Clean Air A 'Luxury' In Beijing's Pollution Zone

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143214875/clean-air-a-luxury-in-beijings-pollution-zone?ft=1&f=1025

Picture: The air in Beijing now (top), compared to the way clean air should look (bottom).

Article: On the way to school, my kids and I play a guessing game: How polluted is the air today? We use an app linked to the air pollution monitor at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, and we try to guess the day's exact level on the Air Quality Index, and whether the air is dangerous.

These days, chances are that it could well be. For more than half of the past 60 days, the air pollution has hit levels hazardous to human health. Experts estimate long-term exposure to such pollution could reduce life expectancy by as much as five years. But I don't tell the kids that.

Living inside the pollution zone, those daily measurements determine how my family spends its days. Whenever the levels hit "very unhealthy," we keep the kids indoors and refuse to let them take part in outdoor activities, no matter how much whining might ensue. When to wear a pollution mask, when to stay indoors, it's all become crucial knowledge, even for our 4-year-old.

Reflection: I find this article to be very shocking because I never realized just how polluted Beijing was. And just the fact that the article talks about their 4 year old child worrying about these issues is startling. I couldn't even imagine how horrible it would be to deal with terror everyday that you might get sick from the very air your breathing. Beijing needs to slow industry and technology production before everyone in Beijing becomes ill.

Questions:

1. After reading this article, do you think you would ever visit Beijing?

2. If you could give Beijing any advice what would it be?

3. Would you ever let your family be exposed to such poor air quality?

4. If you could do anything to help Beijing, would you?

5. What would your life be like if we had air quality issues like in Beijing, in Horsham?

Colorado and Texas to Require Disclosure of Fracking Chemicals

http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/colorado-and-texas-require-disclosure-fracking-chemicals.html

Picture: A fracking location in Wyoming

Colorado and Texas passed laws forcing companies to inform the public on the chemicals used in their fracking procedures. Colorado forces all chemicals and the amount used to be disclosed. Texas will put information online at a special website to inform the public. The EPA recently said fracking has caused pollution in Wyoming aquifers. John Hickenlooper, the Governor of Colorado, thinks that other states may use the same laws.

I think that these laws are a great thing and a great start. As we've seen in Gas Land, fracking has caused tons of damage to many areas of the country. More people may care to do something if they know all of the terrible chemicals in their water. I hope that more states do adopt these laws. The public deserves to know what chemicals are being put into their aquifers. These chemicals could all wind up in people's tap water, and they deserve to know about it.

1. Do you think that these laws will help the problem?

2. What are your thoughts on fracking?

3. If you lived in an area where fracking occurred would you want to know the chemicals used?

4. Do you think that people will be more active knowing what is in used in fracking?

5. Do you think other states will adopt these laws?

SEPTA Receives $1.2 Million EPA Grant to Improve Air Quality

The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, recently donated 1.2 million dollars to SEPTA, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. SEPTA is making the switch from locomotive to cleaner diesel fuel engines to power trains. The switch will improve air quality for surrounding areas. The GenSet locomotives can reduce carbon dioxide by 25 percent and nitrous oxide and particulate matter by up to 80 percent. The donation was made by the EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program. The donation will encourage other companies to make the switch. SEPTA has made many switches in past years like when they won EPA's Energy Star Building label last year when they improved energy efficiency by greater then 85 percent at the 1234 Market Headquarters. They are also switching many buses over to cleaner disel-electric engines.

Reflection: SEPTA is really making an effort to improve their environmental effect and the EPA is doing the smart thing and funding these plans. If others see that the switch to these things are better for the surrounding areas, save money and are sometimes payed for by the EPA, I can't see why they won't want to switch. After the SEPTA strike it was important for SEPTA to show that they care about Pennsylvanians, and what better way to show it by then creating less pollution for the people. SEPTA really is a fine company.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0D1134081728AD4285257960006D6A13

http://blog.cunysustainablecities.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/10_SEPTA-reg-rail-car_Septa.jpg

Questions:

1) How much will the cleaner engines help?

2) Do you see any downside to the switch?

3) How do you think Pennsylvanians feel about SEPTA?

4) Do you think SEPTA is doing it for the recognition, people or environment?

Storms spark debate over Conn. trees

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/04/9205727-storms-spark-debate-over-conn-trees

Written by: The Associated Press

The state of Connecticut has a high density of trees, with as much as 58% of the statebeing forested. After Hurricane Irene many tree limbs and leaves were brought down onto houses and electric lines were down, which blocked streets and slowed repair trucks. Two months later many more were brought down by a harsh winter snow. Investigators are trying to come up with ways to prevent these problems that leave such large impacts such as the one in October that affected 800,000 utility customers for a week or longer. One of their solutions is to burry the power lines underground to avoid having to cut down so many trees, but United Illuminating claims "It isn't prudent and customers don't appear to be in the mood to pay those costs". Another solution is to trim the trees down a little, but the Greenwich Tree Conservancy says that "takes the heart out of the trees and they die".

