This is a bit of a silly article but I still found it interesting.

Seattle mapmaker and urban planner Jeffrey Lin created maps of major U.S. cities under water. Specifically, they show what costal cities would look like if the ice caps completely melt resulting in a sea level rise of 8- meters (260 feet). He created names for the future islands and archipelagos. These estimates are not going to occur in our life time and the amount of time it takes to get this drastic completely depends on how fast our ice caps melt and how much humans enhance the process. However, it the near future estimates state the there will be between a 1.7 and 3.2 foot sea rise by 2100. That is the estimate of a best case scenario if we aggressively cut GHG emissions now. There is still a debate on how fast the ice sheets are melting and a lot of other factors we don’t understand. Still it is an interesting perspective to think that eventually all of LA could be under water.

http://grist.org/cities/heres-what-your-city-will-look-like-when-the-ice-sheets-melt/

California experiences a drought every summer but this past one was especially bad. In fact, according to studies conducted by Daniel Griffin, an assistant professor in the Dept. of Geography, Environment and Society at the Univeristy of Minnesota and Kevin Anchukaitis, an assistant scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, this is the worst draught CA has seen in 1,200 years.

Griffin and Anhukaitis collected new tree-ring samples from blue oak tress in southern and central CA. These trees thrive in some of CA’s driest environments and are a good marker of moisture changes. The research suggests that natural climate system variability is compounded by anthropogenic climate change and is likely to continue to occur. Although CA will bounce back from this years drought with the coming of the rainy season, that may not be the case in the future.

Why does this effect us you may ask? CA is the worlds 8th largest economy and source of a great deal of food. If the droughts continue, crop yields will decrease and there will be a shortage of produce.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141205124357.htm

This relates to my last post. Even if people don’t believe in climate change they should sure be worried about it. Maybe a shortage of food supply and a dramatic increase in prices will change their mind about acting for change.

The Obama administration announced plans this week to launch the “Climate Education and Literacy Initiative.” The plan includes how we can educate individuals about climate change, starting in kindergarden and going up through college. The administration asked education and advocacy groups in October to provide ideas. They received over 150 ideas from more than 30 states. The White House also states that it will provide climate education to National Park Employees and have science workshops for teachers.

According to a Gallup analysis, conducted in April, 1 in 4 Americans don’t believe in global warming or are not worried. They think the temperature rise is due to natural fluctuations. A survey from Yale and George Mason Universities found that while 55% of Americans were “somewhat worried” regarding climate change, only 11% were very worried.

We talked about this in class, and yet I still am incredulous that people don’t believe in climate change. I think this initiative is very necessary to open the public’s eyes and get people worried. What is it going to take before people start seeing this as a major problem and therefore act on it?? It will be interesting to see whether this initiative works or not. My feeling is, it probably won’t due to the lack of support for Obama currently in our country. But this is definitely something that our country needs.

http://grist.org/news/prepare-to-be-schooled-on-climate-change-america/

I came across this article regarding a policy change in the palm oil industry of Singapore. Although this policy change is a business change and not political it still holds a good amount of weight for environmentalist. The palm oil business Musim Mas announced that the palm oil it purchases hasn’t been harvested in ways that cause deforestation. The company handles about 18% of the worlds palm oil. Their decision came one year after Wilmar International agreed to take a stand on the issue. Since then most major corporations have followed suit and currently 96% of the palm oil industry follows a no-deforestation policy.

Deforestation in Singapore has caused loss of critical Orangutan habitat and has led to massive underground fires. These new policies could restore those habitats. Of course NGOs will be motoring the industry closely to make sure they uphold their promise.

http://grist.org/food/the-last-holdout-among-big-palm-oil-producers-joins-no-deforestation-pledge/

The past couple of weeks we have been talking about exploitation in third world countries and trying to combine local empowerment with environmental protection. After reading the grist article, I wondered what kind of conditions the palm oil workers have in Singapore and if their livelihoods are being exploited similar to Brazil. I found this article that talks about a company called Golden Veroleum Liberia (GVL) a palm oil developer that works in Singapore. The article is on a man who works for the company with the job of pursuading the local people to let GVL plant il palm on their land. He must negotiate terms with the locals which can be tough. However, the company does give them compensation, builds schools and roads, provides jobs, scholarships and hand pumps for water. They are one of the first companies trying to empower the locals to “take charge of their own development.”

