apes

Each fall semester, a professor of environmental studies at Whitman College in Washington takes his class on a 8,000 mile journey across a dozen western states! The students visit people with an interest in environmental policy in the west and conduct a class at each location. The program is called “Semester In The West,” and they basically study public land use. The professor wants the students to understand why the lands are here, what the history of the land is, and what’s happening on the lands today.

The class has a converted horse trailor with solar panels and a satellite dish on the roof to use computers in. Classrooms are a circle of camp chairs, sleeping bags, and tents in the middle of wilderness. This lasts the entire semester, regardless of the weather!

The students are called “westies” and they examine water issues, mining, logging, and development. The point of having the class is to be face to face with people on all sides of complex issues. For example, the class just met with John Marvel, who explained cattlegrazing. He wants to remove all cows and ranchers from public lands and restore the landscape to what it was before white settlement. The class gets pointed to land and streams severely damaged by cows.

Everything they study is seen firsthand, which is why this class is so cool. It’s important to get out of our sheltered world and see things clearly. If anybody’s thinking about studying environmental science for a career… you should go to Whitman college!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6443120

                        
Recently, our class has learned that forest fires help the process of ecological succession. So I was extremely excited when I found out that NPR had just done a broadcast on fires! Sarah McCammon reported on “Park Service Maps Great Plains Fire History” on November 2.

She emphasized that fire plays a critical role in a healthy landscape. Other than leading to ecological succession, fires:

• provide the heat needed to germinate seeds
• manage invasive plants

There is currently a Great Plains Fire History Project that is estimated to be finished in three years and costs a quarter of a million dollars. Garry Wilson says that the middle plains of the country tend to be overlooked in the study of fires. By looking at tree rings, Wilson is able to estimate when and how often fires once burned across the plains. Also going along with what we have studied, fires in Southeast Nebraska burn off exotic plants and make way for native grasses.

Richard Gaiett (sp??) states it perfectly:

“Understanding the natural role of wildfires will become increasingly important in the future as more fires result from global warming, drought, and more people living on the land.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6421573&ft=1&f=1007

photo courtesy of Wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Deerfire.jpg

In New Orleans, alligators are being dragged out of backyard swimming pools. On top of that, foxes are being removed from the airport, coyotes are attacking rabbits in the middle of busy streets, and armadillos are living under air conditioning units.

Opossums are living under homes and in gardens, raccoons are eating everything in sight, and snakes are hanging out in backyards. You can find deadly brown widow spiders everywhere, along with swarms of flies, roaches, and mosquitoes. The worst part is that New Orleans has turned into a rat’s paradise. What the heck is going on?

While Hurricane Katrina pushed people out of New Orleans, it pushed wild animals in. Some were blown in by the winds or redistributed by the floodwaters. Others came to investigate the piles of rotting garbage and the available shelter from all the abandoned homes. Rick Atkinson, curator of swamp exhibit at Audubon Zoo, said that “The three things wild animals need is food, water, and cover.We’ve always had food and water, but now, there are no people, so the animals have all the cover they want.”

But as people have started to move back in, complaints have gotten out of control. The city of New Orleans has set up a hot line to take complaints about rodents and other pests. Greg duTreil, who is licensed by the state to remove nisance wildlife, said “In 20 years of trapping animals here, I’ve never seen anything like it. I’m getting calls night and day.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15251721/

On Wednesday, while we were exploring the dunes, officials in Thailand captured a truck full of 200 siamese crocodiles, that were apparently being smuggled into the country from Cambodia. Before arresting the driver, authorities found a box full of crocodile skins and a three-tiered shelving system filled with live crocodiles in the truck. Some of these crocodiles were more than a yard long with rope wrapped around their jaws. This truck full of 200 crocodiles was estimated to be worth $16,000!

Siamese crocodiles are extremely close to extinction in the world, and are a protected species in Thailand. The World Conservation Union, or IUCN, classifies the Siamese crocodiles as critically endangered. This is why trade of Siamese crocodiles is prohibited, and government permits are needed for research and export of the species.

As we’ve learned in class, every organism has a role in the ecosystem of which it lives. The extinction of one species could lead to a disruption of the food web, and the whole ecosystem. So don’t go stealing 200 crocodiles anytime soon!

^Siamese Crocodiles in the Wild. Photo courtesy of http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/herpetology/act-plan/csiam.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15219938/

Honda Motors Co. has just recently stated that they have developed a diesel engine just as clean as a gas-powered engine. This invention is so significant for a couple of reasons.

• Honda is the world’s largest engine maker, which means that this developmetn could lead to a breakthrough in wider acceptance of diesel engines.
• Big car makers aren’t only competing for better fuel economy, but also for selling environmental-friendly vehicles. Today, Toyota is the leading company in production of environmental-friendly cars, with their Hybrid. Honda’s new “super-clean” engine is creating a higher competitive edge for these types of cars.
• In 2009, new air quality standards will go into effect in California. The challenge of meeting these standards is tough and more demanding than the new Federal rules. Nine other states are adopting California’s new standards. These states make up 20% of the car market. This new “super-clean” diesel engine would make Honda the first diesel ever to comply with these new standards.
• Diesel Engines are attractive because they produce 30% less Carbon Dioxide than a gas-fueled engine. Along with that, they typically get 30% better milage. This is fuel efficiency comparable to the hybrids that are being sold today. The problem with diesel engines is that they send out harmful clouds of soot and nitrogen oxide, but Honda assures that they don’t compromise their fuel economy for cleaning up the harmful substances.

