Environmental Science

Poor Countries boycotted Climate Talk

mef26 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:41:51 +0000

In the past week hundreds of countries and their leaders gathered in Copenhagen to talk about environmental issues. World leaders including President Obama, spoke about set goals for the countries in order to reduce pollution emitted into our atmosphere. However several smaller, and poorer countries boycotted the conference several were countries from Africa and India and China. The countries wanted to extend the Kyoto protocol which would highly tax richer nations for their pollution, but it would not charge developing nations. The boycott disrupted several hours of the conference and left the other hundred nations to wait for it to end.

China which is now the worlds largest greenhouse polluter did not want to take direct action on the protocol. The leaders of this nation would fear this would slow economic growth. Several delegates from Africa would try to block out certain protocols from passing, when the African delegates spoke applause would break out from India and China. It is obvious from this story that the developing countries do not wish environmental acts to pass because this would disrupt economic progress or tax countries that cannot afford to pay. The White house has stated that in the next four years it plans on joining in spending $350 million to give to developing nations clean energy. It will create more solar power alternatives for homes, supply cleaner appliances and more renewable energy to be made available. $85 million of that share will be given by the United States the other countries paying are Australia, Britain, Norway, Netherlands, and Switzerland. The conferance hopes that these developing countries will use the money wisely and make sure that a greener more renewable plan is made for the contries. These developing nations are one the most polluting countries that attended the conferance out of 192 nations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_sc/climate

“A dying beauty: A habitat in peril”

shasebneburroughs — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:22:42 +0000

Coral reefs are located all around the world and make up a goo portion of this earths underwater sanctuaries for millions of organisms. One coral reef has hundreds of ecosystems that are home to some of the most beautiful creatures. Creatures that believe it or not have human value. Not only are they a human value because of their aesthetic reasons that produce economic benefits for many nations, but the fact that many of the ocean animals we eat thrive off the bountiful ecosystems of a coral reef. These reefs also protect coastal areas from incoming waves that could potentially erode away at shorelines, but also provide many medicinal benefits.

There are numerous reasons for the degradation to our coral reefs. Pollution run off from inland water ways, coastal development, overfishing, and global climate which leads to oceanic acidification, are all combatants to the survival of our reefs. For purposes of this blog, lets examine the affects of global warming on these ocean beauties.

Global warming has lead to the bleaching of coral reefs, ever-increasing CO2 percentages that exist in the oceans, and diseases and plagues to the coral reefs due to direct human disturbances. According to the 2004 edition of “Status of Coral Reefs Around the World”, coral bleaching and death rate of reefs is the number one emerging threat caused by global warming factors. Coral bleaching is caused by the elevation in sea temperatures and results in white dead looking coral that increases the chances of mortality. Scientists believe that 20 percent of reefs could be eliminated completely by 2020. in 1998 almost all species of coral were negatively affected by increased water temperatures and El- Nino. According to Green Peace, if global climate change does not slow coral bleaching will intensify and steadily increase between 2030 and 2070. They say that coral bleaching will devastated these ecosystems so badly that they could even be eliminated from most places around the world by 2100. Could you imagine going scuba diving int he great barrier reef only to see that everything has perished. An Australian agency in charge of looking after the Great Barrier reef reported that despite it being one of the healthiest reefs in the world, since European settlement, an increase in illegal poaching and inland water run off into coastal waters has seriously damaged the reef and could possibly take over 100 years to fully recover, and thats only in perfect conditions. Being an avid diver, this issue is definitely worth a second look.

Coal mine explosions and volcanic eruptions: a striking similarity

peppersprouse — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:34:59 +0000

Having grown up in West Virginia, it is more than well known that most of the state relies on the coal industry. Even though I didn’t grow up in a coal mining town, my hometown is tucked between many regions in the state that rely heavily on this business. Mining, as many people know, is an incredibly dangerous job, with explosions and other disasters occurring quite frequently all over the world. With these occurrences being such a great likelihood in West Virginia, I found it quite fascinating to come across an article about how coal mine explosions are very similar to volcanic eruptions.

Recent research from Peking University in Beijing, China and the University of Michigan has found that decompression is the linking factor in both of these natural disasters. The idea of similarity between the two came from geology professor, Youxue Zhang, after he read an article about how an outburst of coal ejects fragmented coal particles and gas. This, he thought, resembled what happens when a volcano erupts. In the process of a volcanic eruption, concentrations of dissolved gas in the magma are very high, and when it is exposed from the removal of overlying rock, the gas bubbles expand very quickly. The pressure in the bubbles becomes so great that they expand to the point of explosion, causing, the surrounding magma to shatter into pieces in an explosion.

