ES 1051 Blog: December 2005 Archives

� November 2005 | Main

December 12, 2005

Someone! Venice's sinking! Do something.

Venezia, as it is said in Italian…It is the Queen of the Adriatic, city of canals and palaces. It is a city that once ago was build up by merchants and sellers. One each four corners of the city is surrounded by water. This city is full of riches ness and devotion from its people. It has withstood the brick of time, through hard and tantrum times. It has a long history and doubly future, but the air in this city is delicate and melancholy. For thousands of years this city was one of the most enduring mercantile sea powers on the face of the earth. Today its brilliance and influence have long since faded, leaving behind a town of tarnished glories, out of time and out of place, so achingly beautiful it's hard not to look for the back of the set. New facts point out that Venice is sinking at alarming rate. This ancient city is sitting on wooden pillars that are pounded into marshy grounds by architects that have live centuries ago. It has sunk about 7 cm a century for the past 1000 years and just in the last 100 years; it has been sinking at the alarming rate of 24 cm. There is a controversial plan name Moses that involves a number of moveable dams and also a plan to reduce the water flooding the city. The project is about $4 billion and it started out in 1966, when a massive flood flooded the St. Mark Square. Without the fact of having bridges and dams, the city is so vulnerable on floods and tides. This project was started by a professor and an engineer at the University of Padua. His name is Gambolati and along with his crew, they are considering to inject sea water to raise the city about 30 cm and rescue it from the tides. The project would require digging holes about 12 of them about 30 cm in diameter and 10km area around the city. To pump the water about 700 meters deep. The sea water would make the sand that is underneath to expand because the group will use waterproof clay to help push the soil. This is the explanation that the professor gives on the project. The estimated cost is about $17 million. He explains that he plans to test his theory by testing a small area at first. The project will need to be approved by the city council and the major. As of the present time, it is only in the beginning phase and also needs to pass to the state commissions before making legal. The final version will be called “Moses” and along with it a flood barrier would also be build to help ease the tension of the tides. The name “Moses” was taken from the Biblical figure that parted the Red Sea and because of the slitting of the water and the building of the dams, that’s why they’ve decided on this name. Much high place society’s city’s figures such as the president of the New Venice Consortiu (the agency that helps out with the project) said that this plan that needs careful testing and it needs to be checked very thoroughly. Venice is a very delicate and soft space and it should be elevated in a different way…that what he said…or the city would crumble. But according to Gambolati, the project will not affect the city’s stability. This project can be considered as a step towards elevating and helping a city that throughout many centuries has lacked the help and need to be saved.

Posted by Andreea Grigore Grigore at 09:05 PM | Comments (0)

December 09, 2005

Someone! Venice’s sinking! Do Something.

Not only is Venice sinking, but it’s surrounding land is sinking as well. Though this is not new news, there are some interesting tactics being considered to save this international treasure. Are these innovative approaches worth the risk of possible destruction in a historical city?
The current anthropogenic subsidence of the land in the Zennare Basin surrounding Venice city is 1.5 to 2 cm per year. (Gambolati et. al 2005) This is largely due to bio-oxidation of organic rich peat layers, which naturally decompose at a rate that is increased with agricultural nutrification and water level increase from agricultural drainage. Venice currently has sunk about one foot in the last 300 years and is in jeopardy of flooding from high tides and floods which threaten to drown the landmark city. (U.S. Water News)
The current approach to remediation of these issues is a $5.2 billion project attempting to build large gates which will act as a flood barrier for high tide conditions.(U.S. Water News) Though this approach was approved in 2003 a new approach to directly save Venice from its current condition is being proposed. Project head Giuseppe Gambolati and his group of engineers are “considering injecting seawater under Venice to raise the waterlogged Italian city by one foot to rescue it from the tides and floods.”(Gambolati et. al 2005) This extreme hydrological alteration may have large impacts on both the hydrology and the geology of the city and the local area. The current approach to slow the subsidence of the Zennare Basin is to implement conservation soil practices for agricultural land use, implement cover crops in times of bare soils, and manage the level of the water table to keep the levels low and the bio-oxidation at a manageable rate.
Currently, professional dispute of the effectiveness in the seawater injection results exists. Professor of geotechnic engineering at Turin Polytechnic, Michele Jamiolkowski, fears that only half of the projected height gain will be obtained and the possibility of uneven rise as well as other unknown repercussions may tear the city apart.
Difficulties with water table regulation due to fluxes in precipitation are also current concerns about effectively regulating the Zennare Basin drainage discharge.
The approaches being considered for these problems shows innovation as well as solid scientific principal. The largest question is the possibilities of implementation problems such as uneven distribution of the water and uneven land elevation. Agricultural conservation has little possibility of undesired alterations to height levels, but water table management should be done with great care. The risks to the city of Venice should be studied carefully before any action is taken. A mistake on this magnitude would doubtfully be acceptable to any historical preservation entity.

Reference

Gambolati G., Putii M., Teatini P., Camporese M., Ferraris S., Gasparetto G., Nicoletti V., Silvestri S., Rizzetto F., and Tosi, L.(2005) Peat Land Oxidation Enhances Subsidence in the Venice Watershed: EOS Vol. 86, Numb. 23, June 7 pg. 217

U.S. Water News Online (Nov. 2005) New idea proposes to inject seawater to raise Venice: http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcglobal/5newxidea11.html

Posted by Jason Carlson at 01:39 AM | Comments (0)

December 08, 2005

Overharvesting of fish recources

I am an avid fisherman, and with the seasonal changes keeping me off the ice i have been thinking about the continuation of fisheries. I have recently been shown a magazine article, that talked about big DNR busts over the summer fishing season, and I was amazed by some of the stories I took away from it. I was upset when I learned that in the past when people were caught with overharvesting they would be given a small fine, and lose the fish in possession, however they would retain their rights to fish the following day. I am glad however, that this practice no longer exists, and there are severe fines, and the chance to lose any fishing rights. Some of the stories that irritaded me included a group of two men, that had over 100 fish over there limit, and when asked why they continued fishing, he simply stated because they were biting. Overall I believe most fishermen are law abiding, but there should be a strict penelaty for any who break these laws. Anyone who takes fish illigally are not only harming the fishery, but also giving a bad name to the law abiding fisherman.

Posted by Bryan Stramer at 06:00 PM | Comments (0)

Coral Reefs' Fight for Survival

Coral reefs are a part of one of the most beauitful and spectacular ecosystems on the earth. They are home to at least 1/4 of all marine plant and animal species, while also protecting many of the world's coastlines from erosion. In order to understand human impact on coral reefs, I'll give you a little summary of what they are. A reef is built of tiny coral animals who contrust calcium carbonate shells around their bodies. In turn, the reef grows when the larva from a young coral polyp attaches itself to an ideal spot, typically on top of an existing coral, and then begins to build itself a new shell. From this building, the reef structure rises about one to two inches per year. Of course coral dies, and when it does, new larvae build their shells on top of them, allowing reefs to grow to keep up with a moderate rise in sea level. A single reef can grow for millions of years and become hundreds of meters thick--the world's largest, the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, is 1,250 miles long.
Since coral reefs consist of many diverse organisms, its animals have a "symbiotic" relationship with minute algae known as zooxanthellae (quite a word). In short, this algae provides the coral with oxygen and food made from photosynthesis. The zooxanthellae then get a home and nutrients from the coral. This algae is what gives the coral its fascinating and bright colors. The environmental conditions the coral live in determine different kinds of algae that live there, wuch as light availability, depth and water temperature. Coral need a certain set of conditions to thrive, as do the zooxanthellae in order to provide photosynthesis to the coral. The water has to be warm, clear and moderately saline with constant salinity. Without this, coral reefs are in danger. Now, human activity is estimated to have killed ten percent of known coral reefs, while thirty percent of them are currently in critical condition. Sadly, only thirty percent of the total are thought to be stable.
Humans are not the only cause to coral depletion. Many environmental factors take their toll, including the tsunami in the Phillipines, which damaged thousands of miles of coral reefs. Scientists are currently trying to establish ways to replenish this damaged coral. Also, sediment runoff can and has killed reffs because zooxanthellae cannot photosynthesize in cloudy or murky water; logging and plowing has increased this runoff, especially in the Philippines and the Costa Rican coast. In these areas, 75% of the reefs have died as a result. Just a list of a few more environmental problems include ultraviolet radiation from ozone depletion, pesticide and industrial runoff, oil spills, coral mining and damage from tourists and divers that have resulted in killed reefs in othre various locations.
When these environmental changes occur, it puts stress on the coral animals. Under stress, they expel their zooxanthellae and cause the coral to turn white, rather than die. Since this algae turns the coral color, the reef results in white, known as "coral bleaching". Corals can recover from one bleaching event, but multiple times can kill them. A theoretical cause of bleaching is the contamination of the reefs by extra nutrients from sewage, or the increase of seawater temperatures due to global warming.
Natural selection may also be playing a part in this. A recent research study has concluded that when a coral expels its zooxanthellae, it may actually be aiding in its own survival. When the environment rapidly changes, the algae that the coral gets rid of is no longer optimal, which in turn allows the coral to host a different type of algae that is better suited to the coral's survival in the new environment. This was discovered by Wildlife Conservation Society's (who conducted it) and Dr. Andrew C. Baker, a scientist at the New York Aquarium. He switched corals found off the coast of Panama, putting deep water species of coral in shallow water and shallow water species in deep water. The coral that went from deep water to shallow bleached but then took on new algae and ended up surviving. The shallow to deep water coral didn't bleach, which says it did not change its algae, and most of the coral died. It was concluded that while bleaching is a risky strategy for survival, it does indeed help the coral respond to rapid environmental change, which we all know is fast upon us.

