Issue 3

a) I highly doubt that major oil companies, such as Exxon and BP, will ever seriously develop and support alternatives–not until the world has been sucked dry of oil. They’re getting real money from their oil enterprise; why would they try to change something that brings in the excessive profit? They wouldn’t. The CEOs are still money-oriented. They know the people are unwilling to shift from cheap, easy fuel; that’s what they mean when they say, “No one is beyond petroleum.” As a nation, our main source of fuel comes from petroleum, and we take pride in that.

b) The Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute are considered “denial groups,” or groups that do not believe global warming is happening, and who believe that excessive carbon dioxide emissions are okay–”they are a part of life” says one groups commercial.  Exxon agreed with these groups and did not think climate change was happening.  When confronted about how much money they are putting in to searching for alternative energies, Exxon replied that they thought they were doing enough. Although they were not putting much money in, they said that they offered enough money for research.  Also, they said that no matter how much money they put in, some would always say they could put in more.  Now, Exxon is trying to address climate change not because they want to, but because the shareholders and investors think that addressing climate change is the best thing for the company.  They wanted Exxon to change course and attempt to bring down its carbon footprint.  This makes Exxon in an awkward place with the climate change denial groups (Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute) because Exxon has completely changed its mind.  They are considered hypocrites which is another reason why some scientists are cynical about their efforts.  After all, they are only making efforts to gain more money from investors.  Exxon and other oil companies try to advertise as being environmentally conscious to gain the support from the public.  Personally, I do not think that these oil companies will ever throw a significant amount of their profits behind alternatives because if there are more alternatives, then gas will not be in demand as much and therefore the companies will not be earning as much money.

c) Currently, up to 1.2 million barrels of oil are produced from the tar sands every day. The goal of 5.3 million bdp could be reached by 2020.

However, oil from the tar sands is much more difficult to extract than the conventional oil. This oil is found in the ground in the form of bitumen, a hydrocarbon that is solid at normal temperaturesand mixed in ith sand, water, and clay.

There are two processes to extract this form of oil and both are harmful to the earth’s atmosphere.

Surface mining, which requires cutting down trees, must be done to expose layer of bitumen in the ground. Two tons of this material equals only one barrel of oil. This process destroys the local ecosystems, leaving open “pit mines” about 75 meters deep.

The other process is in-situ mining; a technique needed to reach about 90% of the bitumen. This process requires high pressure steam to increase the bitumen’s viscosity and seperate the oil from sand. Heating the water to produce the steam requires large amounts of natural gas. “Tar sands mining requires 750 cubic feet of natural gas for each barrel of oil.” The production of this oil uses large amounts of cleaner, nonrenewable gas to produce a dirtier gas. It just does not make sense why the companies would want to forgo using a cleaner gas, and instead use this to make a dirtier gas.

Both processes are water intensive, using about 3 and 7 barrels of water per barrel of oil. A large percentage of this water ends up in large tailing ponds with toxic materials. An average of 2 to 4.5 barrels of water are used to produce one barrel of this oil. This is seriously lowering the water levels in Canada. Toxic water from the production of the oil has infected fish and other wildlife. This toxic water has also caused sickness among the Aboriginal people that live near the production sites

Also, with oil prices reaching as high as $90 a barrel, extraction has become very expensive. In addition to the overall cost, oil sand extraction is highly energy intensive.

The most alarming statistic was learning about how the production of tar sands release about three times more greenhouse emissions than pumping conventional oil. If this continues, the tar sands industry will be the largest producer of greenhouse gases of all the industries in Canada. “The tar sands consume as much gas every day as is needed to heat half the homes in Canada.” Clearly, tar sand and shale production is an inefficient way to make a dirtier oil to use in our homes. Why not invest in cleaner, more efficient energy sources?

Sources:

http://www.tarsandswatch.org/files/Polaris_Tarsands_Moratorium_Declaration.pdf

http://www.tarsandswatch.org/files/adirtylittlesecret.pdf

Frontline’s “Heat” video

I finally knew when my dad was having his “middle age crisis”. Earlier, I thought it could have been when he randomly bought a RV and proclaimed that he wanted to “travel across the country”. I thought this was a joke considering the thing was predominately ancient. But this particular action really persuaded me that his “middle age crisis” was now…He decided one day to trade in his Lexus, which was rather comfortable and luxurious, for a Toyota Prius. Yes, a hybrid. This time he proclaimed that he wanted to “help save energy and set an example for Americans”. Although I do believe hybrids do set a positive example of innovation, I tried to persuade him that his purchase was in fact, ineffective. 

