Environmental Science =]

“On a remote U.S. Forest Service road in Arizona a few years ago, the driver of a white minivan slowly rolls to a stop, sticks a rifle out the window, and starts firing at what look to be wild turkeys. State officers hiding in nearby bushes emerge, running toward the vehicle and shouting: “Game and Fish Department! Cease fire! Put down your weapon!”

Decoy Deer

What appeared to be wild turkeys was in fact a decoy robot to aid the sting and catch violators for breaking laws as such.  The implementation of these traps has helped bridge the gap and save wildlife from being illegally killed or captured for the pet trade.  Animal shaped fiberglass statues are draped in authentic furs attained by the government through contributions or illegal slaughter.  Within the animal body are motors controlled by a radio typical to those found in a toy car making it possible to slightly move the decoy’s ear, etc. I am glad to know that in some states the government does care about the security and preservation of our country’s wildlife and are making attempts to save it. 

national geographic

ap images 

Near the San Juan Mountains surrounded by 13,000-foot peaks in  Silverton, Colorado seems like an unlikely place for a dust storm especially with two feet of snow on the ground. So Chris Landry was alarmed on the afternoon of April 3 when he spotted a brown haze on the horizon; an hour later, a howling wind had engulfed the town in a full-fledged dust storm, turning everything from the sky to the snow a rusty red.

“It was almost surreal,” recalled Landry, executive director of the Center for Snow and Avalanche Studies. The landscape looked like Mars after the storm passed, he said: “You could feel the dust, you could taste the dust.”

The scene Landry witnessed that day was the most severe example of a phenomenon that has overtaken parts of the West this year, one that could exacerbate a slew of environmental problems there in the years to come. The Colorado Rockies, including the headwaters of the Colorado River and the Rio Grande, have experienced 11 serious dust storms this year, a record for the six years researchers have been tracking them.

More important, an increasing amount of airborne dust is blanketing the region, affecting how fast the snowpack melts, when local plants bloom and what quality of air residents are breathing.

The dust storms are a harbinger of a broader phenomenon, researchers say, as global warming translates into less precipitation and a population boom intensifies the activities that are disturbing the dust in the first place. Jayne Belnap, a research ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey who has studied the issue, predicts that by midcentury, the fragility of the region’s soil “will be equal to that of the Dust Bowl days.”

 www.nationalgeographic.com

“How much of our food production do we want to turn over to other
countries that might be friendly now and not friendly in the future? The federal government is looking at this and my question is: Are honey bees the canary
in the coal mine? What are honey bees trying to tell us that we humans
should be paying more attention to?”  – Jerry Hayes, Chief, Apiary Section,
Florida Dept. of Agriculture, Gainsville, Florida

Honey bees are disappearing in massive numbers. One Midwestern beekeeper had 13,000 healthy, full hives in mid-November 2006. Those bees began disappearing in mid-December and now he’s lost 96% of them. He’s facing bankruptcy. This week, one Ohio beekeeper opened up his hives after the winter to find 80% were empty. Over the past six months, massive disappearances of honey bees have been reported in at least 24 states; internationally in Poland and Spain; and its still unknown how many more honey bees will be gone as more northern hives are opened this spring in North America and Europe. Right now, dozens of scientists are trying to find out what is causing what they call “colony collapse disorder,” or CCD. 

 
          So far, there are still no answers, but there is a long list of possibilities, which include pesticides and genetically modified crops, also known as GMOs or GMs. Scientists say there is no direct evidence that genetically modified crops are linked to honey bee die-offs. But I have been learning that not much is known about the accumulating impact of pesticides on insects, animals and even people when you consider in this modern world how many combinations of pesticides are used. One pesticide by itself might not destroy honey bees. But what happens when farmers spray herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and rodenticides on land that also has genetically modified crops with pesticides built-in?    

