Environments in Crisis

The tolerance for environmental destruction is ancient and human history is littered with civilizations that failed because humans indiscriminately exploited natural resources and spoiled their own nest.The benefits to citizens of all modern industrial societies peaked sometime in recent decade.  Now ,we are paying the penalties of careless consumption and pollution of our own nest. You could argue that all human activities have adverse effects of environments, but, at the same time, you can argue that humans are capable of enhancing environments, protecting animals at risk, cultivating plants, and above all else, humans are capable of understanding their dependence on healthy nature.
In an ideal world, everyone would seek personal health and well being, but at the same time would strive to restore planet health. Smart people realize that no personal benefit will survive long in a world that is ailing, polluted and careening toward more man-made disasters.
Complex Systems The attempt to understand complex systems has taken a quantum leap in recent years. We have gone beyond naïve linear models and now appreciate that if complex systems such as the atmosphere, the oceans, and land ecosystems change, they may become unstable,  more unfriendly and less predictable. 
Extra heat will cause more turbulence, and  weather patterns will change in unpredictable ways. Unfortunately nature changes in abrupt ways and catastrophes are natural phenomena - volcanic eruptions, storms, floods, earthquakes, avalanches all represent basic patterns of nature. We have to understand that our actions contribute to weather events - the issues loom large when you consider that climate changes with increasingly destructive extreme weather events are adverse consequences of  human activities that can be improved.
Air pollution is an obvious adverse effect of human activities. Air pollution was first noticed as problem of city dwellers, poisoning themselves, but more recently, air pollution is acknowledged as a problem of global significance. Air pollution  is not a good idea for a variety of reasons, large and small. The right ideas for remediation of environmental degradations involve unselfish and compassionate behavior, a scarce commodity. The right ideas involve long-term planning, conservation and a deep commitment to preserving the natural world. Without a healthy natural environment, there will be few or no healthy humans. The really sad part of our current predicament is that all the right concerns and the right ideas for remediation have been around for decades and have been clearly articulated in many forms by a host of intelligent people.
The immediately negative effects of air pollution in cities is measured on a daily basis; however, the negative impact on human health remains mostly undefined. The largest issue is climate changes due to burning fossil fuels, increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The release of the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a milestone, a scientific consensus that we had created problems of catastrophic proportions. A political consensus was required for real, effective  remedial action in all countries.
Dec. 2007, Al Gore shared a Nobel Prize with the IPCC, a  United Nations agency. In his acceptance speech, Gore, made another passionate plea of recognition of the climate crisis and the need for cooperative action across the planet. Gore warned that “we, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency — a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.”
Humans and other animals are in peril, not the planet. Planet Earth is a work in progress that changes continuously. No environment has been stable over the stretch of millions of years and climates change without human help. The problem today is that human activities have changed the environment quickly and that current arrangements to supply clean air, good food and clean water are not sustainable.
Dec. 2007 Indonesia: At the international climate conference, the world’s nations committed to negotiating a new accord by 2009 that cut in half emissions of heat-trapping gases by 2050.  While the commitment is welcome, humans remain critical of each other, disputatious and focused on self interest. The negotiations that might lead to an accord will not be a smooth path. Even if an accord is achieved, compliance with its terms will not be enforceable. The description, global warming, has generated one of the more irrational debates of this century. A better description climate change is more readily demonstrated from weather records and insurance claims. See Climate Change.
The climate talks in Copenhagen in December 2009 involved 200 nations who  failed to achieve enforceable agreements to reduce carbon emissions. If you were an optimist you might value the Accord that was achieved, a five-page document that represented another tentative step toward  global action to reduce atmospheric pollution and climate change. A realist would restate our understanding of human nature – that local interests always trump global concerns and local interests are divergent and divisive.  US President  Obama stated: “I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen.  The science says that we’ve got to significantly reduce emissions over the next  40 years. There’s nothing in the Copenhagen agreement that ensures that will happen.”
If you were an environmentally conscious God watching human behavior, you might be properly annoyed - who gave them the right to burn all that fossil fuel, pollute the air and water, cut down all those trees, kill all those animals,  pave all those forests and farmers' fields? Why didn't they move closer and walk to work everyday? Of course, God is likely to have a longer-term view and while lamenting the current folly of humans will probably recall that planet earth undergoes continuous change and from time to time, cataclysmic events alter the entire planet. At least 90% of all the creatures that have lived on the planet are gone. Perhaps our folly is seen as just another natural phenomenon. What if 500 years from now, God enters a note into her journal " Humans on Planet Earth had the chance to get it right but  they didn't quite make it. Humans turned out to be self-destructive, short term planners and tragically selfish. They soiled their own nest and now they are gone."
Big environmental problems are built from many business and personal decisions, little mistakes that add up over time. If there is a solution, it will emerge from the collective value of millions of better decisions made by individuals all over the globe. The environmental action plan is to think globally and act locally - it does make sense.

Green House Gases

Glass covering greenhouses admits light and heat energy but blocks some of the infrared heat energy that is radiated back. When the sun shines the green house becomes warmer than the external environment. In the atmosphere, a similar effect occurs.
Greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These gases act like the glass covering a greenhouse, letting sunlight in but blocking some of the infrared radiation from the earth's surface that carries heat back into space.
The gases act like a blanket wherever their concentration increases. Local concentrations increase local heat and increased differences between hotter and colder regions drives weather events into more extreme ranges.
Global warming means that the earth retains more of the sun's heat over time. The warming effect of greenhouse gases is reduced by particle pollution and cloud that block incoming infrared radiation. Without particle pollution, global warming would be more obvious.
Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, produced by burning of fossil fuels, and other organic matter. The concentration of CO2 was 280 PPM before the industrial revolution and now is over 350 PPM.
High emission countries pump produce 3 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person, but the US produces 5.2 metric tons per person. Low emission countries produce less than 1 metric ton per capita. Most of Africa, South America, and Asia are below 1 metric ton.
In the 1990s, the US produced 23% of global CO2 emissions, Western Europe 14%, former Soviet bloc 20 %, China 12%, India 4% and Japan 5%. If you include Brazil, Indonesia and Germany in the list of major polluters, the total group accounts for 56 % of the world's population, 59% if its economic output, 58% of its carbon-dioxide emissions and 53% of its forests.
Methane is less abundant but traps more heat than carbon dioxide. Methane emissions are about 550 million tons per year from biomass decomposition in wetlands, rice farming, ruminant animals and landfills. Methane is "natural gas" and some enters the atmosphere during its commercial distribution and use as a fuel. Large reservoirs of methane also are found in the arctic and in marine sediments, as methane hydrates. Each methane molecule is encased by water ice molecules. There is speculation that ice-bound methane may be released as ocean temperatures rise and further accelerate global warming.
Nitrogen oxides, like hydrocarbons, are precursors to the formation of ozone and contribute to acid rain. Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier nitrogen gases, forming nitrous oxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide makes up about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with catalytic converters produced nearly half of that nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide also comes from nitrogen-based fertilizers and manure from farm animals.
Hydrofluorocarbon chemicals (HFCs) Refrigerants designed to protect the ozone  layer have become a major contributor to global warming. Hydrofluorocarbon chemicals (HFCs) were developed to phase out ozone-depleting gases but they are more potent than carbon dioxide as greenhouse gases. A study at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency suggested that HFC emissions will have the heat trapping effect up to 8.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually by 2010. (G. J. M. Velders et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA doi:10.1073.pnas.0902817106; 2009).
The reduction in forest biomass and the exposure of ocean plankton to increase UV radiation are also concerns. Ocean phytoplankton supplies up to 70% of the oxygen we breathe.
The planet's thermostat had been set at a pleasant  average temperature of 59 degrees (F) for the last 10 thousand years or so and is now poised to undergo a rapid change.

Aerosols

Suspended particles in the air create aerosols that are important to the behavior of whole atmosphere and play a role in determining human disease. Natural sources of atmospheric particles are volcanoes, dust storms, spontaneous forest fires, tornadoes and hurricanes. Clouds are a product of aerosols that seed the formation of water droplets. Human air pollution now dominates aerosol production over cities with negative health effects. Thick aerosols are obvious as haze and contain a complex system of particles with adherent toxic gases such as sulphur dioxide.  NASA’s earth observatory information states:
Aerosol particles may be solid or liquid; they range in size from 0.01 microns to several tens of microns. For example, cigarette smoke particles are in the middle of this size range and typical cloud drops are 10 or more microns in diameter. The majority of aerosols form a thin haze in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), where they are washed out of the air by rain within about a week. Aerosols are also found in a part of the atmosphere just above the troposphere (stratosphere). A severe volcanic eruption, such as Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, can put large amounts of aerosol into the stratosphere that remain there for many months, producing beautiful sunsets around the globe, and causing summer temperatures to be cooler than normal. Mount Pinatubo injected about 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, cooling average global temperatures over the following year by about half a degree.”  

