I think that Monsanto is being completely unreasonable and is basically saying "Hey! We were careless and did not care enough to make sure that our seeds don't get spread into your crops, so we are going to sue you for our carelessness." I also liken them to stating that they were never going to file any lawsuit against farmers after the farmers sued them, despite their record for suing and harrassing any farmers who were caught with Monsanto seeds, to a child saying that he wasn't taking any cookies despite having a cookie in his mouth, two cookies in his right hand, and his left hand in the cookie jar. This is just utterly despicable business practice but this also shows the incomprehensible levels of corruption going on in Washington that would allow these big companies to bully around their smaller counterparts. I also know that something can easily be done to prevent this as we have talked in class about all the things companies can do to prevent GMO seeds from cross pollinating crops. Questions: 1) Who do you think is right in this case? The farmers or Monsanto? Why? 2) What would you recommend that Monsanto can do to prevent this cross pollination from happening again? 3) Should Washington do something to prevent these big GMO companies from bulliying small, organic farmers. 4) What would you do to prevent it? 5) What do you think of PUBPAT's decision to sue Monsanto before Monsanto could sue the organic farmers? 6) Do you think that this lawsuit could be used as something that would allow both sides to come together and make an agreement that keeps this sort of thing from happening again? The above picture shows a field of crops blowing in the breeze.

Is the E.U. Being Cautious or Overstepping Boundaries?

According to Elisabeth Rosenthal of the New York Times, the European Union, unlike the U.S, restricts the commercial growing and marketing of GM crops. They are trying to make concessions to environmental activists that claim that GM crops have very damaging effects. But the World Trade Organization claims that these bans are illegal trade barriers because they are not based on any concrete scientific evidence. (The World Health Organization has concluded that GM crops are not to be considered dangerous for human consumption.) Yet Europe still has many restrictions five years later. In Italy, for example, there is a GMO-approval process set up that has no specifications for how to pass. France, Austria, and Germany outright ban most GMOs. This issue has even escalated to violence. In Vivaro, Italy, Giorgio Fidenato planted MON810 corn, better known as BT corn, last April. An Italian antiglobalization group by the name of Ya Basta raided his cornfields and destroyed most of his crop, leaving behind placards labeling the corn as "contaminated." However, some countries in the E.U. are more open, like Spain, Germany, and Portugal, who have limited allowed use of GM crops.

I think that the European Union is for the most part trying to be fair and listening to the environmental groups, but they're taking most of these things to far. They need to listen to the WTO and WHO. The bans are illegal and unfounded. However, they have a right to be cautious. Even the WHO point out that they can't reach a definite conclusion because of how short of a time we've been eating GM crops.

Questions

1) What's your take? Do you side with the environmental groups or the WTO?

2) Would you like to see a more cautious approach like the Europeans' in our own country?

3) Do you think the E.U. has the right to take action despite the WTO ruling?

Consumer freedom is under attack without truth-in-labeling for GMOs

http://www.startribune.com/local/yourvoices/118658779.html?source=error



Summary
The article asserts that, without clear, proper labelling on GE'd foods, consumers are being oppressed because they have no clue what they are actually buying. While that may be a bit of an exaggeration, I don't think the author is too off the mark. She goes on to list some staggering statistics about how prevalent GMOs are - 90% of foods grown in the US are created from GE'd seeds, and 80% of foods sold contain GE'd elements (If you aren't eating organic, you are nearly guaranteed to be eating something that was genetically modified sometime during production.). While those are scary statistics, things don't get truly scary until the author discusses all the harmful effects independent researchers have found in GMOs (the government, by the way, doesn't conduct any regulated safety testing on GMOs). By consuming GE'd milk, for example, researchers say that we are exposing ourselves to higher risks of colon, breast, and prostate cancers. That is, of course, not to mention the effect this has on the animals. For a 10% increase in milk production, the cows suffer few quite a bit, including a good deal of stress from thrice-a-day milkings. To combat the minor side effects of their genetic modification (trifles like increased incidence of mastitis, lameness and reproductive complications, and a two year lifespan, nbd), farmers (if they can in fact still be called farmers) pump cows full of antibiotics, whose effects are passed on to humans through milk in the form of dangerous growth hormone. These effects are also present in the beef in McDonald's hamburgers, which is what the cows go on to become. And why do the farmers put their cows through all this? To fight disease? Make their milk more nutritious? Find the answer to life, the universe, and everything? For a 10% increase in milk production.