The United States grows nearly two-thirds of all genetically engineered crops. Last year about 130 million acres were planted with GMs. Much of the soy, corn, cotton and canola have had a gene inserted into their DNA to produce pesticides systemically throughout the plants created and patented by Monsanto. Monsanto also produces genetically modified crops designed not to die when herbicides are sprayed on them. In a perfect biotech world, only the weeds would be killed. But Mother Nature has a way of outwitting human designs. So, now the weeds are becoming resistant to the herbicide sprays and frustrated farmers are putting on more and more poisons.

I think the world should see this as a warning sign and increase our efforts to undo some of the harm we have done to the environment. 

www.ens-news.com

www.youtube.com

Rock band U2’s ‘The Edge’ and his wife, Morleigh Steinberg, recently purchased 156 acres in the Santa Monica Mountains and plan to build their dream home, plus an additional four mansions to go along with it. “These homes will be some of the most environmentally sensitive ever designed in Malibu — or anywhere in the world,” the guitarist, whose real name is David Evans, said in regards to his plan.

His neighbors, on the other hand, are doubting the legitimacy of the ‘greenness’ of the construction and say The Edge is endangering the beauty of one of Southern California’s most famous beachfront communities along with U2′s globally conscious image.  “It is going to look nice to the human eye but at what cost?” said surf shop owner and City Councilman Jefferson Wagner. “When is enough enough?”

Jim Smith, a Malibu resident who opposes the proposed mansions by U2 guitarist The Edge, stands in a field beneath the proposed site in Malibu Calif

The plan has sparked the latest development controversy in Malibu, where residents and city officials portray themselves as stewards of a blessed environment — even as the construction of palatial mansions and sweeping driveways turn vast swaths of that environment to mulch.

The project proposed by The Edge calls for a cluster of five, 10,000-square-foot homes. The two-story, earth-toned dwellings would be the maximum size allowed in areas designated as environmentally sensitive habitat.Renderings show organic design features such as a pool that encircles one home like a moat. Another house would wrap around an existing pile of boulders while The Edge’s own dwelling would feature curved roof lines to simulate leaves.The Edge is also proposing to dig an access road up the mountain behind the exclusive Serra Retreat neighborhood of about 90 homes that stars such as Mel Gibson, Kelsey Grammer and Britney Spears have called home.

“They’re claiming it’s a green environmental project, but you’d have to live in the houses a thousand years” to make up for the carbon dioxide emitted by the trucks hauling the dirt out, said Lawrence Weisdorn, president of the Serra Retreat homeowners association.

I for one am greatly disappointed in the bandmember’s lack of concern and air of ignorance for the preservation of such a pristine environment. 

www.enn.com

ap images

Sunday’s 2009 Earth Day celebration on the National Mall launched The Green Generation campaign – a nationwide effort to encourage renewable energy, green jobs and a new green economy. With music by the Flaming Lips, moe., Los Lobos and others, the free event was the flagship in a coordinated country-wide Earth Day Weekend of environmental volunteer actions and music in DC, New York, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Austin, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle.

Attended by over 200,000 last year, the Green Apple-Earth Day Festival has grown from eight cities to 10 cities in 2009 and emphasizes environmental volunteerism in solidarity with the new administration’s “call to service.”Across the U.S. on Earth Day Weekend, Green Apple volunteer projects in parks, beaches, schools and forests, focused on climate change solutions like tree planting, energy efficiency retrofits, water protection, urban gardens and forest restoration.

Earth Day 2009 events are a kick-off to the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day, which will reach a high point in April 2010 with Global Days of Service on April 17-18, and a Global Day of Action on April 22, 2010 – the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. On that day, participants will ask their governments to take specific environmental actions. It will be followed by a Global Day of Celebration on April 25th, 2010 marked by 40 simultaneous music and rally events across the world focused on the theme of “The Green Generation.”The campaign takes its name from The Greatest Generation who confronted the challenge of World War II and inspired the major social changes that followed.The Green Generation counts as members all individuals and corporations that are engaged in activities to solve urgent environmental issues such as climate change and the world’s water and food crises.