Aerosol particles from factories and power plants increase the number of droplets in clouds that reflect more sunlight, retain water and do not produce rain. Man made aerosols change local weather systems. The effect of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is warming the planet. The effect of aerosols is cooling the planet. The net effect of air pollution depends on the ratio of warming gases to cooling particles.

Over land up to a quarter of the total airborne particulates are pollens, fungal spores, bacteria, viruses, plant and animal matter. Air inside buildings contains local aerosols that are sometimes more concentrated and more toxic than outdoor air. The term dust refers to the larger particles in the aerosol that settle on walls and furniture.

A smoker in the living room of a house produces a toxic aerosol that permeates the rest of the house. Smoke particles settle on walls and every object in a room so that a smoker leaves a trail of contamination that non-smokers smell as soon as they enter the room.

Indoor air contains a living aerosol of microorganisms that infect or trigger allergic reactions. Spores of bacteria and fungi are microscopic and may persist for months or years. You can see the indoor aerosol under the right lighting conditions, such a sunlight streaming through a window. The abundance of microorganisms, even in a very clean house, surprises most people who have tests done to assess air quality.

Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants

In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is getting poisoned.
Greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These gases act like the glass covering a greenhouse, letting sunlight in but blocking some of the infrared radiation from the earth's surface that carries heat back into space. The gases act like a blanket wherever their concentration increases. Local concentrations increase local heat and increased differences between hotter and colder regions drives weather events into more extreme ranges. Over many years, the total amount of greenhouse gases accumulates and the average temperature of the whole planet is increasing.  The planet's thermostat had been set at a pleasant  average temperature of 59 degrees (F) for the last 10 thousand years or so and is now rising.
In our view, the main concern should be the effect of  heat retention on local climates right now. It is possible to imagine increasingly anomalous weather and increasing loss of life and property from greenhouse gas accumulation with little or no change in the average temperature of the planet, although, we do expect slow progressive increase in average temperatures.

The Combustion Process  Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases. Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants.
Typical Engine Combustion:
Fuel + Air => Hydrocarbons + Nitrogen Oxides + Carbon Dioxide + Carbon Monoxide + water
Hydrocarbon emissions are fragments of fuel molecules, only partially burned. See Toxicity of Benzene and other Hydrocarbons in exhaust.
Hydrocarbons react in the presence of nitrogen oxides and sunlight to form ground-level ozone, a major component of smog. Ozone irritates the eyes, nose, throat and damages the lungs. A number of exhaust hydrocarbons are also toxic, some with the potential to cause cancer.
Nitrogen Oxides  Under high pressure and temperature conditions in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides. Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) - 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2. NO2 also originates from nitrogen-based fertilizers and manure from farm animals.
Carbon Monoxide  Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, a product of incomplete burning of hydrocarbon-based fuels. Carbon monoxide consists of a single carbon atom and a single oxygen atom linked together (CO), the product of incomplete combustion of fuel. Most CO is produced when air-to-fuel ratios are too low in the engine during vehicle starting, when cars are not tuned properly, and at higher altitudes, where thin air reduces the amount of oxygen available for combustion. Two-thirds of the carbon monoxide emissions come from transportation sources, with the largest contribution coming from cars. In urban areas, the passenger vehicle contribution to carbon monoxide pollution can exceed 90%.  Read more about Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) originally viewed carbon dioxide as a product of "perfect" combustion, but now views CO2 as a pollution concern. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps the earth's heat and contributes to Climate Change 
Evaporative Emissions  Hydrocarbon pollutants also escape into the air through fuel evaporation - evaporation causes significant hydrocarbon pollution from cars on hot days when ozone levels are highest. Evaporative emissions occur several ways:
Diurnal: Gasoline evaporation increases as the temperature rises during the day, heating the fuel tank and venting gasoline vapors.
Running Loses: The hot engine and exhaust system can vaporize gasoline when the car is running.
Sitting Evaporation: The engine remains hot for a period of time after the car is turned off, and gasoline evaporation continues when the car is parked.
Adding Fuel: Gasoline vapors are always present in fuel tanks. These vapors are forced out when the tank is filled with liquid fuel.
(See Cars and Pollution US EPA Fact Sheet OMS-5)
Benzene  is the main toxin in the hydrocarbon fraction of exhaust. Benzene and other less known hydrocarbons are produced in petroleum refining, and are widely used as solvents and as materials in the production of various industrial products and pesticides. Benzene also is found in gasoline and in cigarette smoke. Other environmental sources of benzene include gasoline (filling) stations, underground storage tanks that leak, wastewater from industries that use benzene, chemical spills, and groundwater next to landfills containing benzene. Exposure to benzene can cause cancer, especially leukemias and lymphomas. Benzene has a suppressive effect on bone marrow and it impairs blood cell maturation and amplification.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
PAHs are a group of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances. PAHs can be man-made or occur naturally. A few of the PAHs are used in medicines and to make dyes, plastics, and pesticides. They are found throughout the environment in the air, water and soil. There are more than 100 different PAH compounds. Although the health effects of the individual PAHs vary, the following 15 PAHs are considered as a group with similar toxicity: acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzanthracene, benzopyrene, benzofluoranthene, benzoperylene, benzofluoranthene, chrysene dibenzanthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indenopyrene, phenanthrene, pyrene.
Long term solutions require reduced combustion of all kinds. While vehicles with new energy sources such ethanol, biofuels, propane and natural gas can contribute to reduced air pollution, their benefit is limited if vehicle use continues at current intensities. If you pay more money to buy a hybrid car, but drive it more, you have contributed little to solving air pollution problems. If you buy a gas guzzling clunker and use only one gallon of gas to go 15 miles each week, you have contributed more to the solution.
The problem with all alternative fuels is that the manufacture of fuels requires energy, distribution with a manufacturing infrastructure that consume energy, often derived from burning fossil fuels. No alternative fuel is ideal. See Switch to Biofuels
Hydrogen  Ultimately cars might burn hydrogen in fuel cells, but despite working prototypes, a hydrogen economy is a distant fantasy. There are many problems to be solved before hydrogen can replace fossil fuels as a portable energy source. The biggest problem is that producing hydrogen requires a large amount of energy. In Canada, there are opportunities to dam rivers and produce electricity with falling water, a non polluting, renewable energy resource. A more problematic energy source would be be nuclear reactors that "burn" uranium or plutonium. Even if new non-polluting energy sources are developed,  hydrogen storage and distribution requires a new, very expensive infrastructure that could replace gasoline and diesel fuels. 
With once rich countries such as the USA on the verge of bankruptcy and facing the extensive repairs of already aging, derelict infrastructures, adding a new, unprecedented development costs seems unlikely. Unless, of course the priorities in the US shift dramatically. The US, for example, could adopt a sane, smart strategy, reduce its military budget by 50% and invest the money and skills in rebuilding the country's infrastructure with new sustainable energy sources.

Cars, Trucks, Air Pollution and Health

Driving a car is the most air polluting act an average citizen commits. Air pollution is not a good idea for a variety of reasons, large and small. The right ideas for remediation of environmental degradations involve unselfish and compassionate behavior, a scarce commodity. The right ideas involve long-term planning, conservation and a deep commitment to preserving the natural world. Without a healthy natural environment, there will be few or no healthy humans.

