The James River Ghost Fleet

In the middle of the James River, straight off shore from my subdivision and Fort Eustis, lives a fleet of anchored abandoned ships. Known locally and nationally as “The Ghost Fleet” these ships were once part of the National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF). They were to be used in case of national emergency. In the post-WWII era, there were hundreds of ships. What used to be an impressive fleet of 120 ships has now dwindled to just 30, but why? As these ships have not been in use for over 40 years, they have begun to corrode and decay, causing great environmental damage to the James River. They have been referred to as “ticking time bombs” as they sit huddled together, adding more pollution to the water each and every day, including lead, asbestos, and potential for oil and chemical leaks. These concerns were brought forth in 2001.

Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis was key in landing $20 million in funding for the removal of these ships. Since 2001, more than 75% of the ships have been removed from the Ghost Fleet and dismantled, both locally and internationally, but this has not been an easy process. Determining what to do with the ships, where to take them, and how to get them there is an extensive task. “Federal law requires that the hulls be clean of invasive species prior to ship removal, and hull cleaning also often translates into the removal of hazardous paints from the hulls”. Because hull cleaning can be a potentially hazardous activity due to paint removal, permission had to be obtained by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to do so.

Many of the ships are sold for scrap metal or recycled. They are being sent to countries who, for the most part, want nothing to do with them. An original plan was to export them to Third World countries, where the citizens wouldn’t have the power to say no. This act was banned by the Clinton Administration. Several years ago, 13 of the ships were transported from Virginia to North East England. They were to be dry docked in Teeside where they would be dismantled, scrapped and buried, but due to the US’s failure to clean them up appropriately, the UK refused to accept a number of the highly toxic vessels.

As we all know, it is very difficult to clean up and/or dispose of toxic materials. This has been the greatest challenge in dealing with the Ghost Fleet. It is costly and nearly impossible to clean them up while in the middle of the river without causing further pollution to the river, but no one will accept them until they have been appropriately cleaned. Slowly the ghost fleet I being taken care of as ship by ship disappears and is dismantled. But due to the fact that each ship costs about $750,000 to clean up and dismantle, it has been a long, drawn out process. Many environmentalists are concerned that by the time the last ship has been removed, damage and pollution caused to the river will be irreversible.

You can find a picture of a small portion of the Ghost Fleet here.

Proposition 2, California Animal Containment Standards

In 2008, California passed a new Animal Containment Law. This environmental policy calls for revised standards of the confinement of animals. The new policy states that “requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.”
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) questions the extent that these standards, to take effect in 2015, will change the ways of animal welfare. They are also concerned about the language used in the document itself-that it is not clear enough.

There has been a recent effort by consumers to create more humane practices in animal industry farming; this demonstrates the power of the people to create change. The Humane Society of the United States intends that the press surrounding these standards could eventually push it through many States in order to spread animal rights in industry farming.
The critique of Proposition 2 is that the California egg farming industry will be harmed by having to reconstruct their cages and therefore prices will be raised to accommodate for a raised cost in production.

I think that the progress towards animal behavioral rights is very important, regardless of these potential cost inflictions. Therefore, I support Proposition 2 and the efforts it has made to better the farming industry and the treatment of animals. I especially was excited to see that large corporations such as Safeway and Chipotle have taken to the American Veal Association’s urge to end the use of veal crates. Large food industries will be a very important component of these efforts.

Helium 3 Shortage Causes Scare

In recent years there has been technology created that has utilized helium 3 as an agent to detect nuclear bombs. According to The New York Times, the Department of Homeland Security has spent over $230 million to develop better technologies to detect smuggled nuclear weapons, but there has been a sudden halt in the development of these new machines because the United States has run out of supply of the raw material helium 3. Helium 3 is a rather rare form of the element that is generated when tritium decays. Experts say that most tritium production stopped in 1989. Official governmental actors have openly criticized the lack of preparedness for this shortage. Investigations into the matter uncovered research that indicated that the demand for helium 3 "appeared to be 10 times than that of the supply".

If fully developed, the Government planned on "a worldwide network" using the new detection technology that could detect plutonium or uranium in shipping containers. The Government hoped to provide 1300-1400 of these machines at a cost of $800,000 a piece to ports around the world in hopes to deter terrorists from trying to deliver nuclear bombs to big cities. However, these hopes seemed to have been thwarted by the lack of availability of helium 3. Critics argue that although there seemed to be a plentiful amount after the Cold War, researchers should have indicated that although plentiful, the supply would not be sustainable for long term, continued use. Others who did recognize the limited supply however, weren't worried about sustainability, relying on the expectations that new technologies would be developed that would not utilize helium 3 as much, if at all.

