Future Sustainability

    In my blog I sought to in some way enlighten any readers I could on issues pertaining to sustainability. This mostly included areas such as renewable energy sources, plans for the reduction in greenhouse gasses, and other general topics concerning sustainability. However, I cannot pretend that my goals of informing others did not have some residual benefits for my own education. In fact, I learned much in my journey through various articles, periodicals, and sustainable endeavors. 

    I sincerely hope that this blog has served a beneficial role in educating and displaying the usefulness of sustainability. There are countless resources available to those interested in such matters, and many are available (free) online. My main source for articles and information was The Guardian, specifically the Environment Section.

“the most anti-environmental Congress in history.”

The Republicans vs. the Environment

   There was a time, not even too long ago, when there at least existed bipartisan efforts to maintain regulations on the Clean Air and Water Acts, in effect since 1970. However, recent years have seen, along with the complete annihilation of congressional productivity, an absense of any bipartisanship in efforts to save the environment.

   In a haze of "antiregulatory fervor, allegiance to industry and a refusal to accept the fact of climate change," Republicans in congress have done more in the past few years do unto what little progress has been made toward creating a more sustainable earth. Even disregarding the looming, figurative, American, economic apocalypse, it is simply appalling that such abhorrent goals permeate such a major sector of our legislative branch.

Climate Storm

IPCC expected to confirm link between climate change and extreme weather

   It seems soon enough the link between climate change and extreme weather will be officially recognized by the IPCC in their coming report. This link, while presumed by most within the study of climate change, and indicated by much data, has yet to be fully, explicitly defined and recognized by the IPCC, the main body in the study of climate change. 

   While most involved in the study of climate change know that this link is implied by much data, its full admission will present a valuable tool in convincing the general public of the necessity for action. Broad, long-term potential effects, while potentially disastrous, are vague; explicit links which can be made between actual weather occurrences and man-caused GHG's will illustrate a much more tangible need.

Puttering About

Rich nations 'give up' on new climate treaty until 2020

   Apparently, it's only okay to quit if you're in the economic upper crust. The developed, "rich" nations have given up on making gains on attaining real advances in the fight against climate change. Why? It seems the perils of bureaucracy are too much for our world's foremost leaders.

   It now seems up to the individual citizens of the world to accomplish what nations seem incapable of doing.

CIA "Secrets"

CIA urged to be more open about climate change

   The CIA has existed with a great aura of mystique within American culture. It is seen by many as the realm of covert spies and the storehouse for confidential state secrets. Though, perhaps this should not be the case for the CIA's investigation of matters such as climate change. The Defense Science Board, a U.S.  government agency, issued a report which suggested precisely this. The CIA should begin "sharing the intelligence it has been gathering on climate change," the report says. This raises a few interesting questions. First, could this information be helpful in displaying the severity of the situation of the planet? If so, assuming the information would not compromise information vitally important to maintaining the safety of American citizens, why has it not been released already?

Nuclear Power

  Journalists tour stricken Fukushima nuclear plant

   Nuclear energy is, while a relatively cheap and carbon light source of energy, an incredibly disputed form of energy. The issues of nuclear sources of energy are namely those related to human health. Normally, nuclear power plants are not particularly dangerous, however, when accidents occur, the radiation released from such power plants can be incredibly dangerous to human health. Also, the waste from power plants is highly dangerous, and must be isolated from humans for very long periods of time. For nuclear energy to be widely accepted the public must be assured that it presents a completely safe option.

   However, this confidence is torn down entirely when catastrophes such as that which occurred in Fukushima, Japan eight months ago. The tsunami-induced event cost the lives of 20,000 people. The reactor will take up to thirty years to be completely shut down. It is events like these which shed light on the serious dangers of nuclear power and the stringent precautions necessary to ensure the safety of those near the reactors. And, even when those protections are enacted, events can still transpire which serve to endanger thousands of lives.