Other car makers such as Volkswagen and Chrysler are the top sellers of diesel engines, but they haven’t tried yet to make diesel’s cleaner like Honda has. All this attention on cleaner engines provides hope for cleaning up our act. Hopefully more dealerships will learn from this and this issue of air quality will be helped.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6139131

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-fi-honda25sep25,0,5438661.story?coll=la-home-headlines

http://www.dieselforum.org/where-is-diesel/cars-trucks-suvs/honda-unveils-clean-diesel-engine/

Up until the 1970’s phosphorus was used in laundry detergent to brighten clothes. However, the U.S. government recognized the problem of phosphorus pollution-  it can cause massive algal blooms in waterways that mess with ecosystems by robbing the water and aquatic life of all-important oxygen. States began to limit and restrict the use of phosphorus in detergent, and by the 1990’s, laundry detergent companies decided to phase them out in all domestic formulations.

But why are phosphates still used in dish detergent? They have many benefits- they essentially soften the effects of “hard” water, combining with the minerals in it, mostly calcium and magnesium, eliminating the spots and film on dishes that can form when the minerals and food bits combine during the wash. Phosphates also make the water’s pH more alkaline, which can help in food-bit removal. Today, phosphates remain in dish detergent because the alternatives (enzymes) were neither common nor cheap in the 90’s. Detergent makers also heavily lobbied to keep them in.

However, there are plenty of eco-friendly, phosphate-free alternatives that wash dishes just as well. Big-name detergents also have lots of other suspect ingredients that are derived from petroleum and aren’t so environmentally friendly. So the best thing to do is buy an eco-brand that will be phosphate and chlorine free.

chart courtesy of http://www.assabetriver.org/nutrient/detergents.html

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2006/09/20/phosphates/index.html

Glass is 100% recyclable. It can go from recycling bin to store shelf in as little as 30 days! Even though the energy costs of recycling glass are greater than making glass from raw materials, there are still reasons to recycle it.

Environmental Reasons:

• Recycling Saves Raw Material. For every ton of glass recycled, over a ton of raw materials are saved- including 1,300 pounds of sand, 410 pounds of soda ash, 380 pounds of limestone, and 160 pounds of feldspar.
• Recycling Reduces Landfill Dependence. Recycling glass helps to preserve our natural resources while lessening the load on landfills, and helping communities avoid expensive disposal costs.
• Recycling Glass Reduces Environmental Impacts. Recycling glass helps lessen greenhouse gas emissions. For every six tons of glass recycled, one ton of carbon dioxide is reduced.

Economic Reasons:

• Recycling Creates New Jobs. The California Waste Management Board estimated that meeting the states 50% recycling goal will add $2 billion to California’s economy and create over 45,000 new jobs over the next seven years.
• Buying Recycled Products Contributes to the Demand For More. As the size of the market grows, recycled products will cost less. The increasing demand will save even more resources!

The debate over whether to use paper or plastic bags is another recycling dilema. The answer to the “paper or plastic”? dilemma is neither! They’re roughly equal in pros and cons, and they both use up natural resources and cause significant pollution.

Here are some facts:

• plastic grocery bags consume 40% less energy to produce and generate 80% less solid waste than paper bags
• plastic bags can take 1,000 years to decompose whereas paper bags take about a month to decompose

(charts courtesy of http://www.ilea.org/lcas/franklin1990.html)

• For paper bags, the life cycle stages consist of timber harvesting, pulping, paper and bag making, product use and waste disposal.
• For plastic bags, the steps involve petroleum or natural gas extraction, ethylene manufacture, ethylene polymerization, bag processing, product use and waste disposal.
• Paper bags are made from trees, which are renewable resources. Plastic bags are madefrom polyethylene, nonrenewable resources.
• Plastic bags weigh significantly less than paper bags do, which is something to consider because of landfill space.
• Paper is accepted in most recycling programs while the recycling rate for plastic bags is very low. Research from 2000 shows 20 percent of paper bags were recycled, while one percent of plastic bags were recycled.

Instead of going back and forth between paper and plastic, there is a solution. Use neither! Purchasing a reusable bag or reusing previous bags can make a huge difference. A study shows that in New York City alone, one less grocery bag per person per year would reduce waste by five million pounds and save $250,000 in disposal costs. Some stores even offer a discount for bringing your own bags! The debate over paper vs. plastic is never going to get anywhere, so be smart and use your own cloth bags!

http://www.gpi.org/recycling/environment/

http://www.urbanedpartnership.org/target/units/recycle/reasons.html

http://www.epa.gov/region1/communities/shopbags.html

Going along with our class discussion on alien species, I read an article on Palm Trees and how they are dying by the dozens in Los Angeles. Most palm trees in California aren’t native species- they were brought from places like Mexico by developers in the early 1900’s hoping to lure people to California.