Helium 3 was though of as a great resource for such technology because it is neither hazardous nor chemically reactive. Although other materials have been found to have detection capabilities, researchers have found that " No other currently available detection technology offers the stability, sensibility and gamma/neutron discrimination" like that of Helium 3. Helium 3 is rarely found in nature, although the Department of Energy accumulate some as a byproduct of the maintenance of nuclear weapons. However, this declining, small supply is also needed for other reasons including physics and medical diagnostics. The only countries that produce Helium 3 currently are the United States and Russia. In a letter written to President Obama the shortage was named a "national crisis".

The situation surrounding the shortage of Helium 3 has raised a lot of questions, particularly about the importance to sustainability and maintaining resources. The United States is also thinking of other ways to get the material. One way is to create some form of cooperation with Russia in terms of the resource, but that has its own political ramifications. There may be some good news, however. Nasa Researchers have indicated that there may be an abundant supply on the moon of the safe and environmentally friendly resource. Research has also been done on using helium 3 in fusion devices. Although it is still in its theoretical stages, studies have shown that using helium 3 in the fusion process reduces the amount of radioactive waste created in the development of nuclear energy. But commercial-sized fusion reactors are about 50 years away from becoming a reality.

So, should there be a "race to the moon" for this nuclear fuel? I think so. NASA has announced that it plans on setting up a permanent moon base by 2024. But the United States isn't the only one. Russia and China are already making plans, too. Control of such resources could have a huge impact on our nation's ability to provide resources for sustainable, environmentally friendly energy for years to come. Utilizing helium 3 has the potential to mitigate some of the effects of climate change by decreasing dependence on existing fuel sources and does not serve as a health hazard to humans because it produces almost no radioactive waste. It could also provide United States with an edge in the international market in terms of environmentally friendly and energy efficient resources.

New CAFE Standards by Lauren DiRenzo

Green house gases and global warming have definitely become buzz words among American society. In the wake of this new political, economic, and physical climate, President Obama has implement new CAFE standards which require emissions standards on new cars be extremely stringent. CAFE standards are the Corporate Average Fuel emissions that the federal government sets forth and the automobile industry must abide to. If Obama’s upgraded CAFE standards are adopted as expected, the required fleet car average for fuel efficiency would be 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. Currently, the CAFE standard is 27.5 mpg for cars and 24 mpg for light trucks. Obama’s new national CAFE standards would begin with 2012 model cars. The Environmental news source reports that President Obama is determined to make the CAFE standards the “highest auto fuel efficiency standards ever attempted in the United States.” Aside from the obvious benefit to the environment, the development of new greener technologies should eventually begin to stimulate job growth within the diseased auto industry as production capability and demand increase.
While this seems like a positive policy for both the environment as well the economy, it actually becomes a perverse incentive in that these new, stricter standards make new cars that are much more expensive; therefore, driving up the value and subsequent cost of used or older cars. So while this new standards is seemingly productive both environmentally and economically it could actually end up exacerbating both air quality and climate change problems escalating throughout the world. Since these emission standards are not retroactive and therefore do not affect the cars manufactured before the new CAFE standards were implemented, there is a demand for cars with poorer emission standards. If people choose cost over the well being of the environment, then there will be more old and used cars on the road with lower emission standards and a subsequent drop in overall air quality. Also, even if people are willing to pay the initial higher cost of owning a new vehicle, because of the new, higher emission standards, that new car is actually cheaper to operate, making it cheaper to drive more. Better fuel efficiency also allows for more vehicle operation which once again promotes a perverse incentive which only further deteriorates our ambient air quality.
From an economic perspective, these new CAFE standards represent a perverse incentive that could potentially actually lower air quality subsequently exacerbating the global warming problem. Also adding to the problem, the American automakers have no leeway for argument, considering their lowly financial state and total dependence on taxpayer dollars. These standards represent a very complex issue in that they represent a much cleaner, brighter future environmentally and economically for our country as far as transportation policy is concerned, yet they promote the use of cheaper cars with lower emissions standards. Even if Americans choose to own a new car at the higher cost, the new CAFE standards make it cheaper to operate, therefore furthering the overall air quality problem. A viable solution will not be found until Americans start placing the environment over the cost of owning and operating a motorized vehicles. There is no policy nor standard that can influence the way Americans act as consumers within this capitalistic economy, therefore making what should be a positive incentive, a potentially harmful one.

