Intro to EPP - Fall 09

He Said, She Said… It’s all politics in Copenhagen

2009-12-09T20:55:00.001-08:00

Words of wisdom given to me growing up: "Never give up your dreams", "Be wary of letting others know your dreams because they'll just try and step on them" and "never go into politics". Three days into the United Nations Climate Change Conference here in Copenhagen, we have a grand spectacle at the Bella Center of the reasons to follow all three pieces of that advice.

The United States delegation, which showed up today and attended the plenary session promised to be a full partner to the world in the negotiations. Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, was warmly greeted after the EPA's recent announcement that the Clean Air Act will now regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Although Jackson was warmly received, US representative Todd Stern and the Chinese delegation exchanged some sharp words over, who needs to be taking the bigger steps. Stern stated that "If you care about the science, and we do, there is no way to solve this problem by giving the major developing countries a pass." China's climate change ambassador, Yu Quingtai, then retorted that the United States should do "some deep soul searching" and revisit its position.

Stanislaus Di-Aping Lumumba, G-77 chairman, called out the Danes who prepared the treaty saying that poor nations are being excluded from the treaty process and that the current text "aims at preserving and advancing developed countries economic dominance".

Testing to see if that was true, the main plenary session today, in which the island nation of Tuvalu, threatened by rising sea levels, attempted to get delegates to move on a legally binding protocol that would make both industrialized and developing nations make higher admissions cuts. The proposal was blocked by China, India, and Saudi Arabia. In response to the debate, about 100 activists in the hall outside the official session started chanting "Tuvalu! Survival! Listen to the Islands!" UN police, having their say, were forced to shut down the plenary area. Dreams quickly dashed, Tuvalu's delegate Ian Fry reiterated that "this is a moral issue" and emissions reductions are not to be taken lightly. The deep rift between developed and developing nations growing at the conference, many representatives of developing nations and activist are taking the position that the developed nations are more worried about their economies than the survival of island nations.

Sarah Palin, who was published today in the Washington Post, gave the best piece of advice to the US delegation: "Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda." Precisely! That's after all what everyone was talking about today, right? Coming together and compromising for a sound climate treaty that benefits all? Which is precisely why President Obama… "should boycott Copenhagen". Thanks for the advice Mrs. Palin, but I think I'll follow my head and my heart.

E-Waste

2009-12-09T08:45:00.000-08:00

Electronic waste (E-Waste) includes discarded computers and other consumer electronics including items like laptops, personal computers, televisions, and cell phones. Within the last two decades, e-waste has also become the fastest growing portion of our solid waste stream because massive piles of electronics present other problems for all life on earth because there are toxics in all computers and the piles keep growing. These electronics contain some toxics such as lead, mercury, cadmium, nickel, zinc, and brominated flame retardants. So how is the United States coping with the problem?

According to the India’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research the amount of electronics imported to their country is increasing by 10% per year. Other firms export to other places such as unregulated toxic waste dumps in China. These toxic wastes ultimately pollute the land water and air causing cancers and miscarriages. One then turns into the federal level and wonder if there any proper U.S. policy in place that addresses e-waste?

The answer is no, with the country’s inadequate “recycling policies, short useful life-span, and high costs of recycling these products” only leaves firms with no concern for their adverse impacts on the environment and public health and disregard of them and their byproducts throughout the product’s life as cheaply possible.

The only solution we have until the federal government figures a policy for e-waste, “the best bets for responsible recycling come from industry groups like the e-Stewards certification of electronics recyclers, which requires recyclers to abide by five rules: No incinerating or land filling waste; no exporting; no prison or forced labor; protecting private data on discarded machines; and managing environmental data at dismantling facilities and across the supply chain.”

Eliana Sejas

EcoArt in VT: Plastic bottles and awareness

2009-12-09T02:32:00.000-08:00

EcoArt in VT: Plastic bottles and awareness

Americans have increased their plastic bottle consumption over the years. According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), beverage sales have increased over five-fold in the last 30 years. On average, American consumers purchase over 500 million beverage bottles and cans every day. This amount of purchased bottles means that Americans spend more money on bottled water than on iPods or movie tickets, totaling about $15 billion a year. More specifically, Americans use 60 million PET plastic bottles everyday, which is about 2.5 million plastic bottles an hour. However, a growing concern is the disposal of those millions of plastic bottles. Two out of every three bottles sold end up in landfills, are incinerated or littered. Therefore, only one out of three plastic bottles is actually recycled. Once a plastic bottle reaches a landfill, it takes 450 years to decompose. That means that if Queen Elizabeth I threw away a plastic bottle, it would still be here today. The CRI claims that the United States’ container recycling rates have declined from 53.5% in 1992 to 33.5% in 2004. Many Americans are unaware of the impacts that the plastic bottles they throw away have on the environment.

Carnegie Mellon’s Ecoart project emphasized an environmental issue through the use trash as public art. The Carnegie Mellon students constructed a wall out of campus waste to help show the students how much trash their community was creating. After seeing Carnegie Mellon’s Ecoart project, an Earth Sustainability class group was inspired to build a similar installation to emphasize plastic bottle consumption. For the project, they wanted to raise campus awareness about consumption of plastic bottles through a public art display.

The results: a five-panel display built by plastic bottles. They used 1,328 soda and water bottles to build a color spectrum wall. They collected 537 trashed bottles (not recycled), which made up 40% of our structure. By doing some calculations, they found that for a whole academic year, here at Virginia Tech, the campus population would throw away approximately 17,184 bottles in front of just one building, Dietrich. In addition, if we lived on the Virginia Tech campus all year round and throw around the same number of bottles per week, we would throw away a total of about 28,000 bottles in front of Dietrich alone.

Ecologica Art (EcoArt) is a growing contemporary movement of green art today that is created by those who are concerned about local and global environmental situations, and who take art making to a functional format. It seems as though we need more projects like these to provide a better sense of what problems we as consumers are creating.

-Eliana Sejas

Fighting Congestion

2009-12-08T14:24:00.000-08:00

Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) reported that traffic congestion is costing Americans $63.1 billion dollars a year. If you add in today's raising fuel prices that's another 1.7 billion per year. The wasted fuel from result of this congestion is 2.3 billion and the time wasted from these delays totals to 3.7 billion hours in 2003.

In order to solve this growing concern I hope that major urban areas in the US implement congestion pricing or variable toll pricing. Congestion Pricing is the most powerful tool to reduce driving, promote environmentally sound transportation, and finance improvements to mass transit. This program was recently debated in New York City and came close to being implementing in spring of 2008. It was rejected by the State Legislature even though there was huge support from New Yorkers and had the City Council approval.

This program works by an electronically-collected toll system that charges drivers more to use the most congested roads at the most congested times. These prices may be cheaper at off-peak times. This program brings in returns as well from benefiting the travelers, helping pay for innovative transit choices, and faster travel.

Singapore was the world's first major city to employ this which started out only in their central business district in 1975. It was so successful that the decided to expand it citywide with toll rates that change over the course of a day. The funds generated have gone towards expanding and improving public transits and keeping traffic at an optimal flow. Environmental Defense report that there was a 45 percent traffic reduction, 10mph increase in average driving speed, 25 percent fewer accidents, 176,000 fewer pounds of carbon dioxide emitted, and a 20 percent increase in public transit use.

All is not lost as this program hasn't been abandoned in the US. San Francisco has received a federal grant to study the possibility of this system in their downtown. Their program will be similar to programs in London and Stockholm. A key concept with this program is not to allow traffic to overflow into neighboring roads. I believe that if this program is successful in San Francisco then the US will have taken a giant leap towards future sustainability since it almost forces people to consider other alternative means of transportation.

By: Shawn Page

Train Travel

2009-12-08T12:39:00.000-08:00

Train travel is the lowest impact form of travel besides walking, jogging, or bicycling. In response to the declining use of America's rail networks, the U.S. government created Amtrak in 1971. With traffic congestion becoming worse and gas prices raising more people are looking to mass transit. In 2007 there was a 15 percent increase in mass transit use.

In the spring of 09 Obama has allocated 8 billion of his stimulus package to developing more high-speed rail lines. Obama's reasoning was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on foreign oil. Currently there is only one high speed rail line in the U.S., which is Amtrak's Acela Express. American transportation analysts suggest that U.S. should fallow this trend of high speed railroads that have been success in Asia and Europe. These high-speed rails can be as fast as flying, but without long waits and security hassles.

The first federal funds to be put into the rail system will be for upgrading and increasing speeds on existing lines. The majority will go towards construction of new high peed train travel lines in ten areas across the country.

Studies by Center for Clean Air Policy and Center for Neighborhood Technology have found results that this new system could save six billion pounds of CO2 yearly. This could result in 29 million fewer car trips and 500,000 fewer plane flights each year as well. This will be the equivalent of removing a million cars from the road a year.

I am all for this new high-speed rail line. My family may actually use Amtrak this year when we go on vacation this winter break. Maybe in the future we will be able to use this new railway and reach our destinations faster than ever. This is relevant to class because it helps reduce sprawl by increasing urban populations' densities which in turn reduce energy consumption by reducing travel distances, fuel consumption, and traffic congestion. These new rail lines will help us move to more sustainable growth and reducing our carbon footprint.

