Right before Spring Break we were studying about the world’s population and the factors that determine its size and growth. Yesterday, on April 16, 2007, the
Vatican’s representative in the UN, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, sent a letter to the UN about how the Roman Catholic Church thinks the population issue should be dealt with. In this letter, Archbishop Migliore says that although the population is suppose to stabilize in 2050 at about 9 billion people, we still need to work on keeping the world population from getting out of control. With more people being born and the baby boomers reaching old age, the
Vatican feels that extra attention should be given to them and not forgotten. They urge states to “foster respect for human life in all its stages and to find solutions that are right and just, not merely pragmatic.”

Another way to help the population growth is to assist developing countries become more advanced. One place in particular is the continent of
Africa. Archbishop Migliore feels that giving money for primary education would help the countries of
Africa to be more developed. Another solution is one we talked about in class, elevating the status of women and girls in the community by educating them which would give them more respect, something else to do to help out the family and would help them gain maturity in making parental decisions.

A lot of what the Archbishop wrote in the letter is similar to what we learned in class with a more Catholic moral spin to it. For instance, in our book, it says that developed countries would help give women access to contraceptives, but being the Roman Catholic Church, they believe that education alone would be the only contraceptive needed. And with the aging baby boomers some countries, like Japan, don’t feel it’s the governments job to take care of the old people, but the family; the Vatican feels that the government should act like old people’s families in that regard by caring for them. 

Source: Zenit News Agency

When I was in California over Spring Break, I came across an article in the San Jose Mercury News newspaper on Monday, April 9, 2007. The article was about California’s new idea to lower emissions from vehicles, not by consenting to the good nature of people, but to their wallets. The bill that is being debated right now to become a law puts certain prices on every car sold. Depending on the type of car that is bought, the person would either have to pay or get paid for the amount of greenhouse gas emissions the vehicle puts out. So if you wanted to buy a Hummer H2, you would have to pay an additional tax of $2500. But if you wanted to buy a Toyota Prius you get paid $2500. All the money is paid as a tax and the state pays the car-owners, not the dealerships.

The list of cars that you’ll have to pay extra for are:

§ Hummer H2

§ Dodge Viper

§ Dodge Ram

§ Ford Expedition

§ Chevrolet Avalanche

§ Toyota Sequoia

§ GMC Yukon

§ Toyota Tundra

§ GMC Sierra

§ Chevrolet Silverado

§ Dodge Dakota

§ Chevrolet Tahoe C150

§ Ford Explorer

§ Audi S8

§ GMC Safari

§ Chevrolet Astro Van

§ Chevrolet Trailblazer

The list of cars that you’ll get paid to have are:

§ Hyundai Santa Fe

§ Oldsmobile Silhoutte

§ Pontiac Montana

§ Chevrolet Venture

§ Ford Mustang

§ Chrysler PT Cruiser

§ Ford Taurus

§ Chrysler Sebring

§ Buick Century

§ Volkswagon Passat

§ Chevrolet Malibu

§ Honda CR-V

§ Nissan Altima

§ Mazda B2300

§ Honda Accord

§ Toyota Rav4

§ Toyota Camry

§ Volkswagon Jetta

§ Chevrolet Cavalier

§ Mada Protégé

§ Volkswagon New Beetle

§ Dodge Neon

§ Hyundai Elantra

§ Ford Focus

§ Nissan Sentra

§ Toyota Corolla

§ Honda Civic

§ Toyota Prius

If this bill passes into a law, new car buyers are really going to have to think about whether those sport cars and SUVs are really worth paying $2500.

Source: Rogers, Paul. Clean Cars: Paying the Price for SUVs San Jose Mercury News 4/9/2007

(photo credit:en.wikipedia.org)

Earlier in the year I wrote about the difference between paper and plastic bags. It seems that San Francisco is having a similar dilemma because they are in theprocess of trying to pass a bill to stop large corporations from using plastic bags. First I asked myself, what’s the problem with plastic bags? In my first blog I concluded that paper bags were worst but I didn’t exactly focus on the damage that plastic bags can do. These plastic bags use unneeded amounts of fossil fuel to make, litter the streets, and pose a threat to wildlife. This isn’t the first time that SanFrancisco has made an effort to decrease the amounts of plastic bags. In 2005, the government made an agreement with the major grocery stores that the stores would decrease the amounts of plastic bags that they handed out so that there would be 10 million plastic bags less used in 2006. Unfortunately, the grocery stores hadn’t held up their part of the agreement by only saving about 7.6 less plastic bags in 2006.

The next question I asked myself was, if they aren’t going to use plastic bags, then what are they going to use? The San Francisco government decided that instead of the standard plastic bags, grocery stores would have to supply for their costumers with biodegradable bags, cloth or sturdy plastic bags that can be used repeatedly. But wait, if they are trying to ban the standard plastic bags, then why are they replacing them with thicker plastic bags? Although I’m a little baffled behind this concept, I understand their logic. Even though there would be more plastic needed, the idea would be that the people use the bags multiple times cutting down the amounts of total bags distributed every day. Then there are cloth bags, yes they would be the ideal choice because of reusability, but it raises the issue of cost. And in modern America money is an important factor in every decision. In terms of plastic bags, it costs retailers about $4 million annually. With this new ban maybe retailers would be able to save money.

