http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x1842807482/Stark-air-quality-is-improving

Summary:
In Stark County, Ohio, has been considered an area with air pollution since 2007. The pollution came from diesel vehicles where the particles are so tiny that they are able to get deep inside the lungs causing a multitude of health issues. Now the air seems to be a lot fresher. The county wants to show that their air is cleaner. To prove that it is though they need to pass a few inspections given by the EPA. 1) the air quality levels have to be lower than it was in 2007. 2) The difference happens because of permanent solutions. And 3) they have to maintain the air quality for 10 years. Luckily Heidi Greismer, works for the EPA, states that there are going to be more changes regarding coal-burning power plants and diesel vehicles which will help with lowering the amount of air pollution. She also released a statement that said instead of just checking if the air is recovering but also if it is worsening.

Reaction:
I'm glad that Stark County was able to realize that the environment that they were living in was very unhealthy and make some changes. I believe that with them keeping cutting some of these pollution sources that the air quality would be back to normal in no time. I also like the idea that they are going to keep an eye out if the quality is either improving or worsening. I think more cities in the US should follow in there footsteps to create a healthy atmosphere.

Questions:
1) What else could the residents do to reduce air pollution?
2) How long do you think it will take for the air to return to normal? why?
3) Do you think that Hatboro- Horsham would be in the same position if it isn't already?

Sequoia National Park

Sequoia National Park: Worst Air Pollution

Associated Press

The Associated PressMay 29, 2012 04:00 A

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/28/MNC61OOM6M.DTL

This shows the thick smog Sequoia National Park is known for.

Summary: This section of our conutry showcases many of the biggest species on Earth, such as the Sequoia Redwoods, but you can barely see them from a distance in this polluted park. This park should have amazing views of these plants and trees, even mountains and beautiful parts of California, but it has become the national park with the worst air pollution. When thinking of national parks, people often think of clean, naturistic images. However, the smog level here compares to urban and city areas, even that of Los Angeles. The air is so dangerous that those who visit it are warned ahead of time of the areas where hiking is not the safest. The park employees are also wanred, and even attend annual classes on the lung damage tha smog can cause. That's of course if employees even accepted the job after the government warned them of the hazards to their health while working here. Ozone causing this issue also affects a handful of other naitonal parks in the U.S. With the parks violation of the Ambient Air Quality standard 87 times last June-September season, action must be taken.

Reflection: You would never think that a national park would be so hazardous. You would think that emplyees of a place like this would be exposed to such a clean air, being in nature and in such a naturistic area. It's really shocking, but at least the government is aware of the situation, and safety precautions are being taken. I think more money and research should go into how to prevent smog from ozone so that we can enjoy what these parks have to offer in the future.


1) What can be done to prevent/treat smog caused by ozone?
2) Has anyone ever suffered health problems in national parks where this is an issue?
3) Does this affect the wildlife living there?
4) What other parks have this problem?

Air Pollution to Close to WPHS

http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/570551/Stout--Air-Pollution--Too-Close-to-WPHS.html?nav=510

Picture: This is a diagram of natural gas drilling.

Summary: Chesapeake Energy wants to build a well that will release harmful gases such as methane, carbon dioxide, formaldehyde and benzene into the air right next to Wheeling Park High School. However, Ben Stout, father of WPHS students, and the Wheeling Jesuit University biology professor told the company to put its well somewhere else, instead of right next to the school. Natural gas drilling can have many harmful effects on the air and can release emissions that can harm human health. Also, since the fracking process uses so much sand, there likely will be silica in the air, which causes respiratory problems. This is why it is a major concern to have gas well built right near a school full of children. The Chesapeake Energy company is now trying to find a place to place their wells rather than right next to the school. 

Reaction: I am glad that Ben Stout did the right thing and stuck up for his beliefs and children's health. It is wrong of Chesapeake Energy to want to place a gas well right near a high school, and endanger the health of hundreds of kids. As stated in the article, gas wells release methane, carbon dioxide, formaldehyde, and benzene into the air, which can be very toxic and bad for humans. Moving the Chesapeake Energy's well somewhere else was a great idea and I am proud that Stout did something about it. I know I wouldn't want gas wells near my school! 