The generation gap is closing, according to a public opinion study commissioned by Green Seal and EnviroMedia Social Marketing and conducted by Opinion Research Corporation about products that claim to be environmentally friendly. Results of the survey of 1,000 people conducted by telephone in a random-digit-dial sample were released in February.The poll shows that overall, 82 percent of respondents are buying green despite the economic downturn. Half of the respondents said they are buying just as many green products now as before the economic downturn, while 19 percent say they are buying more green products. Fourteen percent say they are buying fewer green products.The survey shows that 64 percent of 18-to 34-year-olds, more than any other age group, believe global warming is caused by human activities. The survey indicates that Americans who believe in this connection are almost twice as likely to buy more green products in this economy than Americans who believe global warming occurs naturally.The survey found that more participants aged 18-34 participated in green transportation (28%) than any other age group.Thirty percent of 18 to 44-year-olds think that electricity from renewable resources is most beneficial to the environment – more than any other age group.Sixty-five percent of 18 to 34-year-olds, more than any other group, think that recycling is the second most beneficial thing people can do for the environment.

What people say is not always what they do. While 87 percent of those surveyed say they recycle, the Environmental Protection Agency reports just 33 percent of U.S. waste is diverted from landfills.Green-minded people do look for minimally packaged goods (60%), buy green cleaning products, (58%) and buy green personal-care products (31%), the Green Seal survey shows.

“This research suggests that consumers are buying green products second only to participating in recycling,” said Arthur Weissman, PhD, Green Seal’s president and chief executive. “This increased consumer demand sends a signal to manufacturers to produce products that are truly green.”

www.enn.com

ap images

Western Australia is home to some of the world’s most unique biologically diverse marine “hot spots.”  Located off Australia’s south west coast, it is home to more rare species than even the Great Barrier Reef, and less than one percent of this pristine ocean is protected.  This statistic needs to change drastically and immediately in order to secure it’s future.  Many organizations, such as  the Conservation Council of Western Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, the Nature Conservancy and the Pew Environment Group, agree with this and are making efforts to make a change through the work of the “Save our Marine Life” movement.  Some areas that are specifically targeted for protection include Perth Canyon, one of only two known sites in Australian waters where the endangered blue whale comes to feed, and the Diamantina Fracture Zone, Australia’s largest mountain range submerged in its deepest stretch of water at 7,400 meters and thought to host unique species not yet known to science.

In this undated image provided by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, an Anthomastis Cascade is seen in the ocean off Australia's Tasmania state. A team of researchers from Australia and the United States have uncovered new marine life, including fiery red coral and purple-spotted sea anemones, in deep waters off the Australian state of Tasmania, according to findings released Sunday, Jan. 18, 2009. (AP Photo/Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, HO)

In this Nov. 2002 photo provided by Queensland Tourism, an unidentified woman snorkels on the Great Barrier Reef off Australia's Queensland state. Scientists have identified early warning signs of rising ocean temperatures which threaten to drain Australia's Great Barrier Reef of its vibrant colors. (AP Photo/Queensland Tourism, HO)

In this photo released by the PEW environment group, a diver swims with a turtle in this undated photo in the Coral Sea. An alliance of environmentalists, marine scientists and former navy officials on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2008, asked the Australian government to establish a vast conservation area in the Coral Sea in order to protect not only marine animals and reefs but World War II history. The Pew environment group partnered with marine scientists and two former Australian Navy chiefs on the proposal for a 400,000 square mile (1 million square kilometer) Coral Sea Heritage Park, of the Great Barrier Reef, on Australia's northeastern coast, and would extend to the country's maritime boundaries with Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and New Caledonia. (AP Photo/Undersea Explorer, HO)

            While attempting to endure a bitter cold winter in Chicago, one may second guess the plausibility of global warming, forgetting that weather is no such indicator.  However, unlike weather, climate is the true gauge of the status of global warming, and things aren’t looking good.