To understand air pollution you can consider a simple schematic that divides a big problem into components.
1. Local effects -e.g. poisoning humans breathing bad air.
2. Regional effects - fallout from airborne pathogens - infections, particles, chemicals.
3. Global effects - changing interactions between the atmosphere, oceans and the sun, weather effects, effects on plants and the ocean biosphere.
Developments in the media made "go green" the slogan for action to limit the adverse effects of air pollution. Green refers to the color of chlorophyll in plants. Chlorophyll is the basis of photosynthesis that allows plants to turn the sun's energy into life energy. Human action destroys plants and replaces healthy ecosystems with concrete and asphalt. Another slogan that emerged was "save planet earth." Humans will not save the planet. The task for humans is to stop destroying the environments that sustain themselves. If we fail, the planet will do just fine without humans.
The deepest problem for humans is that we cannot predict the future with any accuracy. Even the best informed scientist with the most recent data cannot know what is going to happen next. When we talk about prudence, we refer to methods of minimizing risk and preparing to deal with events beyond our control which can injure or kill us. Preparation for natural catastrophes, accidents and illness can consume a large chunk of our resources. Smart humans notice adverse changes and take action to minimize adverse consequences. But not all human are smart or prudent.
The year 2008 will be remembered as the near-collapse of capitalist economies. Among the corporations in trouble in the US and Canada were General Motors and Chrysler. All the US/Canada car and truck manufacturers had promoted their larger vehicles on customers by exploiting the innate human tendency to seek domination over others. Bigger is better. In 2009 the GM and Chrysler refurbished their operations and offered smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles for sale. Ford appeared to be unscathed by the recession.
The explosion of a a deep sea oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico is a reminder that gas and diesel consumers are  partners in causing environmental degradation and disasters. While BP gets most of the  blame, two US companies who built and operated the oil rig actually caused the problem. Among the most angry BP critics are consumers of BP products. Surely the blame should be widely distributed and must include the consumers of petroleum products.
The only certainty is that the future should look very different from the past. When we consider air pollution in cities from burning fossil fuels  as the main source of energy for electricity production, transportation, home heating and industrial production, then the entire infrastructure of industrial countries must change. 
When cars and trucks are the focus, manufacturers are the chosen culprits, but the people who buy and drive vehicles are really responsible for creating a better future for themselves and their children. The immediate challenge  for vehicle users is not to replace existing vehicles with more fuel efficient versions, but to reduce use and participate in a new vision of car-free living environments. Citizens and not governments must end the madness of traffic, gridlock, superhighways, smog and lethal accidents.
Friendly or Lethal? Cars have two opposite personalities. One is friendly and attractive the other is destructive and can be lethal. The desire to own a car is linked to pleasure, sexuality, convenience and freedom. Men lust for big, prestigious cars they way they lust for women and women desire men with big, prestigious cars. Men are also interested in power, performance and want to know something about the engine, although modern engines are sufficiently complex to discourage even the professional mechanic. Some of the engine complexity electronic monitoring and adjustment of engine performance under different operating conditions. Several devices are added to the engine to handle air flow in, fuel delivery and exhaust out. Computers have been added to monitor and control engine, brake and transmission operation. The design of new hybrid vehicles involves even more complexity with electronic sensors feeding data to computers that manage every system. The cost of repairs will increase as will the demand for new sophistication from mechanics. The most advanced designs use only black box modules that cannot be repaired at the local garage but can be replaced with new or rebuild modules. This might be a wonderful solution, but only if you can afford it.
Extravagant Car Use  Emissions from passenger vehicles increased in Canada and the US despite attempts to make engines more fuel efficient and despite the addition of antipollution devices. The two main reasons were: 1. vehicle use  increased; 2. in the US and Canada, cars got bigger; pick-up trucks, vans and sports vehicles often replaced smaller, lighter passenger cars. An average new vehicle in 2003 consumed more fuel that its counterpart in 1988. In the USA in 1987 cars averaged 25.9 miles to the gallon. Fuel efficiency dropped to 24.6 miles/gallon by 1998 and it dropped further as larger vehicles replace smaller ones. The decision to drive cars long distances to work was common among people in North America and Europe in the past 60 years. In retrospect, it is clear that commuters made a mistake. They should now stop commuting by cars. Their mistake had health and economic consequences for them personally and for every other inhabitant of planet earth.
Despite compelling evidence of climate change, governments in many affluent countries have avoided their responsibility to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The USA is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases worldwide. US emissions increased to 7 billion tones of CO₂ in 2004, 16% higher than emissions in the late 90's. The UK did better reducing their emissions to about 0.6 billion tons, 14% below 1990 levels. An accurate analysis of total greenhouse gas emission is difficult or impossible to achieve since there many variable and unknowns. Take the US estimates, for example, and pursue the argument that the US is also responsible for some emissions from other countries, which provide raw materials and manufacturing for the US economy.  Romm argued: "U.S. businesses have off-shored more and more of the U.S. economy’s and  CO2 emissions to parts of the world where the carbon intensity is higher but labor is cheaper. The U.S. has essentially off-shored its emission problem to the rest of the world, turning their economies into dumping grounds for our own air pollution. "
Car exhaust is toxic at ground level  Exhaust from all combustion engines combine to produce local adverse effects on the health of car users and all innocent bystanders. Cities have become islands of toxic chemicals from the unrestrained use of vehicles burning fossil fuels. Cars are noisy, ugly, often dangerous and dominate the experience of modern living. We are now used to the carnage on  roads and highways- attempts to reduce death and disability from our motorized containers have not substantially altered the negative impact on society. The adverse health effects of car exhaust are pervasive and difficult to measure. See Exhaust Chemicals.
Advertising and Delusions Television Ads for  sports and recreation vehicles show solitary, impeccable machines  in wilderness locations. One TV ad shows a couple making a mad dash to escape the city core in their expensive, luxury upholstered clone of the land-rover. The ads are selling a fantasy of wilderness, fresh air and escape. Is the consumer is completely deluded? These vehicles are mostly found in suburban driveways and in the traffic jams of polluted cities. They have nowhere to go to escape the  environmental degradation they help to create: 4x4 drives and large tires are rarely useful in cities and are not suited to highway driving. You see these machines, submerged in suburban driveways by the floods they helped to create. The latest 2010 car advertising has switched to styling, crash protection, interior comforts and fuel efficiency as the main selling points. While these improvements are welcome, reduced vehicle use is the most essential remedy and is seldom mentioned.
Ethanol Combustion engines contribute to greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere and are responsible for climate changes. A sane, sober revision of vehicle use is long overdue. While ethanol has been championed as an alternative to petroleum fuels, it mainly helps to reduce dependency on oil producing countries. Ethanol or methanol can be blended with gasoline to reduce petroleum dependency. Gasoline engines can use up to 10% ethanol without modification. New "flex" engines can use higher percentages of ethanol up to 100%. North American and European flex-fuel vehicles are optimized to run on a maximum blend of 15% gasoline with 85%  ethanol (E85 fuel). The production of flex engine vehicles has increased, but the supply of flex fuel is limited.
There are problems in the bigger picture of carbon consumption and emission. When ethanol is made from corn, some its energy value (up to 70% in the least efficient plants) must be spent on its production. While  innovations in production technologies continue, there will be an ongoing requirement to invent new methods of production. Investment in new technologies will require government policy changes, subsidies and research grants.  Climate change with extreme weather events may reduce corn production in the US, where for decades corn surpluses were common. The new competition between ethanol plants and food production suddenly in 2008 became an international issue.
If you are an optimist, you might argue that improved technologies will save the day --- corn yields per acre have been increasing mostly because of genetic engineering, so that food and ethanol production need not compete in the future. The ethanol industry uses only the carbohydrate fraction of the corn; the protein and oil fractions are used as animal feed to be consumed by humans as dairy products, eggs and meat. If you are a pessimist, you might point to the recurrent droughts in recent years in the US corn producing regions and predict more crop failures in years to come.  Other non-food vegetable sources of carbon will become alternative sources of raw materials. (See Biofuels).
Hydrogen The ultimate cars burn hydrogen in fuel cells, but despite working prototypes, a hydrogen fuel infrastructure is a distant fantasy.  One problem is the low energy density of liquefied hydrogen that requires larger tanks than the equivalent gasoline tank. Another problem is that producing hydrogen requires a large amount of energy. In Canada, there are opportunities to dam more  rivers and produce electricity with falling water, a non polluting, renewable energy resource.  A science fiction fantasy might include a novel way of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen with less energy consumed but no-one knows how to do this in 2011. Even if new non-polluting energy sources are developed,  hydrogen storage and distribution requires investment in a very expensive infrastructure.  
An innovative use of hydrogen added  in small quantities to gasoline and diesel engines-has been achieved by the h2gogo HRN3 Hydrogen Generator The generator produces hydrogen from distilled water and is retro-fitted to regular engines. The hydrogen input results in more efficient fuel burn, in reduced emissions and improved engine efficiency and power output. The Heathrow Airport in England retrofitted hydrogen generator units to a range of vehicles  and reported  up to 40% reduction in carbon dioxide, particulates, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions.
Understanding Complex Ecosystems  Our ability to monitor and understand the atmosphere has taken a quantum leap in recent years. We have gone beyond naïve linear models and now appreciate that if complex systems such as the atmosphere, the oceans, and land ecosystems change, they may become unstable and more unfriendly. Extra heat will cause more turbulence, and  weather patterns will change in unpredictable ways. While climate models are interesting, they have have limited to no predictive abilities. Rather than playing with unreliable, long-term predictions, a sober assessment of what is happening right now should motivate action to change human behavior. Actions, such as driving cars whenever and wherever we please, do pollute the air, change the atmosphere and cause more extreme weather events. Smart humans notice adverse changes and take action to minimize adverse consequences. But not all human are smart or prudent.
What Can I do? Drive Less  Both local and global pollution would be reduced if each car-driving person pledged to use their car 30% less starting immediately. This is a responsible, individual contribution to a global problem. At least 30% of vehicle use is optional - either recreational or lazy driving when walking, cycling or public transit would be a better choice.
Cities can reduce vehicular traffic by more than 30% over the next 3 to 5 years by improving public transportation. Commuter trains are a model of urban access for suburban residents who drive their cars short distances, park in terminal lots and ride the train into town.  Cities can create car free zones and develop park-like corridors that would allow movement through the city by walking, cycling and limited use of small, light electric vehicles in vehicle corridors specially designed to be safe and efficient.
The rising cost of crude oil  is altering driving habits and big auto companies closed plants that produced SUVs and pickup trucks. If you are interested in longer term human survival, then high cost oil is a real benefit. With or without higher fuel prices, each person can drive less and resist the temptation to buy larger, heavier cars, trucks and sports vehicles. If you really need a 4x4 to drive off-roads in wilderness settings, you need a rugged clunker that's already got scratches, dents and mud on the tires. Carry a shovel, axe, chain saw, and a come-along in the back. If you can afford it, add a heavy duty winch up front. Stay off city streets and highways.  See Disease Effects, Car Exhaust

