New Phylogenetic Tree Project

I've started constructing a phylogenetic tree of as many species as possible on the tree of life. Check it out on my website here. It's nowhere near done (how could it be?), but I think it's pretty interesting and if anyone has any suggestions or ideas on how to improve it, please let me know.

Coal Tanker may break up on the Great Barrier Reef

Over the weekend, it was reported that a Chinese ship transporting from Australia ran aground on the Great Barrier Reef nine miles outside shipping lanes, in an area where shipping is prohibited by environmental law. Oil patches have been spotted, and there is fear that the ship may break into pieces: releasing 72,000 tons of coal into the water.

Read the full article here

This is a potential nightmare for Australia, environmentalists, and the world. If the oil and coal from that ship are released into the water, right on top of the reef: there will be mass destruction of that ecosystem. I can hardly imagine the devastation that would be visited upon the reef and surrounding waters. It would be an absolute catastrophe.

But the question is this: what is a massive Chinese vessel doing nine miles outside the shipping lanes, in a marine sanctuary, transporting coal?? This is unbelievable and unacceptable. Obviously, there needs to be much better oversight in the waters surrounding Australia, especially around reefs, to ensure that ships do not stray outside their lanes. And there also needs to be much better handling of their ships by the Chinese. In this day and age, it's pretty difficult for a tanker to get lost and not realize where they are. So either the captain was extremely incompetent (or asleep), the navigational equipment failed (and the crew didn't realize that shallow water looks different than deep water), or the ship was cutting corners. The only explanation that is remotely excusable is the scenario of broken equipment: in that case, it's probably a good thing that the reef stopped the ship before it sailed off to God-knows-where. But such an explanation is unlikely.

There has already been a lot of public outcry against this, and that is good. Attention needs to be drawn to this event to ensure that it does not happen again.

New Endangered Species report on my website (too long to post on blogger)

Unfortunately, my newest post is too long to post here, but you can check it out at my website: http://sites.google.com/site/differentthoughtsandideas/home/tradeinendangeredspecies

Enjoy!

Obama Announces Loan Guarantees for Nuclear Power Plants

Yesterday President Obama announced Federal Loan Guarantees for the construction of Nuclear power plants in the United States. This is both an important environmental and political declaration, but one that also merits some thought.

First the political side because I don't want to delve too deeply into it right now. It is interesting that Obama has committed to moving forward with nuclear energy because that is one issue on which there may very well be more support from Republicans and Conservatives than his own party. The Right has been pro-nuclear power for a very long time, while the Left has continuously stated that they are simply too dangerous and expensive to warrant use (as opposed to wind, solar and other alternative energy sources). It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

But now to the environmental side of the issue of nuclear power. Nuclear power is unquestionably immensely productive, and exceedingly clean. Once the plant is built, it releases little if any pollutants (including greenhouse gases). I say little rather than zero only because of the possible presence of backup generators or other small auxiliary systems running on combustion engines. In any case, the amount of pollutants released by a nuclear power plant are orders of magnitude lower than coal- or oil-burning power plants.

The only major source of waste from a nuclear power plant, of course, is the spent radioactive fuel and associated components. But if you really think about it, which is more of a problem: thousands of tons of Carbon dioxide, methane, and other pollutants, or a barrel of radioactive waste? The waste is extremely dangerous, yes. But it is also harmless if contained in its barrel in a secure storage location. That barrel is the equivalent of all the carbon sequestration technologies that are currently being researched and imagined. There are concerns about safety where nuclear waste is concerned, and there should be. But that concern cannot be allowed to morph from caution and awareness into fear and panic. 

But now we come to a question that is rarely, if ever, addressed by politicians and the media. What sort of environmental impact does the mining of uranium, enrichment process, and construction of the reactor have? Is the entire process actually any more environmentally friendly than a coal power plant? The answer there is that usually, yes it is. The process of mining, transportation, construction, etc does produce greenhouse gases among other pollutants, but bear in mind that so does the mining and transportation of coal and oil. In the end, nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than coal and oil, though by not so wide a margin as you may think.

So is it worth it? Or should we hold off on building these reactors in favor of wind, solar, or geothermal energy production? That question is highly debated, but in the end, nuclear power is exponentially more powerful than any truly 'alternative' fuel source, and usually takes up a lot less space. Imagine how large a wind farm would have to be built to offset a nuclear power plant. I can't give you an exact size, but it would be ridiculously massive. And all those turbines produce pollutants in their construction and transportation. Are these other energy sources important? Absolutely. And they need to be part of the equation where realistic. But nuclear power does too.

This announcement by our President is a momentous one, and hopefully it is one policy that will quickly become a reality.

Read more here

New Twitter

Just got twitter...look for "ideasthoughts" it's a great way to follow what's going on here. I will be posting everything here on twitter as well.

Ozone Thoughts

 General Information

1. The ozone hole in 2005 was the second biggest recorded: almost as big as 2000
1. The tip of South America experienced 20% lower levels in August-September, 50% lower than normal in October
2. Scientists are finding link between Ozone depletion and climate change
1. Evidence indicates that the two might ‘feed’ off each other and make both problems worse
2. Colder arctic winters => “formation of polar stratospheric clouds” intensify ozone depletion

                                                     i.     Possible Arctic ozone hole in 20 years

3. The ozone layer screens out 99% of harmful UV radiation from the sun
4. Humans have released large amounts of Bromine, chlorine, and other chemicals that deplete the ozone layer
5. Methyl bromide is especially destructive to the ozone layer
1. Bromine = 60 times more effective than chlorine
2. Short atmospheric lifespan, but devastating during that time
6. Solar cycles are only making the problem worse
1. “Solar minimum” in 2007/8 => delay recovery, and trigger increased loss
2. Scientist Martin Dameris

