Oil Spill Reports Fault Obama Administration

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/science/earth/07spill.html?_r=1&ref=science

The Obama Administration has been accused of releasing inaccurate and belated information about the BP Gulf oil spill, as well as a breakdown in clean up response. The continual inaccurate estimation discredited the government’s intent and willingness in the situation. People lost trust in the administration as the number of barrels of oil spilt per day rose every so many weeks that the number was announced. The discrepancies among Obama’s Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and BP were obvious to the people. The NOAA recently brought the White House denial of the worst-case estimate to become public. The White House’s response, of course, safe guarded itself; however, the government acknowledged its miscalculations and will take weight of the blame for the slow response to the oil spill clean up and underestimates. There were also discrepancies about the amounts of oil left in the Gulf and on the ocean floor. White House administrators concluded that 75% of the oil was gone, while the National Commission made statements about the unknown future of the effects the oil spill had on the Gulf and how much is actually still present. It seems as though the government and its experts are rarely on the same page as independent specialists and administrators, leading to the lack of response to natural disasters and hazards. If there were more communication and trust between government and its departments, there would also be trust in them from the people. The oil spill is something that will greatly affect the Gulf Coast’s aquatic life, as well as plants and people that inhabit the area. The damage to our environment should require cooperation and direct attention from the government. A common agreement on data and speculations would have increased the ability to act on the damage sooner. Honest, common ground needs to be found next time our environment is in danger due to man’s mistakes.

I thought the article was informative; however, from the beginning it seemed bias. I agree with John Broder’s statements and points. He touched on several aspects of wrong doings with the oil spill, besides the fact that BP “allowed” this to happen. He is obviously with the rest of American’s who are frustrated with the miscalculations provided to people who just wants answers and clean results after the math. What surprised me was the back and forth underestimates between officials. There were too many misunderstandings and blame. My question would be why was there so many miscalculations announced to the public? Is there a lack of trust among departments and why? Also I would be interested in knowing the specific details of what the government is doing to clean up the spill. I know BP is cleaning because of their commercials; however, the government as not reassured the people that things will be ok recently.

"Mining's Final Frontier" by Sharon Begley of Newsweek Magazine

The floor of the deep sea has recently become of special interest to Counrties for mining purposes. China has shown the most inhterest. IN may, the Chinese government submitted plans to explore the seafloor at a location around an underwater ridge in the INdian Ocean near the counrty of Madagascar. IN this locations, there are hot springs called hydrothermal vents that have created deposits containing gold, silver, copper, nickel, cobalt, and telluriun. In these hydrothermal vents, there are the richest lodes of undersea minerals. "Here, volcanic activity beneath the earth's crust sends sulfur-rish plumes spewing up from gashes in the seafloor into the ocean, where the plumes support unique ecosystems of animals and microbs".These unique ecosystems are based on the chemicals in the plume. As a result of the microbes movement through the organisms in the ecosystem, exotic animals such as the giatn red- fleshed clams and blind white crabs inhabit each vent. In 1979, scientists discovered that the same plumbing that supports the bizarre menageries also creates the mineral deposits that China finds to be favorable and wants to mine. A concern of the deep sea mining is that sediment stirred up by the mining could possibly kill organisms that feed by filtering seawater. So the delima we face is China's decision of mining and profit versus the health and protection of our unique ecosystems.
A solution to this problem could be a compromise, very little mining, and careful protection of dee sea life while doing so.
I thought that this article was very interesting. I enjoyed that article because it was well written and very descriptive of the ecosystem itself and the effect that mining would have on it. I was not even aware that these kinds of unique ecosystems existed. I think it is a shame that all of the wonderful natural resouces are located under these vents. The minerals found there would definitely provide a good profit for China, however the environmental factors should be thought of as well. Unique ecosystems such as the ones located near the hydrothermal vents can not be replaced. I hope that people can protect these ecosystems and see how they are more important than mining.

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/20/is-deep-sea-mining-bad-for...

Can We Build A Brighter Shade Of Green?
I'm sure that everyone has heard of green design, and incorporating the green movement into the building of homes. However, many people, myself included, have never heard of the passive building movement. The article in the New York Times entitled, Can We Build A Brighter Shade Of Green, details the efforts of a Boston couple to build a home that is certified as a passive home. A passive home is one that is carefully designed to require minimal amounts of heat and energy in order to properly function. They build these homes with walls three times thicker than the average wall, with heavy duty insulation and carefully calculated window placement. These windows face the sun in order to obtain the optimal amount of heat energy from the sun. With these incredibly thick walls and carefully placed windows, the home is able to retain the optimal amount of heat. These homes are very well suited for cold weather areas, though plans are still being formulated create passive homes that will be effective in warmer climates. Some of the downsides to these passive homes however are their initial costs as well as the lack of properly trained professionals that can built them and required materials. Because these passive homes have not been widely incorporated into building designs in the United States, there is a lack of readily available materials. The initial costs of the passive homes are also rather high, however in time the incredible efficiency of the home makes up for the initial cost. These homes have incredibly low energy costs, because require so little heat. One of the unfortunate things about these passive homes and buildings is that they have yet to really be incorporated into design plans in the United States. The United States has only thirteen certified passive buildings, while Europe has over 25,000 certified passive buildings. The success of these structures in Europe should certainly prove to us in the United States that this is a great way to create a more sustainable way of life. The article states that these passive homes use 90% less heating and cooling energy than the conventional home. This is certainly an indication that we need to really begin to incorporate these ideas into our building codes in order to help the environmental cause.


