Care for the Rare Polar Bear!

Scientists found the DNA in what is believed to be the only polar bear specie remains in Britain, according to BBC. The skull is the only part that remains, and it was found at Inchnadamph in the Scottish Highlands in 1927. However, scientists are now asking if they can run tests.

If the experts at Trinity College in Dublin are granted permission by the National Museum of Dublin, then the results can show what the polar bear ate and how it arrived in that area. Dr. Ceiridwen Edwards at Trinity believes that the bear preyed on deer rather than seals.

Research will include drilling a hole in the bear’s skull and taking DNA from the powered residue. Since the skull is from the peak of the Ice Age, that rules out it being a brown bear or a cave bear. The skull is thought to have been washed into the Bones Caves at Inchnadamph because the scientists have found many other animal bones there. Four bones belonging to people were found there to be between 4,515 and 4,720 years old, which is incredible!

After the scientists record their research, what will that mean? Will it provide any information relating to the world’s current polar bears? Will anything help with polar bears surviving global warming? To both of these questions, I believe that the answer is “yes”. Though even if there’s nothing to benefit the polar bears, I still believe that something big will come from this new research. The more that we know about the past will be the more we can link to the future.             -Asia

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7279462.stm http://www.newspedia.eu/news/17758/New+tests+on+rare+polar+bear+find

 

Early Daylight Savings: Conserving Energy? Maybe Not.

“Spring forward, fall back.”  We’ve all heard this little mnemonic before.  It is fixed into our brains at a very young age in order to remind us which way to set the clock during daylight savings time.  As you probably know, daylight savings time happens 2 times each year—once in the spring and once in the fall.  This has just become a fact of life for us, as we’ve been doing it for over 100 years.  But why do we set our clocks back and forward each year?

Daylight Savings was adopted as a relatively uniform practice in 1907 in the U.S., though the idea has been documented as far back as 1784.  It was originally developed to give people more time to enjoy the summer evenings while it was still light.  Since then, it has evolved to have effects like reducing crime, raising traffic safety, and saving energy.  Though it had stayed relatively constant throughout the past 40 years, last year, in 2007, it was changed to last 3 weeks longer than in the past.  It was billed as an energy saver; who could argue with that?

Basically, the idea was that if people had natural light later into the evening, they would not need to turn on artificial light, and “waste energy.”  But, new studies have emerged that suggest the extended daylight savings time actually had the opposite effect—we used more energy.  Why?  Well, it seems that as we substitute more light at night for more darkness in the morning, we end up using more energy in the morning when it is dark for longer. This is perfectly logical, and I can’t help but wonder why congress didn’t consider this before passing the law last year.  In the end, the energy that is used in the morning, equals, and possibly even overrides any energy that would have been saved.  The overall increase in energy spent ranges from 1 to 4 percent, in different studies.

We had an unusual insight into the issue, because, until 2006, of Indiana’s 92 counties, only 15 observed DST.  Matthew Kotchen and colleague Laura Grant, both economists at the University of California, took advantage of the recent change to do some research.  What they found was that residential electricity bills increased by nearly 7 million dollars each year since the switch.  This obviously implies that more energy is being used up, which is not something that we can afford to do to our planet at the moment.

Perhaps the worst effect of the long daylight savings time is that, in addition to more light being used, people will get home from work one hour earlier, and on hot days, they will be likely to turn on the air conditioning one hour earlier than they otherwise would.  As you are probably aware, air conditioning, though a much-appreciated comfort, is extremely harsh on the environment.  Though you are getting nice cold air inside, hot air is being spewed into the great outdoors, which, collectively, has a big impact. 

So, I think the solution is clear.  Though it is probably unrealistic to hope for daylight savings to be abolished entirely, the data clearly point to getting rid of the extended time.  In the future, we should consider the potential consequences before making laws like this one.  As we approach the change this Sunday, be thinking of how this will affect your habits.  Try not to use any more electricity that you need in the morning, and think before cranking up the cold air.