                                                     i.     Says sun cycles have been overlooked by the international community

                                                      ii.     “A recovery is only pretended”

7. “Reducing methyl bromide emissions is the only available strategy to mitigate short-term ozone layer depletion”
8. What is methyl bromide?
1. Agricultural pesticide
2. Pre-shipment and quarantine pesticide
3. Regulated by Montreal Protocol

                                                     i.     Shipping applications exempt

1.     Few regulations

2.     Required for shipment of “wood packaging materials”

a.     New measures greatly increase use

                                                      ii.     Developed countries = phased out by 2005

                                                        iii.     Developing countries = phased out by 2015

                                                       iv.     Existing stocks must be used before more is produced

1.     However, no real information on stockpiles

a.     2005 U.S. imported more methyl bromide than it used

                                                      v.     High levels of production continue

1.     illicit stockpiling

2.     Oversupply

3.     “Dumping” in developed countries

4.     Unreported trade => illegal trade

9. “Critical Use” loophole being exploited by many countries
1. U.S. = biggest user in the world

                                                     i.     Agricultural use = 70% of developed country total

1.     California strawberry, Florida Tomato = 52% of U.S. agricultural use

a.     Claim they are dependent on steady supply

b.     Effective alternatives used in other countries and U.S.

2. Quarantine use = 28% of global application

                                                     i.     Originally, thought small, but is being used more and more

                                                      ii.     Threatens to dwarf other applications

                                                        iii.     Over 50% of all U.S. imports/exports require treatment

10. Harmful effects of ozone depletion on humans
1. Skin cancer caused by UV radiation exposure

                                                     i.     Montreal Protocol controls

1.     Prevent 19 million non-melanoma cases by 2050

2.     Prevent 1.5 million melanoma cases by 2050

                                                      ii.     Currently, 66,000 deaths from skin cancer every year

1.     130,000 new melanoma cases

2.     2-3 million non-melanoma cases

3.     U.S. skin cancer kills someone every hour

a.     1 in 5 will develop skin cancer in their lifetime

                                                        iii.     Dramatic increase of 2 kinds of non-melanoma skin cancer in people under 40

1.     Pursuit of tans

2.     Depletion of ozone layer

3.     Children at increased risk

a.     Physiologically most vulnerable

b.     Spend large amounts of time outside

c.     Skin cancer rates in children increasing

                                                                                                           i.     U.S. Doubled 1982-2002

2. UV radiation more harmful to eyes than previously thought

                                                     i.     One of only effective preventative measures for cataracts is decrease exposure to UV radiation

                                                      ii.     Estimated 167,000-830,000 additional cases of cataracts with depletion of 5-20%

3. UV radiation is also harmful to plants and animals

                                                     i.     UV-B harm chemical and biological processes

1.     Zooplankton and phytoplankton have no defense

a.     Effect early developmental stages, reproduction

2.     Some plants are very sensitive

a.     Reduced height, foliage

11. Environment Canada estimated $224 billion in reduced damage to fisheries, agriculture, materials if Montreal Protocol fully implemented
12. Reluctance of developed nations to phase out methyl bromide is affecting viability of alternatives in developing countries
13. The Environmental Investigation Agency urges Montreal Protocol members to:
1. Not approve further Critical-use exemptions
2. Require transparency of stockpiles
3. Require greater documentation of transport, production
4. Reduce use of methyl bromide in shipping and quarantine purposes

Illegal Trade in Endangered Species: The Consumers

Major Consumers:

1. The United States (largest consumer due to being largest trader on planet)
1. Tiger products
2. Rhino horns
3. Whales (subsistence use only: reviewed regularly to ensure sustainability)
4. Birds
5. Butterflies
6. Snakes
7. Various collected species
2. China (second largest consumer: bigger than US in some areas)
1. Tiger products
2. Rhino
3. Whales (minor, unofficial imports from Japan)
3. Japan (major consumer, often dissident in CITES)
1. Tiger Products
2. Rhino horns
3. Ivory
4. Whales
5. Butterflies
6. Sea Turtles
7. Bluefin Tuna

Uses of species:

1. Tiger Products: Used in traditional Asian medicine
2. Rhino horns: Used in traditional Asian medicine, Middle-Eastern status symbol
3. Ivory: Decorative uses, Japanese status symbol
4. Whales: Traditional Japanese delicacy, historical food of some Native American tribes
5. Butterflies: Collections
6. Sea Turtles: Various crafted items, meat
7. Bluefin tuna: Not yet listed as endangered, but breeding grounds are being highly exploited for food: primarily by Japan
8. Birds, snakes, turtles, other rare species: Exotic pets, crafted items

Official Stance of Consumer states:

1. The United States:
1. Conservation: very active in using economic might to encourage negotiations head in the direction the US and US public want
2. Not afraid to act unilaterally if the need arises (through direct trade sanctions, etc). Ex. China and Tiger/Rhino products
3. Has domestic regulation and bans on many products
4. Whaling is authorized only to select Native American tribes which must demonstrate humane and sustainable use of the given population
5. Some individual citizens import protected species for collections, pets
2. China:
1. ‘Encouraged’ by US to enact many regulations
2. Often places human development over wildlife/ecological concerns

                                                     i.     Ex. Three Gorges Dam

3. Death penalty for killing a Panda
4. Traditional medicine has been hard to suppress
2. Japan:
1. Sustainable Use: Exploit all resources in a sustainable manner.