Reflection: I think that this is a very hard decision to make, but needs to be done quickly before the winter comes and snow breaks even more branches, breaking more electrical lines. I think ultimately my decision would be to burry the electrical lines because when people think of Connecticut they make connections to images of large trees and at the rate that trees are being cut down for land to build buildings on now a days, I don't think we should be cutting more down if there are other options. Even though burying the lines is very costly, the cost of damage repair due to trees taking down power cables over the years will out weigh the cost of burying them.

Questions:

1) Which do you think is the better option, burying the electrical cables or trimming/cutting down trees?

2) Do you think actually living in Connecticut would change your decision as to which method you think is best?

3) Can you think of any other methods that may help solve this problem?

Profit for Good: Carbon Credits Bring Clean Water to Rural Kenya

Author: Rachel Cernansky Date: June 28th 2011
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/profit-for-good-carbon-credits-bring-clean-water-to-rural-kenya.html?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29

Photo: In this photo, a woman tries out her new LifeStraw filter in her home. 

Summary:
 In many rural communities in Kenya, the water supply is very scarce. With the water they can collect, most of is is highly contaminated with chemicals and pollutants. This is increasing over the years and is started to become a huge problem. More and more families die from either lack of water or diseases they contracted from drinking contaminated water. Thankfully, an organization has stood up to support those struggling in Kenya. This organization is called the Carbon for Water campaign which is run by Vestergaard Frandsen. They offered water filters to many families in the city, Kakamega. These filters, also called LifeStraw, can give a family of five clean healthy water every single day. Since these filters have been sent out to various families, less and less people are dying due to water related illnesses.

Reaction:
I think it is great that more and more organizations and campaigns are finally helping those in need in places like Kenya. However, there are so many other families that must also be helped throughout the world, and these people need to be helped quickly. I think that many many more organizations should help out from every country that can. We need to stop being so wasteful of our water, and realize that many people are without this precious necessity every single day. This article reminded me of the videos we watched in class this week.

Questions:
1. Do you think the installation of LifeStraw will make a huge difference?
2. Do you think that rural communities like the ones discussed need more help?
3. How do you think school students could become involved in such a big issue in the world?
4. If given the opportunity to help improve water quality, would you?
5. Do you often waste water?

Green Issues and Greenbacks: Occupy Wall Street connects the dots

http://www.grist.org/climate-energy/2011-11-01-green-issues-greenbacks-occupy-wall-street-connects-dots-video

Occupy Wall Street is a movement that has spread across the United States and has protested against American politics as they are and large corporations and banks. One of their arguments now is the negative effects on the environment of the things that many of these companies do. Fracking, deep water drilling and many other practices are among their chief concerns. Many connections were made between the economy and the environment. A protest against Delaware River fracking will be held in Trenton, New Jersey on November 21.

I think that it is a good thing that many of these issues are being brought to light. This group protested against the economy which is a huge problem, and it is good that they are focusing on another huge problem, the environment. I think that many comparisons can be made between the poor economy and our environment, as many large corporations use techniques which put the environment at a greater risk.

1. Do you agree with these protesters putting a lot of the blame for our environmental problems on big businesses?

2. Do you believe that these protests will help the problem and are a step in the right direction?

3. What other steps do you think should be taken?

4. Other than big businesses, who else do you think is at fault for our environmental problems?

5. If big businesses started using processes that were better than the current ones, do you think our environmental problems would be better?

Lead pollution: Urban gardeners beware!

http://www.macroevolution.net/lead-pollution.html

(The picture to the right is a map of soil lead pollution in Indianapolis. Dark orange: more than 200 parts per million (ppm) lead in
soil; light orange: 125-200 ppm; yellow: 75-135 ppm)

Summary:

Urban gardens today are becoming almost at popular as Victory gardens were during the World War II era to survive food shortages. Gabriel Filippelli, professor of earth sciences at the School of Science at Indiana Universtiy, warns that urban soil used for gardening may be tainted by lead pollution. "Most surface contamination in urban settings like Baltimore, Brooklyn, Detroit or Indianapolis is from harmful metals, especially lead, and tends to be found near roadways, older homes or lead smelters. Sources of contamination can be automobile exhaust, degraded paint, tire and vehicle debris, industrial emissions or other products of human technology," says Filippelli. He suggests that urban gardeners to determine the potential lead pollution risk in their gardens by proximity busy streets, major roadways, freeways, dilapidated painted structures or older industrial facilities. Gardens with no or low levels of contamination (200 parts per million (ppm)) can be abundantly planted. Gardens with medium levels of contamination (200-500 ppm) are recommended to be planted in raised bed settings, and mulching between beds to reduce the risks of tracking lead-rich soil onto the pots or into the home is recommended. Gardens at high risk level (500+ ppm) should only grow tall fruit plants, not root vegetables and leafy greens like lettuce due to the difficulty of cleaning the produce before consumption.

