You are currently browsing the daily archive for December 12, 2009.
Who can recall the great “gas scare” that occurred last year? For those who were not affected, you are quite lucky. Last year around fall gas prices skyrocketed to almost 5 dollars a gallon. Most gas stations did not even have gas, and if they did it was a combination gas that took 20 minutes to get even half a tank out of the pump. At this time I had only been living here for about maybe three or four months. A gas problem like this had never occurred before. I was even amazed that when I moved here the prices were lower than up in Pennsylvania. People were scared to drive their cars, because what would happen if they ran out and all gas stations around were out of gas? I called friends from home, asking how they were handling this problem. They said gas in PA was completely fine. The prices were somewhat high, but other than that they had gas. So what would happen if this happened once again? What is going on with these fluctuating gas prices and gas scares?
I stumbled upon an article that was titled “Researchers engineer bacteria that turns carbon dioxide into liquid fuel.” This article was written by Psysorg.com. What these researches genetically modified a kind of bacteria that would break down carbon dioxide and create the fuel isobutanol. The interesting about this is that there really is no intense procedure used to make this change. All it needs is sunlight, since it changes with photosynthesis. The reason they believe this would be a better option for fuel is because it recycles carbon dioxide and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The reason why we have not seen or heard of this is because they are still working on a way to produce high amounts of this new fuel.
http://www.physorg.com/news179683624.html
What drew me into this article originally was the picture of the peatry dish with awkward green dots all over the bottom of it. Once I saw that they were trying to change carbon dioxide into fuel, I was hooked. Obviously we have learned a lot about carbon dioxide in our every day life, but now we are finding out that this could be a good thing. Making this into fuel for our cars would be a good change in our lives. Other than engineering this bacteria, the fuel uses nothing but sunlight. How costly could something like that be? Maybe if we all just started using this fuel instead of the others, we could really make a difference. I understand the different ways we have changed cars, but who really wants to spend tons of money on a hybrid or electric car? This could be the answer to the gas crisis we have been having for years now.
With the new law against throwing away plastic bottles in North Carolina, obviously people are going to be more conscious of reusing bottles or buying the popular canteens on the rise in order to tote water around. But there is always the occasional rumor that refilling and reusing some types of plastic bottles can cause health problems. What is the validity to this? Most types of plastic bottles are safe to reuse at least a few times if properly washed with hot soapy water but recent findings about chemicals in Lexan, plastic #7, bottles have scared even the most committed environmentalists from reusing them. When food and beverage are stored in containers with such chemicals, it has been found that trace amounts of Bisphenol A (BPA- a synthetic chemical that interferes with the body’s natural hormonal messaging system) can contaminate them.
When reusing water bottles, they get dinged up and torn while being washed which increases the chances that chemicals will leak out of the tiny cracks and crevices that will develop over time. The Environment California Research and Policy Center looked at 130 studies on the topic and concluded that BPA is linked to breast and urine cancer, an increased risk of miscarriage, and decreased testosterone levels. BPA is even more harmful in that it can severely damage children’s developing systems and it has been found in baby bottles and sippy cups. While the amount of BPA that could only possibly leak into food/drink is very small, there should be major concern about the cumulative effect of small doses. Scientists also warn against reusing bottles made from plastic #1 (PETE), including disposable water, soda, and juice bottles because while they may be suitable for one time use, studies indicate that they may leach DEAP, another possible human carcinogen, when they are used in less than perfect condition.
As far as the environment goes, even using plastic bottles once is far from environmentally responsible. The Berkely Ecology Center found that the manufacture of plastic #1 bottles use large amounts of energy and resources and generates toxic emissions and pollutants that contribute to global warming. Even though PET bottles can be recycled, millions find their way into landfills every day in the U.S. alone. Furthermore, plastics such as plastic #3 (PVC) can leach hormone-disrupting chemicals into liquids and will release synthetic carcinogens into the environment when incinerated. Plastic #6 is shown to release styrene, a probable human carcinogen, into food/drink as well. Bottles that ARE safe to use include aluminum bottles and stainless steel water bottles that can be reused repeatedly and eventually recycled.
“Reusing Plastic Bottles Can Pose Serious Health Hazards” http:// envionment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/plastic_bottles.htm
I was “stumbling” (using stumbleupon.com), and found a site with an article about using Geothermal rocks instead of the normal oil to heat houses. Stephan Eriksson of Sweden converted his home into geothermal heat in order to stop his carbon output. In order to do such a thing, he had to drill through 130 meters of solid rock, which seems like a feat. Because of his change, he reduced his carbon output by 95%. It took him a week to create his geothermal masterpiece, and it cost him 18,600 dollars to do it. This may seem like an extreme amount of money, but his yearly cost was cut from 5,000 dollars down to 970 dollars. Eriksson is proud of his geothermal house, and enjoys telling the world how to be more eco-friendly.