This sounds like a good plan on behalf of San Francisco to cut down on plastic bags. It would save fuel, money and the environment from harm. Although there are a few questions that this ban will raise, only time will tell.

Sources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17517200/

http://www.reusablebags.com/facts.php?id=10

Everybody makes some kind of commute every week Whether its by plane, train or automobile everyone is at risk of shortening their lives because of it. Why, you may ask? Is it because of the stress, road rage or crashes? No, it’s because often soot particles that we breath everyday on our commute. I never thought that on my way to school everyday that Ii could potentially be shortening my life, but I possibly am.

                            (photo credit:en.wikipedia.org)

According to Scientific American, one of the main sources of these soot particles are diesel-powered trucks. Everyone’s seen them, those huge rigs that constantly have smoke emitting out of them. The New Jersey Media Group compares the exposure to soot particles on you commute to being in a closed car with a smoker everyday.Eventhough, most people only commute for a couple of hours every day (hopefully), the exposure to damaging soot particles is tremendous.

This knowledge has come to the public’s attention thanks to the Clean Air Task Force, located in Boston. The CATF said that about 13 million vehicles spewed these particles last year alone. Luckily, the CATF said this all could be helped with the installation of filters or retrofitting these vehicles with new muffler and tailpipe systems. Unfortunatly that would cost between $7000 and $9000 per vehicle. If all 13 million vehicles form last year were to be retrofitted it would cost between $91 billion and $117 billion total.

So with those numbers in mind, the government has a harder decision on whether or not make companies retroit all of their vehicles.

Calculation: 13,000,000 * 7000= 91,000,000,000 ; 13,000,000* 9000= 117,000,000,000

Sources: http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk3MDg1NDgyJnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mg

http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2007/03/02/?source=rss#4

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=870271B323EDC885B0478B67113FDBB1

When I was younger, I loved to visit my grandparents in California, not because of the ocean or Disneyland but because they would always take me to the San Jose Zoo. Even though there are plenty of zoos where I live, but none of them have flamingos outside. They covered their area with various shades of pink and white and seemed like the most content birds around. Unfortunately, the numbers of flamingos might soon be rapidly depleting in the world, specifically Kenya.

Recently Charles Hanley reported on MSNBC news about the loss of over 970,000 flamingos in Lake Nakuru National Park in Kenya. The reason for this fall of population is due to the shrinking of the lake. The reason for the shrinking lake has left researchers puzzled, but many have felt it’s connected to the environmental and industrial changes nearby. According to Hanley, there have been many changes around the lake including deforestation, global warming and industrial run-off into the lake causing it to dry up and shrink in size. Even though, these changes would affect many lake ecosystems, Lake Nakuru is especially fragile being shallow with an average depth of 8 meters. These changes have indirectly affected the flamingos of Lake Nakuru who major survival sources are connected to the lake. With the shrinking of the lake, the flamingo’s major food supply of blue-green algae has diminished. The pollution has also affected the flamingos directly by causing health concerns for them, which was revealed to Charles Hanley by Lake Nakuru National Park deputy Paul Opiyo.

But to the people of Nakuru, the flamingos do more than just provide beauty: they are a major component in the area’s economy. The flamingos are the most famous inhabitants of Lake Nakuru, because of this they are main attractions for tourists. The flamingos are also major components of the Lake Nakuru food web. With their population depletion, the other organisms will be affected, further discouraging tourists to visits.

Something needs to be done to save Lake Nakuru. The economy of Nakuru and the lives of thousands of flamingos depend on it. If the flamingos continue to disappear, some of the only flamingos seen by future generations would be the plastic ones in people yards.

Sources:

“Flamingo Paradise Shrinks along lake” by Charles Hanley http://www.msnbc.com/id/15731235

Kenya Wildlife Service: Nakuru National Park http://www.kws.org/nakuru.html

Photo credit:

Wikpedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lake_Nakuru_flamingos.jpg

For my entire life, one of the major ongoing concerns is global warming. Today it seems more relevant with new approaches to limiting carbon emissions into the atmosphere with creating hybrid vehicles and vehicles that are more efficient. Countries around the world are trying to control global warming using different techniques. The United States of America is trying the technique of the honor system, which is different from a majority of the countries part of the United Nations. The world as whole tried to have a uniform plan to control global warming through the Kyoto Protocol, which called for participating countries to lower their carbon emissions by 5.2%. However, the United States didn’t agree with this plan and decided to battle global warming in their own way. The technique of the honor system is used in the method of volunteerism, emphasized by the Bush Administration since 2002. John Heilprin of MSNBC news reported about this volunteerism on October 6, 2006 and raised the question of whether or not the statistics connected to this method are true and whether this method is effective or not.