By Shawn Page

Invasive Species in the Chesapeake Bay

2009-12-08T09:41:00.000-08:00

Similarly to my previous posts, I am going to talk about an issue with the Chesapeake Bay. Since I am from Maryland living on the Severn River- a direct connection to the Chesapeake Bay, I find this issue very important and pertinent. The issue is invasive species in the Chesapeake Bay.
As stated on the Chesapeake Bay Program’s website, invasive species are defined as “animals and plants that are not native to their current habitat and have a negative effect on the ecosystem they invade. Invasive species negatively affect an ecosystem by encroaching on native species’ food and or habitat.” Forty two percent of endangered or threatened plants/animals are in great danger because of these invasive species. In the Chesapeake Bay region, there are over 200 invasive species that are a threat to the native plants and animals. There are six that pose the greatest threat to the bay’s ecosystem that I will discuss.
The first is the mute swan. They were introduced in the 1930s, and they are a threat today because they threaten the protection and restoration of the bay grasses, which are an important part of the bay’s ecosystem. The second is the nutria, a aquatic rodent native to South America. They are considered invasive because they feed on the roots of marsh grasses, and therefore create circles of mud called “eat outs.” With the roots eaten, the grasses cannot stabilize in the soil and the marshes erode. It has said that they have destroyed over 7,000 acres of marsh. The third is phragmites, a reed. It is a marsh plant that overwhelms the marshes and reduces wildlife habitat and species diversity in the marshes. The fourth is the purple loosestrife, a perennial wetland plant native to Eurasia. It threatens rare and endangered species like the dwarf spike rush, bog turtles, and American bitterns. Fifth, is the water chestnut. It threatens the underwater bay grasses by forming a canopy of leaves, blocking sunlight from the reaching the bottom of the bay where the grasses grow. Finally, is the zebra mussel. Since it is not a native species, its tendencies to filter the water significantly reduces the amount of plankton in the water, which many native filter feeders need.
The impacts of these species are both costly and degrades the ecosystem. They are costly because a lot of money is spent on terminating the invasive species so the native species can flourish and support a healthy ecosystem. I personally believe more needs to be done. For instance, I believe the public should know about the invasive species, so they can try to prevent their spread. Things you can do include cleaning all your supplies you bring out to the bay with you (includes fisherman and hunters) to ensure no invasive species can be spread with your equipment. Also, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s website includes ways you can help like replanting bay grasses, because of the loss to the invasive species. All and all, I believe action needs to be taken on this issue, and little by little the bay will get healthier.

-Alex Athans

(**Sorry this wasn't posted yesterday, I forgot my user name, but sent an attachment to Professor Pitt so it WAS on time originally... Sorry.)

Mountain Top Removal...is it all bad?

2009-12-07T22:53:00.000-08:00

Being surrounded by Mountain Justice, the Sierra Club, VT Beyond Coal, and all my friends in the Environmental Coalition, I have always believed that Mountain Top Removal (MTR) practices were horrendous.

Turns out.... there are more sides to this issue than I thought.

This is a hugely controversial issue, so first the basics: Why MTR? It is cheaper, safer, and more efficient.

Most of us know this. What is interesting is what is not talked about which could have some potential: When the tops of mountains are blown off and flattened to travel across and strip then transport the coal, the resulting topography is much different. After reclamation to try to restore the vegetation and habitat, the land is flatter and development is then possible. In these very rural areas of WV, Kentucky, and SW VA land development could very positively affect the area. If commercial and residential progress were possible then people could have better access to grocery stores and new things that were not possible in such a mountainous area in the past. My geography teacher mentioned that in his hometown they built a Wal-Mart (mixed feelings here) which cut the trip to the store significantly (from about two hours to 20 minutes..think of the emissions saved!)

Also, unfortunately, coal is a huge part of the economy in some of the aforementioned areas. There have been huge protests from residents to not kick out the coal companies (“Coal turns on the lights.”) There is even a festival, museum, and Miss WV Coal Festival Pageant in WV celebrating coal and how the livelihood of the town depends on it. However, it is also been argued that with an increase in coal production, there has been a decrease in available jobs in these areas for many reasons, such as better machines and less human labor demand.

So while MTR practices are generally condemned, I am just arguing that it is a MUCH deeper issue that needs to be very intensely evaluated. Of course, alternatives (wind farms, hydroelectric, etc) should be considered and reclamation efforts need to be more intensive and thorough. But we need to be aware of the entire issue when protesting MTR, so we can more effectively argue for a more environmentally-conscious practice. As we should because overall MTR is irreversibly destructive to the beautiful mountains and the effects have been proven to be dirty and detrimental.

California Water Package

2009-12-07T20:34:00.000-08:00

In November, California lawmakers approved—including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger—a series of bills that would vastly overhaul the state’s troubled waterways that is a major source of the state’s drinking water. The likes of these bills have not been seen in the state of California since the 1960s, nor has any new water infrastructure in years—even as the state’s population has increased. This water package was prompted by heavy demand on a rapidly growing population causing drought, harming fish industries, and fueling crop loss. In 2008, more than 100,000 acres were left unplanted in the Central Valley. Additionally, environmental problems in the Sacramento River have resulted in a collapse of the Chinook salmon population, closing salmon season off the coast of California and much of Oregon for two years in a row. Essentially, this plan calls for a comprehensive ecosystem restoration in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, a collection of channels, natural habitats and islands at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers that is a major source of the state’s drinking water. In addition the series of bills call for new dams, aggressive water conservation goals and monitoring of ground water levels, and paves the way for the creation of a canal that will move water from the north to the southern regions of the state. These bills include an $11.1 billion bond issue and the rest of the roughly $40 billion project will be paid by localities, largely through new user fees.

Many environmentalists believe that the bill’s penalties for misusing the water supply do not go far enough. In light, there have been some changes to the bill in terms of oversight of the ailing estuaries, checks and balances on future dams, and some mild penalties for failure to conserve water.

But how effective are these bills? Are these bills just a treatment, rather than a solution for the issues at hand?

These bills, while intentions are valiant, to me seem to not create a solution. I feel that creating a canal to collect water stretching from the north to the south as next to or even implausible as California is one of the most densely populated states. Not only will this mitigate water, which is already scarce, away from the water table, I feel that it could have negative effects on the already fragile Californian ecosystem. Already California has seen negative impacts on the environment from the reduced numbers of smelt and salmon to the loss and destruction of the delta and surrounding waterways. I think that one of the only proper ways to protect water is through water conscious land use planning. Water is essential to our survival therefore it should limit us in where we develop… If a water table cannot sustain a densely populated area should we be allowed to develop there? And if we do are we just going to divert water from other regions to meet our needs?

Are we ingesting toxins along with our water?

2009-12-07T19:40:00.000-08:00

Do you know what you are drinking when you ingest a refreshing gulp of H2O? Chances are you are unaware of all the possible pollutants that refresh your thirst on a daily basis. Water that is claimed to be tested by your water provider may have hidden toxic materials dissolved within, which are ingested into your body and could make you sick. Even bottled water could harm our bodies more than water straight from the tap.
Research shown from The New York Times claims "that an estimated one in ten Americans have been exposed to drinking water that contains dangerous chemicals or fails to meet a federal health benchmark in other ways." This is from interviews of more than 250 state and federal regulators, water-system managers, environmental advocates, and scientists. Toxins that have seeped into wells after being dispersed onto farmland is one way for water to become unhealthy. It can also be from runoff in areas where sewer systems that cannot accommodate heavy rains creating overflow. There is also direct dumping that some companies have plead guilty to.
Records analyzed by The New York Times indicate that the Clean Water Act has been violated more than 506,000 times since 2004, by more than 23,000 companies and other facilities, according to reports submitted by polluters themselves. Companies sometimes test what they are dumping only once a quarter, so the actual numbers of days when they broke the law is often far higher. And some companies illegally avoid reporting their emissions, say officials, so infractions go unrecorded. These toxins can accumulate for years before they even cause problems, making it very difficult to pinpoint the cause for the poisoning.
Water bottles as well are the cause of toxins in our drinking water. Most people have heard of (and have seen their fair share of students and professors toting) water bottles made by Nalgene, but the almost unbreakable plastic that makes these bottles so popular could be making us sick. Bisphenol A, or BPA, has been found to disrupt the processes of the endocrine system in animals, but its is still unclear what, if any, the effects on humans are. The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that even in high exposure instances, the detrimental effects are presumed to be very low because the half life of the compounds are very short; however, taking no chances, the Canadian government seems very likely to place a ban or partial ban on food-related uses of BPA plastics in the near future. Other companies that produce water bottles, such as Klean Kanteen, claim that their use of stainless steel will prevent the seeping of BPA into any liquid inserted into their container. Even water that comes prepackaged could contain the same toxins that come out of our faucets. In this case, why bother paying the money for the convenience when you can bring your own reusable container (one that doesn't contain BPA plastic) and save yourself money and save the environment by preventing waste.

Global water crisis

2009-12-07T19:23:00.000-08:00

Every day thousands of people die from lack of access to clean water. This threat has been considered the greatest threat that we have ever come up against. There are three different types of water crises. Dwindling freshwater supplies, inequitable access to water, and the corporate control of water are these concerns.

Around the world 215 major rivers and 300 groundwater basins and aquifers are shared by two or more people. This creates tension over ownership and use of use of precious freshwater. If we do not change over behavior with water in the near future we could be seeing deepening conflicts and potential wars. This will become more likely when more watersheds turn to deserts, glaciers melt, and water supplies are poisoned. The former defense secretary of Britain warned of coming "water wars".

For example, there was a tragic conflict in Darfur where there was lack of water and agriculture land. Israel, Jordon, and Palestine all rely on the Jordon River which is controlled by Israel and is starting to cause conflict. In China and India the Brahmaputra River has caused tension over disputes of water rights. Currently China has a proposal to divert the river and re-igniting this tension.

