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 

“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

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

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

            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

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