ES 1051 Blog: November 2005 Archives

� October 2005 | Main | December 2005 �

November 29, 2005

China has a plan, but is it good enough?

With a city of nearly 14 million people (866 people/square kilometer), there is bound to be a great problem with pollution. The 2008 Summer Olympics will be held in Beijing, but with air pollution as high as it is it would be an extremely unhealthy atmosphere for the athletes as well as bystanders. China has put together the "Beijing Olympic Air Quality Action Plan" which includes: "expanded natural gas use, energy efficiency, and 'green' transport (cleaner fuel for taxis and expanded public transport)." Beijing is looking to reduce carbon dioxide, a common greenhouse gas, by 22% in 2010. They are also hoping to reduce health impairing particulates by 40% each year. The only problem I see with this is the way the reductions are going to be made and the amount of time it will be done in. Changing from coal-fired to natural gas powered rural residential areas isn't feasible. Energy efficiency is looking to be changed by installing only energy efficient lighting and air conditioning systems, but what about the ones that are already installed? There are still so many out there. I think the step towards a cleaner, healthier air is excellent, but results shouldn't be expected so rapidly. Things like reduction in air pollution take time.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d9bf8d9315e942578525701c005e573c/bd4072c883d41326852570c20059d17d!OpenDocument

Posted by Jessica Feldmeyer at 02:47 PM | Comments (1)

November 28, 2005

US exception from Montreal Protocol

The article, “US wins exemption from pesticide ban,” discusses the Montreal Protocol’s ban of methyl bromide in all but necessary uses. Methyl bromide is a chemical used in agriculture to ensure “abundant, pest-free and affordable produce.” However, this chemical depletes the ozone layer and can cause neurological damage and health problems. Workers who “inhale enough of the chemical can suffer convulsions, coma and neuromuscular and cognitive problems. In rare cases, they can die.”

The US participates in the treaty, but the Bush administration has convinced other treaty signatories that US farmers need this chemical. Although farmers have tried other products, none compare to methyl bromide. The administration is now attempting to extend treaty exemptions through 2008 to cushion economic impacts of discontinuing use of this chemical.

This article bothers me for two reasons. First, this article shows another example of big corporations bending the rules. While a sudden halt in the use of methyl bromide may hurt farmers economically by producing lower yields, to me, a treaty is a treaty. Exemptions eventually need to lead to accordance with the treaty, not more attempts to extend the exemptions. If all environmental treaties allowed for extended exemptions, eventually no countries would feel obligated to honor these agreements.

The second issue that concerns me is that the article does not address the effects of ingesting products sprayed by methyl bromide. If inhaling a small amount of this chemical can cause headaches or vomiting, what are the effects of consuming small amount of the chemical over many years? Eventually chemicals like these build up in our bodies (bioaccumulation) and affect us in some way.

This is of special concern with strawberries since they are difficult to wash. Furthermore, even if washed, chemicals can easily set into this fruit through its skin or through the water strawberries soak from the ground as they grow.

Altogether, while it may hurt producers, it is in the best interest of consumers, workers, and the integrity of the US in the Montreal Protocol that the US follow through with treaty regulations and discontinue use of methyl bromide.

“US wins exemption from pesticide ban.” 28 November 2005. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/28/pesticide.politics.ap/index.html

Posted by Jacquelyn Wallerius at 10:16 PM | Comments (0)

November 18, 2005

Wind Energy

Energy is a huge issue we face today, we have to face how we are going to get it as well as where we are going to get it from. It is no longer something we can just take forgranted, becasue now we have to think about the consiquences it has on our environment as well as its efficeny and availability. There are many different sources for energy, but the one I would like to focus on is wind energy. I think that Minnesota should look more into using wind energy because it is much better for our environment than using fossil fuels. Wind energy is a renewable resource and it is also economically smart. Our text book, Environmental Science, says, "Currently, wind farms are the cheapest source of new power generation, costing as little as 3 cents/kWh compared to 4 to 5 cents/kWh for coal and five times that much for nuclear fuel." Another point the textbook makes about wind energy is that it takes a third of the area need to create electrical energy, and at the same time it creates about 5 times as many jobs, so we are being more efficent with our land resources and helping with unemployment. Some people argue that wind machines are not dependable enough and have functioning errors. However, the new modern wind machines are only out of commission for maintenance for three days a year, on average, and most can produce power 90 percent of the time. Modern windmills are theoretically 60 percent efficent, and typically produce 35 percent of peak capacity under field conditions. Some people feel that building wind machines causes too much damage to the land. However, as I already stated, wind farms take up a third the space as plants that create elecrical energy. Wind farms, also, have a much shorter planning time and construction time than fossil fuel or nuclear power plants. People still tend to complain about wind machines and say that they are not aesthetically pleasing, however that is an opinion, and not a factual arguement. Another issue that people bring up with concerns about wind machines is the harm they may bring to birds, such as birds flying into them and killing themselves. In response to this concern, wind machines have been made larger, and this is bringing down the death rates of birds due to accidents with wind machines. Arguements can be made against wind machines, but the arguements for them appear to be much stronger when considering conservation of energy and economics. A fifty-meter-tall wind tower with a 750 kW generator (about the size of a minivan) can generate enough electricity for about 75 homes (Courtesy National Renewable Energy Laboratory/NREL/PIX). This is something we can do right here in Minnesota, as well, and it is actually already taking place. You can go to www.me3.org to learn more about how you can switch to wind energy to help our environment and help conserve our other natural resources. Xcel Energy is the main energy provider for the Twin Cities, and they actually do sell wind energy to homes, so it is possible to switch right now. The switch would save you money, as well as help our environment. One large plus to wind energy is that it does not have air emmissions, which helps with reducing global warming. There are limitations with wind power, as there are with any sources of energy, but overall wind energy is an excellent alternative to energy from fossil fuels. I highly suggest looking into making the switch, it will help your pocket book out as well as your environment, especially the air you breath. It is up to us to make changes in our lifestyles to make positive changes for the world around us, and switching to wind energy would be a step in the right direction.

Posted by Brittany Hayes at 04:57 PM | Comments (1)

November 10, 2005

Diseases in Big Game

A few years back deer hunting became a central topic in the news surrounding southern Wisconsins deer population. This is because some of the deer population in that area were found to have the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). At the time Wisconsin allowed large harvests of deer in order to drop population levels and in the hopes of controlling the outbreak. Many people however, were turned off by the fact that the deer they may be harvesting might have CWD and many hunters left that area.
Since then studies have been done from many different agencies and the results confirmed that the disease is not spread from the consumption of meat. They also learned that CWD is a form of a fatal brain diseases called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. My information comes from Elizabeth S. Williams, Michael W. Miller and E. Tom Thorne, who wrote a paper for the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Their has yet been any success in treating animals affected with CWD. Once clinical signs develop, CWD is fatal. Affected animals that develop pneumonia may respond temporarily to treatment with antibiotics, but ultimately the outcome is still fatal. I feel that the concern in these diseases is ultimately related to humans use or consumption of the animals, and that without human concern we would leave these occurances run free.

Posted by Bryan Stramer at 05:42 PM | Comments (0)

Using Chironomids as biological indicators in water quality analysis

The issue I�m discussing is the use of fish versus macro-invertebrates in creating indices for analyzing water quality. The current utility for wetland and stream monitoring stated in the MPCA�s Minnesota Water Quality Monitoring Strategy 2004-2014 is the IBI index. This in correlation with TMDL�s which I will not discuss in any detail here. The current status for the MPCA�s stream health survey, which I participated in this summer, was the creation of IBI scores based upon water chemistry, stream morphology, and a biota work up which included electro-fishing. For those not familiar with electro-fishing it is the use of electrical current to shock fish, stunning them so their filled air bladders capsize their bodies and float them to the surface for collection. The reason I am writing about this issue is that I feel that fish are a poor choice for biotic indicator and that the processes utilized by the survey do not ensure a very strong rate of survival for the specimen collected. I therefore suggest an alternative to using fish as the indicator biota, which is the midge or Chironomid.
The benefit to using these as biological indicators is that there are often as many as 120 to 150 different species in one water system. These have different tolerances to different environmental stressors and through analysis of the ecological makeup of the chironomid population it can be determined which stressors are present in the waterway. Another benefit over the use of fish is the fact that fish differ greatly with geographical regions, as well as types of water systems. Chironomids on the other hand are widespread and have consistent speciation throughout different geographical and geomorphic systems. This case in point are the �Chironomids of intertidal and peripheral marine habitats [which] have been described from coasts throughout the world.�(Neumann) So even on a global scale the use of an indices with Chironomids as a biotic indicator could be utilized as a coherent more fully encompassing system than using fish.
This approach is not yet widely accepted in the scientific community. Some may say that Chironomids are too time consuming to analyze on a large scale due to the necessity of in lab analysis, where as fish can be identified and quantified on site. I feel that with training though, the benefits that Chironomids can give you along with the absence of fish killing due to over shocking and lack of aeration in their holding tanks, makes the alternative much more appealing. I also want to express that fact that I can not speak for all teams involved in the stream health survey, but have read the procedural outlines for the process and have not found aeration to be taken into consideration.
These two options for biological indicators are not the only ones. I simply am stressing the fact that I feel fish need not be used and that Chironomids may be an optimal choice. The MPCA�s Wetland monitoring strategy which utilizes IBI indices indicates the parameters involved for that workup to include: �aquatic plants, aquatic invertebrates to the species level, general chemistry, sediment toxicity.� (MPCA) Here the invertebrates are not specified, but this does show that Chironomids have a viable spot in biological water health indication.

Neumann, Annu. Rev. Entomolo. 1976.21:387-414
MPCA: Minnesota Water Quality Monitoring Strategy 2004-2014
Other information specific to Chironomids was discussed in detail between
Leonard C. Ferrington, University of Minnesota professor, and myself

Posted by Jason Carlson at 12:51 PM | Comments (0)

Acid Rain

According to The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, �Acid rain is a serious environmental problem.� The term �acid rain�, is most commonly used to mean acid decomposition in rain, snow, fog, dew, or dry particles. Acid decomposition caused by the release of the gases SO2 and NOX. When SO2 and NOX react with oxygen and water in the atmosphere it forms sulfuric acid. The main source of SO2 emissions come from South Africa�s coal-fired power stations and metal industries, and NOX comes from vehicle emissions, and fuel combustion. According to Almanac of Policy Issues, acid rain is measured in scale called �pH�, and the lower a substance�s pH level is, the more acidic it is. Normal rain has a pH level of 5.5, but acidic rain falling in the United States has a pH level of about 4.3. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states, acid rain causes acidification of lakes and streams, which causes fish to die off and removes the main food source for birds, and can also die from eating these toxic fish. Acid rain also contributes to the damage of trees with high elevations, like red spruce trees, and accelerates the decay of irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are a valued part of our country�s heritage. Before hearing about acid rain in class I had no idea of severity, and the effects it has on the environment. I�m not the only one that wasn�t aware of this problem; the general public isn�t being informed well enough of this environmental issue. Acid rain is being pushed aside because of issues like hurricane Katrina, and global warming. The good news is the United States and the globe can stop acid rain by using other sources of energy and electricity besides fossil fuels. These include: nuclear power, hydropower, wind energy, geothermal energy, and solar energy. On a more personal and individual level, I could, and you could, reduce acid rain by: turning off lights, computers and other appliances when they aren�t being used, using energy efficient appliances, carpooling to work and school or taking the bus, and riding your bike or walking instead of driving your own personal car.
"Acid Rain." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nov. 2005. 10 Nov. 2005 .
"What is Acid Rain? and What Causes it?" Almanac of Policy Issues. 6 Aug. 2002. 10 Nov. 2005 .