                                                     i.     Independent studies show that the Japanese are not necessarily sustainable in their use of all resources (Whales in particular)

2. Not afraid to take Reservations and exploit loopholes

                                                     i.     Sea Turtles

                                                      ii.     Whaling

1.     “Scientific killings” (but whaling is carried out as part of the fishing industry)

2.     Hunt in Southern Whale Sanctuary (strictly off limits to commercial whaling)

                                                        iii.     Government-licensed Ivory Craftsmen

3. Actively lobbies for trade of many regulated products
4. One in ten adult men is a serious butterfly collector
5. The Japanese are loath to give up any sovereign rights, or give up traditions

CITES

• CITES has brought attention to the issues and encouraged regulations and treaties

• Limited Enforcement capabilities

• Allows Reservations (this severely cripples ability to truly eradicate the problem)

• Need more action from individual states acting unilaterally to prevent trade (i.e. the US)

• Must have access to more powerful modes of enforcement and punishment

            • i.e. Sanctions of valuable resources

IWC

• Eliminated whaling in all but a few nations

• Many populations are showing signs of growth and improvement

• Shares many of the same problems as CITES, but has been more successful in

  executing its agenda

Forces that Encourage Sustainable Development

Some forces that encourage genuine sustainable development by corporations are consumer demand, government regulation, and higher profit margins (due to lowered production costs). Consumers are increasingly aware of environmental issues, and are often more likely to buy a product from a company pursuing more environmentally friendly practices than another. For this reason it is sometimes in a company's best interest to adopt some of the practices in order to remain competitive in the industry. Government regulations force corporations to adopt more sustainable strategies, and are often accompanied by deals and benefits for companies that show greater willingness or ability to comply with or exceed expectations. Lastly, corporations will seek to find the cheapest way to get the highest price for their product. In some cases, the sustainable or environmentally friendly strategy is also the cheaper one. This is the ideal situation for a company: they can lower overhead (and increase profits), while advertising "green policy" to the public, and hopefully get some tax breaks from the government at the same time! These actions are not always easy to recognize, as it is often difficult to distinguish between truly sustainable policy and "greenwashing" by the company. But, some good clues to look for is if the company is advertising a practice that makes logical sense (such as eliminating paper) as both a cost reduction strategy and a more environmentally friendly one. Another way to recognize this is to look at independent evaluations of corporate policy, though you should be careful to be aware of possible media and political bias. In the end, this is not always that is something that is very easy to see, and may take some looking to get a straight and honest answer.

Effects of Persistent Organic Pollutants on Top Predators

Top predators are often most affected by persistent organic pollutants due to bioaccumulation. This occurs because each step of the food chain acquires a little more of the pollutant (a shrimp eats polluted algae, a small fish eats many shrimp, a big fish eats many small fish, and a polar bear eats many big fish) and the top predator ends up with the highest concentrations of all. Often these effects take the form of problems in reproductive development and susceptibility to disease due to inhibition or incorrect development or various immune and organ systems. As humans we are already beginning to see signals of health problems from endocrine disruptors (further discussed in another post) in the form of decreasing sperm counts, increased levels of defective sperm, smaller penises, undescended testicles, underdeveloped or inter-sex genitals, higher incidence of hermaphrodites, increased levels of some cervical and vaginal cancers, and higher incidence of some birth defects. From studies on the environment, other species, and ourselves, we know that endocrine disruptors are all around us, and that they are very harmful to just about any species they come into contact with. These chemicals fundamentally threaten the survival of affected species due to their reproduction-associated effects.

Non-Compliance in CITES

Non-compliance is a huge issue in CITES (the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species) because CITES has very weak enforcement capabilities, and because many of the member states do not themselves possess the capability to comply. Reservations (discussed in another post) are another source of legitimized non-compliance. One way to encourage better compliance without using sanctions better compliance without using sanctions or penalties would be to increase aid for the purpose of conservation. Often times, money (or capacity) is what these countries are lacking, not willpower. Given the resources to better protect the threatened species in question, they will usually do so. Another aspect of this is to use funds and programs to create industry and jobs in the areas where poaching is the best or only source of income. Give people a different and comparable source of income, and poaching levels as well as customs corruption (another major problem) will be drastically lowered.

Examples of how scientific evidence achieved or failed to achieve political change

One issue on which new scientific evidence drastically changed nations' positions was the problem of acidification and eutrophication in Europe. When the issue first came to light in Sweden and a couple other countries, it was largely ignored by other nations. However, after LRTAP was established, nations were able to see what effects were occurring in their nation, and where the pollutants were coming from. Germany in particular became one of the leaders of the treaty following discovery of German forest death. Scientific evidence change nations' positions because they could see drastic effects and harmful (immediate) pollution levels right at home. It was unignorable.

One area in which new evidence has often failed to change nations' positions is that of Climate Change. Despite growing evidence (much of which is very controversial), many nations (the US in particular) are reluctant to lower emission or place restrictions on development. In this case, the reasons are usually scientific uncertainty (lack of enough clear evidence), fears of being outcompeted by another nation in production, and the fact that the consequences of not acting will not occur for many years, if they do in fact occur. In this case, the issue is not so clear cut for many: putting restrictions on a company's emissions (and thus raising costs) is difficult when China is not held to the same standards, and when there is no immediate and visible effect of inaction.

Endocrine Disruptors

Endocrine Disruptors are chemicals that mimic natural hormones in animal species: often causing great harm to the individual or their offspring. These chemicals often mimic naturally occurring hormones such as testosterone and estrogen. Often, effects are not seen until the second generation: meaning that the animal that is exposed to the chemical may show no signs of sickness, but pass on developmental problems to its offspring. An example of endocrine disruptors (of which there are thousands) at work can be illustrated by the plight of many great lake species. Due to polluted water, many fish exhibit inter-sex characteristics as a result of chemicals mimicing estrogen. This leads to the feminization of male offspring during development; such that the may be unable to reproduce for physical or behavioral reasons. This is important because effects are being in humans as well. We need to seek to eliminate sources of endocrine disruptors as quickly as possible, and use international treaties to ensure that they are not released in the future to the environment.