   

Tar Sands Pipeline Delayed

Keystone XL pipeline: US government decision delayed by route review

   Tar sands is an extremely controversial topic which lights up very strong opinions on both sides of the political isle. It is often viewed as a "choice between the environment and the economy." Tar sands projects can be potentially dangerous to the environment, and many take issue with the implementation of this process as a means of creating energy on these grounds. The process has a much higher impact on the environment than conventional oil. As such, many environmental groups lobbied against the process because it would serve to lock the US into fossil fuels instead of incentivizing cleaner sources of energy. However, others sing the praises of the means of energy creation as it would allow the US to become more energy independent, lessening our reliance upon foreign sources of oil and lowering energy costs.

   It appears today, however, that neither side has appeared a winner when the Keyston XL pipeline is considered, as President Obama's decision served only to delay the decision on the pipeline. This was very likely a political move to avoid being forced to alienate potential voters on either side of the issue by making a decision. However, the project will likely fall by the wayside, as the likelihood of the plans being continued through to 2013 are unlikely.

Aussie Carbon Tax

Australian Senate passes carbon tax

   Australia has taken a large step toward becoming a frontrunner in the crusade to fight and reverse climate change as caused by carbon dioxide emissions. The Austrtailian senate, headed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, passed a package of laws which places a carbon tax on the top 500 polluters in the country. For those who are unaware of what exactly this means, a carbon tax is a pollution tax imposed by governments. The Australian laws define that this fee will be about $23 per tonne of carbon dioxide and will be levied on the use of fossil fuels determined by the amount of carbon emitted by their combustion.

   This is a significant move by Australia toward their goal of reducing their 2000 emissions levels by 5% by 2020. For, while Australia only contributes around a percent and a half of the globes total carbon emissions, their per capita emissions are the highest in the developed world due to the country's heavy reliance on coal for energy. The laws impliment the highest carbon tax outside of Europe and will soon be joined by California in 2013. Perhaps the United States as a whole will realize the importance of following the examples of these other countries as the presidential election roles arund in a year's time.

Emissions in Developing Countries

   

                  Climate talks: China calls on developing countries to 'step up'

  

   The issue of climate change and global emissions reductions will come to depend heavily on the actions of developing countries in the near future. Currently, most emissions come from developed nations, and, for the most part, the issue is being given a substantial amount of attention in these places. However, the focal point of the climate change discussion will soon shift toward the soon-to-be-developed nations which will have skyrocketing populations and emissions as the all experience mini-industrial revolutions and surge into the developed world.
   However, these countries do not have the reduction of carbon emissions as their primary goal. This is certainly understandable; the environment was not our main concern either as we were becoming an industrialized nation as we were more concerned with the ability to properly nourish our population and increase the quality of life of American citizens. Though, it will be necessary for these countries to consider the issue of reducing carbon emissions as we move forward, for such negligence can no longer be afforded. China took a great leap toward progress concerning our environment by calling on these developing nations to make efforts to create a pseudo "Kyoto 2" protocol which is concerned with the reduction of emissions in these nations. It is clear that until such measures are taken, global climate progress will be difficult to achieve.

People

Why population hysteria is more damaging than it seems

   Much issue is made of population as we move through the twenty-first century. This issue is often linked to be synonymous with the issue of climate change: in order to solve one we must also deal with the other. However, perhaps this is a misguided attempt. For, why is a larger population necessarily bad for the environment? Sure, more people should lead to a direct increase in emissions, though this notion can be called into question when one examines the distribution of the greenhouse gasses. The "High-income nations...provided only 7% of population growth but 29% of growth in emissions. The basis of this argument is that, when the differences in the concentrations of emissions are considered, it becomes apparent the irrelevance of the population question. It doesn't matter the amount of people, but the amount of emissions. "The excessive focus on population is a dangerous distraction from the core problem, which is not how many of us there are but how we use the planet and share its resources." This seems logical; it is certainly, at the end of the day, about the amount of greenhouse gasses which we emit into the atmosphere, not how many people are emitting them. 
   However, it must also be considered that The actual requirements for a population to survive with a given amount of members are far more complex, relating mainly to the space needed for habitation (much larger than mere existence in stasis), and the availability of resources. Given substantial space, as population increases, there are less resources available for each individual. Population increases until a carrying capacity (K) is met, at which point population oscillates around the carrying capacity.