Posted by Kelsey Poss at 10:02 AM | Comments (0)

Mining the Minnesota River Valley

As recently outlined in lecture, mining is an important environmental issue, posing problems with waste management solutions, pollution, and invasive extraction procedures. Environmental groups here in Minnesota, well aware of the risks mining poses to the earth, are standing up aganist mining companies who wish to harvest rock from the MInnesota River Valley.

For the past half decade, the Duininck Brothers Mining Company has been recovering rock near Redwood Falls, MN. Company president Harris Duinick has expressed a desire to work the twenty acres as long as there are resources to mine. Duinick explains that Minnesota is running low on quality rock in order to build and maintain our roads, the quarry near Redwood is a resource that the state has every right to take advantage of.

Environmentalists opposing the continued mining are pushing to stop the project. They argue that mining the area desimates any asthetic and natural value of the valley. This is an even more powerful arguement considering that the valley has been officially designated as "Wild and Scenic" by the state, only allowing limited economic activity.

But at first glance, it seems both opinions have legislation on their side. Initially, the state did give approval to the Duinick Brothers Mining Company to go into the area. However, when the company later asked for an extension on their permit two years ago, the Department of Natural Resources investigated the area and the law more intensly and repealled the initial permit entirely. Although the state stood by the protective designation, Renville County continued to endorse the mining activity and issued the permit on its own. DNR Commisioner, Gene Merriam, has toured the quarry and will not make any conlcusions at this time; only stating that further investigation must take place into what the laws provide, who has authority over the issue and what may need to be revised.

In addition to the two sided debate, there is a third party interested in the issue. Private land owner, Don Swoboda, owns a portion of the valley, and is interested in putting his investment to work for him. "I feel like I'm getting my rights violated here, as a property owner. I mean I'm the owner, don't I get a right to make some money off this?" argues Swoboda.

But just who has what rights is precisely what the state and the DNR need to consider. Land use rights are not just an issue here in Minnesota, but all over the world. Scientists are well aware that local avtivity can have regional, national or even global implications. If mining was allowed in the Red River Valley, who would be responsible for any damage or pollution? Water contamination in the river and it's watershed as a result of extraction and concentration procceses would affect Minnesotans who rely on the area for drinking water, irrigation and other essential uses. Who is responsible...the mining company, the state for allowing it, or the private land owner for profiting from it?

Patrick Moore, a representative from the clean river group, CURE, pleads that these considerations must be explored before any decisions are made. Representing thousands of concerned voices, CURE is promoting sustainable economics that can be balanced with the protection of natural resources.
I happen to agree with Moore when he described the mining company's view as too short-sided.
Some argue that the available rock in the area is a valuable commodity that the state should utilize, in order to sustain our roads. However, that is faced with a govenment protection, clearly recognizing the valley for its value other than economic. All parties involved must be diligent in aquiring information from all perspectives and uncover what is best for the Minnesota River Valley.

Posted by Brook Emerson at 10:02 AM | Comments (0)

Off-Road Vehicles

Introduction
Unless an individual is focusing on Environmental Science as a major, or just purely concerned about species diversity, human land use, pollution, or mining, you generally do not realize the affects that we have on the environment. Browsing through several articles related to environmental sciences, I stumbled across two articles that focused on the issue of how America should manage the wilderness areas.

Article I
The first article was entitled �Off-Road Vehicles are Degrading the Wilderness.� It discusses the negative aspects of having off-road vehicles in the wilderness. This article provides evidence that off-road vehicles are not only noisy, they also pollute the wilderness by dripping gas, oil, and antifreeze. These chemicals are harmful to plants and animals, adding more species to the endangered or threatened species list. Over the years, the vehicles were designed to be more powerful and heavier causing more damage to the wilderness areas.

Some of the examples of endangered species include the desert tortoise and the desert kangaroo rat. These animals were found to have lost their hearing due to the loud sounds coming from these vehicles. As a result the hearing loss left these animals more vulnerable to predators. Other animals such as sanderlings were also decreasing in numbers. Although it may not seem like an issue that these shore birds were decreasing, it is important to realize that the sanderlings are necessary to compact the sand so that sea turtles are able to nest in these areas. With this decrease, the sea turtle are also decreased. Both of these cases were in different areas of the world and more evidence was found that other areas of the world were also affected by these off road vehicles.

This to me seems to be enough evidence to explain why environmentalists are so concerned with the use of off-road vehicles in such areas. However, there are individuals who use these areas for pure enjoyment and do not realize the damage they cause to the environment. The argument presented in article II shows how an off-road enthusiast and editor to ATV Illustrated Magazine defends his view of the use of the vehicles.

Article II
The second article entitled �Off-Road Vehicles Should Be Allowed to Use Wilderness Areas,� as I stated before defends the position of having off-road vehicles in the wilderness. Jeff Henson, the editor of the ATV Illustrated magazine, begins by stating that the �Endangered Species Act is a loosely written law that sometimes uses inexact science to list a species as threatened.� Now, I could not see how this would be possible but according to editor, an endangered species, Pierson�s milkvetch was being placed on the threatened species list even though there were over 70,000 plants that existed in the area and over 140,000 species in the closed dunes. This came as shocking news to me, but I wasn�t convinced that this was a good enough reason to allow off-road vehicles in the wilderness areas. He goes on to state that the other species that have been claimed to become extinct, was not a result of off-road vehicles but rather other natural occurrences such as lack of rain for the Pierson�s milkvetch. This article was not as convincing to me that these vehicles should be used in these areas.

Conclusion
Even though there are negative impacts of these vehicles, individuals still try to use these land areas for recreation. Motorists continue to push their way into these areas and species are being eliminated and threatened. These vehicles cause a lot of pollution and as a result also drive away hikers, horseback riders, hunters, and fishermen out of the wilderness. My proposal is to continue to manage these areas and make sure that no large off-road vehicles are used in these areas. These vehicles should have a specified area for recreations to eliminate the risk of endangering so many species. You never know if these species are useful to in future to finding the cure to, let�s say, cancer. Why destroy the world? This is our home, and the home to future generations.

Posted by Jennifer Morris at 09:43 AM | Comments (0)

The U's alternative energy source

I was reading the MN daily and I came across an article about how the University was tryingto find other resources to burn at its plant instead of coal. I believe this is a good idea because it can help to reduce the amount of pollution that is emitted into the air as a result of burning coal. They found when practice burning that the most efficient so far was wheat hulls. They burned with a higher energy output and it was much cheaper. It would end up saving students that live in the dorms around 240 dollars a semester. The wheat hulls would cost much less, but many of the residence were against the use of this resource. Another resource the University looked into was the use of animal waste material. But many of the residence were against the use of this resource because they said when the Univeresity hauled it in that it would sttink up the neighborhood. Also they said when it was burned the smell would reduce the value of the neighborhood. So the University has turned away from that resource. But all in all I believe it is a good idea that the U of M is looking into other resources becasue it will help our environment and also make our school appear to be environmentally friendly.

Posted by Sean Tisdell at 09:36 AM | Comments (0)

Free The Salmon

Alterations to the Columbia River have severely altered the landscape, and the ability for Salmon to migrate. As biologists learn more about our surroundings it can be better understood how to preserve our ecosystems. People who rely on the dams have a good reason for doing so. Many farmers rely on the heavily engineered river to supply them with water for farming. In addition some people feel that their electricity costs will rise. But if all ecosystems are treated like the Columbia basin imbalances will occur and the results will not be benign. The four dams on the lower Columbia need to be breached in order to prevent the collapse of a species and an ecosystem. The dams that should be breached are not main sources of irrigation they are simply power facilities that use inefficient and old technology to do so. The dams that cause the most harm are the ones on the lower river where slow moving water is detrimental to the salmon population. which provide fractional amounts of electricity compared to many of the other dams further upstream. "Some will say that we have not done enough science," Kitzhaber told the American Fisheries Society. "I say that we can always play that card as an excuse for inaction and as a justification for avoiding tough choices. But exactly what additional scientific experiment is necessary to demonstrate that it is easier for salmon to migrate in a free flowing river than to negotiate a several hundred-foot-high concrete barrier?" Woody Guthrie in his songs talks about the great engineering works that were built by engineers who said, "no possibilities, either biological or engineering, have been overlooked in devising a means to ensure perpetuation of the Columbia River Salmon." Now with one species extinct and more on the endangered species list, the Columbia River needs to be de engineered to allow the salmon to swim freely.

Posted by William Quinn at 08:51 AM | Comments (0)

Experimentation on Mice Initiates a Breakthrough in Medicine for Learning Disabilities

After reading the daily online news on November 8th, I found an article that truly sparked my interest. Along with interesting (and cute) pictures of mice, the article proposes an interesting scientific breakthrough in medicine. The article, found on http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051107/full/051107-4.html, investigates the connection between statins and their effect on aiding learning disabilities. Statins are classified as prescribed drugs that lower cholesterol and, according to the article, may have the ability to "reverse a learning disorder known as neurofibromatosis.

Neurofibromatosis affects about 1 in 4000 children and may cause tumors, coordination problems and learning disabilities. The disorder is caused by the mutation of a single gene. The gene, if functioning correctly, would produce neurofibromin which keeps another protein, called Ras, under control. However, when the disorder occurs, the gene does not produce enough neurofibromin, allowing the active Ras to invade the brain creating "abnormal nerve cell responses". Steven Kushner, a medical student at UCLA discovered the connection between statins and learning disabilities and studied the results with a group of analysts.

According to governmental study, mice that are genetically engineered to have neurofibromatosis have the same defect as humans with the disease. Mice and humans alike have a hard time focusing and learn at a slower rate than normal mammals. However, once Kushner and his colleagues dosed the mice with statins, they were able to pay attention 30% more than those without the statins. They also learned at a 4 second average faster rate. These results were found after multiple tests on the mice.

With these positive results, critics may wonder what the negative side effects are to using statins, but currently, there are none! Humans have taken tablets for high cholesterol for almost two decades with no toxic side effects. ("These drugs are sustainable!" according to Kushner and his colleagues). With this medical knowledge at hand, it seems impossible to ignore the positive effects statins could have in reducing learning disabilities, coordination problems, and tumors in people fighting neurofibromatosis. I am very excited to see the result that statins could have in reducing these learning disabilities. I have volunteered with both children and adults with learning disabilities similar to neurofibromatosis, so the effect that statins may have in fighting (or possibly eliminating) the disease is extremely interesting and necessary to those involved with the defect.