Reflection:
I used to play The McDonalds Game (which is where my image comes from, http://www.kongregate.com/games/molleindustria/mcdonalds-videogame?acomplete=the+mcdonalds , surprisingly educational, I suggest giving it a try. You'll never eat fast food again, though.), and I thought the part where the cows turned green and lame and whatnot was a joke. It is very scary learning how close to the truth that game really is (seriously, play it). It scares me that this sort of thing is in our food, and what the animals have to go through to produce it, and the harmful effects it can have on us. What's worse is that the government isn't doing a thing about it, even though first-world countries around the world have had basic GMO protections for years. We don't get labels informing us about what we are eating. The US government doesn't even have any regulated safety testing on GMOs. It's scary what we are unknowingly consuming everyday, and how our government is so controlled by the agriculture industry that it is just standing by and letting it happen.

Questions:

1) Do you think that food containing GMOs should be labeled as such?

2) If you answered the previous question yes, what information do you think should be on those labels?

3) Should the government require and regulate testing on GMOs? If so, how much?

4) Do you think the government is doing enough to regulate GMOs? Should it regulate them at all?

5) Are American consumers truly under attack?

GMOh no

Scientist Claims Link Between GMO Crops and Livestock Infertility

Alice ElliotBrown April 2, 2011

http://technorati.com/lifestyle/green/article/scientist-claims-link-between-gmo-crops/

Don M. Huber, claims to have found a link between genetically modified crops and infertility in livestock. Basically, it's saying that this disease in soy beans, mixed with genetic modification, has created a new organism, which causes infertility in the animals that eat the plants that have the organism. Also in the article it states the alfalfa problem. By planting genetically modified alfalfa, regular alfalfa will be contaminated. Nature will make the GM alfalfa take the place of all regular alfalfa, and by the time that comes we'll just be starting to find out if it harms us or not. So if we lose this video game, too bad there's no reset button.

In my opinion, I think that GMOs are ok. However, we do still need to keep an eye on them. I believe stronger restriction laws should be made that would prevent contamination. This way, if it turns out they are dangerous, we can switch back to the regular. Just getting rid of GMOs isn't going to be good for the economy at all. Food will be too expensive, and with our already bad economy, it will just make things even worse. Within twenty years, our economy could be better, and so people will be able to afford organic food. I believe that would be a safer time to get rid of GMOs, but who knows, we might actually be able to keep them.

1. Do you think that GMOs are dangerous?
2. Do you think that the soybean organism is really responsible for infertility?
3. How large of a role do you think the economy plays in all of this?

Organic crops vs. GMOs

ttp://www.npr.org/2011/03/01/134162035/a-growing-debate-how-to-define-organic-food?ft=1&f=1007

A Growing Debate: How to Define ‘Organic Food’

By: Dan Charles

An article from NPR

March 1, 2011

Summary

This article discusses the issue of GMO crops and the conflict caused because of them. The Department of Agriculture declared it legal for farmers in America to plant genetically engineered alfalfa this past February. Alfalfa is commonly used as feed for horses and dairy cows. The USDA’s decision was widely opposed, especially by organic food producers. At a Horizon Organic farm in eastern Maryland, the cows graze on pasture fields during the summer months. However, during the winter the cows have to eat a mixture of soybeans, alfalfa, silage, corn, clover and triticale grass because field grass doesn’t grow. In the corn, there is a little bit of something genetically engineered, and a lot of disagreements have been caused by this. The cross-pollination between organic and modified corn fed to the livestock is unavoidable, though.

In America, the majority of corn is genetically modified, and because corn is a cross-pollinator, organic corn often winds up with genes from GE corn, thanks to windblown pollen. This means that almost always, .5 to 2 percent of organic corn grown in the U.S. contains GMOs.

Regulations from the T require organic farmers to use organic farming methods on their crops, which are never allowed to be GMOs. So, even if a little bit of genetically engineered genes blow onto a crop, it can still be considered organic.

However, the public response to this isn’t so positive. Like Ronnie Cummins, from the Organic Consumers Association says, organic farmers need to do the right thing. If they’re not willing to sue the people who pollute their organic crops, then the public isn’t going to stand up for them. Other anti-biotech activists feel the same way. Groups against GMOs are now focusing on alfalfa, the GE crop most recently approved by the government.

The Organic Trade Association’s executive director even said that if “pollen from GMO alfalfa fertilizes alfalfa in organic hay fields, you can’t … sell it as organic.” That statement is hard to believe, because if it were true, meaning that organic crops are no longer organic if they are cross-pollinated, there would be barely any organic food left in the U.S.

Because of all the anti-GMO campaigns going on, people are starting to question whether or not to trust organic food. A lot of consumers insist on having no contamination in organic crops. In fact, according to a survey stated in the article, 77 percent of organic consumers would refuse to buy organic food if it was found to contain GMOs. That’s one of the primary concerns in the organic industry today-how consumers view their products. Even though only one-tenth of 1 percent of animal feed may be contaminated, people are still unsure of whether or not it’s safe to call it organic.

