In class the other day we talked about a dam in china that altered the rotation of the earth. I was so intrigued by this that I decided to write about it. The Three Gorges Dam is located on the Yangtze River in the Hubei Province. The construction of the dam started in 1994 and was finished in 2006. The dam is the world large single producer of electricity with its 32 generators. The dam is a total of 2335 meters across. This is equivalent to about a mile and a half. This is truly something enormous. The amount of resources that went into the building of this energy producer is beyond unbelievable. At a cost of 180 billion dollars the dam is a main asset to the Chinese government. As of September of 2009 the damn has produced about 60 billion dollars worth of energy.
As great of a manmade structure as this is, is it beneficial to the environment or is it detrimental? We immediately see the benefit of having a damn of this magnitude. The amount of energy it produces with no bi-products is absolutely something that is a positive. We need to start switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy. This may be the start. But is it the start we need? The issue with dam is that they have dramatic effects on local wildlife upstream and downstream. Every dam creates a reservoir upstream which floods the entire area and downstream there is often drought. This will mean that every living thing will have to change their lifestyle drastically, including humans. In the Three Gorges case a total of 1.1 million people had to be relocated to accommodate the dam. Humans are easily relocated but animals are not so easy. They have been living in their habitat for years and that is all they know. They need to adjust quickly to the changing environment and it is not something that animals can do. Many animals died in the Three Gorges Dam aftermath because they could not keep up with the changes. Herbivores died because their vegetation could not take the water changes and that led to the carnivores perishing due to their food source.
So here is the question I have. Are the benefits of having this “Super Dam” greater than the detriments? Is the wildlife loss worth the clean energy that we get from it? Finally, Should we start building more of these structures to benefit us financially? The floor is yours.
On Friday, December 18th, the climate talks taking place in Copenhagen drew to a close. It was a meeting between 192 nations on the best ways for them to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions in their respective countries, and combat the effects of global warming.
There were a lot of high hopes riding on this conference, and it seems to have concluded in a good place but not exactly where officials were hoping. During this conference there were many setbacks and disagreements, as would be expected with a conference involving this many different nations. Among them were issues of financial support from developed countries for countries still in the developing stage. Also was the problem of verification of progress made in developed countries.
In an effort to boost the talks, the United States agreed to a $100 billion per year contribution to poor nations. This came with two conditions: one being there must be some sort of agreement reached before the talks concluded, the second that all nations must agree to a system of verification for the funding to continue.
By the conclusion of the talks, an agreement had been drawn up regarding greenhouse gas emissions for both developed and developing nations. The draft stated that developed nations would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, and developing nations would work on their emissions, with reports on their progress. To verify this progress would be a panel, establishing progress and also the financial support of developed countries.
Although this is simply a draft to be finalized at a later date, all the countries involved see it as a huge step towards fighting global warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
There is a strong controversy over the efficiency and cleanliness of nuclear power. While some suggest that it is the cleanest type of energy production, others state its disadvantages from its byproducts. Nuclear energy is the only type of large energy production that does not produce carbon emissions. The reduction of CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions is key to saving our environment and keeping our planet cool. At the moment with our planet increasing in temperature drastically, nuclear power is the only answer to making massive amounts of energy while cooling our planet down.
The nuclear waste created however is very dangerous and detrimental to our world. There is no safe way of disposing of the waste, and the potential health threats it risks are very dangerous. Not only are the health risks to the radioactive materials outstanding, but the idea of nuclear weapons produced from waste fuel is frightening. Having many nuclear plants creates security issues. If they are not secured properly, the wrong people could have their hands on very dangerous materials. Although it is very hard to make weapons from waste fuel, it is still possible.
Our planet’s biggest threat is the increase in temperature. Nuclear power, although very dangerous is the only viable option for creating massive amounts of energy without producing CO2. There are benefits and consequences to using other types of power. Creating more nuclear power seems to be the only immediate action to take in order to save our environment. Although wind and solar power do not produce CO2, they do not produce nearly as much energy as nuclear power, and cannot support our world. Similar to other answers to our environmental problems, we face detrimental long-term effects. Having this mindset of “fixing our problems on the surface and worrying about the long term effect later” is not ideal, but currently it appears to be our only option. Nuclear power could destroy a city, or make an entire state uninhabitable. However it is the choice between two evils, one that could destroy a city, and one that could destroy a world.
I had studied many of the effects that global warming produces; but never the food issue. Global warming will affect all the world but specially places in the tropics and subtropics, because the crops produced there are less able to adapt. “Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Washington, who worked on the study, discovered that by 2100 there is a 90 percent chance that the coolest temperatures in the tropics during the growing season will be higher than the hottest temperatures recorded in those regions through 2006.”
These countries in the tropics or subtropics would produce 20 to 40 percent less crops than now, this would make that half of the population experience a food shortage.
By the end of this century, population is expected to double. This means that food production should double too in order to be able to provide enough food for the population. But the problem we’re going to face is that the increase in temperature will make food production harder. Until it will be almost impossible to feed all the humans on earth.
