flying green @ flyingaway

Lost whales might have returned to sea unseen

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:20:00 +0000

Since that last news I could find on the whales was two days ago when scientists and onlookers lost track of the whales, it looks like the two finally made it back to sea. After all the coverage of these lost whales it almost seems disappointing that there was no fanfare event of them crossing into the ocean.

Coyotes thriving in big cities, suburbs

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Tue, 29 May 2007 16:35:00 +0000

Coyotes are such wildly adaptive creatures that it's not surprising that they're doing well in suburban and urban areas. This article gives examples of how suburban sprawl is actually causing an increase in the coyote population. Don't start freaking out about coyotes though, even if there have been some attacks in the news lately, such as in New Jersey.

Still, experts urge perspective: In Cook County, which includes Chicago, there are some 3,000 dog bites on average each year, with a few hundred serious enough to require hospital care, Gerht says. Yet he is unaware of any reported coyote attacks.

They're wild animals and they have a right to living space just as we do.

Rescuers open fire, with water, on lost whales

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Sat, 26 May 2007 01:12:00 +0000

Does anyone else think that this situation with the whales in the Sacramento River is getting a little ridiculous? I find it hard to believe that there's nothing better that can be done than what's been tried already. Now they've found that using a fire hose seems to help drive them, but they're not going to try it again until Tuesday.

The rescuers decided to try the fire hose after the lost whales resisted attempts to move them down river through banging pipes, a flotilla of boats and the recordings of fellow humpbacks and killer orcas.
The two whales apparently took a wrong turn when they entered San Francisco Bay and traveled 90 miles inland up the Sacramento River. They turned around at the Port of Sacramento and were making progress Monday when they reached the Rio Vista Bridge and began swimming in circles.

I understand that they're wild animals so it's tough to figure out how much to interfere, but it's so sad to read about the whales' injuries and skin problems due to the fresh water.

Polar Bears at Risk as Warming Thaws Icy Home

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Thu, 24 May 2007 00:33:00 +0000

After seeing the sad, tired (animated) polar bear in An Inconvenient Truth swim to a chunk of ice and have it fall apart under its feet (so sad!), I've been noticing that people are becoming more concerned about the polar bears. Even to the point where people are pushing to get them listed as endangered. And this all makes sense if scientists are right (and I think they are) about the melting ice caps.

Many scientific studies project that warming, widely blamed on emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, could melt the polar ice cap in summer, with estimates of the break-up ranging from decades to sometime beyond 2100.
Bears' favourite hunting ground is the edge of the ice where they use white fur as camouflage to catch seals.
"If there's no ice, there's no way they can catch the seal," said Sarah James of the Gwich'in Council International who lives in Alaska. "Gwich'in" means "people of the caribou", which is the main source of food for about 7,000 indigenous people in Alaska and Canada.

It just gets to me how people are so resistant to changing their lifestyle and don't care that the things we do have major effects on beings that have no control over what we do. We're so self-centered.

Sorry!

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Thu, 24 May 2007 00:21:00 +0000

I've been bad about posting lately because of finals, graduating, and moving back home. But I'm back. I'm sure I've been missed. ;)

Little money to clean up polluting school buses

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Mon, 07 May 2007 00:45:00 +0000

Ah, I remember the days of taking the bus to school when the driver pulled up in a "stinky" old bus because our regular bus was getting a tune-up.

An estimated 390,000 diesel school buses are on the road in the U.S., according to the EPA. Most newer buses were manufactured to meet stricter emissions guidelines and do not need filters. But about one-third of the nation’s diesel school-bus fleet, or more than 100,000 buses, were manufactured before 1990 and are big polluters, according to EPA.

If there's a more effective rally cry than "save the children," I've never heard it. If more news outlets start picking this up, I'm sure states will start seeing some money to put filters into the older buses. Check out the map in the article to see how your state fares on school bus emissions.

Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green?

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Wed, 02 May 2007 03:02:00 +0000

I'll be honest, I haven't been to up-to-date on what buying carbon credits meant and I'm not entirely sure what my stance on it is yet. I feel like Denis Hayes's comparison of this to the Catholic Church selling indulgences is a bit strong, but the article does have good points about how buying and selling carbon credits could actually be detrimental to the attempt to stop global warming.