Posted by Keely Gerhold at 04:21 PM | Comments (0)

Global Climate Change Will Cause an Increase in Disease Outbreaks

Global climate change is a highly discussed, debated, and analyzed topic. There are many components that make up this debate ranging from why it is occurring to how we are going to slow its effects. A very important area of study within the topic of global climate change is the effects that it will have on the ecosystems of the world.
One of the most recent revelations found, from a study put out by Harvard Medical School's Center for Health and the Global Environment, reinsurance company Swiss Re, and the United Nations Development Program, is that the warmer climates and increased/decreased amounts of precipitation, due to global climate change, will be greatly influencing the number of disease outbreaks among humans. Hari Pant, assistant professor of environmental, geographic, and geological sciences at Lehman College of the City University of New York says that, "[But] overall, the effect on human health will be bad because of the spread of opportunistic organisms that take advantage of unstable environments." The three diseases thought to increase the most are Malaria, West Nile, and Lyme disease.
Malaria is predicted to have an increased outbreak in the areas where the climate will be getting predominately warmer. The warming of these specific areas will cause the breeding season to be longer and the reproduction and biting rates of these insects to increase. The warmer temperatures also cause the parasite that is Malaria to reach full maturity inside the mosquito more quickly then it would in cooler temperatures. An increase in precipitation causes more breeding grounds for mosquitoes, and a decrease in precipitation causes people to migrate and therefore transmit the disease around the country, continent, or world.
West Nile virus is said to be more prevalent with the onset of global climate change because the mosquito that carries this virus thrives in droughts. This means that some areas of the world that usually do not see this disease because of their tendency to be a relatively moist area, could start to see a rise in the number of outbreaks because global climate change could impact these areas, making them more dry. Another negative effect of drought in the areas where these diseases could appear is that drought decreases the amount of predators that these mosquitoes have, creating an imbalance in the local food chain.
Lyme disease will also take advantage of rising temperatures. Lyme disease is prominently carried by deer ticks. These ticks will move north when the temperatures start to get warmer, causing the area in which the disease inhabits to more than double.
This problem can be solved in a number of different ways. One could be to find solid vaccines for all of these diseases and give them to everyone susceptible. This is not a very logical solution, however. It would be very costly and would also have the potential of causing more harm to some then it would cause good. The main solution that I think the world should put to action is simply to work on reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We need to find alternate forms of sustainable energy that will give off less greenhouse gases and therefore slow down global warming so that the consequences of the changes it will cause can be better prepared for and possibly curbed to reduce the impact by a margin.
This information comes from an article in National Geographic Magazine by Nicholas Bakalar called “Warming Will Lead to Major Disease Outbreaks, Experts Warn” written on December 2, 2005. This magazine focuses entirely on nature and advocates its preservation. It is good that they are supporting articles that generate awareness about the looming effects of human-caused turmoil in the environment not only in the US but on a world-scale. This magazine doesn’t sugar-coat the reality of situations and I think that is exactly what people need to hear: an intelligent sounding, reality bearing, informative analysis of the problems that the world is facing.

Posted by Sondra Larson at 01:15 PM | Comments (0)

Invasive species

Introduction

Although there are various articles discussing the importance of control and management of invasive species, I wasn’t able to find many articles against this subject. The reasons for providing control for invasive species were very persuasive. However, I did find another article arguing against the control invasive species, equally as convincing.

Benefits of Invasive Species

Plants and other species have invaded the territory of other native species making it very difficult for native species to survive. With an increase in international travel and trade, invasive species have become a greater issue in the world today. When plants or other species invade an area, endangered species and the original state of ecosystems are threatened. Along with threatening species, there are also arguments that billions of dollars each year trying to alleviate the problem of invasive species.

After reading an article entitled Benefits of Classical Biological Control for Managing Invasive Plants, I learned that there are three strategies for the management of plant invasions. They include: prevention, eradication, and control. The effectiveness of prevention has been question by legislation. As a means of prevention, legislation would be required to make sure that foreign plants are unable to entering specific areas. This article suggests that destroying weeds is not regarded as economically feasible. Conventional weed control (which includes mechanical and chemical for example) is very expensive, and takes a lot of energy and is laborious. These types of control would require a repeated application which is not practical for managing widespread plant invasions such delicate habitats.

Mechanical control disturbs the soil and may cause erosion. The usage of chemical herbicides has lead to resistance in evolved weed species in some cases. Chemical herbicides also pose a threat to the health of wildlife and humans. As a result of these negative effects of these methods of controls, the use of biological control has increased.

Biological control is the usage of exotic natural enemies to control the exotic pests. It is considered a safe method of control, and cost effective. Overall, biological control has a success rate of 33 percent. Some of the benefits include being permanent, energy efficient, nonpolluting, and inexpensive relative to other methods. There are some risks involved in biological control but there have not been any significant records of harm to non-targeted species or the environment.

Different Perspective

In contrast to the other article, the article entitled An Essay on Some Topics Concerning Invasive Species speaks from a different perspective on invasive species. Unlike the other article, this article emphasizes that past invasions have occurred without human assistance. These specie invasions rarely caused any measuring effects on the population or ecological change. In fact, the article goes on to say that “They are unintentional, uncontrolled experiments, which can provide insights into attributes of successful colonist, relationships with native species, and impacts on the structure and function of ecological systems.” Just as fossil records show, the earth and the environment has been changed drastically. Species have been invading the earth since the dawn of time. The current invasions just show that the earth is experiencing an episode of changes in the environment and biodiversity caused by our own invasive species. Humans are constantly altering the climate, destroying habitats, connecting isolated lands or waters, exterminating species, and transporting organisms. Therefore, there should be no surprise in the impact and distribution.

My Opinion – Conclusion

Yes, there is a lot of supporting evidence that shows that there should be control for invasive species. However, it is my opinion that invasive species should not be managed and that we should allow nature to take its course. The argument against the invasive species control won my vote. I think that the statement that they make in the article regarding foreign species that states, “similar to the human instinct to dislike or distrust foreigners, the view toward invasive species is the same” (An Essay on Some Topics Concerning Invasive Species). We do not understand these species and because they are foreign does not mean that they are unbeneficial to society. I think that it is important to measure the fact these control methods may be just as detrimental to the environment. Regardless, there are going to be concerns for economic cost. Because there is no evidence showing that there is a 100% sure way to effectively control these species, I feel that we shouldn’t mess with what has already been done. We are possibly even causing more harm to the environment than these new species are through our methods of control. There is usually are reason for everything. Maybe the reason for these new species.....is our answer to discovering new cures and will beneficially useful in many ways, in years to come.

Resources
Article Title - Benefits of Classical Biological Control for Managing Invasive Plants
Author - Tomas W. Culliney
Journal - Clinical Review in Plant Sciences 24:131-150, 2005

Article Title - An Essay on Some Topics Concerning Invasive Species
Author - James H. Brown and Dov F. Sax
Journal – Austral Ecology (2004) 29, 530-536

Posted by Jennifer Morris at 10:04 AM | Comments (0)

clean air?

The Clean Air Act was created in 1943 to reduce the amount of smog and atmospheric pollution (Wikipedia). “The use of the federal government and state and local governments to enforce clean air standards has contributed to an improvement of the health of Americans” (Wikipedia). Basically the Clean Air Act requires major point sources to obtain a permit to put emissions into the air. Once they have the permit they are supposed to maintain certain standards that are enforced mainly by fees (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaa02.html#topic2e); fees that are in my opinion way to low. If a company can just get out of updating there equipment by paying a small fine then what are the incentives to not polluting. We need to have stronger punishments such as closing a company down that does not meet certain standards until they comply with the standards that were created to protect us all.

Posted by Kacy Bobzien at 09:55 AM | Comments (0)

Should Minnesotas Forests Be Deemed Road Less Once Again?

Recently there has been a national debate regarding our precious forests and woodlands. The repeal of a road less designation has affected not only Minnesota, but many other states as well. However, Minnesotans are facing a dilemma unlike other states where the solution is much more evident.

In 2001, Bill Clinton enacted regulations declaring 58 million acres of forest road less throughout the nation, including some 65,000, right here in Minnesota. Now, President Bush has dropped these protections and opened all of the previously guarded land up to logging, mining, and development.

Nearly a dozen other states are displeased with the new designation and in order to reinstate the road less status governors from each are petitioning to bring woodland conservation back to their states.

Among eco-conscious Minnesotans, this may seem like a natural response, however there is confusion over what would be the best plan of action and accordance among unexpected groups.

Sean Werly, with Friends of the Boundry Waters Wilderness, warns that land previously unavailable is now up for the taking. "For instance the Echo Trail logging project, which plans to cut 16,000 acres on the edge of the wilderness," explains, Werly. "That is left vulnerable and open because of this new national policy."

Republicans are satisfied with the new designation and that is why many environmental groups are taking an unusual opinion on the issue. Although conservationists are not happy with the new management plan they are concerned what a petition might bring about. Many are advocating leaving whatever protections are left and not advising for the governor to petition the status. Werly explains that most of the other states seeking a petition have democratic governors who are expected to establish even more protection after investigating the issue. However, environmentalists fear that reopening the issue could in fact result in less protection. Governor Pawlenty has requested an investigation be made by the state’s Forest Resources Council, on which sit environmentalists but also representatives from the timber industry, in order to recommend a petition or not.

Conservationists with Common Sense, based out of Ely, typically oppose positions taken by Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, but this time they are in unusual agreement. Nancy McReady describes the situation as a can of worms they don’t want to stir. The group fears that land still protected after the repeal would be opened up and that land currently available would be off limits.

Shawn Perich, an outdoor writer and member of the Forest Resources Council, states that
there are restrictions in place, protecting some of the land that had previously been deemed road less. But these are associated with the Superior and Chippewa Land Management Plans that are not as effective as stricter policies, however he doesn’t feel the road less act would compensate for there shortcomings.
In my opinion Minnesota should have the best interest of the forest in mind. Where other states can immediately retaliate the weakened protection, I feel it is too uncertain a gain for a petition to be filed. The Forest Resources Council is not expected to recommend a petition and it seems that is probably the best decision for all involved. Perhaps in the future the current land management plan can be reinvestigated and strengthened to preserve the value and integrity of our priceless wilderness. Until then it seems that Minnesota should stick with whatever protections have been left.

Posted by Brook Emerson at 09:30 AM | Comments (0)

Should Minnesotas Forests Be Deemed Road Less Once Again?

Among eco-conscious Minnesotans, this may seem like a natural response, however there is confusion over what would be the best plan of action and accordance among unexpected groups.

Posted by Brook Emerson at 09:30 AM | Comments (0)

How we should go about feeding our world population

How population is growing very fast, I do beleive we have enough good to feed our world population, but we go about it the wrong way According to the agriculture.tusk web site the world population should be about 8.3 billion in 2025. I believe if the world food supply if distributed evenly everybody will be okay, but there are countries that get more food than our third world countries like Asia and Africa for example. According to the article if the Third World countries attempted to obtain 30% of their calories from animal’s products- as in the USA and other countries a world population of only 2.6 billion people could have been sustained. They also believe that if these third world countries diets improve the food demand could increase by 100 percent- to above 9 billion gross tons-over 35 years period.
Plant products constituted 93% of the human diet, with about 30 crops species providing most of the world’s calories and protein, including eight species of cereals, which collectively accounted for 66% of the world food supply. Base of the food production chat this article gave, our food product is mainly increase in percent. We have the food; I just don’t think we know how to divide it up. You will think countries with more people will get more food, but it doesn’t work like that.
Being raise in a third world country myself at a young age, I don’t believe they should blame the food problem on third world countries. Yes third world countries are more populated that USA or Canada, but I believe Canada and USA get more of the food supplies than these third world countries and these countries have more people in their population. They need to divide the food equally and stop worrying about third world countries dieting. I believe USA diet and stay fit and skin and health, but Some third world countries like Africa for example believe big is beautiful we don’t worry too much about being skin and fit, we enjoy the food that natural have provide for us.