*This article brought up a few questions that I'm not quite sure there are correct answers to.
1. Is testing on mice truly beneficial?
2. Is in wrong to genetically engineer mice with defects in order to study them?
3. What effects do statins have on other disabilities? And how can they aid in eliminating the severity of other defects?

Posted by Marjorie Grossman at 08:43 AM | Comments (0)

The U's efforts in conservation: are we doing our part?

In today�s environment, figuring out how to cost-effectively renew energy resources is an issue. The U of M is making efforts to save on energy costs by making use of and testing new forms of biomass fuels, but some feel it could do more to utilize safe and alternative energy sources.
The new millennium brings about the global warming problem. The EPA recently estimated that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 have risen 13.3 percent. These numbers make the United States one of the leading contributors to global warming. We consume 20 to 30 times more fossil fuel energy per capita than developing countries, and our dependence on fossil fuels directly effects global warming and our ties with foreign policy. Although we Midwesterners wouldn�t mind some warmer temperatures in the winter, global warming has a greater negative affect in other parts of the world. An example of this would be melting of the ice caps, in turn raising ocean levels dangerously and affecting habitat for wildlife and food chains.
The University is the largest employer and institution in Minnesota, so I think we have the opportunity to set a national and local example in energy conservation. Interestingly, the state has already put into policy that by 2013, all gasoline sold in Minnesota must contain 20 percent ethanol. Hopefully, the state will go above and beyond and put E85 into effect, encouraging other Midwestern states to follow suit. Since we are expecting a harsh winter, energy costs will most likely skyrocket. In a situation like this, we should try to reduce energy consumption because even a little can add up to a lot. The extra emissions we give off directly affects our atmosphere, in turn increasing global warming and the effects for years to come.
Though it has been said the U could do more to �harness cost-effective renewable energy resources�, the funds to research may not be available. The University Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment has provided funding on more than 100 projects in the past three years and awarded more than $9.3 million to 24 comprehensive research proposals. These projects span a wide variety of research topics, all working to provide ways to better our environment. Also, the University Renewable Energy Research and Demonstration Center at Morris has been and is continuing to develop several renewable energy facilities. This includes a biomass gasification project and a wind to hydrogen platform, while Rapson Hall here on campus is also operating a unique solar powered hydrogen conversion project. Fortunately in recent years, the University has become �the fourth educational institution in the country to join the Chicago Climate Exchange, a voluntary, legally binding multisector market for reducing and trading greenhouse gas emissions.�
Some believe the University is not doing it�s part in environmental research and education, but the facts listed above show improvement on its part and a step in the right direction. As a research university, we seem to be doing good things to become a leader in energy conservation. Soon the proposed National Center for Biofuels Research will be established at the University, and is supposed to be the premier biofuels and biobased products research, teaching, technology development and transfer program in the nation. It is said to lead the development and commercialization of technologies to support the emerging bio-economy.
I thought that reading some of these things gave me a little hope that the University I attend is doing something to benefit our environment. Since we are a research based institution, being a leader in conservation efforts is most certainly a step in the right direction. I feel like it�s nice to know the place that we call home isn�t bypassing this issue, and though any efforts are bound to attract criticism, it can�t be said we aren�t doing anything. If we can focus on learning more about greenhouse effects, we can in turn benefit our world and educate others in order to make a positive, rather than negative, effect on our global environmental status.

Posted by Keely Gerhold at 08:32 AM | Comments (0)

Author's Biases

Earlier in the semester, we were briefly asked on one of our worksheets to explain why a certain chapter in the text was considered to be biased. At the time, I did not notice the skewed opinions of this book, but as I read more chapters, I am starting to see a somewhat closed-minded, one-sided view on certain subjects from the authors of our Environmental Science book. While it is perfectly acceptable for an author to have personal opinions about environmental topics, I feel that our book should lay out the information as neutrally as possible.

The chapter where I first noticed a great amount of this bias is Chapter 15: Air, Weather, and Climate. On page 324, the authors discuss International Climate Negotiations and Controlling Greenhouse Emissions. In this section, the Kyoto Protocol is discussed, and it is very apparent that the author completely disagrees with President Bush's actions on this policy.

Some examples of the authors' comments include the following: "The U.S. energy plan, meanwhile, is to burn more coal, drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, and continue driving gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs." Also, "Rather than impose uniform limits on industry, President Bush offered a voluntary program to reduce "greenhouse intensity"...many businesses love this plan, while environmental groups describe it as 'a total charade,' and 'fiddling while Rome burns.'

While I personally agree with these statements on some level, I feel that these comments are incredibly sarcastic and could very easily be reworded to a more neutral tone. This is just one example throughout our text where I feel that the authors are out of line in their delivery of information to a fresh-faced environmental science audience.

Overall, I feel it is only natural for these authors to have opinions, but these opinions should be left out of an introductory text book so that new, young, eager environmentalists can make their own opinions about environmental issues.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/esblog/ES1051/
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/esblog/ES1051/

Posted by Jacquelyn Wallerius at 07:30 AM | Comments (0)

God Save the Queen's Squirrels!!!

Red Alert North England, a British conservationist group, announced on Wednesday that they would be launching a campaign to save the red squirrel. The red squirrel, a native species of Britain, has been in danger ever since the introduction of the grey squirrel into its natural habitat. The grey squirrel, since its introduction in the late 19th century, basically bullies the smaller red squirrel out of their habitat. Through numbers the grey squirrel eradicates the red squirrel�s food sources and spreads the fatal squirrel pox disease. At this point the grey squirrels out numbers the red squirrel 66 to 1. Plans to help save the red squirrel include 16 squirrel reserves within the forests of Northumberland, Cambria, Yorkshire and Merseyside.

This story caught my eye. Why? It�s because I have always known the red squirrel as a nuisance. I remember when I was a kid and my parents would take me up to our cabin near Lake Itasca. Several times I remember incidents where red squirrels had gotten into the cabin, made homes, defecated, etc�. The order from my father was always the same. �KILL ON SITE.� Every time we were there I would go out into the woods, 22 rifle in hand, on red squirrel hunts. There actually wasn�t anything illegal about this since in Minnesota there is no season for red squirrel. You can kill them whenever you want, unlike the grey squirrel, which requires a small game permit and can only be hunted during certain times of the year. And so, after reading the Red Alert article my question was �why?� It�s a squirrel, why dedicate significant manpower and money to protect a glorified rat? Well, apparently the red squirrel is something of a beloved animal in northern Britain. Perhaps in Britain they see our bald eagle as nothing more than a glorified vulture. Maybe it all comes down to some sort of esthetic value. I�ll admit they are kind of cute.

http://www.randyhjelsandphotography.com/images/Red%20Squirrel%20M112_small.jpg

Humans kind of suck when it comes to nature. We don�t really seem to appreciate anything until it is either gone or in danger of being gone. Granted, we have gotten better over the previous decades with things like the endangered species act among other things, but is that really enough? How much do we have to respect nature? Or, is it nature�s duty to simply give way before us? I don�t think so. Nature is to be respected. Just because we are higher on the food chain or are more evolved, does not mean we have to right to swat aside countless species. Now, I have to apologize and get off of my high horse. I contribute to the very thing I am arguing against everyday. I burn fossil fuels, I use products that were undoubtedly harvested from some poor creature�s habitat, and I leave the sink running when I shave. I�m making a promise to myself to try and be more environmental friendly, and I know the perfect place to start. No more squirrel hunts for me.

Here�s an interesting link. It has a moving graph of the failing red squirrel. It also contains more information on the red squirrel�s plight.

http://www.wildlifetrust.org.uk/durham/RedAlert/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_sc/britain_saving_squirrels;_ylt=As3Blu7NQaRwjWyFz.UIodlvieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Posted by Zachary Nichols at 05:44 AM | Comments (0)

Poverty and the environment

Poverty is the number one health problem in developed countries and undeveloped countries alike. Rural areas are getting smaller and smaller while everybody seems to be drawn to larger urban areas. This poses a major problem of feeding the vastly populated areas in the US and other countries alike. The only way to feed the worlds growing population, and alleviate poverty and health problems around the world is to increase food production.

Most of the poverty stricken areas are in poor developing countries. In these countries, the only place to get a job is in urban areas. This leads more people into the cities and leaves less to produce food to feed them. If less money was spent on structural adjustments policies, more could be spent on healthcare, education and other basic services. But instead more and more money is being cut from these 'basic' services.

Take Europe for example, after world war two, money was spent on education and healthcare services for people in poverty stricken areas, and now Europe is doing tremendous in poverty rates and unemployment. There are even studies that conclude that higher food production rates in developing contries leads to less conflict, even the promoting or preserving of peace!

The solution is easy. To solve the problem of world hunger, money must be diverted away from industrial uses and put into the environment in forms of species protection, land preservation, and grants to sustainable agriculture.

Posted by Tanner Kraft at 12:46 AM | Comments (0)

Nevada Wilderness Project

I recently had a talk with a friend of mine, Erika Pollard, who has a bachelor�s degree in Natural Resources Management with a minor in Wildlife Biology from Colorado State University. She received her Master�s degree in Conservation Biology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Erika has had various jobs in the conservation field.

She has been currently employed with the Nevada Wilderness Project for the last five years. For four years, she was the Conservation Director and for the past year she has been the National Outreach Director working mainly on fundraising. The organization works to protect Nevada�s remaining wild places as legal Wilderness � the highest level of protection public lands can receive.

I asked her opinion as to what is currently the biggest danger to Nevada�s wilderness.

Erika: The biggest threat to public lands in Nevada outside of the development taking place near the populated areas of the state (Las Vegas and Reno) is irresponsible off-road vehicle use.

Brooke: How long has this been a substantial problem?

Erica: Over the past decade, there has been a huge increase in the number of people traveling around the state to ride their off-road vehicles on public lands around Nevada.

Brooke: Do you think banning off-road vehicles in these areas would solve the problem?

Erika: Many of the people riding off-road vehicles do so responsibly and remain on designated vehicle routes; there are those people who decide to create their own routes by riding off the designated routes and going cross-country. The impact to the landscape and wildlife of this type of use can be devastating. Some of the impacts of irresponsible off-road vehicle use include the creation of an excessive number of trails (often leading to nowhere or into the heart of remote, wild landscapes), fragmenting wildlife habitat, destroying native vegetation, causing the destruction of important ecological communities including riparian areas, and it can lead to harassment of wildlife and domestic livestock.

Brooke: What is a feasible solution?

Erika: Designating Nevada�s remaining truly wild places as legal Wilderness would limit the use of off-road vehicles to designated open vehicle routes. Off-road vehicle use is not allowed within a Wilderness unless the boundary of the area is defined by an open vehicle route or the area includes a �cherrystem�, which is a vehicle route going into the Wilderness that off-road vehicles can drive on, but are not allowed to leave.