When traveling, the question of flying or driving often comes up. Cars tend to be more fuel-efficient, thus making them the better all around choice regardless of other aspects. The average car producing 25-30 miles per gallon would generate 104 kilograms of CO2 regardless of the number of passengers in a trip from Philadelphia to Boston (300 miles) while a commercial jet would generate 184 kilograms of CO2 per passenger. Driving clearly releases less greenhouse gases into the environment, which would be less detrimental on the o-zone layer and have less of an impact on global warming. Even if someone is traveling alone they are still being more environmentally friendly, but if you throw carpooling into the equation with four people they would still only give off 104 kilograms of CO2 compared to the 736 kilograms that four people on a flight would generate. However being environmentally friendly comes with a price, driving costs more than flying typically would. For example a round trip from Santiago, CA to Boston, MA in a car would cost a total of 577$ while flying would only cost 280.40$, saving you practically 300$ on the trip. So the question of being environmentally friendly or saving money arises. In my opinion during these times we are going through, nothing should come before saving our planet. I think that the answer to this huge question is an easy one, driving is the better choice of the two, though it may cost more it will do far less damage to the environment and help make our planet greener.
http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/fly_vs_drive.htm
http://environment.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=environment&cdn=newsissues&tm=38&f=22&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.fuelcostcalculator.com/
The amount of fresh water within the world is vastly shrinking and becoming more scarce to utilize in everyday life. Water is constantly being recycled within the planet, but as it is recycled, the availability becomes less and less. Humans use water for just about everything as it is used for bathing, cooking, cleaning, drinking and many other processes that are used throughout daily life. This overuse as it seems of water is what is most likely causing this growing decrease of the amount of usable fresh water. Majority of the world is covered by water, an astounding 70%, but what must be taken into consideration is the fact that only 2.5% of it is actually sustainable for humans daily processes. The use of water by humans is proven to be very inefficient, which is why water is decreasing, in the future by the year 2025, it is believed that 2/3 of the world will live in water deprived areas. he human body consists of 60% water, and without it humans would not be able to survive. If people do not start to efficiently use water, humanity could be looking at a devastating dilemma 
The current climate conference in Copenhagen is occurring in hopes to reach some conclusions about actions to take regarding the climate changes. Many are in favor of this conference taking place while others find it pointless. One economist in particular, from University of Guelph in Ontario, is one of the many that sees this conference as not being beneficial. Ross McKitrick feels that people are often times not reliable and do not stand by their promises. He, like many, feel that the sole outcome of the conference will have the same result as the many previous conferences; promises that are never delivered.
McKitrick thinks the most appropriate approach would be developing a system that each country would “call each side’s bluff”. By implementing an idea like this each side would have to measure the earth’s atmosphere temperature. This way we can measure how much carbon emission is being released into the atmosphere. They would set up a maximum emission and it would be their responsibility to be accountable for how they can personally reduce their carbon footprint. If they exceed the maximum that proves to be increases the temperature, then there will be some sort of penalty enforced.
McKitrick stresses that this way we would be investing our trust in a more reliable source, our own earth, rather than a lot of politicians blaming others and arguing without coming to a definite resolution or compromise. Some may feel that this is not trustworthy however; certain temperature readings from satellites are accurate and are proven to be correct. These temperature readings could also be used in other ways for example, carbon-tax. He gives multiple reasons for why it would be easier by saying, “it is simpler, more transparent, easier to enforce and less vulnerable to accounting tricks and political favoritism.”
From the basis of McKitrick’s argument, I agree completely. I am hopeful that the Copenhagen will have a beneficial outcome but providing an alternative route makes a lot of sense. McKitrick has designed a plan that helps multiple parts of our existing climate issues. By simply reading temperatures of our atmosphere and calculating our carbon emissions it seems we can do a lot more than we are doing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/15tier.html?ref=science
In the world we live in environmental issues are very pressing. Easily the largest problem we now face is how to power our energy thirsty world. This is a very heated topic as many people come up with ideas everyday about mass producing clean and efficient energy. Some very popular processes in use today may seem clean to the average eye, but we must remember that nothing comes without a price. Even the cleanest of all energy sources have some sort of a byproduct, or problem that is harmful to the delicate world we live in.
Many of us do not realize how delicate our world is. We share our environments with a plethora of species that have been dependent on certain conditions for thousands of years. By putting in certain “clean energy” sources such as wind turbines, we hurt these species that have lived there for years. When we commission a wind turbine to be built, it is easy to think that it will not need much space, or require large lots of land to be developed. That is correct, but, by sending in a work crew with machines and trucks, we enormously disrupt and harm the fragile ecosystems that are in place. Besides ripping up various animal habitats, there are some green energy technologies that take up vast amounts of land in order to be built. For instance, nuclear power plants take up on average 14,000 acres. This is an enormous amount of land to take away from any species of animals.