Posted by Amanda Amarteifio at 09:27 AM | Comments (0)

Bush + Greenhouse Gases= true love?

President Bush just signed an agreement with several other energy companies, to construct a coal burning power plant that does not produce any emissions. Environmentalists and several others have criticized the plans for this power plant, saying that is merely a distraction from the emission cuts put in place by the Kyoto Protocol. The United States produces the most harmful emissions into the atmosphere, and we are the ones trying to side-step every amendment and new policy created in regards to emission control. The Bush administration also still tries to deny the link between greenhouse gases and global warming.

There is only so much other nations and senators can do to convince the public and the President of the harmfulness of these emissions. Of course there are things individuals can do like, car-pooling, or riding a bike; buying hybrid cars that produce less carbon-dioxide emissions or urging your senators to make a change in the current policy. There needs to be a push for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in the US. The question is, who is going to lead that push? There are only a few Republican’s speaking out against the President about this issue. Democrats need to step up, and spark a change.
The prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin is directly targeting the US for many of the problems Canadian Inuit’s are facing with the changing global climate. "To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say this: There is such a thing as a global conscience," Martin said. "And now is the time to listen to it." Here’s a newsflash to the US—this problem is not going away, and the longer Bush puts this issue on the back burner, the more other nations, and Americans are going to notice what he’s NOT doing.

I read a few articles by Andrew Revkin, from the New York Times.

Posted by Anna Racer at 08:55 AM | Comments (0)

U.S. says “No Thanks” to Global Climate Talks

The Bush administration has chosen not to enter the United Nations Climate Change Conference. The goal of the conference is to form an international pact which is hoped will reduce green house emissions drastically and help prevent the predicted chaos that can come from global warming. More than 180 countries are involved in the conference and the Bush administration is receiving some heavy flak from foreign nations.

The Bush administration has reasons for their decision. One, they believe that there is no “one size fits” all solution to the problem. They believe that by independently investing large sums of money into cleaner technology, they are doing their part. Another reason is that the cost of reducing emissions under an international pact could be severely detrimental to the U.S. economy.

There is no doubt that this is a very tricky situation. Global warming is a serious concern, and must be confronted. However, no matter how severe the problem is there are other factors that must be considered, first and foremost the economy. The U.S.’s economy is fragile enough as it is. With so much money going into the Iraq war, I find it understandable that the Bush administration would be weary of committing to such a potentially costly agreement. It is their job to think of here and now as well as the future. The counter argument to this is obvious. The Earth does not belong only to America. In fact, we share it with approximately 6,181,417,603 (www.geohive.com) other people. We are also the world’s leading green house gas emitter, coming in at 21% (Year 2000) of worldwide emissions. It is understandable that other countries tend to get angry when we refuse to participate in these talks, especially since we are the #1 culprit.

This is a problem that is not going to go away. In fact, if global warming continues as many have predicted, we are going to be hearing more and more about this familiar subject. Unfortunately it is also one of the more difficult problems people will have to face. Where does one find a balance between what is good for the nation and what is good for everyone? Is the risk of putting our economy in danger worth it? I personally think it is. I also don’t want the nation to go into a severe recession, much less a depression. I also enjoy paying taxes as much as the next person. In the end, I try to keep one thing in mind. What kind of a world do I want to leave for my children, my children’s children, and so on and so forth? I know it is clichéd, and I know it is sappy. I don’t care, it is relevant. Unfortunately it is a never ending circle of difficult decisions. Do I want to leave my children with a nation that is economically strong and secure, or a country that is not so great but a planet that is healthier? It’s times like these I wish I could see into the future. What will really happen if we don’t do enough to ebb global warming? That is a question I wish I could see with my own two eyes. Sooner or later we will have the answer. Maybe we will do what is right, and maybe we won’t. One can only hope.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_re_ca/canada_climate_change;_ylt=AslUcQ3DiowaqFmMRE20HbRvieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051208/sc_nm/environment_climate_deadlock_dc_8;_ylt=AttHOl23wintE_zHifV40lVxieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

http://www.geohive.com/

Posted by Zachary Nichols at 04:36 AM | Comments (0)

Solving Water Contamination in Developing Nations

Information for this blog was taken from an NPR story which can be heard at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5043050
Water Pollution is one of U.S.’s major environmental and human health problems as well as one of the earliest problems of that nature to be addressed in national policy. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and Clean Water Act of 1977 attempted to resolve issues like lead poisoning and contamination of groundwater reservoirs, and have had fair success. In poor developing nations, however, far less concern has been shown for its citizen’s water safety needs. According to NPR, “At least a billion people worldwide drink water that has been contaminated. It contains bacteria, viruses, parasites, and sometimes chemical pollutants.” Most of these people must dig their own wells to get water that will not be treated for these harmful contaminants. I believe that industrialized nations like the U.S. should give much financial and technological aid to these people and it is one of the U.N.’s basic goals to resolve water shortages and safety. Resolving this issue has been slow, though, due to the high cost of water treatment. So how can this safe drinking water be balanced with cost?
One proposal is that communities lacking safe water resources import water from other countries, which many already do. But as John Hamilton of NPR says about one El Salvador family, “The family paid for bottled water. They got by on just ten gallons a week–but [the family] says even that was too expensive.” When such little water can be afforded, obviously water importing cannot be the only solution. In addition, water exporting will only decrease as water resources are exhausted–some nations have even set policies against it. According to William Cunningham, author of our class textbook, Environmental Science, in 1999, even the government of the water-rich nation of Canada “passed federal legislation banning any bulk water export.”
Another, and probably more practical, proposal is that the communities be taught how to manage water filtration and purification. One advocate of this proposal, Will Howie, works for a Tennessee group, “Living Waters,” that trains people how to manage this apparently difficult task for only a “penny a gallon.” This proposal is perfect for some water-poor people, but depends on their location. Water contaminants like ozone can be removed by this cost-efficient method taught by Living Waters, but not all. Many communities like those on the Yucatan Peninsula must deal with high calcium and salt levels that clog filters or contaminate water, respectively. Living Waters has developed a systems involving water softeners and advanced filters to deal with these additional chemicals and can cost a community only a couple thousand dollars. For large urban communities this, again, seems to be a perfects proposal, but for rural people, these systems will be too expensive. In this case, the Bio-sand Filter, costing only about 50 dollars, appears to be most appropriate. In this filter system, sand filters out bacteria and parasites in the water, bringing it to the top layer of the sand where it will die within a week.
As John Hamilton said, “No single solution works everywhere.” For some, purchasing water from other countries will be more simple and cost-efficient to purifying their own water. For most others, filtering systems to purify water will be best, but will often depend upon whether the people are in rural or urban areas and what and how concentrated the contaminants are in the water. In summation, a diversified program for solving water shortages and pollution in poor nations will help reduce water costs to their people.

Posted by Joe Norcross at 02:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Discovery of Deep-Sea Vents May Severly Impact Marine Ecosystems

On December 7th, 2005 USA Today released an article which may completely change the way in which we view the oceanic environment. Previously, scientists hypothesized that deep-sea volcanic vents were extremely rare. However, in the past few months, researchers studying deep-sea vents found that “You can go anywhere in the world’s oceans and find these vents.” These vents provide chemical discharge while also providing an ecosystem for the “extremeophile” creatures living there. The chemical discharge made of iron, copper, zinc and large amounts of silver and gold are estimated to be heated to about 752 degrees and are located in extremely high pressure areas of the oceans. The creatures living in these ecosystems include sea worms, shrimp, and crabs which store energy from the “chemicals discharged from the Earth’s interior rather than from the sun. Scientists have found six undersea ecosystems involving deep-sea vents, however, only about 10% of deep-sea mountain chains have been discovered, leaving many more ecosystems to be explored.

Although I was originally extremely excited about this new marine information, I soon became aware of the negative aspects of undersea exploration. While discovering deep-sea vents is exhilarating, it seems to be a matter of time before humans tamper with the discovery. Not only are humans curious about undiscovered ecosystems, but they have found elements in the vent discharge that are in high demand worldwide. Silver, gold, copper and iron are utilized in many forms: jewelry, buildings, appliances, etc. Now that researchers have discovered an additional source of these highly demanded natural resources, one can only wonder if the ecosystems in the deep-sea vents are truly safe from tampering, even at hundreds of feet below sea-level. In my opinion, it seems to only be a matter of time before these ecosystems begin to fade, as well as many other marine ecosystems.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-12-07-ocean-vents_x.htm

Posted by Marjorie Grossman at 01:34 AM | Comments (0)

South-to-North Diversion Project

In Beijing, water resource management is a large issue facing the seat of the world’s largest economy. In Beijing water is being pumped and used faster than it can be replaced. Beijing is situated in Northern China near the Yellow River, which is an important source of water for the city. However, the demand for water is greater than what the Yellow River can provide. As a result, the government plans to redirect water from the South to the North, utilizing the Yangtze River. This isn’t the only project that plans to manipulate this river; The Three Gorges Dam is a controversial project already near completion on the Yangtze. The Dam was designed to allow large ocean freighters to travel farther inland, bringing along a new economic market and providing additional electricity for China. However, opponents argue that the relocation of over 1 million people, the flooding of their homes and the environmental impacts of the project outweigh any benefits. The South-to-North Water Diversion Project costs an estimated 58 billion dollars, twice as much as the Three Gorges Dam. The project will be made of three canal systems pumping the water towards the North, in some cases over mountains. Two of the canal paths have already begun construction. According to Water-Technology.net, the system is expected to move 44.8 million cubic meters of water annually by 2008. This flux of water is much needed in China. As reported in William Cunningham’s “Environmental Science – A Global Concern”, “400 of the country’s 670 large cities lack sufficient water. Farmers have rioted over scarce supplies and more than half of the population drinks contaminated water. Desperate rural conditions have increased migration to major cities, where rapidly growing populations increase pressure on scarce water resources.”

Despite the fact that the Diversion Project will bring water to thirsty parts of China, many disadvantages emerge. Some argue that even if the water is brought to North, it will be polluted water. The new routes flow through industrial areas of China which threaten to discharge a significant amount of waste and pollutants into the water. Some worry that the water will be so polluted that it will not be viable for drinking, or even fishing. Another important issue brought up by the textbook is the impact of changing the river’s natural path. Ecosystems will be altered, as some will receive less water than they naturally do, and some will receive more. Changing the water and its flow in the environment will then cause a change in the plant and animal species that occur in the area. This aspect isn’t given as much attention as it should and the economic benefits are often considered more important. The project could potentially alter the climate of Eastern China because of the change in land cover.
I feel that since this project it so large, it has the potential to provide great advantages, and disadvantages. There is not doubt that something needs to be done about the unfulfilled demand for water in the Northern region of China. However, the Chinese government should concentrate on its water treatment facilities. Even if the water is successfully moved north, it will be polluted and need to be treated extensively before it is of any use. Also, if waste water treatment facilities are made more efficient, they would more able to recycle the water already present and used in areas like Beijing. The government should first work on improving its water treatment facilities and distribution policies, and then invest in less ambitious projects to bring water to its citizens.