Scientific Whaling: a brief overview

Scientific whaling is the harvesting, or killing, or whales for scientific research, and is permitted under the IWC (International Whaling Commission). An example is Japan's whaling industry: the whole thing is run under the concept of scientific killing of whales. The importance of this is that the Japanese then sell the whale meat for profit, while the international scientific community agrees that lethal research of whales is completely unnecessary and sometimes counterproductive. In terms of broader environmental politics, scientific whaling is an example of how a clause in a treaty can be exploited by parties under the pretext of improving knowledge about the subject.

"RoundUp-Ready" Soybeans and other products?

"RoundUp-Ready" soybeans and other plants are plants that have been genetically engineered to posses resistance to RoundUp: a very powerful herbicide. This is important because it is an example of how Genetically Engineered Organisms (GMOs) can be used to lower production costs, and increase efficiency in farming. RoundUp is used to kill weeds, but kills crops as well. For this reason, farmers have historically had to be very careful with its use and the timing and concentration of sprayings. Now, however, the special soybeans and other plants can be doused in the herbicide, and be absolutely fine while weeds and other plants die. This makes the whole production process much simpler and cheaper overall for the farmer.  This lowered cost is often then passed on the the consumer. Of further importance, this concept can be expanded to other crops: as evidenced by the many herbicide-, pesticide-, and drought-resistant species now in use, among other beneficial modifications. Of course, there are also risks associated with GMOs, as addressed in another post.

Reservations in International Agreements

What is a Reservation in international environmental treaties?

A reservation in environmental law is basically when a nation agrees to a treaty or convention, but disagrees with one or more part of it. In the interest of encouraging participation, the treaty allows this nation to file a reservation against that specific item. This means that the nation does not have to abide by that item, but remains a member of the treaty. An example of this is Japan's reservation against Dolphins under CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species). Japan is still a member of CITES, but does not have to abide by the regulations protecting Dolphins from hunting and trade. This is important to environmental law because reservations severely weaken the enforcement and sometimes success of treaties, but encourage nations to be part of the treaty and discussion even if they disagree with part of it.

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

What is the Clean Development Mechanism  (CDM)?

The Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM for short, is a system set up under the Kyoto Protocol whereby developed nations may build clean energy facilities in developing nations and claim the emissions offset as their own to fulfill reduction goals or commitments. An example of this is the U.S. and other industrialized nations pursuing projects in China to build clean energy sources such as wind turbines and multi-use coal power plants (these plants are used for heat and energy, and are more energy efficient than conventional facilities) using the best available technology. This cuts down on global emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases, as some sort of power plant would have been built anyway out of necessity, and building in the developing nation is usually cheaper than doing so in the developed nation's territory. Because the developed nation took the initiative and paid for the investment, they get to claim the reduction. This is important because it encourages developed nations to build these plants, but also to do so in nations that need the energy the most, and need to begin sustainable development. It also allows this new and innovative technology to be transferred to these developing nations while still profiting private corporations.

Types of Energy Sources

Passive/Active Heating Systems

A passive heating system simply traps energy released by the sun. A common example of a passive heating system is a greenhouse. A passive heating system is usually very cheap, and requires little to no effort. A passive system uses what energy is available, and when it is available.

An active heating system is much like a passive heating system, except an active system uses various strategies to concentrate the energy, store it, or distribute it to other areas. For example, collected heat can be stored in a liquid and piped to different areas of a house. An active system includes a solar collector, a storage system, and a heat transfer system. Active systems generate much more heat than passive systems.

Solar Thermal Electrical Generation

Solar thermal electrical plants work by concentrating solar energy (light) to generate heat. This is accomplished by using lenses and mirrors to focus the light. The energy is then stored for use. By storing the energy, the plant is able to produce electricity day and night, regardless of the weather. Electricity is either generated by heating a liquid (often oil) which then drives a generator, or by using a "heat engine" which generates electricity directly from the incoming heat energy.

Photovoltaic (PV) Solar Cells

Photovoltaic cells convert light directly into electricity. Many cells are wired together to provide larger amounts of energy. Photovoltaic cells are often expensive to produce and expensive to buy. Photovoltaic cells usually pay for themselves within five years, if not sooner. Though the initial start-up cost is high, operating and maintenance costs are very low. Photovoltaic cells are not highly efficient at this point, though improvements are constantly being made. Energy production is also limited on cloudy days, and stops at night.

Fuel Cells

Fuel cells convert chemical energy into electricity. A fuel is broken down to produce electricity and a product material. The system is like a battery, except fuel must continuously be added. Catalysts are used to break up the fuel, and force electrons through a circuit to produce electricity. The protons then recombine to form some sort of waste product. Fuel cells today are expensive to build but are highly reliable.

Biomass/BioFuels

Biofuel is any kind of organic mass (plant or animal) that can be burned. Often, this biomass is required to be in a liquid form for efficiency of energy creation. An example of a biofuel is wood, woodgas, or ethanol. Biofuel can be created from any kind of carbon source. Biofuels are usually inefficient when compared to gasoline or petroleum-based fuels. Biomass is used to create biofuels.

Wind Energy

Wind is caused by the uneven heating of the Earth's surface by the sun. Energy from the wind is mainly used to create electricity and as long as the sun shines, the wind will be a renewable resource. The most effective use of wind energy is in wind farms where clusters of wind machines produce energy through turbines powered by kinetic power.