In conclusion, there have been a lot of arguments and disputes lately between the organic and GMO industries.

Opinion/Reflection

I was personally shocked about all the fighting going on between the organic and GMO industries. In fact, before we studied this topic in science, I was completely unaware that it was going on.

This article relates to science class because we have been discussing for a while exactly what GMOs are, and the arguments going on between organic and GMO farmers. I felt this article went along with that topic perfectly.

I think that both sides have a ton of support, so this dispute could go on for many years. In fact, I honestly believe it might, considering how popular GE crops are becoming despite how much they affect organic crops.

I feel that genetically engineering crops is pretty neat, because it can help improve plants and animals in some way. However, I don’t think it’s right that the GE crops can contaminate organic crops. Organic farmers need to make a living too, and it’s just not fair if GMO farmers can simply come along, plant their crops, and not have to worry what nearby organic fields they’re polluting. Buffer zones need to be between the two fields, or some other solution needs to be reached.

This whole argument is getting to a point now where I feel it needs to be resolved. I think that GMO crops should be allowed, but they must have restrictions, like not being planted so close to organic crops (that they could contaminate).

Ask Questions

1) Which side are you on? Organic farmers or GMO farmers?

2) Do you think a middle ground can be reached between the opposing forces? If so, what?

3) Do you think it’s logical for people who eat organic food to stop buying organic crops if they contain even traces of GMOs?

4) Do you agree with Ronnie Cummins’ statement that organic farmers need to begin standing up for themselves? Why or why not?

5) How do you feel about the Organic Trade Association’s executive director’s statement? Do you think it’s reasonable?

6) Do you think that GMO farmers will eventually run organic farmers out of business? Why or why not?

Add a graphic

The picture at the top on the left clearly shows a group of people protesting GMOs.

The image at the top on the right shows what genetically engineered alfalfa looks like. GE alfalfa is one of the most recent genetically engineered crops to be approved.

Hypocritism?

Water brand latest to jump on the environmental bandwagon
Relax News
March 17, 2011
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/water-brand-latest-to-jump-on-the-environmental-bandwagon-2244949.html

Recently the water company, Evian, came out with a new 1.5L bottle. It's been advertised that this bottle is made with 50% Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) , is 100% recyclable, and uses 11% less less plastic. Evian is not the first company to take this step, as pepsico has done similar with its water bottles. It appears as though we can trust water bottles more. However, here's what your not being told. Americans alone purchase 29 billion water bottles, which takes 17 million barrels of crude oil to manufacture, and only about 5 billion of them end up being recycled. Not only this, but 6kg of carbon dioxide are produced for every 1kg of PET in the water bottles. It is for these reasons that environmentalists remain unconvinced.

I have personally never been a big fan of water bottles. If I ever want water, I get it from the sink. It's completely free, and it's safe to drink. With water bottles you to pay to mess up the environment. This is the biggest scam I've ever heard of. I don't know how we could have been tricked into this. Even though water bottle companies are trying to get better, they're never going to stop polluting the earth.

Do you drink water bottles? If so, do you drink Evian or Pepsico brand?
Do you think water bottles are a scam?
What would you do if you were head of one of these companies?

NYC Purchasing Watershed Land

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/new-york-city-can-buy-more-watershed-land-state-says/?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

New York City Can Buy More Watershed Land, State Says
By: Mireya Navarro
An article from Green-A Blog About Energy and the Environment
February 16, 2011

Summary

This article is all about how New York City is buying land so it can keep protecting its watershed. On Wednesday, February 16th, the state of New York announced that NYC is allowed to keep buying land in an effort to protect the Catskill and Hudson River Valley Watershed. An agreement was made between the EPA and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that will allow New York to keep purchasing land for the next 15 years.

Currently, 100,000 acres of the New York watershed (1 million acres in total) are protected by the city. In addition, 200,000 more acres are owned by the state. Right there is 35 percent of the watershed land being protected. The main reason New York cares so much about its watersheds is that by buying the land and protecting it prevents the city from spending 10 billion dollars on a filtration plant. Already 400 million dollars have been spent buying watershed land, and 140 million dollars are reserved for upcoming purchases. New York City expects to continue buying land at a rate of about 10,000 acres a year.

NYC’s environmental protection commissioner, Caswell Holloway, said that she believes the most effective way to maintain high water quality is by protecting water at its’ source. She feels that the established agreement will help to do just that.

Finally, the agreement has allotted 100 million dollars to be spent on programs that help limit water pollution. An example of this is repairing septic systems.

In conclusion, New York City recently reached an agreement that will allow it to continue purchasing land in order to protect its watershed in the Catskill and Hudson River Valley. By buying and protecting different areas of the watershed, NYC will save 10 billion dollars because a filtration plant won’t have to be purchased and installed. Also, 100 million dollars is reserved for spending on limiting water pollution programs. A lot of people are happy with this newfound agreement.