Questions: 
1) Would you want a gas well next to your school? Explain.
2) What other problems does this well cause?
3) Do you agree with Stout's decision to try and move the location of the well? Explain.

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/apr/07-does-rain-come-from-life-in-the-clouds/?

Summary:  In an April 2012 article in Discover magazine called “Does Rain come from Life in the Skies,” Douglas Fox reports on a growing number of scientists who believe that there are biological ecosystems in the clouds.  These scientists claim that it is these biosystems and how they work that answers the question, why certain clouds form raindrops and other very similar clouds do not.  Scientists already know that pure water can drop in a cloud to -40 degrees F before it freezes and forms ice which is the beginning of rain.  It confused some scientists to find that with dirt or other seeding of the clouds, that rain could form earlier.  The reason it is confusing is that sometimes even though there isn’t enough dust and other debris to form rain and the temperature is not cold enough, it still rains.  Fox flew with atmospheric chemist Kimberly Prather who along with others believe that it is the amount and type of bacteria that gets kicked up with the dust that determines whether raindrops are formed.  When studying clouds they have found bacteria with “ice genes” which make it easy for these bacteria to form ice.  Microbiologists are now finding and listing bacteria that have this particular ability to cause rain and believe that it is an entire ecosystem that creates rain.  Even more amazing is that it is bacteria and dust from Asia and Africa which effect rain in the United States and bacteria from the United States that effect Europe.  Also, the cloud systems are interesting because clouds that may look as though they are not moving or doing anything special are still involved in the constant process of evaporation and condensation.  The maximum amount of time a water droplet can condense before evaporating is 1 hour and clouds last and travel for many hours.  Scientists have discovered that there is a particularly strong bacteria found on rotting leaves called Pseudomonas syringae that can make water freeze at a relatively warm 28 degree F temperature. Obviously there are other scientists which disagree on the importance of bacteria in the clouds and it still remains a question as to whether it is a true biosystem or if it is just another thing that seeds the clouds and makes the weather harder to predict.

Reaction:  The reason I found this article interesting is that it always seems like the weather people struggle to predict the weather correctly. Maybe some how determining the amount and type of microbes in the clouds, meteorologists could better predict weather patterns. Also, it is weird to think that bacteria in the clouds could influence the weather and rain amounts. If it turns out to be true, maybe we can control the weather and how much rain certain areas get.

Questions

1)      Will this information someday help us to figure out ways around droughts since we can now use more than chemicals to seed clouds?

2)      Could this information be helpful to control flooding by decreasing rainfall when an area is already over come with too much water?

3)      If there are microbes in clouds, then how does air pollution effect them?

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/04/30/no-easy-scapegoat-for-hong-kong-pollution/?KEYWORDS=air+pollution

No Easy Scapegoat for Hong Kong Pollution

Summary: It seems Hong Kong's long smoggy skies cant be blamed on polluting factories in mainland China no longer. A new analysis has been released showing the city's air pollution is all to blame on Hong Kong itself. According to a recently released report for air quality Pearl River Delta area, their skies have been improvement over this past year.  Cleaner industrial production, better energy efficiency can all be thanked for this improvement.  But according to then Clean Air Network (local environmental group) the city's pollution has actually worsened, especially roadside pollution. The Delta region's nitrogen dioxide (a big part of roadside pollution) has dropped 13% but in Hong Kong a rise of 28% was seen, and this was from 2006 data! " Indeed, for concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, Hong Kong ranks second among 32 major Chinese cities, surpassing even notoriously smoggy Beijing, according to official Chinese data." For such a wealthy city many people are disappointed in the lack of leadership there. Many measures have started to be taken except for ones that could be one of the biggest contributors, boats and ships. The Clean Air Network has posted the blame on the city's rising car ownership and the aging of its car fleet. Several cities are taking action against this by paying people to retire their old cars and many experts say Hong Kong should join them.               