Michael R. Solomon, the author of “Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being” and a professor at St. Joseph's University, said he was not surprised by the allure of the carbon-offsetting market.
“Consumers are always going to gravitate toward a more parsimonious solution that requires less behavioral change,” he said. “We know that new products or ideas are more likely to be adopted if they don’t require us to alter our routines very much.”
But he said there was danger ahead, “if we become trained to substitute dollars for deeds — kind of an ‘I gave at the office’ prescription for the environment.”

Schwarzenegger Warns of California Suit Against EPA

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:23:00 +0000

Last year I wrote an article for my school newspaper when I found out about California's attempt to sue automakers for not creating vehicles with stricter emissions standards. While I thought that it was good that someone was doing something, I didn't think this was a good way to go about it. After all, automakers are supplying our need, and obviously enough demand isn't there to make a change. It just seemed akin to suing McDonald's because kids are fat.

What I thought would make more sense is pressuring for stricter standards for automakers to follow, and finally, California is trying to do this. Schwarzenegger threatened the EPA that the state would sue them if they don't act soon on the state's attempt to regulate greenhouse emissions themselves:

Schwarzenegger's move stems from California's request in 2005 to get a federal Clean Air Act waiver that would allow it to regulate auto emissions more aggressively.
The Republican governor said the state Thursday will send a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson telling the agency of its plans to file legal action if the EPA does not act on the exemption request within six months.

I think it's a good step that individual states want to make stricter regulations, but this can only be effective if the majority of states follow suit. I don't know what the chances are of this happening without federal laws being put in place.

Mankind's rarest view: Earth from afar

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 02:50:00 +0000

It's appropriate that for Earth Day we be reminded how fragile a planet we live on. It may seem huge and invincible, but that's only because we're so small and small-minded. So we should listen to the people who have seen our planet from a different point a view and have been changed by it:

“It’s hard to appreciate the Earth when you’re down right upon it because it’s so huge.

“It gives you in an instant, just at a position 240,000 miles away from it, (an idea of) how insignificant we are, how fragile we are, and how fortunate we are to have a body that will allow us to enjoy the sky and the trees and the water ... It’s something that many people take for granted when they’re born and they grow up within the environment. But they don’t realize what they have. And I didn’t till I left it.”
—Jim Lovell, Apollo 8 and 13.

Al Gore Gets Approval To Install Solar Panels at His Tennessee Home

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:54:00 +0000

I know a lot of people think that Gore is only making changes now that he got "caught." I never saw the original article about the energy use at his home, but I did see some responses and I don't think I buy what was said in the original article. Anyone out there have a link to it?

Anyway, Gore finally got it approved to install solar panels in his home, and he'll be doing other renovations along with this:

He is also upgrading the furnace, windows, and light switches, as well as installing new floor radiant heat and solar vents, to improve the home's energy standards, said Kalee Kreider, a Gore spokeswoman.

What bothers me the most about that article calling Gore a hypocrite is that is just gives people a reason to disregard the real issue, and then they can feel satisfied not doing anything about pollution in their daily lives. People are just looking for distractions so that they don't have to make a change.

Skyfarming: Turning Skyscrapers Into Crop Farms

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 03:38:00 +0000

An interesting article from New York Magazine describes a Columbia University professor's plan that could make it possible to have farming in skyscrapers in New York City, or any city for that matter. These so-called vertical farms have many benefits, including producing food for local people, providing sustainable energy, and purifying wastewater, and potentially reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

There is another reason to develop indoor farming: exploding population growth. By 2050, demographers estimate there will be an additional 3 billion people (a global total of 9.2 billion). If current farming practices are maintained, extra landmass as large as Brazil would have to be cultivated to feed them. Yet nearly all the land that can produce food is already being farmed—even without accounting for the possibility of losing more to rising sea levels and climate change (which could turn arable land into dust bowls).

Depending on the crops being grown, a single vertical farm could allow thousands of farmland acres to be permanently reforested. For the moment, these calculations remain highly speculative, but a real-life example offers a clue: After a strawberry farm in Florida was wiped out by Hurricane Andrew, the owners built a hydroponic farm. By growing strawberries indoors and stacking layers on top of each other, they now produce on one acre of land what used to require 30 acres.

The article goes on to provide an interesting and informative diagram about how one of these vertical farms would function. Definitely a neat read.

