Holy Cow! Manure-to-Biogas Could Generate 3 Percent of US Electric Demand!

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/cow-manure-biogas-could-generate-three-percent-us-electicity.php
By Matthew McDermott

It has recently been discovered that cow manure can serve as a source of energy in the form of biogas. The University of Texas, in Austin, claims that when cow manure is left out to decompose, it can emit harmful amounts of carbon dioxide into the environment. This contributes to the greenhouse gas effect. Clearly, something needs to be done about cow manure, and what better than use it to make electricity? Cow manure includes high amounts of methane, which, believe it or not, is perfect for burning to create biogas. It does not give off harmful byproducts and is absolutely free! The University of Texas .has calculated that cow manure could provide the U.S. with 3% of its electricity each year Of course, they concede that this idea would be hard to implant in residential areas far from farms, but rural areas could use cow manure as a source of power easily.

This article was really interesting to me. It seemed a bit gross at first that excrement could be used for power (there were similar articles about how human excrement is being used for electricity in some areas of the world!), but I realized that this byproduct of the cows will always be made, so cow manure for biogas is a renewable resource until its supply rises exponentially. It is an amazing idea to use cow manure, because it releases harmful gases into the atmosphere if let to decompose but is useful if not.

1) How likely do you think it is for people to use excrement (from animals or humans) for power in residential areas?

2) Do you think the areas where the cow manure is being converted into biogas would smell bad?

3) Are there any other similar ways that we can use natural byproducts of life to create electricity?

Chevron Says It’s Full Steam Ahead for Geothermal Expansion in Indonesia

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/business/chevron-says-its-full-steam-ahead-for-geothermal-expansion-in-indonesia/411695om/business/chevron-says-its-full-steam-ahead-for-geothermal-expansion-in-indonesia/411695

In Indonesia Chevron expects and wants to start using geothermal power more. The CPI's president announces that the goal is to increase the power supply in Southeast Asia’s largest economy. Chevron exclaims about Indonesia's huge potential in using geothermal energy as a major power source. CPI was awarded a permit to build and develop a geothermal field. They have already gotten to work at completing this. They have not been willing to comment on how much this field will cost, or the harmful gases and minerals that may be exposed. These can cause serious health issues. Hamid states that there will be plenty of opportunity to create electricity because of such huge growth.

Opinion:I am surprised to here this news, believe it or not. When I was doing a little research on geothermal energy for my presentation, I found that it is extremely difficult to have a geothermal field, because there are few places where the rock is permeable enough to be drilled deep enough. Here in Indonesia, they say they found a huge plot of land that can be used to make a geothermal field. I think it's great that they found this land, and it's not already owned by a company that wants to use the land for something else less useful.

Questions:

Do you think this could become there major source of energy there?

Do you think that geothermal energy is a reliable resource of energy? Could we use it as our major source of energy?

How much longer do you think we have before we have to decide on what our source of energy will be?

"Kissmas" Tree to light up Covent Garden By: Tony Cross
http://www.cntraveller.com/news/2010/october/covent-garden-kissing-christmas-tree-london

In this article a unique Christmas tree is powered by, well, KISSES! Hopefully, kids our age don't know this feeling too well, but when you kiss your significant other, a jolt of energy will go through you. Paul Cocksedge put this energy to good use when he invented the kissmas tree. It is designed to capture the electricity from your kiss and transfer it into energy used to power over 50,000 lights! When two people stand under the giant mistletoe, they each grab a leaf. When they kiss, their energy is harnessed in through the giant mistletoe leaves and is therefore used to power the kissmas tree. Finally, every kiss made underneath the mistletoe, there is a donation made to The Prince's Trust youth charity. So, not only does this invention power a Christmas tree with something that, quite frankly, would have been done anyway, but it also donates to a great, cause!

In my opinion, this is a really neat contraption! I mean, who knows how much electricity would have been wasted without all those smooches! I mean, 50,000+ lights sounds incredibly excessive especially since that most likely have been fossil fuels before. So, I think that this will be an incredible money saver for England (where this tree just so happens to be) and i think that the people will really enjoy it and have fun with it, considering how common PDA is these days...

Questions!!!!!:

1) Why is this such a big money saver??
2) Do you think that this concept of kissing=energy could ever be something more, perhaps something year-round that could be used to provide energy for homes and whatnot? essentially, could this concept be something bigger??
3) Do you think that there will be a large showing at the unvailing of this tree??