The key factor in this type of explosion is when overlying rock is removed and the magma becomes exposed. This is the same case for coal mine explosions. When a coal seam is exposed, carbon dioxide and methane gases expand to the breaking point until, finally, the stress causes the coal to fragment in a great explosion. To test the similarity, Zhang used a shock tube apparatus to simulate coal outbursts, and ultimately, found out that high gas pressure is, in fact, the driving factor in coal explosions that emulates volcanic eruptions.

With an ever increasing demand for coal, its mining is continuously increasing. And with this increase in mining comes an increase in coal mine explosions. It is a worldwide phenomenon and can cause mass devestation in the affected area. For instance, my home state of West Virginia was greatly affected by the recent Sago Mine disaster that wrought grief on the community and many families. This study helps to pinpoint the underlying mechanisms behind the explosions, and hopefully the information can be used to develop better and safer techniques for the removal of overlaying rock and coal extraction. The more disaster we can prevent, the better, and this research in this area definitely holds the key to unlocking even more pertinent information that can help save lives and further mass destruction of our resources.

Source: http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091001081219.htm

Cutting Emissions

cmiller6 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:52:48 +0000

Now that Congress is looking for ways to cut and end global warming but limiting emissions, scientists are starting to look for other ways to produce energy. Many “Engineers and policymakers say, it may be easier and less costly to capture the carbon dioxide at oil refineries, chemical plants, cement factories and ethanol plants, which emit a far purer stream of it than a coal smokestack does.” Carbon Dioxide takes up only a small percentage of coal emissions, and it is very difficult to separate because it is so well mixed and combined with other pollutants. Many ideas for cheaper removal of carbon dioxide is being discussed if Congress develops a new “cap-and-trade system.” This would set a “national ceiling for overall emissions and allot pollution allowances to utilities, manufacturers and other emitters, which could then trade them among themselves.” Companies that exceed their carbon emission limit may buy credits from a company that does not pollute as much as one does.

One of the ideas towards this thinking, is a pipeline that goes from Lousiana to Texas. The pipeline will take natural deposits of underground carbon dioxide to aging oil fields, and push more oil to the surface. Manmade carbon dioxide could also be captured at this site. This is an idea to lead towards cutting emissions, and using them in a different way that could be beneficial to the economy but not the environment. Trasporting this large amount of carbon dioxide could have the same effect as having large deposits of coal into the atmosphere as well. This idea is known as carbon capture.

“Carbon dioxide makes up 20 percent of the gas resulting from hydrogen production, twice the concentration found in a gas stream from a typical coal plant. Recovering it from this stream rather than a coal plant smokestack would therefore be cheaper and simpler.” For many years drilers have tapped into underground carbon dioxide deposits to help the oil supply. Carbon dioxide brings oil to the surface, and makes access easier.

The government is working towards these new ideas of transporting carbon underground and creating manmade carbon in orer to help other portions of our economy. Currently, the prices are very high to develop an idea such as this, but engineers and scientists are working towards cuttting the price in half so it is easier for companies to access, and will be used bu more industries. This could work very well, and may see may positive outcomes in the future.

Farmin Practices

mgoode1 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:38:31 +0000

We need healthful food and clean water to survive and thrive.

More than ever buyers and consumers around the globe are concerned about the health and quality of their food. As newspapers splash headlines about mad cow disease outbreaks and contaminated fish, questions about the quality of what we’re eating increasingly arise. Is meat free of contaminants and dyes? What role did antibiotics play in this animal’s life? Does the seafood contain mercury or PCBs? What kind of pesticides were used on the vegetables? Is the food my grocer stocks genetically modified and what does that mean for my family?

Issues like these are causing more people to pay attention to the origin of their food, and consumers are realizing more and more they have a breadth of choices when it comes to eating. Vegetables, seafood and meat are all produced in a variety of good and not-so-good ways, from the small farmers and ranchers who tend several acres of farmland or own a small herd of cattle to the agribusinesses and ranching conglomerates that control thousands of acres and animals. Environmental Defense is working with a range of food producers to ensure the food you and your family eat is good for both you and the environment.