Opinion/Reflection

I personally think that even though New York may be purchasing the land for a selfish purpose (they won’t have to buy a 10 billion dollar filtration plant if they can protect their waterways), the program will have a positive effect on the environment. Since thousands of acres of the watershed have already been bought and protected, the pollution rate (from things like littering) will have gone down and continue to go down. And if the watershed is protected, people can’t harm the plant and animal species living there. I feel that this is really great for I hate when animals are harmed because of human actions. It’s just not fair to them.

The thing that makes me wonder though is that even if this watershed area is protected, can’t pollution still get in the water? I mean I’m sure that the protection efforts are good and all, but let’s face it, not every area of the watershed can be monitored all hours in a day. Also, the areas of the watershed that haven’t been purchased and protected yet will still experience pollution. Pollution travels in water, and waterways in watersheds are connected, so won’t pollution still wind up in the protected areas of land? I honestly think that someone should further look into this, since the water people in NYC are drinking water that might not be safe (it isn’t treated).

This relates to class because we discussed before what can happen if watersheds are polluted, and how badly humans can be affected if they drink contaminated water. It’s terrible to think about what can happen to people who drink polluted water (like the poor man who suffered from arsenic poisoning), but it’s a reality that we all need to face. Plus, I feel that it is the government’s responsibility to clean the people’s drinking water, because no one should have to suffer on another’s behalf. If the government just managed the water properly in the first place, then nothing bad would happen.

Ask Questions

1) What is your opinion on the agreement New York City made with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation?
2) Do you think that New York is buying the land to protect the watersheds, its' citizens, or for its' own self interest?
3) How long do you think it will take before New York is able to purchase all of the land in its watersheds? Will it be before the 15 year agreement is over?
4) Do you agree with what Caswell Holloway said about the program?
5) Can you think of any other examples of programs limiting water pollution that the 100 million dollars can be spent upon?

Graphic

The graphic at the top of the page clearly shows what the Catskill/Delaware (Hudson River Valley) Watershed looks like.

Fish vs. Fire Retardants

FISH...

This article in the New York Times addresses a big issue in California. Wildfires are very prone there, and for some reason there are lots of people who want to live in those areas (I don't know why on Earth you'd want to live there, but maybe Cali has some pretty sneaky real estate agents). So when fires break out pretty much every year, the state uses a whole lot of fire retardant to try to slow down the spread of the fire (gee, San Fran could have used that back in 1906), sometimes to even extinguish it (even though that's not the intended use for it, hence fire retardant, not fire extinguisher). That would be okay, but since the most commonly used retardant is a mixture of nitrates, phosphates, and even ammonia, the state ends up with a lot of dead fish in the local rivers, along with other aquatic life. There are alternatives to chemical retardants, including gels and foams, but retardant is the most popular.

...AGAINST FIRE

On the other hand, only 14 cases have been found where retardant actually had any effect on the waterways, (but one drop in Oregon in '02 killed 20,000 fish) and by this year (this is a three-year-old article) the ammonia levels are set to be lower in the mainline retardant product. Plus, as some people in the article point out, as soon as the retardant is discontinued, there will be people calling in yelling, "Start dumping that retardant!" Many wildfire experts also claim that resources damaged by retardant could potentially be lost entirely by fire if retardant was discontinued.

MY THOUGHTS

This is definitely more of a gray issue as opposed to black-and-white. It seems like there's not much that can be done in terms of compromise. Appeasing one side will almost always screw over the other. I think, personally, we need to first off stop people from moving into these dangerous areas in the first place. If there's no one around that will be hurt, we won't need to fight wildfires to protect residential areas, just for national parks, monuments, and other protected sites. People should be urged to not develop near these giant forests where the wildfires are likely. It's just stupid that people want to live there in the first place.

QUESTIONS POUR VOUS

1) Which issue do you think takes priority, fire or fishies? Why?

2) What impact could retardants have on local watersheds?

3) What do you think must be done?

4) What's your opinion about fire retardants?

Environmental Impact of Animal Waste: Disposal of animal waste in large-scale swine production examined

An anaerobic lagoon in South Carolina. Notice the size and color.

   My post is about an article from Science Daily, which can be found here, that discusses how effective anaerobic lagoons (pictured) actually are at treating waste from hog farms. Anaerobic lagoons are basically large pits into which farmers empty the waste produced by their animals. Because the pits attract large amounts of denitrifying and nitrifying organisms, it was traditionally through that those organisms would effectively treat the waste in the pit. However, new studies are showing that even though those organisms are present, they aren't active. If the waste isn't fully treated, acidification and eutrophication (introduction of natural or artificial substances into an aquatic system via fertilizers or sewage) can occur, which will mess with the local ecosystem by increasing the population of some organisms while decreasing the population of others. In spite of these new findings, and even though better waste treatment methods exist, anaerobic lagoons continue to enjoy widespread use, especially in the Carolinas. 