Additionally, the survival of humans relies heavily on the level of impact we have on the planet. This impact is demonstrated in the I=PAT (Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology) equation, developed in the 1970's by Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren. This equation describes how humans impact (I) the planet. The greater the three factors (P,A,T), the more impact humans will have on the environment. As population (P ) increases, humans use more land and resources, and pollution generally increases as a result. When affluence (A) increases, the environment is further impacted by higher rates of consumption, which lead to more environmental impacts, however, one could argue that affluence also can reduce environmental impacts if those affluent are inclined to use their wealth for the benefit of the environment. Finally, technological increases (T) can have a similar effect of affluence in increasing efficiency of the utilization of resources, however, with increases in P, the utilization of technology necessarily increases, greater impacting the environment. In order to continue our survival, we must control our impact on the environment, which will require the proper management of population, affluence, and technology. As these currently high population, low emissions develop, their emissions will increase substantially, and if the population problem is ignored until this point,  we will face a colossal issue when this comes to be.

Stayin' Alive

   UK Carbon Capture, Still Hanging On

   Carbon capture and storage, essentially filtering out carbon that is produced when creating energy, provides a potential aid in the reduction of emissions. However, as with most options present for reducing emissions, it is not without its issues. These issues have come to a front in the UK. The Brits have an impressive track record for CCS initiatives compared to much of Europe, though, the process has run into several roadblocks. In the face of the recent financial crisis and the reduced need for energy, the initiatives slowed down rapidly. An English attempt to incentivize the creation of new CCS projects ran into trouble as a result of these factors, and a competition transformed into "a process of attrition rather than competition." This considered, the UK still outmatched all of the rest of Europe for bids for CCS projects.

   The reality of the situation is that we are currently allowing economic shortfalls to determine our energy agenda. This is logical in the short term. But, when examined from a wider scope, we must consider that the costs of our ignoring sustainable means of energy production because of a decrease in our pocket cash. In the long run, it will be far more detrimental to allow sustainable policies to fall by the wayside.

Car Talk

 Revenge of the Electric Car

   Here is some good news for a change. Many are familiar with Chris Paine's documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? in which Paine presented the reprehensible actions of GM in regards to the first mass produced plug in vehicle, the EV1. As portrayed in Paine's film, "the auto industry and oil companies [ganged] up to destroy" the vehicle. All 5,000 cars ended up being repossessed by GM and were "sent to the crusher." 

   Though, Paine has a new film which presents the auto-industry in a kinder light. Revenge of the Electric Car displays the resurge of electric vehicles, such as Nissan's Leaf or GM's Chevy Volt. Over the recent years there has been a substantial return of such vehicles, now with over 15,000 on the road. From a sustainable perspective, this is certainly good news. The ability to rely on sources of transportation which are not driven by petroleum products is within our reach. And, while consumers desire the change mostly for the purpose of saving gas money and car companies are only matching consumer demand, the planet will benefit as a result. At this point, emissions reductions are a victory in any context, and if it allows the consumer to have money to spend elsewhere, it's all the better.

Local Eats

   Today, during a trip home to Murfreesboro, TN, I embarked on a journey to my town's farmers market to look at what local, organic foods my hometown had to offer. From freshly killed and frozen local chickens to decadent organic treats there was much to see, and I came back home with quite a few goodies. As we move toward a sustainable future, farmers markets and local-foods in general will be essential. 