Erika told me that many of the people who use off-road vehicles in these areas are hunters. I know that hunters generally tend to be very conscientious about how they treat the habitats they go into; besides their innate love of nature they know that destroying a creature�s natural habitat will lead to the destruction of the sport they love.

I believe that the core of this problem, like so many of the environmental issues in America today, is that people are not conscious of the impact that they are having on the environment. I think that Americans can be self-centered people who have a hard time envisioning the long term damage that we are doing to the Earth. Our rugged individualism is both a source of strength and destruction.

I agree with Erika that the areas in danger should be designated as legal wilderness because it would allow a compromise between the off-roaders and environmentalists. People could still use the designated paths to enjoy nature but the designation would be a not so subtle reminder of how to do so respectfully. As she mentioned in the beginning of the interview the largest danger to wilderness is human expansion. I believe that so much land is being turned into cities/suburbs that we should be careful of the limited resource that wilderness provides us.

Posted by Brooke Anderson at 12:22 AM | Comments (0)

Global warming effects & you

Marcel Visser, who is a professor at the Netherlands institute of ecology, has written many papers along with several colleagues from around the world trying to discover the reason these birds and their prey are falling out of the natural rhythm at an alarming rate. The reason turns out to be that dramatically increasing temperatures are the cause. This cause is most likely global warming caused by greenhouse gases. Studies are showing that the warming of the earth is causing animal migration and breeding patterns to become varied and unsynchronized, causing damage to the species that could lead to its eradication. When we start to see direct evidence and the life ending effects of the greenhouse effect, it seems to me that there needs to be more action and realization. Sure, for now its just birds, but how long until there is a change that humans notice for ourselves? How long until instead of other species suffering, we start to kick our own asses? Surely there are other views, ranging from the idea that global warming may be a natural process that we have no control over, or that there may be a million other reasons why the specific species of great tit, puffin, red admiral birds and their insect prey are out of synchronization, but these lack sufficient evidence. As well, who is to say that even if we are absolutely sure that these species, along with others are being affected, why should we care? Humans should be the primary concern, and then the environment. While this side of the issue has a point, the obvious counterpoint is that we live in our environment, and that if we alter it enough, as I mentioned before, it is only a matter of time before we start to feel our own ignorance. The stage is set, and there is even a big push to reverse or at least lessen the effects and production of greenhouse gases, it just seems that people concerned too much with other agendas delay the change.

http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/ppages/mvisser/#exp2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4164950.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4399792.stm

Posted by John Krueger at 12:11 AM | Comments (0)

November 09, 2005

Sonar Is Killing Whales

37 whales were found dead located in the waters off the coast of North Carolina's Outer Banks. The interesting thing about these findings is that the killer of these whales was found to be the Navy. Apperantly the Navy uses sonar to detect where enemy ships may be. Unfortunately for the whales this sonar can be lethal. Sonar evidently causes so much noise pollution in thousands of square miles of ocean that it disrupts and sometimes kills the aquatic creatures. Environmentalist are sueing the Navy saying that the whales don't need to die especially in practise situations such as this. The environmentalists say that they would rather the Navy use less harmfull passive sonar. They can do this by listening for sounds made by the whales or other animals themselves to try and locate the animals before using mid-frequency sonar that can cause them harm. The environmentalists would also like for the Navy to stay away form areas where whales are known to migrate and raise the young. I understand that people are concerned with the killing of these whales, but why is a lawsuit neccessary? I wonder who gets the money. I don't think the whales will be asking for any payments for the deaths of family. I guess my point would be that the Navy should take these percautions as suggested to them (especially when they are just practising proceedures) but suing them doesn't really help the whales. So I think the Navy should be more cautious in the future so the whales don't have to die for silly practice routines for detecting enemies.

Posted by Peter Steensgard at 11:53 PM | Comments (1)

Rewriting the Endangered Species Act

I recently read a Chicago Tribune article which summarized the debate over the steps Congress is taking to rewrite the Endangered Species Act of 1972. The conflict is between developers, property rights advocates and conservationists. The House has passed a bill to make significant changes to the Act. According to the article, the bill would require �that the government pay developers if the Act prevents them from building, and it would eliminate the government�s ability to designate a creature�s �critical habitat� where building is forbidden.� Environmentalists are arguing that requirements such as this would make the Act worthless, because the way to protect endangered species is to protect their habitat. Developers assert that the Act has not been as effective as people often think. They cite that the Act hurts business while only 1 percent of the animals on the list have been deemed as recovered. Another change in the bill would require both commercial and scientific data to be used when deciding whether or not an area can be developed. Even if the House Bill does not fully pass in the Senate, Republicans Senator James Inhofe and Representative Richard Pombo who sponsored the bill would have the power to appoint the conference committee that decides the final details of the bill. According the article, Pombo is looking to sell 15 national parks to developers and is urging the drilling for oil in the Artic Wildlife National Refuge in Alaska. I think that it is ridiculous that politicians such as Pombo are in the position to so strongly influence legislation as important as the Endangered Species Act when it is so obvious how their motivations are for their own benefits. Pombo is a former rancher and a longtime property rights advocate according to the article. I believe Pombo�s strong bias does not allow him to have the perspective to find the right balance between both sides of the argument. I agree with some aspects of the developers arguments. The Endangered Species Act may not be as effective as it potentially could, and may enforce unnecessary restrictions on developers and property owners. With recent scientific discoveries and theories, I think the Act should be reworked so that the focus is on protecting ecosystems and habitats in general, not a specific species. However, after recognizing this fault of the Act, it should not be changed so that �the (Interior) department would limited to 180 days to make a decision; after that, developers would receive permission to build by default�. Also, the suggestion that 15 national parks should be sold to developers is a scary concept. Politicians are being driven by profit and ignoring the obvious environmental impacts this would have. In conclusion, I agree that the Endangered Species Act should go under revision. It is over 30 years old, and methods of conservation have since changed. However, the bill should be focused on more efficient ways of protecting the environment, not ignoring it.

To Read the Article:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/298604/endangered_species_act_in_cross_hairs/index.html?source=r_science

Posted by Mary Kemp at 11:51 PM | Comments (0)

A second Hydroelectric Dam to be Built on Mekong River

I recently read an article on Friends of the Earth International Online(http://www.foei.org/media/2005/0404.html) my blog is concerning this article.
In April of this year the World Bank in conjunction with its �high risks, high rewards� program began planning the construction of �Nam Theun 2� a second major hydroelectric dam in Laos on the Mekong river. The dam would cost 1.3 billion dollars to complete and has a scheduled completion date of 2009. 90 percent of the energy produced by the dam would be exported to Thailand. The dam would flood nearly 450 square kilometers and would displace some 6,200 people.

While energy distribution in South East Asia is far from adequate, many people do not have access to it. In many rural towns and villages there is no need for electricity or if there is, usually only a small amount is required. The Laos economy would profit considerably from the export of electricity to Thailand. The construction of second major hydroelectric dam would benefit Thailand which has a major demand for electricity because of the fast rate of development that is occurring there. The only problem with that fact is that the Mekong does not run through Thailand and Thailand will not be adversely affected by the dams construction. Why should a country that does not have claims to a source get all the rewards and none of the consequences?

This issue is a classic example of water rights. Laos has the right to use resources inside its boundaries for its own purposes. However, the problem with rivers is that they usually span across multiple countries and those countries are affected by the change that occurs in others. The construction of a second dam would severely lower the water level of the Mekong in Cambodia and Vietnam. These countries rely heavily on the 1,300 species of fish that inhabit the Mekong river. If this dam is built it will most likely have devastating effects on the Cambodian and Vietnamese economies. A possible alternative would be for the power that would be generated by the dam to be exported to Cambodia and Vietnam instead of Thailand. This would by no means account for the decline in water levels but at least it would be some form of compensation.

In my opinion the construction of a second hydroelectric dam should not continue. There are too many risks associated with the projects and the risks far outweigh the rewards. If the World Bank truly wants to help Laos generate more electricity than they should invest in less destructive means like solar and wind power. This would have fewer economic and environmental repercussions.

Posted by Nicholas Saumweber at 11:38 PM | Comments (0)

Keys to Living Longer

For centuries people have been obsessed with prolonging life, or obtaining immortality. But really what are the reasons some people live much longer than others? An article entitled "The Secrets of Long Life," by Dan Buettner, explained many different factors from a variety of cultures that could play a role in living longer. I found it very interesting how unrelated the different aspects were from eachother. Like in Japan, people focus on more plant-based diets that have been proven to prolong life. They also eat more in small portions, focus on finding purpose in life, and value lifelong friends. These factors have helped them live longer. Which is different than people from Italy who drink red wine, eat a lot of cheese, and value working hard. Lastly they highlighted people who are very involved in their religions, especially people who share the adventists faith. They prefer to eat nuts and beans, observe the sabbath and most importantly have faith in God. Loma Linda from California said, "The thing that really keeps me going is my Christian faith....We need someone to guide us in this life, and we need great hope." Though all cultures eat and value different things, people who live longer do share some traits. They don't smoke, value their families, are active everyday, enjoy being social, eat fruits, vegetables and whole grain products. I thought it was really interesting how different people have adapted to respond differently to different foods and practices to help them remain healthy. It is amazing how our bodies learn to use what they are given for the better. Besides having a healthy lifestyle, the most important factor is genes. It has been proven that increased life expectancy is a trait that is inherited from your ancestors, but ultimately how you live your life could outweigh good genes. A key similarity I noticed was how each group of people had a way of coping with stress in a healthy way. I think living a less stressful life is a very important factor that they did not recognize. Stress can wear a person down, and weaken the immune system. The value on family and friendships is a great way to reduce stress. A lot of times just talking through issues helps put them in perspective and a close friends advice is a valuable de-stressing treatment. Excercise and being active, something all groups had in common, also helps reduce levels of stress. One thing I think they should have considered more is the levels of fast food and unhealthy food that decrease the lengths of lives in America and other richer countries. We have unhealthy food readily available, while eating healthy takes time and effort that our busy lives don't allow for. I was also wondering if amounts of pollution a person is exposed to could affect the length of someones life. I thought the article was interesting and encouraged an active healthy lifestyle, but it didn't focus enough on other factors that could play a role in how long people.

Posted by Jessica Houlihan at 11:19 PM | Comments (0)

Evolution in Schools

While browsing through the online version of the Star Tribune I came across an article about teaching Evolution in schools. This week Topeka Kansas Board of Education decided to start teaching the �doubts� surrounding Darwin�s Theory of Evolution. There has been a heated debate surrounding this issue since the Scopes Monkey Trial.
There are three main opinions about this issue. The first opinion is that Evolution is the only idea that should be taught in schools. Although it is controversial, the flip side of Evolution is Intelligent Design, which involves religion. People who favor Evolution in schools say that schools and religion are two separate institutions and should stay that way. The second opinion revolving around this issue is Intelligent Design is the only explanation of how we came to be. This involves God, the Intelligent Designer; people say that there are not enough natural explanations to prove that Evolution is true. The third opinion is that both opinions should be taught. Let the students decide what they believe in. Teach the controversy revolving around Evolution, both sides would be taught equally and objectively.
In my opinion I believe that both issues should be taught. Both have their strong and valid points and should be given the same amount of time. I have spoken to my Pastor about this issue and he said that people who believe in God and Intelligent Design and also in Evolution. However the issue is discussed it should be done without bias, and done with respect. Students should be taught how to make their own decisions and form their own beliefs. Private schools are able to teach whatever they want however they want, but in public schools both issues should be discussed. It will open the doors to other points of view and open the eyes of all students.