Solutions: Reduce Air Pollution by changing the design and use of motor vehicles

The use of cars must be re-defined. Car use has to be considered a privilege, not a right. The cost of environmental damage and reclamation has to be added to the cost of owning and operating a car. Vehicle use should no longer be subsidized.
Reduce number of Vehicles - Urban areas need to set vehicular quotas and issue permits to limit the number of vehicles to control regional traffic congestion and air pollution.
Small hybrid or 100% electric cars are desirable, but make their occupants specially vulnerable when they collide with much larger vehicles. A sane city would separate small, efficient passenger vehicles from buses and trucks.
Improve efficiency of vehicles - reverse the trend to larger vehicles; engineering solutions to emissions of combustion engines. Flex fuel and hybrid cars are a step in the right direction but in small numbers will not have a significant impact on air pollution. Reduced vehicle use and traffic reform can be a bigger and more immediate remedy for urban air pollution. Improved efficiency of traffic is important. Examples are: dedicated bus lanes and  priority for car-pools and vehicles with 3 or more passengers. Traffic can be scheduled to optimize road usage; e.g. commercial traffic at night; large companies can stagger working hours and decentralize administrative operations. Commuting long distances in cars to work needs to be phased out. Single passenger commuting to work should be strongly discouraged.
The most accessible measure of air pollution contribution is the amount of fossil fuel burned.
Recreational driving can be reduced immediately. Car owners need to pay for miles driven and fuel burned on an escalating scale. Each person can have a "free driving" allotment per year and pay increasing insurance and/or taxes on fuel consumption beyond this limit.
Governments can encourage the reduction of vehicular use by:

• Promoting Voluntary abstention
• Increase Public Transit - diversify options and limit access to existing roads.
• Separate commercial and private traffic to increase efficient use of roads
• Stop building car-oriented roads and highways
• Replace 30% of the existing roads designed for cars with park-like corridors 
• In cities, build more walking paths, bicycle routes and roads for small electric vehicles
• Reduce commuting - link residence and business activities by rezoning and rebuilding cities.
• Reward car-pools and car-sharing plans
• Redefine road use by defining access privileges - no longer a right
• Road Tolls and increased gasoline and vehicle registration taxes
• Base car license fees on fuel consumption in the previous year. Use exponential fee rate increase for high fuel consumption individuals.
• Provide generous development grants and tax incentives for all non-polluting transportation alternatives.

Governments can use a combination of

• Voluntary and Reward Schemes
• Compulsory and Penalty Schemes
• Incentives for New Technology and Changes in Industrial Fuel Consumption

Long term solutions require that vehicles use less polluting energy sources such  biofuels, propane and natural gas. I am sorry to say that the marketing of "green solutions" to global warming is becoming yet another scam. One problem is that producing alternate fuels and hybrid cars often requires CO₂ emissions that offset or cancel the benefits of improve vehicular design. See Biofuels

Electric Cars are on the road, under development and promise to become vehicles of choice for urban transportation. The new cars represent advances in technology that link computers, electric motors and batteries into systems that drive well, self-regulate, and require little maintenance. The main components are modules that are removed to be refurbished in specialized factories and recycled. One limitation is battery technology. Batteries are heavy, wear out quickly with repeated recharging and require expensive, rather scarce materials such as lithium. Another more severe limitation is obtaining electricity from a non-polluting power source. Even if all the technical problems of building reliable electric cars were solved, there remains a daunting list of infrastructure problems yet to be solved. While electric cars produce little air pollution, generating electricity  continues to be a major source of air pollution. If an electric car is recharged with electricity produced by a fossil fuel burning generator, there may be no net benefit to the atmosphere.  A real solution for car technology would reduce air pollution beginning at source materials and would continue through the use cycle of the vehicle. While is it feasible to use fossil fuels in generation plants with all the latest techniques of emission control and C02 recycling, these plants are uncommon in 2010. Before more people plug in electric vehicles, a new infrastructure of non-polluting, affordable electricity production will have to be built.
You might imagine new residential and commercial buildings that conserve energy and generate their own electricity with solar panels and wind generators that also charge their own electric vehicles. The cost of constructing new, more autonomous buildings is so great that only the wealthiest citizens can afford the capital costs.
In the immediate future reduced car use is the best solution. A gas-inefficient clunker driven twice a week for 20 km is a better choice than a new expensive hybrid car driven everyday for 100 Km. No solution is better than fewer vehicles and reduced vehicle use.

flow chart to save nature

flow chart to save nature

flow chart to save nature

flow chart to save nature

Giraffe Conservation Demography

Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) are immensely charismatic animals that also indicate the health of African savanna ecosystems, home to the greatest ungulate diversity on Earth. Despite their popularity, giraffe have declined by an estimated 30% in just the last decade due to extensive habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and poaching.  Giraffe are large (830-1000 kg), long-lived, browsing ruminants that eat leaves, twigs and fruits of Acacia and other species of woody vegetation. The main predator of giraffe is lions, which preferentially select giraffe. Giraffe provide an unusual opportunity to examine juvenile survival due to their year-round breeding cycle (birth flow reproduction as opposed to birth pulse). Giraffe are characterized as asynchronous breeders, but there is some evidence for a seasonal birth peak that coincides with peak protein content of new Acacia tree leaves during the dry season.

Development of effective conservation and management measures for at-risk species such as giraffe requires a thorough understanding of demography. Demography is births, deaths, and movement rates which together dictate overall population fitness with a quantity called ‘lambda’. Surprisingly little is known about the demography of giraffe and how they are responding to rapidly changing land-use patterns. To compound the problem, Giraffe Skin Disease (GSD) is a newly observed disease affecting skin on the legs of giraffes in Tanzania. Causative agent, rate of spread, and mortality effects of GSD are yet to be established, but wildlife managers are concerned about possible increased risk of predation and secondary infections.

Large, long-lived mammals such as giraffe have life-histories characterized by low productivity, delayed maturity, and relatively high adult survival probabilities. The elasticity of adult survival on population trend is substantially greater than that of equivalent relative changes in fecundity or juvenile survival. However, the survival rate of adults, particularly prime-aged females, tends to be highly stable in long-lived large mammals, while juvenile survival shows wide annual variability. Accordingly, variable juvenile survival could in practice be the factor mostly responsible for fluctuations in population abundance.

Studies of juvenile survival rate and the factors that influence variation in this important parameter can provide insights into population dynamics, life history theory, individual fitness, and the selective forces that shape evolution. Quantifying juvenile survival rate and the relative influence of the various potential selective forces is difficult. Constraints of most field studies of large mammals typically limit investigators to estimating a single juvenile survival rate for the first year of life, or from birth to recruitment in species with delayed sexual maturity.

Like most African ungulates, giraffe reside in heterogeneous landscapes that are experiencing major losses and degradation of habitat quality due to changing land uses. Especially problematic for ungulates in the Maasai country of east Africa is a recent increase in settlement farming in formerly pastoral lands. Changing land use means subpopulations of wildlife face different habitat quality conditions and anthropogenic threats that can influence birth, death, and movement rates. A subpopulation may contain many animals but have low survival and reproduction, acting as a sink that consumes surplus animals from a smaller, healthier source subpopulation. Thus, the number of animals in an area does not tell the complete story of how that subpopulation contributes to the species’ overall welfare. Targeting conservation towards the sink subpopulation with the mistaken belief that it is more important than the smaller source subpopulation, ultimately will result in the loss of both populations. Therefore, site-specific demographic data (“lambda landscape maps”) are essential for successfully conserving imperiled wildlife and for developing effective management and sustainable-use models like those that exist for temperate species such as deer and elk.

The Tarangire Ecosystem encompasses 35,000 sq. km. including a significant portion of the remaining Maasai giraffe range ( G. c. tippelskirchi). Land management in the Tarangire Ecosystem is divided among National Parks, Game Control Areas, private and village lands, and a private conservancy. Aerial wildlife surveys have been conducted only every 4–5 years because of their considerable cost. To date, our understanding of the status of giraffe populations has been based upon simple counts of animals from aerial surveys, which provide little information about spatial heterogeneity of population declines, and are not useful for estimating survival, reproductive, or movement rates because they do not identify individuals.