Study Shows New York City Puts Out Nearly One Percent of Greenhouse Gases in U.S.

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 03:28:00 +0000

Halfway through the article I still wasn't sure if this amount of greenhouse gas output was supposed to be a lot or a little, if the article was praising New York City or condemning it, in it's statement of these facts. But then I finally got to this part:

With 2.7 percent of the country's population -- 8.2 million of 300 million -- the average New York City resident contributes less than a third of the emissions generated by a typical American. This is largely due to the popularity of the city's mass transit system, which cuts down on car emissions, officials said.

Ah, so it's a good thing, I told myself... at least in relation to the rest of our carbon overproducing country. Now that the NYC government has this data, they can figure out how to continue going about lowering the city's amout of greenhouse gas emmissions by 30% by 2030.

Wild Parrots Make a Home in Brooklyn

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:45:00 +0000

I'm going to help Steve Baldwin get the word out that there's wild parrots living in Brooklyn. These birds are not new inhabitants of Brooklyn College's soccer field, but many people don't know that they're there. These Quaker parrots come from a more temperate climate and thus, can survive the cold Northeastern winters. They build huge nests and share them with other birds, has anyone ever heard of that before?

"They're so astonishing. You see them and they're loud and they're green and you assume that they're tropical," said Eleanor Miele, associate professor of science education at the college, who has her students observe the birds for class projects. But "they are adaptable for winter."
And, says parrot fan Steve Baldwin, who has dedicated the past couple of years to chronicling the birds, there is no shortage of food because they will eat pretty much anything, like grass, the buds on trees, seeds, fruit.

Some states have banned the ownership of these birds out of fear that their large nests will cause problems or that they will damage agriculture, but Baldwin says they're not really that much of a threat. Perhaps I'll head over to Brooklyn one weekend soon and take some pictures.

Scientists Detail Climate Changes, Poles to Tropics

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:32:00 +0000

I kind of dropped the ball on the next report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which came out on Friday. This article details the effects of global warming that we're heading towards in the near future and the changes that are already taking place. The scientific evidence in this report could serve as a powerful reminder to governments, especially the U.S., that better environmental policies need to be put in place -- this is something every country in the world needs to cooperate on.

And it seems that representatives from the U.S. are beginning to agree:

The conclusions came after four days of revisions by scientists and then an often rancorous all-night debate with government officials. In a sign of shifting geopolitics on global warming, scientists who worked on the report criticized China for weakening some language in the summary, while they credited the United States, which had for years stressed uncertainty in the science, with playing a mostly constructive role.

Yet, as always, I express concern over governments playing any role in the editing of these kind of reports, and the article does address the problems that come of this.

Under pressure from nations including Russia, China and Saudi Arabia, the authors said, sections on coral damage and tropical storms were softened in the summary. They also got the authors to drop parts of an illustration showing how different emissions policies might limit damage. Officials from those countries argued that data in the report did not support the level of certainty expressed in the final draft.
But some authors were not assuaged. The final document was “much less quantified and much vaguer and much less striking than it could have been,” said Stéphane Hallegatte, a participant from France’s International Center for Research on the Environment and Development.

I know, it is only the summary is what has been edited by this group, but how many people will have access to, and will actually read, the 1,572 page report?

Auto Industry Urges Economy-Wide Approach to Global Warming

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:13:00 +0000

Here's something that I didn't know was going on:

The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming. In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

The auto industry reacted as expected. They want to be involved in the decision-making so that they can pressure for more lenient laws.

Dave McCurdy, the [Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers] president and chief executive, said automakers would work with lawmakers and federal agencies to help develop a national approach.

I'll believe the cooperation when I see it.

Changed Climate, Changed Species

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 20:17:00 +0000

MSNBC has put together a document that shows real life examples of the changes that have occurred and will continue to do so because of global warming. This comes along with the second report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which will come out officially on April 6.

It's an interesting read with a cute map showing the areas and species that it focuses on, such as polar bears in the Arctic. One species that I was surprised to find on the map is ticks in Sweden:

Swedish studies have shown that ticks have multiplied countrywide in recent decades, spreading north from traditional breeding grounds in the Stockholm archipelago. The pinhead-sized arachnids have even turned up near the Arctic Circle.