We need healthful food and clean water to survive and thrive.

bottle water and the environment

mgoode1 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:31:06 +0000

US bottled water sales growing nearly 10 percent annually – and the trash from tossed containers climbing just as quickly – calls for Americans to go back to drinking tap water have surged since the beginning of summer.
“This country has some of the best public water supplies in the world,” the New York Times said in an editorial earlier this month.
“Instead of consuming four billion gallons (15 billion liters) of water a year in individual-sized bottles, we need to start thinking about what all those bottles are doing to the planet’s health.”
As was pointed out at World Water Week in Stockholm on Monday, US personal consumption per capita, including water from all sources, hits 400 liters (106 gallons) each day — compared to 10 liters (2.6 gallons) a person in developing countries.
And US consumers are drinking more bottled water by the day. According to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, growth in bottled water sales last year was 9.7 percent, making the total market worth about 11 billion dollars.

Bottled water in the United States does not mean mineral water, even if Americans grumble more and more about paying a high price to drink water with little to distinguish it.
At the end of July beverage giant PepsiCo was forced by public pressure to explain on its Aquafina bottled water that the contents inside come from … the tap.
Pepsi’s response “is an important first step,” said Gigi Kellett, director of the “Think Outside the Bottle” campaign.
“Concerns about the bottled water industry, and increasing corporate control of water, are growing across the country,” she said.
From mineral springs or from public pipes, water once in a bottle is expensive. The New York Times estimated that for some consumers the bill could hit 1,400 dollars a year – for an amount that, taken from a home faucet, might cost less than half a dollar.
And it is not always better.
“Bottled water sold in the United States is not necessarily cleaner or safer than most tap water, according to a four-year scientific study,” the National Resources Defense Council recently reported. It also said regulation has not guaranteed more pure water in bottles. bascially it is time for american to wake up and reliaze that convience comes with a price and if they want to countinue to live on this planet they have to quit using plastic water bottles. take the time to buy alummin bottle and fill it wih tap water. after all the stuff in tap water only makes our immune systems stronger( that is if it does not kill us)

Greenhouse Gases

cmiller6 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:30:23 +0000

Just recently, the E.P.A finally announded that greenhouse gases are harmful to our health. There have always been many claims and speculations that they were harmful to humans, but not it is official that they are imperil to health. This announcement was ment to coincide with the recent Copenhagen conferences in regards to global climate change.

” The E.P.A.’s administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said that a 2007 decision by the Supreme Court required the agency to weigh whether carbon dioxide and five other climate-altering gases threatened human health and welfare and, if so, to take steps to regulate them.” From the scientific evidence, it was evident that human activity was largely responsible for the large increase in global climate change. After a large amount of scientific studies, it was declared that global warming is real, and that if something is not done about it soon, our Earth is in great danger. The E.P.A is unsure how bad it will get if they do not react soon enough.

Although carbon is very harmful to our Earth, limiting the amount of emissions would be very tough and next to impossible because so many companies and industries depend on it and use it. It would be very complex and cost the economy large amounts of money.

Since the Obama administration, it was signaled that there was an intent to investigate dangerous greenhouse gases other than carbon. Including,methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Many steps have been taken to further explore and investigate this idea, and to find the dangers of other kids of greenhouse gases, because all are very harmful to the environment. The government is say that if lawmakers do not act to control the amount of greenhouse gase emissions there will be consequences. The president and his environmental aides are working towards a major step in the legislative process.

Discovering the engangerment of greenhouse gases will put a large dent on the economy. Many people will lose money and jobs if there is a halt or hold put on the amount of emissons. Many industries depend on resources such as these. Although it make take a hard hit to the economy, the after effects of a cleaner earth are much more beneficial. It may take a long time to clean up the messes it may leave beind, but the final product is extremely helpful for our Earth and for many other reasons in the long run. It is all about what will happen in the future, than working away from the present.

I think these discoveries are very important to our environment and can make a big impact if there is something done about it. Now that there has been an official announcement and evidence proving, it will be a wake up call to many.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/science/earth/08epa.html?ref=earth

Geo thermal activity on school campus

mgoode1 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:11:30 +0000

They’ve have recently finished up the laborous part of a project that has been in the works for about ten years. Scientists in British Columbia have worked to build an observatory that stretches from Vancouver Island, over the continental shelfs, and into the deep ocean. The project uses cables (lots and lots of data transmitting cables) and camera stations, along with data collection sites. It enables scientists from around the world to use their system to conduct studies on the Pacific Ocean. The project is called NEPTUNE (North-East Pacific Time-series Underwater Networked Experiments) and will allow for studies to be conducted on climate change, tsunami and earthquake research, general productivity studies, as well as possible discoveries on new species and life in general in the mysterious deep.

