The Hybrid Debate

     The documentary “Future Cars” demonstrated how beneficial hybrid cars can be to the environment. Besides their appealing design and easy operation, these cars promised pollution reduction and less money spent on fuel. However, many still question if switching to a hybrid is really worthwhile.          

     The process of actually creating these hybrid vehicles takes a great deal of energy. Typically, more complicated systems require more energy, and hybrids tend to be more complex internally than conventional cars. Additionally, hybrids tend to break down easier, and the disposal of old hybrid cars is more difficult with the issue of getting rid of the battery. The batteries themselves, if not disposed of properly, can have their own affects on the environment.

     On the positive side, studies from the “Green Car Club” show that a hybrid reduces tailpipe emissions by 90% and almost completely eliminates evaporative emissions. Still, they do contribute to greenhouse gas emissions because they are powered by a petroleum -based fuel

     Although it would be nice to think that consumers would make their transportation choices based on environmental impact, cost will probably remain the number one factor. A hybrid would mean less money spent on gasoline, but to make up for the initial cost difference, one would probably need to drive the car for approximately 10 years.

     Right now, the technology doesn’t seem to hold enough advantages to begin significantly replacing the cars we drive now. Even with reduced emissions, the amount of driving continues to increase. Utilizing public transportation is probably the easiest way to reduce transmissions though it is not a very popular option. Until hybrids are made to last as long as the cars we use now and make up for the cost difference, a significant change in consumer buying doesn’t seem likely.

SOURCES:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~coreyp/hybridenvimp.html

http://www.thehybriddebate.com/blog/environment/2007/10/18/hidden-costs-hybrid-fleet/

http://whattheymissed.blogspot.com/2007/11/does-going-hybrid-save-enough-dollars.html

China’s Fight with Pollution

  

   China has taken significant steps in industrialization. While beneficial in ways, this also means more pollution. Many may not find the problem extremely urgent, but certain investment advisors have already recommended investing in Singapore rather than in Hong Kong where the pollution is especially bad.

    Agencies are working to find fresh methods of attacking this problem, though. In some places, this involves a serious “crackdown.” In the words of Chen Jian, the director of the Guangdong Energy Conservation & Monitoring Center, “The police use dogs to sniff drugs — we use our people to sniff pollution.” Basically, teams are being sent out to track down large quantities of harmful emissions.

     This is a new focus for China. For the past few decades, the country has centered on improving growth. According to the Chicago Tribune, though, China is expected to produce more greenhouse gases than even the United States this year. The threat of harmful gases to China’s economy along with the pressure of creating clean grounds for the upcoming Beijing  Olympics have created somewhat of a panic for China’s growing pollution problem.

     China’s goal is ambitious: a 10% cut in emissions by 2010. To do this, environmental programs are zeroing in on electrical power. Claiming it would be nearly impossible to cut consumption, companies aim for “a 20 percent cut in energy use per unit of national economic output by 2010.”

    Though these plans have the potential to greatly benefit the environment, China continues to increase its industry which may call for a greater demand of resources. China’s major concern is the economy and continual growth may cause severe problems. However, we cannot expect other industrializing countries to change their emissions output without considering how much our own nation contributes to the problem.

Sources: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-china_greisingsep24,0,2729905.story

http://usasearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov-images&v%3aframe=form&frontpage=1&

How Much Coal Does Your Radio Burn?

The stereo (18Watts) in my room runs for approximately 1.5 hours a day.

18.0 W (60 s/ 1 min) (60 min/ 1 hr) (24 hr/ 1 d) (365 d/ 1 yr)

= 5.68 x 10^8 J

How much coal in a year? (30.6 kJ = 1 g)

5.68 x 10^8 J (1 kJ/10^3 J) = 5.68 x 10^5 kJ

5.68 x 10^5 kJ (1 g/30.6 kJ) = 1.86 x 10^4 g

= 18.6 kg of coal per year

      Coal produces an incredible amount of the world’s electricity. Because we use it at a much faster rate than it can form, coal is not a renewable resource. The amount of coal necessary to power only my small boombox is 18.6 kg. Put in perspective to the number of appliances simply in our own country, or even in one state, it is evident why there is so much focus on finding alternative energy sources.

