Green Roofs are Cool

A smart way to grow a garden, save space, conserve energy and help the environment is by having a Green Roof. Green roof's, or rooftop garden's, are those that vegetation is planted on, rather than shingles or tiles. It helps improve the air quality by removing pollutants, therefore making it healthier and safer for humans and animals in the surrounding area. A more noticable factor is that it helps reduce runoff. It also reduces and filters the harmful chemicals, from what would be on a normal hard roof and in rain, from flowing down drains into the soil again. Having a green roof lowers your heating and cooling costs because it acts as an insulator. Although it cost almost $100,000 more dollars to install versus a conventional roof, its pays for itself in the end by saving you around $200,000 in it's lifetime. Overall, having a green roof is a good, artistic, beneficial way to help your home and surrounding environment.

Bullets as Environmental Hazard

I have to admit, I enjoy guns and ammunition. Talking guns with people is one of my favorite things to do and nothing brings a smile to my face quite like a good action movie, but with everyone else in the world who uses a gun--whether it be on the shooting range or on the battlefield--massive amounts of lead have been thrown about and pose a danger to the environment. A standard bullet is composed of a lead slug encased in a thin sheath of copper. The copper protects the bullet from the grooves on the inside of the barrel and allows it to hold shape under the conditions presented when fired. This casing, however, often breaks away and flattens out upon impact, especially if the shell was a hollow point. This leads to the exposure of the lead to the environment in which it is newly situated, whether it is a hillside or a person.
With the popularity of guns among Americans as collectibles and shooting as a hobby, shooting ranges are seeing more traffic than ever. Thousands upon thousands of rounds are fired every day in sport, seen as harmless since the only results are holes in paper targets and puffs of dust from the hillside behind them. What the shooters don't see, though, is that when the stockpile gets wet, it leaches small amounts of lead from the bullets in the ground. A single bullet won't really produce much for volume, but when the entirety of a range is exposed, the runoff becomes significant. Rivers near shooting ranges have reported enhanced lead levels, which can be dangerous to wildlife and people who may depend on the river as a water supply. Aquifers are also at risk and the threat of lead poisoning is one that is gaining more attention daily. Of the first to respond, ammunition manufacturers have begun making rounds with zinc along with lead, decreasing the amount of the latter while creating another potential barrier against leaching by the prior. The shells are more expensive, but the slowing of lead leaching is considerable. This, of course, will most likely stay on the shooting range, leaving former battlefields as a completely different problem to be dealt with.

Our Moral Responsibility

This week I am not going to inform you of a new way to create energy without harming the environment. I am not going to give you any statistics about how our earth is slowly becoming a giant coffin for 6 billion people. Instead, I am going to give us all a little reminder that it is our job to do whatever we can to try and resolve this problem. Not only for ourselves, but for the sake of the generations to come. Until recently, global warming was never on the news, you never heard about the emission of "green house gasses", or how the world was at risk of declining to the point of the next mass extinction. There is a very simple answer for why this hasn't been a problem of the past. Until recently, humans used horses for transportation, we created our crops without harsh pesticides and herbicides. Now, it seems almost everything we do somehow expedites the route to our doom. This is where I will present a challenge to all of us. I think that we should all make it a goal to take this problem on our shoulders and try to do something about it. There are several reasons why we should do this; the first is because we started out with a picture perfect earth to live in. Since then, we have seemingly done everything humanly possible to destroy it. Instead of hoping in our big luxurious Hummers, I think we should crawl into our Prius instead and start saving gas. The burning of gasoline and fossil fuels is the main part of our problem. The burning of these gasses and oils creates carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide burns holes in the ozone layer, therefore carbon dioxide is destroying our planet. Unless we don't mind being the cause of the next mass extinction, which will probably be us. Don't get me wrong, my intention was not to make us all feel guilty about how we've been living, because that is in no way what I am trying to do. I just think that we should all stop and think about the generations to come and how they would feel about us doing nothing to try and stop and repair the damages that have already been done. Don't do this for us, do it for the people who it could possibly kill. Do it for you kids.

The news on climate change

Earth unrecognizable by 2050
Interactive global sea level rise map
Unlocking arctic carbon
Court on polar bear status

Here are four links about climate change. The first talks about the problem of the growing population and how much food we need. The second is an interactive map that demonstrates the change in sea levels. Third, is a news article about arctic carbon and what its effects could be. The last is on a court case which happened this week to determine the status of polar bears.

