On the contrary, there is also YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) groups developing. Those supporting this, desire development of new clean energy sources. They do not always desire change. Situations arrive where the present state is better than if more construction was done. Instead, affordable housing and other beneficial development is desired by those supporting YIMBY.

The reason for opposition can vary from person to person. It is not necessarily only beneficial to the larger population rather than the local residents. To see so many local people against new construction seems, to me, as people not wanting change. I suggest that we direct focus onto something other than convincing others on how project construction should be allowed or is better than the current state. One of the arguments for those with NIMBY, claim that new projects could lower the overall appearance of the land. We should take this argument into consideration and listen more towards those for NIMBY. Trying to construct projects that blend in with the area, to not create a distracting scene, would reduce the troubles brought upon by these projects. We could try to offer benefits for those highly effected by the buildings or plants, to balance out the problems they are forced to deal with living nearby new construction. (If not that, taking into consideration what those for NIMBY desire, could greatly reduce their thoughts of architects or designers as being selfish or narrow, and only building new things to improve their own lives.) Knowing that it is not always possible to build where we desire, it should be in our best interest to find the best possible location to create these sites. For example, building in areas that will affect the least amount of people in a negative way should be occupied for situations such as this. I personally see this as a Catch 22, in which someone is getting the short end of the stick. However, we must not be selfish with our ideas, and instead, take into consideration what the community wants, and those who live near desired development locations. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/envjust/ej0104.pdf

How you ask? Greenpeace claims that the majority the soy-based animal feed used by fast-food corporations to fatten chickens and other animals is derived from soybeans grown in the Amazon rainforest. The land is cheap and the product is expensive. Its simple business as far as McDonalds is concerned. So what’s the issue? The problem is that as soon as the land is infertile, they must push back, thus cutting even further into the rainforest.

It’s not just for soy products, though. Cattle farming has also taken a major toll on the rainforest. Brazil has lost 38% of its rainforest to cattle ranching. Wow. That is nearly 1/3 of a rainforest we can never get back. So why the Amazon? Land in South America is cheap and nations and business are willing to sell it. This leaves room for mega corporations to swoop down and “get to business”.

They gain more land by using a technique called “slash and burn” agriculture. What happens is they cut down the trees and burn them. The nutrients from the forest then go into the soil. Unfortunately, this only works for two seasons at the most. Now what? We move back further and to a whole other area. As Stirling Cousins puts it, “On a very small scale this is sustainable. The forest regrows from the forest surrounding it. On a large scale, this type of forestry practice is devastating. Large tracts of land are burned and grasses are grown on what is now pasture. Then cattle graze on the land. After only a couple years the nutrients are so depleted and the soil is so compacted from grazing that the land is no longer valuable even for this very low end purpose.”

There are other dire effects from this practice besides straight up deforestation. Flooding of local villages is much more prevalent. This is because there are no plants in the area that are able to absorb the water. The soil has also has been completely packed down by the cattle making it harder for the ground to drink up the excess water.  Also, the burning of the clear cut trees emits greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide. As we know, these gases are rumored causes of global warming and the greenhouse effect.

As for me, I didn’t support McDonalds or any large fast food corporation to begin with. One thing I cannot stomach in this world is deforestation. I refuse to give my money or support to a business that has no guilt or remorse for such a heinous crime. It is said that for every quarter pound hamburger, 55 square feet of the rainforest is destroyed.  Obscene. But it gets even better! Not only do we lose precious trees, we lose biodiversity! 165 pounds of plant and animal species are massacred. This includes 20 to 30 species of plants, 100 species of insects, and dozens of species of other animals. This has to end, no question in my mind. Next time you opt for the “Big Mac”, just think first of what it could be costing the rest of the planet.

For more infromation, please take a peek at these sites:

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0406-greenpeace.html

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/no_more_amazon.php

http://www.vsc.org/0902-environment.htm

http://www.mcspotlight.org/issues/environment/index.html

The 2008 Beijing Olympics are fast approaching, and with less than 8 months to go, some are voicing their concerns for the city’s air quality.  Beijing, known by some as the air pollution capital of the world, doesn’t exactly have the best record when it comes to caring for the environment.