This can be seen in the U.S. along the U.S.-Canadian border over shared boundary water as well. This is in direct result of growing concerns over the Great Lakes. Increasing pollution and water tables drained have only worsened the situation by the buildup of population and industry.

The problem starts with the global covenant from people and their governments. The U.N. report argued that corruption, restricted political rights, and limited civil liberties are reasons of the plant's growing water crisis. The only ways to improve this situation are to clean water, protect and conserve water supplies, and water justice. The success from these new changes can be seen in the restoration of the Lake Constance from the countries sharing this water source. These countries are Germany, Austria, Lichtenstein, and Switzerland.

This is relevant to our class because some of the policy ideas to correct this concern. Some of these policies to solve this issue include trading virtual water, conserve irrigation, exploit advanced desalination, expand waste water recycling, and develop creative pricing policies for urban water and waste water. Also we can start watching water footprints by making this concern the next Energy Star.

Asian Carp Poisoned

2009-12-07T19:08:00.000-08:00

In the 1970s two species of Asian carp, bighead and silver, were introduced to farm ponds in Arkansas to help reduce high levels of algae in the water. When large floods plagued the area in the 1990s, the fish invaded the Mississippi River, and haven’t looked back since. The fish have infiltrated northward and are now on the brink of entering Lake Michigan via the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. With an estimated 4,000 fish per mile along the Illinois River, they are now dubbed an invasive species, and for good reason. The fish don’t have stomachs – only elongated digestive tracks, allowing them to eat up to 40% of their body weight. The supply of cadophilia algae in the Great Lakes is ample, and would more then adequately support the fishes’ appetite. Both fish reproduce three times per year, which would overpopulate native species natural to the lake ecosystem.
Originally, the US Corps of Army Engineers placed an electric grid under the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal in attempt to prevent the fish from advancing towards the Great Lakes. Recently the US Fish and Wildlife Service preformed a “fish kill” operation, dumping over 2,000 gallons of toxins into the canal while maintenance on the electric grid was occurring. Afterwards, among over 200,000 pounds of dead fish, a lone Asian carp carcass was found 40 miles from the Lake. The Governor of Michigan as well as numerous environmental groups have threatened to sue the US Corps of Army Engineers if three shipping locks along the canal are not closed to prevent further penetration by the fish.
Obviously the fish poses a threat to the $7 billion dollar fishing industry that is the Great Lakes, but is poisoning them the solution? The reason the shipping locks were not closed instantly is because it would disrupt the shipment of coal and wheat into the area. The closing of the locks would be ideal, but not feasible, as the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal is the only connection between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River. The poison will have a detrimental effect on the environment of the lakes as well, however the negative effects of the invasive Asian Carp far out weigh a drop in the bucket in terms of pollution.

EPA rules on Greenhouse Gases

2009-12-07T17:30:00.000-08:00

In a move surely timed to coincide with the beginning of the climate talks at Copenhagen, the EPA has finally taken an official stand on the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
The EPA reported "The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations."

This announcement is likely aimed not only at the negotiators in Denmark, but at Congress as well with a contentious Cap-and-trade bill currently facing the Senate as well as a proposed ruling to set emissions standards for all light duty automobiles to be operated within the US. The announcement today was necessary because until now, the US government had not taken an official position on the impacts of GHGs. This is a major step forward in US climate policy, marking a departure from Bush era policies. In 2007, in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had the authority to regulate Greenhouse gases. However, the Bush-Cheney administration ignored the EPAs findings and refused to officially report them. With this position formalized, hopefully the process for introducing future climate legislation will be streamlined.

The EPA administrator when announcing the report, said that this move was the next logical step for her agency, stating that it was integral to the passing of several new programs including emissions tracking from major contributors, mandatory use of best available technology, and the possibility of working with individual polluters to reduce emissions.
Obviously, not everyone is happy about this report and its coincidence with a major effort to revitalize the American economy. "An endangerment finding from the EPA could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will chock off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,” Thomas Donahue, president and CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce said in a statement released earlier today.

Beyond its influence over US specific policy, there is little doubt that the EPA hopes to sway the decisions of those influenced in the Copenhagen talks. With an official admission from the world's largest polluter regarding the effect of CO2 and other GHGs, it is my hope that nations resistant to emission cuts may be more inclined to take action.
Though the Senate's inability to pass any climate legislation this year has certainly served to all but prevent any meaningful treaties being developed, hopefully this long overdue report from the EPA will help move along future rulings in the US and abroad.

Ocean Garbage Patches

2009-12-07T10:35:00.001-08:00

The far reaching effects of human waste products keep popping up across the globe, sometimes in the most unexpected places. This time, our oceans are taking the hit. Garbage patches are forming in oceans everywhere as a result of garbage being transported from streets to seas due to urban runoff. During a heavy rainfall, debris is sometimes carried directly into waterways, but more often it is being deposited into storm drains that eventually lead to the water supply. As a result, trash is accumulating in our oceans because they are the final source that waterways lead to. Ocean gyres, the huge circular currents of the oceans, are the reason that such huge patches of garbage are forming because they carry trash with the flow, where it eventually ends up spiraling in a vortex for years.

The most extensively studied ocean garbage accumulation is in the Pacific. This was the first patch that was discovered 12 years ago. It is not so much of a “trash island” as is the common view, but rather it is a collection of smaller clumps that occur over a huge area. There are still no precise measurements of how much trash there really is, but many sources claim that put together, all the debris adds to the size of Texas, if not bigger. Making up the heaps are large objects, as well as a huge under layer of degraded plastic bits. The worst part of all is that the majority of the debris is plastic products that are not biodegradable. The accumulation of plastics in the oceans can have contaminating effect to both the water itself and the organisms that live in it. Not only can the masses of trash trap organisms, but more and more birds and fish are being found dead with great amounts of plastic in their stomachs. What happens is smaller fish feed in the areas where garbage patches occur, causing them to ingest small particles of plastic. As they are eaten by larger fish and oceanic birds, these plastics are accumulated into these animals’ biomass, as well. Plastic is not able to break down in their bodies, which can result in death for these organisms. This phenomenon is also a cause for human concern because these degraded plastic toxins may be building up in the fish we eat, but there is no way to guarantee or certify that they are not there. These and many more are the problems that we face from the huge accumulations of garbage in the oceans.

How to go about cleaning up the trash patches is a huge issue because of the vast size of the problem. These areas are so large that it would take up huge amounts of money and effort to clean them up completely. Moreover, using nets to collect the debris would also trap any aquatic life in the area. Another issue is that many of the garbage heaps are not on any country’s territory. This takes the responsibility off any single government for cleaning them up. Despite these limitations, some private groups are still trying. Project Kaisei is one such group. They have designed nets for the job and hope to collect 40 tons of garbage and plastics to be used in trial recycling. This is not a perfect plan, but it is a start. What really needs to be done is on land. Although they are cheap and versatile, plastics need to be phased out because of their environmental threat. This could even be done on a personal scale by choosing to buy fewer plastic products. Better recycling methods could also help in reducing the amount of plastics that go into our waterways. Another technique would be the use of better storm water management techniques. By processing storm water before releasing it into waterways, a lot of the trash could be taken out of the water before it reaches the oceans. Overall, it is going to take huge amounts of effort, time, and money to solve the problem of ocean garbage heaps.

Climate Gate

2009-12-07T10:31:00.000-08:00

With the Copenhagen climate conference approaching in less than a week, hundreds of world leaders and climate experts are drawing together to debate a new pact to slow global warming, and reduce GHG emissions globally.

However, recent events have created a stir before the upcoming meeting. A string of hacked private e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit were recently released detailing global climate change scientists in the U.S. and Europe casting doubts about the very scientific facts that this upcoming summit will be biased upon. The Climate Research Unit has thus far been incredibly influential in the global warming debate.

Researchers such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who you may know from Al Gore’s inconvenient truth, and the “hockey stick controversy” were involved in private emails that show that these experts along with many of the worlds leading scientists on climate change decided to exclude or manipulate some of their research that didn’t help prove global warming exists.

The most evident area where record-keeping appears to have been skewed by the scientists, was temperature readings from 1998. Although temperatures have gone down since 1998 and only spiked a couple times since, researchers showed an upward trend when releasing their data. The email exchange, that occurred in 1999, shows not only this, but that they talked of using a “trick” to try and “hid the decline” in global temperatures.

For critics of climate change this appears to be another “nail in the coffin” that global climate change isn’t indeed an issue, and has been an extrapolation from true and untrue theories and facts. How will this affect Copenhagen this Saturday, is the question many are asking.

However, the scientists although not denying the email exchange say the emails are being misinterpreted. However, the leakings of the emails have created a stir internationally and in the White house. While the two largest carbon producers, India and China still agree that climate change is happening and will be setting goals to lower their own carbon emissions, others have casted new doubts.

The United States has yet to make a clear stance on reducing GHG emissions, and leaked emails have given ammunition to critics of climate change. Climate change supporters say Copenhagen may only produce a framework for an agreement for an agreement that could be finalized next year.

How do you think this will affect climate change supporters at Copenhagen this week? What do you think this means for any sort of international agreement being finalized in the next year? Or funding for green renewable energies in the United States?