 

Citations:

Handwerk, Brian. “Extended Daylight Saving Time Not an Energy Saver?”  National Geographic.  March 7, 2008.  National Geographic.  March 7, 2008.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080307-daylight-saving.html

“Study: Daylight Savings Time Actually Raises Utility Bills.” Today in Tech.  February 29, 2008.  Yahoo.  March 5, 2008. 

http://tech.yahoo.com/blog/null/83073

Bobmu.  “How Daylight Savings Works.”  HubPages.  March 6, 2008.  http://hubpages.com/hub/How_Daylight_Savings_works

Adrilch, Bob.  “Saving Time, Saving Energy.”  California Energy Commission.  March 6, 2008.  California Energy Commission. March 7, 2008. http://www.energy.ca.gov/daylightsaving.html

 

Moderation of Urban Sprawl

With the increasing number of cities being developed, there comes a price. Trees, farmland, and forests are destroyed and removed in order to help create more space for city development. The population will then spread throughout, lowering the population density. As a result, Suburban Sprawl, also known as urban sprawl, creates a hazard to our environment that is often overlooked.

The vast impacts of urban sprawl effect much more than just farmers. Environmental pollution and animal habitat destruction also results from the removal of our “green space”. With the increased city area size, the use of automobiles increase dramatically in order to reach destinations. As many of us know, car use emits toxic gasses that damage our atmosphere and our ecosystem. Surprisingly, with the increase of automobile use, the option of walking/biking diminishes. Many health concerns then follow, as people get minimal exercise by relying on technology, however, this is a completely separate issue.

Urban sprawl is not always necessary. Much destruction done to our forests and farmland are done only for the convenience of a specific group of people. We ignore the people or animals that depend on the use of green space. Farmlands prove extremely beneficial to our community by producing timber, grown foods, and other resources that require specific conditions. These are replaced by highways, homes, and other structures that damage our environment.

Not only are living conditions impacted, but the wealth of governments is damaged by urban sprawl. Taxes result from the urbanization as local governments and its residents are forced to pay for the wide spread of services. I strongly feel as though we need to begin thinking of solutions, before urban sprawl begins to get out of hand. With the popular topic of global warming covering all environmental issue sites, we often forget that there are SEVERAL issues that are effecting our environment.  If more people were educated in the smaller topics such as urban sprawl, we could create a bigger change than ever imagined.

 The urban sprawl issue may not be able to be solved completely, but progress can be made to help it. Moderation of urban sprawl in order to preserve much of our forests and farmlands is possible. We must not get carried away with spreading our cities, resulting in a problematic environment for animals and people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawlhttp://www.cwac.net/landuse/index.html

 

The Tides, They Are A-Changin’

When you think of global warming, what do you think is effected first? People? Animals? Plant life? Sure, these earth inhabitants are all effected, but one thing we fail to remember is the one thing that covers the majority of our planet. Water.

Due to global warming and the effects of pollutants in our water, the Panama Canal could soon be a closed door between the Atlantic and the Pacific. The canal depends entirely upon rain water, not seawater, to fill its locks. With the decreasing amount of rain, the canal could dry up and possibly shut down, ending its reign of ninety four years.

But when one door closes, another opens, correct? Well, maybe. Recently, many people have been working on alternate paths from sea to shining sea. One option is the Gaillard Cut. This is an excavation through the continental divide that is in the process of being widened. If sucessful, this now 8 1/2 mile path will be wider and easier for ships to access.

Also in the deep norhtwest of Canada, a new passage is being formed through the Canadian archipelago. This creates major competition with the Panama Canal for business. If this route were to form, it would cut the journey from Europe to the far East by over 4,700 miles. Wow. With a decreasing water level, can the Panama Canal really stay in the game much longer? There are problems related to global warming in even this majestic case. Since this path was created by global warming and ice melting, there are large icebergs ready to sail down the waterway. These create huge hazards for any ship coming down since even a tiny iceberg can take down a ship.