      Perhaps the largest concern with coal is its release of carbon dioxide and the effect of these emissions to the global warming issue. Coal mining also produces sulferic acid when pyrite from coal surfaces and water mix together which leads to acid rain. The hazards of coal mining and safety issues with the processing are factors which make alternative sources an attractive option.

(sources: class notes  & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal)

The Green Side of Politics

     Politics does a have a green side, though frequently overshadowed by the war in Iraq. With the presidential election not far in the future, environmental views of candidates are entering discussion. A recent article in Time looked at the environmental positions of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama.

      The first area that was looked at was the position of each on Carbon Caps. Carbon Caps are limits on a company on the amount of carbon emissions they can produce in total. However, companies are able to “sell” their unused amounts to other companies which need to exceed the limit.

       Examples of this system actually show success. For example, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has endorsed a cap-and-trade program which has been successful in emission reduction and involves prices that are lower than expected. However, other companies are reluctant to become involve because of their suspicions about monitoring with such systems.

       Clinton, Edwards, McCain, and Obama support “cap-and-trade,” and Romney claims he would consider it if it was part of a global plan. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all intend to pursue an 80% carbon cut by 2050. McCain intends 65%.

     The second issue, energy efficiency, was generally supported by all candidates. Obama called for perhaps the biggest change: a 50% improvement by 2030. Clinton claimed a goal of making new federal buildings “zero emission” byt 2030. Obama also calls for the greatest change in mileage with 50 m.p.g. in 18 years. (Clinton and McCain each call for 35 m.p.g. and Edwards for 40 m.p.g.)

     For a greater pursuit of nuclear energy, Guiliani, McCain, and Romney are the greatest supporters, and Edwards is the only one to directly oppose the expanded use of nuclear power. For Edwards, the safety hazard is not worth the risk. Nuclear Accidents have the potential to harm thousands of people, contaminate the land, and cause severe economic damage. For instance, an accident in 1979 at a power plant in Pennsylvania (“The Three Mile Island Accident”) caused a severe economic blow and forced many civilians to evacuate their homes.

     The final area that was discussed was drilling, especially within the ANWR (Arcti National Wildlife Refuge). The opinion on the issue was very diverse: Four of the six candidates opposed drilling (Clinton, Edwards, McCain, and Obama) while Giuliani and Romney support the process. Additionally, Giuliani supports further drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and he has received campaigning funds from drilling companies.

     It’s evident that no one candidate has all the environmental answers, though many ambitious plans have been proposed. Each has unique views on particular issues, and looking at the whole candidate becomes necessary. Now more than ever, environmental issues are beginning to take their place in the political realm.

Sources:

Time, Nov. 12th, 2007. (Article by Jeffrey Kluger)

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3974

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/

http://www.answers.com/three%20mile%20island

Global Warming’s Effect on Crop Production

     Cynthia Rosenzweig, a member of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been investigating this area through a group of crop models. These models were actually developed during the Cold War in order for the U.S to determine how much food the Soviet Union was producing. The models show crop growth and how much grain can be produced under different environmental conditions. To look at the future in a more intricate manner, Rosenzweig and several others also looked at how farmers and companies were likely to respond to changes in climate.

      Rosenzweig found both positive and negative factors. For instance, the higher levels of carbon dioxide might actually signal an increase crop production. The warming climates will effect crop production largely depending on location, though. For instance, Canada may actually have some benefits as the temperature warms because their growing season will lengthen. However, many countries which are already struggling with inadequate water supplies may suffer severly.

              

     Additionally, climates that are too warm may decrease plant growth. Another uncertain factor is the earth’s future pattern for wind and rain. However, many models predict that tropic areas might receive less precipitation than they require for sustainability.

