Planting Trees…and the Super Bowl Friday, Feb 2 2007

 

 Mangrove Trees. (AP Photo)

Who knew that the NFL was concerned about global warming? I didn’t – I always thought the main concerns of the NFL were their football games. Apparently the National Football League is planting about 3,000 red mangrove trees as well as other trees that are native to Florida in an effort to combat global warming. They began planting these trees in August and they intend to finish in May.

The NFL believes that planting all these trees around Miami make the games “carbon neutral” in that the carbon dioxide emitted at the Super Bowl events will eventually be taken up by all these trees.

This made me think of that worksheet we did a few weeks ago comparing and contrasting planting trees and raising fuel efficiency standards. I remembered that a typical tree can absorb 13 pounds of CO2 per year. So if the NFL does plant 3,000 trees around Miami:

3,000 trees(13 lbs. CO2/yr) = 39,000 lbs of CO2 absorbed in Miami after one year.

Converted to tons: 39,000 lbs./2,000 lbs. = 19.5 tons of CO2 absorbed in Miami after one year.

The Super Bowl is expected by the U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory to emit, including power, fuel, and more than 1,200 vehicles, about 500 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on Sunday. Now let’s compare these two numbers: 500 tons emitted, but only 19.5 tons of it will be absorbed by these trees after one year.

19.5 tons/500 tons (100%) = 3.9%

Only 3.9% of the CO2 emitted on Sunday will be taken up by these 3,000 trees after one year. That is a very small percentage.

Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University, said, “It’s probably a nice thing to do, but planting trees is not a quantitative solution to the real problem.”  After that calculation, I’m going to have to agree with Caldeira. What the NFL is doing is a good gesture, but it really isn’t going to help much in the big picture. Like we determined on the worksheet, we are much better off raising fuel efficiency standards in order to reduce CO2 emissions rather than planting trees.

One last thing…GO BEARS!

 Picture Credits: http://accuweatherbak.ap.org/apdbs/Intl_Photos/views/micro/31958/31958938.jpg

 http://accuweatherbak.ap.org/apdbs/Intl_Photos/views/micro/30924/30924497.jpg

Source: http://enn.com/today.html?id=12137

3 Responses »

 

Hunting More Bison and Elk? Friday, Feb 2 2007

A plan has been released that will cut in half the number of bison in the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials say that this is necessary because of overgrazing. (Overgrazing occurs when plants are exposed to grazing for a long period of time without enough recovery time. Land becomes infertile and soil becomes eroded.) The elk population in Wyoming will also be reduced from 6,700 to 5,000 by hunting.

Bison have not really been hunted in this refuge because they, as the symbol of the American West, are what attract so many tourists.

 Picture Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/American_bison_k5680-1.jpg/800px-American_bison_k5680-1.jpg

 The driving force behind the hunting of these bison is that they can’t be sustained by the wildlife refuge. But animal rights activists are placing the blame on federal and state wildlife agencies, pointing out that they create the problem by feeding the wildlife.

“You can’t continue to artificially inflate the numbers of bison and then say, ‘We have to shoot them,”‘ says Jonathan Loworn, lawyer for the Fund for Animals and vice president for the U.S. Humane Society. I would have to agree with Loworn. If the federal and state agencies are in fact feeding the bison, elk, etc., then they should not be able to say that they plan to kill them off simply because they are overgrazing. If they are the ones helping to sustain the bison population in the refuge, then they need to take responsibility for that. If they wish to lower the population, then they should provide less food for them.

Another statement, by National Elk Refuge Manager Barry Reiswig, says “We’ve had a tug-of-war for years between those who want more buffalo and those who want less; they’ll just have to come to some sort of understanding.”

I have always enjoyed seeing bison when I’ve gone out to the West, and I do tend to think of the bison/buffalo as the primary symbol for that area. I know I would want them to stick around. Hopefully the hunting, if it does occur, does not get out of hand.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overgrazing

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12146

Leave a Response »

 

Going “Carbon Neutral?” Friday, Feb 2 2007

 

As students, we rarely think that the things we learn at school apply to real life. We sit through calculus, for example, and constantly think to ourselves, “Ugh…when am I ever going to need this in life?” Lucky for us APES students, though, that the things we learn actually do apply to our lives. I’ve been looking at news articles online and it seems like some of the most recent ones entail carbon dioxide emissions, global warming, etc. Naturally these are going to catch our attention because we have a fresh knowledge of these issues. Thus, we are aware of the urgency of these environmental issues.