Lauren DiRenzo-11/16/09

BerkShares for a stronger, local economy

There's a new economy in town, at least in the western part of Massachusetts in the region known as Berkshire. The monetary experiment known as BerkShares was inspired by author and urban activist Jane Jacobs and is considered one of the best-designed and most successful local currency in the United States. More than $2.4 million has been passing from bank to hand to till since 2006.
Here's how BerkShares work. An citizen takes $10.50 to a local BerkShare bank (Lee Bank in Great Barrington is one example). From this amount of money the citizen is issued 10 BerkShares. The citizen then takes these ten BerkShares and can trade them in at local, supporting businesses for goods and services. Then Suzy Q artist from down the street comes into the store and sells the owner a painting worth 8 BerkShares, which the owner exchanges for her painting, which is sold for 10 Shares to a customer. According to Susan Witt, executive director of the E.F. Schumaker Society, if a BerkShare must be returned to the bank and is not recirculated it means there is not a source or product available in the area to fill that business's need. If a local store finds that it has local currency an opportunity is provided for local craft makers to supply the store with product in exchange for excess currency.
This kind of local currency will become a great asset to communities as the mounting financial crisis and debt issues that plague our country continue to grow. According to Jacobs, national currencies cover such a broad area throughout the country (and world for that matter) that there is a lack of local feedback. According to her, regions subsidize each other so that weaknesses and imbalances are not corrected. A local currency shows clear and abundant feedback loops and issues can be addressed much more quickly on the local level.
Another positive aspect of the local currency is that it is, essentially, owned by the community and the use of it provides empowerment to that community.
Along with this idea of local currency, communities could also build worker owned businesses and use time-banking to trade services. These movements in our cities could cut the ever-growing distance between citizen and country. By keeping labor, currency and services in individual cities we build stronger, happier communities that are self-supporting and free of fearful repercussions.

BerkShares local

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Between 2002 and 2008, the federal government granted $72.5 billion in subsidies to fossil fuels. Meanwhile, renewable energy subsidies totaled only $29 billion. This underscores the unsettling fact that oil, gas and coal companies continue to benefit from handouts and tax breaks, largely at the expense of American taxpayers. As peak oil nears, and as fossil fuel prices rise, subsidies will continue to be in large demand by the polluting industries that need them most. The key is reducing and eventually eliminating those subsidies to enable clean energy to compete in the market.

Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, believes that any fossil fuel subsidies will continue to harm the economy. "Given that we're talking about deep emissions cuts across the world, we can't have investments in clean energy competing against investments in fossil fuels that are going in the wrong direction." Not only should fossil fuel subsidies be entirely phased out, I believe that carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs should be strengthened to allow for a smoother transition into a clean energy economy.

Reducing fossil fuel emissions to avert a looming climate disaster is both a moral and environmental challenge. A smart federal agenda moving forward should treat clean energy both as an asset and as an opportunity to drive innovation and new investment broadly across the U.S. economy. We can create millions of jobs, revive our energy sector, and become competitors in the rapidly expanding global clean energy market simply by cutting ties with trite subsidies, and redirecting them toward green technologies.