It makes sense that with an increasingly warmer climate, that these pests wouldn't die off every winter. Having grown up with pets, I know what a pain ticks (and fleas) can be, and what a relief it is come winter when we don't have to worry about them.

Another point that I found interesting and sad is the part about the coral reefs and their bleaching due to rising temperatures and an increase in carbon dioxide absorption.

Burger King Shifts Policy on Animals

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:26:00 +0000

It's no giant leap, but it is the first step (hopefully of many) in pressuring other fast food chains and factory farm industry into better treatment of animals. Burger King has decided that it will buy a percentage of its eggs and pork from suppliers who raise their animals in a cage free environment. While cage free is not the same thing as free range, which Steven Grover (vice president for food safety) makes sure to point out, this move is still pretty impressive coming from a fast food company that, like all others, is set on keeping costs low.

“When the big boys move, it makes the entire industry move,” said Ms. Grandin, who serves on the animal welfare task forces for several food companies, including McDonald’s and Burger King...
Burger King executives said the move was driven by their desire to stay ahead of consumer trends and to encourage farmers to move into more humane egg and meat production.
“We want to be doing things long before they become a concern for consumers,” Mr. Grover said. “Like a hockey player, we want to be there before the puck gets there.”

The company has expressed the wish to raise the percentage of products coming from cage free suppliers, only the supply isn't there yet. I have a feeling that we'll be hearing news like this coming from other companies in a relatively short time and that farmers will take heed. I can only hope that soon the day of the factory farm will be abolished, but I think that would take a lot more pressure from consumers and I don't know if enough people are willing to take up this cause.

Harry Potter to Make Fewer Trees Disappear in His Final Appearance

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 02:46:00 +0000

Here's a cute article on the seventh and last Harry Potter book, which Scholastic will publish using greener methods than the last six books in the series. Scholastic received a lot of criticism, especially from Greenpeace, for not using enough recycled paper in the production of the sixth Potter book, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Scholastic, Inc., U.S. publisher for the popular novels about the boy wizard who battles the forces of evil while attending Hogwarts Academy, worked with the Rainforest Alliance to develop a plan to print the newest Harry Potter novel on paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

Perhaps this is another thing I can add to the list of reasons why I love Harry Potter.

Scientists Propose Interspecies Cloning

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:12:00 +0000

The gut reaction I experienced just reading the headline was "NO, who do they think they are, Dr. Frankenstein?!?" But upon actually reading the article, it seems that the rationale behind the decision to try to pursue this method of using animal eggs along with human DNA is fairly logical, especially when many people balk at the use of human eggs to create stem cells.

All three U.K. teams aim to get around that bottleneck by taking DNA from patients sick with a disease like Alzheimer's and fuse it with cow eggs that have had all their genetic material removed. The hope is that the human DNA will trick the eggs into thinking they're pregnant, beginning development.

After about five days of growth, the cloned embryos would be destroyed and the stem cells extracted. The stem cells would be grown in their labs and the researchers could look for the onset of diseases, study their development and test experimental drugs on the cells.

When this method was first tested by a Michigan-based researcher, his actions were condemned as unethical. Yet, as long as the growth in the egg is terminated and no interspecies being is created (as these scientists promise won't happen), it seems to be a logical step away from using human eggs for experiments. Many things that the average person would find startling have been done in the name of science, and the benefits to human beings seems too great to ignore the potentiality of this method. As long as the animals used, cows in this case, are not harmed in the process of harvesting their eggs, I'm all for this.

Updates: Gore's speech to Congress; defense of editing documents

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:37:00 +0000

Update on Gore's Petition to Congress:

Here's a couple of articles about Gore's speech to Congress yesterday and a few of the reactions. As expected, there were many who met the plea to make progress in protecting the environment with doubt and criticism.

Update on skepticism concerning the role of government officials in environmental reports:

It seems that the ex-White House official who was accused of editing climate reports was trying to defend his actions in front of the House Government Reform Committee. There is also an interesting section about the government pressure felt by scientists not to disclose certain information. I'll be keeping my eye out for any results from this hearing.

Global deforestation rate slows

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:55:00 +0000

The UN has just released the "State of the World Forest's Report" stating that the rate of deforestation is starting to decrease. In the 1990s, forests were disappearing at a rate of 9 million hectares a year, and this has now slowed to 7.3 million. Countries such as China are forerunners in this reduction thanks to tree planting initiatives. It's a bit of good news, but nothing to become complacent about.