Scientists are getting ready to communicate the urgency of these issues through the planning of a report on global warming to be given in Paris, France. An objective of the report is the plan to make life “carbon neutral,” as in greatly reducing carbon dioxide emissions of everyday life so as to slow down the rate of global warming.

Some companies have suggested calculating the amounts of CO2 that are given off by certain activities and also how much money ought to be contributed in the efforts of reducing emissions.

Jutta Kill of SinksWatch, which is an environmental group that monitors these CO2 reduction projects, says that “the carbon neutral trend tries to make money from tapping into consumers’ guilt. It’s worse than doing nothing…those who are in a role-model function like Al Gore do not do the movement for effective action on climate change a favor by promoting carbon offsets.”

Perhaps there is some truth to this statement, because I agree with it in that I don’t think the way to make people emit less CO2 is to make them feel guilty about how much they are contributing to global warming. On the other hand, I think it is important to have people like Al Gore (An Inconvenient Truth) getting the message out to people that urgent action needs to be taken to prevent further global warming. Political figures like him are sometimes needed in order to convince people that this issue is a reality.

This trend is becoming so great that the New Oxford American Dictionary claimed that “carbon neutral” would be its word of the year for 2006.

To show just how much of an impact our CO2 emissions have, consider the following:

• 9 tons of carbon dioxide are emitted over the course of a wedding bash and honeymoon trip for 150 people (this accounts for travel, heating, etc.). Now, say a couple has a larger wedding, with 200 people. Setting up a proportion, 9 tons CO2/150 people = x tons CO2/200 people, x = 12 tons of CO2 emitted. That is 3 extra tons of CO2 emitted just for an addition of 50 people to the wedding.
• It is also estimated that the meeting being held in Paris this week to give a report on this issue of global warming will emit about 1100 tons of CO2 for the 500 people meeting from around the world. Let’s see the difference it would make to add another hundred people to the conference: 1100 tons CO2/500 people = x tons CO2/600 people, x = 1320 tons CO2. 1320 – 1100 = 220 extra tons of CO2.

We can see, based on these calculations, how much difference a small number of people can make in CO2 emissions. It can go either way, though. People can make a harmful difference if they don’t take action to limit their CO2 emissions, or they can make a positive difference by taking action to reduce their emissions.

Source: http://enn.com/today.html?id=12145

CO2 icon: Me

One Response »

 

Fashionable AND Environmentally Friendly? No way! Friday, Feb 2 2007

We girls can’t deny it. We are into the latest trends in fashion these days, whether we realize it or not. But depending on the fabrics from which our clothes are made, we could be wearing clothing items that are not helping the environment. Imagine this: you buy and wear clothing items that actually help the environment. How can this be so? It seems that the Brazilians have discovered it: sporting clothing made of polyester fibers from recycled plastic bottles or of organic cotton that was grown without pesticides. The idea sounds weird at first, but think about how much cleaner the environment would be if a good number of people switched to eco-friendly clothes! There would not be as much trash (like plastic bottles) lying around in the streets, and our bodies of water would not be as full of garbage that people indifferently throw into them.

So, what’s going on in Latin America this month? The biggest fashion event of the entire year, that’s what! This means that local designers are coming to show off their hip new gowns made of recycled materials, which are also called e-fabrics.

Recycled bottles are also helping to produce materials that serve as filling for clothing items such as ties and lapels.

Another advantage is that many poor Brazilian families are earning income by going around and collecting these recyclable materials.

 Picture Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Recycle001.svg/636px-Recycle001.svg.png

Gloria Kalil, one of Brazil’s top fashion consultants, says, “From now on, the industry will have to consider the environment. Otherwise, who’s going to buy things that are damaging for the planet?”

In response to Kalil’s question, I don’t think many people would intentionally buy clothes that are damaging to the planet. They simply are not aware that they could be buying clothes and improving the quality of the environment by donning clothing items made from recycled materials. It’s something to seriously consider…maybe one day the U.S. will follow suit after Brazil and implement eco-friendly clothes.