Posting problem

Hey...according to my blog sheet, Maddy was supposed to blog on friday, so we can't comment until she does...Is this accurate?

Researchers Use Phytonutrients in Spinach to Create Highly Cost-effective Solar panels

 http://www.naturalnews.com/013286_spinach_phytonutrients.html

As strange as it may sound, scientists are using phytonutrients found in spinach plants to create a new green technology. The idea seems logical, spinach plants already turned sunlight into electricity using photosynthesis, why not just use the plant to make a modern day solar panel? Science is just asking nature to reveal its secrets, which is just what scientists did to come up with this new solar panel. They saw what nature was doing right and used that to create their own version. Modern scientists are too often trying to be better than nature than just learning from what nature has been doing right for so long.

This shows the process of photosynthesis

I think this is very interesting. It's nice to see scientists actually using what nature has to offer instead of trying to dominate over nature. There was a quote in the article that said, "All we have to do is be humble enough to ask the right questions, and quiet enough to hear the answers." That was talking about nature and I completely agree with that. Nature has all the answers we need and scientists don't look to nature to ask any of the questions. I think that once scientists start to ask those questions and look to nature for the answers we will have a lot of new discoveries.

Here are some questions I had:
1. Is spinach the only plant that you could use to make these solar panels?
2. Will technology like this advance in the future, why or why not?
3.Why didn't scientists think of using this kind of technology before? Are there more things in nature that scientists could learn from?

?

hey guys which article are we commenting on...the latest one I think

A warmer ocean is a less green one

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/07/28/a-warmer-ocean-is-a-less-green-one/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiscoverMag+%28Discover+Magazine%29

By: no author given

Scientists have now noticed that rising temperatures in oceans mean that warmer oceans will be very different places. This could rearrange the global distribution of life in the oceans. It will mess up their food webs at the very root making many, many organisms lose what they feed off of. Warmer waters were more likely to be hotspots of diversity for marine species but even with a census that big, Tittensor (scientist) has only glimpsed at the full ocean life through a key hole. The results of all of the tests and surveys they have done, say the results suggest changes in ocean temperatures could have a big impact on the spread of oceanic species. Tittensor found that places where there is the most human activity, pollution, habitat destruction and over harvesting, are the areas that are richest in life. The warmer waters have already taken a toll on the phytoplankton which are on the bottom of the food chain. If the future of our marine life is to be preserved then we must act soon. Also, the current way of getting energy for us is making this worse everyday. So that is a reason why we need to find a way to change the way we get energy so that the ocean temperatures will drop again.

Opinion: I think this is a real shame! Warmer waters mean many animals could die off! We need to figure out a way to fix this, and fast. Oceans are a big part of everyone's life and we need to save what's in it. If organisms in them start to become extinct then we are also going to start losing food sources. If something happens to the oceans then it is going to effect me and everyone else in the world. The faster we find a way to fix this, the better off we will be. I think we need to find a new way of getting energy so it will be one less thing harming the ocean.

Questions:

1. What is a way we could fix this problem?

2. What else could happen if we don't fix this soon?

3. Do you think that there is a way the organisms could just adapt to warmer waters?

Nematodes Vanquish Billion Dollar Pest

No author given-Science Daily?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100624214306.htm


These nematodes could be the answer to environmentally friendly pesticides!












SUMMARY: The western corn rootworm has been eating the maize, a plant grown in many countries around the world. This rootworm is a problem in 11 of the European countries, as well as the United States. Farmers tried to kill the pest when it first arrived using pesticides. Unfortunately, these pesticides ended up killing millions of bees-a harmful, unintended consequence. Mr. Ivan Hiltpold researched an organism called the nematodes in hopes that it would be the answer to the agricultural and environmental dilemma. Mr. Ted Turlings and some of his colleagues furthered this research, bringing the nematodes into fields of maize to test their protection against the western corn rootworm. The conclusion of this research was that the nematodes in fields with caryophellene were better than their non-caryophellene-field colleagues, but all nematodes were effective at repelling the pest.

REACTION: This is wonderful news! There is so much happening to show us that people simply don't care about the environment and only themselves, but Hiltpold and Turlings have completed hours of research showing us otherwise. This information gives me high hopes for a future where more fields are protected by environmentally safe organisms rather than harmful pesticides. Even though this type of pesticide hasn't been officially named a pesticide to be marketed commercially, it is well on its way to that stage. If this could happen, more people would hopefully look for organisms to control pests rather than chemical pesticides, and there would be a decrease in growth of algal blooms and everything else bad that chemical pesticides can cause. This would be a very good thing indeed, because I know that I find it horrible that people do bad things to the environment for their own good, and then other people are affected by it as well. This should be stopped as quickly as possible, and if nematodes can do it, they should be allowed to!