Natural Alternative to Sugar

Stevia, a new found sugar substitute that is much easier on your body and the environment. Natural cane sugar has a very harmful impact on the human body, it can cause several intestinal problems that can cause disease over a long period of time. What may sound strange to you is that cane sugar has a negative impact on the environment. You might be sceptical at that thought, but it makes sense if you think about it for a minute. Cane sugar has been one of the highest demanded crops in this country and around the world for centuries. Sugar of course, must be grown in fields just like any other crop. This takes cultivating, plowing, pestecides, herbecides, and many other chemicals that seep into the ground and have long term negative impacts on our earth.
Stevia, however, is an all natural sugar substitute that has no negative imapact on the environment. It can not yet be found in local stores because it hasn't gone through all the tests that it must, but it should be soon available to the general public.
I would encourage everybody to try Stevia when it becomes available to us for the simple fact that you will be doing the environment and your self a huge favor by switching.

100% Renewable Energy

Part I & Part II
In this two part study that was published in November of 2010, the authors discuss the possibility of achieving 100 percent renewable energy for the whole world. The main point is the combined use of wind, water and solar (WWS) energy, they also mention geothermal. The first part of the study is about the types of technologies that are available, the materials and resources needed and what it would take to transport the energy. In this part one of the major concerns is raised about the lack of certain precious metals. The solution would be increased mining in certain areas. The second part of the study is about the cost, reliability and the policies that are and would need to be in place for this type of system to work. For the most part, the research appears fairly sound and seems like the best option at this point. One of the major concerns is getting everyone on board with this plan. If 100% renewable energy is actually within reach at this point, shouldn't that be one of the main goals?

Baccillus Thuringiensis

While watching a video entitled Food for Thought (available at Ablah Library), I first heard about the Baccillus Thuringiensis soil-dwelling bacterium which as well is found naturally in the guts of some moth and butterfly caterpillars as well as on the dark surface of some plants. Spores and crystalline insecticidal proteins (activated in the digestive tract by the insect who consumes it - to adverse and death of the pest insect) derived of the bacteria have been used to control pests since the 1920s. Now they are used as specific insecticides Dipel and Thuricide. This Bt bacterium pest control is thought to be (somewhat) environmentally friendly because it generally only kills pests and has (until recently, and without consenses) not been shown to cause damage to humans, wildlife and other, beneficial insects. To some degree even organic farmers have used Bt or Bt derived pesticide because of their being thought of as environmentally friendly. However, since the mid 1990s the Bt generated crystalline toxin has been engineered with actual crops like potatoes, corn and cotton (approved in the US by the EPA). These crops being grown throughout the world were the first pesticide producing engieneered crops - their DNA makeup contains the toxin in every comprising cell. For the first ten or so years ererything has seemed fine and good with these new plant creations raising the yield and keeping away pests - while reducing the environmental impacts of using other pesticides. Recently, however resistant pest-insects have prevailed in some of the places growing these crops and as well deathly effects have been shown to occur for insects closely related to the target pests. Moreover, some studies suggest that rats can develop liver problems from ingesting Bt and mice can have lowered fertility. It has been generally thought that Bt does not affect vertibrates or creatures that do not have certain receptors in the epithelial cells of their gut. Controversy has ensued however due to a Nature article that supposed this Engineered corn had introgressed into the origins of corns grown in Mexico. The article was retractred but other possible negative consequences such as killing monarch butterflies and contributing to the Colony Collapse Disorder of American bee hives

What habitats are worth saving?

The Serengeti World Heritage site is in grave danger as the Tanzanian Government moves forward with highway construction. Even though statements have been made that a road to the south would not help transportation problems of those North of the park and that it would severly damage the ecosystems, plans still remained for construction. The northern parts of the Serengeti are in fact the only year-round water source for wildabeest and zebras.
In the northern part of the globe polar bears are facing mass destruction. Their habitats are being destroyed because pollutants are being dumped into the water, polar ice is fastly dissappearing because of climate change, and oil and natural gas have been discovered. Scientists expect the decline of polar bears to continue and by 2050 the population will be about 70 percent less than it is today, facing high extinction.
Orangutans, "the person of the forest," which once thrived in Southeast Asia are dying at an alarming rate. Their forest homes have disappeared 80 percent in the last twenty yearts. The logging industry is literally killing orangutans and many other species that live in the trees.
Animals are certainly the first thing many people think about saving in an environmental setting, but what about the plants? When constructing highways and buildings we use miles of precious land. When we tear down forests we are destroying thousands of plant species and making the world less healthy for all animals and humans.

