Felicia Jenkins
11/27/10
9:30 AM

The Warming of Antarctica: A Citadel of Ice Begins to Melt

In 1978 John H. Mercer had already speculated about the warming of Antarctica and the melting of ice caps long before most other scientists were concerned with the affects of global warming. His predictions about Antarctica came true far sooner than expected at least by a few decades. The Arctic Peninsula has warmed faster than any other location on earth and at least 8 arctic shelves have also melted. This increase in temperature is wreaking havoc on local food chain. There are declines in population in all levels of the ecosystem from plankton to the penguins. Also local wildlife is out of sync with the melting of the ice. Our planet will have even harder time coping with these changes if things continue.

Just like most things, there is a reaction for every action. The amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is causing a change in the Arctic Circle. With the increase in melting we can expect the sea level to rise. Sure, it doesn’t sound that much of a change, but with a rise our lives will be affected. With just a few inches of increase cities can be underwater, there can be a change in climate, there will be an increase of storms and flooding and changes in our water supply because more of the earth’s water will be salt water. None of these things are good but all of these things will affect everyone on the planet. We will have to use our innovation to rethink our daily lives as we know it. Of course this rise in temperature is not completely reversible; but we can do things to slow warming up of the Arctic Circle. Consuming less and being more conscious are always good places to start.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_warming_of_antarctica_a_citadel_of_ice_begins_to_melt_/2342/

Bad Start as EU rejects quota in summit to save the giant bluefin tuna

Felicia Jenkins
12:30PM
11.19.10

Bad Start as EU rejects quota in summit to save the giant bluefin tuna

The European Union fishing area has decided against proposed plans to help endangered fish. The rejected plan had a quota that would be used to protect endangered fish. The fish population is currently less than half of what it was 40 years ago. One of the main fish that is endangered is the Atlantic bluefin. This fish is able to grow to the size of a horse, is incredibly fast and very profitable in the Japanese market. The most bluefin that were able to be caught in 2010 was 13,500 metric tons; but it is suggested that save the fish the number should be lowered to 6,000 metric tons in 2011. This latest decision of the EU is causing controversy because it proves to be a conflict of interest. The European union is trying to increase environmental standards but at the same time is only willing to give up so much.

This week we see as always our human actions have an effect on the wildlife around us. In this case we are overfishing which is causing a large decline in the fish population. Some may not see this as a problem. But nature is self sufficient, she takes care of herself. But as humans continue to overuse resources it causes the ecosystem to not function the way it is supposed to causing problems beneath the sea. As the ecosystem weakens the people wanting the Bluefin will have to pay a higher price. A simple fish is now impacting the prices in an entire industry. Our actions continue to affect the world around us. And there is always a fight between conservation and human growth and quality of life. As I have said every week, we need to sit down and think about what we care about. Would we eat less exotic fish if it meant saving money and helping out our planet? Because if we keep destroying this one, nobody will have a place to live.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/bad-start-as-eu-rejects-quotas-in-summit-to-save-the-giant-bluefin-tuna/article1803982/

Felicia Jenkins
11/12/10
12:35PM

Cheap coal for power 'subsidises polluters'

In Australia the government has recently decided to subsidize coal to power generators. The government also has plans to open a new coal mine close to Mudgee to sell to government run power generators. It is also a possibility that the government will run the new coal mine. The coal will sell for about $33 per ton, as opposed to the market value which is around $44 a ton. Many wonder what the government’s true plan for the coal subsidies are. Some agree that the subsidies for goal are just a mask for subsidizing the generators.

These new plans are going against the government idea of being more sustainable and friendly to our planet. Economically speaking when coal is priced lower than market value people and companies will consume more coal leading to increased sales. This in turn leads to high rates of environmental pollution because coal mines are not clean by anyone’s standards. Coal mines are hazardous to both the people around the mine, and the environment itself. Toxic chemicals are produced, coal particulates are pumped into the air- which are in turn inhaled by the people causing short life spans, cancers and breathing problems. Coal is a fossil fuel that is unsustainable in our rapidly changing world. It is a very limited resource with high consequence for using it. Once again the Polluters get a pass to do whatever they want and the people and the environment are left paying the price for their actions. This event makes me question whether or not the Australian government cares about the environmental cleanup they talk so much about.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/cheap-coal-for-power-subsidises-polluters-20101107-17j1k.html

