What Do You Think

Hi everyone, if you haven't already checked it out...I started a new blog called "What Do You Think?" The address is 

http://www.danya-whatdoyouthink.blogspot.com/

Feel free to check it out!

Ideas

Hi Everyone, I was wondering if you all would like to start an "ideas" page. On it you could post comments about your ideas for what to do on my blog in addition to just writing your opinions about what I write or anything that you've heard in general. What do you think?
Thanks for all the support, I really appreciate it!
-Danya Dubrow-Compaine

The Little Things

Hey everyone! Below is a fun quiz about how eco-friendly you are and what ways you can improve...enjoy! Keep in mind, none of the questions are required, so complete whatever works with your schedule.

http://goo.gl/forms/k6dnPA6RVC

Those were just my favorites, for more ideas check out: http://www.50waystohelp.com/
Next Week: US and China Reach a Deal

Other October Articles

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/business/energy-environment/buying-into-solar-power-no-roof-access-needed.html?emc=eta1

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/business/economy/persuading-china-to-act-fast-on-climate-change.html?emc=eta1

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/world/asia/greenpeace-says-chinas-energy-plans-exacerbate-climate-change.html?emc=eta1

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/business/energy-environment/texas-is-wired-for-wind-power-and-more-farms-plug-in.html?emc=eta1

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/climate-change-will-disrupt-half-of-north-americas-bird-species-study-says.html?emc=edit_th_20140909&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=39385531&_r=0&referrer=

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/opinion/mark-bittman-lets-reject-the-inevitable.html?emc=eta1

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/science/earth/scientists-report-global-rise-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html?emc=eta1

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/us/politics/environmental-issues-become-a-force-in-political-advertising.html?emc=edit_th_20141022&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=40002096

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/europes-ambitious-climate-goal.html?emc=eta1&gwh=D69EBDD60A024C3070A71AF4B91BF590&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion

Capturing Carbon

Though I don't know much about the engineering aspect of trying to prevent emissions that harm our earth, I've always thought that if we could capture them somehow, all our environmental issues could be solves. I turns out that there is a process that can actually do just that. It's called CCS or Carbon Capture and Storage. By releasing a chemical agent that attaches to CO2 before it leaves the smoke stack of a power plant, it is possible to redirect the carbon emitted towards a pipeline. The pipeline than transports the carbon to a well that goes deep into the ground. Once the process is complete, the carbon is locked away safely under layers of impermeable and the chemical is reused. 

So why aren't all power plants using this technique? As with all ideas, CCS has it's negatives. Not only is it extremely expensive, it may also reduce the amount of energy released from power plants by up to 20%. Additionally, there is the question of whether or not storing carbon in the ground is even safe. Still, already 2 power plants are using CCS and it is certainly a good idea if we can find a way to address and solve the negatives.

Multiple countries are studying this new idea, yet whether or not CCS will be a success is still question to answer right now. However, I am hopeful that the technique and other ones like it will soon become a part of our everyday lives. I believe that if we could combine all of the different ways of limiting harmful emissions (ie. hybrid cars, solar panels, CCS, wind energy, etc...), we might be able to prevent the worst effects of global warming. Right now, it's just a matter of using what we have and taking action.

Also: Check out the "World" page for an interesting question to think about. Comment your answer.
Source (includes an interesting video): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/science/corralling-carbon-before-it-belches-from-stack.html?emc=eta1 
Next week: The Little Things You Can Do

The Food Chain's Future

It is a known fact that plants need CO2 and sunlight to grow, but how much is too much? Will crops suffer from the effects of global warming? The answer: yes.

Previously, scientists believed that crop production would flourish with increased CO2 and sunlight. However, we now know that, though increased CO2 will be beneficial for crops, the effects of droughts, heat, and ozone will outweigh any positive effects. Upon experimenting with and studying corn under the simulations of growing conditions in the future, scientists discovered not only discovered yellow streaks on the corn, but also that corn production was diminished and that the crops had less nutrition. 