Reaction: I found this article interesting because before reading it I had no such knowledge of this problem in Hong Kong let alone several other Chinese cities. This really concern me that the problem is so bad its own residents walk around with masks on so they don't have to breathe the air! To see this problem in such a wealthy city it disappoints me they haven't done anything earlier. Tourists let alone the people have been scared off by the smog. I really hope to see follow ups on this, I would like to know how much progress they make and how it might really help us to have such knowledge of methods. And to improve upon these methods if our own cities see this horrible drop in air quality.

Questions:              

1. Except for the car retirement, what else do you think are some effective methods for lower the air pollution?
2. How would you feel as a resident? Who you breathe this air knowing of the pollution, or would you wear a mask like the women we see in this picture?
3. What is the number one most air polluted city in China?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203986604577257770238882852.html?KEYWORDS=alternative+energy+sources

Natural Gas to Power Pickups

 

 Summary: "U.S. auto makers are introducing pickup trucks powered by natural gas as they look to catch the growing wave of interest in the fuel as an alternative to gasoline"(Bennett).  Several motor companies have started to feature CNG-powerd cars, which run on both natural gas and gasoline. Chrysler Group LLC has just annouced the first production line pickup truck powered by natural gas. They are promising at least 2,000 heavy duty ram bi-fuel trucks, by the end of the fourth quarter. General Motors is also offering a bi-fuel Chevrolet Silveroda and GMC Sierra. They will be made by GM and sent to a supplier that willl refitt them for compressed gas use. Ford Motors has been offering a CNG prep kits for at leats six of thier vechiles. And will soon expand this to its large Ford 650. Honda Motor Co. is also in on the CNG market, it has been selling a only natural gas car since 1998.  The biggest problem with CNG cars is refueling. "Today there are fewer then 400 public CNG fueling stations in the US"(Bennett).

Reaction: I think this could be a great way to cut our oil use and emissions assuming the emissions from the CNG aren't as enviromentally harmful as those from regular gas engine cars. I really like these because I love hearing new ways to sway us from our gas operated cars and bring to a cleaner way of transportation without taking away the convenence of our personal cars. The only problem would be establishing public fuel stations all around th US. Overcoming this problem with all the money it would cost would most likely make a huge amount of jobs, experts say this industry could produece a huge 600,000 jobs by the end of this decade alone. Which is just a great plus along with helping our enviroment.

Questions:

1. What did president Obama have to say about this?
2. If this industry takes off what effect do you think it will have on the oil indusrty?
3. Would the natural gas for these cars be cheaper then oil?
 

Article: 4 Bold Ideas to Make America’s Energy Supply Safer, Cleaner & Virtually Inexhaustible

 http://discovermagazine.com/2011/nov/04-bold-ideas-energy-safer-cleaner-inexhaustible

Summary:  This article indicates that there is a new way to view our “energy crisis” These author characterize an “energy transition” between the types of energy used and the way we produce it.  We cannot rely on imported oil being 42 % of our trade deficit, nor fossil fuels being 95% of carbon emissions.  The four ideas are to reengineer the grid around electric vehicles.  The author argues we need to integrate our electric grid with the transportation infrastructure, so that electric cars can help reduce our carbon emissions.  Some of the savings to the system will be to provide incentives to have people charge their cars during off hours, so that electric companies will be using green, less carbon dependent fuel to make the electricity.  The technology to enhance the efficiency of batteries is coming of age and cost of these types of cars will decrease.

Reaction:  I really liked this article because as I have indicated before I like creative ways to solve problems.  Rather than just trying to use less gas or less fossil fuels this assumes we will use at least as much energy as before but we will be smarter about it.  We will be using electric cars that are better on emissions and we will build an infrastructure that allows people to  charge their cars and do it at non-peak times when costs are less and the fuel used to produce the electricity are more from sun/wind or nuclear.  We would not only improve pollution but make great headway on our dependence on foreign oil.  This reduction in trade deficit means that the country will have less debt which will stimulate the economy further.