            More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.
            More than half of the loss of landlocked ice in the past five years has occurred in Greenland, based on measurements of ice weight by NASA’s GRACE satellite, said NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke. The water melting from Greenland in the past five years would fill up about 11 Chesapeake Bays, he said, and the Greenland melt seems to be accelerating.
           NASA scientists planned to present their findings Thursday at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco. Luthcke said Greenland figures for the summer of 2008 aren’t complete yet, but this year’s ice loss, while still significant, won’t be as severe as 2007.
           The news was better for Alaska. After a precipitous drop in 2005, land ice increased slightly in 2008 because of large winter snowfalls, Luthcke said. Since 2003, when the NASA satellite started taking measurements, Alaska has lost 400 billion tons of land ice.
           In assessing climate change, scientists generally look at several years to determine the overall trend.
           Melting of land ice, unlike sea ice, increases sea levels very slightly. In the 1990s, Greenland didn’t add to world sea level rise; now that island is adding about half a millimeter of sea level rise a year, NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally said in a telephone interview from the conference.
           Between Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska, melting land ice has raised global sea levels about one-fifth of an inch in the past five years, Luthcke said. Sea levels also rise from water expanding as it warms.

In this July 19, 2007 file photo, icebergs float in a bay off Ammassalik Island, Greenland.

           Other research, being presented this week at the geophysical meeting point to more melting concerns from global warming, especially with sea ice.
           “It’s not getting better; it’s continuing to show strong signs of warming and amplification,” Zwally said. “There’s no reversal taking place.”
           Scientists studying sea ice will announce that parts of the Arctic north of Alaska were 9 to 10 degrees warmer this past fall, a strong early indication of what researchers call the Arctic amplification effect. That’s when the Arctic warms faster than predicted, and warming there is accelerating faster than elsewhere on the globe.
           As sea ice melts, the Arctic waters absorb more heat in the summer, having lost the reflective powers of vast packs of white ice. That absorbed heat is released into the air in the fall. That has led to autumn temperatures in the last several years that are six to 10 degrees warmer than they were in the 1980s, said research scientist Julienne Stroeve at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.
           That’s a strong and early impact of global warming, she said.
           “The pace of change is starting to outstrip our ability to keep up with it, in terms of our understanding of it,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center and a co-author of the Arctic amplification study.
           Two other studies coming out at the conference assess how Arctic thawing is releasing methane — the second most potent greenhouse gas. One study shows that the loss of sea ice warms the water, which warms the permafrost on nearby land in Alaska, thus producing methane, Stroeve says.
           A second study suggests even larger amounts of frozen methane are trapped in lakebeds and sea bottoms around Siberia and they are starting to bubble to the surface in some spots in alarming amounts, said Igor Semiletov, a professor at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. In late summer, Semiletov found methane bubbling up from parts of the East Siberian Sea and Laptev Sea at levels that were 10 times higher than they were in the mid-1990s, he said based on a study this summer.
           The amounts of methane in the region could dramatically increase global warming if they get released, he said.
           That, Semiletov said, “should alarm people.”

sources

AP images

stopglobalwarming.com

            In Australia, methane-producing farm animals are responsible for 70% of all agricultural carbon emissions and 11% of the country’s total carbon emissions, according to their Department of Climate Control.  The solution? Eat less livestock and more kangaroo!  Professor Ross Garnaut, Australia’s top climate change adviser, encourages the farming and consumption of kangaroos over more traditional animals, and stated, “For most of Australia’s human history—about 60,000 years—kangaroo was the main source of meat. It could again become important.”  Conveniently, kangaroos are not only better for the environment, but also healthier for the consumer, containing high protein and low fat levels. 

YUM

 Sources

AP images 

Below is a brief documentary telling the story of the electric car. 