     In Rosenzweig’s words, “Over and over again, our study and many, many following studies have shown that farmers in developing countries are more vulnerable to the changing climate.” These are the countries that are already facing poverty for large amounts of their populations.

     Climate changes and food production will therefore call for even more environmental stewardship. Plus, these models are only starting points. Much will depend on how much we continue to release into the air in greenhouse gases and how governments will choose to spend their money for environmental issues.

     Rosenzweig encourages optimism though: “This is how I look at it: Global climate change is the most important challenge that we face as a planet. But it is becoming a major impetus to move the planet toward sustainability.” In the near future, loss of crop production is expected to be severe. Increasing carbon dioxide levels might be able to balance the negative effects of climate change. However, jumping ahead 40 or 50 years, at least in the models we have now, we can see pressing conditions which will requre worldwide changes.

Sources:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15747012

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15737145

Calling All Chocolate-Lovers

     How about some positive environmental news for a change? Well, some recent news may allow both chocoholics and the green-minded to get excited.

                        

     According to an article on Nov. 6 (Rueters), waste from chocolate production is now being utilized for biofuel rather than being disposed of in a landfill. The process is under the control of the English firm, Ecotec. Ecotec has managed to convert the waste into bio-ethanol. Once mixed with vegetable oil, it becomes an efficient form of biodiesal.

      (biodiesal = “fuel made from natural, renewable sources, such as new and used vegetable oils and animal fats, for use in a diesal engine.” (from answers.com))

     As I brought up in a previous blog on the use of alternate fuels such as ethanol, one major concern is that environmental benefits could be outweighed by the loss of crop fields. The use of chocolate waste, though, isn’t cutting any crop production or causing land to be stripped for extra growing area. If anything, it is keeping the landfills a little cleaner.

      Andy Pag, one of the organizers, was quoted on the environmental success: “This is to show that you can have environmentally-friendly biofuels and that you don’t have to convert normal diesel engines to use it.”

     The process is taking a good cause to the next level too. A truck supplied with the chocolate biofuel will be making a 4,500 mile journey along the English South Coast on November 26th. They will then unload a biofuel production unit to go to Mali, where they are involved with a charity mission.   

   

Sources:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0628389220071107 

http://www.answers.com/topic/biodiesel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate 

California in Flames

            California is no stranger to fire. The Santa Ana winds have spread massive forest fires before, notably in 1889 and 2003. However, this October’s wildfires have set a new record. Approximately 400,000 acres have been left in ruins, forcing around one million people to flee their homes. Even with 7,000 firefighters on the scene and helicopters dropping fire retardants, the damage was severe.  Fires have long been a part of southern California’s natural cycle. Occasionally fires are necessary to clear the land of detritus and dry plant material. So why has this fire had such a dramatic effect?

            According to Time, the most obvious answer is us. In the past few decades, more and more people have decided to make California their home. The result is overcrowded cities and little space between civilization and the wilderness. Electrical wires and other hazardous applications also increase the probability that a fire will start in an already severely dry area.           

            The U.S. Forest Service isn’t necessarily helping the situation either. Their policy of smothering any small fire may be an essential safety measure in the city, but in the wilderness, the absence of fire may increase problems. By preventing even the small fires, the chance for an enormous and devastating fire to occur increases. It is natural for forests to routinely dispose of its old vegetation. We are throwing natural off its course.

              Those who have evacuated their homes are thankful for their lives, though their homes may lie in ruins. However, the recent fires may be only the beginning. The Santa Ana winds actually tend to reach their highest in the winter. Additionally, the National Weather Service suspects that La Nina will be present this year. La Nina results in colder temperatures in the Pacific Ocean and dry weather for the South. 

            Of course, many are quick to point the finger at global warming. While researchers have to be cautious in making extreme judgments, most climate studies do indicate that the Southwest is becoming drier as temperatures rise. 