Questions:

1)      Would employers be willing to help employees charge cars at would by building parking lots connected to their electrical grids, if they were allowed to vary the electric power draw based on when they could get energy cheaper?

2)      Could we get politicians of both parties in Washington to create tax breaks to help create an infrastructure of electricity around the country to someday replace gas stations?

3)      What responsibility does government have in trying to retrain the people who would be displaced by the decline in oil use?  That is with less refineries and gas stations how do we convert those jobs into a whole new industry?

Is what we're recycling actually getting recycled?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/conservation/issues/recycling-reality.htm

Picture: A landfill full of decomposing waste.

Summary: When you throw your recyclables or trash into the proper bins, do you actually think for a second about where it all goes? Do the companies actually recycle, or do they just dump it into landfills along with all of the other waste?  The movement of recycling in America came around in 1973, and it soon became a very large public service. Recycling is great for the environment because it reduces the amount of waste going into landfills. Recycling can also be very beneficial to the people recycling and other big companies. Recyclables are considered a commodity, or goods that can be sold, and these recyclables are broken down into raw materials and then sold to companies to make certain products. But does everything you recycle actually make it this far, or is it sometimes a fraud?

Sometimes recyclable materials can be soiled with other materials that make recycling them a big deal. When it becomes difficult to separate the two, it also becomes extremely expensive to do so. Some items such as pizza boxes with grease on it cannot be recycled due to foreign materials. Also, broken glass in many different colors can be extremely difficult to separate and recycle. Naturally, companies and schools do not want to spend extra money to recycle, so they have the bins that are to be recycled, but end up putting it all in the trash anyway. This leads people to be quite unsure about exactly where their recyclables are going to end up.  

Opinion/Reflection:

I was slightly surprised at the idea that my recyclables might not end up where they are intended to go, but I am not surprised that people would not recycle due to costs. I understand that it can be a lot of money to recycle, especially in these rough times, but people need to realize the benefits greatly outweigh the minor financial setbacks. Although this is how people are, and it does not just happen with recycling.

Questions:

11)      What are some reasons why recycling companies cannot make recycling more affordable?

22)      How can recycling companies make recycling more affordable?

33)      What are some other examples of companies not following  recycling laws?

44)      What is a trash audit?

Global Limits of Biomass Energy

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080611181214.htm 

Picture: This picture gives some examples of sources for biomass energy.

Summary: My article discusses the pros and cons of biomass energy. Biomass energy is the burning of any wastes or living things to obtain energy. Biomass is a very good source of energy. It is an alternative to fossil fuels, is clean, and is renewable. It is also a good way to clear some of our waste, and make it useful. In fact, 30% of Brazil's car fuel comes from sugar cane. Although, biomass does have some problems too. To use biomass energy, we need a lot of space in abandoned crop fields which could be used for farming. We could also add gases to the atmosphere that could affect global warming, and we could threaten food supply.

Opinion/Reflection: I think that biomass is a great way to obtain energy. It is easy compared to other energy-obtainin methods, and helps get rid of some of our wastes. It is cheap and is a great alternative to fossil fuels. Although it does some problems, I believe that biomass would be a great way to obtain energy for our country. 

Questions:

1) Do you think that using biomass is a good way to obtain energy?

2) How can you use biomass energy at home?

3) What do you think would be a better source of energy, if any? 

Brazil Fights Against Deforestation
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/04/26/brazil-congress-votes-to-relax-deforestation-laws/

Deforestation in Brazil

Summary:
Brazil is undergoing major deforestation issues. So far it's lost about 20% of it's forests. Over the years there have been struggles between citizens and congress regarding how much deforestation is taking place. People have been trying to get laws put out or other plans to help protect the environment.