Eating Local

I apologise for my late post. I have been having issues trying to blog all afternoon. Everytime I tried to blog it either would not let me or kicked me out! How frustrating! Anyhow, I was going to blog on the aticle in New York Times that Dr. V wanted me to look up. However, I was not able to find it. I am pretty bad at finding things on the internet. I did find a few other article related to the idea that local grown food may not be as great as people make it out to be. Most all of them discussed the fact that some foods that are imported are actually safer for the envirnment than the locally grown variety of the same food. Lets use apple for example. There are many different varieties of apples we can all choose from. But certain types of apples release more greenhouse gases than others during growth. Therefor, it would be in the best interest of the environment to import the apples that release fewer greenhouse gases than to grow local apples that release subsantially more gases.

Dead Zones

Info on Dead Zones
Here is a link to a site which has collected information about dead zones all over the world. It is discouraging to see how many dead zones there are, even just around the US.

Wind Energy in 2030?

As most of us probably know, wind energy has been a growing idea here in the United States for quite some time now. However, progress on this power source has been quite minimal on the large scale compared to countries such as Japan and China. There is hope for the U.S. wind energy supply though, current advancements in research and production of wind turbines have given Americans new hope. The American government has provided wind plants with enough money to take wind energy research and hopefully double the amount of wind energy that we have been producing within the next 5 years. If all of this works out, it is possible that by the year 2030, more than 20% of America's energy will be provided by wind farms across the country.
I think this is excellent news and so do American officials. So lets all cross our fingers and hope that America, and the world are on a more energy efficient path in the near future.

bioengineered life (food) and Supreme Ct ruling on patenting such life

In 1980 a gentleman working for General Electric developed/created a bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil he thought could be used to clean up oil spills. And so he applied for a patent, but was denied on the basis that living things were not patentable. After a few legal proceeding the case went to the Supreme Court and it was decided on June 16 1980 that he could in fact patent his 'creation'. The court reasoned (in 5/4 ruling) that Congress had intended "anything under the sun made by man" to be patentable, and that the scientist's claim was to a "non-naturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter - a product of human ingenuity". Multinational seed company Monsanto (for one) has taken this concept and ran with it. They have created many bioengineered plant seeds crossed with other organisms they would never be crossed in natural life with the aims of helping farmers produce more output and retard against pests. Monsanto is the worlds largest seller of seeds and has all but (if not) cornered the market in corn and soy plants that farmers buy and plant. In order for a farmer to buy these seeds he has to sign legal agreements to not save his seeds (hence buying again the next year) and sometimes to as well use special pesticides designed by Monsanto. Also par tof the contract the farm can be inspected at any time to check for breach of contract. A number of lawsuits have ensued with even non-Monsanto affiliated farmers being sued for evidently not digging out crops that have grown on their land from seeds blowing over property lines. It has been the case that these farmers have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and eventually out of court settlements. I look forward to the upcoming release of a book by John Park called The Last Farmer : How One Man Took on Monsanto for the Future of Food, for a closer look.

Discovery Project Earth

The Environment and its Studies: Discovery Project Earth: "Here is something that every person should spend time looking at in order to fully understand climate change and the use of geoengineering to fix it..."

The Ecologist's Perspective

The guest lecture today on environmental ethics from an ecologist's view is another example of how non-philosophers deal with ethical problems every day. The best take away message is that learning environmental ethics, and philosophy in general, should be required for all students. Some professions do not face many ethical dilemmas but for the most part a background knowledge of ethics would certainly help people think outside the box when faced with issues.

Below are links to the article mentioned in the presentation, the Ecological Society of America and an interactive map to look at critical habitats:
Callicott, J.B. (1990). Whither conservation ethics?. Conservation Biology, 4(1), 15-20.
The Ecological Society of America
FWS Critical Habitat Map

Buy Organic

Everyone knows they should eat more fruits and vegetables, and most people hear they should eat organic food. Buying organic food is better for the environment and your health. It may cost a few more dollars than boxed production line food, but you save money in the long run on you health bill. Less pesticides, chemicals and preservatives are used on the food and fewer hands and machinery parts come in contact with the food so it has more nutritional value. If eating organic meat, you are eating an animal that has been fed properly and not injected with chemicals for faster production. Besides feeling better about yourself for eating organic food it also seems to taste better than non organic meat, eggs, vegetables and fruits. Remember: buy in season and buy organic!

Enviro news today

The President at Florida State University, Eric Barron, is also a climate scientist.  Here's a podcast he recorded for The Chronical for Higher Education.