http://www.trust.org/item/20140422112933-pihc1/

I thought it was interesting to see a different group (besides NGO) using the same tactic of empowerment.

http://www.thenews.pl/1/12/Artykul/188734,Poland-to-import-toxic-waste-from-Salvador

A shipment of 72 metric tons of toxic agricultural waste is on its way to be processed in Poland. Why? The prime minister of Poland’s response was that “other facilities in Europe are already overloaded.”

Lets take a step back here: El Salvador, which is located in Central America is shipping its waste across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe. Why send their toxic waste so far away? The deal is apparently worth $88 million euros. Poland’s facility apparently is the only available facility that meets international standards.

This all seems a little fishy to me, and the area’s residents are already protesting.The town’s City Hall has expressed concern and a lack of understanding for the decision by the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection to allow the transport of waste into Poland. It also requested an in-depth analysis of the procedures issued by the Chief Inspector.

WE NEED THIS!! It is so helpful in multiple ways.  Lets hope that in a few years we have solar roadways and a more sustainable future!

As many of you know the Ferguson verdict was released today. The verdict ruled that no further action, or indictment would be made against the police officers that were involved in the shooting death of 18 year old Michael Brown. This verdict has left many African Americans perturbed and upset, but as of yet the protest currently being done have been only peaceful. I think this peaceful take towards direct action shows a particularly new face to the civil rights moment and is almost reminiscent of the direct action tactics read about in Guha; the activists do not want to cause any more pain through violence rather they want to convey their message through other mediums like blockades and tactics that hurt other areas of society not just other citizens.

In my book was the verdict correct? I think from all the surfaced details the court made the honest decision. Yes, the decision has left the civil rights movement and the African American population furious and disheartened, but the details supported the cops in this situation. The courts are their to administer the truth/justice and I support their decision in this case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environment/solar-and-wind-energy-start-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

This article makes renewable energy sources seem plausible in the price driven world we live in. The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar sources has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is less expensive than coal and natural gas in some instances.

However, it is only appears to be cheaper because of the government subsidies that exist. My question is whether government subsidies are actually a sustainable method to get people to live more greenly.

In 2003, there was promise for hydrogen fuel cell cars. George W. Bush said in a speech that a child born in 2003 could be driving a hydrogen-powered vehicle for their first car. During the Obama Administration, the Government cut spending to hydrogen fuel cell research and development because of a lack of feasibility. Now, California, Germany, and Japan are all increasing the number of their hydrogen stations to about 50 by the end of next year in an attempt to generate support and infrastructure for these hydrogen cars.

The fact is, hydrogen cars are more inexpensive than electric, more efficient, and have a longer range. It’s just the infrastructure that is lacking. Hydrogen fuel-cell science is fully developed and ready to be scaled up to trucks and busses, so if we can generate the infrastructure, they would easily be incorporated into daily life.
Check out the article for the nerdy details about how hydrogen fuel cells work and how they are able to cut costs : http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/science/earth/hydrogen-cars-join-electric-models-in-showrooms.html?ref=science

It seems like a very promising technology. I wonder what is greener to produce, though? a hydrogen fuel cell or a Lithium-ion battery?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/science/earth/climate-tools-seek-to-bend-natures-path.html?_r=1

The solution to global warming is mining more rocks says on geochemist, Dr. Schuiling.  This green-tinted mineral, olivine, is abundant around the work and can slowly take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  Spreading this around roadways, play grounds, gardens etc. can help reduce global warming.  In Norway, they have already begun to spread olivine around and there is a company called greenSands that sells olivine sand for home and commercial use.  Critics of this solution say that this process will take too long to make a difference.  There are other carbon sequestering solutions people have come up with, like spraying sulfuric acid droplets into the atmosphere so it can reflect the suns rays.  The solar radiation management could be a quick fix to reduce global temperatures but result in dire consequences.  Overall, I think olivine is a better route to take because the best and safest results require patience and happen over time.