AP Environmental Science

Usually for vacations, especially ones that require long plane rides, I buy a couple magazines to read on the way. One of the magazines that I bought this time was Glamour. As I was sifting through the articles, only reading the ones that I have a real interest in, I came to an article entitled “The woman’s guide to saving the planet.” The first thing listed was the top 10 ways to help. This list was very predictable including: changing to flourescent light bulbs, driving fuel efficient cars, conserving water, recycling, etc. The common ones.  Then it went on to state that the average American throws away 21 bags of garbage each month. I was amazed at this number. It also said that one of the studies indicated that 75% of things in landfills could have been recycled, mainly plastics and electronic goods.

Next was the discussion about dry-cleaning clothing, microwaving in plastic, and cooking in Teflon pans, all of which may be bad for you and are definitely bad for the environment. The issue with dry-cleaned clothes is that it a chemical used may be linked to cancer and reproductive damage. Not ony could it damage your health, but also air and the producing the plastic that is wrapped around your clothes when you get them from the dry cleaners uses a lot of energy.

Eco-friendly beauty supplies and clothing that is good for the environment is the next topic. Included in the clothing section are: clothes that have been colored with vegtable dyes, organic cotton, washing your clothes in cold water, and buying shoes that can be resoled easily. Eco-gadgets that are do not put a drain on energy and resources including: Water pwered clocks, Eyemax radio, Soldius solar recharger, Vessel Candela lights, and Muji cardboard speakers. Why these products? They are recharged by sunlight, rechargeable batteries, or they are biodegradable.

 The magazine also gives some statistics including:

” 10 times as much energy is wasted when you run a computer screen saver instead of using sleep mode.”

“14 plastic grocery bags contain enought petroleum to fuel a car for a mile. Make friends with a cloth tote.”

“20 gallons of water go down the drain daily when you have a drip-drip-drip faucet. Call the plumber!”

“75 percent of energy used to power electronic items is consumed while they’re plugged in but not in use.”

“31,600 planes could be built with the amount of soda cans and other aluminum stuff thrown away every year.”

“100,000,000 trees are made into junk mail every single year. And no, that is not a typo. What a waste.”

What really got me were the statistics at the end. I think that my family is guilty of every thing listed above. The computer that I am writing this on has a computer screen saver not on sleep mode. When my Mom goes to the grocery store she comes home with plastic and sometimes paper bags. In some of the faucets in my house, there is a drip-drip and we leave our electronics plugged, whether they are off or not. We try to recycle our soda cans, but sometimes it doesn’t always happen. And the junk mail we get all the time in the mail. Sometimes we get more junk mail then mail that it actually worth our time reading. This is a real eye-opener.

Article in Glamour April 2007

I guess you could say that having a test on global warming inspired me to write on this particular subject. In the short answer part of the test, I was amazed at the article Mr.McKinley gave us on the Chicago Tribune writer.  When I saw this article, I knew that it was one topic I should write on. 

On Friday, hundreds of scientists and representatives from 113 countries released a 21 page report on global warming. This article ”only discusses how and why the planet is warming, not what to do about it.”  The report says that there is “little doubt” that global warming is attributed to humans. It also says that temperature and sea levels will rise for centuries regardless of if people control pollution or not.

Some of the facts that it pointed out include:

1. a 2-11.5 degree Farenheit temperature increase by the end of the century
2. a best estimate for temperature rises from 3.2-7.1 degree Farenheit
3. 7-23 inch rise in sea level by 2100

The scientists have been observing and recording data to come up with these calculations since the 1960’s, even before the UN Environmental Program was founded. (That is who they work for)

This report is the first in a series of 4. Another report will address what to do about the global warming.

Achim Steiner, executive director of UN Environmental Program, stated, “It is critical that we look at this report…as a moment where the focus of attention will shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity, whether the science is sufficient, to what on earth are we going to do about it.”

I completely agree with Mr. Steiner. I know that some people are going to deny that global warming is occuring and is going to get worse, but they will probably never realize that they are wrong. I figure why not move forward with the people who do believe that it is true. This report proves that it is not just one part of the world that feels that global warming is occuring. Scientists from 113 countries all came the conclusion and agreement on what is going to happen. I would say thats a pretty good number. I am curious to see when the next report comes out.

http://www.enn.com/globe.html?id=1472

I never really thought that global warming would hit the US, but after reading CLIMATE CHANGE IN S.F.: Local Solutions, Local Impacts my view has been changed. A recent plan that has een developed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors covers ways to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. The goal: to decrease greenhouse gas pollution to 20% below the 1990 levels by 2012.

