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