Giraffe Skin Disease was first recorded in November 2000 in Ruaha National Park in central Tanzania. Currently the disease has spread to all parts of Ruaha, and has been observed in Tarangire and Lake Manyara national parks in the Tarangire Ecosystem. An international effort has been initiated to understand this disease, its dynamics, and its effects on giraffe populations involving wildlife veterinarians from Tanzania, the U.S.A. and the U.K., and population biologists from Dartmouth College and Wild Nature Institute in the U.S.A. However, limited capacity in Tanzania has been a major challenge hindering successful identification of GSD pathogens, its dynamics, and mortality effects.

Project Actions:

We have developed and validated a computer-assisted photographic mark-recapture method to estimate population parameters for giraffe. As technology and research ethics have evolved, animal marking techniques have progressed towards less invasive approaches. Placing a visible mark is still the most common method, but marking an animal induces acute effects of capture and chronic effects of carrying the mark. Computer-assisted photographic mark-recapture is noninvasive and low cost, and enables large sample sizes which enhance cost-effectiveness and animal welfare.

Our software analyzes digital images of giraffe spot patterns that we acquire in the field and compares them to previously acquired images in our existing database. Mark-recapture data are the raw materials for estimating population size, survival, recruitment, and movement rates. We have an existing image database acquired in 2008 and 2009. We propose to collect an additional 3 years of photographic mark-recapture data with sampling of giraffe 4 times per year in each land-management category. These data provide us with the replication necessary to rigorously estimate temporal effects, habitat quality, disease transmission and mortality rates, and human impacts on giraffe population dynamics.

Mark-recapture data allow us to estimate giraffe demographic rates at a fine spatial scale, and create a map of giraffe fitness in this landscape. These rates are being examined among different land management units (e.g. to compare survival rates between national parks and game control areas), to compare survival and reproduction in areas with differing vegetation (from existing GIS databases). These data also allow us to track movement of individuals within and among management units to identify potential critical dispersal corridors. These analyses help us to discriminate high-quality source habitats from low-quality sink habitats. We can also determine GSD infection rates, whether GSD significantly raises mortality or decreases fecundity, and if so, which areas are most affected.

We are using CMR data to estimate quarterly survival rates of dependent juvenile, independent juvenile, and adult giraffe to investigate effects of habitat attributes on those survival probabilities. Ungulate mortality is generally attributed to predation or food limitation. We are modeling giraffe survival in each age class as a function of vegetation variables (quantity and quality), giraffe density, lion density, and human density within each site to determine the relative importance of each factor.

Vegetation quantity are measured using remotely sensed data in a GIS layer developed by the Tarangire NP GIS lab and systematic point-centered quarter methods. To quantify spatio-temporal differences in browse quality, we are measuring vegetation quality in all sites in all seasons using a portable chlorophyll meter at random stratified plots. We are measuring foliar nitrogen concentration of tree species browsed by giraffe using a SPAD 502 portable chlorophyll meter (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan). The SPAD meter was demonstrated to be a useful tool for nondestructively assessing foliar Nitrogen status, particularly for relative comparison purposes, for several tree species.

Predation pressure is quantified according to source. Human poaching pressure is quantified by human population density from census records and village house counts. Lion predation is quantified by collaborating with the Tarangire Lion Project to obtain site- and season-specific indices of lion predation pressure. Both food and predation functions may be affected by giraffe density in a given site. We are using line transect distance sampling to estimate site- and season-specific giraffe, wildebeest, and zebra density to determine how these quantities interact with food and predation.

Our results and conclusions will be disseminated via the annual Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) conference, peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals, and informal meetings with officials from TAWIRI, Tanzanian National Parks, and conservation NGOs such as Manyara Ranch Conservancy, African Wildlife Foundation, and Wildlife Conservation Society. These site-specific data are exactly what are needed to inform conservation decision-making by these agencies.

Project Goals:

This project is being conducted with Dr. Doug Bolger of Dartmouth College.  Derek Lee is a PhD Fellow working with Dr. Bolger studying giraffe demography.  Our project’s ultimate goal is to improve our understanding of ungulate population dynamics by adding robust estimates of survival, reproductive success, and movement for a tropical ungulate species to the existing knowledge base of temperate species. Our proximate goal is to understand giraffe population dynamics and quantify habitat quality in order to successfully conserve the species and their savanna habitat. Our lambda landscape map will identify the highest-quality habitat areas and most productive subpopulations in order to focus conservation efforts on the engines of population growth.

Save our nature!

Save our nature!
It is hard to say what the meaning of nature is. ‘Nature’ refers to life in general – various types of living plants and animals, the weather and all the things around us. It seems that ‘nature’ is something completely known for people, because we know it from our observations, and also from the physics, biology and geography books. But the knowledge that these sciences give us is changeable. “Nature likes to hide” – it is so right, because nature has so many secrets and mysteries that we haven’t even thought of.
In the Renaissance people discovered the beauty of nature and they tried to appreciate it. Beauty took an important place in the arts and book stories. Nature has inspired so many photographers, painters and artists. While some of us perpetuate it, most of the people are not able to understand its grandeur and greatness.
Pollution is one of the most serious problems in our century. There are different kinds of pollution that affect the air, water and soil. In my view acid rain can be very dangerous for our life. It has harmful effects on plants, animals and infrastructure. The rain is caused by human activities and carelessness. Yes! You, the person who is a part of nature, actually pollute it. And how do you want to live in a beautiful and clean nature when you don’t want to do anything to make your life better and easier? When you change your thinking about the world around, you will actually change your life. It sounds easy, but I don’t think so!
‘The Eden for me, this is the nature. The Eden for nature now, this is a world without people.’ It’s really interesting and of course there is a big truth in it. For us there is only one Eden – the one on Earth. Nowadays people do everything with their “great minds”. They invent new machines and technologies. But with this same mind they destroy the only thing which is more powerful – nature.
People want to determine the rules on Earth. They possess so many things but they are speechless and powerless when they are in front of NATURE! Save it and it will save you!

Salt Pollution

Salt Pollution


     As awareness for pollution increases, other forms of pollution are
defined. Almost everyone knows about toxic waste and carbon dioxide pollution,
but not many people have heard of salt pollution. Salt pollution has been on
the increase since the evolution of the automobile. With more pressure on
government agencies to keep the highway clear and safe, an increase in the use
of salt has developed. It is important to understand why salt is used and how
it work as well as the environmental effects to understand the salt pollution
problem.

     Salt is a necessary and accepted part of the winter environment. It
provides safety and mobility for motorists, commercial vehicles and emergency
vehicles. Salt is used as the principal deicer because it is the most available
and cost-effective deicer. Rock salt is preferred because it is cheap and
effective. It costs 20 dollars a ton where as an alternative like calcium
magnesium cost around 700 dollars a ton. Some 10 million tons of deicing salt is
used each year in the U.S. and about 3 million in Canada.

     Salt is used to keep snow and ice from bonding to the pavement and to
allow snowplows to remove. When salt is applied to ice and snow it creates a
brine that has a lower freezing temperature than the surrounding ice or snow.
Salt is the ideal deicing material because it is:

     •the least expensive deicer
     •easy to spread
     •easy to store and handle
     •readily available
     •non-toxic
     •harmless to skin and clothing


     Salt pollution is broken into two main groups. Water, which includes
the effects on ground water, surface water and aquatic life and land.

     Most of the salt applied to the roadways eventually ends up in the
ground water. It is estimated that 30% to 50% of the salt used travels into the
ground water. Salt effect two areas of ground water, chloride concentration and
sodium concentration. Chlorides may be present in the form of sodium chloride
crystals or as a ion in a solution. Normal concentrations in the water are
average around 10 mg/litre. Concentrations found in ground water near major
highways have been recorded as high as 250 mg/litre which is around the
threshold of taste.

     The main factor with ground water pollution is the risk to human health.
The raised level in sodium in water can cause high blood pressure and
hypertension. With people who already suffer from these problem it is necessary
to keep their salt intake relatively low, they should not drink water above 20
mg/liter. Although this is recommended, a study of private well water in
Toronto showed that half the wells exceeded this limit, twenty percent exceeded
100 mg/litre and six percent exceeded 250 mg/litre. This increase in sodium and
chlorine can also cause problem with water balance in the human body.

     As well as surface water, ground water is also affected by road salting.
Although the effects are not as great as ground water, they still pose problems
to the environment. The problems are based on the salt ions. The salt ions
interact with heavy metal that fall to the bottom of the body of water. An
example of this is when sodium and chlorine ions compete for mercury to bond
with. This cause the release of mercury into the water system. The risk of
mercury poisoning is far greater than that of sodium or chlorine. This increase
of sodium and chlorine as well as mercury and other heavy metal also cause
changes in the pH of water.