Today, these palm trees are dying of old age and disease, and many experts think L.A. will be a lot better off without so many. Carmen Wolf, who is the program director of a native California plant nursery, says that “They have no ecological or environmental value whatsoever.” In fact, palm trees are not even trees, they are a grass, and do very little to trap air pollution.

These palm trees, which were once luxurious, are withered and infected with a fungus that actually chokes the tree. There is no cure for this fungus, and Steve Dunlap doesn’t recommend that these trees be replaced because the fungus stays in the soil even after the trees are gone.

Paula Daniels is heading a city-wide environmental plan to plant one million new trees, and palm trees are not included in this plan. On top of them having no environmental benefit, the cost of these trees has gone up way too high. Basically, palm trees are eye candy- they are shown around the Hollywood sign and in Beverly Hills, which is ok because they make L.A. what it is, but they do little for the environment.

Even though palm trees are dying off fast, NPR claimed that the day will never come when there won’t be any, because residents of L.A. are constantly filling trucks with palm trees and planting them in their backyard. Virginia Postrel, a longtime observer of Los Angeles society and author of “The Substance of Style”, says that palm trees are essential to Los Angeles’s sense of place. “For somebody that has lived here for many years, I have a positive response when I see the tall palm trees that represent L.A.”

“What the palm tree really represents is an oasis,” she adds. “Los Angeles is a manmade oasis; a place in the middle of the desert with water and people – lots of people – in it. So the palm tree is the perfect tree for Los Angeles.”
                   
(pictures courtesy of Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_trees)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6102228&ft=1&f=1025

http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=4239&IssueNum=168

With a new CEO for Levi’s taking office soon, the jean company will introduce “eco” jeans- it’s first organic cotton line! These jeans will be made with organic cotton, naturally dyed, and U.S.-made. (And come with a $250 price tag…) But don’t worry, a $65 to $80 version will hit department stores in early 2007, and a $40 to $60 line will come out next fall. According to a Levi’s spokesperson, these jeans will be made with impure cotton and will be manufactured “all over the world.” The USDA has not set an organic standard for cotton or clothing, but the trend is growing fast - according to nonprofit advocacy group Organic Exchange, clothing-maker demand for organic cotton is increasing at an annual rate of 93 percent.

But why should we dress in organic cotton?? It’s not like there are pesticides in our jeans.(are there??) For eco-conscious customers, it could just be a matter of supporting farmers who grow pesticide-free crops. It will be interesting to see how these jeans do in stores. The $250 price tag is printed on recycled paper and uses soy ink. Haha. I love it.

http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2006/09/12/?source=rss#5

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_38/c4001004.htm#ZZZDYKF0TRE

For my economics class, we had to find an article that has something to do with economics and write about it. As I was flipping through the business section of the Sunday Chicago Tribune, (9.10.06) I found an article that applies both to economics and environmental science, called “Tap Water Might Fit Your Bill Better than Bottled,” by Gregory Karp.

Basically, Karp argues that paying hundreds of times more for something you have already paid for is probably the silliest of all spending habits. Tap water is so cheap and convenient it’s dispensed from many faucets in your home and available free at public drinking fountains.

But the problem with this is that bottled water is healtier, right? Not always!

Karp explains the “dirty secret” about clean water- regulation of bottled water is weaker than regulation of tap water. And a quarter or more of all bottled-water brands obtain their water from the same place you do- municipal water systems. (Including brands such as Coca-Cola’s Desani and Pepsi’s Aquafina.)

Last year alone, Americans spent around $10 billion on bottled water, even though the EPA claims in a 2003 report that “Americans have one of the cleanest drinking-water supplies in the world,” and that Americans may be taking unnecessary precautions.

Here are some reasons why buying bottled water might be a bad idea:

Cost: Individual water bottles with name brands can easily cost more than $10 a gallon, while tap water typically costs about a half-cent per gallon. For what Americans spend on bottled water in a year, they could buy a refrigerator with a filtered water dispenser.

Taste: Study after study shows no evidence that bottled water is safer or tastes better. A group called Corporate Accountability International has a nationwide “Think outside the bottle” campaign, which includes blind taste tests of bottled and tap water. Over 1,000 people have taken the test in more than a dozen cities, and no one can tell the difference.

Tooth Decay: Tap water contains flouride, while many brands of bottled water don’t. That could lead to tooth decay and higher dentist bills for families.

Environment: Manufacturing all those plastic water bottles uses a lot of crude oil and energy. There’s also environmental harm from disposing of 150 billion litres of bottled water per year. Way too many fossil fuels are burned in the trucks that transport bottled water, while tap water is delivered in water papes already paid for with tax money.

Hassle: Buying bottled water requires you to travel to a store, stand in line to pay for it, and lug it home- while tap water is dispensed from several faucets in your home and available free at public drinking fountains.

But is it better to be safe than sorry? Each American on average drank about 26 gallons of bottled water last year. Personally, I was brought up drinking tap water, so it doesn’t bother me. However, I know many people who will only drink bottled. Any opinions?

• http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottled_water