Genetically Modified Foods

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have their beginnings in the early 1900s when European plant scientists first started to cross plants using Mendel's genetic theory to produce plants with desirable characteristics. Breakthroughs in understanding the structure of DNA and the creation of the first recombinant DNA organism led to a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that genetically altered life forms can be patented, opening the door and increasing incentives for research into the field. By 1986 the first genetically modified plants were being tested in Belgium, and in 1987 testing began in the United States. The FDA rules in 1992 that GMOs were not "inherently dangerous" to human health, leading to their widespread introduction.
Today the United States leads in production of crops from genetically modified seeds. Our European counterparts, however, are wary of the potentially negative health effects from GMOs, and only until recently were their cultivation allowed in the EU. As of yet the only crop widely grown is an alteration of maize.
Many argue that GMOs are a danger to our health and to the environment. Because many crops are modified to be herbicide resistant or to produce their own pesticides, there is a possibility of "superweeds" emerging, garnering the use of more concentrated and dangerous pesticides. The same concern exists for the emergence of antibiotic resistant "superpests". Anti-GMO groups also argue that "bio-invasion" will occur when these genetically superior species are let loose into the environment. There is no stopping the cross-pollination or pollution of natural species by GMOs.
While there are many groups that argue both ways on the health dangers of GMOs, the World Health Organization states that they will take an active role in promoting the use of GMOs worldwide because of their potential benefits to human health- increased food supplies to the poor especially. Also, there have been no major negative impacts shown in countries where GMOs are prevalent.
India is facing the decision to introduce GMOs in their country, at the same time the government is recognizing the high stress they are under to feed their more than one billion citizens. While there are many naysayers in the country, the cultivated land in India has dropped 13% from the mid-20th century. The pressure is on to find a solution while pacifying the naysayers.
I personally agree with the WHO. While it is prudent to have concerns about any new technology, I don't think we should limit our usage of GMOs, especially as they have already undergone scientific study, and there have been no major outbreaks of increased food allergies in humans, or superweeds in plants. I think that we should continue to monitor their use and develop GMOs that are more precise for our purposes, but the truth is that in today's world we need GMOs. As our population increases, there is growing pressure to increase the yield of our crops in less and less space. GMOs give farmers the technology to do that. As the impacts of global warming intensify, we will be able to use this technology to develop crops that can be sustained in the changing conditions.

Controlling Snakehead Fish

Virginia is faced with an invasion of non-native and highly invasive fish species known as the snakehead fish. Once they are turned out, from their tanks as people's pets or released from fish markets, they wreak havoc on natural ecosystems. "They have no know predators in the area and they are at the top of the food chain." "They feed on our native fish species, amphibians, aquatic species, and even some small mammals." Once they migrate to an area, they eventually consume the native fish population. They reproduce rapidly and in very large numbers. As a result they take over an area in a short amount of time.

Snakehead fish can also affect recreational areas. Even though there are no known attacks in the United States, some people believe the menacing looking creatures can attack humans and are dangerous. As a result, people may not want to recreate in water that the snakehead fish inhabits. People who wish to fish for recreational purposes in certain waterways may no longer want to fish there if the native population of fish are reduced and they are catching a lot of snakeheads. Snakeheads can also upset local economies that rely heavily on commercial fishing as a source of revenue.

If a radical policy is not proposed dealing with the invasiveness of the snakehead fish , our ecosystems will no longer be as diverse as they are now. The snakehead will out compete our native fish and, as a result, will make up most of the genetic pool in the waterways. We most find a solution to eliminate the spread of snakeheads before it is too late.

There have been some actions against the snakehead fish such as in Maryland, where a pond was found with snakeheads in it and was poisoned to ride it of the invasive species. The problem with that is it also killed all of the native species in the pond, but it was easily restocked with native fish. Virginia has take some action against the spread of snakeheads; education being its tool of choice to make the public aware of the invasive fish. Virginia has also banned ownership of snakeheads within it's state without a permit. It also encouraged the killing of snakeheads to anglers who catch them.

In my opinion something drastic has to be done to prevent snakeheads from infiltrating Virginia waterways furthermore. Education is a good tool no doubt but it doesn't have the teeth to deal with the eradication of snakeheads. I think Virginia should make a bounty system for catching and killing snakehead fish along with education efforts in order to more actively reduce snakehead numbers. It would give incentive for anglers to catch the fish and it would also reduce the harmful effects that snakeheads have on the environment.

Stricter Rules for Watery Discharges from Coal Plants

Coal plants produce huge amounts of wastewater through processes like coal ash ponds and air pollution control equipment (scrubbers). These processes are good in the fact that they reduce the amount of air pollution emitted, but where does all this toxic wastewater go after it reduces air pollutants? The fact is that for many years now coal plants have been cleaning the air at the expense of local waterways. All of the wastewater produced has commonly just been dumped into nearby streams and rivers, so instead of breathing in toxins people are now drinking them. One company alone has dumped tens of thousands of gallons of wastewater containing toxic material into the nearby river, which is also the public drinking source. Also along with damaging our drinking water sources they are damaging important fish and aquatic plant populations.

I believe this process has gone on too long. I can't see how in our modern day "green" revolution companies can still get away with such harmful and careless waste removal techniques. We need to develop newer more strict rules that will help deter this from every happening again. The EPA currently plans to rewrite stricter rules for watery discharges from coal plants. This "plans to" has been a problem for the EPA in past years over this topic though. Fines for companies' blatantly destroying local waterways have been too low for many years now and the EPA has yet to do anything. A coalition of environmental groups is actually threatening to sue the EPA if they don't come up with stricter rules soon.