Felicia Jenkins
11:00AM
11/5/10

Coalmine dangerous to public, says health boss

On the coast of Australia, in New South Wales (NSW) there is a proposed coalmine. This proposal comes from Kores Australia and it is the plan to dig up 151 million tons of coal in the next 27 years. Concern has been raised about the impact of the coalmine on human health. But Kores Australia insists that there is no risk to human health. Dr. Lewis of the NSW of the Environmental health branch counters that claim with previous evidence of an increase of respiratory problems which increases the death rate. Lewis suggests that more effort needs to put in by the company to ensure that the local air quality does not change drastically. The spreading of coal particulates has also been a concern because it spreads in the air which could affect human health. Once again Kores Company countered with “coal is not toxic or poisonous and is not listed as a hazardous substance under any environmental legislation.”

Once again business profits are tied with the environment and the health of the people in the surrounding area. At this point we are all aware of the dangers that come with coal mining. There is an increase in carbon dioxide and methane, which are two powerful greenhouse gases that contribute heavily to climate change. The byproducts of mining tend to be toxic metal waste such as uranium and thorium which are hard to dispose of and radioactive. Because of the participles in the air, air quality and ozone are an issue which lead to human health problems. The mines themselves are dangerous to the individuals that work in them as well. There is also scientific evidence that should an erosion of topsoil, decreases in local plant and animal biodiversity and run off into the local water supply such as rivers, and ground water. But strangely enough Kores Australia found no evidence of any of these problems that come with coalmines. How much are large companies willing to pay for these profits. Do the people and environment mean nothing to them but a profit. Are people and nature so replaceable that Kores Australia chooses to disregard their safety and well being to make a product that is unsustainable but temporarily profitable? Would more regulation put pressure on these companies to think about their impact on everything around them more? Should companies care about more than just their current and future profit margins?

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/coalmine-dangerous-to-public-says-health-boss-20101102-17cdk.html

Dubai Struggles with Environmental problems after growth

Felicia Jenkins
10/29/10
3:20 PM

Dubai Struggles with Environmental problems after growth

Dubai, India has one of most beautiful skylines in the eastern world. But a simple look down would change a person’s view of the city. There is raw sewage in the streets and alleys. The rapid growth of the city is taking a toll on the environment. As the standards of living increase Dubai is dangerously low on resources to keep the city going. Waste treatment and removal as well as having safe fresh water are a large concern in this growing city. The water from the gulf of Omen is not readily available for drinking because it needs to be desalinized- which uses more electricity and produces large amounts of carbon dioxide and hot sludge that is returned directly to the sea. There is only about four days of back up water in the reserve systems despite the large quantities of sea water that are desalinized daily. With the addition of so many new buildings there seems to be little planning on how they will get water and electricity to them. There has been a new groundwater system put in recycles water from various places. Another growing problem is the production of steel and aluminum which also require electricity and water that are not readily available. But there are not many alternatives; wind and solar power are not readily used so industries are starting to utilize nuclear energy. But this is not a renewable resource and also leads to the issue of the disposing of the nuclear waste and nuclear energy not being renewable sources of energy.

Dubai poses an interesting situation. They have built a city that is unable to sustain itself. There is a demand for energy that is not available and the alternatives are not looking good as well. Again we have the basic issue of human wants and ambitions versus what nature can provide and what we can manufacture without messing the environment up. The raw sewage is being poured into drains and is polluting the land. The salinity of the water in the Gulf of Omen is rising which is threatening the wildlife and marine plants as well. All of these changes are due to human activity. But the people of Dubai want a better lifestyle, but at what cost is to the environment. Is making astronomical amounts of chemical waste worth it? There will be no place to put it, the shelters we build for the waste break down- like in Hungary. People could be exposed to toxic chemicals and there could be a rise in terminal diseases as well. But what can be done? Yes new standards can be put in place to decrease future destruction, but what happens to all the older building that do not have the capacity to follow new standards because being green and environmentally friendly was not a priority. It seems that the city of Dubai is at an environmental crossroads.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/business/energy-environment/28dubai.html?_r=2&ref=global-home&pagewanted=all