Reflection:

I think that lead contaminating our soil is a very big issue. Consumption of lead can very well lead to lead poisoning which comes along with symptoms like head ache, abdominal pain, memory loss, kidney failure, and weakness, tingling, or pain in the extremities. If any of these people are growing their produce with the intentions of selling it could cause big legal issues, similar to when toy manufacturers in China were sued for using paint with lead in it on their toys, which the children were eating and getting lead poisoning from.

Questions:

1)Do you think that it's possible for soil around the world, not just near cities, to be contaminated with lead and we don't know it?

2) If you were an urban gardener, what precautions would you take to make sure your soil did not had lead in it?

3) Considering that consuming only a little lead is not terrible for you, would you feel comfortable eating a vegetable grown in a garden with low lead levels?

Endangered Species Act has 'room for improvement'

http://summitcountyvoice.com/2011/10/23/report-endangered-species-act-has-room-for-improvement/

Picture: The Bald Eagle is one of the endangered species that has recovered.

Summary: The Endangered Species Act has no doubt saved many endangered species like the Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, American Alligator and many more. Still, many say their is room for improvement. Many people have gotten involved to express their feelings about what should be added. Among these people are the Center For Biological Diversity, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, Republicans and many more. With the

exception of the Republicans, these organizations ideas have been simple improvements to help the animals even more. For example, increase funds to organizations, designating critical habitat locations for these animals in the next ten years, require recovery plans for these animals to be set within three years and others listed in the article. However, Republicans have expressed concern on the scientific certainty of how the Act helps. Many believe that by challenging the Act the Republicans have alliterative motives, that they only want to lower funding to save money. One thing is for sure, change is due within the Act.

Opinion: The Endangered Species Act is one of the greatest things to happen to animals. It has saved hundreds and my question is why fix something if it isn't broken. This "improvement" discussion is starting to cause controversy in congress and is making trouble that I am not sure we need. Although we are trying to help the animals that live in this Biosphere, we need to worry about ourselves too. We can not over due funding. I will also say this article seems it may have bias because they do not mention Democrats or any other parties opinion. They seem set on giving the Republicans a bad wrap.

Questions:

1) Do you think any improvements are needed?

2) What do you make of the Republicans feelings on the Act.

3) What improvements would you suggest if any?

4)Are their any details in the Act you feel are unnecessary?

24 Endangered Birds Gifted Their Own Hawaiian Island

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09/24-endangered-birds-gifted-their-own-hawaiian-island.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29

Picture: The endangered species, the Millerbird

Summary:
For numerous years now, the Millerbird has been on the brunk of extinction. Originally from an island off of Hawaii called Nihoa, these birds have an individual amount of only 600 birds. They have battled with droughts, fires, and foreign species threats throughout the past few years. The U.S fish an Wildlife Service and the American Bird Conservany realized that this species was going to die out and needed to be saved immediately. Thankfully, they came up with the idea of moving them to another remote island off of Hawaii, in hopes that the Millerbird will be able to repopulate. The birds are now living in their new home, and will be monitored for about a year.

Reaction:
I always am so sad to hear that a species is endangered, let alone extinct. I think that it is great that more and more organizations are saving so much of the dwindling species. I hope that this can continue for other species who are still on the endangered species list. I think that relocating the Millerbird is an excellent idea and I hope that they are successful and that their species will thrive again.

Questions:
1. Do you think that relocating these birds was a good idea?
2. Do you think it is unfair to other endangered species?
3. Are you interested in the topic of saving endangered species?
4. How do you think we can prevent the endangerment of animals?
5. Do you think that all of this time and money spent on relocating is worth it?

Why are the rainforests disappearing?

http://www.theenvironmentalblog.org/2011/09/rainforests-disappearing/

Rainforests are an extremely valuable home for thousands of different species. They also produce many drugs used in advanced medicine. However, they are disappearing and it is the fault of humans. Most of the deforestation is done by farmers. They cut down a portion of rainforest to raise their cattle on. The rainforest though is self-sustaining, and when the trees are cut down it turns into a dry wasteland. Farmers then have to cut down more rainforest for their cattle. The rest of the deforestation comes from loggers who cut down trees to sell or trade. To make that even worse, they have to destroy more of the rainforest to build roads to take ttansport the logs out of the rainforest. Mining, agriculture, global warming, dams, and oil exploration also contribute to the destruction of the rainforests. The World Wildlife Federation says that in twenty years, two thirds of the world's rainforests could be destroyed.