     The increase of salt around bodies of water also effect aquatic life in
the area. Two main areas that are effected are osmotic regulation in fish and
the death of micro-biotic life in ponds and lakes. Most fish life can only
tolerate a narrow range of salt content in the water. The increase of salt in
the water produced by road de-icing cause freshwater fish to swell up with water.
The increased salt cause a lower concentration of water in the fishes cells.
To compensate, the fishes body takes in water to restore equilibrium. This can
kill fish if the salt concentration becomes to high.

     Just as important as fish, microorganisms are also effected in a
detrimental way. Microrganisms are tiny organism that sustain aquatic life in
all bodies of water. They are more susceptible to the effect of salt pollution
than fish. These microorganism are at the bottom of the food chain, when they
die, it doesn't take long for the rest of the food chain to follow. Large
increase in salt concentration can cause 75% - 100% death for these
microorganisms, The effect of salt is almost immediate. Most of the organism
are only one cell big and blow up in contact with increased amounts of salt.

     Water insects are also effected by the increase in salt in the
environment. The number of insects lowers because the inability for water
insects to reproduces in the presence of high salt concentrations. With the
decreasing numbers in microorganisms, insects and fish, it is easy to see the
effect it would have on the rest of the food chain even though other animal may
be more salt tolerable.

     Salt pollution also is a major factor to land. It can also be broken up
into the effects on soil, vegetation and animals.

     The effect of salt on soil may seem relatively less important than the
other topics mentioned so far, but it leads up to more important things. The
effect salt has on soil is that it alters the soil structure. Sodium chloride
actually deteriorates the structure of the soil. This cause a decrease in soil
fertility. In most cases calcium in the soil is replaced by sodium in a anion
exchange. The make the soil less usable by vegetation. This also occurs with
magnesium. This depletion of calcium and magnesium also causes the soil to
increase in alkalinity with pH of nearly 10. Normal pH for the soils tested
were between 5.4 and 6.6.

     High concentrations of sodium in the soil also makes the soil less
permeable. In some case soil may be encrusted in a layer of salt. As a result,
moisture content in the soil may be drastically decreased. High concentrations
of salt may also cause clay to have a decreased concentration of water. This
makes the clay harder and vegetation is less likely to grow.

     Although salt already effects the soil vegetation grows in, it also can
directly effect vegetation itself. Vegetation can be dehydrate to the point of
death when in contact with high levels of salt. This occurs because the osmotic
stress put on the plant make it react like it was in a drought. A decrease in
roots production and burns to leaf tips cause the plant to go into shock.

     Salt injury will also occur when plants come into contact with increased
levels of salt. Salt injury is when foliage damage is present by leaf burn,
die-back, defoliation and brooming. It can also cause fruit trees to have
reduced quantity and quality of fruit. This occurs with only a small amount of
salt comes in contact with the plant. It only take 0.5% of the plants tissue
dry weight to become salt before the plant reach toxic levels. Increased
chlorine levels can also cause salt injury to a plant in the same way. Salt
injury also effect trees as well as small plant life. Growth of plants in also
effected by the presence of sodium and chlorine.

     Animal are also greatly effected by roadway de-icing. Although animals
tolerance to salt intake is quite high using salt for de-icing road presents
unusual dangers. Moose and deer become susceptible to salt pollution because of
their attraction to salt. Deer and moose are know to drink the salty water
around roads. It becomes an addiction to them and reduces the level of fear
when in contact with cars and people. They have also been found licking the
gravel and the side of the road and even the road itself in search for salt.

     Small animals are effected more by the toxicity of high levels of salt.
Increased levels of salt in small wildlife caused kidney hemorrhaging,
depression, excitement, tremors, incoordination, coma and death. Rabbits seem
to be the most susceptible because their inability to stop consuming salt.
Household pets are also effected. once outside, salt collects on their feet.
Pets consume a lot salt when cleaning their feet. This causes cats and dogs to
get inflamed stomachs.

     As one can see, the effect of roadway de-icing on the environment are
tremendous. The use of salt causes a great burden to both land and water. One
must weigh the pro's and con's of de-icing when learn about the effects of salt
on the environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

Efforts to improve the standard of living for humans--through the control of nature and the development of new products--have also resulted in the pollution, or contamination, of the environment. Much of the world's air, water, and land is now partially poisoned by chemical wastes. Some places have become uninhabitable. This pollution exposes people all around the globe to new risks from disease. Many species of plants and animals have become endangered or are now extinct. As a result of these developments, governments have passed laws to limit or reverse the threat of environmental pollution.

Ecology and Environmental Deterioration

The branch of science that deals with how living things, including humans, are related to their surroundings is called ecology . The Earth supports some 5 million species of plants, animals, and microorganisms. These interact and influence their surroundings, forming a vast network of interrelated environmental systems called ecosystems. The arctic tundra is an ecosystem and so is a Brazilian rain forest. The islands of Hawaii are a relatively isolated ecosystem. If left undisturbed, natural environmental systems tend to achieve balance or stability among the various species of plants and animals. Complex ecosystems are able to compensate for changes caused by weather or intrusions from migrating animals and are therefore usually said to be more stable than simple ecosystems. A field of corn has only one dominant species, the corn plant, and is a very simple ecosystem. It is easily destroyed by drought, insects, disease, or overuse. A forest may remain relatively unchanged by weather that would destroy a nearby field of corn, because the forest is characterized by greater diversity of plants and animals. Its complexity gives it stability.

Population Growth and Environmental Abuse

The reduction of the Earth's resources has been closely linked to the rise in human population. For many thousands of years people lived in relative harmony with their surroundings. Population sizes were small, and life-supporting tools were simple. Most of the energy needed for work was provided by the worker and animals. Since about 1650, however, the human population has increased dramatically. The problems of overcrowding multiply as an ever-increasing number of people are added to the world's population each year.

Air Pollution

Factories and transportation depend on huge amounts of fuel--billions of tons of coal and oil are consumed around the world every year. When these fuels burn they introduce smoke and other, less visible, by-products into the atmosphere. Although wind and rain occasionally wash away the smoke given off by power plants and automobiles, the cumulative effect of air pollution poses a grave threat to humans and the environment.

Although the release of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere is against the law in most countries, accidents can happen, often with tragic results. In 1984, in Bhopal, India, a pesticide manufacturing plant released a toxic gas into the air that within a few hours caused the deaths of more than 2,000 people.

Water Pollution

Since the beginning of civilization, water has been used to carry away unwanted refuse. Rivers, streams, canals, lakes, and oceans are currently used as receptacles for every imaginable kind of pollution. Water has the capacity to break down or dissolve many materials, especially organic compounds, which decompose during prolonged contact with bacteria and enzymes. Waste materials that can eventually decompose in this way are called biodegradable. They are less of a long-term threat to the environment than are more persistent pollutants such as metals, plastics, and some chlorinated hydrocarbons. These substances remain in the water and can make it poisonous for most forms of life. Even biodegradable pollutants can damage a water supply for long periods of time. As any form of contamination accumulates, life within the water starts to suffer. Lakes are especially vulnerable to pollution because they cannot cleanse themselves as rapidly as rivers or oceans.

Factories sometimes turn waterways into open sewers by dumping oils, toxic chemicals, and other harmful industrial wastes into them. In mining and oil-drilling operations, corrosive acid wastes are poured into the water. In recent years, municipal waste treatment plants have been built to contend with water contamination. Some towns, however, still foul streams by pouring raw sewage into them. Septic tanks and cesspools, used where sewers are not available, may also pollute the groundwater and adjacent streams, sometimes with disease-causing organisms. Even the purified effluent from sewage plants can cause water pollution if it contains high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus. Farm fertilizers in some regions fill groundwater with nitrates, making the water unfit to drink. Agricultural runoff containing dangerous pesticides and the oil, grime, and chemicals used to melt ice from city streets also pollute waterways.

Land and Soil Pollution

In order to sustain the continually growing human population, current agricultural methods are designed to maximize yields from croplands. In many areas, the overuse of land results in the erosion of topsoil. This soil erosion, in turn, causes the over-silting or sedimentation of rivers and streams.

One answer to the garbage problem is recycling. Some towns have passed ordinances that encourage or require residents to separate glass and aluminum cans and bottles from other refuse so that these substances can be melted down and reused. Although lightweight steel, cardboard, and paper are also economically recyclable, most industries and cities still burn or bury large amounts of scrap metal and paper products every day.

Radioactive Pollutants

Radioactivity has always been part of the natural environment. An example of natural radioactivity is the cosmic radiation that constantly strikes the Earth. This so-called background radiation has little effect on most people. Some scientists are concerned, however, that humans have introduced a considerable amount of additional radiation into the environment.