So what are scientists doing? Well, it turns out that some plants are more resilient to future conditions than others. If we could isolate the specific traits that make them so, we could alter other plants to make them more resilient as well. 

From studying our food in the future, we realize global warming really is a prominent problem. To me, the fact that even simple things most take for granted, such as food, will be effected by global warming is quite concerning. What do you think?

Source: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/science/testing-future-conditions-for-the-food-chain.html?emc=eta1&_r=0&referrer=

Next week: Capturing Carbon

Myths

Hello all! This will be my first post of the 2014-2015 school year, and in honor of that, I want to make it one that I'm sure most of you will enjoy reading: Myths about global warming. Some of the myths I mention may seem unbelievable, while others, maybe even you thought were true. Whether, you think you know it all about climate change or on the contrary, I hope that everyone will find this post worthwhile and interesting.

MYTH #1: It's not worth it...
False.

Though some may say that climate change will not be as bad as expected, that means that one also must account for if it's worse than expected. People even now doubt the effects of climate change, saying that they have been exaggerated and that for a seemingly high cost, it won't make much difference in every day life if we try to prevent any further climate change. True, one can never predict with 100% certainty how bad climate change will be, however, though this means that climate change could be much less a problem than anticipated, it also means that climate change could be a lot worse than anticipated. Better safe than sorry! Additionally, as far as it being expensive and difficult to reduce greenhouse gases, it's actually not that bad, bringing us to our next myths.

MYTH #2: It's too hard...
False.

While people claim that slowing climate change would be extremely difficult, the truth of the matter is that with a simple carbon tax, our footprint would be diminished dramatically. How do we know? Well the same concept of taxing things based on a certain category (ie. how much CO2 is emitted) worked in the past when we had to reduce sulfur dioxide to prevent acid rain in 1995. Additionally, this wouldn't actually cost the public as much as one might assume, because once a tax is set in place, the population will try their hardest to reduce the amount they pay, thus consequently reducing how much CO2 is emitted. 

MYTH #3: More unemployed citizens...
False.

A carbon tax alone, would actually increase the number of jobs. This is mainly due to the fact that large corporations would hire people to find ways to make their companies more green. 

MYTH #4: Too much $ for me...
False.

Although it may seem as though a carbon tax would increase the amount of money an average citizen has to pay towards the government, this could be deducted from other taxes. Plus, by lowering out greenhouse gas emissions as the result of a carbon tax, we would be preventing future disasters that could cost the government a lot of money. A White House even stated this recently!

MYTH #5: It won't do anything...
False.

Preventing any further climate change altogether would take efforts all around the world, yes, however, if America was to enforce a carbon tax, it would influence and affect the rest of the world. This would not only be a first step towards stopping global warming, it would mean global participation, opening numerous doors to a greener earth.

MYTH #6: Violation of freedom!
False.

Climate change has already harmed not only the earth, but people as well. This is not about us anymore, it's about our future and the damage that will happen if we don't do something to reduce greenhouse gasses now. It is certainly not a violation of freedom to try to prevent future disasters.

What do you think? Do you know any other myths you want to share? Do you have any questions about something that you might have heard? Feel free to comment below.

Source: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/upshot/shattering-myths-to-help-the-climate.html?referrer=&_r=0

Next week: The Food Chain in the Future

Summer

Hi Everyone!

Since I will be going away for the summer, this will be my last blog post for a while. Below is an alphabetical list of links you can look at about environmental issues. Find your favorites and enjoy!