How would we feel if we all changed from our every day heating to geothermal? I think it is an interesting idea. I unfortunately felt let down with the article when it did not educate me on how geothermal heating works. I understand heat coming from rocks… but where is it placed inside of your house? What happens in the summer? There are many questions that I still wish could be answered, but I know may never be.
Does this seem like a good idea for America? I am not quite sure if this would actually work. Also, is the average heating bill 5,000 dollars? I understand changing your lifestyle to better your environment, but what if I do not have 18,600 dollars to install everything to make this work in my house? Another point would be, how much space does this take up? Do we all have to live on 10 acres of land to keep this high amount of geothermal rocks around? I have seen a lot of things that you can do to keep your home environmentally friendly, but this is something that I have never heard of before. Also, this is something that cannot be easily understood when it comes to running it. Solar panels make sense to me, but what costs such a high amount with something that is just geothermal rocks? There must be some kind of intricate system that works together to make this intense heating source.
I enjoy reading articles about reducing your carbon footprint, or new findings in making your home environmentally friendly. This article, however, caught my interest and then lost me. It was a good article in educating on someone that made something interesting, but never explained how it works. Of course I did not go searching for the answers, but if you bring up a subject, I feel as though you should explain how it works.
When a volcano erupts, it gains world attention because it is such an amazing natural phenomenon. However, one can not help but wonder at the sight of the huge, billowing gases rising above and beyond the atmosphere if it is having a much larger impact on the environment in such a short period of time than humans do over the course of history. In an article on about.com, it is questioned whether a single large volcanic eruption launches more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the amount generated by all of humanity of history. It may sound plausible that an eruption can have an extremely greater impact than humans but science just does not back it up. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes equal less than one percent of those generated by human activities.
According to the US Geological Survey, the world’s volcanoes on land and under sea generate 200 million tons of carbon dioxide annually compared to automotive and industrial activities which cause 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Obviously, just because we can see the effects of volcanoes, human carbon emissions are no doubt the most detrimental. The fact that human emissions are greater is also proven by the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the globe, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. If individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions then carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes-one for each eruption. Instead, records have a smooth and consistent trend regardless of volcanic activity.
Instead of global warming, some scientists have speculated that volcano eruptions actually cause global cooling. Scientists believe that spectacular volcanic eruptions, such as the Mount Saint Helens eruption in 1980 and the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 actually led to short-term global cooling as sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash, and other particles in the air and stratosphere reflected some solar energy instead of letting it into Earth’s atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide, which converts to sulfuric acid aerosol when it hits the atmosphere, can linger around as long as seven years before dissipating and can have a cooling effect long after a volcanic eruption has taken place. For example, scientists who tracked the effects of the 1991 Philippine’s Mount Pinatubo eruption found that the overall effect of the blast was to cool the surface of the Earth globally by 0.5 degrees Celsius just a year later, even though rising human green house gas emissions and an El Nino caused some surface warming during the 1991-1993 study period. It is interesting that although volcanoes look harsh in their effects, green house effects caused by humans are still dominating and will continue to. The blame can not be put anywhere but on ourselves.
“Do Volcanoes Generate More Greehhouse Gas Than Humans?” http://environment.about.com/od/greenhouseeffect/a/volcano-gas.htm
Global dimming is an important environmental issue that has many possible implications on vital resources. Global dimming is a product of the burning of fossil fuels that produce dangerous greenhouse gases as well as other bi products, or secondary pollutants like sulphuric oxide and ash, that are formed within the atmosphere. the kicker is how these pollutants change the makeup of clouds within the sky. In order to understand global dimming, we must first understand how clouds are formed. Clouds are formed when water droplets become enriched with air born particles in the atmosphere. The more pollutants that are readily available for water droplets to seed with. Clouds that are formed with more pollutants have more water droplets that clouds formed without as many pollutants. Clouds containing more water droplets have a higher reflectivity rate than those with less. because of this, more of the suns energy and light are reflected back into space rather than making its way toward the earths lower troposphere. Global dimming, in essence, is the reduction of heat reaching the earth.
There are various impacts stemming from global dimming. Health issues are a major concern for many researchers of this phenomena. Acid rain is a huge factor. Clouds that are formed by pollutant particles combining with water droplets have an acidic makeup. A lot of people around the world rely on rain for crop irrigation, drinking sources, and animal feed, which are all negatively affected by acid rain. Would you want to drink water that falls from the sky that has an acidic makeup? Another impact has an environmental relation. Smog is formed when a layer of cool air is trapped beneath a layer of warmer air, a bi-product of pollutant clouds. Smog has many health impacts, such as respiratory system functions.