Not too long ago there was a bill that was being passed allowing farmers to gain more land. However, this would result in even more trees being demolished. The citizens of Brazil though, fought with the congress to get the bill to change a bit. Luckily, they won and saved most of the forests from any more harsh destruction.

Reaction:
It's great to see people stick up for something like this. Knowing that there was actually going to be a bill passed basically saying that deforestation is okay is crazy! If they were going to follow through with it I could only imagine what the forests would look like afterwards. Forests are extremely important for habitats for animals so poor creatures are either forced to find a new place to live or end up suffering. Overall I think its great that the congress agreed to make some of those changes to the bill.

Questions:
1) What did the bill say exactly?
2) How do you feel about the bill without the changes? do you think that the changes were better or worse?
3) How can people help lower the deforestation rate?

The World’s Largest Dump: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Kevin Trichtinger

I found this article in Discover magazine, “The World’s Largest Dump: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch” written by Thomas M. Kostigen.  The article can be found on the web at this address  http://discovermagazine.com/ and search for “Kostigen.”

                                                                                      Summary:

Mr. Kostigen describes his experience of going out to examine what is called the “Eastern Garbage Patch.”  This is one of two large areas in the Pacific Ocean where a huge volume of mostly plastic trash has gathered.  The spot is located at the point where several different currents cross which has caused plastic items that have been thrown into the ocean from North and South America to clump together.  The position is between Hawaii and California and is apparently much larger than people think.  It is spread out over an area of one and one half the size of the United States and in some areas is as thick as 100 feet.  A group called the Algalita Marine Research Foundation is studying the garbage to determine its effect on marine life.  So far they have found evidence that it suppresses phytoplankton and gets into the stomach of birds and marine animals that mistake it for food.  This garbage collection was first noticed after World War II when the world started using petroleum to develop plastics.  There has been a progressive increase in the plastics not only made but collecting in this garbage heap.  Besides the effect it has directly on marine life, there is concern about some toxicity from how the plastics absorb toxins.  These toxins are building up in wildlife.

Reaction:

 I was very upset that we are turning an area of the ocean into a trash dump and damaging the environment.  At first, I was wondering why people aren’t out there trying to clean it up. But it is hard to think of an area the size of the United States out there floating with some parts 100 ft deep. Clean up is not an easy option. I was also upset that we are poisoning the fish and getting them to build up in toxins.  In the article it pointed out that more than 2.5 billion people on this planet get most of their protein from the sea. Also, when I look around, so many things are packaged in plastic. It is scary to think some of it ends up in the oceans. I think we need to look at the use of plastics and how we dispose of them, or these clumps of garbage are going to continue to get bigger. 

Questions

1)      Is there a way to decrease our overuse of plastics containers?

2)      Would it be possible to gather up and deal with this massive dump?

3)      Can we develop some plastics that would biodegrade faster so they don’t take years to dissolve?

Faulty Wells, Not Fracking, Blamed for Water Pollution

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304537904577277814040731688.html?KEYWORDS=water+pollutionKEYWORDS%3Dwater+pollution



Graphic depicting proper well structure

Picture: This picture is showing a detailed diagram of a proper fracking well design.


Summary: Many experts have agreed, many cases of poorly made fracking wells have led to water contamination. This wells we not properly sealed with subterranean cement allowing contaminants to travel up the wells bore and into small aquifers. The industry has been struggling to convince the critics that fracking itself is not a dangerous process but the faulty construction of the wells were. Many experts like Environmental Defense senior adviser Scott Anderson confirming it is a constructional problem. With the cement problem long plaguing the industry for many years. Companies like Chesapeake Energy Corp. promising better construction for the future, it looks like the problem is being handled well.


Reflection: I do believe that fracking is not the issue itself but the poor construction of their wells. It seems like some companies are taking full responsibility for their actions and rebuilding wells with more safe designs. I think the future for the industry looks bright.