QUESTIONS:
1) Do you think these nematodes could eventually have a negative environmental impact?
2) Are there any other types of environmentally friendly pesticides?
3) If this is not approved, is there something else that could be done instead to help our crops and the environment?

Hey guys...Who's blogging tonight...Unfortunately I can't.. so hopefully someone else can.

What a Waste of an Oil Disaster

By: Sarah Hodgdon
September 7, 2010



Although media coverage of the BP oil spill is slowly but surely fading away, the effects and results of it still live on. BP is relying on local landfills to house all the oil spill clean up wastes. They are relying on the landfills to house all the slimy, slippery gunk that was cleaned up from the spill and contains ever so many chemicals. Once put in the landfill, these chemicals will seep through the bottom of the landfill (lined or unlined) and throughout the Earth to reach our groundwater supply. These landfills are obviously not designed to handle these hazardous chemicals and are totally unprepared for them. Once the chemicals get into the groundwater, there is almost no getting them out for these chemicals are leeched into the ground and will be there for generations to come. Currently, this cannot be stopped because of a loophole in the federal law that considers this crude oil waste non-hazardous and, therefore, the wastes are legally allowed to be put in these landfills. Fortunately, the EPA is working to close this loophole so that soon, all is well!



The moment I saw this article on my google reader, I knew it was a keeper. It's really upsetting that not only did this oil spill effect the gulf, oceans all over (basically it has or will effect many large waterways and oceans in the world), but it effected our groundwater supply, too! It probably could have been prevented because the chemicals were brought to the landfills by humans for the humans convince, but what else are they going to do? Also, if the spill hadn't occurred in the first place, none of the water would have been polluted and this problem would not have even come up. What I'm really concerned about is the economic results of this. If it takes more energy, labor, and money to clean the groundwater because it is now ultra contaminated, won't the cost of water skyrocket near the gulf? I just feel really bad for the people who have to deal withall this oil spill mumbo-jumbo on a daily basis and they had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Because of other's mistakes, their life is effected forever and they probably will wave to pay more for water.



Some questions to consider...



1) What alternative disposal solutions could the "clean up crew" use besides dumping this nasty stuff straight into a landfill?

2) Why do you think they decided to dump it all into a landfill in the first place knowing they were introducing extreem pollution?

3) Next time there is an oil spill (which there inevitalbly will be) how could people prevent others from doing this to the environment?

Mining and Ready-Mix Concrete Company Faces Penalties for Clean Water Act Violations

Paula Ballentine, 11/02/2010

This is a concrete mixing truck from Torromeo. All of the water on the ground will run right into a nearby stream; it will not be cleaned.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/a73a18721bc982f1852577cf0068a4cd!OpenDocument

SUMMARY:
A complaint has been filed against a company in New Hampshire that focuses on ready-mix concrete for violating the Clean Water Act. They apparently discharged stormwater and used water into waterways as well as wetlands, polluting these bodies of water. While doing this, they did not have the necessary National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. The company did not use the best technologies to clean the water that they discharged, or much of anything for that matter. Run-off from ready-mix concrete companies is known to flow directly into waterways, picking up sediment, used oil, pesticides, solvents and other debris along the way. As we all know, pesticides in water bodies can cause algal blooms. The Attorney's office of the area has filed the complaint on behalf of the EPA, asking for up to $37,500 per day, per violation. The violations that the company has been accused of are as follows: discharging process water without authorization from the mid 1970's to present, and discharging stormwater associated with industrial activity without authorization from the mid 1990's to December 19, 2009. That is ALOT of money that they could be losing!

REFLECTION:
It is truly horrible that this company (by the way, the company's name is Torromeo Industries, Inc.) has let so much polluted water go into our waterways for so long. However, it is just a fact of life. So many companys care more about getting the biggest profit and don't think about how badly their actions affect the environment. It is a good thing we have so many environmental laws to punish these companies! However, I do feel bad for the current workers at the company, for they might not have agreed with what Torromeo was doing, but they needed a job so were afraid to speak up. Or if they simply didn't know everything that Torromeo was doing, they will still be punished and will most likely lose their job because the company simply can't afford to pay them anymore. Most likely, Torromeo will go out of business.