Posted by Mary Kemp at 12:30 AM | Comments (0)

Contoversial population control

I was reading an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, volume 353, number 11, September 15, 2005 about the one child policy in China. It is both an interesting an controversial way to reduce population.
In the late 1970’s the Chinese government decided to implement a one child policy to help combat an out of control population growth. According to our textbook, China’s population in 2002 was 1,281 million people. The government says not only is the one child policy in place to reduce population, it will ultimately ensure a better quality of life and economic reform. Overall this policy has prevented 250 million births since its implementation in 1980.
I believe the one child policy in China infringes on the basic human rights we should be guaranteed from the government. Boys are much more valued on Chinese culture then girls, therefore when families have female children they are unwanted and discarded. There is major infanticide in China, there is also a phenomenon in China of sex-selective abortions. If women find out they will be having a female child they are more likely to have an abortion or choose to refrain from professional help.
One outcome of the one child policy is a huge increase in the ratio of boys to girls. According to the New England Journal of Medicine the ration of boys to girls is 116:100, this is much higher than the normal ratio. This leads to men being unable to find a woman to marry and start a family with. It also leads to an increase in the kidnapping of women for the use of arranged marriages and sex slaves.
Although there are major drawbacks from the one child policy there are also some positive consequences. It did help to slow the rate of population increase, decreased the average size of families in China from 2.9 children per family to 1.9 children. It also allows families to concentrate all of their economic resources and attention on their child.
Overall after studying this policy I have come to the conclusion that this policy has too many implications to be good for the society as a whole. I believe this policy should be revoked. I think instead of this policy there should be education and contraception to teach people how to control their family size and teach them that smaller families can be more beneficial than larger ones.

Posted by Elizabeth Spencer at 12:10 AM | Comments (0)

December 07, 2005

Bovine Flatulence: Not as funny Now

Most people when you mention “Bovine Flatulence” usually just laugh. They don’t realize that it is a real problem. Cows and other livestock produce 14% of the Methane released into the environment, the rest comes from dumps and other waste sites. Recently scientists have realized the need to produce a diet for cows that doesn’t produce as much methane. Because the methane produced is a contributor to the Greenhouse Effect, and therefore in order to slow it down we have to reduce all aspects that contribute to it. Recently scientists have developed a new diet consisting of fumaric acid. A 12-month study has recently started and it expected to be released next December. It has been agreed that we must continue to study the effects that bovine flatulence has, but the study of the effect that other organisms have on methane percentages have not been studied. The New Zealand Government proposed flatulence tax in 2003, but it was later disregarded after many protests. A major reason it was disregarded was because it is an organic by product, and if taxes and other livestock is taxed, what’s stopping the government from putting a flatulence tax on humans? I feel that all aspects of this dilemma have to be studied in order to understand the effects that all organisms have on methane’s role in the Greenhouse Effect.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051201/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_environment_cows_methane
http://www.outofthinair.homestead.com/flatulence.html

Posted by Adam Krieger at 11:26 PM | Comments (0)

Melting Glaciers In Europe=Bad For Skiing

Skiing’s future in Europe is shaky. Ski areas in the Alps are feeling the wrath of global warming especially hard. In Andermatt Switzerland a glacier in the ski area “has been melting for 15 years, retreating about 65 feet so far” according to the December issue of SKI. European skiing is especially venerable because of the low elevations that the resorts are at. In Europe it is not uncommon to have the base of the ski area at about 2,000 feet. While in the United States the bases of most western resorts are at about 7,000 feet. The bases of a lot of European ski areas are becoming bare earlier in the year and skiers have to be transported down by lift after a day of skiing at higher elevations. A United Nations study examining the future of skiing found that in Austria the snow line could rise 650 to 1,000 feet in as little as thirty years. Although global warming is a proven fact the cause is “somewhat” of a debate. Most scientists agree that the cause is increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused by human combustion of fossil fuels. Some however believe the culprit leis in natural fluctuations of the sun and our earth. Carbon dioxide is the most likely cause however, because it is a known greenhouse gas and the levels have been raising enough to extrapolate a correlation between rising temperatures and carbon dioxide. As a result ski resorts have to become more creative in order to save their snow. In Gemsstock scientists have wrapped 3,000 square feet of a glacier in a blanket to slow the melting in the summer. Another approach many areas are taking is to become more energy efficient and to encourage reusable resources that do not release carbon dioxide. Already some areas are cutting loses and planning on moving their lodges and rooms up the mountain in order to move back above the snow line. Global warming from carbon dioxide could result in many of today’s best European ski areas to become unskiable in the not so distant future. Skiing is far more important in the Alps than it is in the United States for instance Austria could lose $1.6 billion if global warming continues and makes ski areas move. Global warming needs to be curbed in order to save the sport of skiing in Europe. This can be done by consuming less in all countries and by using non fossil fuel energy sources like nuclear power.

Posted by William Quinn at 11:22 PM | Comments (0)

Destruction Without A Cause

Island natives on the island of Flores’ have detailed legends that mention small people that they call Ebu Gogo. These little people are about one meter tall and murmur to each other in some strange language. However, they were also able to repeat what islanders said to them much like a human and a parrot. These people however have not been seen since one hundred years ago and doubt has existed over if they are just legend or not. But 12,000 years ago a volcano erupted causing over half of the island’s unique wildlife to disappear. However, in 2004 a small scull the size of a large grapefruit was found on the island. At first researchers thought it was a child, however, tests proved that is was a woman some 18,000 years old. Six others have been found since along with tools and such. All specimens have long arms, perhaps to live in trees with young because of the threat of Komodo dragons. These remains are not fossilized so DNA still might be able to be retrieved.

This poses a problem. Since many people believe that these could be a small civilization of “leprechauns” many researchers would like to enter the dense virgin forests in search of these mythical people. This could cause many potential problems because paths would need to be made to enter the forests. Besides the obvious problems with deforestation, what would happen if these people were actually found? They are a different species than humans so the potential dangers of this could be gigantic. Not only would we have to deal with a species we have no information on, what would we do? Send them in for research? Would we be able to communicate with them? The potential of a whole species becoming extinct because of disease could also pose a problem.

So should we go in search of these “people” or leave them alone. I believe we should just leave them alone if they are there. Who knows if they still exist or not and if they do they have obviously been able to hide from modern civilization for hundreds of years and I’m sure they will be able to do so for many more. People go in search of big foot and Nelly the Loch Ness monster is this realistic? If these things do exist and haven’t been found yet then they deserve to be kept unknown. A six foot river otter was found in the Amazon Rainforest not too long ago by accident, I feel that these things are meant to be discovered when appropriate. If causing a whole island to be deforested to find a species that might not even exist then what is the point? The environmental cost of such a project could be devastating to the current islanders as well as the native animals and perhaps the mythical people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/

Posted by Sadie Schuldt at 11:08 PM | Comments (0)

Minnesota Climate Change

According to “Global Warming and Climate Change”, Minnesota’s average temperature has risen almost 1°F in the past century. Humans are causing climate warming (global warming) in Minnesota, and it is a problem because it has caused: an increase in minimum temperatures, an increase in precipitation, warmer winters, loss of species, and poor air and water quality. Minnesota’s climate warming in is a result of human activities that cause the emissions of greenhouse gasses, (CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, and CFCs) that is primarily from CO2. According to the Minnesota pollution control, the main sources of CO2 emissions in Minnesota are from the burning of fossil fuels (about 80% [coal, gas, and oil]), disforestation, and transportation. “Global Climate Change” states that, roughly 10% of CO2 emissions in Minnesota are associated with agricultural nutrient management, and about 7% are from livestock production. Although it has been proven that humans cause climate change some scientists do not agree. According to “Myths of Global Warming,” global warming is not a problem nor are humans the cause of it; because the theories are weak because of the lack of evidence. Richard Karr he reports, “Expert opinion [has] just got much more certain that humans are driving the planetary fever [global warming] of recent decades”. Minnesota has set up several programs and mandates that reduce the amount of CO2 emitted. There are also many actions people can take as individually to reduce CO2 emissions, some of these include: reducing your home energy use, buying fuel efficient vehicles, and by finding alternate forms of transportation like, riding the bus, carpooling, biking, and walking. I personally plan on reducing the amount of driving by walking, biking, and carpooling. I will also make an effort to turn off lights in my house when I am not using them or I am done using them, to try and reduce climate warming in Minnesota.

Burnett, Sterling H. "Myths of Global Warming." National Center for Policy Analysis. 23 May 1997. 16 Nov. 2005 .
"Global Warming and Climate Change in Minnesota." Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Nov. 2003. 17 Nov. 2005 .
Kerr, Richard A. "It's Official: Humans Are Behind Most of Global Warming." Science 291 (2001): 1-2. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO Host. 16 Nov. 2005.
Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control. Global Climate Change. 16 Feb. 2001. 16 Nov. 2005

Posted by Kelsey Poss at 11:02 PM | Comments (0)

Pig Manure Converted to Crude Oil

yes yes.. new source of fuel... ....pig manure....

Crude oil and gasoline prices are near an all-time high. But don't despair. One scientist has found an alternative source of energy: pig manure.

Yuanhui Zhang, an agricultural engineering professor at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, has succeeded in turning small batches of hog waste into oil. The process, called thermochemical conversion, uses heat and pressure to break down carbohydrate materials and turn waste into liquid. The project is still in its infancy. Each half-gallon batch of manure converts to only about 9 ounces of oil. But Zhang believes the conversion process could eventually solve the problem of pollution and odor at modern hog farms, where farmers pay big money to get rid of the waste. And, he says, pig oil could also offer an alternative to petroleum oil.
"If 50 percent of U.S. swine farms adopted this technology, we could see a 1.5-billion-dollar reduction in crude oil imports every year," Zhang said. "And swine producers could see a 10 percent increase in their income, about $10 to $15 per hog." Zhang's research team developed a small-scale thermochemical conversion reactor that applies heat and pressure to swine manure. The process breaks the manure's long hydrocarbon chains down into shorter ones. Methane, carbon dioxide, water, and oil are produced as by-products.

Each conversion takes about 15 minutes, and the process has a strong energy return. "For every one portion of energy in, you get three portions of energy out," Zhang said.

The process could also work with manure from chickens or cows, though it would have to modified. Human waste, which is similar to that of pigs, would, in theory, work well in Zhang's system with little or no modification. Researchers took the crude oil and further processed it, obtaining refined oil that Zhang says has a heating value similar to that of diesel fuel.