Therefore, something needs to be done now about this inexcusable problem. Not only does the EPA need to get going but regular citizens need to stand up for themselves as well. We need to do everything from protests to attending local hearings. In the end it doesn't matter who steps up and forces stricter laws on watery discharges from plants, it just needs to happen sooner than later.

Sewage Problem in Iowa

As with many places in the United States, Iowa is experiencing sewage as an increasingly pressing topic. With many sub par septic systems and wastewater treatment plants, the state is experiencing how outdated infrastructure is harming the health of their population. Approximately 1 in every 5 commercial sewage plants in Iowa have exceeded their discharge limits over the last 5 years. Old wastewater treatment plants are dumping raw sewage into rivers and streams that provide over 900,000 people in Iowa with drinking water and recreation. In order to update these facilities, an estimated 3.5 billion dollars would be needed over the next 20 years. Even with the necessary funds, these plants take about 10 years to construct so clean water is a ways away for Iowa citizens.

Without improving wastewater treatment plants public health is at risk. According to a study done by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, approximately 10% of the states water did not meet quality standards. Because of this communities and citizens of the area have been warned of the potentially dangerous water supply and have been encouraged to purchase filters and to boil the water prior to consumption. Not only is human health at risk, but also the ecosystems, which only worsen as time goes on and nothing is done. One Iowa citizen claimed that when there are periods of dry weather there are “several streams that flow with only raw sewage”. In order to comply with water quality standards set by the Clean Water Act of 1972, towns and communities are being forced to invest in new sewage plants and improvements, which is putting a major dent in taxpayers pockets.

This issue is not only relevant in Iowa, but all over the United States as there is an estimated $150-$400 billion gap in money available for sewage treatment. Aging infrastructure and the “out of side out of mind” ideology have led to poor water quality and little action to fix it. Without the necessary funds from the government, local municipalities are having a hard time finding the funds to fix the problem. But regardless of the funds, this is a problem that needs to be fixed, as the government has a duty to protect the public from avoidable dangers to health, such as this. With a nationalized law requiring enforcement and routine facility checks, deteriorating systems could be avoided in the future. Maintaining wastewater facilities is key to maximizing their years of operation and minimizing negative health effects. The issue needs to remain a priority or else the situation at hand will continue to have negative effects on public health and on their wallets.

The New Bio-Fuel

The US is currently struggling with oil dependency, we are importing too much from the rest of the world and overall the worlds stock is just about at its peak. In order to produce more efficient gasoline that produces less greenhouse emissions we have experimented with adding ethanol. Ethanol could become a sole source of fuel with the right planning. When gas prices skyrocketed a few year ago there was a big push for ethanol in our gasoline to reduce prices. Now that prices have settled a bit people are not thinking about it as much but even today almost all gasoline at the pump is E-10 which stands for ten percent ethanol. Currently there is a push from major ethanol producers to increase that amount. The problem is where this ethanol is being cultivated from coming from. Currently our ethanol comes from corn, when using corn for ethanol it must be diverted from food production, which takes a greater toll on our economy as a whole. Also the efficiency of corn’s production to ethanol is only about 25% more than each gallon of gas that it takes to process the corn into ethanol. Currently there is research being done on alternative sources of ethanol one of these sources of which still grows on the fringes of cornfields in the mid-west. It is grass, but not the green soft grass you normally think of, this “switchgrass” as it called can grow up to ten feet and is hard as a pencil. As corn can only produce 25% more then the gasoline input, switchgrass projections top at 540%. The production possibilities for switchgrass production into ethanol are much greater than those of corn. Switchgrasses were naturally growing on the land that is now cultivated for row crops such as corn, and soybeans. Once grasses are restored they can grow in places that corn could not with far less cost input to maintain. In using projections, ethanol to reduce green house gasses switchgrass ethanol was 50-60% more effective. Currently there is no structure in place to fully process this opportunity, if the government diverted some of its 7+billion dollar subsidy of corn ethanol and put that money toward production and growth of the switchgrass industry the US could be on its way to a much more independent fuel economy with a less greenhouse gas emissions.

The Far-reaching Effects of What We Buy

I love coffee. But slowly I am learning that the way coffee is grown can have some terrible effects on the environment as well as other negative impacts. Small farmers, such as some in Costa Rica, are not paid fair wages for their work and corporations in the area that have large farms can sell their product for cheaper and push the smaller farmers out of work. A few things to keep in mind when buying coffee are to look for:

--Fair Trade: meaning that farmers are paid a solid wage that allows them to pay more attention to the quality of the product opposed to quickly producing and picking the coffee bean at the cost of the effect on the soil and on the freshness of the bean.