I hope so. The reason for this oncoming drought is deforestation. Since Panama has been ravenously clear cutting their precious forests, the rain water takes a new route to the sea rather than locks. Problem? I’d say so. People are all about today, today, today. What about tomorrow? By institution a new business that is killing our environment, we lose another one. Why? Because we can’t keep our earth healthy and clean. Instead of a destructive path to deforestation and global warming, shift focus to trade for income and restore this landmark canal. Win-win. Saved environment and canal, same amount, if not more, business. I believe it now becomes clear which path is the right one to take because the tides, they are a-changin’.

for more on these topics check out:

http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2000/12/120800_panama.jhtml

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87851345&ft=1&f=1025

 

One Day in the Life of Energy Saving

Earth Saving Day is a 24-hour period for the UK to reduce electricity. They were asked by environmental groups, religious leaders and energy companies to turn off all appliances not in use.The National Grid monitored how much of a difference this made, and you can see the results on BBC, where all this information is coming from.

E-Day started on the steps of the St. Paul Cathedral in London, England at six o’clock in the evening. The Bishop of London spoke and the public watched environmental documentaries about climate change. However, no change was found.

Due to the decrease of temperature from Tuesday to Thursday, it is believed that people used more heat on Wednesday. A 2-3% decrease in the use of electricity was expected, but Dr. Matt Prescott, E-Day’s organizer, states “I will do my best to learn the relevant lessons for next time.”Specifically for carbon dioxide, it was expected that gases would decrease by 80%, but I guess it was uneffected.

I don’t think that the UK should have E-Day annually. What’s the point of saving energy for one day when you will continue to waste energy for the rest of the year? If it’s just being used for scientific research, then I believe that it’s a fantastic idea. It’s important to know how much we could save if we turned off appliances not in use. However, this wasn’t the goal of this particular project. They actually wanted Britons to save energy, and I believe that everyone, not just the UK, should try to save energy throughout the entire year. Obviously, one day of conserving energy will not make a difference in changing the environment of the world.

-Asia    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7270218.stm

http://uk-energy-saving.blogspot.com/

 

“Green” Vehicle Analaysis

With the on-growing struggle to manage Global Warming, society has attempted to upgrade its technologies in order to combat the issues with temperature rise. One of these solutions includes the “Green Vehicle”, better known as the Hybrid Cars.

“If you listen to the makers, hybrid cars are the best invention since sliced bread.”

- physorg.com

One of the major problems that is effecting our environment is the carbon-gas emissions coming from our vehicles. In order to counter this, the Hybrid car was released with an on-board battery, and several promises of making the world a safer place. The vehicle still contains a gasoline source that assists in battery recharging. However, the way Hybrid cars work is by utilizing the wasted energy placed into stopping a moving vehicle. Once the breaks have been activated, the battery absorbs energy to replenish itself, canceling the idea of having an external energy source to charge the battery. Once the battery runs dry, the gasoline source initiates, allowing you to travel further distances until a refreshing of the battery is completed. By utilizing electricity to power vehicles, the result is an environmentally friendly vehicle that no longer emits a substantial amount of toxic gases.

Not only do you help the environment, but feel good about keeping some money for yourself. These hybrid vehicles prove to be more gas efficient than conventional cars. This means more than 50+ MPG (for certain models). Many people argue that Hybrid cars are initially, “too expensive”, to put into wide use. In order to counter this, Tax Incentives planned to save those who purchased a hybrid vehicle, lots of money. Thus, there should be less excuses for a hybrid car being too expensive. The money that can be saved using hybrid cars would be sufficient enough to convert gas guzzling vehicle users from purchasing more.