           It’s difficult for the residents of Southern California to return to the destruction and rebuild, knowing that they probably have not had the end of fire problems. Severe methods of change are necessary to turn the situation around, though. Population growth has been unlimited because federal policies protect private homes. So, even if the area is an insecure zone, families feel they are covered. The Forest Service spends the majority of its time acting as a firefighting squad, smothering all minor fires to protect homes. Those who choose to make their homes in high-risk areas should be aware of the possible dangers. Water levels have also grown dangerously low. When fires do occur, the water supply isn’t always enough to stop them.

            Southern California does not appear to be sitting in self-pity, though. Nature has already begun its cycle of rebirth and families are already beginning the move back to their homes, though not knowing what they will find. However, the fires have been a wake-up call to some that things cannot go on the way they are.

                    

                                      

Source:

Time, November 5, 2007

http://usasearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov-images&v%3aframe=form&frontpage=1&

The Up’s and Down’s of Ethanol

     A new farm bill, which was passed by the House, has brought up a great deal of debate. About $286 billion is likely to be given for farm support. What do such farm bills promise? Cheap goods for Americans, protection of “family farmers,” and less reliance on other nations for products. However, farm bills with these intentions in the past have brought us no closer to these goals.

                            

     This bill has zeroed in on another issue: ethanol as an alternate fuel source. Ethanol has a promising sound when the environmental benefits are discussed. It burns cleaner than gasoline. Without large amounts of toxic material, ethanol would benefit the atmosphere by reducing greenhouse gases. Ethanol is also considered a renewable resource. Some say that ethanol use may also decrease our dependence on other nations for imported oil, benefitting the domestic economy.

     However, a reliance on grain-based ethanol would also cause a host of complicated problems. First, as we saw in our lab, ethanol is not as fuel efficient as gasoline. In fact, ethanol has about 2/3 the amount of energy in a gallon as gasoline does. Ethanol also absorbs dirt and water easily, creating the threat of corrosion if not filtered properly. Consumers might be reluctant to rely on ethanol because, in addition to the energy content problem, it also costs more.

The following chart (energybulletin.net) shows gasoline prices in comparison to ethanol prices

  

       Consumer problems aside, the cost of transporting the corn and processing the ethanol might actually outweigh national benefits of reducing our dependence on foreign fuel sources. The production of ethanol also might undo the benefits of reducing greenhouse gases. Enormous amounts of cornfields would need to be dedicated to ethanol productions. Therefore, farms would likely experience crop shortages and high returns for the farmers.  In the end, it would be the multi-million corporate farms receiving the benefit and the smaller, family businesses being put under stressed conditions.

Sources:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/friday/chi-oped1102hansonnov02,0,4600414.story

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-ethanol-fuel.htm

http://usasearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov-images&v%3afile=viv_833%4028%3a9c7PM3&v:state=root%7Croot-0-20%7C0

http://energybulletin.net/18576.html

http://zfacts.com/p/436.html

The New and Improved “Eco-Shape Bottle”

     Perhaps you’ve caught a glimpse of the newest addition to the cafeteria scene: the “Eco-Shape Bottle.” No, it does not have a “hand grip” and no, it’s not out for new style. Ice Mountain’s new bottle shape is actually intended to benefit the environment.

     So why all the fuss about a water bottle? The increasing amount of disposed water in the United States bottles indicates more and more Americans are choosing the beneficial water option rather than picking up a soda can. That’s a positive sign, right? Well, Americans are disposing of approximately 38 billion plastic water bottles per year and more than 1.5 million barrels of petroleum are necessary for their manufacture.

      The new attention for plastic water bottles has naturally inspired a marketing race for companies to please their green customers. Nestle (owner of Ice Mountain, Arrowhead, and Poland Spring) has decreased the amount of plastic in its bottles by 30% and Coca Cola (owner of Dasani) has reduced raw materials by 30%. Pepsi (owner of Aquafina) boasts a 40% decrease in plastic.  

