Cutting Down on the Elephants Saturday, Mar 3 2007

 

Picture Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/African_Bush_Elephant_Mikumi.jpg/300px-African_Bush_Elephant_Mikumi.jpg

The population of elephants in South Africa is growing steadily – so much that it is getting to the point where environmentalists are proposing culling and contraception in order to curb the population growth. The growth is about 6-7% and is expected to double by the year 2020. There are about 20,000 elephants in South Africa, and a single elephant consumes about 300 kilograms of grass, leaves, and twigs per day. So in South Africa:

20,000 elephants(300 kg) = 6,000,000 kg of grass, leaves, and twigs eaten up in South Africa each day.

But because they are messy, 60% of this is wasted:

6,000,000(.60) = 3,600,000 kg wasted each day.

So undoubtedly this takes a huge toll on South Africa’s environment. If the elephant population keeps expanding, South Africa’s vegetation may become completely destroyed.

Proposed methods of managing the elephants include moving them to other areas, putting up enclosures to protect other animals, expanding parks, contraception, and culling, which is the selection of surplus animals from a population. It is being said that no mass slaughter will occur.

But there are some problems with these curbing methods. For instance, contraception leads to female elephants fighting with bulls. The average lifespan of a female elephant in the South Africa region has been reduced from 65 years to about 45 years. Also, translocation can be a problem because of the cost and the limited space available for transport.

I think that curbing the elephant population in South Africa is necessary because they are overgrazing big time. 3.6 million kg of grass, leaves, etc. that is purely wasted each day by elephants in South Africa and not even consumed is a harsh yet real statistic. Something has to be done, or the future of South Africa’s environment will certainly be jeopardized.

 Sources:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12306

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culling

Leave a Response »

 

Incandescent vs. Fluorescent Friday, Mar 2 2007

The war is on between incandescent light bulbs and compact fluorescent light bulbs.  The aim right now is to switch to bulbs that save energy in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and help reduce global warming.  The world’s three largest light bulb manufacturing companies – General Electric Company, Siemens AG, and Royal Philips Electronics NV, also

known as the European Lamp Companies Federation – are pushing Europeans to purchase the more energy-efficient fluorescent light bulbs as opposed to incandescent ones. It has been estimated in Europe that if all the incandescent bulbs sold in Europe were replaced by the efficient compact fluorescents, the continent of Europe could get rid of 27 of their power plants!

Compact fluorescent light bulbs are three times as efficient as incandescent bulbs and they last a lot longer, but people are hesitant to purchase them because they cost more per bulb, even though in reality they save money in the long run (because they last so long). In Australia and California, bans on incandescent light bulbs have even been proposed. The General Electric Company is against a ban – it opts for a gradual change over time. Most of the U.S.’s fluorescent light bulbs are produced in China, so if bans on incandescent bulbs were put into place, then the U.S. would be almost totally dependent on foreign manufacturers for its lighting.

The ELC Federation Statement says, “The group is now actively working on scenarios for the various governments so as to recommend realistic targets and timelines for an effective, successful shift.”

So what’s the difference between incandescent and fluorescent light bulbs?

 Picture Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Gluehbirne_2_db.jpg/180px-Gluehbirne_2_db.jpg

Incandescent light bulbs work in the following way: an electric current passes through a very thin filament and causes it to become excited, and in the process it releases photons. A benefit of using this type of bulb is that it can be made for a wide range of voltages. But this bulb has a poor luminous efficacy. This means that the ratio of the light that is “usable” for human vision to the total light emitted is low. Incandescent light bulbs are about 5% efficient because about 95% of the power used by them is released as heat, rather than light.

 Picture Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/40/Compact_flourescent_globe.JPG/463px-Compact_flourescent_globe.JPG

 Compact fluorescent light bulbs are fluorescent lamps that fit into standard bulb sockets or plug into lighting fixtures. They last longer than and use less electricity than incandescent bulbs. Also, they use about 1/4 of the energy that incandescents use. This is a big component of the environmental issue involving these 2 types of light bulbs: a gradual mass switch over to fluorescent light bulbs will mean a huge conservation of energy.

Clearly, fluorescent light bulbs are the way to go. Will you make the switch?

Sources:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12318

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_light_bulb

Leave a Response »

 

Cell Phones and Endangered Species? Hmm… Friday, Mar 2 2007

We all have them. We all use them. In fact, most of us can’t go anywhere without them. Yes, our cell phones. We are used to hearing all the normal, everyday ringtones, or songs, as the case may be. But imagine your reaction if you were to instead hear a click-click sound made by a rare Central American poison arrow dart frog, or the howl of a Mexican gray wolf, or the bellow of a beluga whale.

An environmental group in the United States wonders if people hear these strange sounds on their cell phones, they will wonder about them and what is going on with the animals that make them. They want to educate and inspire people. They want to use cell phones to bring these rare sounds from these rare animals to people’s attention. It has reached some people, because 24,000 people have downloaded these ringtones.

“With the ringtones, this is the tip of the iceberg,” said Peter Leyden, director of the institute, which studies the impact of cell phones.

Picture Credit:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Black-RAZRV3-closed.jpg/426px-Black-RAZRV3-closed.jpg

Co-founder of the Center for Biological Diversity Peter Galvin invented this new technological method of informing the younger generation about these animal species. He spent days at a time in jungles recording the odd sounds of these animals. He figured using cell phone ringtones would be an interesting, cool way to go about doing this.