In the long run, you have an environmentally friendly vehicle along with increased mileage. I think we should all, at the very least, consider finding a car to protect ourselves, and our animals. There is no doubt of the benefits of using a hybrid, but rather if they catch on quick enough. You may be thinking, ”Me buying one hybrid car won’t help the world.” However, if everyone that believed this actually got a car, imagine the difference we could make.  I believe this is a big step to creating a greener world for ourselves, and for those to come in the future. If we truly want change, we should take these little steps to a simpler, but greener, environment.

http://www.physorg.com/news10031.html

http://hybridreview.blogspot.com/2006/04/pros-and-cons-of-hybrid-cars.html

 

We’re All In This Together…Right?

Maybe one of the biggest topics under the umbrella that is the topic ‘environment’ is Global Warming. Whether or not you think it’s hype or hullabaloo, that doesn’t matter, the fact is that something is up and it’s affecting all of us.

Let’s look at Costa Rica. In the grand scheme of things, Costa Rica is considered one of the greenest nations in the world. Yes, out of every country, this small Cenral American nation is near if not at the top. They have vast national parks and are working to become completely carbon neutral. All of their power comes from hydroelectric plants which emmit no greenhouse gasses. There is only one problem with this, their power is directly related to the amount of rain that falls in Costa Rica.

The real problem is, the efforts to go green are not being matched by nations surrounding Costa Rica. This in turn leads to more pollutants in the air further destroying the ozone and damaging fragile air surrounding Central America. Not only is this a gobal problem, but it is a problem for Costa Rica. One of the biggest industries in Costa Rica is tourism and business from foreign investors. If the country does not gather the required amount of rain, there is not a sufficent amount of power. If there is not a sufficent amount of power, then the country loses power. If the nation loses power, the nation loses business and profit. This obviously is a drag on not just the economy, but on the civilians living in Costa Rica.

More relevant to the rest of us is the core behind all of this. Because of the destructive ways of surrounding nations and even from those further away, Costa Rica must suffer. If we are to move in a greener direction as a planet, it is imparative that we have eachother’s backs. We should use Costa Rica as an example and follow their lead. If we all can work to eliminate carbon emmisons and greenhouse gasses, we can make our earth a lot cleaner and maybe stay here a little longer. If we continue to treat our earth the way we are now, we’re not only harming ourselves, but hurting the environmentally forward nations around us. We can’t be so self centered especially when it’s something as serious as our earth and our neighbors.

Let’s as a planet work together to help our environment.  We can not olny save ourselves, but help other nations. We’re all in this together…right?

-Alexis

For more on this subject, follow these links!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18832252
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19141333

 

Oil Spills: Who Are the Victims?

Oil Spills: Who Are the Victims?

Humans have been dependent on oil since the early 1900s.  Through the years, especially recently, more and more problems have grown out of this dependency. We’ve all heard about the occasional oil spill, but what you may not realize is that there are lots of problems that can result from such spills.  Valuable oil is lost in the process, and, on top of that, the water is polluted.  But one effect that you don’t often hear about is the harm that comes to animals through oil spills.

There are a few things about oil that hurt animals.  The most common victims are birds.  They swim or dive unknowingly into a patch of oil, and it quickly coats their bodies in greasy, black oil.  When the birds try to clean themselves, they ingest the oil and are poisoned.  Their body temperatures can also become dangerously low, because the oil makes it impossible for them to retain heat.  In this case, the animals often develop hypothermia and die.

This past week, 46 swans were caught in an oil slick in the Tottenham Canal in London.  Luckily, the RSPCA managed to rescue them all before serious harm came to them, but not all animals are this lucky.  Some animal species have become endangered largely as a result of oil spills.  In 2002, an oil spill near the Galapagos Islands depleted the population of iguanas on one island by two thirds.

One especially devastating incident was the Exxon Valdez* spill, which occurred on March 24, 1989 in Valdez, Alaska.  An oil tanker headed for Washington state hit a coral reef near the Prince William Sound, which resulted in about 11 million gallons of oil spilling out into the ocean.  The cleanup response was slow, and at least 250,000 birds, otters, seals, eagles, orca whales and fish died immediately. 