Hydropower

It comes from harnessing or channeling the movement of water. The amount of power comes from the flow and fall of the moving water. Water flows through a penstock or pipe and into the blades of a turbine, which spins and produces energy. Water is sometimes stored or dammed up to build pressure. Hydropower includes: waterwheels, hydroelectric dams, tidal power, and wave power. Hydro-systems produce little to no pollutants, but often disrupt the environment. They are also highly efficient and cost-effective.

Ocean Waves

Devices that use wave power extract energy directly from the ocean's surface or the fluctuations beneath. It is believed that there is two terawatts of ocean wave energy that is waiting to be harnessed. It can't come from just anywhere though. It can only be harnessed in certain areas like the west coast of the United States. Devices can be both off and on shore. Offshore ones use bobbing up and down to channel energy into internal turbines to create energy. Onshore devices include oscillating water columns, tapchans, and pendulum devices. Each uses the breaking of waves.

Tidal Energy

The moving of the tides pushes a turbine, which causes the creation of energy. Once you've built a method of harnessing it, you have an unlimited, free, and green source of energy. Farms can be place in a great many areas and have little to no environmental impact as long as it's not the kind of harnessing machine that blocks estuaries. The tides are very predictable so that allows for planning and dependability.

Geothermal Energy

It occurs in pockets around the world and becomes evident through volcanoes, geysers, fumaroles, and hot springs. There are many around the ring of fire. Geothermal Power Plants exist within areas where geothermal reservoirs are within a few miles of the surface. There are almost no side effects to using this. Steam from the reservoirs is used to turn turbines and produce power.

The Tragedy of the Commons

What did Garrett Hardin mean by the term Tragedy of the Commons?

A commons is an area of land, air, or water not owned by any one person, group, or entity. This area is the responsibility of everyone to take care of, and is available to all. An example of a global commons (as the subject of this question hints) is the ocean. Aside from waters surrounding countries to a certain distance offshore, the oceans of the world are international: no country owns or controls them. This is an example of a commons. If you have a boat, you can get to them (provided your boat can make the trip), and it’s your responsibility not to pollute or otherwise harm them once you get there. 

When Garrett Hardin used the term Tragedy of the Commons, he meant that sooner or later, unless we drastically change the way we as humans operate in this world, the commons will be destroyed by us. He said that “it is rational for us to maximize our own gain from commonly-held land, sea and air.” Therefore, each person on earth will seek to maximize his own profits without regard to the cost on the commons. If every person does this, though the individual cost may be low, the sum of all is enough to destroy the resources forever. 

To use an example not of the sea (as that is the next question), imagine if there were no laws again air pollution. All the safeguards against pollution, such as air scrubbers, filters, alternative energy sources, and other pollution-reducers all cost more than a simple smokestack over a coal or oil furnace. Energy produced from a ‘dirty’ source is, at least in terms of monetary cost to the consumer, cheaper than a ‘clean’ source as a result of lesser overhead and startup costs. Therefore, it makes best economic sense for companies and industries to buy power from this ‘dirty’ source rather than a more expensive ‘clean’ power plant. It also makes better economic sense for other industries and companies to produce their goods using cheaper, and dirtier, techniques. While each company may produce little pollution (in the grand scale of things, though factories and other industries can in fact produce massive amounts), the pollution produced by all the ‘dirty’ industries can be enough to seriously degrade the air quality in the area, as happened in eastern Europe and resulted in the US as Los Angeles smog. The individual cost may be small, but the sum of everyone’s small cost adds up to be astronomical. 

How does over-fishing the world’s oceans fit the model? 

Over-fishing the world’s oceans fits the model of a Tragedy of a Commons because the oceans are a commons, as stated earlier, and the same issue applies here as applies to air pollution. The oceans have a finite amount of fish, though the number is huge. There is a required amount of fish needed to replenish the seas each year, and some are also eaten by predators or killed by natural reasons. Therefore, there is a ‘safe’ number of fish of any given species that we as humans can harvest while still expecting similar numbers the next year. For math’s sake let’s say there are ten fishing crews on the seas fishing Tuna, and each can safely harvest one hundred Tuna per year. If each crew harvests their allotment of one hundred Tuna every year, there will always be one hundred Tuna per crew per year: until the seas dry up. Assuming the price for Tuna stays the same, the crews will make the same amount of money as each other every year. If, however, even one crew exceeds their allotment and catches one extra fish, the balance will be thrown, perhaps irrevocably. That crew will gain an extra profit for the year, but will have set in motion events that over the course of time could reduce the number of Tuna in the seas. If all the crews caught extra fish, the balance would be destroyed, and eventually, were the practice to continue and safeguards not taken, the number of Tuna would be reduced to a level far below the original, or even eliminated altogether. With the Tuna population destroyed, predators would begin to starve, and eat greater numbers of other species until they too were eliminated. This is a Tragedy of a Commons: where seemingly small events set great upheavals in motion that destroy ecosystems, end the usefulness of areas to humans, and ultimately destroy the commons. 

People often cite Easter Island as an example of a tragedy of a common: why? 

Easter Island is an example of a Tragedy of a Commons because all scientific and archaeological evidence leads us to believe that at one time in the distant past the island was a lush jungle, with birds and tall trees. There were also great stone monoliths scattered over the island, while the inhabitants were not technologically skilled enough, and lacked the materials to have built them themselves. This leads scientists to the conclusion that at one time the inhabitants of the island were much ‘better off’ technologically, materially, and socially than they were at the time of contact with Europeans. A Tragedy of the Commons-type situation would seem to be the best explanation for this strange situation: when the ancestors of the post-contact inhabitants first traveled to Easter Island, the land was rich and covered with life. The area was so rich, in fact, that the Polynesians had the resources to devote time and energy to the production of the stone monoliths. The Polynesians failed to live in balance with their land, however, and eventually the overused their resources to the extent that the forests died, the soil deteriorated due to erosion and lack of nutrients, and the people themselves were much degraded by the time contact was made with Europeans. The Polynesians of Easter Island destroyed their ‘commons’: their island. 