1. Americans Are Outliers in Views on Climate Change 

2. Brothers Battle Climate Change on Two Fronts 

3. Climate Change Deemed Growing Security Threat by Military Researchers  

4. Eastern States Press Midwest to Improve Air 

5. Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists

6. Experimental Efforts to Harvest the Ocean’s Power Face Cost Setbacks  

7. Financier Plans Big Ad Campaign on Climate Change

8. Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate Change

9. Jane Kleeb vs. the Keystone Pipeline

10. Nuclear Waste Solution Seen in Desert Salt Beds

11. Obama on Obama on Climate

12. Panel’s Warning on Climate Risk: Worst Is Yet to Come 

13. Tempering Oil Dependence 

14. U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds, Citing Heat and Floods 

15. Whose Garbage Is This Anyway? 

16. Why Conservation Is a Dangerous Business 
17. 21 Meals With Tons Of Protein And No Meat 

PETITIONS

​​ Check (and join if you want) Sierra Club to do your part to save the environment!

Keystone

Keystone XL Pipeline is a 36 inch in diameter pipeline, that will potentially run through three Canadian providences, as well as nine states. If the fourth section is built, it will carry crude oil, the dirtiest form of oil into the United States from Canada in an effort to reduce America's reliance on other nations for oil. It will not only harm the environment drastically but also the economy, citizens, and much more. Plus, TransCanada has been involved in multiple scams, so can we even trust them?

One of the main environmental concerns about the pipeline, is that if the fourth section is built, and it goes into full use, there will be a 12-17% increase in greenhouse gas emissions. This is due to the fact that we will be extracting oil sands (a type of crude oil) instead of typical oil. With the climate already in the position it is, we cannot afford any increase in green house gas emissions without serious consequences.

Additionally, there is the risk of spills that would potentially contaminate water supplies, the air, and hurt wildlife. Although TransCanada claims that there will be little to no spills, any ones only spilling a few gallons, the current sections, have spilled 12 times within the last year, one of which, spilled approximately 21,000 gallons. This is just one example of TransCanada lying to cover up the consequences of Keystone.

The final environmental effect, is that the use of oil sands or tar sands, completely goes against America's commitment to clean energy, setting a bad example, and even preventing it from ever actually going into effect. 

However, there are more than just environmental problems that go along with Keystone, if the fourth section is built, there will also be economic issues. One of these issues, is that, if the pipeline is finished, the price of oil will rise excessively. Plus, there will not be nearly as many jobs as TransCanada stated, which I will write about more later on.

But that's not all! The construction of the pipeline will also have negative effects on many people. Native Americans, especially, will suffer from the pipeline, as their sacred sites could be damaged, and many health risks would arise. The extension of Keystone runs through multiple of their historical and cultural sites, destroying them. Additionally, they are quite conventional and catch fish, that would be poisoned during potential spills, to eat as a main part of their diet.

TransCanada has also been involved in multiple scams, some of which, I briefly mentioned above. These scams include overstating the amount of jobs, covering up spills, as well as bribing and threatening others. While TransCanada stated that there would be 20,000 jobs available, President Obama himself, said that there would probably only be 2,000 jobs for the 2 years Keystone was being built, and then that would reduce to only 50-100 jobs afterward. While this is understatement, research has proven that there will probably only be about 2,600 to 4,650 temporary jobs, still much less than what TransCanada said. They also said that there would be few to no spills, and any that did occur would only spill a little, but as I mentioned previously, this was not true.

Also, they had paid an environmental association to write a false report about the effects building the pipeline would have on the environment. Plus they threatened land-owners that wouldn't give up their land. Finally, TransCanada lied about America reducing the amount it relies on other nations for oil, as most of the oil will be going outside of the United States. This undermines one of the main purposes of the pipeline!

Although there are some temporary benefits, the overall consequences are horrible, yet, believe it or not, 65% of Americans believe it should be built! However, people are taking action to prevent the fourth, and final, section to be built. Below is a petition you can sign to take action. You can even personalize your message using the information you have learned.

https://secure.sierraclub.org/site/Advocacy;jsessionid=487747C616D89DA8165D6947D144F043.app207a?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=12467&autologin=true&s_src=214BBOAN05

Next Week: Vegetarian Recipes!

Fun Crossword I Made

Hey Everyone! Here is a fun crossword that I made to test your knowledge about my blog! All the answers are in my previous blog posts from December to now. You can print it out, and there are answers on the sheet...but please, only look if you're truly stumped. Enjoy!