In an environmental perspective, minerals are preserved in the treatment system, odor is reduced, and the biological oxygen demand of manure is reduced by 70 percent. "For me, it's primarily an environmental thing," Zhang said. "We have to look to renewable or alternative energy. We know that eventually we can't keep digging up petroleum oil."

I haven't heard anything about this at all on TV, but this alternative source of fuel other than petroleum is great. I couldn't find anything on how much pig manure is needed to run a car or light a home for a full day, other than that piece of information, it sounds like a great way to be more independent on gasoline or petroluem. Its said to be environmentally friendly, economically benefitcial , and also it said to be just as efficient as crude oil. It sounds too good to be true. Hopefully this research on pig manure or any other research on alternative fuel sources would be implemented soon, so that it we would benefit environmentally, economically, and efficiently.

reference: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0701_040702_pigoil.html

want to learn more on other alternative fuel sources??..
Turkey Fuel? Factory to Turn Guts Into Crude Oil: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_turkeyoil.html

Vegetable Oil—The New Fuel?: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0422_030422_veggiefuels.html

Posted by Steve Wang at 09:56 PM | Comments (0)

Biofuels; The Way of the Future

One of the largest political issues that we face today is our dependency on foreign oil. What if we could supply our entire fuel need domestically? Many people would say that we do not have the resources to do so but all we have to do is turn to farmers. One may ask how would farmers help with the aquisition and consumption of fossil fuels. The article Move Over, Gasoline: Here Come Biofuels would argue that biofuels and biomass are our answer to energy dependence. According to this source the United States would not only be creating three times as much fuel than we import, we also would cut down carbon emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year. Not only would using biofuel cut down our dependence on foreign oil, it would help us with the issue of global climate change.The benifits go on, there would be an increased demand for farmers since there would be so much fuel in demand. There doesn't seem like there are any problems with biofuel so why is it not being used right now?
Opponents of biofuel argue that it is much less efficient than gasoline and that it cost more. This is true at the moment. If the government subsidized and gave research money for biofuels they would not only become cheaper they would become more efficient and more easily made. Since biofuels are made with only the kernels of and not from a whole plant it is hard to make mass amounts of biofuels. But if a plant called switchgrass was used we could make the entire plant into fuel. This plant would allow the U.S. to create enough fuel to quench our energy thirst.
There is also the problem that runnoff and soil erosion would increase because more cropland would be used. If the plant that I mentioned before(switchgrass) was used instead of corn the runoff and erosion would not be a problem. Switchgrass does not erode the soil as much as corn and has very low nitrogen runoff.
As of today biofuels could not be used as our main source of energy but if our government began to invest in them it could solve national issues and create many jobs. The problem is that since we are so dependent on gasoline we will not even think about using an alternate fuel source. Things that could be done are give incentives for using biofuel and making standards for cars to create only a certain amount of emissions. Until our country begins to relize the potential of biofuels we will stay in this habit of using a dirty expensive energy source

NRDC "Move Over, Gasoline: Here Come Biofuels" Dec. 2005
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/biofuels.asp

Posted by Brian Beck at 09:49 PM | Comments (0)

Now stepping up to the plate...New York

In an article in the New York Times, anounced that New York is now adopting similar measures to that of California to cut car emissions. This announcement means that New York will now require all automobiles to be more fuel efficient and emit less greenhouse gasses. The automotive industry however is not taking these new laws sitting down and they are filing law suits against both California and New York and any other state that would follow suit. The auto industry argues that it will hurt sales, inhibit the availability of SUV's, vans, and other high performance engines, it will also cause the prices of automobiles to rise.

In another article that I read in the Star Tribunal that compared Japanese car companies to American car companies. This article mainly focused on the fact that the Japanese companies focused and invested in the future, whereas American companies played on the whims of the market and mass producing SUVs and big trucks. In fact American companies laughed at the fact that the Japanese were underselling their hybrids, a technology that nobody thought would make it off the ground. And now the market has switched to favoring better gas mileage, and more hybrids which Japanese have cornered. American companies are losing out because of their lack of forsight.

The point is that these new laws being instated by New York and California may not be so detrimental to the American Auto industry as they may claim. They just need to invest in the future and the future is alternative fueled cars, and hybrids. So instead of wasting so much time, energy, resources, and money on fighting these laws American auto industries should take this as a sign to invest in the future.

Posted by Jake Soika at 09:42 PM | Comments (0)

Integrated Pest Management

We had a section in our book a while ago that covered Integrated Pest Management and at the time I was so impacted by how finite our current methods are and what promise IPM holds. I think one of the most dramatic aspects of the subject is the exponential growth of insect species since we started using pesticides in the 1940's. We are creating a huge monster that we will not be able to control in the future. Farmers are forced to use ever increasing doses and more toxic chemicals to control pests. I'm sure that when we started using pesticides we had no idea the consequences, the envrionment is extremely dynamic and responsive, a point well illustrated in a quote from John Muir stating " When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it is hitched to everything else in the universe.".

Now that we are on the otherside, and can see the harm and misuse of pesticides, we must respond responsibly. Pesticides are clearly a nonrenewable resource, of wihich we must use sparingly, and as a last resort. Pesticides have a negative effect in that application procedures puts only 10-25% of pesticides onto the target species. The rest is damaging and killing the other species who might be keeping the population under control. As soon as the predators are gone, the suvivors of the prey are left to flourish unheeded into a chemically resistant population.

This is a vicious cycle that needs to stop. IPM has been used successfully in many developing countries. Cuba has gone almost completely organic in thier farming practices. In Indonesia, our worst fear came true in that the main pest to their rice crops became resistant to almost every insecticide out there. They were desperate to protect their independence on the crop, so the president took drastic measures. He banned 56/57 pesticides, and set up a crash course on the dangers of pesticides and the processes of IPM to farmers. They were able to cut pesticide use by 75%. The extremely complelling evidence though, is that even though IPM is a more sustainable, envrionmentally friendly method, it does not hinder profit. The Indonesian farmers only had to spend 2.5 rupiah compared to 7.5, while the government also only had to pay 2.5 rupiah compared to 27.5. On top of costing less, the IPM system produced 7.5 tons of rice compared to only 6 tons with the old syslem.

We need to educate farmers on not only the ecological benefits of more sustainable practices, but that it pads their bottom line as well. In every example we have looked at in class, the up front cost may be more, but the profit is always greater in the end for the sustainable method.

This is an issue that effects us all and needs to be addressed. There are many harmful health effects to humans from pesticides besides just the harm to the environment. If we want there to be a future, its clear that we need to return to our past.

Posted by Lindsey Hatz at 09:29 PM | Comments (0)

Disease Control

I recently read an article in the Pioneer Press regarding the Web-based National Data Electronic Surveillance System. This system tracks infectious diseases and also serves as a communication center as states can interact with one another on these issues. Minnesota is currently one of 23 states that does not yet use this system (Pioneer Press). The states without this system could experience “serious delays in identifying and responding to disease outbreaks” according to the report from the Trust for America's Health. When a serious health problem has occurred I believe that a system like this one is not only necessary, but should be required by states to have. "You can't have something happen at the border of Minnesota, and Wisconsin doesn't know about it because (their reporting systems) can't communicate," said Shelley Hearne, the executive director of this surveillance system (Pioneer Press). I think this point should be taken very seriously and is the main reason why we, as a state, should not compromise on this matter.

Currently there are mixed feelings about whether or not this system is immediately needed for our state. "I would still put our surveillance system … up against any other state," said Aggie Leitheiser, director of the state Health Department's office of emergency preparedness (Pioneer Press). Aggie makes a strong point here, but I believe she doesn’t address the main matter at hand, which is state-to-state communication. Our current system may do an adequate job of reporting things to the government, but the fact of the matter is that the states surrounding us are the ones most immediately affected, and they need to know as soon as possible.
I feel that the Web-based National Data Electronic Surveillance System is one that needs to be acquired as soon as possible by the state of Minnesota. With current scares like the avian flu coming into the picture, an immediate form of communication between states is essential. Minnesota needs to adopt this system before any unforeseen breakouts spread to other areas, when a system like this one could prevent this from happening.

Posted by Jesse Tannuzzo at 08:56 PM | Comments (0)

pigs taste good, but they smell bad

The struggle between new and big vs. old and small is getting more and more apparent everyday. In Weickowice, Poland, hi-tech pig farming companies are moving in on the small pig farmers, buying them out and giving them jobs. This may sound like an evil corporation destroying local workers, but it is not the total story. The companies are only there because the farmers want them there, so they can be more successful and move out of the low income pig farming. With this view, it may seem like it is a good thing, but people forget that the external costs are high for other people in the town. "We are very afraid for our health. Sometimes the smell is so bad that the local bus will not stop in our village." Said Edmund Pawolek, a villager of the town. The costs external costs of hi-tech pig farming are high. Not only the aesthetic value of the smell, but toxins from the pig waste can cause disease. As well, all the antibiotics that are used in the farming causes disease resistance, which can be hazardous because people and other animals will not be able to resist the strengthened diseases. Both sides of the argument have good points, but I think that because of the extremely high external costs to the rest of the people in the town, the needs of the few farmers should be limited to the benefit the needs of the many. Maybe the hi-tech pig farmers could house fewer pigs on their farms, or devote more money to the smell control as well as the waste control. The thing is that all alterations should lay on the farmers or the company that employees them, because the townsfolk should not have to pay for the problems that farmers caused.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4035081.stm

Posted by John Krueger at 07:58 PM | Comments (0)

The Kyoto Protocol can finally become reality

A landmark conference is underway in Montreal, Canada. The United Nations Climate Change Conference brings together leaders and governmental figureheads from 190 countries worldwide. The conference main goal is to agree on further international on battling greenhouse gas emissions.
There are several key issues that are being discussed at this conference. There has been an obvious change in climate, the ten hottest years on record have happened since 1991 (Friends of the Earth International, 2005). Only 36 countries have bound themselves and are determined to meet the targets set forth by the Kyoto Protocols. This is good but the targets need to increase in order for the protocol to be effective. More countries, including the United States, need to commit themselves to the Protocol. Developing countries like China and India should be allowed to join as soon as possible and plans are to be drawn up to help developing countries adapt to climate change.
What is interesting is that many of the largest industrialized countries like the U.S., Japan and Russia are requesting money from the financial adaptation fund (FAF). The FAF was set up to help the least developed countries who are suffering consequences of problems that they did not cause.
The Kyoto Protocol is the framework that was adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Kyoto Protocol commits 38 countries to cut their emissions of greenhouse gasses between 2008 and 2012 to levels that are 5.2% below 1990 levels (UNFCCC, 2005). Countries like Russia and the U.S. pulled out of the conference therefore stalling the treaty.
The biggest problem is that in order for the Protocol to be adopted and ratified by the United Nations 55 countries with at least 55% of the greenhouse gas emissions must sign. At this point the U.S. and Australia are the only 2 countries that have not signed on. With the ratification of Russia with 17.5% of CO2 emissions the Kyoto Protocol will finally be able to commence (UNFCCC, 2005).
The United States should be forced to sign the Kyoto Protocol treaty. We have 36% percent of CO2 emissions has a moral obligation to join because we have seen first hand the devastation cause by climate change made evident by hurricane Katrina. However, I think that the United States is not going to sway from their firm opinion to not sign the treaty. I think that the major leaders should focus not on recruiting the U.S. but completing the work at hand without U.S. participation.
Sources:
http://www.foei.org/media/2005/1207.html
http://www.foei.org/media/2005/1203.html
http://www.foei.org/media/2005/1128.html
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
http://www.cop3.org/facts_and_figures.htm
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php

Posted by Nicholas Saumweber at 07:37 PM | Comments (0)

Wind Power: An energy source for the future

After reading chapter 20 in our textbook and listening to the lecture on sustainable energy, I started thinking about wind power. Based upon it's economic and environmental potential, wind power seems like a really exciting new energy source. As we see our sources of fossil fuel dwindle, it is imperative that we look into alternate sources of energy. Wind power is an environmentally friendly, economically stable, and efficient way to provide energy.