Posted by Elizabeth Spencer at 10:11 PM | Comments (0)

Environmentalism and the Media

I have been thinking a lot lately about the media's role in environmentalism. Especially with the pro-drilling vote in ANWR, made by the Senate recently. I often feel that I am uninformed of the current issues and what action is being taken either for or against the issue. As do others that I have talked to. In my opinion this stems directly from the current administration's effect and control of the media, and Bush's horrible environmental record. If the American media does cover an environmental issue, it's usually a public interest story concerning endangered species, or escaped animals from the zoo.

The problem lies within the press--they aren't willing to speak the truth against such a strong force. Which creates a major problem because public interest movements rely on the political intensity they can generate by public participation. But if you can't reach the public, where does that leave you?
This is not to say that environmental groups don't put themselves out there, and reach many Americans. There are many groups that are tied to other political movements, and they support each other by spreading the word. Now a day, mainly through email. The National Resources Defense Council(NRDC) sends out about 500,000 email mewsletters to their online members(Kennedy Jr.).

In December of 2004, Bill Moyers said that," we have an ideological press that's interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that's interested in the bottom line. THerefore we don't have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American People."

I guess the best thing to do right now, is band together and organize. Find other supporters and start a movement. And don't be afraid to question what the media is reporting. If you want to get to the truth of the matter, you have to do some investigating yourself.

I found the bulk of this information from an essay written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in the winter issue of Patagonia's catalog.

Posted by Anna Racer at 09:57 PM | Comments (0)

Cleaning Coal?

If one sees the title "How to Make Clean Coal" they are most certainly going to be interested. We all know that most of our power is created by coal burning plants. This may be that coal is 10 times more abundant than other fossil fuels such as oil and gas. Why wouldn't we use a energy source so vast and inexpensive to power our countries growing energy needs. The fact that it adds to things such as global warming and acid rain as we talked about in the previous chapters gives some unwanted side effects. But if what the article "How to Make Clean Coal" by Craig Canine is true, maybe our least environmentally friendly energy source can get a bit greener.
This article begins by explaining how coal is formed and how they extract it. Then it begins to tell about how they are making coal cleaner. They do this by a process called gasification. This is done by bringing the special type of coal to a temperature of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit in a chamber. Through this process it breaks the coal down into elements such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen, sulfur, and many others. The product that they are trying to get is methane. After this is extracted there are many by products left from the gasification process. But many of these can be sold because they have values in other industries. Even Co2 can be sold to companies for use. This is really how the coal is being put out as clean. What the main use of this Co2 is right now would be for use by oil companies. They would use the gas to shoot into the ground to get the oil to float to the surface making it more easily accesable. This increases the lifespan of each oilfield meaning that that we could decrease the amount of searching for new places to drill for oil. The other thing that can be done with the Co2 would be to bury it deep into the earths crust under impermiable layers of rock. This would vastly limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that would be entering the atmosphere. If the US adopts this new way of purifying coal and using all of its by products we may be looking at alot better energy source.
Although all these solutions look good there seems to be some flaws with what this technology is doing. First off, if we use the spent Co2 to increase the production of oil this would in turn increase the use of fossil fuels. This would only exaserbate our current problem of Co2 emissions into the atmosphere. Also the idea of deep geologic burial is a bit suspicous for the disposal of large amounts of Co2. It is said that if there is good formations with impermiable surfaces as much as 50,000 billion tons of Co2 can be stored. The problem is that what if all of this gas is buried and the escapes in a way that we do not expect. This will not have solved the problem at all. We also do not know what effect storing mass quantities of carbon gas would have on our earths crust and geologic formations. These problems need to be addressed before we decided to keep using coal even if it is said to be clean.
The idea of breaking down coal and using all of the parts of it for different things is a very good idea. If we are capable of storing and using the greenhouse gas Co2 that would greatly improve our current standing on global warming. Also if we can properly store this greenhouse gas many people might turn to support this energy source that is currently far from green. But if the consequences are not taken into consideration we may have larger problems in our future.

Canine, Craig "How to Clean Coal." OnEarth Nov. 2005
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05fal/coal1.asp
Cunningham, William P. Environmental Science: A Global Concern. McGraw-Hill, 2005

Posted by Brian Beck at 09:39 PM | Comments (0)

Amboseli National Park Goes Local

Information about the turnover of control of the Amboseli National Park was taken from a Science Magazine article published last month, �Kenya National Park Transfer Under Fire,� written by Constance Holden. (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2005/1007/3)

Last month, the Amboseli National Park in Kenya was turned over to local control. Before discussing this issue it is important to note Amboseli Park�s qualities. Started as a wildlife reserve, the 5,000 square kilometer park provides an ecosystem for many endangered species, such as elephants and zebras. In addition, Kenya makes several million dollars in ecotourism to Amboseli National Park each year. With such multifaceted value in keeping Amboseli Park pristine, why might Kenya's President Mwai Kibaki want to give control of it over to locals? Largely, it is a political move to satisfy the Maasai people living near Amboseli Park in the Kajaido region. The Maasai people worry that they will lose land in the upcoming vote on a new constitution for Kenya, so, to appease, Kibaki gave control over to the county and allowed the Maasai to let their cattle graze in the Amboseli land.

This political move will mean dire consequences for Kenya's economy and Amboseli wildlife. Kenya is an especially important host of endangered species in that it hosts species that fit all of the four categories (keystone, indicator, umbrella, and flagship) a species can be in to warrant protection (Environmental Science, Cunningham, 232). For example, the lions living in Amboseli Park are a keystone species (important to an ecosystem), an umbrella species (requiring a large amount of undisturbed land), and a flagship species (interesting or attractive to humans). The loss of species of these last two categories would especially threaten the Amboseli Park and the Kenyan economy, respectively. Umbrella species would find themselves competing with cattle for food (or be shot for approaching them), and would likely be isolated to small areas of land in which their population could not thrive. Flagship species would threaten the Kenyan economy because they are the main reason people visit the Amboseli Park�tourists want to see unique creatures. This has already become evident: �Director of the Amboseli Elephant Research Project Cynthia Moss, who has been tracking Amboseli's elephants, says the tourists �are already complaining that they didn't spend several hundreds of dollars a day to come to Africa to look at cattle�� (�Kenya National Park Transfer Under Fire,� Constance Holden).

The Maasai people deserve to be allowed land for agriculture and cattle-grazing, as well. Kenya is a nation suffering from much starvation and more land for agriculture and cattle-grazing may help prevent malnutrition (if the food produced does indeed go to those who need it). If more land is to be used for this purpose, however, the Amboseli Park is not the place to do it. The Amboseli is an undisturbed habitat holding many endangered species, the importance of which is not fully understood but would be lost if the Amboseli were fragmented. As William Cunningham says in our class textbook, �Undisturbed ecosystems often survive extended droughts with little damage, but introduction of domestic animals and agriculture disrupts native vegetation and undermines natural adaptations to low moisture levels� (Environmental Science, 361-362). Instead, land being developed for more roads and housing may be better put to agricultural use in order to feed the starving population. The political purpose discussed earlier for the transfer of control is not entirely arbitrary either. In the transition from rural to urban land, many people like the Maasai have been removed from their lands to make way for roads, foresting, and even to build national parks. The fear that the Maasai people have that they will lose land is, therefore, understandable. They should not lose their land. To give them more land, however, which is essentially happening by turning control over to the Kajaido county, does not make sense, though, except within the realm of politics and persuasion.

Posted by Joe Norcross at 09:31 PM | Comments (0)

Recycling Rocks

In the most recent issue of Minnesota Environment, that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency puts out, the topic was quite concurrent to our studies in that is was all about recycling and waste management.

I was very proud to learn where Minnesota stood in the recycing realm. We have one of the highest rates of recylcing in the country. This is largely do to the act that was passed in 1980 citing a waste hierarchy where the base was creating less waste followed by recycling, composting, waste to energy recovery, landfill- methane to energy and finally at the top as a last resort: landfill - no methane to energy.

We haven't been perfect in our system, but currently Minnesotans are recycing almost 40% of thier waste products. The areas we are falling short in are orgainc compounds, cloth, fiber and paper products. There still is alot of our waste that can be reused and not just sealed up in a landfill.

The problems facing a larger scale recycling effort are mainly finding a market for the products. Not only creating programs to implement the recycling, but then getting companies to put the money and energy into reusing those materials. Minnesota has a few leading companies in this field, but there still remains a large void to be filled.

Recycilng is not only good for the environment, but in Minnesota it is responsible for 9,000 jobs as well as generating 3 billion dollars a year. Its beneficial for not only companies that can profit off of it, but also to the consumers whose garbage fees could be just about cut in half.

We do have a limited amount of resources, it doesn't make sense to simply extract them all to extinction, creating untold environmental impacts. Why not use what we have in abundance? What is easily accessible, and needing a home? I cringe every time I see a pop can or bottle in a trash can, it just seems so wastful when not only in Minnesota, but especially at the U, you have to try to not recycle. There are recepticles everywhere on campus, the same size and right next to the trash cans, for which I am extremely greatful.

Knowledge is power. I think the more the United States and the world gets educated on recyclling, and as we have more success leaders like Minnesota to follow, recycling can reach its full potential. Its going to take personal decsions from all of us as a start, then we need to look to legistation as well as creating and expanding the market of recyclables, so that once we get them out of the landfills, they have a profitable, safe and healthy place to go.

More information available from the mpca website.

Posted by Lindsey Hatz at 09:26 PM | Comments (0)

Bottled Water

With all the current trends in water consumption we need to think about new and different ways to get water if our existing water supplies are contaminated. Who wants to even think about drinking funky water in the first place? So we turn to bottled water believing that we can get clean, fresh, and most importantly, natural water.
For example, Dasani water is bottled by the Coca-Cola company. The concept for Dasani water was created after the Coca-Cola company decided that the consumers wanted another choice besides soda for a beverage. After a failed marketing attempt called "Say no to H20", the company invented Dasani. If you look at a bottle of this "naturally fresh water" you would expect to see a bottling location or source of water like most bottled waters. Instead you will find the following, "Crisp, fresh taste. Dasani is filtered through a state-of-the-art purification system and enhanced with minerals for a pure, clean taste that can't be beat.". But what does this mean? Where is it bottled? What is this purification system? After no email reply in regards to where these bottling locations are, a further investigation was needed. Each bottling location uses different water and different filtering equipment. What? Well, Dasani water comes from tap water from local communities across the globe. Not only is this a problem with local communities not getting access to local aquifers the company also does not always use appropriate pollution control methods. For example in 2004, the United Kingdom Dasani water was found to have illegally high amounts of bromate. This resulted in a full recall of the bottles; however, there has been no problem of this sort in the United States, but how much longer can they go using local tap water with different filtering techniques before contaminates are found? After there filtering process a minute amount of minerals are added such as magnesium sulfate and potassium chloride. So by buying a Brita pitcher, you could almost produce Dasani water yourself.
However, not all bottled water companies are out to trick the public and make thousands in return. Chippewa Springs Water, for example is bottled only twenty minutes away from my hometown of Eau Claire, Wisconsin (located in the Chippewa Valley). This water comes from a natural spring that they bottle at source right in the valley and in the past it was the only water served on railroads and in Chicago hospitals. So not all bottled water are scams out to make profit, however, most big companies are. This is becoming a more serious issue as local ground water becomes polluted and people need to turn to bottled water. Instead, we need to fight that these problems need to be fixed--not covered up.