--- Kirsten Dobson

Animal Manure in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

2009-12-07T09:38:00.000-08:00

The Chesapeake Bay watershed is home to approximately 17 million people. There are numerous pollutants that eventually end up in the bay, but according to a Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) study, nitrogen and phosphorus are the most ubiquitous and harmful. In excess quantities, these elements destroy habitats and cause fish kills. The largest source for these pollutants is agriculture, namely manure produced by livestock in concentrated feeding operations (CAFOS). Livestock outnumbers the watershed’s human population by 11 to 1. The manure from these animals is often placed in waste lagoons or spread over crops. The USDA’s National Resource Conservation Service estimates that 1,500,000 excess tons of manure are applied annually. Studies show that within two years, about half of the manure’s nutrient content leaches from the soil into streams or groundwater, ultimately ending up in the bay.
It is clear that a combination of strategies must be followed to minimize the input of nitrogen and phosphorous. The first would be to reduce the pollutants in manure. A study at Cornell University found that the amount of nitrogen in manure could be reduced drastically while maintaining the quality of eggs, milk, etc. through careful feed management. Secondly, runoff mitigation techniques (p. 18-19 of CBF report) could be utilized to prevent runoff when manure is applied. Cover crops during the winter months can be highly effective at holding nutrients in the soil. Riparian buffers can also remove up to 90% of pollutants if manages properly (p. 19-20 CBF report). Alternative uses for manure could be explored as well, such as abandoned mine reclamation (p. 19 CBF report). The nutrients in manure provide great restorative value when combined with lime to these lands.
Finally, once lower nutrient levels are reached, states across the watershed need to agree on a cap to ensure that additional sources of pollution from population growth and land development do not cancel out progress made in pollution mitigation. Reaching these levels, however, is a long way off. A study by the University of Maryland found that EPA had been overstating bay restoration progress, and that pollution level goals will not be met by the 2010 deadline.

Human Power

2009-12-07T09:23:00.000-08:00

Human power production may be the future of sustainable electric generation and power saving. Everyone knows that it saves money and gas emissions to ride your bike to work but what if the biking you were doing was powering a vehicle, or the energy from your motion was being collected to power you hand held electronics or computer. The power of pedaling, sound waves, and even dancing is now being used to collect electricity and power parts if not all of the electrical needs of buildings and vehicles. One such example is the Club Watt in Rotterdam has opened as a fully people powered dance club. The technology harnesses the movement of people on the dance floor and converts it into electricity using a piezoelectric transducer to run the dance club.

This technology has also been proposed in busy areas such as train stations or other highly walked areas for its potential to harness power from passers by. The electric generation from people simply walking on a collecting surface can be implemented almost anywhere and cut down costs of electricity along with emissions. The initial club watt plan was part of a Rotterdam citywide CO2 reduction effort and has been praised for its innovation and success. A similar club opened in London England and the power surplus is being donated to the local residence of the area. These club retrofits should be implemented into new projects all over the world to cut down on emissions and increase sustainable connections in our lives. Another example of human power is the California fitness gym in Hong Kong, China. They gym collects the energy from peoples use of the machines and this power the lights and appliances of the gym. This human made power is gaining attention and could be the key to sustainable living. Instead of using coal with its environmental damaging emission properties and limited supply people can make their own power just by doing what they would do naturally. It is important that technologies such as this gain attention People need to know they have the potential to supplying their own power. By retrofitting more of our daily use products and connecting them all to the same grid people have the potential to not only save more electricity but also use our already busy lives to collect energy to be used to fuel other parts of it.

Space Junk

2009-12-07T08:39:00.001-08:00

Solid waste is no longer only a concern on earth, but in space as well. Space Junk, any man-made object in orbit around the Earth that no longer serves a purpose, is becoming an increasingly important concern. More and more left over debris from old rockets and satellites are being left in space, increasing the chances of collision out in space. Even a small fragment floating in space can damage a satellite, shuttle, or space station. On February 11, 2009, a U.S. communications satellite collided with a non-functioning Russian satellite. While destroying both satellites, the collision also created more debris that endangered other objects in space.

Since 1957 the United States and what is now the former Soviet Union have conducted about 4,000 space launches. The leftovers from these launches -- used-up satellites, the rockets that carried the satellites aloft, equipment from aborted scientific experiments -- form a sort of orbital time capsule, a mausoleum of space technology. In 1963 the Air Force released 400 million tiny antennas about the size of needles into orbit in order to see if radio waves would bounce off them. Today, telecommunication companies all over the world are putting up three times as many satellites in orbit as were launched in the past forty years. In order to minimize the risk of collision between space craft and space junk, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network tracks all debris larger than 10 centimeters. As of July 2009, the network detected approximately 19,000 manmade objects larger than 10 centimeters within Earth’s orbit. But what is the big deal with all this space junk?

Humans have been polluting and wrecking the earth with new technologies for many years. We have created nuclear waste that will take billions of dollars to clean up or dispose, polluted our water and air to the point of causing global climate change, and continue to degrade our environment without any thought of the affects on future generations to come. We have now moved to space. In his article, Steve Olson states that, “In 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. In space we are failing the sustainability test miserably.” He believes that in a hundred years from now, when our descendants want to put satellites into orbits teeming with debris, they will wonder what we could have been thinking. The simple answer is we weren't thinking at all.” Our atmosphere protects us from the dangers of space- asteroids, cosmic radiation, and extreme temperature that threaten the earth’s surface. However, while we are striving toward the goal of sustainability on earth, it is ironic that we are neglecting the area surrounding and protecting our earth. Besides increase threat of collisions up in space, the increasing number of debris may in fact jeopardize unknown future opportunities like solar power stations that might be necessary to provide energy in the future, or the safety of space stations.

There is no official space legislation yet. However, NASA, as well as many NGO’s are campaigning for the protection of space for our future.

Kristin Sukys

Does Having a Green Job Make You Go Green?

2009-12-07T08:28:00.000-08:00

The green industry is one of the fastest growing sectors of the US economy today. According to a study conducted by the consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, renewable energy and energy efficiency businesses are responsible for the creation of over 8.5 million jobs in 2006, with a potential to “experience ‘explosive growth’” at a rate of 1.3 million jobs per year. There are a wide variety of training options available to anyone wanting to become a part of this new trend. Many colleges and universities now offer courses in everything from renewable energy to sustainable agriculture green chemistry studies, and there are many organizations that offer training programs for middle and low-income workers. An article written by Liz Galst in the New York Times presents a very intriguing hypothesis: Many of these programs turn average workers into environmentalists.

According to the article, there is no hasn’t been any scientific studies on the issue; but there are several facts that support the claim that having a green job makes some newly trained workers lead greener lives. Organizations like Solar Richmond, a San Francisco based group that offers courses for jobs in the solar industry, are oriented towards training low-income individuals. Public surveys have shown that this group is poorly educated on environmental issues when compared to middle or high-class citizens. As a result, blue-collar workers are unaware of what they can do to help the environment, such as recycling and riding their bike to work. According to Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins the chief executive of Green for All, another organization that offers green job training programs, training for a higher-paying job in one of many green industries exposes them “…to feel connected with something larger than themselves, and to directly change the face and future of their neighborhoods.” This sense of importance serves as a powerful motivator for lower-income individuals to begin practicing a more environmentally conscious lifestyle.

Despite the lack of official studies backing this apparent trend in the Green Economy, I believe that what Liz Galst had to say in her article is true. The example that she gives in her article proves her point quite effectively: Wayne Gatlin graduated last year from Solar Richmond, and currently works for Sun Light and Power, a local solar panel installer. He has since claimed that he is getting greener, saying, “I recycle now. I ride my bike. This was stuff I wouldn’t do before.” I think that Mr. Gatlin’s experience shows that most people who don’t “show” their concern for the environment by recycling or riding the bus simply need to be informed, and a green collar job is a excellent way to be exposed to that information. Organizations like Solar Richmond and Green for All are the low-income worker’s best chance to take that opportunity.

The National Forest Stamp

2009-12-07T07:43:00.000-08:00

The National Forest along with the Virgina Department of Game and Inland Fisheries requires hunters and fishermen of Virginia to purchase a $3.50 National Forest Stamp, to hunt and fish on publicly owned national forest and state parks. Other users of the public land such as, hikers, wildlife viewers, campers, horseback riders, bikers, and others, do not have to pay the fee. The problem here is equity towards hunter and fishermen. Both groups use the same public land, and only one of the has to pay the fee. Hunters and fishermen are already mandated to pay for their hunting and fishing licences, but still have to pay an additional fee for use of the public land. Other users impact the public land just the same as hunters and fishers, if not more.

Their are two main alternatives to this problem. The first being, not requiring any users to pay a fee. This alternative would generate no money for national forest, which means law enforcement money that used to be there no longer be available. This would negatively effect the land because there would be one to regulate improper use of the land.

The second alternative is to adopt the national parks use fee. The national parks require all users to pay a standard fee upon entering their public land. Hunting isn't allowed within the parks, but fishing is, so it is very comparable to the national forest. This system would provide more revenue with the same amount of use to the land. It would provide more money for law enforcement, furthering the integrity of the public land. This alternative is the one that i would choose to promote fairness and environmental integrity of our national forest.

Road Deicing Salts

2009-12-07T07:27:00.000-08:00

Road deicing salt has become a problem because it is used heavily to clear roads of slick ice for human safety, but after the ice is cleared what happens to the excess salt? It is primarily composed of sodium chloride, which is cheaper and more effective than the other kinds available. Therefore, this sodium chloride is dissolved into the snow and ice and then moves through the surrounding environment freely. This causes the surrounding environment to have to cope with extra amounts of sodium chloride, which cannot always be done. In turn, this causes the environment around these deiced roads to change. Also it has been shown to penetrate groundwater reserves as well. Therefore, road salt can not only cause human health problems but can injury nearby vegetation and animals as well.