QUESTIONS:
1) Is it fair to punish the companies and minor workers so severly?

2) What other affects of this pollution besides algal blooms could have been caused?

3) What do you think all of this money will be used for?

4) If a permit wasn't necessary, would all companies pollute, the same amount, or more but not all? Why?

Coast Pipelines Face Damage as Gulf Oil Eats Marshes?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100525-gulf-oil-spill-pipelines-science-environment/




Straight lines of vegetation trace the path of a pipeline beneath the Gulf of Mexico (file photo).





The oil from the oil spill has now affected the marshes, and has damaged the pipelines beneath the surface. This disaster has been caused by the gulf oil spill. The oil is now affecting organisms living in these marshes as well as hurting the infrastructure of the oil industry. If this oil kills off all the plants in the marsh it will become open water witch can hurt the organisms and the oil industry, by making the coastal infrastructure susceptible to ships strikes, storms, and corrosive salt water. The Energy loss and marsh land loss are making this oil spill an even bigger problem than it already was. Natural gas pipelines and onshore oil travel around 26,420 miles through coastal countries. These pipelines were built in this vulnerable spot long ago because many people assumed that they would not be in open water, because they thought that these marsh environments were more stable than they really are.


Opinion: I was shocked when I read this article. I thought that I knew all of the outcomes of the BP oil spill. This problem that has also occurred because of the oil spill can cost oil companies a fortune on top of what they already have to pay to fix the problem of the oil leak. So many organisms from so many different species died from the oil leak. Now may more are dieing from the loss of marshes. I hope that we can fix this problem. Unfortunately I can think of much we can do to fix it. However I do think we should take this occurence into consideration if they build another oil pipeline, and dont build them in or near a marsh, swamp, or any other wetland.


Questions:
1. Can you think of anything that we can do to fix this problem in the coastal marshes? What are they?

2. What other effects has the oil spill had that most people do not know about?

3. What other things do you think will hapen because of the loss of marshes besides the loss of organisms and money?

Water Scarcity Affects Migratory Birds in Iraq

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/water-scarcity-threatens-migratory-birds-in-iraq.php?campaign=th_rss

Water Scarcity Affects Migratory Birds in Iraq

by:David DeFranza

Iraq Marsh

Migratory birds of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East use marshes and wetlands in Iraq as critical roosting areas. These areas are in great danger of drying out and are very vulnerable because the country is having trouble encouraging development and preserving security. The scarcity of water in Iraq was kicked into high gear when Saddam Hussein had built a series of dams and diversion systems to drain 90 percent of the water in an area that used to be the world’s third largest wetland. These structures have now been removed, but the areas are still of great danger of drying out. The area is now being protected by new national park designations. However, the land is very vulnerable to upstream construction that Iraq is not the only one obligated to protect this area.

This is horrible! The migratory birds could go extinct because of this water scarcity! What was Saddam Hussein thinking? Why would anyone create dams to drain 90 percent of the water in a certain area! That could do horrible things to that area. This could change some of the most beautiful places to a dried up piece of land that no one cares about anymore.

What do you think will happen to migratory birds if this problem is not resolved?

Who would be responsible in fixing this problem?

Why are these areas so vital in the survival of migratory birds?

What's up?

So what's happening with the posting stuff? Was Annemarie supposed to post yesterday or not? I'll do it if you want me to, I just don't know what's going on!!!

In Yemen, Water Grows Scarcer

By: John Collins Rudolf

Posted October 25th, 2010

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/in-yemen-water-grows-scarcer/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Yemen has recently been having increasingly sharp water shortages. This could cost many people their jobs, 750,000 jobs to be exact. It will also decrease peoples incomes by 25% in the next 10 years. Yemen, a Middle Eastern Nation, is already very troubled and they don't need a problem like this too. This city could run out of water by 2025 and then what happens to them? Yemen relies mostly on groundwater and rainfall for its water supply. Also another city named Sana is 100 miles inland of Yemen and at about 7,400 feet elevation and is also very vulnerable to water shortages in a few years. They are expecting many of the wells to dry up very soon and they are either going to have to find a new water source, or keep drilling deeper.

I think that it is very bad that Yemen is almost out of water, and that Sana will be running out shortly. These people are going to need some help because it is already a very poor city and they will not be able to afford to keep drilling deeper or finding a new water source considering it may be very expensive. I know that if i were in Yemen right now, i would want others to come and help us out so that we could have enough water and have deeper wells. If no ones helps Yemen then i think they may have to find a new place to live since they cant afford drilling deeper.