How sad it is to think that in the midst of our country’s and our global environment’s desperation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially concerning transportation which is one of the leading causes of carbon emissions, that we already had the perfect solution: the electric car.  And who killed it? General Motors. 

Due to California’s growing problem of air pollution, the Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate was created.  ZEV specified that by 1998, 2% of all new cars sold by the seven major auto manufacturers in the state of California were to meet ‘zero emission’ standards as defined by the California Air Resources Board and 10% by 2003.  As a result, in 1997, GM released 660 Generation One EV1’s, not for purchase, but on a lease program. 

The EV1 was a phenomenal success.  The car got 100 miles for every charge and used the energy equivalent of 2/3 gallon of gas.  Many described the car as fast (it could go up to 120 mph), quiet, smooth, and Mel Gibson even referred to it as ‘cool’.  Most importantly, the EV1 produced zero emissions. 

In late 2003, GM officially canceled the EV1 program.  GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable. This, combined with the fact that their parts and service infrastructure costs required to maintain the existing EV1′s for the state legislated minimum of 15 years, would mean the existing leases would not be renewed and all of the cars would all have to be returned to GM’s possession.

Although no one can be totally sure why GM murdered their own baby, I configured my own list of suspicions.

·         Consumers

Lots of ambivalence to new technology, unwillingness to compromise on decreased range and increased cost for improvements to air quality and reduction of dependence on foreign oil.

·         Oil companies

Fearful of losing business to a competing technology, they supported efforts to kill the ZEV mandate. They also bought patents to prevent modern batteries from being used in US electric cars.

·         Car companies

Negative marketing, sabotaging their own product program, failure to produce cars to meet existing demand, unusual business practices with regards to leasing versus sales. GM believed that electric cars needed fewer expensive repairs and would hence not make the car companies as much money over the long term as gasoline-powered cars.

·         Government

The federal government joined in the auto industry suit against California, has failed to act in the public interest to limit pollution and require increased fuel economy, has promoted the purchase of vehicles with poor fuel efficiency through preferential tax breaks, and has redirected alternative fuel research from electric towards hydrogen.

·         California Air Resources Board

The CARB, headed by Alan Lloyd, caved to industry pressure and repealed the ZEV mandate. Lloyd was given the directorship of the new fuel cell institute, creating an inherent conflict of interest.

I believe all of these attributed to GM’s decision to not only recall the electric cars, but to go as far as to deny their existence and their capabilities.  Years later, facing oil crises paired with global warming, GM has set out to create more electric cars, and in 2010, the “Fully Charged” Chevy Volt is to be released…aka the EV1…again?

sources: youtube.com, greencar.com, gm.com

The choice of whether to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or to preserve some of the last unspoiled wilderness in America has been a very difficult yet imperative debate in the past.  Due to belief in an ‘ energy crisis ’ coupled with skyrocketing gas prices, more people are becoming increasingly concerned with this issue, for now the decision that is made will not only affect Alaskans, but all Americans. 

 One major objection to drilling in Alaska is the damage that will be inflicted upon the pristine land.  A supporter of drilling would respond that the 2,000 acre proposed drilling site is in the coastal plain, which is flat and frozen for a significant portion of the year.  Some argue that the coastal plain is no pristine environment at all, for in it lays villages, roads, and even U.S. military installations.  Many Alaskans hope to sustain their environment for their future generations to appreciate.  However, some Alaskan environmentalists think its best to not allow tourists there at all to prevent the pollution they will subject it to.  Some argue that oil spills will cause contamination to the environment, yet oil seeping naturally occurs in some areas of the ANWR coastal plain. 