There are currently not many regulations about where and how much road salt can be used, but that should change with growing concern about this issue. Currently, California and Nevada restrict sodium chloride road salt in certain areas to prevent injury to roadside trees. Also Massachusetts is using alternatives to sodium chloride to prevent sodium contamination of residential drinking wells. New York is also looking into the possibility of switching to alternative road salts. The two main alternatives to sodium chloride are calcium magnesium acetate (CMA) and potassium acetate (KA). Both of these salts are less corrosive and better for the environment. However, they are not nearly as effective as sodium chloride and they cost a lot more per ton. It is projected that the alternative road salts would cost between $500 and $700 per ton. This is drastically higher than the current cost of $30 per ton.

In my opinion the alternative road salts, CMA and KA, would be better for us and our environment, but the cost of applying them is way to high. I don't think it is conceivable right now to be spending $500 per ton on road salt when the US uses about 8 million tons per year. Therefore, we need to try to reduce the amount we use currently and continue to try and develop better alternatives to sodium chloride. With continued knowledge and outreach about the harmful effects of road salt, maybe we can minimize our impact on the environment while still protecting ourselves from harmful road conditions.

The San Francisco Green Christmas Program

2009-12-07T06:31:00.000-08:00

The destiny of most Christmas trees come December 26th is the chipper. The Green Christmas Program in San Francisco, California aims to change this pattern. For the past five years the Green Christmas Program has allowed residents to purchase a tree from the city for $95 and then when the holidays are over a group called Friends of the Urban Forest collects them and replants them in historically under-planted neighborhoods in San Francisco. The trees that are available for purchase aren’t the typical Douglas fir or Scotch pine but vary from southern magnolias, small-leaf tristanias, strawberry trees, and the New Zealand Christmas tree all of which can thrive along the streets of San Francisco.
The Green Christmas Program was included in the city’s Climate Action Plan and is one of many ways that San Francisco plans to reduce their carbon emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2012. This program aims to plant 100 to 200 trees per year in the city which would offset about 400 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.
This is a great program to consider in other urban areas. There are a lot of cities in the nation and in the world that use urban forests as a way to reduce their carbon emissions. By getting the community involved in programs like San Francisco’s Green Christmas Program residents not only learn of the importance of reducing greenhouse gases but also take pride in the fact that they participated in something that is protecting the environment.
Trees in urban areas not only reduce carbon emissions but also help settle out, trap, and hold particle pollutants like dust, ash pollen, and smoke out of the air. These particulates are trapped and filtered by leaves, stems and twigs. Trees remove gaseous pollutants by absorbing them through the pores of their leaf surface. Thus urban forestry doesn’t only help reduce carbon emissions but also protects human health and reduces air pollution.
Trees in urban areas also allow for a feeling of relaxation and well-being and a sense of solitude and security. Not only does the Green Christmas Program reduce carbon emissions and provide health benefits but it does so in a way that doesn’t cost the city any money. The trees are paid for by residents and volunteers go out and replant them in parts of the city that need greening.

-Natalia Sanchez

Eco-City Alexandria

2009-12-07T00:42:00.000-08:00

According to Richard Register, who coined the term, an eco-city is “a human settlement that enables its residents to live a good quality of life while using minimal natural resources”. The City of Alexandria, Virginia began taking its first steps to becoming an eco-city in 1998 when city officials and community leaders attended the Environmental Quality of Life Summit and began to produce Alexandria’s first environmental strategic action plan. Since then, Alexandria’s Eco-City Project has made progress, including the implementation of the Open Space Plan and the adoption of the Water Quality Plan, and the development of the Transportation Master Plan.

Recently, In January 2007, the City of Alexandria has partnered with Virginia Tech’s Department of Urban Affairs and Planning in order to further their goal towards sustainability, through a strategic planning process called Eco-City Alexandria. The Project consists of three phases. First was the creation of a document that took inventory and outlined all of Alexandria’s existing environmental programs and policies. This “Green-Ventory” Report was created in the spring and summer of 2007. The second phase of the Eco-City Project was the creation of a preliminary list of strategic short and long-term environmental actions (fall 2007). Finally, the third phase was the development of an Eco-City Charter (adopted June 2008) and an Environmental Action Plan (adopted June 2009). The city also created a public forum for Eco-City Alexandria called the Environmental Policy Commission as well as a public blog called the Eco-City Alexandria Blog.

The City Council of Alexandria approved the first phase of the Eco-City Action Plan on January 24^th, 2009, which will be implemented FY 2009- FY 2011. Focusing on short-term environmental actions, this first phase consists of 41 goals and 133 action items covering the principle issues of global climate change and other emerging threats, energy, land use and open space, water resources, air quality, transportation, building green, solid waste, environment and health, as well as the implementation of those goals and actions. Members of the Environmental Policy Commission and city officials continued working with Virginia Tech students and faculty on a draft of Phase two of the Environmental Action Plan and released it to the public at Alexandria’s Earth Day celebration. Unlike phase one, phase two focused on Alexandria’s future by outlining and including mid-term and long-range environmental policies and programs with a time horizon between FY 2012- FY 2030. The Alexandria City Council unanimously approved the completed Eco-City Alexandria Action Plan 2030 on June 23^rd, 2009. Two days later, Eco-City Alexandria was selected to receive the 2009 VSBN Green Innovation Award for Most Sustainable Community Project. The city continues to make progress with their EAP towards becoming a true sustainable eco-city. It was released on November 23^rd, 2009 that Alexandria City Public Schools recently received first place in the “Student Population 10,001 and Up” category of the 2009 VSBA Green Schools Challenge sponsored by the Virginia School Boards Association (VSBA).

-Kristin Sukys

Fairfax Plans to Get More on Buses

2009-12-06T23:58:00.000-08:00

In an attempt to alleviate some of the traffic congestion that the suburbs of DC are famous for producing, the county of Fairfax (one of NOVAs biggest and richest counties) wants to put more people on the bus. They would do this by improving the buses ability to accomplish what makes it appealing: getting people to work/home faster than they would if they were driving. That is the only way that people would consider taking the bus. In order to do this, the new bus system would employ some of the following features: bus only lanes, eliminating on board fare (using a smarTrip card instead) , and the latest electronics to help them through traffic lights.
The county has recently come out with an extensive 10-year comprehensive plan. Buses are to play a big role in the transportation future of the county. One other way the county would sweeten the deal for bus riders is by having their respective companies subsidize the bus fare, so “You’re essentially going to get congestion-free travel for free” said Ronald F. Kirby, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ director of transportation.
It will be interesting to see how this county deals with the traffic dilemma of the nations second most congested region in the nation. In 2000, about 78% of commuters drove, which is higher than the national average of 76%. One would think that DC, with its extensive metro system, would have a lower percentage of car-commuters. As a NOVA resident, I can tell you that the metro is packed during rush hour. Sometimes you cannot even get on the train you want. There must be another appealing option for public transit. By appealing I mean enough to convince the 75% of commuter who say they are content with driving to work still. A chunk of that audience needs to be capture.
I think this issue needs to be resolved fast before the DC suburb region starts to do unsustainable rapid growth. The people will not stop moving there, so planners need to work quick so that there is the infrastructure in place already, waiting for them. Otherwise I’m afraid DC will suffer the same fate as LA and have a smoggy, trafficy, constantly congested reputation. The county should also try to appeal to peoples growing concerns about the environment and global warming. Taking the bus should be played-up as a way the average citizen can help their community be green!

Klamath River Basin Dispute

2009-12-06T21:56:00.000-08:00

Water is a very valuable resource. It has been said by many people that the third world war could be over water. The Klamath River Basin serves as an example of an over-allocation of a limited resource, water, dispute within the United States. The Klamath River Basin is a "dwindling system of lakes and rivers in Southern Oregon and California that provides water to thousands of farmers and supports six National Wildlife Refuges and many species of fish." The water management challenge of this issue deals with three main parties: Native Americans, environment, and agriculture.

The environmental integrity of the Klamath River Basin is being threatened by decreased water flow due to declining spring snowpacks; presence of hydropower dams; and poor water quality in and below reservoirs. Poor water quality is due to industrial pollution, mining, road building and poor forestry. Today Pacificorp owns and operates a series of dams that have diverted water fluctuating water levels and affecting the temperature of the water. Many fish have sensitive thresholds to water temperatures. The increase in water temperature has had adverse affects on the fish populations in the Klamath River basin. In 2002 the Upper Klamath Lake decided to retain most of the water for irrigation decreasing the flow of water downstream. The decrease in water levels and the increase in water temperature killed approximately 40,000 to 50,000 salmon in a 40 mile span. This is one of the largest fish die-offs in U.S. history.

The Klamath River was once the third most important river for salmon spawning on the Pacific Coast after the Sacramento and Columbia Rivers. Over a million salmon would return to spawn each year. In addition the river and its tributaries supported the highest diversity of anadromous fishes of any river in California. These dams have also decimated salmon runs by preventing salmon from getting upstream to mate. The Klamath River is a very important salmon river for the Native American tribes and commercial fishermen. The Native American tribes have cultures that are deeply intertwined to the land. These tribes include the Klamath, Karuk (upriver), Yurok (downriver), and Hoopa tribes in the Klamath Basin. These tribes are suffering from the loss of land and fisheries. Some of their traditions are deeply rooted in the salmon runs. The commercial fishermen also feel the impacts due to the decreasing fish populations.

This issue clearly deals with many of the themes from this course. I think this is a very difficult and complex issue because there are so many stakeholders involved. In my opinion there are more environmentally friendly forms of creating energy to contest Pacificorp’s argument. Even though we all know that every solution still has some sort of consequence I believe solar power and wind power are less harmful. In this case the dam is located in such a high biodiversity basin that I do not believe the energy generated from it outweighs the damage to the ecosystem and other stakeholders in the situation.