--Shade Grown: this is one of the lesser popular topics of discussions in the environmental movement but it is very important when growing crops, especially coffee beans. In many areas, tropical forests are being torn down to make room for coffee beans. Shade grown means that the beans are grown among and alongside trees so that there allows for a natural canopy for the birds that lost their habitat after the deforestation. Also, when birds are attracted to the coffee-growing area then they are a natural pesticide. The presence of birds eliminate a lot of the bugs that usually break down the coffee plant and would usually require a pesticide or other chemicals to protect the plant.

--Organic: No use of chemical pesticides, which can have some very great impacts on our health! Pesticides and other additives increase the amount of free radicals in our bodies which can cause digestive problems, increased risk of heart disease or even cancer.

I think the land use in the areas needs to be very strictly regulated and monitored. We are slowly destroying the forests and the soils in these tropical areas and stealing the habitats from many animals. Either we place minimum requirements on the growth styles of where we import coffee beans, or we educate these areas and promote better land use planning that will increase sustainability in the area.

As far as being a coffee-drinking consumer we need to be aware of the far reaching effects of the products we buy and the difference that purchasing more eco-friendly products can make!

White Paint to Stem Global Warming

It is common knowledge that wearing a white shirt keeps you cooler than a black shirt on hot summer days. Most people could tell you that this is because black absorbs light and white reflects it, but can this concept be applied to one of the biggest environmental challenges facing the world today? Scientist Hashem Akbari believes so. In his work at the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, Akbari has come up with a plan to reduce global warming, using this simple idea.

Akbari is proposing that major urban areas across the globe unite in an effort to paint their rooftops and streets white in order to take advantage of the color's cooling effects. He stated that every 10 square meters of surface converted from dark to light colors equates to preventing the release of a ton of carbon dioxide. Black roofs absorb a great deal of sunlight, heating up buildings, as well as trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere in the form of infrared light. Making the switch to white roofs and pavements would reflect more heat back into outer space, as well as keeping buildings and urban areas cooler, helping to counter global warming. Cooler buildings also mean less air conditioner use in hot areas, reducing energy use. Numerous scientists are claiming that implementing changes from dark to light roofs and roadways would greatly help reduce global warming for the time being, while better long-term solutions are explored.

Dr. Steven Chu, President Obama's Secretary of Energy is another advocate of the plan. He claims that painting urban surfaces white on a large scale "would be as effective at reducing global warming as taking all the world's cars off the road for 11 years". Large scale projects would be needed in order to carry out this suggestion. Chu and Akbari are both advocating for white roofs to be required on all commercial and governmental buildings, and that incentives should be created for homeowners to switch to white, or just lighter colored roofs. The simplicity of the proposal has given rise to a great deal of support. One scientist in Peru, named Eduardo Gold, is even suggesting that non-toxic white paint be used to counter the loss of snow on glaciers in Peru. The idea is that without the snow covering the area, the dark ground absorbs more heat, which in turn causes more and more snow to melt. Gold has applied the simple science of using white to reflect light to preserving the glaciers of his homeland.

Although there would be major challenges to actually achieving the goals of painting urban areas white, it is an insightful and thought-provoking remedy to the effects of global warming. While white-washing surfaces should not be viewed as a permanent solution, it could be a useful tool in helping buy time and reduce climate change now. It is such a simple concept, yet why more buildings have not already been painted with light colors is a mystery.

Chinese Wind Turbines to Fill Texas Plain

In recent news it was announced that China would be exporting wind turbines to create a 600-megawatt wind farm in Texas plains. According to the NYTimes the details of the deal known so far: "Contingent on financing from Chinese commercial banks — and no small measure of funding from the U.S. economic stimulus package — A-Power Energy Generation Systems, a Nasdaq-listed company based in the Chinese industrial city of Shenyang, would provide 240 of its 2.5-megawatt wind turbines for a 36,000-acre, or 14,600-hectare, utility-scale wind farm in west Texas to be operated by Cielo Wind Power, a developer based in Austin." It is estimated to provide electricity to 180,000 homes in America. According to the financing company the $1.5 billion dollar endeavor will spur tremendous growth in the renewable energy sector and create high paying jobs in the U.S.