Questions:

1. What is fracking?
2. What is your stance on this issue? Why?
3. What are the other believed risks of fracking?







Short Film Contest to Help Solve Water Issue

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/city-of-ventura-limoneira-patagonia-ithentic-announce-global-online-short-film-contest-for-environmentally-conscious-filmmakers-at-wwwwatertake1com-2012-03-26 

Advertisement for the contest

Summary:

The Ventura Water Company is holding a contest for short films. What's different about it though, is that they are films based on the the global water issue. It is said that the world is facing a water shortage and that not many people know about it. This Contest is to help raise awareness to the public and also show off the talents of many short film makers. To submit a piece participants would need to go to www.watertake1.com. There is no entry fee so this is available to anyone to participate in.

Reaction:

I think this is a wonderful idea. I didn't even know that our water supply was at risk of a shortage. This film contest seems fun and interesting which would attract many people to participate. I feel that it could help because it would bring the attention to more people out there. Also, it's great to see people get involved with helping the environment and actually care about our future.

Questions:

~If you were given the opportunity would you enter the contest? what would you talk about in your five minute film?

~Do you think this will help make a difference with the water shortage? why or why not?

~What would be another creative way to spread the awareness?

Study Finds Safety of Drinking Water in U.S. Cities at Risk

http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/uscities.asp

Study Finds Safety of Drinking Water in U.S. Cities at Risk

Picture: Clean drinking water, similar to the kind discussed in the article.

Summary: Believe it or not, but many cities in the United States rely on pre-World War I- era water systems to deliver water to homes and buildings. This means there are many old pipes, which have minor or major breaks, which lead to bacteria breeding in the very same place you’re drinking from. As you know, this can lead to many serious problems to the well-being of many communities in America. Many believe our government is neglecting this fact, and refuses to do much at all about this issue. If nothing is done soon, our clean drinking water supply will be totally contaminated.

Opinion/Reflection: I believe that we need to do something about our current water delivery systems. Personally, I think we are spending too much time worrying about other people’s problems, and not dealing with our own on our own soil. The government needs to look into this issue before it is too late. Also, I think Americans, me included, take clean, accessible, drinking water for granted, and this may also be a big part of the problem. Lastly, I believe we need to recognize this problem, as a nation, and work to solve it before it is too late.

Questions:

1)      What are some ways we can solve this issue while being Eco-Friendly as well as money efficient?

2)      How does the contamination of clean drinking water affect our everyday lives in the future?

3)      Why do you think we have put this problem off to the side for such a long time, and did nothing so far? 

 Health Ills About as Farm Runoff Fouls Wells

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/us/18dairy.html?_r=2

Picture: This picture shows the process of groundwater contamination.

Summary: This article is about cow waste on farms that is contaminating runoff, tap, and well water. This problem is very scary and there is not much that we can do to stop it. Cows have to excreate their waste on the land that they are given and we just don't have enough land to absorb the manure. Manure contains many contaminants which when consumed by humans through water, can cause diarrhea, stomach illness, and severe ear infections. Also, evironmentalists aren't doing much to stop the water contamination. The Clean Water Act of 1972 only regulates chemicals that move through pipes, not chemicals that seep underground (manure). Also, farmers aren't forced to fill out paper work for the E.P.A (Environmental Protection Agency). This problem is very hazardous to humans and wildlife.

Opinion: This is a very scary situation and I hope we can find a solution to stop it. Although, it is going to be very difficult. As I said before, it is impossible to force cows to stop excreating waste unless you clean up after them everytime they "go". But on a farm with over 100 cows, that would be nearly impossible. Also, the farmers need some of the manure to fertilize their feilds. The effects of drinking some of the pollutants from the manure is also very scary. From personal experience, I know that ear infections are very painful and take some time to go away. I think that environmentalists should buckle down and solve this problem however they can becasue it is having negative repercussions.

Questions:
1) How are the cow wastes reaching water supplies?
2) What could be a possible solution to this problem?
3) Could we somehow regulate when the cows "go"?

