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

So I am almost positive that most of us have been on an airplane at least once in our lives. If not, think of all of your family and friends that have flown before. With hundreds of thousands of planes hitting the skyway each day, greenhouse gases can easily accumulate.

A modern day airplane (Photo credit: www.wikepedia.com)

Norway and Britian have decided to “buy emissions quotas to combat global warming.” Most concerning is the rise of fuel burnt on international flights releasing emissions. The airlines are exempt from “fighting climate change” under the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol, but not for that long. The protocol expires in 2012. Athough that may seem like not too far away, again think about how many airplanes take off and land at O’Hare in just one day.

Norway has recently stated that they will “buy quotas for the emissions caused by the trip” when state employees travel abroad by plane.

Not only are governments doing this, but companies are too. They include: Avis Europe (car rentals) and Statoil (Norwegian oil group).

Hopefully, this will help reduce the amount of emissions, although I am still not completely sure of how this works. I don’t understand how paying for emissions is going to reduce them, but maybe the government is doing this as an incentive. I do know one thing for sure; greenhouse gases need to be lowered to prevent global warming.

Norway, UK Try to Tackle Planes’ Greenhouse Gases By: Alister Doyle http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11960

It is now being thought that forest fires are not all bad. Some new research indicates that forest fires may actually reduce global warming. Previously, it was thought that forest fires would increase global warming because they released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

                                         Photo Credit: www.wikipedia.com

The fires burn down the trees in the forests, affecting the amount of shading of the ground. More sunlight is reflected back into space for numerous decades after the fire has occured.

The new research shows that the greenhouse gases emitted from the fire and the cooling effect do make a significant difference in global warming because, in effect, they cancel each other out when averaged globally.  However, fires in the northern regions may result in cooler temperatures.

Some people are sceptical because this data is only from 1 fire, the Donnelly Flats fire in central Alaska. This fire burned approximately 16,500 acres in 1999. Some of the tests included were: measurements of incoming & outgoing radiation, carbon dioxide being absorbed or emmitted by plants,  and wind speed. Some similiar measurements were taken from surrounding land that had been burned by fires in 1987 and in 1920.

With these fires, new trees had to replace the old ones. The newer trees took in more carbon dioxide, resulting in less global warming. It took more than 80 years before the old type of trees took over again.

I don’t really know which side to believe. It makes sense that greenhouse gases and the cooler temperatures would cancel each other out; however, only one place was really studied. I think that it might take a couple more studies before people start to believe this. Plus, I think that more climates and different types of forests need to be studied.

Information from: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11681  Article: Forest Fires May Actually Cool Climate  By: Randolph E. Schmid

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

Global warming is a serious issue throughout the world.  Malasiga, Papua New Guinea is one of the first places to feel the effects of it, even though they do not have power lines, factories, or air conditioners within a days walk of this village. The houses of this small village are being destroyed because of the rising water level. Humans have not been too concerned in the past with the amount of carbon dioxide they are putting into the atmosphere; however, that may change when people in their own country, or for that matter their own town, are affected by what is in the atmosphere. Researchers are saying that smokestacks, tailpipes, and other sources will raise the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 50% over the next century.

What exactly does this mean? This means that oceans will rise due to the climate change causing the water to expand. Not only this but, because the water temperature is higher, ice bergs and glaciers will begin to melt. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that the sea level will most likely raise between 1.5 and 3 feet by the end of the century. This could effect tens of millions of people in low lying areas around the world.

 Could this change be from natural fluctuation? Not likely.John Hunter, an oceanographer who studies sea levels at the University of Tasmania in Australia, along with other researchers, concluded that through decades of measurements of the Pacific and Indian oceans that “natural fluctuations could not explain the rise.” 85 % of people in PNG, Papua New Guinea, depend on what they grow, fish or hunt for survival.

Although the countries that are feeling the effects of global warming are not the cause of it, they need a plan to help the world control the carbon dioxide amounts put into the atmosphere. PNG, along with eight other countries, suggest that carbon credits should be eligible for nations that reduce deforestation. Carbon credits can be traded internationally under the terms of the Kyto Protocol A country can earn a carbon credit through having their trees absorb a ton of carbon from the atmosphere or prevent the carbon from burning. As the current rule states, a carbon credit can only be earned by plating new trees, not for old trees. The men and women of Malasiga have seen parts of their land disappear since 1982 piece by piece. Some villagers are now even having to move to higher ground for fear of the water overtaking their homes and families.

To me it seems so sad and in some ways inconceivable that the world is sitting by and watching homes and villiages be destroyed because of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These people are not even the ones that are putting it there, yet they are the ones who have to feel the consequences.

The carbon credits seem like a good idea to me. Amending the rule also seems good because if the people in Malasiga can no longer fish, grow, or hunt food because of what the rising water has destroyed, then they might resort to cutting down trees and selling it for lumber or have paper made out of it. They would then be able to plant new trees and earn carbon credits, but is that what we really want?

The world needs to take a look at what we can do independently and as a whole to see what can be done about the rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and what is happening to cultures throughout the world.
Chicago Tribune (Evan Osnos)