How can we prevent/avoid a “Tragedy of the Commons” for our Earth?

Perhaps the most drastic, though also most effective way in which we could eliminate the risk of a “Tragedy of the Commons” would be to limit our population to a level at which our polluting, destruction, and degradation of environments was naturally counterbalanced by the Earth, as Hardin suggested. Essentially this strategy would mean reducing our population to the numbers it was at thousands of years ago. Were we to accomplish this, we would no longer be able to affect the Earth in any significant manner: there simply wouldn’t be enough of us around to produce the same amount of pollution as we do today, and we also wouldn’t be consuming nearly as much as today. This strategy is a very simple one in essence: stop a lot of people from having children for an extended period of time, and in a few generations the amount of people will be down to a sustainable level on Earth. The problem with this strategy is the basis of it as well: you would have to force people not to have children. For this reason, the world will probably never accept this idea as a feasible strategy to become a sustainable species. 

Another possible way to eliminate a ‘Tragedy of the Commons” from occurring would be to limit the resources consumed by individuals, companies, and nations, as well as strictly regulating the ‘cleanness’ of these resources and products. If we were to limit the amount of global pollution created, and regulate the resources (such as wood, fish, land, etc) used to sustainable levels, we could eliminate the threat. This strategy would drastically lower the quality of living for many people in developed countries, but result in a sustainable world. Unfortunately, most people would be unwilling to give up much of what they view as the ‘comforts’ of life, and there would have to be some sort of global federation to limit and regulate the consumption of literally every resource on Earth, as well as the production of many goods. 

A third example of a strategy to eliminate the threat of a “Tragedy of the Commons” occurring on Earth would be to seek to find alternative resources. This means eliminating, or at least drastically reducing, the number of polluting and destructive industries and companies. If we were to shift to completely clean energy sources, and halted production of harmful materials (such as plastic) we could drastically slow the destruction of our global commons, or even eliminate the risk completely. This strategy is very similar to the second in that it requires the world as a whole to figure out what levels are acceptable, and then strictly police them in order to sustain a sustainable lifestyle for the earth. This strategy would be hard to implement, as it would require a restructuring of the world to accommodate new systems and new ways of living. It would also elevate the cost of living, as ‘clean’ energy sources are usually more expensive for the individual than ‘dirty’ or ‘traditional’ sources. 

Throughout history humans have undergone several cultural shifts or revolutions...

The agricultural revolution was the conversion of cultures from hunting and gathering to large scale agriculture and farming. People domesticated animals rather than hunting them, and farmed rather than foraging for food. The slash and burn farming technique was developed, as well as the metal plow, which made farming more efficient. As a result, populations rose as birthrates increased while deathrates fell. Conflicts also began to arise involving land and water rights as those two resources became more and more important. 

When the industrial revolution began in England and the US different, and more efficient, energy sources were developed alongside new advanced technology. People began to look to fossil fuels to supply the massively increased demand for energy, as well as centralized sources. As a result of the industrial revolution, agricultural efficiency increased with new technology. This led to a population increase, with larger numbers of people living in cities than rural areas. 

The informational or technical revolution we are now in the middle of is allowing great amounts of information to be gathered and flow freely around the world. People now know more about the world and our effect on it than ever before. 

How have these cultural shifts (or revolutions) changed how humans interact with the environment?

The agricultural revolution affected the view of humans towards the environment because people became less dependant on it than their ability to manipulate it. Wild animals and plants were no longer as important than they previously had been because people could turn to their domesticated livestock and crops. Slash and burn agriculture also began to have long lasting effects of the environment, as large areas of land were periodically burned and took several years at least to replenish themselves. 

With the industrial revolution came a lack of knowledge of the environment. People valued knowledge of the environment only as it applied to being useful to industry. Rather than actually understanding nature, people endeavored to know only enough to be able to exploit it. The rise of cities drastically altered the face of the earth. Rather than many rural villages with little environmental impact, cities concentrated waste, pollution, and people. Cities also further removed people from nature. 

The information age has enabled scientists and environmentalists to know more than ever before about the earth. Scientists now have a technical understanding of the earth more complete than ever before, while moral and ethical beliefs are shifting back in time towards the low-impact agriculture and industry of early civilization. This age has also enabled the masses to know more about the earth than ever before, and has sparked a wave of environmentalism. 

How have these changes impacted Earth? 

The agricultural revolution, and accompanying cultural shifts caused people to largely disregard the environment where it didn’t immediately concern them. More important than sustainability or local species and plants were the harvest of grains or other crops and the herding of domestic animals. People also began to have a far larger effect on the earth than previously as a result of slash and burn agriculture and husbandry on a large scale. 

With the industrial revolution came exploitation of the environment and natural resources. The earth was viewed as an infinite supply of any needed material, and little to no thought was given to what the long-term effects of actions would be. Great swathes of forests were cleared, and many species were driven to the brink of extinction and beyond as a result of these thoughtless practices. 

The information age has brought a global environmental conscience to our society, as well as many new environmentally friendly practices and methods of conservation. People all over the world now realize the effects of humans on the environment, and have begun to try to undo many of the issues we have created over the life of our species. The forests of the US are now as large as they were over a hundred years ago, and the air and water surrounding out cities has improved drastically as our technology has progressed. People around the world now realize that the health of the world is everyone’s responsibility, and have begun to change their views to a more sustainable culture.