Another immediate environmental problem is the disposal of nuclear wastes. Some radioactive substances have a half-life of more than 10,000 years, which means they remain radioactive and highly dangerous for many thousands of years. In nuclear physics, a half-life is the period of time required for the disintegration of half of the atoms in a sample of a radioactive substance. Science has not yet found a safe method of permanent disposal of high level radioactive wastes. Even temporary storage of these wastes is a dangerous and expensive problem. Experiments are underway to investigate the possible use of salt mines several thousand feet below the surface of the Earth as repositories for spent nuclear fuel rods and similar highly radioactive substances.

Thermal, or Heat, Pollution

While the concept of heat as a pollutant may seem improbable on a cold winter day, at any time of year an increase in water temperature has an effect on water life. Heat can be unnaturally added to streams and lakes in a number of ways. One is to cut down a forest completely. The brooks and streams that flowed through it are then exposed to the sun. Their temperatures begin to rise. As they flow into larger bodies of water, these in turn are warmed. This can kill fish and other water animals incapable of tolerating the higher temperatures.

Average worldwide temperatures can be affected when the products of combustion--carbon monoxide, water vapor, and carbon dioxide--are emitted into the air, especially at high altitudes. Since the normal level of carbon dioxide in the air is quite small, any significant addition is a potential threat. Although solar energy on its way to the Earth's surface easily passes through layers of carbon dioxide, some of the heat escaping from the Earth would be absorbed by increased amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide, much as heat is trapped in a greenhouse. A worldwide greenhouse effect of this type might produce a dangerously warmer world. Since the late 19th century, the average global temperature has increased between 0.54o F and 1.08o F . Internationally, 1990 was the hottest year on record since official weather records first started being kept by the British in about 1860.

Noise Pollution

The hearing apparatus of living things is sensitive to certain frequency ranges and sound intensities. Sound intensities are measured in decibels. For example, a clap of thunder has an intensity of about 100 decibels. A sound at or above the 120-decibel level is painful and can injure the ear. Noise pollution is becoming an unpleasant fact of life in cities, where the combination of sounds from traffic and building construction reverberates among high-rise buildings, creating a constant din.

Efforts to Halt Pollution

The solution of some pollution problems requires cooperation at regional, national, and international levels. For example, some of the acid rain that falls in Canada is caused by smokestacks of coal-burning power plants in the United States. Thus, rejuvenating the lakes of eastern Canada requires the cooperation of electric utilities in Indiana and Ohio.

The Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (known as Superfund) are among the laws that set standards for healthy air and water and the safe disposal of toxic chemicals. In 1990 President George Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, the second amending legislation since the original Clean Air Act of 1970. The new law called for reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide by half, carbon monoxide from vehicles by 70 percent, and other emissions by 20 percent. The number of toxic chemicals monitored by the EPA would increase from 7 to about 250, and industry would be required to control their waste release by means of the best technology available. In the same year, the California Air Resources Board introduced the strictest vehicle-emission controls in the world. By 2003 the hydrocarbon emission of all new cars sold in California would have to be at least 70 percent less than that of 1993 models, and by 1998, 2 percent of all cars (rising to 10 percent by 2003) would have to release no harmful emissions at all. Several Northeastern states followed suit by introducing similar, though slightly less severe, controls.

Car Pollution

Car Pollution




Air Pollution


“According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, driving a car is the single most polluting thing that most of us do.” This is not a new problem. In the 1950’s the Los Angeles smog made head-line news. Car exhaust causes health problems. There are many solutions to the problem.
Laws were enacted as long as twenty years ago to control pollution caused by cars. Since then laws have been made, such as special nozzles on gas pumps that prevent vapor from getting into the air. We also have more tests on cars to make sure cars are maintained in a way that protects our environment. In cities, laws ask that more people ride on buses, and employees that drive company cars should limit the time they drive and the number of trips that they make.
Cars emit several pollutants that are toxic. This causes many problems. One problem it causes is cancer. Most cars generate hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. Hydrocarbons cause eye irritation, coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, and lung damage. Nitrogen oxide causes acid rain and leads to water quality problems. Carbon monoxide prevents oxygen from going through the lungs properly. All of these problems can be serious and effect the health of the people who live in the United States.
Some solutions to the problem are: cutting down on the number of cars, traveling at steady speeds, and keeping your car in good shape. You should never over fill your gas tank. You should always use clean gas. People should buy newer cars because they are made to create less pollution.
In summary, the problem of pollution from car exhaust is not new and is the single most polluting thing we do. The situation is so serious that many laws have been enacted to protect our environment. The pollutants that are emitted in car exhaust are very dangerous to our health. There are solutions to the problem if we just pay attention.

Water Pollution

Water Pollution


     Water pollution has affected many people and animals. Water pollution is
the disposal of garbage into a water stream. Some of the water pollution is from
littering, some water pollution is done by chemical leaks, and others by ships.
Also, There is much information about water pollution. I am going to take that
education on water pollution a step farther; and explain how water pollution
affects us, how it affects marine life, what companies affect it the most, and
what people are doing to help.

     There are many causes for water pollution. The main one is plastics. The
reason for that is that plastics take four hundred and fifty years to decompose
in the water. Also many companies use plastic and people throw it in the
waterways. Because water can float and be carried by the wind, it can cause harm
to unsuspecting creatures hundreds of feet from where it was originally dumped.
Such waste includes bags, bottles, cups, straws, cup lids, utensils, six pack
holders, cling wrap, fishing line, bait bags, and floats.

     The second highest cause of water pollution is ship waste. Ships used to
take much garbage with them on their ships and dump them. This was very common
until the government took action. They were giving sailors up to one million
dollars fines for disposing waste. Because of that, ships now carry less garbage
with them.

     Animals are not the only thing being harmed by water wastes. Fishing
lines, rope, and plastic nets are being caught in the rutter and the engine, but
the ships are not exactly perfect.

     The other main cause of water pollution is industrial waste. Industries
do not be harmed by water pollution but the cause much it. Many companies pour
chemicals into the waterways. Some of the businesses that contribute to the
water pollution are businesses that repair and maintain motor vehicles,
electroplate, operate printing and coping equipment, perform dry cleaning and
laundry services, process photographs, operate labs, involve building and
construct roads, provide pest control, preserve wood, and make Furniture.

     Water pollution doesn¹t just effect humans, it affects are whole
ecosystem. Birds and marine life are affected by it. More than fifty species of
birds are known to ingest plastic. When they eat plastic, they feel full, so
some of them die of starvation. Algal blooms are another thing that kills marine
life. Algal blooms are sea scum, whale food, and sea sawdust. Algal blooms are
bundles of fine threads, rusty brown, they have a fishy smell, and are common in
August through December.

     Water is our main source of our life. We need it to live, drink, bathe,
recreation, manufacturing, and power. We need water for almost everything; if we
don't start cleaning up we will be in big trouble. Bunches of families dispose
of chemicals everyday. It affects us drastically and we depend on it to be clean.


     Right now the government is fining people for illegal dumping. But that
is all the government is doing.

     People in cities are organizing water pollution groups. A lot of people
are producing fliers and giving them out. The are asking people to adapt a
waterway. In Australia they had a national clean up day and went out to the
ocean and cleaned it up. I think the people are taking this more seriously than
the government.

     We need to start cleaning up the water or we will be in big trouble. the
government needs to get active and so does the public.

     In some places water pollution is a main concern. The last defense of
water pollution is water treatment. Their are two main reasons for water
treatment. The first one is to protect the public's health. The second one is to
protect the water quality. Most of the waste water comes from industries, homes,
businesses, storm runoff, ground water, and schools. Also sludge is being
treated to remove some of its water. Then it is further processed by stabilizing,
dewatering, and disposal.

     If more effort isn't being made the human race will die. Eventually all
the water will be infested and unable to drink out of. We will have no places to
bathe or anything. We will have to do something soon or else we will not make it.

Pollution and Environment - The Earth Charter - Good or Bad?

The Earth Charter - Good or Bad?


The United Nations held an "Earth Summit" in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. The result of this international conference was a program labeled "Agenda 21." Agenda 21 is the blueprint for a "sustainable earth." The plan is to sustain the environment and the economy of the earth in the twenty-first century via international treaties, protocols and standards. Critics, however, view Agenda 21 (and its subsidiary initiatives, such as the Earth Charter) as a blueprint for global government.

 

In September 2002, the United Nations will assemble national leaders and delegates, various experts and sundry Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Johannesburg South Africa for the World Summit for Sustainable Development-- a 10 year review of progress made toward implementing Agenda 21. Several preparatory committee meetings have already been held to define the terms of the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD).

 

The purpose of the WSSD is to move the "global community" closer to an interlocked governmental control over the earth. The rationale offered to the nations for this global control is a possible environmental meltdown and the need to curtail the "hordes of people who pollute" the earth.

 

Each United Nations conference since the U.N.'s under-reported Conference on Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972, has been shaped by a political plan to achieve a "world community." This political impetus toward global hegemony in turn calls on a supposed crisis of population, environment, housing, women, children or poverty. Thus we had the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo Egypt, in 1994; the Conference on Women in Beijing, China in 1995; Habitat, Istanbul Turkey, 1996; the World Summit for Children scheduled for 2002.