I personally think anaerobic lagoons are disgusting. I went to a farm with a couple of pigs once, and just the four smelled terrible. I can't imagine how horrible a pit filled with waste from thousands of pigs would smell. And to have to go through all that, only to find out that the lagoon wasn't actually doing anything? I think I would file a complaint if I lived near one of these farms. These lagoons should definitely not be legal. The eutrophication and acidification these lagoons can cause is ridiculous, especially since safer - and more effective - waste treatment methods are available. That's not my only worry about the lagoons either, because it seems like anaerobic lagoons are a possible point source of pollution. What about when it rains? The contents of the lagoon seem like they could easily run off and pollute ground water. And what about if there was heavy flooding? Would you want that in your home? In your water supply?

And now some questions for you:

What do you think are some other methods of treating animal waste?

Would you want to live near an anaerobic lagoon?

Do you think the risks posed by the lagoons are serious?

Do you think farms should be held responsible for disposing of the waste from their livestock? If not, who, if anyone, should be?

GOP vs. Commiunist EPA? http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-18-gop-would-rather-shut-down-the-government-than-protect-your-air-

This article is from Grist.com and it has to do with how House Republicans are currently trying to cut almost all funding for the EPA by basically doing the following, "(1 thwart progressive ideals; (2 Blah blah blah (3 JOBS FOR EVERYONE!!!" ...Did you notice something there. Like the fact that there is no step two. That is basically the republicans plans that by cutting speniding on important things like the EPA that this will somehow crate jobs. They aren't sure how, but trust them it will create jobs. They are implementing these provisions, not all at once, but by adding them in one provision at a time by putting them in as amendments on spending bills. The reason for cutting the EPA's funding? Well it is quite simple. THE EPA HATES JOBS! According to Kansas Republican Mike Pompeo, the EPA, which employs 17,000 people, consists of a bunch of anti-job Marxists. "EPA would, I am sure, tell you that they are simply collecting a little bit of data on green houses gasses..." to learn a little bit more,"... about who is emitting greenhouse gases -- who or what, but this data is the very foundation of the EPA's effort to pursue its radical anti-jobs agenda..." and that allwoing them this data will let them put their" ...regulatory nose inside the job-destroying tent." The next portion of the article tells you each of the different amendmants so I will let you read that in the article. But one plan specifically blocks any presidental funding for the presidents climate advisor. They call this a "climate czar." Now I found this funny as czar is russian, so obviously it is a Communist position and since they oppose Marxism, this position must be eliminated. The republicans are so determined they would rather shut down the Government rather than give a single inch on this position.
Opinion
I have no idea what the Republicans were thinking when they thought up this plan. I don't know why they think that the EPA is trying to destroy jobs and the only proof that Republicans have is that the EPA would shut down a business, because the business was not enviromentally friendly. When I saw this article I immediatly thought about class because it talked about how the "GOP would rather shut down the government that protext your air and wate" and protecting our water is exactly what we were talking about in class for the last few days.
QUESTIONS
1) What do you think about this? Who do you side with?
2) Do you agree with the thought the EPA could ruin all jobs?
3) What would you do with the EPA?

Refugees

50 Million Environmental Refugees by 2020, Experts Predict

by Joanna Zelman

February 22, 2011

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/environmental-refugees-50_n_826488.html



A growing problem in the world is environmental refugees. Environmental refugees are people who have to leave their home because conditions are unsuitable for life. Examples would be if there is a drought and there's no water, or if there's a flood and there's no food. This isn't some sort of threat. This is actually happening. Already many Africans are crossing into Southern Europe due to food shortages. Global warming is playing a huge role in this. Global warming is causing warmer winters, which means less pests will die. With more pests, more plants will get infected with disease, which means less food. When there's no food, you've gotta move. Global warming is getting so bad, The Marshall Islands are trying to figure out if they'll still be a nation when all of their land goes underwater. That would be an entire country of environmental refugees. This shows we need to do more about global warming than we thought.



I think this shows, once again, that global warming is messing up the world. It's amazing that it's gotten this bad. I think it would suck if I had to become a refugee. We really need to stop being lazy about the environment.



1) Are you going to do anything to prevent this?

2) What would you do if you became a refugee?

3) Do you think this will ever happen to anyone you know?