The ringtones also include the sounds of multiple species of frogs, as well as birds from South America and owls from North America. While this idea of “ringtones from the wild” might be entertaining, it was created with serious intentions. The aim is to get people interested in knowing more about these endangered animals, and even to contribute in doing something to help.

I find this whole concept interesting. I think that the whole motive behind the “ringtones from the wild” is good. After all, there really is no better way to get through to the young generation nowadays than to reach them via their cell phones. However, I don’t really see all that many young people changing their ringtones from their favorite songs to these new and unusual sounds from the wild. It’s all about what’s popular, particularly with people under 20 years of age or so. Perhaps the revolution in ringtones will catch on for a lot of people, or perhaps it won’t. But I think that if environmental groups really want to get people interested in endangered animals, somewhere along the line they will find some solid methods of doing it. I think that other good ways of educating young people about these types of environmental issues involving endangered species might include television programs and/or advertisements or learning about the situation in schools.

Source:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12296

One Response »

 

And So Begin the Serious Impacts of Global Warming… Friday, Mar 2 2007

Apparently Al Gore isn’t the only person attempting to make the world aware of the threats of global warming. A man named Simon Nattaq, an Inuit, had his life changed when he lost his feet to frostbite after falling through ice that had become thin from higher Arctic temperatures. Today he has prosthetic feet and still hunts to this day. He and other Inuit from the United States, Canada, Russia, and Greenland have been spending more than a decade making the world aware of thinning ice and wind shifts and how well-established hunting patterns are being threatened due to the deaths of much of their hunting game.

Ice surfing, as shown in this picture, in addition to other “ice” activities, cannot happen in the Arctic because the ice is becoming too thin.

 Picture Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Ice_surfing.jpg/800px-Ice_surfing.jpg

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, recently nominated with Al Gore for a Nobel Peace Prize, was scheduled to argue yesterday before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the United States is violating the Inuit people’s rights because it is the country that emits the largest quantity of greenhouse gases into the atmoshpere.

The Arctic region suffers the most from this current problem of global warming, and unless action is taken now to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Arctic region’s late-summer sea ice will be almost entirely gone by the second half of the twenty-first century. This means that our children will be dealing with the severe consequences of global warming unless action is taken now to reduce its impacts. Polar bears, seals, and walruses are already moving north because of the lack of solid ice in their current locations.  There have been reports of walruse and seal pups stranded on pieces of ice. They die because their mothers are too big to float with them on these shrinking “rafts” of ice.

According to the weather service in Canada, last winter was their warmest since 1948.

Watt-Cloutier says, “The wisdom and answers from our hunting culture may leave us, because the ice is melting so fast.”

If the polar ice keeps melting, the Inuit culture faces extinction. There will be no more Arctic animals for them to hunt or from which to get their furs that keep them warm. Their climate is certainly part of what make the Inuit who they are. It would be a pity if something so preventable, like global warming, put an end to their lives as they now know them.

Source:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12311

Leave a Response »

 

Gas Storage Tank Leaks Costing LOTS of Money… Friday, Mar 2 2007

 Gas, stay at the gas stations where you belong.

Photo Credit : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Shellgasstationlosthills.jpg/300px-Shellgasstationlosthills.jpg

We are now well aware of the problem of run-off into our bodies of water because of the excess chloride, oil, and other wastes that it brings into our water sources. This is a very serious issue; however, it is not the only “leakage” problem that we are currently facing.

Tens of thousands of gasoline storage tanks, many from gas stations and convenience stores, are leaking underground and causing contamination. And it will cost about $12 billion to clean it all up. Given that the Bush administration only provides $72 million per year to aid in this effort (info from the General Accountability Office), we are presented with a huge financial problem.

Important to take into account is that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already dished out about $10 billion in efforts to limit the gas-leakage contamination from the past 20 years. The $12 billion estimate is enough to clean up about 54,000 leaks from storage tanks underground. But over the next five years, most U.S. states say they expect about 16,700 new gas tank leaks. So, in addition to this current $12 billion estimate, over the next five years :

(16,700 leaks/54,000 leaks) ($12,000,000,000) = about $3.7 billion dollars to be spent on the cleanup of additional gas tank leaks over the next five years.

This, to me, is a real eye-opener. $3.7 billion dollars spent on cleaning up gas tank leaks. Over a mere five-year period. The idea seems ridiculous. Imagine what would happen if we could give that amount of money to the starving children in Uganda.

Another problem is that some tank owners are not covered by insurance, and so quick cleanups cannot always happen. Most tank owners have to pay a deductible, while the government pays for most of the cleanup.

 What causes these leaks? Up until about 30 years ago, most tanks were made of steel, which eventually corrodes and causes gas to leak into the environment. Incorrect installation or problems with operation and maintenance processes can also cause leaks.

These leaking gas tanks underground pose serious potential threats to human health. It contaminates our drinking water supplies with carcinogens such as methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE).

Back in 1985, Congress banned unprotected steel tanks from operation. Another amendment in 1986 required that all underground storage tank owners be financially capable of cleanups. Some action has been taken recently to reduce the leakage of these gas storage tanks, such as the passing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which states that underground gas tanks need to be inspected once every three years.

Hopefully more can be done by the government in the next few years to reduce these gas leaks into our environment and water supplies.

Sources:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12281

http://www.epa.gov/oust/overview.htm

Leave a Response »