Wind power, according to our text book, is the fastest growing energy source in the world. It now exceeds 35,000 MW and has enough electricity to power 3.5 million American homes. Looking into the future, The World Meteorological Organization estimates that 20 million MW of wind power be developed economically world wide.

Wind energy is also relatively economically stable. The price at the outset is relatively high, but annual profits can be as much as $100,000 per turbine according to the American Wind Energy Association. Actually, The National Wind Technology Center says that wind farms are the cheapest source of new power. In many places they can cost as little as 3 cents/kWh. As compared the the 4 or 5 cents/kWh that coal costs, or the 7-10 cents/kWh that nuclear energy costs, this is very good.

Many people cite drawbacks and problems to wind power. One, quite obviously, is the availability of wind. This can be a problem, indeed, though if wind turbines are placed strategically in prairie biomes and (in some cases) out at sea, they can provide power for large areas. The National WInd Technology Center reports that the American West has proven to be an excellent place for wind turbines because of the large space and wind potential, but more densely populated and less windy areas in Europe have benefited from wind turbines that are placed offshore.

Another problem often cited is the aesthetics of the wind turbines. Some claim that they are not aesthetically pleasing. While this is a concern, I have to wonder whether those who find them distasteful would rather have the same environment degraded with more pollution, nuclear power plants, or hydroelectric dams. In the words of author Bill McKibben, "The choice is not between windmills and untouched nation. It's between windmills and the destruction of the planet's biology"

Wind power, in my opinion, is an excellent power source. I think that we, as citizens in the 21st century have a duty to work towards a sustainable future. Finding alternate sources of energy is crucial for a more environmentally sustainable future. Wind power is a good step in the direction of sustainability!

For more information please check out the American Wind Energy Association at www.awea.org, The British Energy Association at www.bwea.com, the National Wind Technology Center at www.nrel.gov/wind or simply look at chapter 20 of our textbook.

Posted by Caitlin Vaughan at 06:38 PM | Comments (1)

The U.S a Big Concern at Climate Conference

The United States is the world's biggest contributer of pollution gases into the atmosphere. At the climate conference, held in Montreal, Quebec, environmentalists have been deeply concerned with trying to get the U.S to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol was signed in 1997 and basically states that nations are to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses to levels 5.2 percent below their 1990 level. The U.S is being stubborn with the issue saying that the Kyoto Protocol would potentially cause the U.S economy to suffer and that there is a lack of restrictions on China and India because their economies are recently growing. To me, this sounds like a whiny little kid complaining that life isn't fair. We need to own up to our responsibilities as a world leader and set examples for the other countries. Instead of doing that President Bush has called for an 18 percent reducion of emissions from the current amount by 2012. He is also throwing $5 billion a year at science and technology with hopes that we can become more efficient. He believes that this a more reachable goal for the U.S. But other scientists have their concerns about this plan. Alden Meyer of the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists believes that the Bush administrations may be a potential mistake. He said, in a recent interview by the associated press, "[A]s Americans upgrade to more energy efficient factories, cars and appliances, the emissions of carbon dioxide will decline. But economic growth per capita -- without mandatory emissions caps -- means the United States would likely see a 30-percent hike in greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels by 2012. Other countries are concerened about the U.S's stance on emmisions. Canada's Environment Minister Stephane Dion said Monday that he would "welcome any idea" to get the United States on board. We cannot do without the Americans because they represent 25 percent of emissions, and an even greater percentage of the solution." With the greenhouse effect becomming more and more of a huge issue these days you would think that we would climb on-board along with nations in the U.N. and try to make sure there is a future that includes cleaner air. Apparently this isn't what the current administration belives. They are more concerened that our economy may be hurt. This is a rediculous reason for not being a part of the protocol. The U.S is so well off that we should be able to set aside our economic manifest destiny to secure a evironmentally safe future.

Posted by Peter Steensgard at 05:32 PM | Comments (0)

US wins pesticide exemption ban

A recent CNN.com article stated that the US won a pesticide exemption ban, which has actually been banned by an international treaty. The pesticide is methyl bromide which many farmers use as a pesticide for their crops. It basically stated that there was not another substitute that farmers could use and without the pesticide their crops and corresponding economic sector would suffer. The exemption was lobbied for by the agriculture and manufacturing industries which show where their interests lie.

Methyl bromide, as described in the article, is a very serious toxin. Workers who inhale much of the pesticide can experience convulsions, comas, neuromuscular and cognitive problems, and sometimes even death. Researchers, however, do not know what the effects are from long-term, low contact exposure. Some growers still believe that problems so not exist if the pesticide is used correctly. However, a few workers feel their bouts with headaches and vision problems are the result of working with the toxin and a community who suddenly became ill around the time the pesticide was being applied to local fields actually settled a suit with local fruit producer who used the pesticide. A school located near fields fumigated with methyl bromide had elevated levels of the toxin the school’s air. In fact, the American Association of Pesticide Control Centers had 395 reports of methyl bromide poisonings in the last six years.

There is a current conflict in whether farmers actually need this pesticide. A former user of the pesticide switched to organic farming. Even though she claims a smaller yield, higher crop rotation and intensive plant management costs, she also gets a price premium for her organic fruit. Another farmer in the area produces a small pesticide-free crop yield, but feels he would not be able to compete in the market if he switched to organic fruit only.

This article angered me. This pesticide has been banned internationally for obvious health reasons, yet the US feels they need to use it to grow their crops. A small amount of the actual pesticide stays on the crops and kills the pests. However, pesticides can seep into groundwater or other area waterways. People drink the water or eat the fish in the local streams with the pesticides. Pesticides can travel through the air to other places and people breathe the contaminated air.

The use of pesticides can be changed in many ways. If people are aware of the health risks of pesticides, they could lobby the government, instead of only agricultural and manufacturing interests vying for governmental recognition. Those who have had health problems related to the pesticides could educate others or take a stand themselves against pesticide use. I don’t think people know much about organic food to purchase it and also sometimes it costs more to buy. By increasing the amount of organic food at the same, or lower, price as treated food, consumers are given more choices. Subsidies or incentives for farmers to grow organic food would help initially offset the high costs of producing organic food, and perhaps more people would be willing to grow organic food. Again, teaching about the possible health effects of pesticide use may increase the demand for more organic food. Finally, funding research on finding alternatives to pesticides use is important to wean farmers off pesticides and provide them with suggestions for ways to grow their crops. Some research has focused on using mulch with or instead of methyl bromide with the plastic covering has actually been positive. The most important ways to achieve results are through education to consumers and a commitment by farmers and government officials.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/28/pesticide.politics.ap/index.html

Posted by Shannon Sellnow at 05:14 PM | Comments (0)

The cost of gold

I think anyone would choose to own a ring made of gold over a ring of steel. It is just well known that gold is valuable and is priced to reflect its higher value. Though they understand the increased value they do not understand why gold is so cotly. In class we dicussed how massive the amounts of waste are formed through the extraction of gold. It amazed me how much work went into retrieving and refining gold, and the lecture helped me respect and value it more. What I did not learn from class is what the cost of gold fully encompasses. Through an article in the Minnesota Daily entitled, "Film Triggers discussion over Choropampa Case," by Emma Carew, I was made aware of a very controversial issue facing the United States and Peru concerning gold. The problem lies within an accident that spilled over 150 kilograms of mercury, a byproduct of gold mining, near a village in Peru. The spill caused more than 300 people in the area to contract mercury poisoning. The inhabitants of the vilage are filing a lawsuit in the United States demanding retribution for the damages. This type of lawsuit has occured before but has never been successful. Brad Karkkainen, a professor of environmental law, said that if the case is won it will be the "first time foreign plaintiffs have been able to hold a U.S. based corporation responsible in U.S. courts for environmental harm." Not only does the mercury spill affect the people in the area, it also is detrimental to the environment. A government published fact sheet regarding mercury stated that mercury is, " Concentrations of Mercury in fish and wildlife are a risk to wildlife," and also explained how the accumulation of mercury thorugh the food chain results in many environmental problems. (1) The spill of mercury degraded the land by polluting it and harmed the people, so someone needs to bear the cost of the problem.This event raises an important issue, is gold worth the cost both economically, environmentally, and socially, and also who should pay for these added problems? I thought those questions corresponded well with our recent lecture on environmental problems and the question over whether to internalize the costs of those problems. Our pollution due to the extraction of gold harms the human needs of those who live in the area, so I think we should bear the cost of the results. An alternative view beleives that the country in which the problem occured should bear the burden of the results. Many countried in which we mine are not economically able to bear the cost of cleaning up pollution problems. The developing countries rely heavily on our mining and other natural resources for their economy, and thus have an increased dependance on us. We should not expect them to pay for the problems we induce in their country. I think the United States needs to pay for the mercury spill clean up and also for the medical problems it created for the local people. It is important to try and attribute to the reputability of our country and stand behind good business practices including admitting when we have created a problem and finding a way to fix it.

WORKS CITED:
1. United States. Geological Survey. Mercury in the Environment. October, 2000. 07 Dec. 2005. http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00/

Posted by Jessica Houlihan at 04:39 PM | Comments (0)

Kyoto Protocol

Montreal, Canada was very busy today with the United Nations Climate Change Conference. This conference was held in an effort to continue discussing the Kyoto Protocol and its effectiveness as well as gain more participants. Though 180 countries have signed on, many big carbon dioxide producers such as the United States and Australia have not, and for good reason. The Kyoto Protocol is not doing enough. By excluding undeveloped countries from having to sign and not asking for very much of a reduction from its participants, it is more of an economic burden without the environmental benefit. New legislation needs to be written asking for more reduction of carbon dioxide within all countries of the world, developing or not. If global warming continues at current rates, island nations could be taken by the sea as glaciers melt and raise seal levels, great numbers of people will be displaced, temperatures in higher latitudes will rise and fertile croplands could turn to deserts.