Introduced Species

Introduced Species: The Threat to Biodiversity & What Can Be Done
By: Daniel Simberloff
An article from ActionBioscience.org
Copyright 2000

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/simberloff.html

Summary

Introduced species are a very big threat to the environment because they can cause many changes, like: overcrowding an area and replacing a native species, costing the economy tons of money by damaging human enterprise, and even placing entire ecosystems at risk by changing the habitat. It has been proven that introduced species are the cause of 49% of species becoming endangered. In addition, the combination of harvest, pollution, and disease isn’t even as much of a threat to biodiversity as introduced species are. Also, the U.S. economy loses 137 billion dollars a year to repair damages introduced species cause.

When a new species is introduced to another environment, there is a lot of competition that goes on between the native and introduced species for things like food and water. An example of this was when the predatory brown tree snake was introduced to Guam from the Admiralty Islands. The human impact on this scenario is the plain fact that they were the ones who brought the snake over (by cargo). This new species has had a major impact on Guam. Ten of eleven native bird species there were wiped out because of the brown tree snake. Another example of the impact of introduced species is when the greedy Nile perch was introduced to Lake Victoria. Since it was first brought over, the Nile perch has eliminated more than one hundred species of cichlid fish native to the area. Finally, red squirrels in Great Britain have almost gone extinct because of the competition between them and the North American gray squirrels for food. The North American gray squirrels are more efficient at searching for nuts, and as a result, they are eating most of the red squirrels’ food before the red squirrels even have a chance to find it.

Often, it is the introduced species who change an entire habitat that are causing the greatest impact. When these species alter a specific place, lots of native species that can thrive only in the particular area become extinct. Species like fungi, trees, and aquatic plants have all proven just how powerful they can be. Other times, invaders can endanger a single species or a group of species without adjusting the environment in any way whatsoever. The brown tree snake and the Nile perch mentioned above are good examples of this. Finally, invasive species do their work sneakily, but it still can cause destruction. When invasive species use a process called hybridization, or cross-breeding, to eliminate a native species, this is an example of their subtle efforts. By breeding with the native species, the invasive species alters the native species’ gene pool, so that the native species develop into a form of the invasive species.

There are three main pathways that aid in the fastest spread of invasive species: wooden packing material, ballast water, and gardening plants. However, invasive species that are discovered early on can be destroyed. Currently, there are several technologies that can greatly help to control invasive species: biological, chemical, and mechanical. When an enemy from the same place as the unwanted pest is introduced to control the invasive species, it is called biological control. Using a pesticide like insecticide or herbicide is an example of chemical control. Finally, when hand pulling or different types of machines are used, it is considered mechanical control. There is a new technology being developed, called ecosystem management, that gives an entire ecosystem a ‘treatment’ (like a simulated fire) regularly. These ‘treatments’ often favor the survival of the native species over the introduced species. While not all these methods are 100% effective, they can help greatly in controlling unwanted pests.

The best solution for addressing the invasive species issue is through international cooperation and management. When the Rio Convention of Biological Diversity acknowledged the situation as a threat and pressed a need for action, there was a great international response. Now, a Global Invasive Species Program formed by international organizations (like the United Nations) is helping out by developing programs to deal with introduced species. It is great that people are finally trying to help out with this serious issue because if no one took action, then the invasive species would most definitely take over.

As you can see, introduced species often have a negative impact on the new place they’re introduced to, and this is the reason why measures need to be taken to prevent this from happening over and over again.

Opinion/Reflection

I can’t believe how much of an impact introduced species can have to a particular environment. Before reading this article I was never aware of just how powerful these species can be, and how humans have no definite way of stopping them. However, it is often the human impact that causes these issues in the first place, by introducing a new species to an area because they believe it will provide some sort of benefit. I find it sad how different species often have to suffer because of human mistakes. Competition goes on between the native species and the introduced species, which is understandable, because the introduced species has different adaptations and body structure than the native species. For instance, in the bird experiment we did in class, the introduced species was adapted to eat all the different kinds of food, whereas the native species could only eat a particular type of food that they could pick up with their beak. Invasive species often win the competition, and the native species begins to die out. Reading this article, I also thought it was clever what the introduced species will do to take over an environment, even if they aren’t introduced by humans. For example, invasive species will use hybridization to get the native species to evolve into something much like themselves. I found this extremely smart.

Ask Questions

1) Do you think humans will be able to stop the spread of invasive species, or at least control it?
2) What are other examples of an invasive species taking over an environment?
3) Do you believe it is ever possible for an environment to benefit from an invasive species?
4) What is your take on how international management will occur? Do you think it will truly be helpful, or will it be done so that particular organizations can look good in front of the public?
5) Of the controlling methods mentioned in the article, which do you think would be the most effective to use on an invasive species? Why?

EPA to Get Short End of the Stick from the Feds?

THE RED SIDE...