The project is estimated to create up to 2,800 jobs, but the catch is only about 240--or 15%--of the these 'high paying' jobs will be located in the United States. Even then most of the jobs created by this project in the U.S. are temporary construction jobs. The rest of the 2,250 or so jobs will be located in China. The Obama administration initially hoped to shift to renewable energy into the U.S. manufacturing base and provide high-paying jobs, making up for losses in other sectors. But in light of this project it seems that most European and Chinese companies will reap the benefits of energy shifts. Less than a quarter of wind turbine components installed in the U.S. came from domestic production, and Europe currently holds the lion's share of turbine manufacturing.

Some U.S. officials and domestic suppliers have been concerned that the U.S. wouldn't reap the full benefit of the country's rapid expansion in renewable energy. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.) has voiced concern that the U.S. has outsourced much of its clean-energy manufacturing capacity. As part of the stimulus bill earlier this year, he earmarked a $2.3 billion tax credit for domestic producers of clean-energy equipment. In light of this project it seems that the domestic wind turbine is going to start off shaky in this recession. But it would be helped through government grants and financing helping to ensure jobs. I think that is is vital for the US to start the transition from dirty energies to renewable energy in an efficient manner, which includes domestic production of clean energy technologies.

Twin Oaks Community: An Environmentally Friendly Way of Life

Twin Oaks Community is an ecovillage in the town of Louisa in Central Virginia. It has about 100 members – 85 adults and 15 children. Ecovillages are “urban or rural communities of people who strive to integrate a supportive social environment with a low-impact way of life.” Ecovillages, also referred to as intentional communities, provide a very environmentally friendly and sustainable way of life. Twin Oaks Community was started in 1967 and occupies about 450 acres of land between Charlottesville and Richmond. It embraces values of cooperation, sharing, nonviolence, equality and ecology.

Sustainable Community

Twin Oaks strives to be a sustainable community through economic cooperation, local food production, constructing environmentally sound buildings, energy and water conservation, use of renewable energy, smart land planning & transportation. They admit that they are far from being ecologically perfect, but strive to do their best to ‘live harmoniously with the natural world as well with one another’.

Sources of Food

Instead of buying food from a grocery story that was produced across the state, country, or even world, Twin Oaks chooses to support their own local economy. By growing and producing the majority of their food, they both reduce their environmental impact on the earth as well as stay healthier through these foods that are grown organically – which results in lower amounts of toxic materials released into the environment.

Sources of Income

Production of hammocks and casual furniture produces a large portion of their income. Tofu is produced and marketed to non-community members for purchase. Their tofu is said to be a ‘low environmental impact alternative to meat’ made from organic soybeans grown in the community.

Sources of Energy

Members of Twin Oaks are pursuing the development and use of renewable energy sources. Solar heating / photovoltaic electricity has been implemented in most buildings and is also used to heat water. Scrap wood is also burned to produce heat in buildings. They strive to use as little fossil fuels as possible for both energy and transportation.

Transportation

The members of Twin Oaks Community share a fleet of 18 vehicles , which they can sign out when necessary. However, for the most part they have no need to drive within the boundaries of their community. They walk or bike to their areas of work. Used bikes are purchased from outside sources and are fixed up by members of the community for members’ use. When it is necessary to leave the community, there is a daily bus that goes into Louisa, semi-weekly trips to Charlottesville, and weekly trips to Richmond so that members can take care of errands such as dentist appointments, movie rentals, and purchasing items that cannot be found on the compound. These group trips and the ability to move freely around the compound by means of bike or foot allows them to depend very minimally on fossil fuels.

The concept of ecovillages has grown rapidly and is catching on in all ends of the planet. They exist in Asia, Australia, Central and South America, Europe, and throughout North America. They are great ways to both preserve and conserve the environment on a small scale. In the future, this concept will hopefully continue to grow and make a greater positive impact on the stability of the environment.

Electric Cars Moving onto our Roads

With the growing acceptance of global warming, there has been a constant search
for alternative sources of energy as well as efforts to reduce the amount of
energy used on a daily basis. Electric cars (also known as electric vehicles
or EVs) have been in development for decades, but never before have we been as
close to having them on the road in mainstream form. Rather than using
gasoline, EVs draw their power exclusively from electricity. They do
not produce any tailpipe emissions, reduce our dependency on oil, and are
cheaper to operate. With that being said, why aren’t we all driving EVs and
being environmentally conscious?