Pockets of melted snow and rain form small pools of water in the 1002 area of Alaska’s Arctic Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain in 2001. A House proposal to allow ANWR drilling was withdrawn on Wednesday, June 16, 2004. It had called for a portion of the revenues to go to a miner’s health care plan, but was pulled after a miner’s union said it opposed the provision, and its sponsors feared they would not have enough votes to get it passed. (AP Photo/Al Grillo)

I, on the other hand, do not find much substance behind an argument based on one’s opinion concerning the purity or beauty of an area of land.  Instead, I analyzed the situation as an economist, and evaluated whether the marginal benefits were greater than the marginal costs.  Of all of the data and research I have read on the topic, nothing suggests any assurance that drilling and extracting the oil in ANWR will be of great benefit to the United States.  The Department of Energy reported there is uncertainty about the underlying resource base in ANWR.  The oil estimates are largely based on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring lands and which continue into ANWR. Consequently, there is considerable ambiguity regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly vague.  Most of the data, however, admits that the amount of oil is minimal and is not a final solution to our energy crisis, nor will it lower gas prices substantially.  Some believe that the current high oil prices are a result of the ban on drilling in ANWR.  On the contrary, this ban was in place when oil cost ten dollars a barrel, ten years ago in 1998.  (“ANWR Oil” Hickel, Walter, J. American Enterprise; Jun2002, Vol. 13 Issue 4, p54, 2p, 1 color. Advanced Placement Source, EBSCOhost.)

 The price of oil is rising because the demand is much greater than production rates.  Drilling such a small amount of oil from Alaska and causing great devastation to the ecosystem will only act as a band aid for it’s only a temporary solution.  It will only hinder our development of alternative fuels, which actually has the potential to be a permanent solution to our search for energy.   

After some research I was able to develop a list of ideas for energy independence to substitute drilling in Alaska.  For example:

1. Household solutions
   
   1. Washing clothes in cold water reduces the energy used by 75%.
   2. Always turn off lights in your house when they are not needed.
   3. Replace energy-inefficient incandescent light bulbs with compact florescent light bulbs because if just one bulb was replaced in every household in the United States it would eliminate the equivalent of the emissions created by one million cars.
   4. Be tough and reduce the usage of air conditioners and heaters when they are not necessary.  Ceiling fans are a good substitute.
   5. Do not leave household appliances like coffee makers, toasters, hair dryers, cell phone chargers, etc. plugged in when they are not being used because doing so wastes electricity.
   6. Limit your dishwasher/ washing machine/ and dryer usage to only times when the load is completely full. 
   7. Do not excessively water grass and other plants and avoid use of sprinklers.
   8. Invest in eco-friendly windows that save energy by locking in hot or cold air without leakage resulting in a decreased use of air conditioning and heat.
2. Transportation Solutions
   
   1. Stay at a constant speed while driving to use less gas. 
   2. Carpool whenever it is available. 
   3. Drive hybrid vehicles which emit 100+ tons less than an average vehicle.
   4. Use public transportation when you have the opportunity.
   5. Walk or ride bikes where you can. 
3. Lifestyle Solutions
   
   1. Eat less meat.  The reason for this is because in order to make animal products such as meat, eggs, and dairy, energy is used.
   2. Take shorter showers to waste less water and don’t leave the water running when you brush your teeth!
   3. Bring home a star! Buy ENERGY STAR because their appliances use 10-15% less energy and water than regular appliances.

Otherpower.com

Cflbulbs.com

Livescience.com/environment

Energysolutions.com

Solutions-exist.org

energyliteracy.org/solutions.html

With sustainability becoming an increasingly important concern, many people are aware of what environmentalists have labeled “the carbon footprint.”  The carbon footprint is a measure of the impact our activities have on the environment, and in particular climate change. It relates to the amount of greenhouse gases produced in our day-to-day lives through burning fossil fuels for electricity, heating and transportation etc.  Now that you can calculate your “carbon footprint,” how about finding out your “water footprint”?