As well taking generous amounts of space, nuclear power has some astonishingly harmful results. Nuclear power has two byproducts, water and nuclear waste. Obviously, the nuclear waste is the real issue. A typical plant will produce 20-30 tons of nuclear waste every year. The biggest problem with nuclear power is what to do with this very lethal waste. This waste has many components, one of which, plutonium, has a half life of over 24,000 years! That is just the half life of one of the many components found in this harmful byproduct. Since this nuclear waste is unsafe, proper disposal is a very messy job. The waste is stored in large metal and lead drums and buried deep in mountains such as Yucca Mountain in Nye County, Nevada. This is very bad for the wildlife that inhabits the mountain and the area around it. Nevertheless, it is very poor planning. As soon as that storage site gets filled up we will be forced to go to another site, and then we will be spreading more very harmful nuclear waste all over the world. Not to mention, transporting this waste is very expensive and puts exhaust from transportation vehicles into the atmosphere. That is the exact opposite of what clean energy is designed to do.
Solar panels also have a few problems of their own. Solar panels can only work during the day. So there is a time limit that a solar panel can create energy. Also, these panels produce a very poor amount of energy when working in places like cities. This is due to airborne pollutants that decrease the severity of the sun’s rays, weakening the ability to harness solar power. Despite some design flaws, these are also very expensive. Solar panels are a clear example of how going green can be pricey. An average system for a 2,000 square foot roof runs between $10,000 and $15,000. For many people that is much too expensive to even consider. Especially in the current economic situation we are in, it isn’t even a thought for many.
While being able to produce green energy is a very important matter, it is not easy to create such technologies to make a one hundred percent green energy producing technology. The green energy producing technologies we have today are a great step in the right direction, but they all have their draw backs. Whether it be habitat destruction, nuclear waste, or total cost and efficiency, all green technologies are not perfect. We must not kid ourselves by think that they are perfect when they are not. We must strive to create a technology that is one hundred percent green that can produce power for us before we can pat ourselves on the back.
Recently, our class have been discussing new electric cars and all the benefits of which they have to offer, such as tax benfits. We have not, however, talked much about the negatives to electric cars. For one, all if not most of the electric cars that are commonly known to everyone look cheap and nasty. The cars are not pleasing to the senses at all and at best can be described as fancy golf carts. Secondly, speaking of golf carts, are golf carts safe to drive on roads and big highways? Most people in the right mind would respond instantly with a no. Would you want to drive something that is really no more than a souped up golf cart on a road or highway? Would you feel safe in one? I know that I certainly would not, because if I were to get into an accident, I would most likely not survive due to the lack of crumple space that the car does not posses. Finally, an electric car today can not go very far at all. Electric cars do not get great milage, which would make them useless outside a city, as the countryside lacks convinient places to charge the cars to full again. After reveiwing these few facts, I would definitely not get an electric car and would consider them to be over-rated and useless unless in a city.
Temperatures have significantly increased in the last 100 years. The atmosphere’s greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and fluorocarbons), capture heat and keep the surface of the Earth warm enough for us to live on. Before the Industrial Revolution, the Earth had a good balance of greenhouse gases. I believe the main contributor to Global Warming was the Industrial Revolution, which caused too much greenhouse effect. Fossil fuels (oil, coal, or natural gas, acquired from the remains of former life) were burned more and more to run our cars, trucks, factories, planes and power plants, which added to the natural supply of greenhouse gases. The gases, which can stay in the atmosphere for at least fifty and up to 100 years, are building up beyond the Earth’s ability to remove them and, in effect, creating an extra thick heat blanket around the Earth. As a result, the earth has heated up many degrees over the past century. According to edf.org the main contributor pollutant (Co2) has risen 31% above pre-industrial levels, which has caused the extra thick heat blanket around the earth to thicken and become more intense. There are many things that can happen to the population here on earth if this is not taken care of. While the Earth is heating up, health problems are becoming more and more abundant. Many of the viruses people catch come from animals and their droppings. Over the last 10 years, the weather has drastically changed. Years of drought followed by heavy spring rains produced a huge increase in plant growth, which in return caused an increase in deer mice, which carry many diseases that are easily spread to humans. Along with deer mice, mosquitoes have become a rather large problem as well. The warm climate and heavy rains help carry the diseases for a longer time span. Another danger that is caused by global warming is natural disasters. Hurricanes and heat waves have smashed through towns and destroyed them along with people and their lives. The warmer climate is heating up ocean waters, and warm ocean water fuels hurricanes. Scientists say that global warming will only lead to more intense storms, which will ruin more lives. I never realized how much I contributed to the increase of greenhouse gases until I researched for this article. There are many things one can do to help withdraw from contributing to global warming. Home energy accounts for 21 percent of America’s global warming pollution. Traditional incandescent bulbs are actually small heaters that give a little light, and waste a lot of energy making heat. People should use compact fluorescent lights. They use only a fraction of the amount of electricity that a traditional incandescent bulb uses. When it comes to global warming, how and what we drive are two of our most powerful choices one can make. Transportation is the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions, more than factories or homes. People should pack their cars lightly and should drive more slowly. One should not use the air conditioning unless it is necessary. Car-pooling can help decrease pollution for the air and environment. Planning helps cut back time spent in cars as well, which is great for the economy and environment. Global warming is very dangerous and I believe we should do all we can do to put a stop to being a contributor
Sources :
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/Default.asp
http://www.globalwarming.org/