Sure EVs cannot travel as far as gasoline powered vehicles without stopping to
refuel, but how many of us on average need to travel more than 100 miles
without taking a few hours breaks in between? Unless you are a truck driver,
chances are even if you commute a decent amount of distance to work on a daily
basis, you do not rack up this amount of mileage.

If you’re looking for an EV but not willing to sacrifice the appearance of a
fancier automobile then Tesla Motors is the company for you. The Tesla Roadster is

a sports-car that is giving gasoline-powered cars of the
same handling and power, a run for their money. Not only does this car have
the same aesthetic appeal of a Porsche or Ferrari, but it also proves to be
more efficient in a well-to-wheel energy efficiency test. According to
the test, the Tesla Roadster has double the efficiency of popular hybrid cars
and generates one-third of the carbon dioxide—and that’s against hybrid cars!
Against sports cars, it proves six times as efficient and produces one-tenth of
the pollution. This car of luxury comes with a matching price of around
$122,000, but there are other cars out there if you can’t afford this sleek
model.


Companies such as Ford are creating cars that are the equivalent of their
current sedans but that are electric. They feel that by creating automobiles
that drivers do not have to adjust between, not only will it be easier to make
the transition but it also makes it a safer change when it comes to
acceleration and braking. Automakers are now creating using a new type of
battery that utilizes lithium ion so that these cars can be used for the mass
market. Electric vehicles are currently found all over the globe
CONVERSIONS in the forms of railway trams, submarines, elevators, and subways,
so why not electric cars? We should be moving towards getting these vehicles
on our roads in mass. There is no reason why we shouldn’t be making these
efforts when GM executives project that more than 90 percent of drivers could
do 90 percent of their driving in electric mode, and for those who need to make
a long-distance trip—there’s always rental cars available.

-Corinne Brady

Algae as a potential alternative fuel?

Is bio-diesel from algae more feasible and more environmentally friendly than bio-diesel from other agricultural crops such as soybeans or sunflower plants? Some have claimed that using agricultural crops as bio-diesel would result in a diversion of 60% of crops to produce only 5% of the total diesel consumption of the United States; illustrating that this would not be a very practical plan. Furthermore, the amount of energy put into converting and creating energy from crops is more than the energy that is generated. Some specific examples of such are that “soybean requires 57% more fossil energy than is produced and sunflower plants require 118% more than is produced.” So essentially there is no benefit to bio-diesel.

The new claim is that algae are a good alternative for biodiesel and some go as far as to claim that it can entirely replace petroleum-based transportation fuel in the United States. This is partly due to the simplicity of the nature of algae. Unlike other plants it lacks many structures and organs found in terrestrial plants. They also reproduce themselves. Also some algae species are oil rich so the amount of oil that can be collected from algae is a lot greater (15 times more) than other biodiesel plants such as soybeans. Another factor that makes algae more environmentally friendly is that it doesn’t take up as much space as terrestrial plants therefore it does not disturb ecosystems as much. Also algae are very adaptable and can grow in a variety of environments: salt water, freshwater, even contaminated water.

Because algae has such versatile living conditions some people are planning on having algae grow in abandoned mine sites testing “the notion that sunlight might be optional”. The idea of growing algae in abandoned mines requires LEDs to be placed and turned on in short intervals to provide the algae enough light to produce lipids or oils for fuel. The benefit of having algae grow in abandoned mines is that mining companies wouldn’t have to pay for reclamation and unlike outdoor ponds it wouldn’t have to deal with issues of evaporation, fluctuating temperatures, and contamination. However, the major caveat to this idea is that LEDs are expensive and there is uncertainty of whether or not the full cost of growing and producing the algae energy is less than the produced energy.

NASA has a completely different idea of where to grow algae and the environmental benefits of it. NASA wants to use algae as a way to treat waste water and create a bio-fuel at the same time. They have tested this idea in laboratories, but there are still some logistical issues that must be figured out. In the future NASA wants to have this process done at sea. So the major issue is how to scale the concept up and deal with the stochastic events at sea.

Although there are different ideas of how to use algae to benefit the environment there are still many issues that need to be figured out. I think that these ideas and concepts are really interesting and germane to today’s world due to global climate change and a potential solution to the United States dependence on foreign sources of oil; however, I feel like this could potentially lead to an unintended environmental consequence in the long run. For example if algae became really successful and feasible algae might become an invasive species and disrupt some ecosystems. This issue is rather new so there is much scientific uncertainty with a lot of the consequences and benefits of the process.