     Nalgene and Sigg USA are also getting in on the green movement, creating new reusable water bottles. Sigg actually carried out its advertising to the point of having models carry its water bottles down the runway to promote sales. Nalgene may not have models employed but is selling its water bottles for a cheaper price and declaring that 300 plastic water bottles are cut with just one of its reusable bottles. “For a clue about people who spend $1.50 for a little bottle of Evian, try spelling Evian backwards.” (findarticles.com)

Here in the Chicago area, simple tap water may be an easy way to take part in a solution. No plastic, no caps, no paper labels. Studies show that Lake Michigan’s water may differ only in taste from bottled water. Any extra bacteria found has shown to be harmless and within the federal guidelines for safe water. What’s more is that public water facilities are required to meet federal standards and describe where the water is collected and how it is treated. Not all bottling companies list their sources. In fact, previous investigations have actually found companies selling basic tap water (sometimes further processed, sometimes not) in a plastic bottle. If you don’t find the taste an issue, consider buying a Nalgene. You’ll benefit the environment and probably save some cash while you’re at it.

  

Sources: http://www.statesman.com/green/content/business/stories/other/08/19/0819waterbottles.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20000827/ai_n13872140 

http://www.icemountainwater.com/DoingOurPart/EcoShapeBottle.aspx

The Jeopardy of “Junk Science”

       My response to the “junk science” blog was of surprise. I might have expected such a slant discussion like this from a small, independent paper trying to gain attention but not from The Chicago Tribune. In today’s society, where every small issue seems to have a bias, pleasing both sides of an audience seems to be the ideal option. Trying to provide balance in a discussion of global warming, though, just sounds ridiculous.

       What struck me the most was the list of signatures from “scientists.” Not only was this an act of deception on the paper’s part, but it is clearly out of line for those who signed to pretend like they are a source of credibility.

       Reading the actual article (10/12/2007), I thought that the viewpoints jumped back and forth far too much. First, the article reports that “it is 90 percent certain that global warming is caused by human activity and that it could cause catastrophic results in the 21st Century.” The article then goes on to describe the film as a work of exaggeration, not recommended for students. However, it soon reverts back to describing the praise of the democrats for Gore’s continued work. Of course, the political aspect is tossed in here and there as well.

       I would be interested to see what responses the paper received from its viewers. While many probably accepted the debate as it came from a reputable newspaper, I’m sure others showed opposition for distorting the truth and diminishing the urgency of the situation.  

       I’m sure that I am not always aware when I come in contact with “junk science.” One area where I have been suspicious is the increasing amount of advertising for medications, whether for headaches or weight loss, that appear in magazines, on the radio, and especially on television. I have seen countless commercials where the cure-all medication is endorsed by cheerful, everyday people. Often, there is an authority figure, perhaps someone in a lab coat or with a name tag and clipboard, who describes the medication as completely safe. However, in those last ten seconds, you can usually catch a deep voice speaking in undertone about the “minor health risks,” which often include heart attacks, seizure, or death. Reassuring, right?

       People tend to believe a person in uniform. A famous example (which I remember studying in moral theology last year) can be seen with the experiments of Stanley Milgram. (“The Milgram Experiment”) A professor at Yale, Milgram told participants they would be completely blameless for their actions in the experiment. He then had them play the role of “teacher,” sending shocks to another participant on the other side of a wall whenever he/she answered a question wrong. The “participant,” which was heard to be screaming in agony from the pain, was just a tape recorder. Milgram found that some participants (ordinary people who volunteered themselves) became anxious and wanted to check on the other person. Some asked what would happen or if there would be consequences. However, with the professional man in the white coat reassuring them that nothing was wrong, the overwhelming majority was willing to keep putting the other person in pain.

       These examples show that normal, intelligent people often find themselves deceived when they accept true facts from a “reliable source.” I think some people believe that if something is in print, then it has been edited to be completely correct.

(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0710112nobel,1,6739939.story)