Questions:

Is it possible for them to keep drilling, and drilling, and drilling, and just not hit any water at all?

What happens when they do run out of water, will there be another source they can get water from?

When do you think that this problem will start hitting other cities, besides just Yemen and Sana?

Hey guys....We didn't plan who was going to blog on which day. I think we should continue with the schedule that we had last time...let me know otherwise if we are not..because someone needs to blog tonight

Night-Time Lights Bring Insects, Disease

No Author Available
October 14, 2010
Click on Picture for Article Link!!


Bugs? Lights? Disease? How is this all supposed to relate? Well, it all relates quite perfectly! You see, bugs are attracted to nighttime lights because they are used to using the light from the moon and the stars to guide them. With all this artificial light around them during the time where barely any light should be reaching their eyes, they go nutzo! They turn into these evil, human blood-sucking creatures, like teeny tiny vampires! Only kidding, but bugs are attracted to artificial lights, and these bugs carry disease. Now, what do artificial lights allow humans to do? Stay out after dark! With all the big cities in the word, comes big (and many) lights. With all this entertainment and extra time in the twenty-four hour day, humans are out and about more and more exposed to these parasitic insects, are being bit more and more, and these insects are passing their germs, viruses, parasites, bacteria-whatever it is that they carry, into, and onto the human they bite. For example, say you just came out of a restaurant in New York, New York and you are walking two blocks in the summer heat to reach your car. Suddenly, you feel this sting on the back of your neck, swat at is, the sting goes away, and you arrive home safely. A week or two later, you start to get some symptoms and go to the doctors office. You are diagnosed with malaria. Little did you know that when you were walking to your car from the restaurant and felt a sting, you were bitten by a malaria infected mosquito. So, in conclusion, when there are nightlights, there are people. Also where there are night lights, there are bugs because bugs are attracted to the light. When there are night lights there are people and bugs; when there are people and bugs, there is a greater chance of disease being transmitted through insects.

In my opinion, this is a very interesting subject. It's quite neat how they can predict that more people are getting disease around bright lights because bugs are around bright lights, too. Even so, this doesn't have as much effect on them because they have great medical care and can, in most cases, just get some medicine and be all better. This observation about bugs and lights can even be simulated in your own home, by watching the lights outside your home, and seeing all the bugs that are attracted to those lights. This would probably work best in the summer, though, just because most bugs thrive better during warmer weather.

Here are a few questions for you to think about... or answer if you wish:

1) Should people take precautions when they are outdoors around lots of night time lights, or should they just go into the don't worry, be happy mode?

2)If someone were to take precautions, why should they, when they could just go and get some medicine at the doctors office if they were to get sick?

3)What is the point of this article? Why is there just this random article about bugs, lights, and humans and how people can get sick anywhere if they are out at night with a light on?

Dry Regions Becoming Drier: Ocean Salinities Show an Intensified Water Cycle

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100416094050.htm
By ScienceDaily with materials from CSIRO Australia
Written on April 18, 2010

This article's purpose is to show that the global water cycle has accellerated, or gotten faster. The people who did this research believe that because the water is warmer from global warming, the water is evaporated more quickly, and therefore can be deposited as precipitation in earlier than it used to be. They know that the water is being evaporated more quickly because the salinity is higher. This information is useful in validating ideas about global climate change. Simulations were apparently done years ago about global climate change affecting ocean salinity that match what has been found by the CSIRO. Basically, they are saying that because the earth is warmer, ocean water is being evaporated more quickly and deposited in other places more quickly. In other words, the water cycle is happening faster than it used to. This also means that areas that were already pretty wet are now even wetter, and areas that were pretty dry and evaporation happened quickly are now even drier!

Reading this article gave me a different look on global warming. It didn't say that global warming is bad and we need to stop it now, or that global warming is just the way the earth works. It just said that global warming speeds up the water cycle. I found it interesting that global warming can affect that as well, but I guess when you really think about it you can see how this can happen. It does make sense.

1) Will a faster water cycle cause any environmental concerns? What are they?

2) Could this be a way that global warming is good for the environment? How so?

3) Do you think that the water cycle will continue to accelerate, or will it slow down again?

Bald eagle soaring 'success,' but at what cost?