The obvious benefit to this system is that there is now continuous coverage in the area. A two week boating expedition can only provide a certain amount of information, generally leaving a lot of wholes and inconsistent data making studies and conclusions hard to determine. They predict the system will be in place for about 25 years. This is great news for those hoping to conduct long-term studies. We may finally get some answers to even the simplest questions about the ocean and it’s contents. The project was originally designed with data collection being the top priority, adding the cameras is an additional benefit not only to researchers who are able to add additional pieces to their puzzles, but to the general public who are also able to see what the cameras capture and learn more about the ocean as well.

The article inspired me to want to learn more about the project. I found their home site and began to do further reading. The project is not quite complete, and they say they are focusing on four main areas of research: earthquakes and plate tectonics, fluid flow in the seabed, marine processes and climate change, deep-sea ecosystems, and engineering and data management. The actual site is quite extensive as far as information goes (not a quick five minute read for sure). It was interesting to read about all the things that had to be considered in forming this project-all the separate organizations involved, approvals and committees formed, participating universities…a lengthy list of paperwork, which is why I’m sure this project took so long to get started.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091210-neptune-canada-video.html

http://neptunecanada.ca/about-neptune-canada/neptune-canada-101.dot

Where’s the Water?

desireedalton — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:23:10 +0000

We hear it a lot, water conservation. Talking about it in class and hearing about it in articles and in the news, water conservation seems to be a big deal everywhere. Did you know though, people in developing countries pay more for their water than those people in big cities like New York? Studies have shown that water resources and poverty are very closely related. It is shown that at any given moment up to half of the people in poverty stricken countries suffer from some sort of health problem from water deficiencies. There are almost 1.1 billion people in these countries that dont have access to the water they need to survive. Having inadequate water resources leads to many deaths in third world countries. 1.4 million children will die each year from not having enough water to survive. Finding and gathering water becomes part of peoples daily lives. Women spend several hours a day collecting water in buckets and baskets that they carry for miles. Another study states that only 12 percent of the world uses 85 percent of its water! These 12 percent dont even live close to a third world country. These numbers are dramatic and tell a story within themselves of poverty stricken countries not having enough water to support the people living there. People in third world countries are not the only ones affected by the water shortages though. Studies in Detroit show that around 100,000 people face water shortages. Many times its because they have fallen behind on their bills and make daily trips to get water. Water has been said to be a human right, in constitutions and spoken by mouth throughout the world. But if it is a human right, why are millions of people without it everyday?

http://www.globalissues.org/article/601/water-and-development

Wine as a source of renewable hydrogen?

peppersprouse — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:35:25 +0000

Of course the Napa Valley in California is a prime tourist attraction because of its many vineyards. It is one of the best known places for producing wine, and now they just might be producing a little something else. Napa Wine Company has taken wine production one step further to include a microbial electrolysis system that converts organic material into hydrogen. The source of their organic material comes from their wastewater. In fact, the entire wine production process produces a lot of wastewater, not only from the actual wine making and grape disposal, but also from the water that is used to clean the equipment and machinery. In all, the microbial electrolysis plant can process wastewater in amounts as large as 1,000 liters a day. In order for hydrogen to be produced by the system, the microbial electrolysis cells must contain two electrodes, one carbon anode, and one stainless steel cathode, that are placed in liquid. Inside the cells are bacteria that, when wastewater is put into the cell, take the organic material and convert it into an electrical current that will produce hydrogen gas when the voltage they produce is slightly increased. At Napa Wine Company, their entire plan system contains 24 modules that each contain 6 of the electrode pairs.

Before taking on the renewable hydrogen project, Napa Wine Company already had their very own wastewater treatment system. Now, the water from the microbial electrolysis system will join with the other wastewater that doesn’t go through the system to be further treated and recycled as irrigation water for their crops, thus reducing the amount of water they will waste. And with the hydrogen produced from the microbial electrolysis system, they will let most of it vent out and then capture the rest of it in a hydrogen fuel cell. By utilizing the stored hydrogen from the cell, the company then has the potential to power other systems and even company vehicles and machinery, which is what they have every intention of doing someday. And since the bacteria inside the microbial electrolysis cells are not picky about that material they consume, it doesn’t matter what time of the year or what part of the wine-producing process the company is in. They will consume everything from sugary water to the fermentation process remnants.

If more wine producers could follow the model of Napa Wine Company, the overall impact could be incredible in terms of recycling and decreasing wastes. The wine producers could be more self sufficient with their irrigation water systems and could even benefit from the extra tourism that will ensue from showing off the special renewable hydrogen systems, as Napa Wine Company does. From learning all of the new-found benefits of this system, it has given me even more reason to want to support this sector of the wine industry and even more reason to want to sit back and enjoy a glass of wine.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091005161332.htm