I found this article to be incredibly interesting, mostly because is had never heard of the concept of the passive house. I think that it is certainly something that should be incorporated into the way that we build our homes. It was very surprising to me that Europe was so far ahead of us in the environmental movement and building these passive homes. It was shocking to know that there are only 13 certified passive buildings in the United States, while Europe has over 25,000. It is sad to think that we are so behind in this movement and that we have not made more of an effort to live sustainably. I would definitely like to learn more about the standards and structure of a passive building. What I am really wondering is whether or not they have been able to come up with a solution for warm climates as well. Because with its technology to hold in heat, it would certainly not be an effective home in the summer months of an area like Suffolk. I would also like to learn a little bit more about the way that they calculate where windows should be placed on the home in order to maximize sun exposure during the winter months, because I am sure it is very carefully calculated. Finally I really think that there should be more of an effort made to get this information out to everyone, because I had never heard of this prior to reading the article.

Zeller, Tom. "Can We Build A Brighter Shade of Green?." The New York Times. N.p., 25 Sept. 2010. Web. 7 Oct. 2010. .

Death of the Biodegradable

Recently CBS news reported that Frito-Lay is discontinuing its production of biodegrable bag for packaing Sun Chips. Even Stephen Colbert aired a comment satirizing the “noise pollution” created by these bags.(http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/361306/october-06-2010/tiny-triumphs---environmentalist-ear-pollution)

On a more serious note, in the article “The Death of the Biodegradable Bag” the author, a student from Yale, offers his reactions to the discontinuation of the bag. Immediately, the author says that he isn’t very optimistic. In fact, he feels that “our species isn’t worth saving” because we can’t be bothered by a ‘green’ bag that makes noise. The Frito-Lay bag caused what news channels call “noise pollution”. This particular issue connects to problems about the wind turbines being too loud and residents in the area bringing a lawsuit against the organization behind the turbines. American’s can’t handle a little bit of “noise pollution” for the sake of the only world we’ve got.

I enjoyed reading this article because it was not only witty, but true in a painful way. This article made me laugh because of how the information was presented, but also disgusted. Many people would laugh at both the article and clip and think “not me.” That’s not the case. We’ve had this bag in my house before, and I didn’t like it at all. It was a nice concept, a good step forward, but it was very loud, especially when someone went for a midnight snack. However, having my opinion satirized and written about has made me think about it. It’s disgusting. A major company took a gamble by using these biodegradable bags, which probably cost more to manufacture, and the American consumers said that they wouldn’t stand for the noise, and changed there consumer patterns. Not only does the hollowness of most of America, and even myself, disgust me, it’s the fact that the world wants to be like us. Most of the world is striving to have our standard of living, the affluent lifestyles we live. What these countries don’t see is the “affluenza”, the doing away with a green innovation because of “noise pollution.” And everyone wants to be like us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-vergara/the-death-of-the-biodegra_b_753660.html

“More Than One-Fifth of World's Plants Face Threat of Extinction, New Analysis Finds”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100928193452.htm

The article, “More Than One-Fifth of World's Plants Face Threat of Extinction, New Analysis Finds”, is written about a new study with threatening results for much of the plant population done by several organizations such as the Natural History Museum and Royal Botanic Gardens. This study is very crucial to the conservation of plants because 22% of plants on Earth are classified as threatened. The article confirms that humans are the reason for this large percentage of threatened plants since they have significantly reduced the habitats for many plants to live in by processes such as deforestation. The study also lists a breakdown of different threatened areas within the plant community such as the most threatened habitat is the tropical forests. Countries need to step in to make changes to help lower this very alarming level of threatened plants. The article mentions how these findings will be released to countries at the United Nations Biodiversity Summit. These nations should make harsh penalties and laws against people or manufacturers who deforest areas where any threatened species are located. Heavy fines should be involved so it can be put towards renewing the threatened plant population.

I thought the article was very interesting and informative since it was one of the largest studies on plants, and most studies about threatened species are on animals. It was also very alarming, and somewhat of a wake-up call to me because I never realized how many plants are threatened in our world. If we lose 1/5 of the plant population, life for animals will be increasingly harder and harder as those plants provide food, habitats, and resources for many animals. I liked this article a lot because from the title itself, it grabbed my attention since I never really realized what toll plants have taken as humans have taken away their habitats. I also thought the article was interesting because the article listed several findings from the article which I found very interesting such as gymnosperms are the most threatened plant group. I was surprised that man-induced habitat loss was the most threatening process because I had originally thought it was global warming that was the most threatening process. I also found it surprising that no other studies have found such an alarming fact about plants sooner than now. I am curious about how long it will take for these species to become extinct if we continue on this pathway, and how many more threatened species there will be in 100 years from now. I can only hope that plants will continue to flourish and grow, and as we make adjustments, the amount of threatened plants will significantly decrease.