Portland's Urban Growth Boundary

2009-12-06T20:56:00.001-08:00

The comprehensive plan is one plan that dictates growth in Portland. The most important factor in the growth of the city is the urban growth boundary put in place in 1979 by Portland’s regional government. The city itself is comprised of a portion of three counties and numerous smaller cities. Portland is the only city in the United States that has a regional government that acts as the metropolitan’s planning organizer. Metro is the regional government that is directly elected by the people. The primary responsibilities of Metro include regional land use, growth management and transportation planning. In 1979 Metro put the urban growth boundary in place. An urban growth boundary prohibits dense development outside of the boundary and promotes smart growth design. Urban growth boundaries protect the area surrounding a major city from sprawl, by limiting the area that can be developed on. The area outside of the urban growth boundary is often preserved as a green belt. The boundary protects farms and forests and encourages efficient land use. These boundaries also help protect the central business district by keeping it located in the heart of the city. Rather than having to build new infrastructure to accommodate growth outside of the city, money can be spent focusing on improving existing infrastructure. Urban growth boundaries can be considered a tool for smart growth. Smart growth emphasizes compact and mixed development in areas of existing infrastructure. Smart growth also promotes infill development which accommodates new residents and businesses in established residential communities and commercial areas using buildings that are already available. According to Professor Richard Rich, Global Environmental Issues professor he said, “while the rest of the nation sprawled, Portland managed to accommodate a 50% increase in population since the 1970’s with only a 2% increase in land area.”
Metro came up with a 2040 plan which focuses on long term growth planning. Under this plan and Portland’s master plan Metro includes the notion of transit oriented development. Transit oriented development, as discussed in Community Renewable Energy Systems, “promotes mixed-use and high-density development around light rail stops and transit centers, and the investment of the metropolitan area’s share of federal tax dollars into multiple modes of transportation.” Transit oriented development can also be considered a tool for smart growth. Portland has numerous mixed-use communities which provide high-density housing as well as business offices and stores to provide for the communities needs. These mixed-use developments are also conveniently located near mass transit stops so as to make car use unnecessary. One such transit oriented development which uses mixed-use zoning is Orenco Station. This community is located 15 miles from Portland and has a population of 2,600. There is a heavy focus on pedestrian and bicycle travel being that the light rail station is located four blocks away.
Portland uses a combination of transportation methods such as a Tri-Met which connects the commuter rail system, the light rail, the street car, as well as the local bus system. The reduction in personal automobile vehicle miles traveled by Portland residents has reduced emissions which in turn gives the area better air quality. Portland also has an interstate system with I-5 and I-405 and I-205 running through or around the Portland area. The TriMet system averages over 300,000 rides per weekday. This system began in 1969 and has 3 light rail lines, 1 commuter rail, 1 street car, and 98 bus routes. Employers are encouraged to give their employees TriMet passes rather than allow places for automobile parking. Regional planning has allowed for the growth and popularity of transit oriented communities.
In my opinion I think urban growth boundaries are a good thing. There a few negative elements such as it raises housing prices within its boundaries, but I think there are more positive aspects to growth boundaries. Higher densities as well as transit oriented development are two of the most important aspects to decreasing sprawl. Protection of critical environmental areas, such as farmland is also an important factor.

Proposed Carbon Dioxide Cap

2009-12-06T19:54:00.000-08:00

When referring to the Clean Air Act, Director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute Kassie Siegel state that "For four decades, this law has protected the air we breathe and it's done that through a proven, successful system of pollution control that saves lives and creates economic benefits vastly exceeding its costs." Siegel has written a petition asking the EPA to classify carbon dioxide as a criteria air pollutant, and asks that a cap be put on the pollutant. The center is requesting that it be capped at 350 parts per million (ppm) because it believes that is the necessary number to stave off the hazardous effects of the pollutant.

Though the Obama administration has been moving forward in the fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed 3% reduction from 1990 standards will not be sufficient to effectively save the planet from further environmental degradation. 350 ppm has been widely accepted number across the world with 92 countries supporting the figure as being what is necessary. The institute simply asks that the EPA follow through and do what it was created to do, protect the environment.

A great deal of controversy has been brought forth concerning the current environmental legislation passed by the house and currently pending senate approval. The legislation would eliminate the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to designate and regulate greenhouse gasses as criteria pollutants.

As a world population we must also realize the limitations of the public sector and policy making bodies, and take matters into our own hands. Our Society's actions are responsible for the current conditions which plague the world. The good news is that even though we have put ourselves into this situation we also have the power to get ourselves out. Currently transportation and agriculture are two of the largest sectors which emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.

Simply by changing agricultural practices to no till farming and buying local, we can see a major reduction in gas emissions from both the agricultural and transportation sector. Goods would be homegrown and not require environmentally costly transportation. Though buying green can not single handedly save the environment it is a good place to start. The market adjusts to fit the desires of its consumers, by paying a few more dollars on an environmentally friendly product we can help usher in a change.

Chris Neto

New Urbanism Developments

2009-12-06T17:37:00.000-08:00

One of the hottest trends in developing today is a form of revamping or retrofitting existing communities to become more sustainable for the future. Many of the neighborhoods went from abandoned and run down areas, to pedestrian accessible, biker friendly, and overall sustainable models of development.

By revamping the formerly decayed city of Columbia Heights in Washington D.C., not only illustrates the intimate dance between urban design and architecture, but also created an efficient and well refreshed mixed-use city. Columbia Heights was always ideal for this type of development but the riots caused by the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, left many of the building destroyed and subsequently left vacant. There are four main buildings which primarily make up this project which play a major role in the reshaping of the neighborhood as a whole. One of the mix-use planning techniques includes using the buildings help create a triangular civic plaza as well as secondary public plaza at the entrances to the Metro. This not only creates access to public transit, but also draws people into the economic core of the city. The development of the plaza also allows for a more biker and pedestrian friendly environment as well as sidewalk access such a sidewalk seating. The open space created by the revamping of crystal city provides green space and recreation as well as condenses the commercial part of the city enhancing the pedestrian friendly environment that provides for an overall more sustainable type of city.

A future example of this type of retrofitting is in Crystal City, a suburb of Washington D.C. in northern Virginia. By 2050, Crystal City in Arlington, VA would like to become and completely sustainable, high-density, mixed-use type city. Arlington County found an opportunity to transform a problematic urban center with a solid base of office, retail, hotel, and residential uses and in the process correct the mistakes of the past. So far, this plan has been approved and includes such land use changes as shaping well-defined public streets that provide equally for traffic as well as pedestrians and also creating high quality public parks that are accessible to all. The plan also calls for the establishment of a fully integrated and easily accessible multi-modal transit system that links neighborhoods and communities within the Planning Area and the greater metropolitan region. Not only does Crystal City allow provide a much higher density and pedestrian-friendly type of neighborhood, it also connects to a major city most easily via public transit, therefore remedying the harms of sprawl and creating an overall more sustainable city from the inside out.

Both of these revamped planning techniques are beginning to start a trend at the local level that subsequently affects planning positively for the country as a whole. Since some of the most important environmental movements come about at the local level, though this type of planning seems small, it could just be the spark that leads to the sustainability revolution in this country.

Bee Population Loss

2009-12-06T16:57:00.000-08:00

The rapid loss in the bee population causes great concern for the welfare of humanity. This swift decrease in bees is known as Colony Collapse Disorder. The cause of this decline is currently unknown and is happening across the U.S. and Europe. In the U.S., it is estimated that in the last 50 years, 50% of the domestic bee population has been lost. Why is this important and how does this effect humanity? Bee’s pollination is necessary for the survival of many crops. Their work results in $15 billion dollars of crop values of such products as almonds, nuts, fruits, and vegetables. This could result in a food crisis as many important products rely on pollination to thrive. Bees perform 80% of pollination and one-third of human food consumption is reliant on pollinated plants. As bees decline, crops, decline, and animal species dependent on those products will decline, creating a chain reaction of environmental destruction. As bee populations decline, massive government action and scientific studies need to take place to find the root cause of this catastrophe in order to halt and reverse this problem.

Many possible explanations for this problem could be: the increased pollution of the affected areas, the increase in pesticide use for crops, or an unknown disease. The former two are very plausible case as our limited knowledge of many of the environmental impacts that our pollution causes. The loss of bees is also occurring in highly pollution areas, giving more reason that this could be a possible explanation. It is important for us to understand if this is the problem. Dr. Max Watkins said, “If it turns out to be a disease we will probably find a cure. But if it turns out to be something different, like environmental pollution, then I don’t know what can be done.” We need to quickly discover if this is the case so that we can take action to counter this problem. It could also be an unknown disease, and if so research needs to be done to cure this disease. Some scientists, in researching found a possible responsible party in one strain of parasite. This research is a step in the right direction in progress being made toward finding the root cause in order to stop this problem.

This is an issue of extreme importance that needs to be solved. Whether caused by human pollution or some type of disease, the loss of bees will result in horrendous environmental problems. The loss of bees creates a domino effect that greatly affects many other species. In addition to the environmental impacts of this problem, the economy will suffer as many crops that the world economy relies on does not get its necessary pollination to thrive. The loss of species in this world, mainly due to human’s negative actions, has many impacts on the surrounding environment. With this issue of bees, we are starting to see some of the potential negative impacts. We need the government to fund scientific research to find a cure to this issue in order to prevent it. If we can prevent this problem, we will have learned a lesson about the importance of different species as well as the environment in which we live.