Though it is largely ineffective (in regards to reducing total emissions), the Protocol has accomplished the goal of raising awareness of the issue of global warming and beginning the necessary process of reduction in emissions. French President Jacques Chirac made a good summation of the need for greater efforts than the Kyoto Protocol during a video conference today. He said, “Even if scientific uncertainties remain, the accumulation of evidence, the visible changes to the environment, the multiplication of extreme (weather) events bear witness to a phenomenon that no one can seriously contest any longer." He followed this by asking the world to create a new protocol that would include all nations and would involve decreasing emissions 50% by 2050. This is the type of regulation we need in order to end the threat of global warming. The U.N. Climate Change Conference shows that the world recognizes the need and the responsibility we have to lower dangerous emissions that are heightening global warming. Global warming has the potential to cause great damage to many areas of the world. The Kyoto Protocol is a step in slowing this down, but is not practical. It needs to involve all of humanity and needs to require a much higher decrease in emissions in order to make a difference and help protect the planet and its people.

Posted by Carla Inderrieden at 03:42 PM | Comments (0)

Benefiting from this wind

One of the questions from the problem set we handed in the other day had to do with what we thought was which energy source would be most sustainable in Minnesota. You could make a case for almost any source, but why wouldn't wind, water, and sun be the most logical - and maybe most susatainable. We have water (10,000+ lakes), we have wind (as experienced in the past week), and we have sun (I think I remember seeing it). According to BP.com, their 22.5 megawatt wind farm in the Netherlands "provided sufficient clean electricity to power 20,000 homes and displaced some 20,000 tons of carbon dioxide" in its first tear of operation. Would it not be safe to assume that the same results could occur here in Minnesota with all of its flat land and open space, allowing wind to gust freely?

Posted by Christopher Harrington at 12:57 PM | Comments (0)

Whose Responsibility is Clean Water?

“Chemical spill in China poses potential threat to rare species living downriver” – 12/6 article in the Star Tribune

Who owns water? Who is responsible for cleaning up chemical spills in water? What happens if the polluted water is carried to another country? All these questions are coming into play after a chemical spill in China.

After an explosion at a chemical factory in China, a toxic benzene slick is headed down the Amur River towards Russia, says a 12/6 article in the Star Tribune (Associated Press). According to the Associated Press article, a river basin in the path of the spill is home to many animals: leopards, bears, musk deer, and numerous species of fish, as well as the species experts are most worried about: the Siberian tiger, one of the most endangered animals on the planet. Many of these rare cats live in the Wild Animals Rehabilitation Center located at the Sikhote-Alin Nature Monument in far eastern Russia. Though the tigers probably won’t be directly affected by the spill unless they drink from the river, they will probably be indirectly affected if they consume birds that have eaten fish from the Amur River, which is likely (Associated Press).

Many important and controversial issues play a role in this incident. Because the spill will not stay in one place in China and affect the people there, the Chinese are probably not as concerned about it as they would be had the spill stayed. The Russians did not cause the spill, but are now left with cleaning it up if China refuses to do so. Whose job is it to clean up a spill which happened in one country but traveled to another?

In my opinion, the spill should ideally be cleaned up by the Chinese. After all, it was caused by a factory located in China, and though it will probably not affect the Chinese people in a large way, it is therefore their responsibility. This sort of issue is incredibly controversial, and it is very easy to simply pin the blame and then not do anything. If we want a clean planet for future generations, I think that we need to establish more solid international laws and treaties surrounding environmental issues. If we develop an “everyone for their selves” type of policy, we won’t get very far when faced with dire environmental issues.

Posted by Brianna Parry at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

ANWR; are we willing to give it up?

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, consisting of 19.6 million acres of land located in the northeastern corner of Alaska, is one of the only land areas on American soil to remain almost untouched by the graples of our society. This area boasts a rich diversity of endemic habitat and wildlife, such as Dall Sheep, muskoxen, wolf, and wolverine. Coexisting with these animals and the habitat are the Gwich'in people who have lived in harmony with this area for hundreds of generations. The !.5 million acres of coastal plains of the ANWR, otherwise know as the 1002 area, is the most biologically productive part of the refuge, and is also highly rich in mineral resources such as crude oil. The richness in wildlife and mineral resources of this small area has brought about much controversy between environmentalist and our government on whether to drill or not to drill this area for oil. The governmental push to drill oil from our own land has become exceedingly a forerunner in congressional issues due to the rapid increase of oil demand in our country and the lack of supply coming from our various exporters. The jump in gas prices at the pump has given us as citizens a voice to even push government officials further in their choice to become less dependent on foreign oil companies which would enable the U.S to lower taxation on oil being used for gasoline. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has proposed a 95 percent probability of removing zero to 6 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the 1002 area. The only problem with this amount of estimated attainable oil (according to the National Wildlife Federation) in contrast to the estimated 7.1 billion barrels of oil that the U.S consumes annually, is it would only support the U.S on an average of six months. The question then that remains is whether the "serengeti beauty" of the ANWR area is worth giving up to only be destroyed by roads, human developement, driling riggs, and pipelines for a measly six months worth of oil. After the oil is removed, will this fragile biological heart ever return back to its rich ecosystem. Some researchers from the class text insist that further developing the fuel efficiency of automobiles around the country just a few more miles could save us more oil than the combined reserve of oil in the ANWR! All in all the ANWR area is one or our last pristine wilderness areas, but the compelling idea of drilling this area and removing our country from foriegn oil dependency is a controversy in itself. Where do we draw the line ethically. For as chief joseph once saidl, "Man did not weave the web of life-he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."

Posted by Hannah Gruber at 11:48 AM | Comments (0)

The irreversible consequences of hydropower.

As we have found from our discussions on sustainable energy, acquiring energy from these sources creates some problems. For instance, one way to harness hydroelectric power, is to dam a river and use the movement of water to generate energy. However, a negative consequence of this is the build up of sediment upstream of the damn and the lack of sediment after it. This is currently occurring on the Colorado River because of construction of the Glen Canyon Dam. The dam was constructed in the current location because the area upstream could hold a lot of water, and the bedrock was stable enough to support the structure. However, there has been opposition from the Sierra Club, and former senator, Barry Goldwater because of the flooding it would cause in lake Powell and future damage to the river.

The presence of the dam prevents sediment from traveling downstream, causing erosion of beaches and destruction of many habitats. As a result, the humpback chub, which lives in the deteriorating habitat, is in danger of extinction. There have been two (in 1996 and 2004) attempts to fix this problem by temporarily flooding the river to release the built up sediment and build up sandbars and beaches downstream. Despite high hopes, insufficient sediment was released and both the attempts failed. It was concluded that destroyed habitats such as this, can never be resorted to their natural state. So, perhaps generating energy from dams is not a good solution. John Schmidt, a geomorphologist, says that “Americans [need] to realize that they cannot have a huge power-generating dam and a natural river ecosystem.”

Contrary to what many believe, it seems renewable energy may not be sustainable after all. This situation shows there is irreversible damage that is being done to the ecosystem by a “better” method of producing energy. So there must be an assessment of what energy source will have the least environmental effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Canyon_Dam
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7064/pdf/438010a.pdf

Posted by Sarah Graves at 10:35 AM | Comments (0)

Motorized Recreation is degrading to the Environment

I firmly believe that most Americans have no idea how much our long term survival depends on the survival of our natural environment. Having said that, I think it's imperative that we (the government or interest groups etc.) build an awareness of any and all things or beings impacting our environment negatively. Certainly we allow the negative aspects of industries such as cattle and oil because they feed us and keep us warm. Should we allow the degradation of land and water for the sake of overgrown kids? In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court gave the following description of off-road vehicle use on federal land: Conflicts are occurring due to the recreational use of so-called off-road vehicles which include vehicles primarily designed for off-road use, such as light weight, four wheel "all-terrain" vehicles and vehicles capables of such use, such as sport utility vehicles. Some states include motorbikes, motorized watercraft, snowmobiles and certain aircraft.
Competing interests between those that would preserve the environment and those that would allocate millions of miles of wilderness to off-road use are in conflict more now that ever. What are the issues? According to Jan Laitos and Rachel B. Reiss authors of the article "Recreation wars for our natural resources. (Public Lands Management at the Crossroads: Balancing Interests in the 21st Century) the use of off-road vehicles on federal land has negative environmental consequences, including soil disruption and compaction, harassment of animals and annoyance of wilderness lovers. They insist that the Bureau of Land Management faces a classic land use dilemma of sharply inconsistent uses, with notably scarce resources and obvious congressional silence with respect to wilderness designation. The BLM is having problems with ORV as well. Lisa Schiffman author of Archaeology, Off-road Vehicles, and the BLM (Archaeology http://www.archaeology.org) reports and incident whereby not was fragile desert landscape scarred probably for years by eight men riding quad runners for several hours, (ignoring government signs) but they left behind trash and ran over and ruined three archaeological sites. This happened in a small southeastern town in Utah but it's happening al over the southwest. Despite a report to the BLM office, Lisa says in her article that nothing was done. Sand dunes on public land are places that appeal to motor sports users says Franklin Seal, Outreach Coordinator for the Southern Utah Wildernes Alliance. He says technology has made ORVs into a powerful mode of transportation designed to go over rough landscape. "They can be customized and go over four foot boulders and can crush trees" says Seal. Well certainly there are those that feel motorized recreation belongs in the back country . Dave Skinner is the author of an article by the same name. He is a contributor to Writers on the Range. "Motorized Recreation Belongs in the Back Country" (Blue Ribbon Magazine http://www.sharetrails.org) is the article in which he speaks passionately of his off-road life style and his plan to fight for his right to continue using motorized recreation vehicles. He is furius that Dale Bosworth speaking for the Forest Service said that ORV use alone affects more imperiled species than logging and logging roads combined. Mr. Skinner states that since that statement he has pretty much declare war on environmentalists. "Selfish environmentalists seem to think"multiple use" means two people hiking the same trail. They want to get rid of logging, mining, cattle and any recreation that doesn't meet their pristine standards".
In closing, I realize that millions ofAmericans visit our beautiful public lands and water every year and surely the majority feel there could be some type of balance between different types of users. But even putting a canoe in lake requires a little skill and hikers need to stay on the path if we have any regard at all for the connection and interdependency nature has to us and we have to nature . I say to those that would bring their over priced motorized, loud, destructive toys out to play on public land; you're not welcome!

Posted by Ramona Beard at 09:59 AM | Comments (0)

Is solar power in Minnesota an oxymoron?