WIth an estimated $4 per gallon and 12,000 miles per year, one will spend approximately $1,066.67 on gas for the Toyota Prius. On the other hand, one will spend approximately $1,411.76 on gas for the Chevy Aveo. Although the Toyota Prius will save more trips to gas stations, one must look at the other expenses before even thinking about purchasing one of these hybrids. The Toyota Prius costs about $21,500 in comparision to the Chevy Aveo which costs $11,460, a remarkably lower price. According to smartmoney.com, sure hybrids are not the most expensive car compared to the $55,000 Cadillac Escalade, but if you compare them with their counterparts-long term economy cars- you could actually spend anywhere from 25% to 30% more at the dealership and not save much at the pump.

What is even more ironic is what Edmunds.com predicts about the purchases of hybrid cars. They believe “that hybrids will depreciate faster than other models”. Automakers are already using newer technology to replace the older models with newer and more efficient ones with more power and better mileage. So, unfortunately, a driver looking for a newer fuel efficient car is not going to even consider looking at the older technology with a price that it still higher than the traditional economy cars such as the Chevy Aveo.

I don’t blame my dad for purchasing this Toyota Prius though. He, as well as other Americans are led to believe that hybrids are essentially beneficial to the environment. They think because hybrids runs more efficiently than a conventional engine, it will cut carbon dioxide emissions in half and other toxic gases by 90%. However, an article by “The Recorder” states that  the Toyota Prius is in fact one of the worst pollutants. I thought this was rather surprising. 

I also thought it was interesting how nickel played a significant role in the overall price for hybrid cars. Because the ingredient for the battery is transported across the world, it is an expensive process that adds more money to the cost. One of the reasons for the hybrid cars is to be more independent on foreign goods and to use our own technology- yet we need nickel from different countries to mass produce batteries for these cars! Not only that, but nickel emits dangerous emissions that are affecting the surrounding environments. Overall, the total energy consumed by the Prius, including the building of it, is more than the Chevy Aveo. This was particularly surprising as well as disturbing. 

I think hybrid cars are definitely not worth the money. Drivers should spend their money on cars such as the Chevy Aveo and wait until scientists find a better solution for energy conservation that will save the money in our pockets.

Source: smartmoney.com

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

It has come to my attention that the coral reefs around the world are slowly diminishing. Why? These very diverse marine ecosystems face threats from activities and events from coastal development, overfishing, inland pollution, and global climate change.

The 2004 edition of Status of Coral Reefs Around the World includes exactly why these things are happening. Sadly, it it all because of human activity. 

Global climate change results from coral bleaching- caused by elevated sea surface temperatures-and  rising levels of CO2. Overfishing is disturbing the coral reefs not only by killing many species, but it is also disturbing the surrounding ecosystems in the ocean because of the practice of using bomb and cyanide fishing. This will result in many chemicals polluting the water. Development of coastal areas is also destroying coral reefs because many development companies mine coral rock beyond sustainable limits. 

But overall, the Status of Coral Reefs Around the World notes that “the major emerging threat to coral reefs in the last decade has been coral bleaching and mortality associated with global climate change.” 

An additional source, Greenpeace, also fears that coral reefs will vanish in many areas:

“If climate change is not stopped, coral bleaching 

is set to steadily increase in frequency

and intensity all over the world

until it occurs annually by 2020-2070.”

Greenpeace also states that it would take hundreds of years to recover. The loss of these fragile ecosystems would cost billions of dollars in lost of revenue from tourism as well as fishing industries, as well as damage to coastal regions that are currently protected by coral reefs that line most coastlines. 

Not only do coral reefs protect shores from the impact of waves and storms, but they also provide a lot of benefits to humans in the form of food and medicine and economic benefits to local communities because of tourism. 

Recent statistics has shown that 20% of the world’s coral reefs have been destroyed and show no signs of recovery. Approximately 24% of the world’s reefs are at risk of collapse through human pressures, and 26% are under a “long term threat of collapse”. Also, a report from World Resources Institute suggests that as much as 60% of the world’s coral reefs are threatened by human activity. 

These statistics are rather alarming. These global threats to coral reefs should be diminished rather than them rapidly increasing. We have to come to understand that coral reefs are the one type of ecosystem that is neglected more than any other. Ironically though, it is one of the richest in biodiversity. If we continue to abuse the coral reefs, perhaps will will not see the richness of biodiversity in 2020.

In one of my recent posts, I carefully listed some solutions for a more safe, natural environment free from harmful emissions and other factors. I listed about fifteen different ideas that people around the country could do to help the environment. Ironically, I recently read about ten different people who are using some of the solutions- and surprisingly, they are working. Here’s the ten heroes of the environment that are beginning to understand that it’s not about the governments alone. It’s people.

Alice Waters has been the owner of the Chez Panisse reaturant in Berkeley, California, since 1971. What is unique about her restaurant it that it has provided the best foods that are locally grown and simply prepared. Her restaurant and cookbooks has launched the “local-foods movement”, and her Edible Schoolyard project “encourages students to help grow and show for their lunches”. Her goal is to find the best varieties of  fruits and vegetables grown locally for “sustainability and nutrition”.