By: Peggy Mihelich CNN
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-06-07/tech/bald.eagle.delisting_1_bald-eagle-golden-eagle-protection-act-edmund-contoski?_s=PM:TECH

Summery: The U.S. Government for over three decades to help the Bald and Golden eagle revover from habitat destruction, hunting, and food contamination, DDT. The government was going to take these eagles off the threatened list, because their population is back up and still growing. However, their habitat was protected if they were considered threatened. If they were taken off the list, develpers would move back into thier habitat and make the eagles leave. This would cause a reduction in their numbers, and they could fall back into the threatened list. Many of them live near rivers. If their protection was gone, the eagles would be under a huge threat. The Government is going to put an act in place that will prohibit people from pursuit, shooting, shooting at, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, collecting, molesting and disturbing the eagles. The most common of these to occur in the past was shooting and hunting. Even with this act, Bald and Golden eagle's population could reduce, and they could fall back into the threatened category.

Opinion: I think what the government is doing is great. I think that this act for preventing the eagles ffrom being hunted, captured, ect, will have a tremendous impact on the eagles population. It will defenitely help prevent them from falling back into the threatened category, although I do not think it will be enough. I think their species should continue to be protected, until their population is thriving. In fact I believe that all species that have a decresing number in their population should have the same act.

Questions:
1. Do you think that this act could work to prevent eagles from going back to threatened? Why or Why not?

2. What other things should this act have to become more effective?

3. Do you think that taking the eagles off the threatened list is a good idea? Why or Why not?

Bird Declines Could Signal Coming Mass Extinctions

        

Bird Declines Could 

Signal Coming Mass Extinctions

 By: David DeFranza

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/bird-declines-could-signal-coming-mass-extinctions.php?campaign=th_rss

Cartoon showing biodiversity loss in birds.

The saying, “Every 20 minutes, we lose an animal specie,” isn’t accurate. It is difficult to collect the data prove that statement and to motivate people to take action. Researchers do, however, believe they can use an easily observed group of animals, birds, to predict ecosystem-wide rates of loss. Clive Hambler, professor at Oxford University’s Department of zoology and lead author of research, had said, “Until now, we had only crude estimates for very few types of organisms. Now we’ve got evidence that many groups of living things-lichens, bugs, moths, fish, plants, and so on- are going extinct at a very similar rate as birds.” Birds are a very diverse species; they occupy a wide range of habitats and fill multiple ecological niches. Also, they can adapt well to a loss of habitat. Researchers have also found a mores serious problem than was originally thought; more than 1,000 species were found to be very close to extinction. This study shows more evidence that a mass extinction may be on its way. This new discovery has given researchers a new way to easily predict the biodiversity loss in specific rejoins.

            I think that it is really interesting that scientists can collect data from only birds and predict the biodiversity loss of other species as well. The results they had found were terrible. A mass extinction would be terrible, and would impact the environment and the human species. I believe that scientists and people should take action to avoid this mass extinction.

            1.What can people do at home to help prevent this mass extinction?

            2.Would have ever thought that birds could help predict the biodiversity loss of other species? Explain.

            3.What would a mass extinction do to the environment? What would it impact? Explain.

The BP-Spill Baby-Turtle Brigade

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/magazine/03turtles-t.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Female sea turtles begin laying there hundred or more eggs, burying them into the sand of the beach in May. Then, the eggs incubate for 60 days. The hatchlings from this seasons first nest were going to be swimming into the Gulf of Mexico once the eggs hatched. This was only a few months after the explosion of the Deepwater explosion rig. In June, the Gulf was already heavily oiled and letting the baby turtles hatch there would just be a recipe for disaster. So the wildlife agencies came up with a plan to pack the sea turtle eggs layed on beaches in Alabama and Florida into styrofoam coolers and ship them to a climate-controlled warehouse that would keep them alive. After hatching, the baby turtles would then be released in to the oil-free Atlantic ocean. “We immediately knew it was more work than we could do on our own.” Luckily, there were many people out there who really loved turtles and were willing to help. They helped pack the turtles, relocate them and release them when it was time.

I think that it was really great that many people were willing to help out with the turtles and get them to safety. They should be considered heroes because without them, then the turtle population would have decreased since not all of the turtles would have been saved. But if it weren't for the whole oil spill in the first place, then none of this would have had to take place and the turtles would have been just fine. This shows that oil riggers either need to stop getting oil from near the ocean or they need to be a lot more careful so they can prevent something like this from ever happening again.

Do you think that BP will stop rigging near the ocean or keep on going?