If there are any suggestions you have for other fun games, please write them in the comments :) 

http://edtools.mankindforward.com/crosswords/242101/generate 

Spring forward fall back

Although, we are already quite a bit past "Spring forward", the question still remains, does daylight savings conserve energy? Day light savings was created by Benjamin Franklin in an effort to save  candles, and was kept later on as it was found that day light savings saved electricity. However, nowadays, with heating and new electronics, day light savings might actually increase our usage of energy as a whole. When investigating the difference between Indiana's electricity usage before and after daylight savings took full effect. We learned that in fact, with daylight savings, there was a 1% increase in electricity usage. Only a little right? Well 1% is actually equivalent to an extra 9 million dollars. This is because even though there is less need for lighting, there is a higher demand for temperature controlling (IE heating and cooling). However, contrary to that experiment, another one in 2007 (when daylight savings happen 3 weeks earlier). In this second experiment, there was practically no effect on the national energy usage. Additionally, research has found that there is an increased amount of heart attacks, possibly caused by the disruption of typical daily patterns such as sleep patterns. Overall, there are multiple theories about whether daylight savings is "good" or "bad", and we don't yet know the answer. So, what do you think? 

For more information (includes other research results), check out http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-daylight-saving-times-save-energy/?page=

Next week: More about Keystone, also possibly a crossword 

Osmosis

A new osmotic power plant in Norway may be the future of renewable energy. Although small now, the plant claims that osmotic power could produce about 1,370 terawatt-hours per year. Osmotic power is the process of using diffusion (when a substance passes through a membrane into another area that contains less of the substance, ie... tea from tea bag diffuses into cup) to create power. In this case, salt water particles diffuse into freshwater when rivers meet seas and in fact, create heat energy. With a membrane between the two types of water, water particles diffuse and create osmosis. 

Though reverse osmosis has been around since the 1950's, using osmosis as energy was only created later on. It has been called a "very clean process" by Friso Sikkema and Statkraft, the company who created the osmotic power plant, believes in it so much they spent over $12,000,000 and ten years on it. Unlike some other renewable energy options, the process of obtaining osmotic power does not produce any carbon, still though, there are concerns that if this expands, it might effect marine life. Additionally, membranes may be too expensive for big-scale osmosis. Still, for now, it is an optimistic route for the future of renewable energy.  

As osmosis has been growing in popularity, NASA has begun using osmotic systems to take care of wastewater on spaceships, Hydro-Quebec is teaming up with Statkraf, and Japan has opened a Osmotic Power Research Centre. Also, as osmosis advances we can now create a "natural battery" by using PRO osmosis to replace RED osmosis. RED osmosis is the process of capturing the energy of mixing fresh and salt water using positively and negatively charged membranes, while PRO osmosis uses complex machinery to do the same thing. However, PRO is much more expensive, and RED will most likely be a more popular alternative.

So with all these upsides, why hasn't osmotic power become a big success? Well, the materials needed for an osmotic plant are not only expensive but many. Additionally, much space is needed for even a small osmotic plant and it is an excessive amount of work to find water clean enough to support the membranes. But there is still hope, for like other renewable energies, osmotic power, after an initial investment, will become a great success. Once cost-effective, osmotic power has the potential to power all of Russia as well as Eastern Europe.   

The next thing we need to do is create a bigger, more inexpensive plant and before you know it, maybe your house will be powered by osmotic energy.

For more information, check out: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/01/130107-osmotic-energy-norway/

Next week: Hopefully a video about daylight savings

Strawless

     When was the last time you used a straw? Did you really need it? Did you know that over 500 million straws are used each day in just the United States? Well, in 2011, Milo Cress, considered these questions and started a campaign to become strawless. 
     At nine years old, Milo recognized all the plastic that was being wasted through the use of staws. His Be Straw Free campaign has inspired restaurants and citizens to this very day. In fact, in 2013, many Texas Roadhouses decided to go strawless for a week. From May 20th - May 26th they asked customers if the wanted a straw instead of just giving them one. So next time you are given a straw, think, do you really need it?