"Western lawmakers turn sights on endangered wolves"

Matthew Brown, The Associated Press

The article explains and questions whether or not the gray wolves should be removed off the endangered species list. Years ago there was a paucity of these wolves, therefore 66 wolves were brought from Canada and they were introduced into the Yellowstone National Park as well as Idaho. A decade ago there were around 300 of these species found across six states, which meant that it could be removed from the endangered species list,however,the gray wolves officially remained on there. States, including Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Idaho, are now finding difficulty to manage the species because the wolves are killing the livestocks and the game herds are also diminishing. Montana and Idaho are planning to cut down this population by 15% and 40%, respectively. However, many opponents argue against this because they believe that is not safe to began killing the species as soon as they come off the list, and they do feel that it is proper to just bypass Endangered Species Act. Even though none of the states have planned to completely eradicate the population of the wolves, they plan to cut it down by activities such as by holding wolf hunts and other types of force. Environmentalists argue that just shooting them is not the best solution to this problem. States are asked to create a better management program that will make sure that these species do not slowly become extinct. Environmentalists do not want the Congress to take strong-human actions to get rid of all of the wolves and then have to pay $30 million for their recovery. However, if the states create extreme solutions to the problem, then Congress may have to step in to resolve the issue.

I enjoyed reading the article because it described why the increasing population of the gray wolves is a problem, and it explained how there is not one clear-cut way to deal with
environmental problem, which shows how there are many gray areas that must be filled in order to come up with a solution. The article made me think of solutions that would be beneficial to groups supporting both sides of the issue. The best solution, according to me,is not to just start killing this population.A solution I thought may be beneficial in this situation is to find the wolves and transport them to parts of Canada that are not inhabited by humans so that the wolves can live and the human population is satisfied as well. While reading the article, I was surprised that the government allowed the transport of the gray wolves from Canada to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park because I always thought that as long as the species exists on the continent, then they do not need to be imported. However, this article explained that because the population was low in America, the wolves were actually imported. Another fact that surprised me was when I read about the radical plans that some states proposed in order to solve the problem especially the part where there would be wolf hunts in order to solve the problem. I personally do not believe that hunting the wolves would be the best solution to the problem because if too many of the wolves are killed, then the government will have to once again start a recovery program. The fact that the state officials were supporting this idea also shocked me. I understand that the wolves are causing damage, but this does not mean that the population has to be reduced. One question I had while reading the article was about the transporting of species into countries. I thought that according to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it was illegal to do that, which is why it shocked me that they were actually transported. After reading this, I am quite curious to find out what decision is finally made on this because both sides of the argument are very strong.

Source:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5im5Vu-yMG30z1V_izxoSIeQ2jVXAD9IKEOBG1?docId=D9IKEOBG1

Ancient Italian Town Has Wind at Its Back

NY Times by Elisabeth Rosenthal

Rosenthal reports on Tocca Da Casauria, Italy, a small town of 2700 inhabitants, that recently invested in renewable energy in the form of wind turbines. Although Italy is often criticized as a whole by the EU for falling behind on mandated stipulations of ensuring 17% of their energy is from renewable sources by 2020, local communities have taken action. With the 4 wind turbines installed, Tocca now produces more energy than it consumes. A private company operates the turbines and then sells the produced energy to the national government. Because they lease the land from Tocca and also give Tocca a portion of the revenue income from energy sales, the little town no longer taxes its residents for services, such as trash pick-up. The town's motivation for switching to renewable energy was the extremely high electricity rates. Now the minuscule community, in which the largest event is the olive harvest, represents a new age relying on sustainable sources for its power, denoting independency and responsibility.

I thought the article was educational, informative, and inspirational. It is easy to become depressed about our meek future that is foreshadowed by many authors pleading with society to change their ways. While Rosenthal acknowledges that only 7% of Italy's energy comes from renewable sources, she remains optimistic about the future. The grassroots movement represented by this bottom-up approach to starting a movement is a reminder that it all starts with individuals speaking up for the betterment of their community. I thought it was really that after one change, the community saw how much it improved their town, and went on to install solar lighting in their cemetery. Tocca represents the small changes we need to see happen everywhere. I am interested to know if the residents are disturbed by the noise or appearance of the turbines, as in America that seems to have been the reasoning for some resistance. That, and U.S. citizens have cheap access to electricity, and have little motivation to change simply because Mother Earth would thank them. One thing is obvious, we cannot stay on this track forever. Change must occur. For towns like Tocca that recognize this, the future looks good, but for those of us ignoring the signs, we're in for a rude awakening as oil prices continue to rise, and nonrenewable resources are depleted.