"Deforestation continues and it continues at an unacceptable rate, however there are signs of potential change," said Wulf Killmann, a forestry expert at the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) which published the report.
The destruction of forests not only reduces habitat available for wildlife but also adds to the greenhouse effect because the carbon stored in trees is released into the atmosphere.

Gore's Petition to Congress

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:34:00 +0000

If you haven't signed Al Gore's petition to congress yet, now is the time to do so. Tomorrow Gore will testify at the Congressional hearings on global warming and has set a goal of 500,000 signatures on the petition - the more voices backing him up, the more power behind his message.

In his blog on his website, Gore talks about how concern over the environment is not just a liberal, democratic concern, but should be the concern of all political parties:

One of our goals must be to make this issue one that transcends partisanship. While many of the solutions to the climate crisis will be found within the political system, there should be bipartisan and transpartisan agreement on the basic nature of the crisis and the sense of urgency that is appropriate for us to solve it.
That point was brought home to me again last week when I visited London and met with the leaders of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. In the UK, both major political parties are completely committed to taking real action to solve the climate crisis. They openly acknowledge this is an unprecedented moral issue and are competing vigorously to see who can propose the most creative and effective solutions to solve this crisis.

The other day I was talking to my dad, who is pretty conservative, about global warming and he made some comment like, "My daughter, the liberal environmentalist," and I countered, "Liberals shouldn't be the only ones who care about the environment." He agreed.

Britain Proposes Legal Limits on Carbon Emissions

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:55:00 +0000

Kind of old news, but awesome news anyway.

Britain on Tuesday became the first country to propose legislation setting binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions as it stepped up its campaign for a new global warming pact to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.
In its draft Climate Change Bill, the government said carbon dioxide emissions had to be cut by at least 60 percent by 2050, set out five-year carbon budgets to reach the target and created an independent monitoring committee to check annual progress.

As long as consequences are severe enough to keep local governments in check, this plan seems like it could work very well. There is debate about whether yearly targets should be put in place, which to me seems like a good idea so that it is easier to make sure that every area is staying on track. More countries need to abandon free-market thinking and create stronger laws against the emission of greenhouse gases. As a whole, we are not responsible enough to do it on our own, to choose environmentally friendly products over others which are normally cheaper, for example - we need guidance and isn't that what governments are supposed to provide?

Commercial Musings

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:32:00 +0000

I've been home on Spring Break, probably watching more television than I should, and I've noticed quite a few commercials using eco-consciousness to sell products. Most recently I was surprised by a Michelin commercial, which apparently was a Superbowl commercial (I didn't watch the Superbowl so the commercial is new to me). I find it amusing that the advertisement promises a clean environment for future generations (as signified by the children on the playground surrounded by green pine trees) when the product, tires, are part of the biggest cause of global warming, the automobile industry. The company paid big bucks to get this commercial seen during the Superbowl which leads me to believe that large companies are indeed thinking that environmental protection is going to be the next big trend in consumer consciousness. Hopefully it becomes more than a superficial fad that is used to sell things to us and instead becomes a mass change in lifestyle.

Anyway, it's great that companies in the automobile industry are acting responsibly and taking action to reduce actions that degrade the environment. To read more about what Michelin says it's doing, check out its Performance and Responsibility Brochure and judge for yourself whether this commercial is misleading.

Report outlines global warming's effects

noreply@blogger.com (miss jaime) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:14:00 +0000

Following up last month's global warming report issued in Paris, the same group of more than 1,000 scientists have put together a document that determines the likely social effects of global warming. And basically, what they've determined is just plain scary:

The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.
Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.
For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

The information in these reports (2 more will be coming out this year) should prompt world leaders to act quickly. Not all the damage can be avoided, but much of it can if the industrial world puts a halt on CO2 levels. But this part of the report bothers me even more:

The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials. (emphasis mine)

With the history of the Bush administration censoring environmental documents, why should government officials be able to edit scientific documents, especially when many of them do not have the necessary educational background? And, officials from which governments? Perhaps this won't be a problem at all, but it bothers me that the AP writers would throw that line in without further elaboration.