MIT created an energy-use reduction program last year that has exceeded its targets.

And, much less good for the environment, Wichita's own Koch brothers.

Consumerism

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about consumerism and the possible impacting it is and will have one our environment. This word can often go hand in hand with materialism. The human population is no longer content with purchasing or cultivating just enough for what for what it is needed or necessary for sustainment. There has been a growing trend of us wanting much more than what we need. It seems that we have unlimited wants. For example, there was once a time when families had just enough space in their house for day to day living. However, now everyone seems to want the biggest and best house. This means that more natural resources and space has to be used to manufacture these bigger homes. Another example of consumerism can be seen in our food consumption. We are, by far, a large group of over-eaters. We consume food products in much great quantities than what we really need to sustain us or keep us healthy. Again, this is causing an over-use of resources such as animals and plants. This high demand for more and more things (and wasting most of them) is causing a slow down in the regrowth of vital grains, nutrients, and meats.

Some good reading

Today's DotEarth blog in the NY Times described a row between two statisticians, and the way that controversies at the edges of science progress don't actually cast the basic science in doubt but still get more attention than they deserve in the popular press.  Plus they are used by "doubters" to spread the idea that the science is not settled.  The blog mentioned two pieces worth looking at: "More Knowledge, Less Certainty," and "Beyond Climate Change: Reframing the dialogue over environmental issues."

Unexpected Environmental Impacts

Comment on this post to leave your description of the "unexpected environmental impact" you were going to discuss in class today.  Sorry again that my flight was delayed and I was unable to make it to class!

Artificially Natural

A question was raised to me by my father after speaking about our human endeavors of space colonization and travel. If nature is everything natural and everything created by man is artificial, then any tree planted or animal raised is artificial. So logic dictates. In that case, what of terraforming? Say that a humanity comes to possess a power able to transform an entire planet into a lush, green paradise, such as the Genesis device created in the movie Star Trek II. We discussed in class the value of nature and whether or not it is inherently valuable or only seemingly so due to human opinion. If it is the latter, terraforming would be seen as a good thing, especially if it made the planet more hospitable to supporting human life; however, if the prior is true, then the alterations, whether they be to a barren planet or otherwise, would be seen as destroying the natural setting. So the destruction by creation is therefore artificial and since artificiality is not nature and nature holds intrinsic value, the false nature must not. Is this true? What of seeding a planet to grow on its own with time? Would the first step nullify the value of all that which comes forth from the initial? Perhaps to humanity, but what of the creatures who come to value that artificial nature as we value our own? Imagine now that the nature which we deem valuable is in fact created by a group of beings capable of doing such planet seeding. Does that mean that all which we find beauty and loveliness in our natural world is really a lie? Something fabricated by intelligent hands to become something mimicking the creations of the universe's original? Perhaps. Perhaps we simply are all artificial in a means. We are all a product of human reproduction which was only made possible by our race's overall survival which was done through our own intervention against extinction. In our quest for survival, are we not in fact relying on alterations done by our own or forefathers' hands? Every vine cut to clear a path, every seed planted, and every stone turned can be deemed artificially changed. In order to survive, we must alter. We are then a product of our alterations and must then be artificial.

Ethics of Meat

The Environment and its Studies: Meat and the Environment

One topic that is rarely brought up when discussing environmental ethics is that of meat. There are many different ethical dilemmas surrounding meat ranging from killing animals for food to the ethics of how you raise animals for food. A study suggests that we tax meat in order to encourage people to buy and eat less meat. This raises a few concerns over the fact that the government would be telling people what to eat in a way. Is it more ethical to tell people what they have to eat or to help the save the planet? Can we even compare the two results at all?

The next ethical problem is about growing meat in test tubes. At first glance, test tube meat would not only solve the ethical problems of killing animals but it would also help the environment by eliminating one of the leading greenhouse gas producers. Test tube meat, is in a since vegan meat because no animals were hurt in the making of it. Yet is the ethical problem only as ethereal as killing animals or is it the fact that we are just finding an alternative to an already destructive mindset. We raise animals for the sole purpose of food and this would be the same thing but on a faster and easier process. Can you consider test tube grown meat alive at all? Or is it just processed food? Can it solve the future global food crisis or is it creating even more problems by allowing for an increase in population?