Sources: www.cool-drinks.com/root%20folder/chippewa.html
www.newstarget.com
www.makeyourmouthwater.com

Posted by Sadie Schuldt at 08:58 PM | Comments (0)

Bottled Water

Sources: www.cool-drinks.com/root%20folder/chippewa.html
www.newstarget.com
www.makeyourmouthwater.com

Posted by Sadie Schuldt at 08:58 PM | Comments (0)

Supersized America

A recent article in the Star Tribune commented on America�s obsession with buying big. In particular buying large SUVs and even larger homes. The article�s focus was on a family who decided to purchase a large home in a newer housing developing outside of the metro area. Now, however, they are forced to pay the high energy costs needed to heat and cool the home, as well as buy the expensive gas for their SUV to drive longer distances to work. They now regret purchasing their large home and wish they had instead went smaller. The main idea of the article was the woman�s response that America was �piggy� and we are using and consuming to no end.

This article was consequently discussed on a local radio talk show (KFAN). It was argued that if individuals can afford to purchase these large homes and SUVs then they should be able to purchase what they can afford. People should not be restricted in what they can afford to purchase and likewise others should not force their opinions on what people size house people should buy or what size SUV they should buy. In essence, Americans are fortunate that they have the freedom to choose where they want to live, what size home to live in, and what car to buy. Paying the high costs for these homes and large vehicles is only up to those who choose to live in this manner and should be of no consequence to others who may choose not to live so spendthrifty.

Taking a more environmental approach, maybe, restriction should be placed on where people live, home sizes, and what vehicle they drive. The Star Tribune, states that home sizes have increased from 963 square feet in 1950 to 2,400 square feet today. However, household sizes have decreased. What does one to with the extra space and is it really needed. Energy prices to heat the home have increased substantially this year alone. CenterPoint Energy�s comment was that energy prices in October alone were 77% higher than last October. We have not even reached the cold weather yet. More money is spent heating and cooling these homes. More importantly, however, is that more energy is needed and consumed to heat and cool these large homes. In addition, large homes and new housing developments with large square foot homes consume more land which may originally been forests, grassland, or agriculture land. Whole ecosystems may be destroyed to provide people with excessive space. These new housing developments may be built on land outside of metro areas, causing homeowners to commute longer to work. Star Tribune stated that most Americans spend an additional 25 minutes getting to work and they generally drive to work alone. Not only do more roads need to be built to accommodate these additional commuters, which also consumes land, but the longer commuting to work supplies the air with more pollution.

Restricting vehicles, areas for homes, and home sizes is not really feasible, however. Legislation concerning these issues will not fly in Congress. People still will build massive homes and buy Hummers and for them the environment may just be an afterthought rather than a personal responsibility. That should, however, be a focus � people should be taught that what they do and what they purchase has consequences and not just on the environment. I learn very little about the environment in every day life. Therefore, I feel providing individuals with a little education on the environment, and how it really affects them, can help people learn responsibility and take personal responsibility for the choices they make, which may in turn reduce the consumptive choices they make.

References

Powell, J. Living large�and paying big. Star Tribune. November 5, 2005.

Posted by Shannon Sellnow at 08:53 PM | Comments (0)

Smart Growth in the Twin Cities

Smart Growth has been offered up as a way to cut down on the impact of urban sprawl. The main philosophy driving smart growth is to create a community that strategically plans its footprint so that it can have the most environmental and community benefits. There are many ways that communities can incorporate this into their plans, the one way that seems to work best is to offer incentives for developers to use smart growth methods. On smartgrowth.com they feature the Twin Cities as a community that is offering incentives for development that follows and incorporates smart growth idealogy. Principles that allow developers access to grants are: Includes Mixed Land Uses,Exhibits Compact Building Design, Provides Range of Housing Types, Promotes ''Walkable'' Neighborhoods
Exhibits a Distinct Sense of Place, Preserves Open Space, Utilizes Existing Development, Provides Transportation Choices, Practices Fair Decision-making, and Promotes Stakeholder Participation.

As was mentioned in a previous entry, the unbridled growth of suburbia is something that can't easily be stopped and most likely won't be stopped. However I believe that using the ideals of smart growth would allow for better development. Smarter development, and development that cuts down on pollution and other negative impacts on the environment. The problem is, as usual, funding such a feat, and second getting people to go along with it. There are people who don't agree with smart growth and the limits it would place on development. But the bigger problem is what are we going to do in lieu of smart growth. If something isn't done soon then the damage caused to valuable resources may become irreversible.

Posted by Jake Soika at 08:20 PM | Comments (0)

New Waste Management Technology

One of the world�s greatest growing problems is how to manage and recycle human waste. Most of the treatment plants today use bacteria that need a lot of oxygen to break down wastes, resulting in the need for very high-cost machines to aerate the sludge constantly. A break through in waste management research has uncovered a type of bacteria that doesn�t produce energy through oxygen, but through nitrate and ammonia, which are found naturally and abundantly in human wastes.
The scientific name of these bacteria is Brocadia anammoxidans or more commonly anammox bacteria. It was first found in the 1990�s in yeast and in the ocean. And what exactly these organisms do is they consume ammonia (found in wastes) and produce hydrazine. This is a marvel in itself, to find a natural producer of hydrazine; because up until now scientists thought that this was purely a man-made substance. Hydrazine is actually rocket fuel.
So now scientists can manage wastes cost effectively, and supply NASA with sufficient fuel for their rockets and aid in space exploration, right? Wrong. The hydrazine energy created by the cell is recycled by the cell so it can keep living and working. So, basically scientists would have to figure out a way to utilize this energy/fuel and at the same time not kill the bacteria.
The most beneficial reason to implement the anammox bacteria into waste management plants is to cut costs. In fact Marc Strous, a microbiologist at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, says that the savings could by close to 90% compared to facilities not using this non-oxygen-using bacterium. There are already some sewage treatment plants that are utilizing this form of bacteria and receiving a lot of praise for it.
I believe that as long as this new form of waste management is cost efficient and not a threat to the environment, there is no reason not to use anammox bacteria in waste management plants. Some could argue that this process of waste management could take to long to be put into effect, since the first plant took about three years to set up. However, the second plant that began to utilize this kind of anammox reaction was ready for action much more rapidly then the first plant.
Since the cost of this operation will be so low, there is the possibility of setting up this kind of treatment in countries that lack sufficient water supply and therefore will help the availability of fresh, clean water to the masses.
I really can�t see the downside of this method although there really wasn�t �another side� to the argument in the article. I found this information in an article by National Geographic. They are a magazine that talks about positive aspects and promising innovations, so I don�t believe that if there was a big downside to this plan they would focus too much on it.
Bacteria Eat Human Sewage, Produce Rocket Fuel, Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News, November 9, 2005
www.nationalgoegraphic.com

Posted by Sondra Larson at 08:09 PM | Comments (0)

The United States and the Kyoto Protocol

As we learned in class, the Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty addressing climate change signed by 160 countries in 1997. The goal of the treaty is to reduce the overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Each country involved in the Kyoto Protocol receives a different limit on emissions on the basis of current emission status and the economic security of the country.

Even though the United States contributes more carbon dioxide than any other country (in fact 28% of all human caused emissions are from the US), the United States has not ratified their decision to be active in the Kyoto Protocol. Under the Clinton administration the protocol was signed but never ratified, but the Bush administration refuses to ratify the treaty and has made no sign of ever agreeing to the treaty.

The Bush Administration won�t participate in the treaty because they feel it will not be beneficial to the economy and because of uncertainties with climate change. This came as a huge shock to me after reading Chapter 15 in the textbook where there is hard evidence that global weather changes are occurring. The average surface temperature has rose 0.6% C during the 20th century. This might not sound like much but it is already affecting humans, plants, animals, and the weather. Because of global warming the artic permafrost is melting, pest populations are changing, stronger hurricanes are happening, and animal migration and hibernation are being thrown off cycle. I understand that by signing the treaty Americans will have to make slight changes in their daily lives and this may upset some, for example driving less. But I feel that the United States should at least make a conscious effort to lower their emissions under a set standard. We live in a global society and to be positive members, we must be active! Once the initial work of implicating the protocol sets in, it wont be as difficult to continue it.

Since the controversy with the United States not signing the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush Administration seems to be more accepting of the concept of global warming. The United States signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Although this sounds nice and comforting, this act allows countries to set individual emission goals for themselves. One of the reasons the United States refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol was because it was "flawed", but the leeway the Asia Pacific Partnership gives countries is misleading and at no set regulation. Yet since the signing of the Partnership the United States has not reduced their emission totals.

I feel that the United States should ratify their signing of the Kyoto Protocol and control their greenhouse emissions to take responsibility for their actions. With a set standard and the support of other countries in the treaty, we as a global community can work together to fight the issue of climate change.

Here are a few ways you can help reduce global warming stated in our environmental science book:

-Drive less! We are fortunate that public transportation is abundant in the Minneapolis/St.Paul area
-Plant trees
-Use energy efficient household appliances
-Produce less waste, buy reusable products

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

Cunningham, William P., Mary Ann Cunningham, and Barbara Saigo. Environmental Science: A Global Concern. 8th ed. New York:McGraw-Hill, 2005.

Posted by Katherine Pike at 07:35 PM | Comments (0)

Oil Companies and Prices

I recently read an article in the StarTribune concerning the rise of gas prices by major gas corporations. Now this seemed reasonable to me in the wake of the southern hurricanes, but it was made known in this article that while gas prices were rising to prices above $3 per gallon, major gas corporations saw $32.8 billion in profits from July-September (StarTribune). �There is a growing suspicion that oil companies are taking unfair advantage,'' said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. "The oil companies owe the American people an explanation.''
Gas leaders attribute this increase to �reacting to the market�, and that petroleum earnings �go up and down�. Top executives of major oil companies are receiving million dollar bonuses at the expense of the consumer. From my point of view it looks like the government should put some kind of restrictions on the oil market if they are hiking up prices for reasons that clearly aren�t making a big impact on their production. Lee Raymond, chairman of ExxonMobil Corp. said, �It would be a mistake, said Raymond, for the government to impose punitive measures hastily crafted in response to short-term market fluctuations.''
I disagree with Raymond on this matter. Looking at the big picture it may seem unfair to react to short-term effects such as these, but looking specifically at this case is a different story. Gas prices raised over a dollar, resulting in huge profits for these oil companies, being that in the short-run oil is an inelastic product that people will need to keep consuming with out any good alternatives. The general public was forced to pay these higher prices as a result of what was thought to be natural disasters, but it turns out that they had little effect on oil companies. When oil companies can use horrific events such as hurricanes Rita and Katrina to make a profit something needs to be done.
After September 11th, the government froze oil prices to ensure nothing like this would happen. I think that part of the solution to this would be to punish these oil companies in some way, but especially to find ways to ensure that this type of situation will not occur again after any crisis.