It is true that organic cotton that is used to produce eco-friendly clothes is more expensive than regular cotton, but regular cotton is harmful to the environment because it needs large amounts of pesticides that kill birds and insects, as well as pollute local rivers.

Producers of eco-friendly clothing guess that it will take some years for people to pick up on this new trend in clothes – they do cost more than regular clothes, but the question that people will be asking themselves will be, “Do I care enough about the future of the environment to pay a little more for my clothes?”

Sources: http://enn.com/today.html?id=12126

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

Leave a Response »

 

Our Sixth Warmest Year Ever?! Saturday, Jan 6 2007

So, who remembers those few days at the end of July and early August when the weather was so hot that it was unbearable to even be outside? We were into the 100’s temperature-wise, and the humidity was very high. It should come as no surprise to us that that World Meteorological Organization has proclaimed 2006 the sixth warmest year since 1880, when readings started to be recorded.

The United Nations weather agency tells us that the mean temperature worldwide was about 0.42 degrees Celsius above the annual average of 14 degrees Celsius, covering the years 1961-1990. Since 1900, the average global temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius. Most notable, though, is that since 1976 the average global temperature has gone up by 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade.

   Hole in ozone layer. Photo courtesy of NASA.

Could this steady rise in temperature be due to the hole in the ozone layer?

According to Paul Newman, who is an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, “From September 21 to 30, 2006, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles.”

Huge number?? I’ll say.

Interesting to note is that it is not only heat that is causing depletion of the ozone layer. It is also due in part to very cold winters. January 2006’s cold temperatures caused approximately a 20% loss of ozone near the Arctic. The loss was even greater in 2005.

Global warming is causing steady decline in the amount of sea ice present in our oceans. This is due to the ice melting (an endothermic change, IR light is absorbed).

Last year, we began 2006 with unusually mild temperatures. The summer was also unusual, with many parts of the world experiencing heat waves. These caused droughts to occur in Brazil and China, destroying crops and taking a big toll on their economies. In some places such as Australia, there have been consistently dry areas for the past 5-10 years. The Australian Conservation Foundation deems it necessary that we cut emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere if people wish to curb the droughts. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has predicted yet another warmer-than-average winter, and with it being early January and currently 50 degrees outside in Chicago, we would have to say that the NOAA has been pretty accurate in its prediction.

It seems like average annual temperatures worldwide have been increasing steadily. This leaves us expecting that they will continue to increase unless action is taken to prevent the hole in the ozone layer from getting larger. Not that we necessarily hate the idea of having milder winters…even so, we need to consider the future of the world’s environment.

Source: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2007/2007-01-03-02.asp

                                                        

Leave a Response »

 

Save the Abalone Tuesday, Dec 26 2006

My trips to Florida about six or seven years ago really stick out in my memory. I would swim in the ocean and look for seashells along the shore. I would find tons of sand dollars, and occasionally I would come across pieces of shells that, when seen in the light, had hints of colors running through them. I thought they were kind of cool.  I would pick them up and run over to my mom, asking what these things were that I was finding. My mom told me they were pieces of abalone, but I just nodded along, not really knowing what that was.  I recently read an article referencing abalone, so naturally that captured my attention. I discovered that they are an endangered species in certain areas.

 Abalone.

Picture Credit: http://www.mineralminers.com/images/abalone/mins/abam101x.jpg

 A brief description of the Black Abalone would include: 7.5 cm-20 cm long; smooth outer shell of a dark brown, dark green, or blackish color; inside of shell – iridescent pink and green; black tentacles.

Under the Endangered Species Act, the Center for Biological Diversity in San Francisco has petitioned to protect Black Abalone (Haliotis cracherodii). Black Abalone has suffered huge declines in population along the west coast of the United States. These mollusk invertebrates used to be abundant, particularly in Southern California. But now they are almost all gone.