   These means for change will contribute to the decentralization of the food system, which will in turn provide great benefits for our environment. Currently, our food system is horribly inefficient in terms of fossil fuels used per calorie of food. There has been a substantial shift in our food system toward a heavily fossil fuel dependent system. In 1940, we produced 2.3 calories of food for every calorie of fossil fuel. Though, we now produce a mere 1/10th of a calorie of food for every calorie of fossil fuel used. This is because of the huge fossil fuel costs in producing and transporting the food I eat; most of this cost could be eliminated were my food to come from closer, and if it were less dependent upon fertilizers and other fossil fuel dependent resources. The extremely high amount of fossil fuel required to transport food is unsustainable, and is contributing to the degradation of the environment. It is greatly due to the distance our food travels that the environmental costs of our food are so great. New means of buying the food we eat, such as farmers markets, will be key to this change.

The Politics of Sustainability

Political Benefits of Championing 'Green' Policies

   There is a serious issue in politics as it relates to climate change. This issue is that the impending doom we face from climate change is essentially ignored by most politicians. Why is this? Likely because the nature of the danger we face is still regarded as being impending, not present (an untrue assumption). However, research performed by Stanford public opinion expert Jon Krosnick serves to show that staying silent on the issue may in fact be detrimental to a politician's success.
   His research displays that "Democrats who took 'green positions on climate change won much more often than did Democrats who remained silent," and that "Republicans who took 'not-green' positions won less often than Republicans who remained silent." Krosnick's findings imply that it may indeed be politically beneficial to advocate for the issue, and that the American public is finally beginning to give climate change the attention it will require to move toward implementing solutions.

Hunger

A Smarter Way to Fight Hunger

   World hunger is one issue that the planet faces which has come to completely baffle me. How is it that, while we live in a society our population can't seem to stay away from excess calories, there are still countless individuals who are unaware of from where their next meal will come? Sure, there is a large amount of aid from the U.S. and other countries, but, when their is still widespread famine and starvation in the world with plenty of food to feed everyone if it was evenly distributed, there seems to be a large problem. Pedro Sanchez has examined this issue, and has some answers. 

   The general means by which the U.S. provides food aid is to buy the food, ship it to a country, and then distribute it. This, as Sanchez points out, is highly not only highly inefficient, but does nothing to help a local economy aside from briefly sustaining its constituents. Sanchez illuminates that the average cost of buying, shipping, and distributing a tonne of maize in an African country is $812. This is, compared to other methods of food distribution, grossly inefficient. Two other options present much more effective means of change. The first option is to buy the maize locally and distribute it to locations where it is most needed. For this option, a tonne of maize will cost around $320, less than half of the normal cost. Furthermore, to truly maximize the impact of our aid, a third option is available. This option entails providing the support and resources (seed, fertilizer) to produce a tonne of maize. This would cost $135.

   It is obvious that there are better ways of maximizing every dollar we spend, and much of the theory backing this approach is entailed in the adage "give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." It is long overdue for our approach to shift away from the band-aid of providing food in the short-term to an approach that emphasizes agricultural development. It is only when these changes are made that we will finally be able to make strides toward a universally well-fed world.