Kevin Trichtinger(McTWISTx)7

“A Dose of Diversity” by Jessica Snyder Sachs in National Wildlife August/September 2010 p. 22-29

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2010/A-Dose-of-Div

then search for “Jessica Sachs”  and click on title

Picture:  

This is a picture of some of the urban birds know to carry West Nile virus

Summary:  This article by Jessica Sachs seen to bring home the importance of what we were taught about biodiversity.  In this article she points to specific examples where the lack of biodiversity has had a direct effect on the rise of some less common illnesses that have become more frequent.  A Rutgers group found that in areas of wetlands that had lost it biodiversity that the bird populations also lost its diversity. The same areas where birds are less diverse West Nile virus infections have increased. She writes “studies have shown that across the nation bird diversity is a significant buffer against the spread of West Nile virus to humans.”  This unfortunately is not an isolated example.  Less diversity increases the rates of Lyme disease as in fragment areas the tic that spread the disease have an easier time finding both the white-footed mouse and the white tailed deer.  Additionally Ms Sachs points out that the loss of species diminishes the amphibians, mammals and plants that are our greatest hope to finding new drugs and vaccines to fight these diseases.

Opinion/Reflection: From our class I understood that the loss of biodiversity puts other species of plants or animals at risk for extinction; however, I don’t think I really understood that it is not just the loss of certain species; the loss of biodiversity influences other aspects of our lives. The illnesses that she talks about really hit home to me because one of my older brothers classmates was in the hospital for months due to West Nile virus.  Some of my family including my dog has needed to be treated for Lyme disease.  But the most disturbing thing may be that in lost species we are losing the opportunity to discover how nature fights off the very disease we are facing.

Questions:

1)      Should the government spend more money for research to preserve biodiversity wetlands or spend more to stop global warming?

2)      Since the amount of wetlands will not help the fractured urban regions that breed West Nile virus how do we make urban areas safer?

3)      How do we get the material that nature has available for us to fight diseases before the species that carry this information to go extinct?

Going Green

It's Too Easy Being Green

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203889904577198922867850002.html?KEYWORDS=environmental+disasters#articleTabs%3Darticle

Picture:

This graphic mocks all the "green" people out there.

Summary:

  In this article, It's Too Easy Being Green by David Owen; Mr. Owen talks about the consumers that consider themselves green by self-deception. For example in 2010 he took a ride in his friends new Ford Fusion, a gas electric hybrid which gets more miles per the gallon then comparable cars with conventional engines.  "His dashboard fuel gauge filled with images of intertwining green foliage, a symbolic representation of the environmental benefits we were apparently dispensing from the tailpipe as we aimlessly drove around." Similar to many concerned Americans he falls victim to the Prius Fallacy: "a belief that switching to an ostensibly more benign form of consumption turns consumption itself into a boon for the environment"
We're all consumers at heart says Owens, so why can't we solve all our problems with consumption? But the challenge arises when consumption its self is the problem, with a long list of environmental challenges and the only solutions made are either irrelevant or make the problem worse.  "That's the conundrum facing anyone who yearns for "'sustainability."'

Opinion/Reflection:

I laughed at this article when i read it! It is so true, I find it hilarious how stupid people can be.  When i found this article i knew i needed to share it. I wish people could see the errors in their ways. You buy a environmentally "friendly" product does not mean it is still not harming the environment, for example hybrids they are still putting out emissions. Or you buy a build a pool, and put in a solar powered water heater. Look at you saving the earth! They have good intentions but ultimately we will all wait for the scientists and politicians to carry out the solutions to our environmental problems.

Questions:

1. What is the Prius Fallacy?
2. In the article he mentions that, "our efforts are often at cross-purposes with our goals." What is he saying?
3. What is your opinion on this self deceiving consumption?

       

Advocates seek stop to Idaho, Montana wolf hunts

Advocates seek to stop Idaho, Montana wolf hunts

http://californiaexaminer.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/grey_wolves_could_lose_federal_protection.jpg

Picture: This graphic shows a grey wolf, similar to the kind being hunted today.