San Francisco and northern San Mateo County

Ways to get the word out:

1. Future Sea Level Project: the people of San Francisco get together to discuss solutions to global warming                                                                       

2. San Francisco Department of Environment- “staff is also available to speak at any San Francisco community or business organization about solutions to climate change.”

Individual Involvement:

1. Have the right car- No, I am not talking about a Mercedes or a BMW. I am talking about cars with properly inflated tires burn less gasoline. What does this mean? Less money spend on gas, plus you are helping the environment. OR there is alwasy the option of walking, riding a bike, taking public transportation, or carpooling.

2. Write the leaders to encourage them to increase fuel economy standards to at least 40 miles/gallon. What exactly would this do? 4 million barrels of oil would be saved each day. To put this in perspective, this is “more than we currently import from the Persian Gulf and could ever extract from the Artic National Wildlife Refuge combined.”

3. Encourage wind and solar power, renewable energy sources, which will “reduce our reliance on coal-burning power plants, the largerst source of global warming in the United States.”

4. Change normal lightbulbs to compact fluorescent bulbs. They both produce the same amount of light. The fluorescent bulb uses only a quarter of the electricity and lasts 10 times longer.

One type of compact fluorescent light bulbs

5. Lower your thermostat. You should not be cold if before you cualk and use weather-strips along doorways and windows.

6. Low-flow shower heads and faucets will decrease water used by half. You will also save as muh as 50% on your elecctrical bill if you turn your hot water heater down to 120 degrees F.

7. Replace old electronics and appliances with energy-efficient models.

8. Plant trees in your own yard to reduce Carbon Dioxide.

9. Recylce and Buy Recycled. Recycled materials are made with 70-90 percent less energy and pollution as non-recycled new products.

10. Include your community and encourage them to do what is listed above.

Impacts of Global Warming:

It is predicted that the California temperature will increase between 3-10.5 degrees F by the end of the century. Why is there such a broad spectrum? Varying amounts of what action people have done to decrease global warming. Along with the 10.5 degree increase, a possible 3 feet of water would rise the sea level by the end of the century. $48 billion in property damage would most likely accompany it if there was a  3.3 feet rise of sea level in San Francisco.

This article listed some really good suggestions. It is a major problem. I really liked the idea of writing leaders to encourage them to raise the fuel efficiency level to 40 miles/gallon. It would make us less dependent on foreign oil and it would illiviate some of the global warming that is going on.

Information from:   http://www.futuresealevel.org/solutions.asp    http://www.futuresealevel.org/sf.asp Pictures from: www.wikipedia.org

 On Thursday September 21, 2006 the US government passed new air pollution standards in order to provide “cleaner air to all Americans.”

Health and environmental groups are saying that even the revised standards are too low,  in particular to prevent lung disease and “other pollution-related ailments.”

According to Stephen Johnson, the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the premature deaths, heart attacks, and hospital stays for people suffering from heart and lung disease will all be decreased because of the new standards. As well, Johnson said that health benefits will be increased to a value of between $20 billion and $160 billion per year.

Before Thursday, the old standardss required that no more than 65 micrograms of soot particles per cubic meter of air be released. Now the law states that no more than 35 micrograms be released.

Many helath groups and organizations are not pleased with the new standards. The American Medical Association, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society and American Academy of pediatrics all wanted the standard to be tougher. These groups believe that the EPA’s standards are not protecting Americans well enough because this particle pollution can cause asthma attacks, heart attacks, and premature death due to heart and lung ailments. The fine particles that are causing these helth problems are from the exhausts of power plant, cars, and factories.

On the other side of the argument are the US electric utility companies. They complain that the EPA has not given a fair chance for the old standards to work. In order to meet these new standards, the companies would have to put out and estimated of $20 billion and $60 billion per year.

States must meet these standards by the year 2015.

I think that it is a really good idea that the standards were raised. It is so sad that people are getting sick and/or dying from something that they have no control over. The people that are in charge at these major companies should take a look at how they would feel if they got sick from air pollution. Sure they have a lot of money now, but would that really matter if they weren’t here to enjoy it? Not only is if affecting people now, but it will probably affect people in the future and, as most things are, it is affecting our environment in a negative way.

<a href=”http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=06A50E3F66DB4A334202D3ADFD31C589&ref=sciam&chanID=sa012″>Scientific American: New air pollution rules rankle health groups</a>

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6119298       EPA Unveils Tighter Rules on Particles in Air     By: Elizabeth Shogren