Individual Responsibility for Climate Change

John Nolt

   Dr. John Nolt, a professor in the philosophy department at UTK, author of various books and articles, and the man who (co)spearheaded UTK's 25 year energy plan, lectured on "Individual Responsibility for Climate Change" at UT recently, and I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend. I must say I was particularly excited for this lecture because, as a prospective philosophy major myself, I was intrigued how a philosophy professor would tackle the issue of climate change, which ordinarily is dealt with solely by those within the sciences.
   He began with his thesis, essentially that the potential harm for climate change is so great and the need for emissions reduction so urgent that where the use of greenhouse gas emissions should be halted as expediently as possible. This seemed a logical enough statement; it is backed by all of the data and research that has been done on the subject, and could come straight out of any IPCC study. As he continued, he laid out several points which led to this conclusion. These are the (generalized) conditions which Dr. Nolt utilized to build his argument:
-Climate change will kill/harm lots of people
-Harm relates directly with emissions
-Individual contribution to emissions important
-This contributes to an unjust domination of posterity by current affluence
-Emissions are, unless necessary, morally inexcusable
-Emissions should be halted
   I quite enjoyed the utilization of such a philosophical approach toward this issue: building a case based on premises which, if true, lead to the stated conclusion. The first few points are fairly standard, and can be shown to be accurate with any research on the subject. Though, the examination of the issue as a dominator:subordinate relationship connecting the population of today with our posterity was a new formation of the argument against emissions. It is understood that we of today have a responsibility to ensure at least the possibility for generations which will exist when we no longer do so to survive. However, Dr. Nolt posed the argument in a very endearing way: that we of today not only have a responsibility to help future generations, but that if we do not, we are acting unjustly. This shifts the perspective of the argument entirely; the general consensus of the population of today is that anything we actively pursue for the benefit of future generations is generous benevolence on our part, purely altruistic. Though, with the other view, it is merely acting justly, and to act otherwise would be a serious ethical issue.
   This point was the key point which allows for the moral implications of the argument. It now appears that to not stop all unnecessary emissions immediately would be a grossly unjust action toward the world of the future. Dr. Nolt presented the issue through a primarily ethical lens, rather than an empirical display of the dire effects that climate change would have on us, an argument still based on appeal to one's self interest. The talk was informative and enlightening, and I hope that this mantra can be spread to allow more to see the moral implications of our driving Hummers and otherwise creating greenhouse gasses unnecessarily. It certainly opened my eyes to the effects that every decision i make will have for millennia to come.

Dirty Tech

Dirty, dangerous and destructive – the elements of a technology boom

    There is a story less heard when it comes to technology, the resource the world around hails as god-like in its use. And perhaps it is, however, there is much to say about the portion of our beloved laptops and smart phones which has quite a shaded past. The rare metals inside of this electronic equipment likely came from a destitute part of the world, and the environmental and human cost for these materials is high. In truth, the human rights violations which occurred during the Chinese manufacturing of my Apple Macbook Pro would likely turn my stomach.

   We ignore these facets of our technology because, all in all, they are outweighed by the incredible benefits they offer us, and it's certainly true that advances in technology have saved countless lives in recent years, and improved the quality of life of much of the world.

   So I end this short post with a challenge: think of the pollution, physical labor, and death which went into whatever medium from which this post is read; perhaps that alone will do some good.

Fracking All Over the World

Is Fracking Environmentally Safe?

   Fracking, or Hydraulic Fracturing, is the process of essentially creating a fracture in rock stored deep beneath the earth, injecting highly pressurized liquid into the fracture, and extracting gas contained within. The controversial technique for procuring untapped oil reserves has recently risen to the forefront of British headlines, as a new reservoir of shale gas has been discovered under Lancashire, England. So, is this process the next great evil in the fight to save the environment, or is it a valuable option in making the west energy independent in the transitional period away from fossil fuels toward more sustainable energy options?

   Well, it appears both sides have a case. On the side for the process, Guardian contributor Rob Lyons states "we will need all the energy we can get," and calls efforts to denounce fracking as "perverse." Lyons points out that the gas procured from shale deposits could keep our motors running for over two centuries, and the process is generally safe and, compared to regular oil, environmentally friendly. He states that the two main arguments against the process, that focus on fracking will sidetrack investment in more renewable energy sources and that fracking is potentially dangerous to water supplies, are unfounded. He claims that the time granted by the extra sources of energy will allow the time needed for more sustainable energy sources to become economically viable, and that water supplies are not in danger because the gas is far lower than water deposits and the pipelines are sealed in concrete.

   However, Andrew Simms, policy director of the NEF (New Economics Foundation), begs to differ. Simms argues that fracking techniques do indeed present "real and substantial risks to people and the environment." Simms claims that fracking presents an even greater danger than conventional gas by increasing levels of methane, which are much more detrimental particle for particle compared to CO2. 

