Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/24/2012 4:55:22 PM

Awful economic news from Europe and Asia: Spain enters recession, confidence hits a record low in Italy, Chinese PMI continued to signal contraction, Dutch government collapses


Read more

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/24/2012 6:10:06 PM
Deforestation: Fast-Tracking Our Own Extinction
















Care2 Earth Month: Back to Basics

This year, Care2 decided to expand Earth Day into Earth Month, since there is so much to explore when it comes to the environment. Every day in April, we’ll post about some of the most important topics for the environment, exploring and explaining the basics. It’s a great tool to help you get started with helping the environment — or help explain it to others. See the whole series here.

Trees are one of the human race’s most valuable resources, and yet we cut and consume them at the rate of 3-6 billion a year. What other thing, natural or man made, can absorb carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, clean the soil, prevent erosion and control noise pollution, using only free solar energy?

Somewhere in our quest for industrialization, we decided that we needed quilted toilet paper and daily newspapers more than we needed these free oxygen factories. Deforestation is one of the planet’s most dire environmental issues, and few people realize that by eliminating our forests, we’re actually signing our own death sentence.


The term deforestation refers to the slow but steady elimination of the Earth’s mature forests. There are many reasons for cutting down trees, but most are felled for profit or to make room for massive commercial agricultural operations. Depending on the species, it can take many decades for a tree to reach maturity. Clear cutting is a traumatic process whereby all the trees in a given tract of land are felled and removed. Although the area may be reseeded with young trees, it can take decades before those trees are absorbing carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen at pre-clearcut levels. According to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the 33 million acres of forestland that are lost annually around the globe are responsible for 20 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

But according to the NRDC, clearcutting can destroy an area’s ecological integrity in a number of other ways, including:

  • the destruction of buffer zones which reduce the severity of flooding by absorbing and holding water;
  • the immediate removal of forest canopy, which destroys the habitat for many rainforest-dependent insects and bacteria;
  • the elimination of fish and wildlife species due to soil erosion and habitat loss;
  • the removal of underground worms, fungi and bacteria that condition soil and protect plants growing in it from disease;
  • the loss of samall-scale economic opportunities, such as fruit-picking, sap extraction, and rubber tapping; and
  • the destruction of aesthetic values and recreational opportunities.

As human carbon emissions continue to skyrocket, the need to preserve our global forests becomes even more urgent. Here are some steps you can take to reduce deforestation, and expose the industries currently exploiting this essential natural resource:

Buy Recycled: According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Forest Products Annual Market Review, the U.S is the world’s largest producer and purchaser of paper. Making a point to buy things made from and packaged in 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper, as well as metal, plastic and glass uses less energy, creates less waste and decreases the need for new raw materials.

Go Paperless: In today’s digital world, there’s little to no need to for hard copies of anything. Buying ebooks or borrowing books from the library, switching to electronic billing statements, and opting out of junk mail and phone books are great ways to reduce the demand for paper.

Think Before You Eat: Raising meat for human consumption is one of the primary causes of deforestation. Humans consume an immense amount of meat, especially in the form of fast food burgers, so meat producers are always looking for a way to make beef cheaper. As a result, trees in the Amazon and other forests are cut down to make room for cattle herds. Reducing your meat consumption and choosing to buy only locally, sustainably-raised meat goes a long way in helping to combat deforestation.

Related Reading:

Earthquake Highlights Haitian Deforestation

Forest Destruction Endangered Orangutans

Tour The World’s Largest Intact Forest

Read more: , , , , , , , , ,

Image via Thinkstock



Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/deforestation-fast-tracking-our-own-extinction.html#ixzz1syy5uecC


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/25/2012 9:42:34 AM

EPA Scientist Points at Fracking in Fish-Kill Mystery

A mysterious fish-kill in Dunkard Creek may have been the result of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing of shale for natural gas


BLACKSVILLE, W.Va. -- Who killed Dunkard Creek?

Image: Greene Connections/Flickr

Was it coal miners whose runoff wiped out aquatic life in the stream where locals have long fished and picnicked? Or was it Marcellus Shale drillers and the briny discharge from their wells that created a toxic algae bloom that left a miles-long trail of rotting fish along the West Virginia-Pennsylvania state line?

Two years after Dunkard Creek suffered one of the worst fish kills ever in West Virginia or Pennsylvania, the reason for the chemical changes that spawned it remain a mystery.

U.S. EPA has ended its investigation and pointed the finger at a local coal mine, Blacksville No. 2, and entered a multimillion-dollar settlement with the owner, Consol Energy Inc.

But the lead EPA biologist on the case has challenged that idea, saying that the most likely explanation for the fish kill involves the environmental effects of Marcellus Shale drilling.

Emails obtained by Greenwire through a Freedom of Information Act request show EPA biologist Lou Reynolds telling colleagues that coal mine drainage is unlikely to be the sole culprit.

"Something has changed in the mine pools," Reynolds wrote in a November 2009email. The change, he said, could have come from miners digging deeper into a coal seam.

But it could also be the case, he said, that "Mining companies are disposing of [coalbed methane] and Marcellus water in the mine pool," or "Mining companies are taking [coalbed methane] and Marcellus water into their treatment ponds.

"One or any combinations of the above might be happening," Reynolds wrote.

Industry officials have pointed to a report authored by Reynolds, a Wheeling, W.Va.-based member of the EPA's regional freshwater biology team, to refute claims that drilling waste caused the fish kill. The most prominent of those claims came in the anti-drilling documentary "Gasland" (Greenwire, Feb. 24).