Summary: The grey wolves are extremely common in the northwestern parts of the United States, and many times, a pest as well as a threat to life. Ever since the first Americans settled in the pacific northwest, grey wolves have been hunted by poachers and fur traders, almost to the point if extinction. Finally, in 1973, the wolves were listed as an endangered species. The populations began to explode and soon enough, the wolves were terrorizing locals and farmers alike.

In 2011 alone, wolves in Idaho and Montana killed 152 cattle and calves, 108 sheep, 12 dogs and 3 horses. Locals and government officials thought enough was enough, and allowed people to hunt and kill wolves throughout the two states. The officials are going to keep roughly 150 of the current 700 wolves. Now, advocates are looking to stop the hunting, because they were once an endangered species. In their defense, the Federals pledged to step in and stop the hunts if the number drops below 100.

Opinion/Reflection:

This is a really touchy topic, and I see both sides of this argument. These wolves are really causing a big problem and need to be controlled somehow. Although, killing isn’t my favorite choice, but there simply is not much to do. We surely couldn’t move them because that would be asking for problems with invasive exotic species. This is a painful process and people have many different feelings and perspectives on this. Hopefully, the government does what the people think is right. 

Questions:

1.) Do you agree that the killing of these grey wolves is right? Why?

2.) What would you do if you were a government official and had to decide whether or not to kill these wolves? Why?

3.) How does killing the wolves impact the surrounding ecosystems?

Carbon Dioxide Breaking Down Marine Ecosystems
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338581/title/Carbon_dioxide_breaking_down_marine_ecosystems 

Picture

This graphic shows carbon dioxide bubbling up from the sea floor. 

Summary

A growing problem in marine ecosystems today is an increasing amount of carbon dioxide and low pH (phenyl) levels. Marine life diversity is declining and many animals are dying because of this increased level of carbon dioxide. Scientists have been collecting data from marine sites off Italy, Baja California and Papua New Guinea, where there are traces of high concentrations of carbon dioxide. Also, the pH levels in these areas are declining to at least 7.8, which is very irregular compared to normal levels of 8.1. Coral, some algae, and sea urchins are gone and many fish won’t eat or lay their eggs in these waters. Also, more sea creatures were killed when waters temperatures and CO2 levels increased in the late summer. If these levels keep fluctuating, more and more marine wildlife will die off, causing harm to food webs, and killing more and more ecosystems.

Opinion

It is alarming to me that such little things that we don’t even think about can cause such huge effects. We as consumers excessively burn fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide into the air. The carbon cycle cannot process all of the extra CO2, causing unnatural changes in CO2 levels. If we cut back on burning fossil fuels, we can help various marine ecosystems.

Questions

Why is excess carbon dioxide killing sea creatures?

What is an alternative for obtaining energy rather than burning fossil fuels?
 What are pH levels? 

Revealed: the new species threatened by deep-sea mining

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1252002/revealed_the_new_species_threatened_by_deepsea_mining.html

:

Summary:

For many hundreds of years people have always thought that there was little life at the bottom of the ocean. However, with more advanced technology we humans were able to gain enough knowledge to reveal that there are many living creatures and even ecosystems on the ocean floor. Just recently a species call the Kiwa Hairy Crab was discovered down below. Even though they are newly found the organisms are struggling to survive. In order to live, species strive off of hydrothermal vents. These volcanic structures release chemicals making the environment able to sustain life. Humans, however, are mining the vents making them close off and not usable for the environment. Without these vents life would not be able to survive. Thus killing thousands of unknown species before we even get a chance to discover them.

Reaction:

I think that it's terrible how humans are just going down and destroying  ecosystems that we may never know about. Who knows what may be in the depths of the ocean. To prevent this mining i think that the countries who are currently in the process of deep sea mining should either cut down or stop completely before the idea spreads to other places. 

Questions:

1) What are the benefits of this kind of mining?

2) What are miners taking from the vents?

3) What are some ways to prevent this problem?