Interoceanic Highway through South America Endangers Rainforest

2009-12-06T16:28:00.000-08:00

One way for a poor nation to prosper in a globalizing world is to strive to develop technologically. For most of our lives, the South American continent has been known as “developing”. Therefore, in such a rapidly growing world, what can they do to further their infrastructure and way of life? Well, in 2005 the construction of an “Inter-oceanic Highway” commenced in hopes to increase transportation of products, money, and ideas throughout the continent. It basically consists of a group of three highways that all connect Peru, on the Pacific Ocean to Brazil on the Atlantic. When completed, it will offer 2,600 kilometers of road and 22 bridges for all to use. Estimated costs for the project are approximately 1.3 billion (or more) U.S. Dollars. If all goes well, the highway is expected to bring stimulus and economic opportunity to all in the region.

While many people would like to see this project as a success, conservationists all over the globe are strongly opposed to the plan. Many disadvantages to the construction of the highway are due to its location. Because the inter-oceanic highway crosses directly through the heart of the Amazon rainforest, the wellbeing of this valued environment and its intense degradation is a serious possibility. The obvious impacts of the highway are deforestation and the erosion of soils in the direct path of the road. With time, the invasion of this protected area could bring the extinction of certain plants and animals that have made the Amazon so famous and maintained an environmentally balanced world for thousands of years.

The problems caused by the construction of the highway are not only environmental but also social. Construction requires years of work and in turn many workers. Some say that the construction promotes cheap or slave labor of indigenous tribes throughout the location. Also, because the highway is located in the heart of traditional Amazonian societies, other people believe that a loss of culture will occur with such an influx of outside goods. Finally, such a vast highway would have the ability to facilitate the trafficking of drugs, weapons, or animals all throughout the continent and in turn to other parts of the world.

I fully understand and have seen the need of many Latin American nations to continue to develop their infrastructure. As North Americans, we have all the highways we could possibly desire, so how could we say that they cannot seek anything but the same? In my opinion, this is unfortunate because the path through the most biodiverse forest on the planet must remain protected unless science proves that the outcome will remain good. I simply feel that the long term effects will be too hard to distinguish and other means of infrastructure should be presented.

Montana Zoning Dispute

2009-12-06T16:11:00.000-08:00

On November 27th of this year, the Supreme Court of Montana settled a land use dispute between the McKay couple and the company “Wilderness Development.” The company owned land adjacent to the McKays and had plans to build a resort community. The McKays felt that the company had cleared trees on a piece of their land for which the company did not have an easement for. In this case an easement is when one property owner lets another use their land for a specific and limited purpose. The couple also felt that the company violated some of the rules of their subdivision community by building a road to access a maintenance building they built for the new resort community. The Lincoln County district court found the company owed the McKays $350,000 in damages (violating the subdivisions rules) and $1 million in punitive damages (aka non tangible damages). In addition, they were awarded $6,500 for tree damage. The company cut down 100+ trees in an area in which they said they had road easements.
But it wasn’t over there. The case went to the Montana Supreme Court and reduced the damages to $25, 000 and the tree damages to $600. The Supreme Court said the district court jury was not properly instructed on how to calculate damage costs. The reason the McKays felt that the company had violated the subdivision rules was because of the way the community had been zoned. It was zoned as 20 single family residential or agricultural lots with no further subdivision of the lots allowed. The McKays were upset with what the company was planning to do with the area adjacent to their land.
This case raises a few issues that I think would be of interest for an environmental lawyer: land use, zoning, tree worth, and easements. I was shocked to find out how little they valued the removal of over 100 trees in an area which I’m sure is beautiful and pretty untouched. I looked into how an arborist would appraise a trees worth, and these are the things they take into account: “This species rating is based on the species of tree, the geographic area where the tree is located, the species’ ability to adapt to the geographic location and the species’ desirability in the landscape. This rating is then combined with other information gathered on site — including tree condition and location — and applied against the replacement cost of the tree to determine whether the appraised value deviates from the replacement cost” (Claims magazine). Just like we learned in class, the value of nature is subjective.
The question, can the residents of a community file suit against a party that is violating not them, but the subdivision’s rules, was one of the problems with the McKays case. I definitely think they can. The community was zoned like it was for a reason. The residents have a stake in what their neighbors do. This is why part of the punitive damages awarded the McKay’s had to do with emotional distress. I think it is interesting how a land use issue can be disturbing enough to someone that they can get money for it. That is evidence of how important land planning is to the lives of the people already established in an area, it is something to be taken very seriously. When it comes to cutting down trees too, that’s a line that I don’t think the company should have crossed, especially if they were not sure if they had the easement.

Major Countries Not Reaching Their Potential In Emissions Cuts

2009-12-06T16:01:00.000-08:00

On Thursday December 3rd, India became the last major country to announce a climate change policy. India ranks fifth in the world in carbon dioxide emissions, accounting for 4.7 percent of the world's emissions. India plans to reduce the ratio of pollution by 20-25 percent less than 2005 levels. Unfortunately, India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh would not accept a legally binding emissions reduction target. Many argue that the vowed emission reductions by India, China, and the US are weak and less than each nations ability to reduce their emissions.
According to the European Union, global emissions need to peak by 2020 and then be cut more than half under the 1990 levels by mid-century in order to keep an increase of global temperatures under two degrees. While most developed nations have agreed to drastically cut their emissions, the US is only reducing their emissions by 17 percent under 2005 levels which is only about 4 percent less than 1990 emissions.
This issue of top nations that are reducing their emissions at a much smaller amount than their ability is a huge one in which we will all lose in the end. When speaking about the US and China, the head of the UN Environment Program said, "I still think the number put forward by some countries are not the ceiling, they are more like the floor, of what they can offer." I applaud India, China, and the US for finally agreeing to reduce their carbon output. However, I do think that their emissions can be reduced much more drastically.
While I am happy that we finally have a climate change policy, I am in disbelief with the small goal that America has set for its emission reductions. Although their emissions cuts are just as weak as America, both China, whose greenhouse emissions will continue to grow despite their carbon reduction, and India vowed to cut their "carbon intensity" by 40-45 percent and 20-25 percent respectively; both their goals are higher than America's. I would argue that America should cut carbon emissions by 20-25 percent, at the very least. Overall, I think there should be a minimum level of carbon emission cuts for all nations of the world. If there was a minimum requirement that would allow all nations to be on the same page and would, most likely, allow for a cleaner world without higher temperatures.

Flying vs. Driving

2009-12-06T15:19:00.000-08:00

Every year about 2.3 million people travel by plane for Thanksgiving, and 33.2 travel by plane. That's a lot of people traveling a lot of miles, and only for one holiday. Many Americans have to make the decision to travel by plane or by car numerous times over the course of the year.

Both flying and driving have their pros and cons. Plane travel is considered the faster option, but passengers need to account for travel time to and from the airport, waiting time, and delays. In most cases, traveling by plane is the more expensive option. The average price of a domestic round-trip plane ticket is about $380, which doesn't include the price of checking bags, driving to the airport and renting a car. Ultimately, to the average American, the reason they choose to travel by air is because of the high price they put on their time. Some people aren't willing to spend 12 hours in a car with children when they could spend four hours flying.

Car travel is usually chosen because of the smaller price tag. Even with higher gas prices, the cumulative price of flying usually totals more than the cost of driving, especially for families. Taking the average plane ticket price of $380 and applying it to a family of four comes out significantly higher than the cost of gas, which is one cost that is not multiplied by the number of people.

screenshot from MSN Money

But which is the more environmentally friendly choice? EarthTalk, from E/The Environmental Magazine, says that driving a relatively fuel efficient car (25-30 miles per gallon) produces less greenhouse gas emissions than air travel. In addition, carpooling significantly decreases the amount of GHG emitted per person. According to Grist.org, traveling 300 miles with a medium-sized car produces about 104 kilograms of CO2, while flying the same distance produces about 184 kilograms per passenger - similarly, four people in that same car would still produce 104 kg, but four people by plane would produce 736 kg. Especially in the case of carpooling, car > plane.

In conclusion, driving a car produces less greenhouse gases than flying the same distance. In most cases, it also costs less to drive than it does to fly. However, it would be less expensive to fly across the United States than it would be to drive. To figure out the cost of driving, AAA's Fuel Cost Calculator is a good resource to utilize. Also, one has to take into account the price of sanity as well as time. In the end, whatever type of transportation you use, you can purchase carbon offsets to balance the emissions from companies such as TerraPass. Happy travels!

The Future of Agriculture: Vertical Farming

2009-12-06T13:54:00.000-08:00

Food supplies are shrinking as 80% of the world’s arable land has been cultivated and climate change is further lessening the amount of available land. The world population is rapidly increasing, causing demand for food to increase. To combat this and bring us into the future with adequate food supplies, Dickson Despommier of Columbia University has been creating momentum for urban farming through his vertical farming research and advocacy. This is not the usual urban farming most of us have heard of, but rather multi-story skyscrapers consisting of layers of vegetation cultivated for mass sale.

Las Vegas has designed the world’s first vertical farm which is 30 stories high, and is planned to cost $200 million and grow enough crops for about 72,000 people a year. Each floor is designated to mimic certain climate conditions in order to be able to cultivate a wide variety of plants that would otherwise be imported. Although the building was said to be opened in 2010, it has been put on hold due to monetary constraints.

Vertical farming is a growing trend which is increasingly being called the way towards a sustainable future. This way, food will be grown locally, reducing carbon emissions and creating many jobs. We would rely less on imports for food and will live closer to our food source, perhaps even living in apartments below these farms. Pesticide use as well as urban runoff would nearly be eliminated by having the plants indoors.