The Bush administration claims that this method has lowered carbon emissions by 4 percent, or 300 million tons a year. Eventhough that sounds great it might not entirely be true. Paul McArdle, the man who manages the Energy Department’s volunteer reporting system, says that the “cutbacks” that companies claim aren’t always a direct decrease in carbon emissions. McArdle says that companies can claim cutbacks through using vehicles that are more efficient and planting trees, when really they have increased carbon emissions. Something about that just doesn’t sound right. On paper, this method seems to be working. The 300 million tons of lower carbon emissions sounds like a giant step in controlling global warming, and it would be if that reflected on the overall cutbacks made by companies.

Contrary to the Bush Administration’s method, the Kyoto protocol seems like it would be more effective. With its requirements of all signed countries to lower carbon emissions by 5%. As of 2006, 166 countries have signed the protocol and agreed to follow the principles originally established by the committee in 1997. With 166 countries involved the method set forth by the protocol is covering a greater amount of land and according to Wikipedia, it now controls over 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions. To increase it’s effectiveness, one of the principles of the protocol makes sure each country does it’s part by enforcing consequences for those that don’t ; any country that doesn’t meet the 5% decrease has to further lower it’s emission by 30% for the next year.

If I were going to decide on a method to control global warming, I would go with the Kyoto Protocol.

Sources:

U.S. goes own way on global warming strategy by: John Heilprin http://www.msnbc.msn.com/15108916

Kyoto Protocol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Photo credit:en.wikipedia.org

At the grocery store, everyone is always confronted with the dilemma of choosing paper or plastic bags. Most people consider paper bags more environmentally friendly because compared to plastic bags, a larger percent can be recycled. The negative of paper bags is that it requires the cutting down of millions of trees per year. By depleting the forests, we are removing a natural source of oxygen and carbon dioxide control. When producing paper bags they use about 1917 BTUs per ounce more energy than plastic bag production. And according to reusablebags.com, the chemicals used in paper mills release 70% more air pollution and 50 times more water pollution than plastic bag factories. After the bags are produced and used, the question goes to what effect does they have afterwards. If recycled it takes about 17 BTUs per ounce to recycle plastic bags and 1444 BTUs per ounce to recycle paper bags. However 10-15% of paper bags can be recycled, were as only 1-3% of plastic bags can be recycled. Comparing paper bags and plastic bags, which one would be more environmentally efficient? I’d say plastic bags.

Statistics are from reusablebags.com

In today’s society, exotic is considered beautiful. People always want that rare plant or exotic bird. Before seeing the movie Strange Days, I didn’t see anything wrong with it. I always thought these foreign organisms were harmless and just there to provide diversity. I never knew that such harmless creatures and plants could cause so much trouble. It is astonishing that such small creatures, like termites could destroy entire neighborhoods. These alien species also reak havoc on our economy, health and the earth itself. According to an article by Cornell University ecologists, as of 1999, in North America alone alien species are causing us 123 billion dollars a year. That’s a lot of money for the accidental importation of some non-indigenous creatures. Some of the alien species introduced into foreign lands are intentional. In the movie, they used the example of the mongooses in Puerto Rico who were supposed to take care of the rat population. The Cornell article describes how the plant Purple Loosestrife was brought from Europe to be an ornamental plant. Both the mongoose and the Purple Loosestrife seemed liked a good idea at the time but ended up endangering the native species of the area.

I would agree with the video, saying that the introduction of foreign species I also consider the foreign species that have helped our way of life. The video talked about how on Lake Victoria scientists introduced the weevils to the environment. Everyone benefited form the introduction because it helped resolve the problems the water hyacinth caused. The Cornell article also talks about how even though alien species are costing North America 123 billion dollars, 98% of the U.S. food supply consists of foreign species.

The lesson that we should learn form the video, Strange Days, and the Cornell article is that we should be careful what we introduce into or lands. Sometimes the outcome is good, but most of the time its bad.

Photo credit: en.wikipedia.org

With concern for the elevation of sea levels, major cities around the world are using the excess water to their advantage. The September 2006 Scientific American explores this different type of energy and the changes that are being made to it to make it more efficient. Up until this point, ocean energy has been left behind by wind energy; but according to the ocean energy leader at the Electric Power Research Institute, Roger Bedard it will not be along until the technology will catch up. China, Portugal, Nova Scotia, New York and Britain are all setting up programs to harness the energy from the oceans. Even though environmental groups say that setting up the generators necessary to harness the energy, estuarine ecosystems would be in trouble. However, according to Peter Fraenkel of Marine Current Turbines, the turbines (generators) that they have created have a less impact on the ecosystems than dams do. I think that switching to ocean energy both the environment and people benefit. Even though it might interfere with the estuarine ecosystems, it still will lessen the impact that other fuels, such as petroleum, have the environment.