Posted by Jesse Tannuzzo at 07:27 PM | Comments (0)

Is there a new kind of suburban sprawl?

It seems to be harder and harder to avoid large suburban homes being built in the middle of natural landscape or farm fields. The city of Livermore in California is following this trend with a new proposal for the construction of 2,450 new homes outside the city of Livermore. However, this is no ordinary development. Each house will have solar panels installed on the roof; reducing the dependence on traditional energy sources by 50%. This development is part of Measure D, which would amend the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Line (NLUGBI). This boundary was essentially established to combat the growing problem of suburbanization and to protect the natural landscape. The real estate agent responsible for this development, Pardee Homes, understand the residents concerns and has vowed to build an 130-acre sports park, preserve 750 acres of open land and set aside 450 acres for new homes; homes they say will help with the housing shortage problem. Although 3 million dollars are being spent to raise support, Pardee Homes is meeting opposition.

Despite the homes environmentally friendly aspects, many residents and environmental groups are against Measure D, and therefore the housing development, because of the huge area of pristine land that will be destroyed. Sierra Club conservation director Mike Daley sees the project as, a case of �classic sprawl�. Even democratic Mayor Marshall Kamena is opposed to the measure because it will eventually lead to more development and will destroy endangered species� habitat. In a country plagued by urban sprawl, why do people want to support legislation going against major environmental accomplishments such as the NLUGBI?

Here is where the deep issue comes up. Development of open land is going to happen; there is no realistic way of stopping it. Yes, things can be done to slow it such as the NLUGBI, but open, cheap land will attract developers. Although the new development will have many negative environmental impacts, at least there is some benefit; the use of a renewable energy source. It is model for other �green buildings� and is much better than a traditional suburban development. At least the developers have the environment in mind; whether they stick to what they say is a whole other issue. What else can we hope for? Realistically, the area will eventually be developed. Wouldn�t it be good to see it be inhabited by more environmentally friendly buildings?

I have seen a similar case of this in my hometown. Recently, a failing golf course was bought out by developers looking for an area to build massive houses. The problem was, much of this area was considered a wetland (which is part of the reason why the golf course was failing). The developers were aware of the publics desire to preserve the area, and planned to only build homes on half the site, leaving the rest as open wetlands. Obviously, the houses have a huge impact on the surrounding area, but having this small area of wetland is better than nothing.

So, even though many people do not want to see huge housing communities take over the land (including myself) it is a small step in the right direction to reducing the impact we have on the environment.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/08/solar.suburb.ap/index.html
http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/alm/meas/D/

Posted by Sarah Graves at 06:34 PM | Comments (0)

Hurricane Science

I read an article the other day about the Bush administration is providing an additional $55 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This would allow a severe upgrade in forecast instruments for weather experts to give them everything they need to predict hurricanes in the future. They are also getting new "hurricane hunter" airplane which goes into the eye of the storms and getting information. Along with this, the administration is using $17.1 billion for things like repairing buildings, repairing highways, and rebuilding levees. According to Bob Sheets, former director of the National Hurricane Center, "Once something gets the attention of the public, it gets the attention of the politicians. There are some things that can be done that are not prohibited in cost, and some priority can be placed there." I thought that this was an exceptional idea, repairing a part of the country that needs help. There are obviously people that, no matter what the Bush Administration does, will not support their ideas. But this is something that everyone should be backing. Who knows what is going to happen in the future in terms of climate change and natrual disasters. This is a great opportunity to prepare for something like what happened in the Gulf Coast. I definately believe that this should be more of a priority than oil conflicts or whatever else the administration is busy dealing with. I love this idea and think that this is a gret idea that the Bush administration has thought of.

Posted by Christopher Harrington at 06:34 PM | Comments (0)

10 Year Nuclear Battery

May 12, 2005

NEW 'NUCLEAR BATTERY' RUNS 10 YEARS, 10 TIMES MORE POWERFUL

A battery with a lifespan measured in decades is in development at the University of Rochester, as scientists demonstrate a new fabrication method that in its roughest form is already 10 times more efficient than current nuclear batteries�and has the potential to be nearly 200 times more efficient. The details of the technology, already licensed to BetaBatt Inc., appears in today�s issue of Advanced Materials.

�Our society is placing ever-higher demands for power from all kinds of devices,� says Philippe Fauchet, professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Rochester and co-author of the research. �For 50 years, people have been investigating converting simple nuclear decay into usable energy, but the yields were always too low. We�ve found a way to make the interaction much more efficient, and we hope these findings will lead to a new kind of battery that can pump out energy for years.�

The technology is geared toward applications where power is needed in inaccessible places or under extreme conditions. Since the battery should be able to run reliably for more than 10 years without recharge or replacement, it would be perfect for medical devices like pacemakers, implanted defibrillators, or other implanted devices that would otherwise require surgery to replace or repair. Likewise, deep-space probes or deep-sea sensors, which are beyond the reach of repair, also would benefit from such technology.

Betavoltaics, the method that the new battery uses, has been around for half a century, but its usefulness was limited due to its low energy yields. The new battery technology makes its successful gains by dramatically increasing the surface area where the current is produced. Instead of attempting to invent new, more reactive materials, Fauchet�s team focused on turning the regular material�s flat surface into a three-dimensional one.

Similar to the way solar panels work by catching photons from the sun and turning them into current, the science of betavoltaics uses silicon to capture electrons emitted from a radioactive gas, such as tritium, to form a current. As the electrons strike a special pair of layers called a �p-n junction,� a current results. What�s held these batteries back is the fact that so little current is generated�much less than a conventional solar cell. Part of the problem is that as particles in the tritium gas decay, half of them shoot out in a direction that misses the silicon altogether. It�s analogous to the sun�s rays pouring down onto the ground, but most of the rays are emitted from the sun in every direction other than at the Earth. Fauchet decided that to catch more of the radioactive decay, it would be best not to use a flat collecting surface of silicon, but one with deep pits.

A layer of silicon riddled with pits, each of which would fill with the radioactive tritium gas, would be like dropping the sun into a deep well lined with solar panels. Almost all of the sun�s rays, no matter which way they were emitted, would strike a well wall. Only those rays that fired straight up and out of the well would be lost. With this reasoning, Fauchet devised a method to excavate pits into a microscopic piece of silicon.

The pits, or wells, are only about a micron wide (about four ten-thousandths of an inch), but are more than 40 microns deep. After the wells are �dug� with an etching technique, their insides are coated with a material to form a p-n junction just a tenth of a micron thick, which is the best thickness to induce a current. The Advanced Materials paper details how these wells were dug in a random fashion, yielding a 10-fold increase in current over the conventional design. The team is already working on a technique to create and line the wells in a much more uniform, lattice formation that should increase the energy produced by as much as 160-fold over current technology.

�Our ultimate design has roughly 160 times the surface area of the conventional, flat design,� says Fauchet. �We expect to be able to get an efficiency that very nearly matches, and we�re doing this using standard semiconductor industry fabrication techniques.�

Houston-based BetaBatt Inc. has formed to capitalize on the technology, and has recently been awarded a technology commercialization grant by the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF funded the initial research as well. Collaborators on this research included one of Fauchet�s graduate students, Wei Sun, Nazir Kherani from the University of Toronto, Karl Hirschman from Rochester Institute of Technology, and Larry Gadeken from BetaBatt, Inc.

PR 2154, MS 592

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is going to be an interesting thing to see develop over the next few decades. Nuclear power went from this supposed clean and perfect energy source to becoming the demon of nuclear war, chernobyl and three mile island (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/tmi.htm). When you say nuclear power to people, they get images of three-eyed fish, cancer, etc. Having said that, safe nuclear power, which is entirely feasible right now, could possibly be one of our better options for dealing with energy shortages in the near future (http://web.mit.edu/canes/research/nfc/annularfueldesign.html). The pebble bed nuclear reactor technology doesn't melt down, provides plentiful energy, and doesn't emit a gram of CO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor). Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the disposal of the pebbles is less troublesome than the leftovers from the more traditional reactors.

A nuclear battery that could last 10 years would be way better, not only for the users of the batteries, but also for the environment. Think about how much energy you have to use to charge a laptop. All of that energy is primarily coming from fossil fuels (http://www.rbrc.org/consumer/index.html). Then when you are done with the battery, you throw it in a dump (at least most people do), and the heavy metals that go into most of those batteries leak into the environment.

Of course, in order for any of this progress to happen, you're going to have to get people comfy with having radioactive sources in such close proximity. It might have all the shielding in the world, but it's still going to make a lot of people nervous.

Posted by William Xiong at 06:21 PM | Comments (0)

Largest Wind Farm in England

Bristish energy company is palnning to build the world's largest onshore wind farm on the isle of Lewis in Scotland's remote and windswept Western Isles. The project is going to have 200 wind turbines, each 400 feet tall.

Is this a good idea??..
There's a controversey among wildlife groups and many islanders, who strongly oppose the plan. Wildlife groups such as The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Europes's biggest wildlife nonprofit organization says that the wind farm could wreak havoc on an environmentally sensitive area.

Of course there are going to be advantages and disadvantages to this proposal. The advantages are that it can supply electricity to many homes in a more efficent way and by using wind instead of burning too much natural resources can help global warming. Also this project can create jobs.
The disadvantages is more that the birds in that area would decrease which can lead to an unbalanced ecology and also a higher potential extinction to species of birds in the area.

I think there could be other alternatives to produce electricity like solar power, etc that can benefit both sides. If the proposal is a big threat to the native birds, a threat to the environment could follow. Wiping out the native birds can lead into invasive species or maybe the wind power plant would wipe out keystone species, reading from our textbook on page 224 is all an unheathly balance to the environment. Also the wind farm can disrupt flying patterns.

On the otherhand, there are disagreements. Some say that the birds would flock away from the wind farm and that it wouldn't be a problem.

All in all, by building the largest wind farm can be advantage in a million homes and create job opportunities, but there is a large risk that can kill large part of the bird population, that can lead to a drastic environmental changes. The issue is still being debated.

All the facts and information provided was from the website http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1031_051031_wind_farm.html
visit this same website for more information on the wind farm in England..