According to the New York Times, congressional Republicans are pushing to cut $3 billion from the EPA's FY (Fiscal Year) 2012 budget in the hopes to reduce the nation's $1 trillion debt. These cuts would constitute 69% of the total cuts in spending the Republicans are proposing, which also includes cutting the Dept. of Energy's Efficiency and Renewables Program by over one-third of its FY 2011 budget. The Republicans also want to lay off 20,000 research positions at the National Science Foundation and want to prevent the EPA from creating and enforcing greenhouse gas emissions rules.

Relatively more minor goals for the GOP are to remove competitive grants for local land-use planning, eliminate the White House Energy and Climate Advisor's Office, and to change the definition of the term "navigable waters" in the Clean Water Act.

In response to claims from the Democrats that they are willing to risk a government shutdown in order to cut spending as much as possible, the Republican House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, accused the Democrats of fear-mongering.

...THE BLUE SIDE...

The Democrats, on the other hand, the White House in particular, want to freeze all non-military discretionary (optional) spending for five-years and give the DOE $8 million to spend on researching clean energy technology. Obama's budget also contains other big investments, but those do carry a level of risk. Democrats also, as mentioned earlier, accuse the Republicans of risking a government shutdown to cut spending as much as possible. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said, "We're willing to meet Republicans in the middle on spending, but they keep lurching to the right. This is what happens when you pick a number first and figure out the cuts later," saying that the Republicans are making a poor choice in deciding how much to cut before deciding what programs to cut.

...MY SIDE...

I think the Democrats have some good ideas. Stuff like the EPA and the DOE are important, and like Schumer said, you can't just pick numbers and then cuts. We have to see what we should and should not cut before we create a final number.

...AND YOUR SIDE

1) Which side do you pick? The Republicans, who support drastic short-term cuts but include cuts to the EPA? Or the Democrats, who have a long-term plan but include large, potentially risky investments?

2) In any situation, do you think ANY cut to the EPA is a good idea?

3) What do you think are the pros and cons of each party's plan?

4) What would you propose if you were a member of Congress?

Step right up and take your bets! Climate Science vs. Climate Economics!