The Owens River Valley Controversy

            The Owens River Valley provides one third of the water for Los Angeles. This is accomplished through two aqueducts (the Los Angeles Aqueducts) that travel from the Owens River valley to Los Angeles. The controversy stems from the way in which the aqueducts were originally built, and the environmental impart of their construction. Originally the water was used to irrigate local farms, until William Mulholland, the superintendant of water for Los Angeles, decided that the Valley could help to solve Los Angeles’ looming water supply problems. He bought large amounts of land in the valley under the pretense of working for the U.S. Reclamation Service for the Owens Valley irrigation project: a project that would have helped the farmers and ranchers of the area. Despite protests, an aqueduct was built on the land, connecting the valley to Los Angeles. As a result, by 1924 “Owens Lake and approximately fifty miles of the Owens River were dry.” Now all that remains of Owens Lake is an alkali salt flat. Over the years, Los Angeles has consistently resisted environmental impact studies of the project, as well as ignoring lawsuits and agreements. Many groups have sued Los Angeles with regards to the aqueducts and their effect on the environment, with little success.

            From an environmental perspective, the Owens River Valley situation has been a disaster. As a result of the aqueducts, Owens Lake is completely gone, leaving only a salt flat; the Owens River is a fraction of the size it was before; springs have dried up; and many habitats have been destroyed. Where once there were marshes and wetlands that housed elk, deer, and many species of birds, now there are salt and dust storms.

            Using the water from the Owens River Valley has allowed Los Angeles to flourish: the valley provides water for half the people in Los Angeles, but has come at a great price. The Owens River Valley was once referred to as the “Switzerland of California,” but is now largely covered in sagebrush and other desert plants. This topic has been a matter of great controversy since the early 1900s, and Los Angeles has begun to take steps to restore the environment of the Owens River Valley, though it will probably never match its original conditions due to continuing water usage.

Sources

Klinger, C.J. “Recent Water History.” The Owens Valley Committee. 5 February 2008. <http://www.ovcweb.org/OwensValley/Waterhistory.html>.

Walker, Courtney. “Water Returns to Owens River, Reclaiming “the Switzerland of California” from the Desert.” California Progress Report. 22 December 2006. Protectyourstudents.org. 5 February 2008. < http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2006/12/water_returns_t.html>.

Bioremediation

            Using bioremediation to clean up oil spills means using bacteria or other microscopic organisms to break down the hydrocarbons that make up the oil. By doing this, the spill is broken down into elements such as water, carbon dioxide, and other material that is not harmful to the environment.

            Bioremediation is the artificial enhancement of biodegradation. The environment naturally breaks down most materials (including oil) over time. Bioremediation introduces organisms and nutrients that help to speed up this process. Most environments possess microbes that are able to break down hydrocarbons such as oil, and disaster areas possess higher numbers of these microbes. Scientists then add even more of these organisms if needed and the nutrients they require for the processes to the affected area. Many of these useful organisms also require oxygen to help carry out the break down process. In many cases the atmosphere is sufficient, but sometimes the water and spill have to be aerated to provide more oxygen for the microbes. Studies have shown that using bioremediation to clean up oil spills can cut the cleanup time by as much as half.

            One advantage to using bioremediation rather than traditional clean up methods is that bioremediation uses natural processes to actually break down the pollutant. This means there is minimal negative environmental impact as a result of bioremediation, and the pollutant is actually destroyed, rather than simply moved somewhere else. Clean up is therefore more effective in the long-term environmental effects than traditional methods. Bioremediation is also usually cheaper and more cost-effective than traditional methods due to its non-intensive approach. It also involves less human labor, and is safer to use.

            One of the disadvantages of bioremediation in relation to oil spills is that there is no guarantee of success. Each oil spill has unique characteristics, and require that the methods be altered to be most efficient. In some cases this can be very difficult. Bioremediation is also usually not as fast as traditional methods, so in many cases a combination of the two processes should be used to be most efficient. Studies have also shown that bioremediation may not be very effective in the open sea, while more effective along the coast.

References

Erguvanli, L. E. Imge. “Bioremediation of Marine Oil Spills.” Microbiology and Bacteriology. 13 April 2008.

<http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Microtextbook/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=178&page=1>

Gordon, Ray. “Bioremediation and its Application to Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Alaska.” Ray’s Environmental Science Website. 1994. 13 April 2008.

<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2094/bioremed.html>.

Lee, Kenneth; McDonagh, Madeleine; Swannell, Richard. “Field Evaluations of Marine Oil Spill Bioremediation.” Microbiological Reviews. June 1996. American Society for Microbiology. 13 April 2008.

<http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/60/2/342.pdf>.

Senn Ali. “Bioremediation of Oil Spills.” Microbiology and Bacteriology. 4 August 1999. 13 April 2008.

<http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Microtextbook/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=160&page=1>.

“Bioremediation.” Wikipedia. 4 April 2008. 13 April 2008.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioremediation>.        

“Soil Reclamation, Oil Spill Cleanup, Oil Slick Dispersants, Hydrocarbon Bioremediation.” Ecochem. Ecochem. 13 April 2008.

<http://www.ecochem.com/t_cbpa2.html>.

GMOs: Genetically Modified Organisms

What is a GMO?
A GMO is a Genetically Modified Organism: a plant or animal whose genes have been altered in some way. This often involves adding genes from other organisms, tweaking existing genes, or repressing genes.

