7th Post

When thinking about the problems that our culture will be facing in the upcoming years, one cannot help but contemplate how we will deal with our energy problems.  In a recent article by The Christian Science Monitor, Kurt Cobb argues that our current political strategies are doing little to alleviate our problems, and are in fact "designed for specific constituencies with no coherent goal."  He asserts that we need more than subsidies for well to do companies.  Many parties believe in a different end goal in the battle of the carbon footprint.  Some of the measures discussed include a complete transition to nuclear energy, switching to renewable resources, and to seek the cheapest prices for energy with no regard for the environmental price.  Prior to the nuclear incident in Japan, the nuclear strategy was gaining quite a bit of steam.  What Cobb describes as the "de facto policy of the United States," the Obama administration endorses an "all of the above" strategy. 
Cobb goes on to argue that our supply of fossil fuels are becoming harder and harder to obtain.  Either they are becoming harder to extract geologically, they are more sparsely distributed, or because they are in areas that are difficult to access in the first place (deep under the seabed.)  Also, climate change is proceeding faster than we previously thought.  While many previous studies suggested that the arctic ice would be gone by mid century, some studies are now showing that it could be gone as soon as 2020.  On top of green house admissions, the prices that fossil fuel companies are putting forth are much lower than what they may be in reality.  Our idea of risk is also a bit skewed.  "It does not matter how frequently something succeeds if failure is too costly to bear."  This speaks to the idea that our long term forecasts of risk management are not exceedingly accurate.  Because we know that our fossil fuels will last for at least another few decades, we choose to ignore the environmental factors that are being produced by them.  If we don't have to worry about them for another few decades, then what is the point?  It is Cobb's opinion that the only way to fix our carbon addiction would be to place an ever rising tax on carbon.  This would not favor any of the energy ideas proposed, but would keep carbon use on everyones' minds.  If we do not put some sort of measures into place, then this surmounting problem will only get worse with every passing year. 

6th Post

In a recent article by the christian science monitor, found here, oil usage is discussed.  We all know that oil prices are pretty much one of the most talked about problems facing the United States today.  There have been many hypotheses as to how to alleviate this problem: make electric cars, quit buying oil from the middle east, or make cars that get better miles per gallon.  In the article, making cars much more fuel efficient is the focus of discussion.  If we could pass legislation that would require vehicles to have a minimum of 74 miles per gallon, we could see a reduction in the oil usage of light duty vehicles by 80%.  These vehicles "[consume] about half the oil that the US uses...".  Wondering what the cars might look like?  Well you most likely won't be driving that H2 hummer around anymore.  It might be internal combustion, electric, biofuel, hydrogen, or even natural gas powered.  It will be lightweight and most likely cost a few more thousand dollars more than what you would pay today.  Unfortunately, though these automobiles account for half of the oil used in the US, they represent only 17 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions.  Lowering these gas emissions by 80% looks to be a bit more challenging.  "An 80 percent reduction in LDV GHG emissions by 2050 may be technically achievable, but will be very difficult," according to a study by the National Research Council.  Given our recent boon in natural gas production, we might want to fuel our cars with it.  The NRC says that if we use gas as a fuel, though, we will definitely not be able to meet the 80 percent green house gas emissions standard.  Of course, these standards are set assuming that we will have breakthroughs in technology that lead to these options being viable.  With current technology, we would not be able to quite cut it.  The study finds that hydrogen fuel cells may be the most promising prospect. 
The article goes on to outline how we should reach these goals.  Not surprisingly, spending money on research and development is paramount.  There are other tactics that may work such as to: "offer rebates for high-mileage vehicles; impose taxes on low-mileage models; increase gasoline taxes or otherwise provide a floor price for gasoline so alternative fuels can compete."  Whatever we do, I think we can all agree that SOMETHING needs to be done.  Research and development of safer, cleaner running vehicles is a great place to start.  When we achieve those, then we can begin to take the next steps: always moving forward.

Mars Find Boosts Prospects For Life

In a recent article by The Sydney Morning Herald titled Mars find boosts prospects for life, the second rock from the sun is examined.  Our shuttle "Curiosity" has been mulling around the surface for some time now, and its finds have been increasingly interesting.  Scientists have always speculated that there used to be water on Mars, but now it is fairly clear.  Using its on board "laboratory", Curiosity drilled into some sedimentary rock and discovered many clay minerals: sulphur, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and carbon.  Okay that might not sound so interesting, but this means that Mars could potentially support life.  Not four legged dinosaurs or green spacemen to be sure, but microbes.  Microbes are extremely important though, as they are how life started on Earth.  As stated within the article, though, merely finding elements that have the potential to support life does not mean that evidence for life has been found.  It does show that water was involved though.  The water was also fairly neutral, and as vice president of Mars Society Australia Guy Murphy states: "I could have drunk a glass of that water and been fine."  These elements were found in a clay material under layers of rock.  This clay was not oxidized, meaning it could be a source of food for the organisms in question.  Scientists have long thought Mars capable of sustaining life, and the finds of the rover Curiosity are affirming these thoughts. The rover has collected important data in the past, as well.  Some of its first samples were of topsoil that is fairly ubiquitous across Mars.  It contained organic carbon molecules.  As Murphy states: "This new result is of an ancient rock tied to a specific location – and so gives us historical information the windblown sample could not."

Could Mars be the next home of human kind after we use up all our resources?  Because I mean come on, humans pretty much destroy everything we touch.  Short of us all becoming buddhist monks and respecting each other, I feel humans may be doomed.  If that is the case, maybe scoping out possible habitable planets is a good idea.  So my prognosis is THROW MORE MONEY AT NASA!