Global dimming also has a huge impact on our earths food supply. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, Sahel Africa was devastated by famine, and many of its populates perished because of a lack of food supply. Climatologists concluded that due to global dimming, the atmosphere in northern africa during that time became cooler than the environment was used to. Because of the cooling of the coastal waters surrounding northern Africa, less storms and rain clouds were formed causing an intese drought and killing millions due to famine.
In looking to the future we must be take into consideration all of our actions and how they will affect generations to come. obviously it is not a quick change, but is a necessary change in how we live that will dictate the future.
WWW.globalissues.org
Dams have been used for decades and were designed and created by man in order to create beneficial outcomes from its production. Environmentalists have debated whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs that arise on the environment. However, it is not that simple. The pro’s and con’s that arise from the creation of dams are in actuality interchangeable, whereas certain people might see benefits as costs, depending on what standpoint one has on the environment in itself.
First, and foremost, dams produce large amounts of energy for surrounding areas through hydroelectric power. This process takes the running water allowed to pass through, or around, the dam and utilizes the gravitational force of water and produces stored kinetic energy within generators. This is not only good for the production of energy, but also the cleaner production of energy. Hydroelectric power emits considerably less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than that of the burning of fossil fuels. In 2006, hydroelectric power was estimated to be used for about 20 percent of the worlds energy sources, also accounting for nearly 88 percent of the worlds renewable energy resources. (Wikipedia, hydroelectricity)
large reservoirs are created above the dam and the size of the body of water increases dramatically in certain cases. Some people may see this as a recreational benefit, allowing for more boating and water activities, whereas others see it differently in a negative light. These large reservoirs of water can become a breeding ground for bacteria and parasites, like that of free standing water that turns into a cess pool. The damaging of the rivers ecosystems that existed pre-dam production surely takes place. Even more shocking to learn, in recent studies scientists have discovered that these large reservoirs created by dams also contribute to the worlds carbon dioxide emission’s. When the reservoir initially floods, many plants and animals die and end up decomposing. The rotting and decomposing of these plants and animals, like that of our Carbon emission from plant experiment, are what emit the carbon into the atmosphere.
Other pros and cons occur as well above the dam. The large reservoir allows for a prominent source of irrigation to nearby land masses. Water must come from from distant sources to make its way to the reservoir atop of the dam. The flow of this water to this reservoir also brings with it sediment and rock. The sediment and rock end up building up in front of the dam and the man made water passages. Often, workers will have to come in and remove this sediment and rock before it can clog up passages and even, in extreme cases, put to much weight and stress on the dam itself.
Below the dam, pro’s and con’s are also readily noticed. The water temperatures beneath the dam rise which can impact plant and animal life drastically. In some cases, like crocodiles near Miami Power plants, distant animal life can make its way toward the warmer tempered water changing the aquatic life system (IE: predatory pyramid). In addition, sediment build up above the dam in fact damages the below dam river line because there is no sediment flowing into the river below, yet erosion is still taking place. With no sediment to build up the erosion of the river line, the coast line will surely be molded differently. the most beneficial use of dams for human life are there uses for flood control. Many dams are used to protect life, both human and nature, from flash floods created by treacherous weather that may occur. It is highly difficult to weigh the pros and cons when both have great impacts on human life and environmental life.
Reference: Wikipedia, Environmental impacts of dams,
In an article by Bryan Walsh of Time Magazine, coral fossils are showing that water levels are increasing at an alarming rate. According to the article, on Greenland alone, the glaciers have enough water to raise sea levels by 23 ft. If the glaciers melt, the sea levels would rise so high that it would take out cities such as London and Shanghai, a scary thought.
When looking back through geological history, we see that there have always been rising sea levels but during those times there has never been so much possible ice that could melt only letting the levels reach a certain height. Now, with the increase in ice, the levels could possible reach much higher levels than previous recorded levels.
Scientists in the past believed that it would take centuries for the ice sheets to melt, however, studies have come out saying that it could only take a few decades, a much faster rate than previously thought. These levels could also destroy cities such as New York City. A scientist from the University of Mexico studied coral reefs that had been exposed in Cancun. The reef shows that within the past 50-100 years, the sea level has risen 6 to 10 feet, just more evidence of the increasing rate of rising levels.
There are scientists who believe that the University of Mexico data must be verified by independent studies.
This study shows that the possibility of rising water is a major one and one that has caught many people by surprise on how fast it has changed over the past 50 years. If we do not do something to prevent this increasing temperatures that melt the ice sheets, the world could possibly be without many of it’s major cities that happen to be near coastal areas.
Coral Fossils Reveal Sea Levels Rising Fast
BRYAN WALSH, Wednesday, Apr. 15, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1891605,00.html
In a study done by the University of Purdue, researchers have concluded that due to global warming, there will be an increasing number of severe thunderstorms throughout the United States. The potential from these thunderstorms include possible major flooding, damaging winds, hail and possible tornados.