Peggy Liu has been working on trying to make China green. She has set up the Joint U.S. China Cooperation on Clean Energy (JUCCE), an organization focused on finding practical solution to big problems. China is expected to have 50,000 new skyscrapers by 2030, and according to Liu, the energy-conservation potential is huge. However, there is always  skepticism about spending more money to make those building energy efficient. Liu’s plan is to persuade each developer that you can “make green by going green”. 

Jack Sim is the founder of the World Toilet Organization. Sim has pointed out that lack of proper sanitation is one of the “developing world’s greatest problems”. 2.6 billion people do not have access to a toilet, and groundwater contaminated by fecal matter is a major killer throughout the world. Sim is now working to partner toiletmakers with fertilizer businesses so that “human waste can serve as a natural crop booster”. He is also working to on a new technology that transforms sewage into biogas, which can be used as cooking oil. It just shows that the world can use used resources.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is working hard to become a green governor. He has signed agreements with Canada, Mexico, and the UN encouraging clean technology. He has pushed for greenhouse-gas reductions in California. He has enacted the first statewide cap on carbon emissions, the “first state green-building code and the first state fuel-efficiency standards.” Although Bush has blocked his emissions cuts, Schwarzenegger has sued and hopes to continue if he wins.

Shai Agassi in May 2007 launched Project Better Place, his electric car start-up. He soon afterwards received a grant from the Israeli authorities and a $200 million in funding from investors. As Agassi says,”At current prices. electric cars will be 20% cheaper to run than gasoline engines.” His goal for Israel by 2015 is to have all electric-powered cars where drivers will plug in their batteries at night. He also predicts that there will 150 service stations across Israel if his plan succeeds.

Marina Rikhvanova has been working hard to save Sibera’s Lake Baikal from the Baikalsk pulp and paper mill on the shoreline. She is trying to preserve the world’s largest body of fresh water, with more than 1,500 animal and plant species and 20% of the planet’s “unfrozen freshwater preserves”. She has co-founded the Baikal Environmental Wave ( BEW) in order to try to preserve this lake. Other problems she is trying to address is the toll of zinc and lead mining, agricultural runoff, and pollution. She believes any person can make a difference.

John Doerr and his firm KPCB has spent hundreds of millions of dollars into green-tech start ups, including a company developing power plants driven by the heat of the sun and another that will mass produce cheap solar cells to “roll out on roofs like tar paper”.  He wants to conquer global warming.

Habiba Sarabi is the governor of a a small province, Bamian, in Afghanistan. She is helping the war-raged country by establishing Afghanistan’s first national park. She has inspired other small communities and provinces to join her campaign to preserve the land that is left there.

Van Jones has started Green For All in California. His ideas  to go green not only would help the environment, but it would help the struggling communities. “We can beat pollution and poverty at the same time”, says Jones. His plan is to provide a pathway to blue-collar workers, training them for work in the low-carbon economy of the future.

and Kim Stanley Robinson is one of the most famous writers working in science fiction today. His award-winning novels published in the 1990’s has proved to be an inspiration to all of his readers. “His gift is a vision that uses the environment as the focus of all that happens rather than as a grim set dressing or allegorical overlay”.

 

These ten examples of people from different countries shows that one person CAN make a difference.

 

 

In a recent article in TIME, Bryan Walsh raises an interesting question. Are the melting glaciers in Greenland going to effect the planet? 

One of the major attractions in Greenland that is hard to miss is the 30,000 feet glaciers that loom into the crisp sky. Several years ago, it would appropriate to say that the frozen water comprised in these glaciers would be safely stable. However, now with the abrupt climate changes today, scientists are worried that the 800 trillion gallons of frozen water in the Greenland ice cap is slowly melting. 

One of the glaciers, the Jacobshavn Glacier, near the western coast of Greenland, is already experiencing the drastic loss of frozen water. One scientist noted that “you could make out veins of the purest veins of the purest blue meltwater running between folds of ice”. The Jacobshavn’s slide towards the sea is now at 65 ft. to 115 ft. a day- an alarming rate that has “accelerated in recent years”.

As Bryan Walsh says in this article, “Greenland is the front line in humanity’s battle against climate change”. Unfortunately, Walsh is correct. Each year, more and more of Greenland is disappearing, with as much as “150 billion metric tons of glacier vanishing annually”. So, the question, will this effect our planet? The answer: Of course.

It can be estimated that if all of the glaciers in Greenland melted, global sea levels would rise more than 20 ft. This would be enough to drown any coastal city. 

If you think dealing with yearly hurricanes is a problem, try to imagine every single coastal city and town destroyed by melted glacier water. The climate change that exists today is due to human existence and our improper use of dangerous greenhouse emissions that results in global warming. We should be focused on helping restore the environment before the annual rate of the glaciers melting increases. It is only a matter of time.