This is based off an article from Grist.org written by David Roberts.
So as some of you may not know, and I didn't until I read this article, there are two new stories coming out about climate change. No this is not the old debate about whether or not climate change is really happening between scientists and politicians, but rather the two different visions about what we can expect in the future. They don't fit very well though so let's do what we do to all things that don't match up together... pit them against each other and see who wins! So without further ado lets get on with the show!
IN THIS CORNER: SCIENCE!
Now in the corner of science we have something that I am sure no one wants to see... the calm collected group of geniuses we call scientists more and more panicked with every new story that comes in. With this new information it is being predicted that there is a real (if extremely difficult to quantify ) risk of civilization-threatening scenarios kind of like a bad SyFy original movie. The standard line among "climate hawks" (which I am assuming is a term for people who harp constantly about what we need to do to save the enviroment) is that science recommends that developed world countries an "80% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050"; globally the goal is 50% by 2050. But even that high amount could be severly underestimated as it is based off the last IPCC which is by all accounts is "woefully conservative" especially when compared to the uniform grim nature of the science since that report came out. For the U.S. to get back to the ambitious target of 350 ppm (parts-per-million) of carbon in the atmosphere the U.S. would have to build the following EVERY YEAR until 2050 according to the IEA (Internationial Enviromental Agency):"... 35 coal-fired and 20 gas-fired power plants with carbon capture and storage; 30 nuclear power plants; 12,000 on shore wind turbines paired with 3,600 offshore ones; 45 geothermal plants; 325 million square meters-worth of photovoltaics; and 55 solar-thermal power plants. That doesn't even include the need to build electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in order to shift transportation away from burning gasoline." ...wow that is alot and that would cost the U.S. a very pretty penny. Probably a 1843 double headed lincoln penny made out of gold and uranium to be precise. Yeah according to the article that would be the equialent of "America's massive industrial build-up for WWII only across the entire globe for 40 years straight (at least) against a faceless enemy." So yeah my brain hurts from trying to cacluate the cost of that, how about yours. So...should we do it? Is such a massive shift "worth it"? Heh...funny you should ask.
IN THIS CORNER: ECONOMICS!
Economists are the arbiters of "worth it" these days, so how do they figure it out? Well the short answer is that they build charts and models that are informed thought various assumptions about the range of damages expected from climate change, the range of costs expected from avoiding climate change, and the rate of economic growth. The general idea is to find the the perfect balance between spending on adaption and the cost of potential damages so we don't overpay to fix it and we don't underpay to fix it. The analogy the writer uses is probably the best I can think of; he says that economists are "...like Goldilocks, economists seek a course of action that's just right: the most economically efficent course. For this discussion the fact of the matter is that virtually every model that shows human growth depending on what the climate does all have two things in common. One; they show human beings getting richer over the next century regardless of what the climate does. The range of scenarios goes from much-richer-very-quickly to... somewhat-less-richer-more-slowly, depending on what numbers or assumptions are plugged in. Two; None of them show human progress just hitting a plateau (with no drop at all, no matter how miniscule) much less falling of some kind of a cliff. According to the article, a well-known british economist named Frank Ackerman has noted that even with what is classified as the extreme worst case scenario (a 35 percent reduction in income below baseline) the world would only be about eight times richer by 2200. So, according to economists, the worst thing policymakers risk by doing nothing to fix climate change is somewhat slower economic growth. So one way or another, we're getting richer. This is a perfect example of what the foundational faith of modern economics is. It is a faith in human adaptability and ingenuity. What that basiclly means is that every chart is based on the belief that humans can master ANY circumstance over time. Because of this you will never find a model with a Jared Diamond- or James Lovelock-style apocalypse. Instead our future generations will be much wealthier and thus be better able to cope with the problem.
So how do we put these two stories together? Is climate change truly an existential threat -- an immediate dnage and a small but growing risk of total or near total collapse of society? Or is it creeping change to which humans need to make a carefully thoughout and economically oprimised response as it continues to grow? How do we fit these two versions of the same story together in our head? And more importantly what, with these tow totally different visions, should we do?
AND THE WINNER IS...
Of course economists would tell you that they have already done the work of fitting these two visions together for you. That's what the models are meant to do. The damages of potential climate change are already built in and the results don't look like a catastrophe because, dammit, Man Will Overcome. Anyway that's what the models will tell you. But if you talk to the economists themselves, well, they are not quite as gung ho. Fpr one they themselves admit that the models are not very good at incorporating large short-term shocks. The "long-tail" possibilities in climate science -- the low-probability, high-impact stuff like iceshelves collapsing or thermohaline circulation shutting down -- completely borks the models. You start seeing wild sings in model projections based on those small adjustments and the models in essence start saying "hell if I know!" When economist run into these limitations of their models they tend to heed the Wittgensteinian injuction: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent, which in laymans terms means "You don't know, so don't say anything!" They don't feel comfortable making policy recommendations without solid modeling to back it up. Giving counseling in the face of such gigantics and unquantifiable risk starts to feel less like a science and more like an excercise in politics or ethincs. Heaven forbid. Unfortunately that allows economists whose model tells a nice little story of slowly rising costs, smoothl offset bu a slowly rising carbon tax. The message: don't panic. That message is all too welcome in the halls of power where they are looking for any excuse to sit back and do nothing. The final statement is a rather good metaphor for what is happening. "We are stumbling around in the dark, in an area where scientists tell us some very, very nasty beasties dwell. In that situation, it sems to me the overwhelming bias should be toward action -- getting lean, mean, and nimble enough to handle ourselves no matter what slouches our way."
OPINION
For my part I agree with the author listen to the scientists information and not the economists chart. We are treading in some very dangerous water and if we don't do something now to at least slow down this increase, we will probably learn the hard way that the scientists were right, the economists were wrong, and we are not getting rich any time soon.
QUESTIONS
1) What side are you on? Economists or Scientists? Why?
2) What do you think the effects will be of climate change?
3) What would you do to try and at least slow down the climate change?
4) Do you think that man will overcome?

Wolverines to Vanish From US Due to Warming?

Article

Summary:
Rising temperatures threaten to drive American wolverines to extinction. The wolverines have adapted to cold weather, to the point that there very survival as a species depends on it. Besides having numerous cold-weather adaptations, such as special fur to keep them warm and paws well-suited to snowy terrain, wolverines shelter their newborns in dens built from snow. Shifting climates could eliminate the spring time snow, causing a sharp drop in the reproduction rates of the wolverines, causing a sharp drop in their population. Some conservationists are talking about reintroducing wolverines into the wild to help keep the population up. Computer simulations report that if global warming continues at it's current pace, or even a more moderate one, American wolverines would have to rapidly adapt to very different conditions or face extinction.

Opinions:
Honestly, I didn't even know that wolverines lived in America, there are so few left. This really goes to show how our lazy attitude towards climate change is having serious consequences, and it's really just the beginning. How many other species could be facing similar fates due to climate change? And the extinction of the wolverine could cause ripple effects throughout it's community, causing populations of other organisms to chance, and possibly bring other species down with it. I think we really have to step up our game.

Questions:
1) Why aren't more steps being taken to prevent or reverse climate change?
2) Do you think the extinction of the wolverine would wreak havoc on its community?
3) What steps do you think we could take to help save the wolverine?
4) Do you think wolverines will disappear from the American wild?