While being very ambitious with his plans, Dickson Despommier admits that the biggest constraint on moving forward is the extensive cost of vertical farms. The millions of dollars needed to build one skyscraper farm is often unfeasible. However, the prospects are very high as with about 160 of these skyscrapers, all of New York could be fed. This is particularly beneficial when shrinking land space from growing populations, development and sea level rise are taken into consideration.

I think this would be great to have in cities because of the countless benefits of vertical farming. To me, the benefits outweigh the costs and I would like to see a project like this carried out. As one article states, this could begin “the end of farming as we know it” by responding to the unsustainable way we have structured life that will not accommodate the numerous added citizens of the world in years to come.

Noor Khalidi

Transportation Planning for Future Cities

2009-12-06T09:06:00.000-08:00

As our population continues to increase, our demand for automobiles and in turn our demand for oil increases. As a result, more greenhouse gasses are emitted into our atmosphere damaging the quality of our waters, air, and land. It is estimated that there will be as much as 1 billion automobiles on planet earth by 2010. Careful planning for a growing population will be crucial to future developments and growth. Transit oriented development (TOD) provides just one part of the solution to accommodate growing cities and populations. As living in the first classified urban century, it’s predicted that 70% of humans will live in cities by mid-century. TOD takes into account the damaging affects of urban sprawl and encourages the use of alternate transportation methods by planning developments around transit hubs. One of the main transportation sources advocated by TOD is the use of high-speed rail lines.

The goal for the US high-speed rail line is to set 17,000 miles of a rail network to be completed in four phases. The phases would be start on 2015 where they plan to have rail lines extending from major cities like, Washington D.C. to New York and from San Diego to Sacramento, just to name a few. By 2020 lines are to be expanded to the Midwest. 2025 connects the US coast to coast, and by 2030 a completed high-speed rail network is to be completed, connecting the majority of the US.

Transit Oriented Development provides alternative modes of transportation and in addition provide for increased economic growth and output. In a Los Angeles high-speed transit system plan, it is estimated that it will generate $32 billion over the next 30 years. Included in this plan is the expected creation of 210,00 jobs. Centering around a transit hub also increases the preservation of green space, agricultural land, and makes public transit more easily accessible. Copenhagen for example, has a city plan that is based on a radial plan that encourages those benefits.

In my opinion, I agree that reducing urban sprawl is important to the growth of future cities. TOD is an excellent solution, which provides multiple benefits. On the other hand, TOD depends on mass consumption of natural resources. It seems a little outlandish when bike bus walk programs consider walking as an alternate form of transportation. Although TOD takes a lot of resources to produce, it provides just one piece of the puzzle that can help reduce GHGs, automobile use, and improve our environmental conditions.

NYC's Million Tree Challenge

2009-12-05T15:46:00.000-08:00

New York City, lead by Mayor Bloomberg developed the MillionTreesNYC program. This project will fund a citywide goal to plant 1 million new trees throughout all five boroughs. They will achieve this goal with planting street trees and adding to the urban forest. Around 60% of the trees will dwell within parks and public spaces. Though Mayor Bloomberg headed up the project it was initiated by the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and New York Restoration Project (NYRP). MillionTreesNYC is just one part of the PlaNYC program, which will put New York City on the map as the first sustainable city of the 21^st century. The plan includes transportation planning, compact development, open space zoning, creating an energy network, and increasing water and air quality. NYC has created 10 objectives to be completed by they year 2030, which contains MillionTreesNYC.

The program is important because of the constant growth New York City is seeing. According to NYC DPR , the city could obtain an annual benefit of $122 million from the new trees. This benefit includes air quality improvements, energy savings (reduction of heating costs), removal of carbon dioxide, reducing runoff pollution, and increase property values. The addition of trees will be extremely beneficial to the health of NYC citizens. As we all know trees provide great amounts of oxygen, which can help counter the dangerous health effects of pollution. Trees also provide significant canopy cover for NYC sidewalks. This tree cover could possibly reduce the heat island effect created by wide barren urban streets. Trees remove carbon dioxide exhausted from vehicles, from the surrounding environment. A reduction of storm water runoff is also a benefit of street trees in the city. The presence of street trees motivates property owners to revitalize the neighborhoods and even increases property value as the trees mature.

I see the MillionTreesNYC program as a very beneficial plan that will assist PlaNYC to reduce the harmful effects of climate change. The above benefits have been observed by NYC and reported in PlaNYC Progress Report. Since the passing of the program they have seen a 225,000 increase in tree population, which is ahead of schedule for the project. The goal of filling every available street tree opportunity is well on its way and is now adjusted to plant 15,000 trees per year. Evidence of this change is seen in the Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The city has seen a 3.5% carbon emission decrease from 2007 to 2008, due to reduced energy usage. This correlates to 100,000 trees planted within that year, and what I said previously about canopy tree cover and reduced energy heating. The benefits from the MillionTreesNYC are seen throughout New York Cities reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, better air quality, and reduced pollution run off. These reasons I believe are why the “million tree challenge” of NYC is one of the most important and innovative aspects of PlaNYC.

Second Largest Threat to the Environment

2009-12-02T20:00:00.000-08:00

A massive threat to the environment and one that is not often focused on is the introduction of alien species into habitats. Invasive introduced species rank second only to habitat destruction, as the largest threats to the natural environment. Introduced species are a greater threat to native biodiversity than pollution, harvest, and disease combined. These species come into nature and hinder the balance that ecosystems have.

One of the main issues in the news today is the introduction of the Burmese python into the Southern Florida Everglades. This particular species has become a very popular pet for people in the United States and it is estimated that 5,000 now live as pets in America. However, as with other animals some people buy the python as a pet and then once the snake continues to grow they find they can no longer care for it. People living closer to Florida found their out in the complex ecosystem of the Everglades. This has led to an overpopulation of the snakes as they find homes and begin to breed out of control, creating even more snakes out in the wild. The snakes then become a danger not just to people who are living in the area, but to the other wildlife that calls the Florida Everglades their home.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) implemented a python permit program and began in July and went until October. Now the implementation has just been announced to continue, it starts again in January and will go until the end of the year 2010. Permit holders are professional snake handlers who have the permission to capture and then either euthanize these large predators at a veterinary clinic or transport them to a reptile of concern licensed recipient. Officials hope that this program will encourage others to follow suit and rid the wild of Burmese pythons in the United States. The reason this program is so important is because this particular species can endure very different temperatures and lays about 50 to 100 eggs at a time. These pythons could easily move up North as their numbers increase.

The new program was just announced on December 2, 2009. Meaning that for an entire year these snakes will be hunted to diminish their already strikingly high numbers. Introducing native species into alien habitats is a mistake of humans. The Burmese python is a gorgeous creature that is meant to be a companion to people. However, people make too quick a decision and buy these animals when they are small and then decide they are no longer able to care for them. I understand that it is not acceptable to leave these large predators in their non-native environment as they cause problems for the citizens inhabiting surrounding areas and the other species actually native to the Everglades. I agree that it is necessary to limit the numbers; however, it saddens me that such a lovely creature has to be hunted because of people’s naivety.

Vision for the Carolinas: The Carolina Thread Trail

2009-12-02T17:38:00.000-08:00

With the hustle and bustle of North and South Carolina’s major city’s citizens, The Foundations For the Carolinas along with 40 business leaders came up with a vision to provide an area where these busy Carolinians may relax. What is this vision? The Carolina Thread Trail. This trail is expected to connect Charlotte and 14 other counties and nearly 2 million citizens with natural greenways and nature preserves. This is one of the largest projects this region has encountered, with about $2 million dollars invested into this project. With this vision, The Foundations For the Carolinas hopes to encourage people to be active while appreciating the natural environment that surrounds our large towns and cities. The leader in this vision is the Catawba Lands Conservancy who gained support from Duke Energy, providing access to land and funding for this project. The Trust for Public Land also plays a key role in this vision by reclaiming and preserving river corridors and creating greenway systems.

Many citizens and leaders believe that this vision holds many promising benefits for the Carolinas. The Carolina Thread Trail will promote physical activity, encouraging people to get outside and hike the trails provided by the nature preserves. “A NC State study in Cary, NC found that 72% of respondents indicated it was

likely a potential trail would provide a place for them to exercise and 57% said

they would exercise more if the trail were created.” The trail will also improve physiological health as well as improving health from air pollution. It has been studied that being surrounded by nature reduces ones stress and being away from smog-ridden cities will improve the physical health of citizens as well. The trails will also promote less vehicle usage, encouraging citizens to use bikes. Lastly, the trail will reduce vehicle-pedestrian accidents. The greenways will provide paths that bikes and pedestrians may travel on, reducing the need to take routes with vehicles that impose a danger to pedestrians and bikers.

I believe this vision would be a great addition to the Carolinas. I also believe that the creation of this trail may encourage other states to create greenways similar to this one. Not only would physical health and environmental activism improve in the Carolinas, but across the United States as well. This trail is an important step to creating more land for recreation along with preservation and I support the vision for the Carolina Thread Trail.

The James River Ghost Fleet

2009-11-29T15:25:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-23T15:32:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-22T22:18:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-16T10:34:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-13T12:07:00.001-08:00

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

2009-11-13T12:07:00.000-08:00

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

2009-11-10T20:48:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-06T19:25:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-04T09:17:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-04T07:43:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-04T05:48:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-03T22:56:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-03T22:16:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-03T20:42:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-03T20:37:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-03T20:30:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-03T20:10:00.000-08:00

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