          Most times the debate regarding drilling in Alaska refers back to the question, “Then what? If we stop drilling in Alaska, how will we reduce gas usage throughout the country and how will we provide useful energy sources? There are many ways that Americans can contribute. Not only will it help the economy, but these solutions will also help the environment. 

1. Purchasing food products from local farmers will help decrease the amount of gas from further locations.

2. Purchasing electric cars decreases gas consumption and eliminates carbon dioxide emissions.

3. Purchasing energy efficient appliances and electricity generated by renewable energy. 

4. Provide more public transportation to assure a decrease in gasoline and less carbon dioxide emissions.

5. Promote carpools and carpool lanes to also help decrease gasoline consumption and help avoid large amounts of harmful emissions.

6. Rely on hybrid cars, motorcycles, bicycles, or vespas to decrease gas consumption.

7. Promote wind turbines across the country to create more energy

8. Supply solar panels in large urban areas

9. Purchase energy efficient light bulbs

10. Unplug chargers and turn off electricity when not in use.

11. Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle!

12.  Use alternative fuels- Some people use ethanol or even grease from fast food restaurants!

13. Promote tax incentives for reduction of fuel consumption

14. Build more dams to produce hydroelectricity 

15. Install water filtration systems in homes

16.  Provide clean water in reusable bottles to reduce plastic

17. Install nuclear power plants

The ANWR is home to more than 45 major land and marine species; 36 of which are specific fish species and 180  bird species. It is composed of 8 million acres with no signs of civilization, human control, or management. One responsibility of the ANWR is to protect the artic and subartic ecosystems, a very unique aspect that many places in the world can not offer. However, today the ANWR is the center of a congressional debate when it comes to drilling oil in the barren tundra. It has been inferred that approximately 1.5 million of these acres will be affected if the government decides to drill. This area, known as the “1002 Area”, will be the beginning of a ecological disaster if drilling occurs. Sooner or later, the drilling along the edge of the Beaufort Sea in the northeast corner of Alaska will progress to different sections of the ANWR, resulting in thousands of miles of pipelines which will ultimately affect the ecosystems and the species living in them. Is this worth it? Will our country prosper from this decision or will it be considered to have no impact whatsoever. 

Senator Jim Talent believes that we should not even hesitate at the idea of drilling in the United States. He states that if we have oil in our land, we should take advantage of it. Senator Ted Stevens also believes we should drill in Alaska. To him, the ANWR is just a barren wasteland with no particular species that could be affected. As for the herds of caribou, he states that the drilling would occur in the wintertime when they migrate to the mountains and therefore, would not be affected. 

However, Senator Maria Cantwell and Senator Dick Durbin explained that the land will be affected drastically by the drilling equipment and the thousands of miles of pipelines dug into the frozen earth, which would in fact affect the caribou as well as any other specie hoping to survive in the tundra. 

Other informative points were raised by people with two different views on the drilling matter. Eleanor Huffiner explained that the land is not in fact a barren wasteland, but a natural ecosystem that should not be disturbed. She further explained that the process of drilling will take place all year round, not just in the wintertime. To search for a particular drilling site, one must explore and research the region and then ultimately produce. This process must take more time that one season. As a result, there will be a definite harm to the caribou, birds, clean water, and clean air. There will be an increase in pipelines, roads, and gas flares. Not only that, but for the people who do live there, they are concerned for the coastal plain for the future for both the herd and their culture. Economically, it will only reduce the price of gas by a penny. Our imported oil from the middle east will remain above 60%. So to the question, is it worth digging into one of the most prestigious ecosystems in our country? The answer is no. We will still have to depend on international nations for the majority of our gas and oil and the overall result to the ecosystem is not worth it.

However, a resident living in Alaska explained that drilling close by will help their community. It will promote jobs, schools, clinics, and modern technology- something that was absent from their lifestyles. But this should not encourage human beings to ruin a ecosystem. 

Although I do understand the disadvantages as well the multiple advantages, I still believe that we do not have the right to ruin another ecosystem in our country. Especially one that is not overrun with a human population. We should be more concerned about protecting the ANWR than where we should be getting our oil from. We have already terminated several thousands species of animals and plants due to our industrial surges; let’s do one thing right and save this beautiful natural ecosystem in Alaska.

A herd of musk ox graze in an area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, known as Area 1002, in this undated file photo. The Bush administration has proposed drilling foroil in Area 1002. Senate Republicans said Tuesday, March 11, 2003, they fully anticipate a provision on developing oil in the refuge, known as ANWR, to be included as part of a budget measure to be take up by the full Senate next week.

Sources:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec05/anwr_11-2.html

http://arctic.fws.gov/