What would have happened if the wildlife agencies hadn't came up with a plan to save the turtles?

Do you think something like this will happen again?

Will the turtles still be okay even though they are not near where they were suppose to be released if the oil spill had never happened?

Could a Rain of Dead, Poisoned Toads Save an Australian Marsupial?

By: Smriti Rao

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/04/14/could-a-rain-of-dead-poisoned-toads-save-an-australian-marsupial/

75 years ago, Australia put a new poisonous, cane toad into their sugar cane fields so that they could battle the beetle infestations. The toads helped, but after awhile they started spreading all over. Australia's native animals starting eating the toads and dieing. Such animals include crocodiles, snakes, lizards- and the quoll. The quolls, a cat-like marsupial, would die after eating just one of those cane toads. The other animals did not just die after one toad but they still got sick. They were able to realize that it didn't make them feel good and learn to stay away from the toads. But the quoll's couldn't realize anything since they would die and not know what happened. Now, the quoll is endangered but scientists may have found a remarkable new way to save them. The scientists are training the quolls to avoid the toads by using a method known as conditioned taste aversion. While the scientists trained them, they would feed the quolls one, small dead toad which would make the animal sick but just enough for them to survive and learn to stay away from the toads.

My Opinion: I think that it's really good the scientists have found a way to save the quolls. If they hadn't found a way then not only could the quolls become extinct but many other species that were eating the toads could also become endangered and then eventually extinct. Also, this never would have happened if Australia hadn't placed the toads there in the first place. I don't think that we should be messing with the environment and we should leave everything how it is, unless really needed. This little incident was actually a big incident. Many animals, not just the quolls, became sick and died just because of one little toad. If we leave everything where it belongs then things like this won't happen.

Questions:

Will this be sure to save the quolls or will they not retain the information and keep eating the toads?

Will the scientists be able to save all the other animals that become endangered because of the cane toads?

What happens if the toads population increases?

When do scientists know for sure that an animal is going to be alright?

Pictures: "Rarest of the Rare" Species Named

By: National Geographic (no particular author listed)
April 26th, 2010
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/photogalleries/100426-endangered-species-rarest-animals-2010/?now=2010-04-26-00:01




Summery: The island gray fox is very close to extinction, and their population is less than 1,000. The wildlife conservation society has stated that the island gray fox is the "rarest of the rare." This fox is the smallest of all foxes, and only lives in the channel islands of California. Their population is going down due to predation and diseases. Golden eagles are swooping down on them for the kill, while the diseases are from domestic dogs that were introduced to the islands. A report has been released that highlights 12 other critically endangered species. These animals including, the island gray fox, have the highest risk of extinction. The report also says "Extinction is a tragic, especially if it is preventable." This report is by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.



Opinion: I think that this article is a warning telling us what could happen to not just the island grey fox, but all endangered animals, extinction. We as a counrty, and as a planet, need to do something about it. I think that some of our taxes should go to paying for the survival of these species. When the report said "Extinction is a tragic, especially if it is preventable", I felt the same way. And because extinction is preventable in most cases, I think we should do something about it. This could include what I had previously stated, which was cutting our income taxes, and giving some of it to helping endangered animals, such as the island gray wolf. I think this will definetely help in keeping enangered species from falling into the category of extinction if we set this as a goal and follow it.



Questions:
1. What do you think we should do about these critically endangered animals?

2. Do you think we can prevent extinction in all cases? why or why not?

3. When do you think a particular species goes from endangered to critically endangered?

Cities Lead the Way in Action to Halt Climate Change
by: Michael Coren
September 16th, 2010
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-16-cities-confront-the-global-challenge-embrace-clean-energy/

In Babylon, N.Y homeowners are now eligible for loans to make their homes more efficient.

     The worlds population is increasing rapidly, which will make our cities much more populated. Some people think that this will increase greenhouse emissions and climate change, but they are wrong. The PEW foundation has said that cities have been a big help in cutting more than 23 millions tons of greenhouse gas emissions. The ICLEI USA- Local Governments for Stability, an organization of local governments worldwide dedicated to urban sustainability and lowering greenhouse gas emissions, says that cities have been a huge help in bringing their nations closer toward a low carbon future. Cities have a unique power to make immediate changes involving things like public transportation. At this point, they have the ability to change things like asphalt recycling, better insulation in buildings, timers for coffee makers, telecommuting, light sensors, and water conservation to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Local Governments are working on lowering greenhouse gas emissions as well. For example, in Babylon, N.Y., homeowners are eligible for loans to make their homes more efficient, and those loans are entirely repaid through cost savings in their power bills. Many cities have made many changes to become more efficient. Chicago, for example, is encouraging bicycling instead of driving by drafting a pedestrian and bike plan. This would include a 500-mile bike way network, street safety improvements, and more bike racks. The United States cities are well on their way to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and becoming more efficient over time.