For more information check out, http://www.kcbd.com/story/22293432/texas-roadhouse-going-strawless-to-help-the-environment
or help support Milo's campaign at, https://www.ecocycle.org/bestrawfree  

Next week: Spring Forward, Fall Back in March? 

Exo; Cricket Bar

What's your typical snack? Maybe you think immediately of chips and gwac, or perhaps crackers and hummus, but did any of you think of crickets? Well, a new company called Exo, created by two graduates from Brown University, makes protein bars using cricket flour. Co-founder, Gabi Lewis was looking for a protein bar that actually tasted good while Greg Sewitz, the other founder, had recently attended a conference about global warming and suggested crickets as an eco-friendly provider of protein for the bars. After brainstorming some more and putting some hard work into their idea, Exo was founded.

      Exo bars are organic, all-natural, gluten/grain/soy/dairy free protein bars that contain 10grams of protein and are made in America. They currently come in three flavors: cacao nut, peanut butter & jelly, and cashew ginger moroccan spice, with more soon to come. In addition, the cricket flour in them has high amounts protein, all the necessary amino acids, and lots of micro nutrients such as iron and calcium. With all these pluses, however, you're probably questioning the taste. Well, Exo bars have been given great reviews, some people even say it's the best protein bar they've ever eaten.

     Now you know about the heath and taste aspects of Exo bars, but how do they help the environment? For starters, crickets need less food, water, and space than cows, pigs, and sheep. In return, they reproduce much quicker and produce much less methane. Think of the 50% of human water and the 40% of land used for agriculture, eating crickets could help potentially solve these problems and Exo bars are just the first step!

      Of course, crickets are gross, right?! I mean who would want to eat bugs? While this may be our current attitude to eating insects, around 80% of the world already eats them. This is an amount that could grow quickly. More and more people are growing accustomed to eating insects, especially if they're in tasty protein bars. What do you think, would you eat crickets?

      Still, there are cons to Exo bars. The first main one is that their product could change. If they decide to edit just one thing in their bar, it could effect something as small as size to something as large as taste. Also, they rely on other companies to provide them with crickets, publicity, etc... and if anything happens to one of these providers it could potentially effect Exo. Finally, it is possible they will have to extend the shipping date if problems occur. While these can be dealt with, they, like all companies, are always going to have their problems.

       So now you're interested, but how can you help? Well they need donations from eager supporters to help sponsor Exo. Right now they have two money goals: a) to raise $50,000 so they can produce bars faster, etc.. and start focusing more on new ideas (ie. flavors) and b) to raise $20,000 so they can make their first group of commercially produced Exo bars. With your help, this idea can become reality. Obviously you don't have to donate, but you can open your eyes to the idea of Exo bars, and that by itself, will make a difference.

For more information, check out https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/exoprotein/exo-protein-bars-made-from-cricket-flour or their official website http://exo.co/

Next week: Strawless?

California Drought

     As you may have heard, there is a sever drought occurring in Los Angeles California. Due to lack of rain, approximately 40,000 people may run out of water in the next 60-120 days. This number, large enough already, has yet to grow, and may reach up to 25 million people. State officials are planning to bring drinking water to communities affected by truck. Additionally, wells will be built, and citizens will have to limit there water usage. Even with these efforts,this will be the worst drought in about 500 years. 
     However, the drought has already taken effect. The worst effects include farmers not being able planting anymore, ranchers having to sell their cattle, and pollution raising to a dangerously high level. Also, people have limited showers, washing cars, and watering lawns. On top of this, multiple species of animals are endangered. This being said, officials are stressed, and all have concerns about the drought.
     While it did rain recently, it was not nearly enough to make up for the three years of practically none. You may be wondering, three years of drought, how did this happen? I hypothesize that in fact, global warming is partly to blame. Studies show that over the next 100 years, dry areas will become drier and wet areas, wetter. That leaves one to believe, could this be the beginning of drastic global warming effects? What do you think, feel free comment your opinion below. 