According to an article from ScienceDaily.Com, six global allies including the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and UNESCO (the University of Twente in The Netherlands) will found the Water Footprint Network  today on October 16, 2008. The water footprint, developed by UT Professor Arjen Hoekstra, gives a comprehensive insight into the water consumption of persons, corporations, and countries.  The main goal of the Water Footprint Network is to encourage efficient usage of water all over the world. 

Calculating one’s water footprint takes into account not only the water withdrawn from surface as well as ground water and soil water, but also this includes the water needed to produce goods.  You may be finding it hard to believe that our water intake is that astronomical, so here are a few examples that were given in the article:

'The Water Footprint' placed the cups in front of the Brandenburg Gate to illustrate how many cups of coffee the average German drinks during his lifetime. (AP Photo/Herbert Knosowski)

For every one regular cup of coffee, an average of 140 liters of water is needed.  To make one standard cotton t-shirt, 2,700 liters is needed.  16,000 for a kilo of beef.  Considering all of these water usages on a global scale, we calculate a water footprint of 7,500 billion cubic meters a year.   This is an average of 1,250 cubic meters a year per person.  These numbers took me by surprise, and I predict that many others are as mistaken and naïve as I, which is why I feel passionately about the success of the Water Footprint Network and hope they can inform and alter the way people perceive and act in regards to water sustainability. 

          With “going green” being the new cool thing to do these days, many people are looking for ways to make their transportation methods more environmentally friendly.  Some naïve people turn to Hybrid cars as their solution, considering its great gas mileage and lesser amount of fossil fuel burning into the atmosphere.  However, if one was to compare all of the relevant factors of a Hybrid car to those of a regular mid-sized car, many opinions would alter.  I want to find out whether Hybrids are really worth it, so I am going to take into account the sticker prices, gas mileage, and other operating costs of a Hybrid Toyota Prius and a Chevrolet Aveo, assuming that gas prices are consistently $4.00 a gallon and the average driver drives 12,000 miles per year.  Here is what I calculated:

Toyota Prius→12,000 mi / 45 mi per gallon=266.7*$4.00=$1067/year

Chevy Aveo→12,000 mi / 34 mi per gallon=352.9*$4.00=$1412/year

Sticker Price Difference=$21,500(Prius) – $11,460(Aveo)=$10,040 difference in price

Cost of Gas Price Difference per year=$1,412(Aveo)-$1,067(Prius)=$345

Where do they break even? $10,040 sticker price difference/$345 gas price difference per year=29 years.

Chevrolet Aveos are on display at a dealership in Stockton, Calif., Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2006.

A Toyota Prius Hybrid is seen Tuesday, July 1, 2008, at a Chicago dealership.

          Overall, unless making economic decisions is something you are not concerned, most would choose the Chevy Aveo based on my results.  It would prove difficult to drivers simply to keep and maintain their Toyota Prius in order to finally reap the benefits of paying an extra $10,040 for a car.  In my opinion, until Hybrids are modified to save more gas or become less expensive, they are NOT the way to go. 

Images from the AP Photos Archive.

In Yellowstone National Park, one expects to find a pristine, untouched environment with a flourishing of animal and plant life.  However, this is not the case today.  In fact, Yellowstone National Park is home to eroding banks, widening streams, and chaotic rivers.  The vegetation around the river is gone, therefore there is no limit on how the size of the body of water can increase.  Due to an absence of trees, there is a reduction of predators such as bison and wolves.  As a result of the decrease in forest fires, aspens, which thrive after burns, are negatively impacted.  They eventually stopped regenerating.  To solve the problem of insufficient quantities of predators, 150 wolves were released into Yellowstone National Park.  One tends to overlook the importance of predators to the ecosystem.  The wolves’ kills are essential for the survival of magpies and ravens.  The dead elk left over from the wolves’ killings help to reshape the landscape, as well as allow willows to excel, beavers to thrive, and trees and vegetation to grow.  However, the scheme involving the release of the wolves proved futile.  They fed on the livestock of the farmers, making there job much more difficult.  They also did not stay in packs and often wandered out of the park and posed a threat to residents.  As you can see, even the most seemingly trivial factors affect the farthest reaches of the ecosystem, from elk to magpies to aspen. 