Pros: One major pro of GMOs is that they are often engineered to produce higher yield crops. This occurs either as an effect of increased growth speed (shorter seasons) or increased yield per crop (higher harvest for the same time/area). This increased yield means greater amounts of the product. In the case of food products, this means more available food available for either lower prices or higher populations. Another pro of GMOs is that they are often engineered to possess higher disease resistances: pesticides and herbicides are not necessary, as they are ‘built’ into the organisms (often plants). This means lower overall costs, as all subsequent generations will also possess this resistance, and also means the chemicals will not enter the environment.

Cons: One major con to GMOs is that because they are manufactured, they may possess unknown or unforeseen problems. No one knows exactly what the effect of GMOs on the human body or the environment will be, because they have never existed before, or come into contact with people or the environment before. Another negative of GMOs is that many people find the while idea distasteful: the modified plants and animals have not naturally evolved, and may never have evolved at all on their own. By engineering these organisms we have ‘cheated’ nature by creating something that may never have occurred naturally. People find that this idea goes against their notion of what should be allowed to happen. They believe that there should be a limit to the extent science is allowed to modify our world.

The first modified crop was a type of tomato that was engineered to resist rotting. Another example of a genetically modified crop is nutrient-enriched corn.

Thoughts:
I believe that GMOs are a great benefit to us, but we should always have to option of natural alternatives (organic products) for those who do not agree with the GMO industry. I do not mind eating GMOs: I, and most other people, eat them on a daily basis with no harmful side effects. I believe we should be able to tell the difference between organic and GMO products through labeling, however I do not believe that labeling GMOs is necessarily the best plan, because then most of what we see in grocery stores would have to be labeled. Perhaps instead, only non-GMO products should be labeled (as is the current practice) as such to indicate that they are organic rather than engineered. I believe caution should be used to ensure that GMOs are not harmful to people or the environment, but I believe the benefits greatly outweigh the negative effects of this scientific advance.

Genetically Modified Crops

Personally I believe that farmers in the United States have every right to grow genetically modified (GM) crops. This is greatly influenced by scientific evidence supporting their use, as well as global usefulness of these crops. These crops allow greater efficiency in terms of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. With built in defenses in every seed and every plant, farmers don’t need to spend nearly as much time, labor, and money (if any) on carpeting their fields in harmful chemicals. This allows farmers to grow more due to lowered costs. And what that allows is greater food supplies for use.

The United States produces the majority of the crops used around the world, and due to the first and second green revolutions this capacity has been greatly expanded, as well as the ability of poorer countries to utilize these crops on their own. For instance, crops can be modified to grow in conditions that would otherwise prohibit efficient growth: areas without enough water, places where the soil is poor, or the land is too boggy, sandy, or salty. Also, these plants can be modified to produce more: meaning that an area can sustain more people on less land.

The argument can be made that the genetic inclusion of herbicides and pesticides into plants may make them harmful to consumers: however, this has not been shown to be the case. Studies on these plants carried out before release into the market showed no harmful effects, and in the ensuing time since introduction, no health problems have been attributed to genetically modified crops.

Are there problems with genetically modified crops? Yes. Depending on what the plant has been modified to do, there could be drastic side effects. For instance, the ‘contraceptive corn’ is a terrifying concept. If the genes from that plant spread to other populations of corn, or was sold unknown to consumers, there could quickly be severe problems. At that point the need for regulation comes in. I believe only traits expected to help the plant survive, and those that are beneficial to all people should be allowed. Modifying a plant to enhance vitamin content, or make it resistant to bacteria does not infringe on a human’s rights in any way. Making it prevent pregnancy does. The smallest accident with a trait like that could spell disaster. That is a sort of poison. Such ideas are best left to pharmaceutical companies and products that are not everyday food items.

The idea of a ‘superweed’ or ‘superbug’ is a valid one, but I don’t think it should be used as a reason to only farm organically. That would be akin to abolishing antibiotics in favor of natural remedies because of the possibility of producing resistant strains of sicknesses. It is exactly the same. Do the companies know that eventually they will have to modify their genetically enhanced plants to react to changing pests? Absolutely. But nature doesn’t work like that. There is always a race between nature and technology. Organic growers are able to thwart this in many ways by working within the natural system, however, their yields are nowhere near as high (though their profits may be). To sustain and improve upon current food supplies and decrease global hunger, these crops are necessary.

I believe the market will decide the fate of genetically modified crops. I believe they should be labeled so that those who wish to eat organically may, while those who do not mind are simply aware. I think there needs to be more education about these crops, because I think a lot of people become convinced that these crops are unhealthy, though they are often more nutritious than their organic counterparts.

No, these crops would not naturally occur, but neither would concrete or steel. The majority of organic crops today would not exist in nature. Taking two types of corn from different places (too far away to interbreed) and breeding them to form a third, better type is not natural. Obviously there is a difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering, but the concept is the same. In both cases you are modifying the plant’s genes to something you want. The difference is that in the interbreeding scenario, the two can do so outside a laboratory, and can do so naturally given the chance, while the genetically modified plant could never exist, no matter the circumstances.

This does not mean we should not pursue the thought. What it does mean is that there need to be rigorous tests, federal oversight and strict regulation, as well as ethical corporate policies and release of information to consumers. The buyer deserves to know if the plant they buy is organic or genetically modified. And they deserve to know what that modification is and what it does. But they also need to know more about the entire issue: what the pros and cons of organic versus genetically modified crops are, so that NGOs and other partisan parties cannot use fear an paranoia to destroy an industry that does not deserve destruction. In the end, if people do not want to eat genetically modified crops, they won’t. And the market will be reduced to those who require the modifications only genetic engineering can provide (such as third world countries), until they reach such a point as can sustain themselves in an organic fashion.