Author: levensoa

New info on fracking in PA shows it might be much worse for the environment

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/unexpected-loose-gas-from-fracking/950/

A survey of hydraulic fracturing sites in Pennsylvania revealed drilling operations releasing plumes of methane 100 to 1,000 times the rate the EPA expects from that stage of drilling, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Natural gas as an energy source for electric-ity production is less of a contributor to global warming than coal only if less than 3.2 percent of methane escapes during production. Recent measurements estimate that between 2.3 percent and 17.3 percent of gas escapes.

A sustainable way to conserve birds

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/science/paying-farmers-to-welcome-birds.html?ref=science&_r=0

In California, a area that was once wetlands is now 95% farm land and the result was a dramatic decrease in migratory birds. Conservationists have found an innovative way to preserve these birds. By using a smartphone app to record bird locations, scientist have determined the key areas to be preserved for the birds. Now instead of buying the habitat from the farmers, conservation organizations just pay to irrigate certain areas for a few weeks at a time.

Cycling an alternative to cars?

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/bike-blog/2014/mar/04/cycling-cities-search-bike-friendly-metropolis

In Copenhagen, Denmark bicycles are the norm and cars are in the minority,  5.2 bicycles for every car. Bikes are actually often the fastest way to get around.  Increased biking usage could not only reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, but also lower people’s risk of developing a number of diseases. This article examines the bike friendliness of several cities around the world and also shows the dangers involved in cycling.

GMOs health/environmental risk or is this about trade?

GMOs or genetically modified organisms are a hot topic between the U.S. and the EU. One explanation for the difference in policies toward GMOs in the EU and the U.S. is consumer experience. In the U.S. consumers hold the FDA in high regard and trust their decisions on GMOs while in the EU consumer are more hostile towards GMOs. Many European companies and even Prince Charles made public statements against the use of GMOs which alter public perception. Another explanation is that buffering zones between GMOs and normal crops would be more costly in the densely packed landscape of Europe. In addition, both producers in the EU and in the U.S. now have incentives to maintain their positions on GMOs and lobby their governments. EU farmers would be harmed by eliminating the ban while U.S. farmers would gain. The EU is using the precautionary principle as their defense for their stance. The concept is that the side effects of using GMOs are still unknown so they could have negative health effects on consumers.

This article says there may be health/environmental risks to GMOs

http://rt.com/usa/usda-gmo-risk-report-537/

While this one explains the difference stances the EU and US have on GMOs as a result of culture and trade policy.

http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688

Nuclear Power is an alternative to coal/oil but has its downsides

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/us/workers-at-nuclear-waste-site-in-new-mexico-inhaled-radioactive-materials.html?ref=earth&_r=0

13 workers at a nuclear burial site were exposed to an breathed in radioactive material. However it is too soon to see how much health risk this exposure will cause. It shows how every stage of nuclear energy production, even the one we don’t often think about, pose health risks.

Story of Stuff

Although some of the details of the video may be biased or even inaccurate, I do believe the core message is a good one. The concept that production and consumption is a linear process is very damaging to our planet. I think many of the problems she mentions arise not from people being evil but from our system being flawed. The system I am talking about and that I believe the video should have mentioned is the market system . The reason forests are cut down, factories create pollution, products are made to break quickly, advertisements tell us to buy more, and trash is burned is because those methods create the most profits. We live in a world run by capitalism and markets. The issue is that this system maximizes profits but not the overall well being of the planet. As the video mentioned, all the costs to produce a radio are not reflected in the price. If the costs to planet were included in the price then they would be much more expensive and therefore less people would buy them.

Despite your opinions on the video, I think it is good because it raises some important questions and forces you to rethink things that many of just assume to be natural.