The reasons behind the dramatic decrease in population of Black Abalone are fishing and a spreading, fatal disease called withering syndrome. Fishing has been banned for the most part but this disease continues to be a problem for the Abalone. The virus does well in warm water, which happens to be the type of water in the California area. Global warming has been an ongoing problem not just for the Abalone but also for most of the marine life living in our oceans. The ocean temperatures will keep rising as global warming continues, thus threatening every kind of fish or sea organism that we can imagine.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, who came out with the Endangered Species Act, will be given 90 days to answer to this petition for the protection of Black Abalone.

Sources:

http://enn.com/net.html?id=1773

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

Leave a Response »

 

A Great Big Wind Farm in Britain? Sunday, Dec 24 2006

Since we covered the topic of wind farms in our last unit, this article about wind farms being built in the UK caught my eye. In an effort to increase renewable energy resources, two huge wind farms are set to be constructed in the Thames Estuary in London. One of them, which will be named the London Array, will be the world’s largest wind farm that is offshore. They will use 1.3 gigawatts of electricity. This much electricity can provide for one third of the houses in London.

Environment Secretary David Miliband said: “By issuing the licences to build the world’s largest offshore wind farms in the Thames Estuary we are re-enforcing the UK’s commitment to renewable energy and combating climate change and ocean acidification.”

The building of these wind farms will be separated into two phases in order to allow for a study on the impact of the farms on birds. The plan is that these new wind farms will provide electricity for nearly 250,000 homes.

On a wind farm, turbines are used to produce electricity. One of the main motives behind this type of energy production is that it will greatly reduce the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. This is because the higher dependability on wind energy reduces the high demand for coal-burning power plants. Thus many people are in favor of wind farms because they will reduce global warming.

Two important issues that arise with the wind farm are cost and reliability. Many people feel that wind farms are too expensive and that they might not be dependable as a source of energy. Another problem has to do with birds. The windmills are spinning and birds can be killed if they collide with the turbine blades. But the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the UK has said that “The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds.”

It will be interesting to see what happens with wind farms over the next few decades as our fossil fuel supplies start to wind down.

Sources:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2006/2006-12-20-03.asp

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

Picture: http://www.stasys.co.uk/images/common/windfarm.jpg

One Response »

 

Octopus Study: Solution for the Fish? Friday, Dec 22 2006

We may one day run out of seafood. The primary reasons are 1) because fish cannot reproduce as quickly as they are caught by people, and 2) their habitats (reefs and such) are destroyed due to the wastes we put into our oceans. There has been much concern about this issue in people’s posts this year, inlcuding one of mine from a while back. We wondered if there would be a way to keep the fish in the sea and from being entirely depleted in the next 40 years. Earlier this week, there was information released about octopii catchings in Madagascar which could be a solution for the declining stocks of fish in the oceans.

Scientists are saying that if areas of marine life are protected over periods of time, the number of fish in that area will increase considerably. What needs to be done is to close off the designated area to fishermen so that no marine life is extracted from the water. A recent study in Madagascar has shown that the number of octopii in a protected area increases when the area is blocked off from fishermen. A couple 7 month bans were put on octopus fishing in Andavadoaka. During this time, the undisturbed octopii were allowed to multiply.

Photo Credit: http://www.mzoo.com/images/octopus.jpg

According to Alasdair Harris, scientific director of Blue Ventures, which is the marine conservation group that worked to protect the certain areas of marine life in the ocean,

This study shows MPAs (marine protected areas) not only serve as a powerful conservation tool helping species thrive, but can also be a powerful economic tool helping fisheries remain productive and profitable.

Well, this is good news! Do we now have some hope that our seafood stock won’t run out as soon as scientists were previously anticipating? This study seems to be a key in preventing “over-fishing,” which is one of the big problems threatening the future of so many sea creatures and even the ocean’s ecosystem.

Let’s take cod, for example. A cod is a larger fish, so its main food would include certain types of smaller fish. Yet it is also prey for fish larger than itself. In certain areas, such as off the coast of Canada, cod fish have been entirely wiped out. As we learned when we studied ecosystems, the loss of this predator/prey is going to have an impact on the ocean ecosystem. The number of smaller fish would probably increase initially because they aren’t being preyed upon so actively. But they’re bound to decline because the larger fish that once preyed on the cod cannot do so anymore, so they may have to resort to smaller fish. The loss of one sea species has an impact on the whole ecosystem. As more and more species are eradicated, the ocean ecosystem is going to suffer more and more.