ExxonMobil’s Website currently states, “The environment in Prince William Sound is healthy, robust and thriving. That’s evident to anyone who’s been there.”  However, in 2003, University of North Carolina scientists conducted a study and found that many Prince William Sound habitats will take as many as 30 years to return to normal.  That doesn’t sound, ‘robust and thriving,’ to me.

Why should these animals have to suffer in the name of oil dependency?  Humans are at the top of the animal kingdom because of our superior intelligence and technology.  Along with this advantage comes a responsibility to keep the world clean and safe for all the others who share it with us.  It isn’t the animals who are polluting the air, the water, and the land.  The future of humanity and other life depends upon the way we manage the environment now. 

Of course, we obviously aren’t about to stop the transport of oil altogether; it is an essential component of our everyday lives.  Oil is used in our gasoline, cars, plastics, health and beauty products, and medicines, to name just a few.  Maybe it would be more realistic to suggest a compromise.  I think that one idea that should be considered is restricting areas where oil is being shipped.  This would at least limit the frequency and widespread areas in which oil spills occur.  It would also allow us to have cleanup procedures more accessible and nearer to the sites of the spills.

We should also mandate inspections of oil-transporting ships regularly and before each voyage.  If we had simply been more proactive, many of the accidents in the past could have been prevented.  At the very least, attention needs to be paid to the animals that are being subjected to danger or death because of oil spills.  We need to focus more on improving the quality of rescue techniques in order to maximize the numbers of animals that are able to recover.

If you are interested in helping to protect animals and reduce oil spills, here are a few easy things that you can do:

 

• Use household cleaners that are fruit or vegetable based rather than oil based ones.
• When shopping, ask for paper bags, or use cloth bags rather than plastic ones.
• Recycle, especially plastics and paper.
• Monitor things that you dump down the drain; it will eventually end up in rivers, lakes, and water supplies.
• Write to your elected officials to learn about your local and state policies on animal rescue and protection efforts.

*Just a quick update on the Exxon Valdez oil spill:  The case is going before the high court tomorrow  (Wednesday, February 27), to determine whether the ExxonMobil Company should have to pay more money for restoration efforts, in addition to the $3.5 billion they have already paid.  The issue is whether or not this oil spill violated a part of the Clean Water Act, which specifically governs shipping requirements.  The company is lobbying against the costs, despite posting the largest profit by a U.S. company in a single year earlier this month– $40.6 billion.  To read more about this development, click here.

Citations:

“ExxonMobil Statement- The Condition of Prince William Sound,” ExxonMobil. February 22, 2008. http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/about_issues_valdez_sound.aspx

De Vette, Sancha and Plastino, Lorena. “Crude Oil, Cruel World.” Ocean Link. August 2004. Ocean Link. February 20, 2008. http://oceanlink.island.net/workexpaug2004/otters%20and%20oil2.html

University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill. “Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Impacts Lasting Far Longer Than Expected, Scientists Say.” ScienceDaily 23 December 2003. 22 February 2008 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031219073313.htm

Conner, Steve. “Galapagos Oil Spill Killed Two-Thirds of Island’s Iguanas.” Bnet. Jun 6, 2002. The (London) Independent. February 21, 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020606/ai_n12625964

“Swans Saved From Canal Oil Slick.”  Tottenham, Wood Green & Edmonton Journal. February 21, 2008. February 21, 2008. http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/content/haringey/tottenhamjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=TWGJOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newstwgj&itemid=WeED20%20Feb%202008%2012%3A29%3A07%3A603

 

Greetings From Treez4Meez!

Welcome to Treez4Meez! As five high schoolers, we aim to express our take on the modern problems involving the environment around us. Throughout the semester, each of us will be posting our individual thoughts on different issues to provide a multi-perspective view on various topics.  Our news article references will be found using Google Reader and will include sources like New York Times, BBC, Spiegel, The Guardian, and LA Times among others. We hope to inform everyone about some of the daunting problems that we face globally. Have fun and keep our world in mind!