My Opinion: I think that this article was really interesting. It is great that cities are helping in cutting down greenhouse gas emissions and becoming more efficient. I think that the changes that cities have made are really great and helpful. My father always complains about our electricity bill, if we had what Babylon, N.Y., has (loans to make homes more efficient) then our bill wouldn't be so high. I do, however, think that more substantial changes will need to be made in order to create low emission cities.

Questions:
Do you think that the changes that are being made will have a substantial effect on lowering greenhouse gas emissions?

What kind of changes can we make in their own homes to help lower emissions?

How does lowering greenhouse gas emissions help our planet?

Shark Victims

“Shark Survivors Team up to Save Species”

By, John Helprin

A group of nine shark attack survivors who call themselves the “Global Shark Conservation for the Pew Environment Group” have set off to help protect the creatures that cost them blood, flesh, and limbs: sharks. They have confronted the U.N. about earning new protection policies about these creatures and have even tried to close what they understand as loopholes in the U.S. Legislature about the shark finning ban. Why do these victims choose to protect their potential killers? Some people in the group do it because they believe that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and that everything happens for a reason. Paul de Gelder, member of the Global Shark Conservation for the Pew Environment Group, chose to help protect these creatures because "we have an obligation to protect and maintain the natural balance of our delicate ecosystems."

One third of all shark species are endangered, or are almost threatened. This is mainly because of all the finning that occurs throughout the world. Finning is when fishermen cuts off a sharks fins and sells them for hundreds of dollars per pound at the market. Then, they throw the shark back into the water to bleed to death or drown. About 73 million sharks are killed this way every year. More than a decade ago, some 130 nations said that they would instill a shark management plan, although only about 40 actually thought one up and went through with it.

In my opinion, this is a great thing that this group of people is doing for the sharks. Everyone is always so concerned with land dwelling animals, exotic fish, and things of that nature, but rarely will anyone stand up and try to help the sharks. These creatures are immensely powerful in the sea, their natural habitat, but are usually helpless when a fisherman intending on hurting them comes along. I know that if I were in any one of these nine people’s situations that I would have mixed emotions: anger, sadness, awe, respect, and many more. Even so, I know I would help to protect the sharks because I was in their habitat, and they had every right to attack me. Just because they attacked me when I was in their environment doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t help to protect the sharks. Over all, I think that this is a great group of people who are doing amazing things to protect something that they really care about, and that is something to respect.

Questions:

1. Will most sharks become extinct in the near future if fishermen keep finning them at the same rate that they are now?

2. Will this group make an impact on someone trying to donate money to protecting a group of wildlife?

3. Do you agree or disagree with what this group is trying to accomplish? What are your opinions on what they are doing? Explain.

4. Why did so many countries give their word that they would instill a shark management plan, but then changed their mind?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39154890/ns/us_news-environment/?Gt1=43001

Photo of group

Shark fin

EPA, DOT Propose New Fuel Economy Labels/Agencies seek public comment on the most dramatic overhaul in the label’s 30-year history

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/3e81f1a05b99507f8525778f00523a8c!OpenDocument
Summary: There are alot more cars and trucks on the market that are fuel efficient, and the buyers need to know all of the information before making a big purchase. Therefore, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have decided that new labels on these vehicles are needed to better inform the consumer about any vehicle they may want to purchase. The main goal of all this is to provide the buyer with uncomplicated information so that they can make the right decision for them. One of these designs centers on MPG and yearly fuel costs. The other will show an estimated fuel cost savings over 5 years and the vehicles overall fuel economy. The DOT and EPA aspire to have most 2012 cars showing this new label in the window.

Opinion/Reflection: I think that these new labels will be very useful. My family is interested in recycling and helping the environment, so when my parents are looking for a new vehicle in a few years, they will want to know how different cars affect the environment.

Questions: How will these new labels help me down the road?
Will this change people's minds when looking to purchase a new car?
Because more people will be purchasing more fuel efficient cars, will our dependency on foreign oil be decreased or will it not make a consequential difference?