For more information, check out: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/us/severe-drought-has-us-west-fearing-worst.html?_r=0

Next Week: Exo; Cricket Bars

Nuclear Energy?

      One of the many sources of renewable energy being debated about is nuclear energy. Ever since World War II we have feared this, but have studies proven our fears irrelevant? In fact, these same studies show that nuclear energy exposure, in small doses is practically harmless. If so, what is the hold up on using nuclear energy as a renewable source of energy?
     
     While some studies show that even the smallest amounts of nuclear exposure have serious health consequences, this particular one states that, out of the 10,929 people exposed to nuclear weapons who got cancer, only 527 actually got it because of this reason. This, among much more scientific evidence, is why we are so controversial on the topic of nuclear energy. There are a handful of people who believe this might be the only solution to the growing issue of global warming. Still, the common civilians have yet to overcome their fears of the power nuclear energy has. However, the civilian fears haven't kept scientists and engineers from planning out safer, reliable nuclear power plants. What do you think the next step into finding a renewable energy source should be?

For more information about these experiments and the article, check out: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/opinion/fear-vs-radiation-the-mismatch.html    

Next Week: California Drought

The use HFCs Need to Stop

     Recently, Europe wrote a bill that declared they would reduce a type of greenhouse gas used in refrigerators and ACs called hydrofluorocarbons by 79% as of 2030. This act is the most significant in the struggle to decrease HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons). However, Europe is not the only one trying to reduce HFCs, China and the US also have been making efforts to help. 

     Although, HFCs were already a replacement of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that damaged the ozone layer, however, they are still a threat to global warming. If the use of HFCs continues at the current rate, the 1% of global warming they are accountable for currently will rise to a whopping 20% by 2030 unless we take action. Already, we have technology capable of replacing HFCs and many people have taken action, what will come next? 

     While removing HFCs as a source of energy will not eliminate all global warming issues, it's a start and it is something we must do to help stop global warming. 

For more information, check out: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/opinion/curbing-a-potent-greenhouse-gas.html?_r=0

Next Week: Nuclear Energy?

Petition to Help Stop Air Pollution

Check out this link to a petition to help stop air pollution: it's easy to sign!

http://sierra.stopbigpolluters.org/pgb/CKF-NA-CT2-SBP1-Lib-BO-30p-T04-C07-EP-P02-D01

Missing Monarchs

Typically monarch butterflies arrive in Mexico just in time for their holiday The Day of the Dead, however, for the first time in history, the monarchs came in about a week later than this event just this year. Not only did they arrive late however, their numbers decreased by over 57 million from last year's already low amount of 60 million. It doesn't end there though, other insects such as the wild bee are facing similar troubles.

One of the main causes for this is a pesticide called neonicotinoid, still even if the pesticide wasn't used, insects would still be in trouble because of many other causes such as loss of vegetation. This is because farmers have recently increased their acreage, even extending into land that was originally preserved for conversational uses. 

In addition to this cause, the common herbicide, Roundup, kills many native plants, particularly milkweed, the main source of nutrients for monarch larvae. 

Also, many insects suffer from diseases, which, on top of everything else, makes there life that much harder.

Finally, humans have built roads and parking lots in areas where insect-supporting wildlife would have grown. Plus, many of the pretty plants we grow in our yards are completely useless for supporting insect life.  

Although one may not consider loss of bugs a significant impact to our world, bugs are in fact essential to our eco-system. Not only are they one of the main food sources for birds, they decompose plants, spread seeds, and pollinate about 80% of our crops. Although many organizations are working to fix this problem, the fact still remains that if we don't do something soon, this could become a huge problem for humanity. What will you do? 

For more information, check out http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/sunday-review/the-year-the-monarch-didnt-appear.html?emc=eta1

Next week: Happy Holidays!!

Mind-altering Video