I think that this is a huge problem. I think that Americans should ban or stop buying cattle grown on these farms. This is a shocking article. I knew that this was a problem, but I had no idea that it was this serious. If in twenty years, two thirds of the rainforests are really wiped out, that would have massive consequences for the whole world.

Questions

1. What is your reaction to this?

2. What do you think normal people should do about this?

3. What do you think nations should do about this?

4. Do you think that this problem can be related to any other environmental problems?

5. How do you think this can be stopped?

Innovators make a business of friendlier fracturing

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/08/15/innovators-make-a-business-of-friendlier-fracturing/

Flotek, a Houston based oil field supply company recently patented a new fracturing fluid aimed at reducing the potential for groundwater contamination. The new fluid replaces some toxic chemicals with extract from orange peels. The new fluid "sweetens" the controversial process of fracturing rock to extract natural gas by reducing contamination as well as leaving a citrus like scent in the air around the well. Although the cost of the new Flotek fluid is more than traditional fracturing fluids, it is being used more frequently as natural gas mining companies give in to pressure from environmental advocates to take steps to limit potentially negative environmental impacts of the process known as "fracking".

Reflection: I think that this is a great substitute. Not only is the oil becoming more environmental friendly, but it is also adding a sweet scent to make it more bearable! I think that it is completely worth the money because- hypothetically- if there were to be another oil spill, it would be cause less harm, potentially saving money on the clean up in the long run.

Questions:

1) Do you think it would be a good idea to keep researching and see if we could use more substitutes other than just oranges?

2) Is this worth spending all the extra money on? Do you think that it is really THAT important?

3) Would you prefer this oil over traditional oil? Why or why not?

ps... Sorry for posting so late, I got home way later from my game than I expected!!

A balloon the size of Wembley and the world's longest hose... can this stop global warming?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2037104/Global-warming-Can-balloon-size-Wembley-stadium-stop-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Picture: The picture shows the process and scientists predictions as to what will happen.

Summary: Scientists have noticed that when Volcanos shoot sulphate into the air while erupting, the climate in a very large area becomes cooler. That is the inspiration behind the giant balloon to prevent global warming. Different chemicals will fill the balloon at sea to hopefully reflect the sun's rays. Not allowing as many of the sun's rays to reach the earth will result in a cooler climate. The first smaller scale test will conducted soon to see if intact the sun's rays are reflected as much as the researchers conducting the experiment hope. Even if the tests show the results they want, the government may still be reluctant to go with a plan requiring at least ten of these large balloons. Others are also wary of its risks that could effect the ozone layer. The three year 1.6 million pound (about 2.5 million dollars) plan is still very early in its research, but its results could save us from global warming.

Opinion/Reflection: I think the research's results could be very helpful to how are climate is changing and maybe even slow the change. I am very wary about the risk however. If this plan were to pass it could very well increase the amount of Carbon. It could also lower the amount of rain fall. I fear this research while trying to fix one problem, could create many new problems. We have to decide if we feel it is worth the risks. In another sense the plan can be stopped at anytime. There are still many things to research.

Questions:

1) Do you feel the benefits are worth the risks?

2) If you were the government and the research was successful, would you approve the plan?

3) Do you have a problem with these chemicals being hoisted in the air?

4) What do you think the results of the research will show? Will it work or not?

5) Does the appearance of these balloons affect your opinion on the plan?

Scientists take first step towards creating 'inorganic life'
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-scientists-inorganic-life.html

Picture: This picture is an example of the process of inorganic life

Summary:
The idea of creating inorganic cells is essentially to conctruct chemical cells that are actually alive. These cells will helo is learn about life on earth and new technology based on evolution. As well as these advances, the cells can also have electricity in them which can be used for medical treatments. This research will take many years, as it is only in its early stages, but if this research prevails, then our world's secrets will finally be revealed as well as advancing in the medical field.

Opinion/Reflection:
I think that all research towards inorganic cells is very interesting. However, this can be a very pricey experiment and how will we know if the outcome of these experiments are sucessful. Also, once we create inorganic life, what else can we do with the information? I think that this should be shared with the world to gain others' opinions.

Questions:
1- Why hasn't the media told the public about this research?
2-  Is this kind of research risky?
3- Will this cost a great amount of money for the government?
4- How can the rest of society use this information?
5- What kind of medical advances will this research provide?