Also, Simms makes the case that many more jobs could be created through investment in sustainable energy resources than tar sands and shale gas. Also, he needn't even mention the catastrophic oil spills which have ravaged the seas in the recent past; who's to say comparable disasters will not occur with fracking methods?

   In the end, it wil be left to the public to make the decision to decide between shale gas to gain cheaper short term energy or sustainable, yet currently more expensive, sources of energy which will provide for millennia. 

Making Orange Green

A Celebration of Campus and Community 'Greening' efforts at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville

   UT has made a promise, and that promise revolves around making substantial efforts toward the "greening"of the university through various methods. To inform the students and public along with celebrating the effort, UT sponsored a kickoff event at which it was promised one could "find out how you can conserve energy and improve your environmental footprint. Enjoy free local ice cream from

Cruze Dairy Farm and crank out blended treats using 100 percent pedal power! Check out the latest zero-emissions vehicles from Nissan, Chevrolet, and Mitsubishi."

   Luckily, I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend this event, and I was impressed. Aside from the actual meat of the attempts to bring the notion of "greening" the lives of UT students and residents of Knoxville, even the fact that the effort was made delighted me, for it won't be until the ideas of increasing sustainability are brought to the forefront of our minds that serious change will be effected.
   However, the content of the event was incredible. There were hundreds of people all gathering to pie their RA's, pedal power a blender, and learn about the sustainable efforts being made at UT. It was a great deal of fun, and it makes me proud to know that my university is taking the steps necessary to spread the word on saving the planet.

The Long and Winding Road of Energy Development

International Energy Outlook - 2011

   

   As the world progresses in the next century, the total energy consumption is projected to increase substantially. We will utilize more energy than we do today, and much of this increase will be in developing countries, almost doubling in non-OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.) This means that it is very likely that these countries will follow a similar path to that which was taken by most currently developed countries during their own development, a raging torrent of energy consumption which will most likely rest upon the foundation of unclean energy sources, such as coal or fossil fuels. While many developed countries may begin to transition to cleaner burning energy sources, the developing world is still very likely to utilize unsustainable sources for their energy needs in the near future. Why is this almost bound to happen? Because it is cheaper to do so. Thus, if we are to avoid the catastrophic effects that will be caused by an almost two-fold increase in energy consumption in developing countries drawing on unclean sources, we have no choice but to lead the charge toward creating cheap, sustainable energy sources that can be utilized in the developing world in the face of these drastic increases in energy use. Unless it is the cheaper option, it will not be used. So the task now comes in front of us to develop practical sources of sustainable energy in order to avoid the storm of climate change consequences travelling at full speed in our direction.

Keeping the Trees

Biodiversity 'lost in Southeast Asia'

    Trees are good for the environment. This is universally understood. Forests are essentially just a lot of trees, along with some other contributors. So, forests should be forests, right? Unfortunately, this is incorrect, but is accepted by most as a means for saying "good enough" when it comes to rebuilding forests which have been ravaged over the years through human development. A study published in Nature, conducted by researchers from the University of Adelaide, has found that there is a large difference in forests heretofore untouched by humans, "primary" forests, and those which have even been partially developed, "secondary" forests. The differences between the primary and secondary forests were surprising, shedding light on the magnitude of harm that any level of human intervention can cause on local ecosystems. As it appears, this impact can be incredible detrimental; even when efforts to conserve forests are undertaken, forests cannot be returned completely to their former glory. As the researchers stated, "undisturbed primary forests are the only ones in which a full complement of species can thrive."
    Thus, we have to focus our preservation efforts most on these rare areas which have yet to be touched by human development. Though, these areas are quickly disappearing. This problem is especially evident in South-East Asia, which contains the "lowest remaining forest cover, highest rates of deforestation, and the highest human population densities" of tropical areas. Time is of the essence to solve this problem. Like many issues relating to the environment, if we fail to act quickly, the few remaining areas with primary forests could face the same adulteration that has harmed almost all of our planet's forests, reducing them from a level of purity that they will never regain.