Now we just have to hope that more studies are done and that more measures are taken to prolong the process of depletion. We need to keep our delicious seafood intact as long as possible!

http://enn.com/today.html?id=11878

Leave a Response »

 

Oil Spills Saturday, Dec 2 2006

Has anyone ever seen the Saved by the Bell episode where there’s a huge oil spill? If you haven’t, here’s what happens: this oil company takes over the school and starts drilling on the football field, and then there’s a big oil spill. The oil ends up getting into the school’s pond and it kills all the animals in and around the pond. Whenever I think of an oil spill, I think of this episode. It shows the kind of damage that an oil spill could potentially do.

Luckily, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a plan for preventing, getting ready for, and responding to any oil spill that may occur. This is good to know because the United States, and we all are aware, uses so much oil (about 250 billions of gallons per year). At any given time while this oil is being produced, distributed, or consumed, oil can spill from the tanks in which it is kept and threaten the environment. Oil spills can happen any time, any place, and in any type of weather. The program that has been developed has reduced the number of oil spills to about 1% of the total amount that is dealt with each year.

 Graphic courtesy of West Coast Environmental Law Association.

So how are oil spills prevented? For the past 20 years or so, the U.S. EPA has had several companies working at many oil storage facilities to prevent the spilling of oil into the waters of the country. The EPA makes certain that owners of oil facilites have Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure plans. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which is still enforced today, requires liability and penalty requirements should an oil spill occur. The EPA also performs inspections on oil facilities to make sure that they are taking the proper precautions in order to prevent an oil spill.

How do they prepare for oil spills? The EPA has contingency plans, which detail the steps for cleaning up an oil spill and preventing it from spreading. They also have training which prepares facilities to prevent and respond to an oil spill.

How do they respond to oil spills? Some spills can be cleaned up by the facility, but others that are more severe require help from local and state agencies, or even the federal government. The EPA is the federal agency responsible for spills that occur in inland waters, and the U.S. Coast Guard is the agency responsible for spills that occur in any ocean along the coast.

Hopefully this plan developed by the EPA will keep proving effective and reduce the number of oil spills to well under 1% so that the environment can be kept cleaner and safer.

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

http://www.wcel.org/4976/18/oilspill.gif

One Response »

 

Let It Snow Saturday, Dec 2 2006

Oh, the amazing white blanket covering the state of Illinois that gave us a day off school: snow. I’m assuming that most of us enjoy the snow for one reason or another – whether it be playing in the snow, having snowball fights, making snow angels, sledding, snowboarding, skiing, or the one everyone can agree on - it has the potential to free us from school. However, caught up in all the excitement of snow, we don’t really think about the effects it has on the environment.

 

 http://www.edholden.com/images/wallpaper/20050107-02%20-%20Snow%20in%20Backyard-3.jpg

So, what exactly is snow? MSN Encarta defines it as “transparent ice crystals formed around dust or other particulates in the atmosphere when water vapor condenses at temperatures below the freezing point.” Now that’s a pretty complex definition for such a simple phenomenon. In other words, it is precipitation that freezes in the atmosphere and falls to the ground in the form of flakes.

I think it’s interesting that all snowflakes have some kind of hexagonal shape. The varying weather conditions cause each snowflake to be different from the next in its exact configuration.

During these big snowstorms, ice can build up. Getting rid of this ice may damage ecosystems, possibly due to excessive salts. Snow also becomes rather dirty after a while, and if it gets into the pipes that transport our water, it may contaminate the water that we drink. Snow can even knock power lines down. This causes generators to be used more frequently, which in turn causes air pollution. Another drawback about snow is that is greatly slows traffic, or, if weather conditions are exceptionally bad, driving may not even be possible. A snowstorm may also affect electricity and cause power outages.

Snow comes with benefits as well, and they go further than sledding, snowball fights, and snow days. Ironically, snow actually preserves heat and helps protect crops in very cold weather. Once the snow has fallen and the “blizzard” part is over, the fresh, white blanket gives off a calm, clean look that’s hard to beat. Let’s all enjoy the snow this weekend!

http://www.epa.gov/naturalevents/snow-ice.html

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

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574883/Snow.html

One Response »