The study which mentioned that cities such as Atlanta and New York could have double the amount of severe thunderstorms annually within the next century. Another note from the study indicated that the thunderstorms would possible be during the storm season rather than dry periods when the areas need rain and storms the most.
However, locations that are impacted the most are locations close to warm weather and warm waters such as florida and the gulf of mexico. The study according to Robert Trapp should: “Hopefully, the results of this work will help raise awareness of the changing weather and increase long-term preparations for severe weather, such as emergency response plans,”
The study which indicates that storms are increasing because of water average temperatures throughout the country and the world and that the study shows that even a few degrees increase from global warming could possibly emphasize and strengthen these already powerful and devastating storms.
This study is possibly one of the more important ones that we have come out about global warming because it shows us that even an small increase in temperature can have a major impact in the weather and possible safety of our population. If the temperature continues to increase we could see more hurricanes like Katrina that devastated the Louisiana area.
sciencedaily.com
There is more to recycle than just paper, and plastics. Often people forget to recycle glass. To illustrate how important it is to recycle glass here is a statistic. According to an article by Larry West on the Benefits of recycling glass, it takes approximately 1 million years for a glass bottle to breakdown in a landfill, however had that one glass item been recycled it could have been reused as a brand new glass bottle in approximately 30 days.
Other points made in the same article include the idea that glass is a very durable recyclable product. It can be reused many times without a decrease in quality. this makes it an exceptionally sustainable product. Additionally by using recycled glass, glass producers are saving more than a ton of natural resources they would have used to produce new glass.
Another benefit on the list of many in recycling glass is it’s ability to conserve energy. To make a new bottle there are many things that need to happen. in order to properly mix the sand with the other components needed to make glass the substances are heated at approximately 2.600 degrees Fahrenheit.In re-producing glass from recycled glass 40 percent less energy is used. This is because the recycled glass can be crushed up into what is called “cullet” . this cullet can be properly mixed with other ingredients at a much lower temperature thus conserving energy.
Personally i find glass to be beautiful. Watching an HGTV episode I realized how great glass can be. In this one episode the designer was given the task of creating a sustainable home. One of the aspects included was a recycled glass counter top. It was made of recycled glass an some other environmentally friendly materials. The beauty of the counter top comes in a couple forms. firstly it was actually really visually appealing. You can have blue glass, green, clear, all kinds of color options.
http://www.wikicover.com/images/thumb/336px-Recycled-glass-countertop.jpg – picture of recycled glass counter tops.
secondly glass counter tops are comparable to granite and tile. This is great because you can sit a hot pan on tile or granite. This is what makes them so desirable, a lot of people do not know that recycled glass counters are just as great!
http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/benefits_of_glass_recycling.htm
The analysis, done in Hawaii by researchers from Oregon State University and University of Hawaii, found that most people visiting the state’s coral reed ecosystems care deeply about these areas and enjoy visiting them, but will endorse whatever amount of management is needed to protect them. “We fish and hunt wildlife for food or sport, we cut trees for timber. In most natural resource issues, we find conflicts over management for economic value verses environmental preservation or protection, but we really didn’t see that here,” said Mark Needham, as assistant professor of forest ecosystems and society at OSU. Coral reefs over about one percent of the earth’s surface and only about thirty percent of the world’s coral reefs are still healthy. Hawaii’s coral reef ecosystem is a major draw for the tourism industry, seven million people a year who spend more than 11 billion dollars to enjoy the waters and multi-colored corals and tropical fish. Coral reefs are the oldest most diverse from of life, they provide food and shelter to fish and protect shores from corrosion. The recent survey obtained attitudes and opinions from more than 3,500 residents and tourists visiting seven coral reef sites in the Hawaiian Islands, the opinions about coral reefs varied, but were mostly just variation on how much protection might be needed. More education and interpretation was commonly sought to help address issues of concern such as people damaging corals by standing on them. Other threats are increased coral diseases, over fishing, coastal development, and pollution runoff from land based sources. Also bleaching is an unpredictable issue that causes serious damages which usually results from warm water. About 16 percent of global reefs have been damaged by bleaching. Coral appears white when the coral animals eject the colorful microscopic algae that live within its tissue as part of a response to stressful conditions. Major causes are higher ocean temperatures; other causes include pollutants, destructive fishing methods, sedimentation, and change in salinity. Rising of carbon dioxide levels is also a threat to coral reefs. As the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase so does the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans increases. The rising levels of Carbon dioxide reduce the ability of coral to build up calcium carbonate which is the substance that forms the protective skeleton. Everyone wants to protect the coral reefs, but most of the threats to the reefs isn’t really from humans, although the pollutants and the stepping on the reefs do damage then, more of the major issues is due to global warming. It is good to see that people want to protect the reefs but really how much help can they be other than to reduce their emission of greenhouse gases.
sciencedaily.com
Environmental Science 