Foundations of Environmental Thought

Recent public polls indicate that we aren't the only ones who are concerned about the environment and how it is being treated. 50 percent of the surveyed Americans show a concern for water pollution, while 75 percent of those surveyed show concern for things such as; acid rain, nuclear waste, and of course global warming. Concern for the environment hasn't always been this evident. So what has caused such an uproar amongst American people in the recent past? It's the politicians says Steiguer, author of Foundations of Environmental Thought. We are all guilty of gluing ourselves to the television during times of election and economic turmoil, and the environment has recently become a major topic of discussion amongst our politicians. This raised public awareness about the environment, in my opinion, is a great thing. The more the public knows, the more that environmental issues will be looked at, and hopefully fixed.

fantastic book, intro Enviro. Thought

The chapters from de Steugger's Origins of Modern Enviromental Thought have been my favorites so far in our Environmental Philosphy class. The book serves I think the best possible introduction to the environmental ideas and movement as 'beginnings' within books and papers by the 'great' thinkers who put to paper thoughts that must be considered in our modern society with the continuation of our human lives and the health of our planet in mind. That some major political acts are included goes of course further to show how much progress has been made (even if some are not as far-reaching or have been stripped in their scope in the semi-recent years). I enjoyed the brief talks about St. Francis of Assissi and also some of the older philosophers who wrote about overpopulation and recognize how their thoughts cause today's and yeasterday's thinkers to take direction. That Emerson and Thoreau have consistently encouraged the works of other environmentalist is very heartening, Thoreau even being often voted as the most influential of environmentalists I find neat - leave it to a subject as holistic as environmental philosophy to give a poet mass credit. I look forward to reading the chapters that were not covered in the assignment and will use this book as a starting point for my initial extracurricular readings. Ive already ordered Silent Spring and most look forward to reading Naess' literature on the Deep Ecology and Roderick Nash's Wilderness and the American Mind. Im sure I will be propelled by these writings to learn more and I anticipate learning about the more international personalities like Schweitzer and the framers of the Kyoto Protocol.

"Spaceship Earth"

The world around us is full of vital natural resources for plant, human and animal survival. Without plentiful energy resources for every individual the consequences would literally turn deadly fast. Kenneth Boulding believed that the Earth is similar to a spaceship in that the resources are limited and will eventually run out. He referred to earlier in history as the "cowboy economy," which was a time where humans used resources as if their was an endless, limitless supply of natural goods.
Throughout the years people began to realize more and more that we need to conserve our resources especially with constantly rising number of human inhabitants on Earth. In fact, today's Earth carrying capacity is nearly, if not on the brink of being full. Earth cannot expand to encompass more life, air cannot be fixed from hundreds of decades of harmful toxins, and extinct plants and animals can never be replaced, but people can do their part today by conserving natural resources and disposing of wastes in more environmentally safe ways. Environmentally safe practices can continue to take place even with the advancing of technology. Instead of using harmful methods of powering new electronics, homes, and buildings we can use the constant energy from the sun, which makes.
Boulding considered ways to improve lively hood and natural resources. Kenneth's essay was primarily over the topic entropy in the forms of energy, matter and information. Using the second law of thermodynamics Mr. Boulding realized that entropy "places a absolute limit on the viability of civilization." Everyone needs to work together and not use too many resources for a spaceship to stay intact. People must constantly be making repairs and better the ship/environment for it to sustain the old, new, and incoming life forms.

Foundations of Environmental Thought

While reading the excerpt from Foundations of Environmental Thought, the ideas of John Stuart Mill peaked my interest. His Utopian way of thinking is quite clear. In summary, he believed that it is the selfishness of human kind that is destroying the environment. He thought that man needed to get back to a more simple way of life, and stop trying to be better and get more than their neighbor. While these ideals do make some sense, it is not quite practical. The whole idea of a Utopian society can never be. We are, after all, only human. Man will always be wanting more no matter how much one may have. The problem is that we have unlimited wants with limited resources. This is where we find ourselves in trouble with the environment. Rather than man being content with what he currently has, whether it be land, wealth, or food, he is never satisfied. Even though he may have more than he needs to sustain life, he still will trample and destroy anything in his path to get more of what he wants. It is true that there is plenty of resources on this earth to obliterate all world hunger, however, the selfishness of man kind will always prevent this from happening. Anther theory of Mill's was that human population can only reach a certain number before we start to out use our natural resources. It is very easy to see and understand how this is true. The environment can only preserve and sustain its' natural resources at a certain rate. The greater the human population, the more resources will be in demand. This also cuts down on the time that the environment is able to regrow more resources. Unfortunately, there is just no practical way to control human population without getting into the obvious ethical issues.