Posted by Steve Wang at 04:59 PM | Comments (0)

The Florida Panther Debate

My blog is about the florida panther debate and the reason why it is important...For me this a very touchy subjects because i love animals. I love panthers and large cats. Florida has become a tourist site for the past several years. It is an area where people come to discover the beauty of the outdoors, that includes animals, plants and organisms. Florida has the biggest numbers of alligators, armidillos birds such as pink flamingos and mamals such as dolphins and the wonderful black panthers. Because of humans and the idea of urban sprawl and how humans tend to expand ''their wings" over a piece a land in a short amount of time. Humans damage the evromnient by bringing new ideas and new tech development. These creatures(panthers) are Florida's state symbol and they tend to grab people attentions, but because of people's reckless behavior are being destroyed in large numbers. Since 1970's allmost 40 panthers have been killed by car collisions and the numbers keep growing. The panther's range consists of nearly 1 million hectares in southwest Florida. Within the panther's range are a number of distinctive natural communities as well as areas disturbed to varying degrees by human activities. Scientists usually define the natural communities on the basis of vegetation. Panthers, especially young males, may travel through disturbed areas but their needs for adequate food and cover can only be met by the natural communities within their range.The greatest threat to the panther's survival is loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat. The degredation is A complex of canals, dikes, and water control structures manages the flow of water in south Florida. Forty percent of the historic Everglades has been lost to urban and suburban development. Other treaths are diseases:such as hookworms. These can cause anemia and weight loss, and may contribute to death in domestic kittens. Or envioromental contaminats such as mercury especially in the southern part of Florida. It infects the liver and can cause if not properly treated. Air pollution from metals mining, coal-fired utilities and industry, and solid waste are thought to be the major source of mercury contamination. The pathner has been placed as a Keystone because of his beauty and eligance and also because of the interest of humans for this animal and also has been put under what is called an Umbrella Species due to the saving of habitat that they are saving for other...why shouldnt the people start saving money of helping them? We should do everthing we can for them. They are an icon for Florida and for the Everglades. We should try to help out little at first and not the whole entire ecosystem. Florida is losing little by little its value and its hold on animals because of the urbanization and human sprawl but there are other ways we can make things right and I strongly believe if people out there are starting or planing on doing something right for them, it should be done no matter what. Year by year they are slowing losing their excistance due the above factors but we can start somwhere. These animals are an icon for the state and a represintation for it. If we give attention to all the other animals small and big, why shouldnt we do for the large cats that represent a state that is so diverse such as Florida?

Posted by Andreea Grigore Grigore at 01:21 PM | Comments (0)

"Cleaning Up Coal:" New Initiatives to Start to Solve an Old Problem

"Cleaning up coal: Promising new, cleaner technologies" - 11/9 Article in the Star Tribune by Neal St. Anthony

Environmentalists and power industry representatives working together to figure out solutions to regulate greenhouse emissions? Unheard of, right? Mostly yes...up until now. An 11/9 article in the Star Tribune details a new initiative by environmentalists, utilities, and regulators in working toward a �clean coal� future.

Underneath the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming there�s a huge amount of coal: an estimated 300 years worth (St. Anthony). Given current oil tension in the Middle East, it provides a safe, cheap way to obtain some of the much-coveted natural resource.

To make use of this resource, several large power-plants are planned for construction in the Midwest over the next few years (St. Anthony). But burning coal, as we well know, is not a clean process. As global climate change becomes more and more prevalent, even power industries are looking for a way to avoid law suits over emissions. Existing technology can mostly prevent mercury and other dangerous pollutants from entering the atmosphere, but it is nowhere near sufficient protection at the globe steadily warms.

Enter the Coal Gasification Work Group. Instead of fighting about emissions after they�re been produced, this group is working to prevent their production at all. The coalition�s goal: �a path toward technologies and licensing standards designed to eradicate vexing greenhouse gases that are the bane of coal-fired plants (St. Anthony).�

Of course, environmentalists and power industry folks have very different goals. The first test case, a proposed Great River Energy power plant that would be built in South Dakota to provide coal power for the Twin Cities, is already facing friction from both sides. Dave Saggau, CEO of Great River Energy, says that the new technologies that would control emissions of many pollutants proposed for the plant are �too far off� (St. Anthony). Environmental groups protest, and say they will fight the construction permits. A member of the Work Group and former executive at Xcel Power, Mike Gregerson, says that power companies don�t want to give a burden to their ratepayers, and therefore asks that the government lay down rules around this sesitive topic.

In my opinion, the Coal Gasification Work Group is a huge step for both sides. Both groups have strong opinions that usually conflict hugely and sometimes end in messy lawsuits where, really, no one wins. Bringing them together at the same table can allow each side to better understand the other�s viewpoint, preventing conflict and creating solutions that work for both. I think that answers to many other environmental problems could be reached if more groups of this sort were formed.

To view the article, go to:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1069/5715770.html

Posted by Brianna Parry at 12:24 PM | Comments (0)

Problems from Mining

This summer I interned with the Oklahoma branch of the USGS. During this time, I had the opportunity to visit Tar Creek, a Superfund site in Ottawa County in the far northeastern part of Oklahoma. Tar Creek has been an area of significant controversy and concern for many years. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, for over 100 years, this area had been mined for lead and zinc. The crude ore in this area is extremely poor, containing 4-6% lead and zinc combined. The leftover ore, about 95%, was discarded on the surface in chat piles and large flotation ponds, and even when these piles were re-milled, the tailings still contained 10% lead and 25% zinc. About 5,000 surface acres in this area are covered with forms of these tailings. Large parts of towns are built on lands that were formally mill ponds, flotation ponds, or chat piles. Flotation ponds cover 8000 acres, and 75 million tons of chat still remain on the surface. When the mining industry started in Ottawa County, miners most likely did not know the negative effects the ore would have on the environment. They were trying to find something to do with the tailings while mining and piling it in piles and in flotation ponds seemed like a good solution. This is cheaper for the mining companies; the miners were just doing the job they were assigned to do in the most profitable fashion, and removing the waste as easily as possible. In Tar Creeks case though, the waste, together with collapsing shafts, was what caused the damage. This history has led to many problems for this area. The USGS has found that this area is saturated with groundwater, and because of this, water had to constantly be pumped from extensive underground working sites. After these sites were abandoned, the chat piles and underground mine networks filled with water. When the piles filled over the level of the surrounding ground, water began to seep from the sides. The tailings still contain lead and zinc, and when the water begins to run from the piles, it is contaminated with metals. Sometimes the metals are in such high concentrations that the seepage and streams in the area actually run a red-orange, rusty color from the acid mine water. Hundreds of dangerous and deteriorating open mineshafts dot the landscape, resulting in threatening sinkholes. One of the main problems though is the percentages of children affected by lead. Some towns according to government provided medical testing, such as Pitcher and Cardin, had 36% and 64% of the children testing positive for lead poisoning respectively. Although Tar Creek is an extreme case, it still represents the potential devastation mining, and ill-practiced land usage in general, can have on the environment. Many people concern themselves purely on the economic gains they will receive from the land and do not go through adequate measures to ensure the protection of the environment. As seen through Tar Creek, by not employing these protection techniques, both the environment and the Ottawa County community suffered. Not only was there initial contamination through runoff, but this ran into streams and eventually found its way to the watershed. With lead being one of the main contaminants, this causes even more devastation through lead poisoning, and potential learning disabilities in children. With the world�s populations increasing as rapidly as they are, water needs are rising and people are getting their water from more questionable watersheds. Protection measures and restrictions need to be implemented to guarantee that all possible water is available for the increasing populations. Although conditions around this area have improved, and now according to Government funded medical testing only 2% as opposed to above 30%, of the children show signs of lead poisoning, avoiding these problems in the first place would have been a better option. Tar Creek should be a warning for future projects, in order to save money, time, clean water supplies, and essentially, the environment.

My information came from various site and my experience this summer
http://www.ucc.org/disaster/d030204.htm
http://inhofe.senate.gov/superfund1.pdf
http://www.health.state.ok.us/PROGRAM/envhlth/sites/ottawa.html

Posted by Abigail Tomasek at 12:52 AM | Comments (0)

November 08, 2005

The Truth About Ethanol Production

Recently I�ve been doing a lot of research on ethanol production, and I have been finding very controversial information. So I started to wonder which side of the story was the actual truth. My interest in ethanol started when I read an article from the San Francisco Chronicle based on a study conducted by Tad Patzek, a geo-engineer at UC Berkley. Tad claimed that the production of ethanol used six times more energy than the end ethanol contains. He also made claims that ethanol wasn�t a renewable resource, and that we were �wasting� fossil fuels in the actual production of ethanol. When I first read this article I thought that there is no way that it could be true so I did some more research and found interesting results.

According to the USDA there is an overall energy gain in the production of ethanol. The average energy gain is 48,722 BTU/gal of ethanol produced. That number is the complete opposite of Tad�s findings, so I read the fine print and found out that under optimal conditions the energy gained by ethanol production is positive. These conditions are: 100% corn yields, minimal fertilizing, low energy fertilizer application techniques, low energy harvesting techniques, new corn to ethanol conversion technology, using the steam let off in production as an energy source, and low energy production of byproducts.
Given that so many conditions are needed to make the process of ethanol production a positive energy system, only one or two things can be below standards in order for a negative energy exchange to take place. And, considering that most plants in operation today don�t have the newest technology we could be producing mass amounts of ethanol at a negative energy price. Tad also argued that ethanol production is depleting a food supply. At first I believed that to be true, but then I realized that most of the corn used to produce ethanol is field corn which is predominately feed to livestock not humans, and an ethanol

ES 1051 Blog

Critical Thinking in Environmental Science

November 29, 2005

China has a plan, but is it good enough?

November 28, 2005

US exception from Montreal Protocol

November 18, 2005

Wind Energy

November 10, 2005

Diseases in Big Game

Using Chironomids as biological indicators in water quality analysis

Acid Rain

Mining the Minnesota River Valley

Off-Road Vehicles

The U's alternative energy source

Free The Salmon

Experimentation on Mice Initiates a Breakthrough in Medicine for Learning Disabilities

The U's efforts in conservation: are we doing our part?

Author's Biases

God Save the Queen's Squirrels!!!

Poverty and the environment

Nevada Wilderness Project

Global warming effects & you

November 09, 2005

Sonar Is Killing Whales

Rewriting the Endangered Species Act

A second Hydroelectric Dam to be Built on Mekong River

Keys to Living Longer

Evolution in Schools

Environmentalism and the Media

Cleaning Coal?

Amboseli National Park Goes Local

Recycling Rocks

Bottled Water

Bottled Water

Supersized America

Smart Growth in the Twin Cities

New Waste Management Technology

The United States and the Kyoto Protocol

Oil Companies and Prices

Is there a new kind of suburban sprawl?

Hurricane Science

10 Year Nuclear Battery

Largest Wind Farm in England

The Florida Panther Debate

"Cleaning Up Coal:" New Initiatives to Start to Solve an Old Problem

Problems from Mining

November 08, 2005

The Truth About Ethanol Production