Let There Be Light

Energy Efficient Lighting

   After recently calculating my carbon footprint, it became apparent that a large factor of my wastefully created carbon was due to my lack of utilization of the most efficient types of lighting. And, honestly, I found myself fairly ignorant on the subject. What types of lights are the most efficient, and is it possible for me to achieve energy efficiency without burning a hole in my wallet? As it turns out, there are several options for efficient lighting, and many types can even save money over time in comparison with traditional incandescent bulbs.

   The main alternatives to incandescents are Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL) and Light Emitting Diode (LED) lights. Both of these present large advantages over incandescent bulbs, reducing the electricity used for lighting by a factor of ten or more. LED lights appear to be the light of the future, boasting watt usage "1/3rd to 1/30th of incandescent or CFL." Though, the initial investment for LED lights is high. Thus, for many, CFL's present the most effective option to reduce one's carbon footprint through efficient lighting.

  For such a pressing issue, it seems like a small task to replace lightbulbs with more sustainable alternatives, and, in many cases, the initial cost will be returned several times over.

Functional Approaches to Ecological Forecasting

(Photo from UNC at Chapel Hill bio of Lauren B. Buckley)

Dr. Lauren Buckley  

One week ago, I was fortunate enough to be presented the opportunity to attend a lecture given by Dr. Lauren Buckley of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Buckley's lecture was entitled "Functional Approaches to Ecological Forecasting," and, initially, I was entirely lost on what the subject matter was. "Ecological Forecasting?" I had no clue what that could mean. And, indeed, as the lecture began, it certainly appeared to be intended for a higher base of knowledge than that which I possessed.

However, I did catch on after a few moments (and I'm very glad I was able to.) Buckley was, in essence, examining the potential for certain species (examined through morphology, physiology, and life history) to adapt to changes in their environment. She did this through creating models ("Mechanistic Range Models:" starting with info on environment/individuals and extrapolating to populations to create population dynamic model) which considered a multitude of factors which could affect a species' range of habitat, or Climatic Envelope. 

Her research focused on butterflies and several species of lizards mostly spread across North America, and her findings indicated facets of species adaptation not initially expected. She found that biology does affect an organism's response to environmental factors in populations. In a simple example, if a population is comfortable in a seventy degrees Fahrenheit and the that area shifts to a temperature of 75 degrees fahrenheit, the species will likely shift the location of their range of habitat. Buckley's models displayed the effects of this in a far more sophisticated manner which include various other factors, and she found that, in the event of climate change, most species' ranges will travel northward toward more desirable conditions. Also, for the examined species of butterflies, flight time will increase which will lead to a higher amount of eggs being created, but, in higher temperatures, the survival of each egg will be less likely. Her data displayed that each species has adapted individually, and that every species is particularly specialized for their current environment as a result of, in most cases, millennia of adaptation. In the face of looming climate change, many species who have adapted to their specific environment will be displaced by the future nonexistence of their current habitat. This will have multifarious effects on every species, and will quite likely lead to the extinction of many species as they either are left with no habitat at all or cannot survive in their new habitual range.

Spraying the Solution

Giant Pipe and Balloon to Pump Water into Sky in Climate Experiment

   In the event of a volcano, the result of the eruption is an atmospheric cooling effect, due to the products of the eruption which block sunlight. British scientists from Bristol, Reading, Cambridge, and Oxford universities have been working on a project which aims to recreate this albedo effect using a very long hose pipe attached to a balloon floating high in the atmosphere by pumping water particles through the pipe into the upper atmosphere. The goal of this experiment is to see how the method will work on a small scale, in order to later implement it on a larger scale to lower global temperatures. Many have decried this attempt, including the chair of the ETC group in Canada who called the experiment "a huge waste of time and money." Though, others have recognized its future practicality as a alternate means to help combat the effects of climate change. Among these are Sir Martin Rees, the former president of Royal Society, who stated that "Nothing should divert us from the main priority of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Bus if such reductions achieve too little, too late, there will surely be pressure to consider a 'plan B."