Chavez Gone: More Oil For Us?

In CNBC's article "With Huge Chavez gone, US oil industry eyes Venezuela", the idea of oil reserves is discussed.  Now if you don't know, Venezuela is a part of OPEC, or the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and hosts one of the largest oil reserves on the planet.  Recently, Venezuela's commander in chief Hugo Chavez, whom the United States has had tenuous relations with at best, passed away.  That means, oil companies all over the USA are rubbing their hands together in hopes that the new administration will be slightly friendlier towards the USA.  Currently, Chavez's vice president Nicolas Maduro may run things until an election can be held.  "It's too soon to say what Hugo Chavez's death means for oil prices," said IHS vice chair Daniel Yergin.  While Chavez wasn't exactly copacetic with the United States, Chavez actually told his nation to vote for Maduro in the case that he could not rule -- so one would think that he too may harbor many of the same apprehensions as Chavez.  Companies such as ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil stand to benefit greatly, as they were forced to exit Venezuela when Chavez nationalized the oil reserves.  Unfortunately  for the oil companies, the state of their previous assets in Venezuela have deteriorated.  While not in squalor, electricity must be rationed in many areas.  Venezuela does not produce near as much as it is capable, which is most likely what Chavez intended.  Currently they produce 2.5 million barrels a day, whereas they could be producing as much as six to nine million barrels a day, and much of the refined oil is imported --  "...exports include shipping record supplies of US gasoline to Venezuela... oil exports to the U.S. are on the decline."  Venezuela ships 906,000 barrels of crude oil per day to the US, down from 1.3 million per day, so one can see why this could be an extremely lucrative venture for many in the oil industry.  

Why 'big paper' just went green in Indonesia.

Ubiquitous.  Paper is everywhere: from the hundreds of pages in each phonebook that is lobbed onto your porch every few months, to the coaster you set your drink on at a bar.  While paper seems to rule much of our world, the forests we get all of this paper from are, naturally, finite.  That is why I am excited to read that one of the world's largest paper companies, Asia Pulp & Paper, has decided to go green.  They will be using seedlings in managed plantations for future paper product.
In the article "Stunning reversal? Why 'big paper' just went green in Indonesia,"  they discuss APP's affect on the rainforests of Indonesia.  "In the past 20 years, Sumatra has lost natural forest equivalent in size to the state of South Carolina...Borneo, forest loss in the same period has been greater: more like the size of Oregon."  This is simply astounding.  These forests are home to countless unique species such as orangutans and the Sumatran tiger.  Throughout the years, APP has persevered in their foresting practice, even with the disappearance of some of these animals.
Why this drastic shift in policy?  Pressure from large corporations such as Disney, Mattel, and all of the top ten publishers is probably a good place to start.  Mattel launched a campaign in which Barbie's boyfriend, Ken, broke up with her after finding out she is involved in rain forest destruction.  Without pressure from these large economic powers, it seems there would be no reason for multinational companies like APP to cease their destructive practices.  It seems that everyone is in good spirits about this, and they expect APP to keep their promises, as they have a good track record with recent environmental pledges.
APP has figured out a way to make this economically viable, and that is important.  "We made a calculation about what's good for us as a business … we don't view this as a competitive disadvantage."  That is very important, as we can't expect companies to bankrupt themselves, they never will, even if it means the destruction of their own lands.  All in all, this is a very exciting prospect, and I look forward to seeing other companies follow suit (we can only hope)!

Monsanto back in the news

New! From the people that brought you such things as Agent Orange and DDT... CORN!

In the article "Who owns seeds? Not you, Monsanto says" we come back to the annual issue of "do corporations own our agriculture?"  For a bit of background information, Monsanto has been around for over a century, producing many different things: from plastics, LEDs, and GMOs, to agent orange and DDT.  For decades, Monsanto has been a leader in biotechnology, and has had a large influence on policy in Washington.  From current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (ex-lawyer of Monsano) to US Secretary of Agriculture from 2001-2005 Ann Veneman (Board of Directors Monsanto) to ex Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Board of Directors Monsanto).  When considering these ties to the power structure in Washington, it is not difficult to understand how Monsanto has come to be one of the most influential (if not powerful) corporations in the United States, nay, the world.
As indicated in the article, Monsanto has pursued a litany of court cases against farmers for breaking its soybean patents.  What is happening to farmers all across the world is that they purchase seeds from this company that are safe to use with pesticides.  Now since the beginning of time, farmers have been saving seeds to use for the next planting season.  Well not anymore.  Monsanto spent a lot of money developing these seeds, and they want their recompense.  Thus the way they make their money back is by forcing farmers to sign a contract saying they won't use their seeds for more than one year (presumably purchasing the seeds year after year).  But what if these farmers don't purchase monsanto seeds, and they merely become contaminated with them, whether via wind scattering or some other method?  Many argue that this is a monopoly, and that is where the larger conflict comes into play.  This article brings up the issue of intellectual property -- the main underlying factor that will be decided perhaps in months to come.  "How long should a company be compensated for something that is difficult to create, but is easy to copy?"  This seems to be the major question at hand.  The effects of this case will impact many industries, from software companies to biotech firms. 
The way I see it, these companies have a monopoly on the way food is produced in our country, and even have a strong foothold in our nation's capitol to keep it that way.  This blatant conflict of interest is glaringly dubious, and yet they seem to pervade our government year after year.  I am hopeful that we come to a conclusion in this case that will be both fair to our nation's farmers, and to the industries producing these costly technologies. 

Welcome!

Welcome to my blog!  This blog will be dedicated to reviewing articles that pertain to environmental concerns.  I hope you enjoy the content as much as I do!