We should care about ecosystem changes such as this change taking place at Yellowstone National Park for a variety of reasons dealing with factors ranging from its ecosystem services that we’ll have to replace, the disruption it will bring upon my own backyard, and the issue of public safety.  Though all of these are very important, in my mind, the most relevant and justified reason for concern is the matter of protecting our most precious resources and our fragile wilderness.  The ecosystem is the largest remaining continuous stretch of mostly undeveloped pristine land in the United States outside of Alaska and is considered to be the world’s largest intact ecosystem in the northern temperate zone.  1,700 species of trees and other plants are native to the park and are found nowhere else.  In addition, Yellowstone provides an excellent area for research with studies on large mammals, fisheries, vegetation, fire ecology and geology, in order to learn more on the subject.  The park is also a reservoir of immense genetic diversity that cannot be found anywhere else, and this is a very valuable trait that should not be taken for granted, for our environment will be paying the price when they’re extinct. 

Recently, my mother attended a Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International conference in Chicago, where many ideas concerning green, intelligent, energy efficient buildings were discussed. Knowing of my interest in environmental engineering, she informed me of some of the matters brought up at the conference. I was very intrigued with the idea of sustainable design of buildings and skyscrapers, especially after learning how massive the carbon footprint is for construction involving cement, etc. and I was blown away after discovering some of the technologies expected to be used in foreign countries, especially China. Sustainable design has always been an integral aspect of Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill, an architecture, design, and engineering company, whom in 2005, presented plans for the world’s most energy efficient high rise structure. It is called the Pearl River Tower, a 71 story, 2.3 million square foot tower to be finished in 2009, and located in Guangzhou, China. Their goal was to create a skyscraper formed to work symbiotically with the natural environment that produces as much energy as it consumes.

Photo: AP Images
“Zero Net Energy: Archi-neering a High-Rise in China”

The Pearl River Tower is truly breathtaking at first sight, and very hard to even recognize as a building. The tower’s unique shape was derived from the behavior of the natural elements at the building’s site. The building’s form was optimized to local solar and wind patterns, harnessing the energy of these resources and utilizing this natural power to sustain the building. Wind is funneled down the vertical face of the tower toward a series of turbines; photovoltaic panels in the building’s skin absorb and retain solar energy. These power sources combine with over 30 other sustainable elements to provide enough natural energy to fully power the building and achieve “zero energy” status.
The construction of the Pearl River Tower and all other SOM sustainable design buildings definitely has my full support. However, being an environmentalist, I learned it is necessary to always be critical, and I couldn’t help but wonder if the building truly has a net energy of zero. The short synopsis on the SOM website did not explain to me how the building managed to achieve that title, so I found out on my own and was pleasantly surprised. I read a case study on the Pearl River Tower in which Roger Frechette, director of sustainable engineering at SOM, explained, “There is no silver bullet. What we have is a series of small steps that get you to something that makes a difference.” These steps include reduction, reclamation, absorption, and generation. The designers began by reducing the building’s energy consumption through a combination of the building’s site orientation, a high-performance building envelope, daylighting, and building control systems. Among other tactics, the tower reclaims its energy by routing each floor’s exhaust air that can then be reused on the mechanical floor for passive dehumidification. The main absorption strategy takes advantage of a geothermal heat sink, so 100 degrees Fahrenheit water in the mechanical system’s return loop can be cooled to 75 degrees Fahrenheit prior to feeding the cooling towers. To reach the final goal of net zero energy, the design team incorporated three power-generating technologies: wind, integrated photovoltaics, and microturbines.

I’m convinced that this kind of technology can really make an impact and hope to see this new kind of sustainable design being experimented with all over the country in the future.

Sources
www.som.com
www.archrecord.construction.com