   While this seems a far-fetched, odd idea for some of the most brilliant minds in the world to be pondering, essentially shooting water really high into the air, the potential for the method to in any way mitigate the damage of anthropogenic climate change makes it an appealing idea. We need all the help we can get. Also, such a presumably harmless and relatively inexpensive solution seems to be a feesable option for our planet as we gear up to face the brunt of the mess we have caused. In examination of "cloud whitening" in comparison to other methods of countering climate change, (see Ocean Nourishment, Space Mirrors, Artificial Trees, Carbon Capture and Storage) it ceases to appear so outlandish. Perhaps these giant hoses will come to serve as an icon for the salvation of our planet as we fight our self-inflicted destruction.

Make it Rain

Firing laser beams into the sky could make it rain, say scientists

   It does not seem immediately plausible that we, as mere humans, could possess the ability to control the weather. For millennia we have attempted to do so, but not until recently has it appeared to exist as a potential reality. The lasers fired by the Swiss scientists acted to condense water vapor into very small droplets by creating "nitric acid particles in the air that behaved like atmospheric glue, binding water molecules together into droplets and preventing them from re-evaporating." This appears to be quite an innovation. We could control when, where, and how hard it rains? Breathtaking. While the science is not complete enough to start a downpour in the drought-ravaged eastern Africa and southern United States, the findings are a start upon which incredible advances in weather control could be achieved, and, with any hope at all, the new methods will be much more eco-friendly than the Chinese strategy of blasting chemicals into the sky to alter weather patterns.

   Additionally, these new advances could have an incredibly practical use as our planet's atmosphere is further adulterated with heretofore unseen amounts of greenhouse gasses. As the impacts of climate change develop, our planet will see increasing drought, amplified weather disasters, and a modicum of other affects to boot. Though, if these discoveries translate into practical weather-altering methods, perhaps our newfound abilities will slightly mediate the harsh droughts and torrential rainfalls that are bound to extend in their respective extremes. While we cannot count on our "do nothing" policies to sustain our planet, hopefully such advances as these will reduce the catastrophic effects that we have brought upon ourselves when we finally realize the severity of our current situation.

Sustainable Blogging: Intro

This blog will discuss topical issues I run across in various periodicals on the web having to do with sustainability in today's rapidly changing world, such as The Guardian, The New York Times, etc. Climate change is an ever-present issue in our world, and I hope to shed some measure of light on the subject while presenting a fairly easy to read response to news stories pertaining to the subject.

China's polluted? Who would have guessed?

Wikileaks Displays China's Dangerous Pollution

   This article from The Guardian depicts a scene with which most are familiar: China is polluted, severely. However, surprising even for such an obviously polluted area, the Chinese state did not even properly measure the levels of several particularly detrimental pollutants so as to not embarrass themselves and frighten the public. The specific pollutant in question, PM2.5, is said to be of great danger to the public due to its nature to enter into the lungs directly. However, "Those lobbying for its inclusion in an index of pollutants conceded that including a pollutant whose current levels would measure so far above acceptable standards would be politically difficult,' the cable said." The Chinese refuse even to measure the pollutant to save the political embarrassment.
   Personally, I wish I was more surprised by this tidbit, for it does seem very grave indeed. Though, China's history of incredible pollution does not give me hope for the future of its polluted cities. The necessity for, at the very least, the accurate measuring of pollutants in the atmosphere is of the greatest public interest, and sacrificing measurement standards in order to prevent very deserved political shame is abhorrent. In order to establish sustainability in Chinese cities and to protect the health of the Chinese public, drastic change in the Chinese attitude toward the subject seems mandatory. It is apparent that global pressure from all outside countries and international organizations is necessary to impact the Chinese attitude toward the pollutants in their cities.