70% of all fresh water around the city is undrinkable and over 400,000 people die prematurely from air pollution each year.  For a while, there seemed to be no signs that it would be getting better anytime soon; air pollutants over China increased by 50% in the past 10 years alone.  But, under pressure from the ever-nearing Olympic games, recent mandates and goals, along with conscientious citizens, have been making strides toward cleaner air.

One such step was reaching a goal of 245 “blue sky days“ last year.  This means that, on a scale of 1-500, (1 being the lowest pollution level, 500 being the highest) they must score below 101.  They just barely scraped by, with December 31 filling the final spot for the 2007 goal.  For a while, some feared that the Olympics would not be able to take place in Beijing at all.  Dangerous pollution levels, like those often reached in the city, can cause shortness or breath or trigger asthma, among other complications. 

Should we be submitting athletes to these potentially damaging conditions?  High pollution levels may interfere with the athletic capabilities of the contenders, which could result in unfair wins.  The regular citizens of Beijing are used to breathing in hazardous amounts of pollution, but foreigners are not prepared for such conditions.  In fact, top male distance runner Haile Gerselassie of Kenya, has threatened to drop out in fear of damage to his health.

Zhang Lijun, vice-minister of the Environmental Protection Administration, has promised that all the necessary tasks to allow the Olympics to take place will be completed by June.  Still, that only means that they must reach certain levels the 4 major pollutants: inhalable particles, sulfur dioxide, chemical oxygen demand and nitrogen dioxide. This would not provide entire protection from health problems.

Are these temporary stipulations even making a difference?  Sure, most high-pollutant factory sources have been shut down or moved, but at the same time, 1,200 new motor vehicles are added in the city each day.  Not to mention that, since the shut-downs are temporary, there will logically follow a surge in production, during which the factories will be increasing production to make up for lost time. 

From the very start, the Olympics in Beijing were met with overwhelming support by the citizens.  It would be a great disappointment if they were unable to host the Olympics, but we need to take some things into consideration before allowing it.  If Beijing can clean up its act, it will have well deserved the honor of holding the 2008 Olympics, but will it simply descend, once again, into environmental turmoil once the whole thing is over? 

It is their duty to reduce toxin levels in the air for this special international event, but this should always be their duty.  Though it is unfortunate that it took the idea of holding the Olympics to motivate action on the issue, at least this may remind the citizens of Beijing in the future about the importance of going that one extra step to save the environment.  Whether it is riding a bike, turning off a light, or forgoing that extra minute in the shower, we all need to play a part in keeping the earth an inhabitable place for many years to come. 

Citations:

“Clean Air at Olympics  ‘No Problem,’ China Vows.”  MSNBC-World News. March 11, 2008.  NBC. March 19, 2008.            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23581237/

Yardley, Jim. “China’s Olympic Goal: Turn Smoggy Skies Blue.”   International Herald Tribune.  December 29, 2007.  Herald Tribune.  March 19, 2008.   http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/28/news/pollute.php

“Satellite Data Reveals Beijing as Air Pollution Capital of the World.”  The Guardian.  October 31, 2005.  The Guardian.  March 19, 2008.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/oct/31/china.pollution

Smith told BBC that the dolphin saw trouble and quickly came to the scene. He also said, “I don’t speak dolphin and I don’t speak whale, but there was obviously something that went on because the two whales changed their attitude from being quite distressed to following the dolphin quite willingly and directly along the beach and straight out to sea. The dolphins did what we had failed to do. It was all over in a matter of minutes.”

Moko went back to her usual play, but the whales weren’t seen ever since the incident. Afterwards, Smith gave Moko a pat on the back (literally) for doing such a great job. It’s funny how humans save lives all the time, but this time it wasn’t us. Frequently, we underestimate the intelligence of animals in our environment.

A group of dolphins protected men from a great white shark, also in New Zealand, in 2004. I found this out from Animal Rights Articles, and the editor of this site said, “If animals are compassionate enough to protect humans, shouldn’t we be even more compassionate in our care and protection of animals? This is a very important question for human beings, particularly those who consider themselves to be superior beings.” I absolutely agree with this statement.

If they could, I’m sure animals would make their own wildlife reserves and save much more animals than we do, because of their communication skills. The inter specie communication is unbelievably fantastic, and we can use this to our advantage by giving creatures like Moko the opportunity to help out.                       -Asia

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/7291501.stm http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/nz.whales.ap/index.html                                                                                      http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-dolphins.html

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

“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

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

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

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/