 

In some manner each of these conferences advances global control over sovereign nations and their people. A "safe" environment is touted as a human right. Therefore, if human rights must be insured for all people, a global power must be empowered to allocate natural resources and to protect the environment of the entire earth. The U.N. forms new agencies to manage these initiatives, such as the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

 

The past two decades have seen the subtle, then militant insistence on a religious duty to revere the earth. Campaigns such as "Earth First!" or "Love you Mother (Earth)" led to the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Many denominations have adopted this program (and others) that elevates the earth to a deity. The New Age mantra insists that the earth has a spirit and that each organism, plant or animal, is spiritually equivalent to humans. The earth is worshipped as a goddess. This is pantheism-a religious system that worships the creation, rather than the Creator.

 

As the WSSD approaches, massive educational programs, public relations campaigns and religious hype will be employed to persuade the people of the world that an environmental crisis threatens our lives. Unless we consent to global control of resources, production and population, we face environmental peril, global chaos and even war as precious land and water are lost to pollution.

 

The primary vehicle used to promote the "global commons" is the Earth Charter. This charter is a brainchild of Mikhail Gorbachev and Canadian financier, Maurice Strong. Both are advocates of global governance. Gorbachev is the founder of Green Cross International and Strong is the founder and director of the Earth Council. Both organizations promote socialist political structures for the governance of the entire globe.

 

The Earth Charter is promoted in schools and churches as well as in local communities as an opportunity to "save the earth." At the same time that the Earth Charter proponents worry about unproved claims of global warming or "holes" in the ozone layer, the specter of AIDS epidemics engulf whole continents. Yet, the U.N. and other affiliated agencies promote sexual immorality that causes AIDS by distributing billions of dollars worth of condoms and contraceptives each year-thus financing the actual degradation of the earth by fostering the conditions that spread AIDS! A cursory investigation of the programs and claims of the Earth Charter agents quickly uncovers their true agenda: Control of the people of the world under the guise of controlling the environment.

 

Christians agree that man is set over the earth as God's steward, and as such man is given dominion over the earth. This is not a license to ravage the earth. We must care for God's creation, while using it for the benefit of that singular creation that is made in the image of God-Man.

 

The battle before us is: Whose worldview will prevail? The utilitarian, global government worldview would employ population control, abortion, and control of all means of production and distribution of goods and control of education in order to form "global citizens." In short, a Brave New World. This worldview would banish a religious teaching that protects the dignity of human life at all its stages; the unborn, the handicapped, the elderly.

 

Pope John Paul II addressed some of the concerns surrounding the environment in his remarks given at the 1990 World Day of Peace. The pope firmly anchored all efforts to protect the environment in Revelation. He said: "The fact that many challenges facing the world today are interdependent confirms the need for carefully coordinated solutions based on a morally coherent world view. For Christians, such a world view is grounded in religious convictions drawn from Revelation."(Message)

 

The Holy Father points out that Christians have a moral obligation to preserve and protect the environment and to share the bounty of the earth. Yet he is careful to draw the attention of Christians to the worldview that insures freedom and dignity for the human person.

 

The United Nations and other international organizations in the forefront of the sustainable development programs and the Earth Charter are deaf to the Holy Father's admonition to keep Man as the centerpiece of creation. The threat to Christian practice from many of the U.N. programs is grave. Even now some UN relief agencies refuse doctors and medical personnel the right to abide by their conscience on matters of abortion and contraception. Catholic countries are forced to accept contraception and abortion as a part of international development aid packages. Population control in some form is a feature of all U.N. programs for the environment.

Pollution and Environment - Our Environment is Doomed

Our Environment is Doomed


    Some environmentalist doomsday scenarios have already saved our lives -- for example, the alarm sounded about the ozone layer. Environmental science is like any other branch of science; it is a human activity that finds consensus on powerfully-supported theories, and disagreement on weakly-supported ones. That some conservatives would take only the disagreements that later proved wrong, compile them into a list and provide this as "proof" that environmentalists are conducting "junk science" is highly disingenuous.

 

It's hardly true that environmentalist doomsday scenarios have always been proven wrong. A major one they got right was the destruction of the ozone layer -- without which the sun's deadly ultraviolet rays would have killed most if not all life on the planet. Thanks to quick and top-level scientific research, the alarm was sounded and all the nations of the world agreed to ban the chemicals responsible. F. Sherwood Rowland, Paul Crutzen and Mario Molina deserve far more than their Nobel prizes.

 

However, science is a human activity, and mistakes are often made. This is why scientific consensus is so important. When the arguments of any given theory are so strong and compelling that they sway a majority of scientists, the chances for human error are greatly diminished. Not eliminated, mind you -- just greatly diminished.

 

The following is a list of well-supported theories that enjoy broad scientific consensus:

* Man-made chemicals are destroying the ozone layer. (1)

* Man-made chemicals are causing global warming. (2)

* Most agriculture, fish and water resources have either reached their limit or are declining, despite a growing population. (3)

* Death and cancer rates are higher around toxic waste sites, the chemical industry and the nuclear industry. (4)

* The extinction rate is climbing. (5)

* The world's rain forests are declining. (6)

* The world's coral reefs are declining. (7)

* More insects and bacteria are becoming immune to the pesticides and vaccinations used against them. (8)

Still, it's possible to find scientists who hold beliefs outside the consensus, including cranks on the margins who espouse bizarre and crazy theories. They might be right -- but if so, then the evidence that they find so compelling should be compelling to other scientists as well, and eventually this initially odd theory will itself become mainstream science. More often than not, however, these strange theories languish on the margins, for want of compelling evidence.

 

Environmentalism is no different from any other branch of science -- scientists have competing theories; on the more fundamental questions they have arrived at a consensus, and on the more cutting edge ones they are still researching and arguing. Now, if a conservative were bent on a little mischief, he could visit the history of such arguments, find the ones that eventually proved wrong, collect them together in a single list, and present this list as incontrovertible proof that environmentalists are conducting junk science. Conservatives should realize that if a similar exercise were conducted against them -- for example, all the conspiracy theories that later proved wrong, or the millenarian claims that Christ was coming in a certain year -- well, a very rich list of embarrassments could be produced indeed.

 

The following are frequently mentioned examples in the anti-environmentalist's list of failed doomsday scenarios:

* Thomas Malthus' prediction that the expanding human population would run into limited resources, causing intense competition and suffering. Malthus failed to consider that improving technology would increase those resources dramatically and allow the population to continue growing without discomfort. Malthus was correct in principle but wrong in his timetable; today scientists have a better understanding of the state of the world's resources. They confirm that the world has reached its limit in crop harvests, and is declining in animal species, rain forests, top soil, fish stocks, and fresh water. Indeed, technology is not increasing these resources, but actually finding faster ways to consume them.

* The predictions made by the first Earth Day in 1970. Some environmentalists predicted that the oceans would be fished out in 10 years time. Again, this was a hasty and ill-informed prediction. Today scientists have a much better understanding of the world's fish stocks. Soaring demand between 1950 and 1989 drove the world annual fish catch from 22 to 100 million tons. But something unusual occurred over the next five years. Despite growing demand, the fish catch hit its limit, even declining slightly. A search for the reason why reveals that all 17 major fishing areas of the world have either reached or exceeded their natural limits, and nine are in serious decline. (9) Industry horror stories began as early as the 1970s, when Iceland's fishing industry was decimated and the Peruvian anchovy catch fell from 12 million to 2 million tons in just three years. In 1993, some 50,000 Canadian fishers had lost their jobs due to disappearing cod in the North Atlantic. (10) If we continue in this direction, the world's oceans will indeed be fished out. The first Earth Day prediction was off only on its timetable.

* Carl Sagan's prediction that the 1991 Kuwaiti oil fires would throw up so much soot and pollution they would darken the sun and catastrophically cool the earth. Sagan, an astronomer, was speaking outside his field of expertise, basing his prediction on the nuclear winter theories that atmospheric scientists had formed in their study of a potential nuclear war. Needless to say, nuclear wars are far more serious than oil fires, and Sagan's prediction did not come true -- at least to the degree that he thought it would.

A common theme links all of these examples. In each case, the scientist was commenting on a field of science that was very young. Malthus was the pioneer of population studies. Environmentalism was a new branch of science on the first Earth Day. The nuclear winter theory is also not only a relatively new one, but an untested one. Those familiar with scientific history know that when a new branch of science emerges, no one knows much about its fundamentals because, after all, it's a new branch of science. After much argument and trial and error, a consensus on the fundamentals begins to emerge. There is still debate and trial and error, of course, but most of it occurs at the cutting edge, while the consensus on fundamentals continues to grow. What some conservatives are doing is concentrating on the mistakes that occurred on the cutting edge in the past, and ignoring the fundamental consensus today.