I think that we as a country and individually should be using alternate forms of energy. I own a duplex, and have been investigating the pros and cons of installing solar panels. I found a web site called mrsolar.com they offer solar panel packages that do not have battery systems, the solar panels are there to offset energy usage. Any excess power that you do not use is put back into the system and you are given credit for it. These systems are referred to as “on the grid” meaning that you will still be hooked up to your local electrical supplier.
The fist thing I was told do is conserve. They said start at your lights; if you use all compact fluorescent lights (CP light), which are still bright but save substantial power, you can save 55 watts of power per bulb. I think that this is good advice that can benefit everybody. After the conservation recommendation I was told to find our average kWh usage per month. I then found that throughout the entire house we use about 1100 kWh of power each month. The company supplied a chart which showed the average sun patterns and found that if I wanted to have 100 percent of my electric bill paid by using solar energy I would have to have enough room for 1000 square feet of roof space that is unblocked by sun, facing south and not at an angle of more than 30 degrees. My house is tall so blockage is not a problem and the roof is not at an angle greater than 30 degrees, however I only have 550 square feet of space on the southern side of my house. With an area that size I would be able to produce about 600 kWh per month. They had a system that size that would cost $36,682, not including installation. Wow! According to my current energy bill if you include taxes and fees I pay approximately 11 cents per kWh. If I produce 600 kWhs per month that’s $66 dollars the system could save me. At that rate it would take me 46 years to pay back the investment, not including the instillation. I would imagine that the panels might need some sort of maintenance over those 46 years and that would increase the cost higher. It would be different if I lived in Arizona, New Mexico or the southwest in general, with the same amount of solar panels I could produce 840 kWh per month. It would then take only 33 years to pay for the package. I also found some other grid packages on the Solatron Technologies web site that had prices varying between $33,000 and $40,000 for a similar amount of energy output. I found an “off the grid” package at solardepot.com that would run $60,823 for about the same power output. Their package would come with a battery and work with a generator, not included, and is intended to provide all the power I could use.
After all this research I still believe in exploring alternate sources of energy production but it seems to me that if you want to use solar panels to produce electricity in Minnesota you either have to be very rich or be willing to pay a lot of money for the environmental benefits of solar energy. Many of the sites I looked at encouraged people to start with just two panels and add from there. This would reduce the initial cost which makes it better in the short run but it still would take years to payback the original investment. I think that what I’ll do next to my house is replace the windows, a smaller investment $14,000, and a quicker return, especially with the cost of gas this year. My house is of 1920’s origin and the windows are stock. I now understand why many of my neighbors, 3 this year, are replacing their windows and not putting up solar panels.

Posted by Brooke Anderson at 08:30 AM | Comments (0)

December 06, 2005

Avain Flu. . . From Cats to Humans?

The avian flu has been a concern for a few years now, and each year we find that the probability for another world pandemic is increasing. One of the latest discoveries is that the avian flu is capable of infecting cats; a species which we thought was safe. In order for the avian flu to infect the cats it has to mutate so it can affect the feline systems, and the more the virus mutates the more dangerous it can become to humans. Now the cats are only becoming infected by ingesting infected birds, but if the virus mutates it could allow cats to transmit the virus to other cats, and then if one more mutation were to occur it could infect humans as well.
This discovery allowed me to realize that the human form of the virus could be approaching much faster than the authorities are planning. Meaning, we need to invest more money in preparing antivirals that will effectively treat the mutated virus, and it needs to be done quickly because the death rate for the current mutated strand is 50%. And, adding a new form of the mutated virus could possible increase the death rate. It is important for us to continue researching and developing different drugs because the virus can mutate very quickly into antiviral resistant forms which could be devastating for the US population considering that the US is only stock piling three main drugs, two of those drugs are very similar in composition.
The number of drugs stockpiled isn’t enough to treat half of the US citizens, and given the fact that two (amantadine and rimantadine) of the three drugs are sister drugs if a resistant strain did come out to either of the drugs it would also be resistant to the other drug as well. Leaving the US only one stockpiled drug, oseltamivir, to treat the deadly virus, which is unsafe for children under thirteen meaning that part of our population, would be untreatable, and with a current death rate of 50% it is a risk that we should not be willing to take because it puts too many lives in danger.
The avian flu is a fast coming problem, and I think that the US needs to begin stockpiling drugs that are not so close in composition so that the risk of a resistant strain is reduced, and more people can be effectively treated. We have the initial idea, but more money and time need to be committed so that we can properly address the problems we are about to face.

Information from: www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic , http://www.who.int/foodsafety/micro/avian_antiviral/en/index.html, http://www.ashp.org/news/ShowArticle.cfm?id=11575, http://www.wpro.who.int/health_topics/avian_influenza , http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5694/241

Posted by Laura Steinlicht at 09:04 PM | Comments (0)

Is Hydropower the Answer?

Recently in our environmental science class we discussed alternative energy sources to fossil fuels such as solar power, wind energy, and hydropower. I thought I would expand on hydropower and the benefits and drawbacks in a real life scenario: The Three Gorges Dam in China. First off, the idea to build this dam over the Yangtze River was first established in 1919, but was not actually considered until around 1954. The Three Gorges Dam construction is a very controversial subject and affects many in China.

Hydropower is a very clean source of renewable energy, and without further investigation looks like a savor to our current environmental problems with the depletion of nonrenewable energy sources. But hydropower does have its drawbacks like other alternative options. There are many hazards and external costs with the construction of the Three Gorges Dam. The project itself costs about 25-75 billion dollars to construct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam). This price range doesn’t include the external costs such as environmental, cultural, and safety hazards linked to the construction.

Building this dam threatens already existent biodiversities such as the Chinese River Dolphin and varieties fish populations. The dam destroys their habitats and “divides their populations”, causing migration and mating cycles to be disrupted. Already endangered species will be hurt by this large change in living conditions.

Another problem associated with the three gorges dam is the cultural disruption. There are 1,300 archeological sites dating back to 10,000 BC that will be lost due to the dam, not to mention the possible artifacts in these areas. (http//www.personal.psu.edu/users/k/l/klc241/impacts of hydroelectricity/html)
Much of the land that will be flooded is land that has been cultivated by the same families for thousands of generations. Flooding the land disturbs family history, hard labor, and pride.

One of the largest concerns for building the dam is the relocation of people living in the construction area. Fourteen million people are affected by the building of this dam and it is proposed that 1 to 2 million people will need to move. (http//www.personal.psu.edu/users/k/l/klc241/impacts of hydroelectricity/html). Many of these people forced to relocate their homes are farmers, and they are unskilled at jobs offered in the city.

Of course there are safety hazards associated with building a large dam, such as breaks and cracks leading to flooding and construction job risks.

Back to the environmental hazards we learned about in class, dams degrade water by large build-ups of silt, increase water salinity, and disturb organisms found in the water.

These hazards got me thinking about internal externalities associated with the building of this damn. The project is already VERY expensive, but what about all the other costs associated with pollution, life style changes, and possible endangerment of species.

Although I do feel alternative energy sources are important to explore and experiment with, I feel the external costs associated with the building of this dam are too high to manage. Just because there is an alternative to fossil fuel power doesn’t always make it a better option.

Posted by Katherine Pike at 07:12 PM | Comments (0)

December 05, 2005

Find more energy or conserve what we have?

The biggest debates in the new lately are "Where are we going to get our energy from in the up coming century?" and "How long is oil going to last?" While we look for new and renewable energy source we should as a nation focus more on conservation. The United States alone uses 24 percent of all the worlds’ energy according to (www.energyguide.com as of 1998). That is almost a quarter of the world’s energy for about 8 percent of the world’s population. As prices of fossil fuels and energy consumption rise should be changing out our out of date incandescent light bulbs for longer lasting, energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. As home owner we should change our appliances to energy star ones. Most people don't do this because they think only about the purchase price and in doing so they are not being smart shoppers. Switching light bulbs alone can be a noticeable difference in you electric bill, speaking from personal experience, and the light will last you up to 5 year. Well worth the 3 dollar per light price tag when you consider that it takes ten incandescent light bulbs to last as long as a compact fluorescent bulb. As for energy star appliances the same goes for them in the sense that a smart shopper wanting to save the most money should pay for the extra cost of the purchase. If you were to replace your thermostat with and energy star one you could save a hundred dollars a year. Add that to having all energy star appliances and new light bulbs. It could save you thousands while you lived in you home. There are also other incentives to having an energy smart home. If it is energy saving enough you could be considered an energy star home and get tax deductions for it. These are ideas that should be used by the general public. I believe once the general pubic truly understand how much they can save in their pockets then they will change the way they use energy at home. The question is will the simple workings of economics work its way towards that point fast enough? It's amazing how little a lot of people know about Energy star and how it can help them. From personal experience again, my parents are building a house in the process of this I have been urging my parents to make their new home energy star quality. My mother didn't know what energy star was nor had she ever seen a compact incandescent light bulb, or at least never bothered to look at them thinking that the light would be to "unnatural." I had to plug in one of mine to show it to her and to show how natural the light was. People need to become more informed on their options for conservation or energy and money.

Posted by Thomas Evers at 12:07 PM | Comments (0)

December 04, 2005

Biodiesel

In Canada, a new source of fueling your car is being produced, a fuel which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

ES 1051 Blog

Critical Thinking in Environmental Science

December 12, 2005

Someone! Venice's sinking! Do something.

December 09, 2005

Someone! Venice’s sinking! Do Something.

December 08, 2005

Overharvesting of fish recources

Coral Reefs' Fight for Survival

Global Climate Change Will Cause an Increase in Disease Outbreaks

Invasive species

clean air?

Should Minnesotas Forests Be Deemed Road Less Once Again?

Should Minnesotas Forests Be Deemed Road Less Once Again?

How we should go about feeding our world population

Bush + Greenhouse Gases= true love?

U.S. says “No Thanks” to Global Climate Talks

Solving Water Contamination in Developing Nations

Discovery of Deep-Sea Vents May Severly Impact Marine Ecosystems

South-to-North Diversion Project

Contoversial population control

December 07, 2005

Bovine Flatulence: Not as funny Now

Melting Glaciers In Europe=Bad For Skiing

Destruction Without A Cause

Minnesota Climate Change

Pig Manure Converted to Crude Oil

Biofuels; The Way of the Future

Now stepping up to the plate...New York

Integrated Pest Management

Disease Control

pigs taste good, but they smell bad

The Kyoto Protocol can finally become reality

Wind Power: An energy source for the future

The U.S a Big Concern at Climate Conference

US wins pesticide exemption ban

The cost of gold

Kyoto Protocol

Benefiting from this wind

Whose Responsibility is Clean Water?

ANWR; are we willing to give it up?

The irreversible consequences of hydropower.

Motorized Recreation is degrading to the Environment

Is solar power in Minnesota an oxymoron?

December 06, 2005

Avain Flu. . . From Cats to Humans?

Is Hydropower the Answer?

December 05, 2005

Find more energy or conserve what we have?

December 04, 2005

Biodiesel