Though gas drilling was viewed as a likely culprit early on, EPA scientists never found solid proof that wastewater from the hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," of gas wells caused a fish kill on Dunkard Creek.

A year later when the fish kill did not repeat itself, Reynolds suggested to a colleague that one possible reason is "because this year they aren't dumping massive amounts of frac water into Dunkard. That is unsubstantiated -- but plausible."

Last November, Reynolds wrote to an EPA public affairs officer that "I am not so sure" that mining could account for both of the major chemical disturbances that preceded the fish kill.

The agency entered into an agreement in March with Consol Energy, which operates several local coal mines and manages drainage from the active and closed mines. The company agreed to pay $6 million in fines to settle water pollution allegations that included the Dunkard Creek fish kill. Consol made no admission of liability, but it agreed to spend up to $200 million on a water treatment plant (E&ENews PM, March 14).

A few days before the consent agreement was signed and announced this year, Reynolds wrote to a colleague that Marcellus operations on the creek are the most likely way for the fish-killing "golden algae" to spread.

"There is water that is removed from these streams for use in Marcellus fracking," hewrote. "There is always some amount of water that gets left in the tank and hoses that then gets put into other streams. By far, this is the most likely way that GA [golden algae] will be moved around."

From: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=epa-scientist-points-at-fracking-in-fish-kill-mystery

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/26/2012 12:15:11 AM
I personally believe the Earth can hold ten times as many people as it does at present, but this article can help us understand what we must do to accomplish that

Human Overpopulation Threatens Our Survival









If we don’t halt population growth with justice and compassion, it will be done for us by nature,

brutally and without pity – and will leave a ravaged world.
Nobel Laureate Dr. Henry W. Kendall


The human population is too big to really comprehend. Seven billion — how does one imagine that many people? And by 2050, we are projected to reach nine billion — two billion more individuals in under 40 years. That is so many that it is practically meaningless.

But it is very meaningful to the survival of life on this planet. In an article titled “Why the Real Victim of Overpopulation Will Be the Environment,” Time Magazine reports that “there’s an undeniable cost to all these people and all this growth: the planet itself.” The Guardian sums up the consequences of overpopulation in a piece called “Why Current Population Growth is Costing Us the Earth”: “Since we passed one billion in 1800, our rising numbers and consumption have already caused climate change, rising sea levels, expanding deserts and the ‘sixth extinction’ of wildlife.”

Not everyone agrees that 9 billion people are too many for Earth to sustain. But there is no arguing with the assertion by Roger Martin, Chair of Population Matters, in that Guardian article: “Indefinite population growth is physically impossible on a finite planet — it will certainly stop at some point.”

We may be nearing that point. The Independent reported that an “environmental assessment by the conservation charity WWF and the Worldwatch Institute in Washington found that humans were now exploiting about 20 per cent more renewable resources than can be replaced each year.”

That was six years ago. Things have only gotten worse.

The same article attributed to Professor John Guillebaud of University College London the calculation that “it would require the natural resources equivalent to four more Planet Earths to sustain the projected 2050 population of nine billion people.”

Becoming more green isn’t enough. Even if every one of us were more environmentally conscious, consuming and polluting less and conserving more, there would still come a point at which there were simply too many people. The Independent quotes an article by Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, explaining that “Although reducing human emissions to the atmosphere is undoubtedly of critical importance, as are any and all measures to reduce the human environmental ‘footprint’, the truth is that the contribution of each individual cannot be reduced to zero. Only the lack of the individual can bring it down to nothing.”

Unfortunately, that lack of an individual is a taboo topic. Professor Rapley calls reducing population growth “a bombshell of a topic, with profound and emotive issues of ethics, morality, equity and practicability. In interdisciplinary meetings addressing how the planet functions as an integrated whole, demographers and population specialists are usually notable by their absence.”

In an interview with Care2, Searle Whitney, President of population studies organization HowMany.org, illustrated the delicacy with which experts approach the question of halting (much less reversing) population growth. “We would like to see a stable, sustainable birthrate, where births and deaths are more or less equal,” he said, then stopped short of endorsing any policies that might make that happen. “Children are wonderful and raising them is a life-changing experience. We feel that having one or two, or none or three, are all good options,” he said.

As far as the planet’s ability to sustain life, they are not all good options, but as Professor Rapley noted, few will say so. The United Nations came close in 1992, but has since gone quiet on the issue. Back then it issued a “blueprint for sustainable development” called Agenda 21, which advised that “population policy should…recognize the role played by human beings in environmental and development concerns.”

Following the shameful history of eugenics and forced sterilizations in this country and oppressive laws like China’s one-child policy, however, policymakers are loathe to take any step that appears to limit individuals’ freedom to have as many children as they want.

The cost of this inaction could be dire. As Professor Guillebaud says, “We urgently need to stabilise and reduce human numbers.” On many levels, it is a matter of life and death.

Related Stories:

The Overpopulation Problem

Dare I Speak of Over-Population and Global Warming?

Anti-Immigrant Group Blames Global Warming on Immigrants

Read more: , , ,

Photo credit:World Resources



Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/human-overpopulation-threatens-our-survival.html#ixzz1t6Ia1X8k

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/26/2012 10:05:25 PM

Nuclear Power’s Promise Pales
















Care2 Earth Month: Back to Basics

This year, Care2 decided to expand Earth Day into Earth Month, since there is so much to explore when it comes to the environment. Every day in April, we’ll have a post about some of the most important topics for the environment, exploring and explaining the basics. It’s a great tool to help you get started with helping the environment — or help explain it to others. See the whole series here.

Ever since the atom was unleashed, some have said that the future of energy is nuclear. Even some prominent environmentalists argue that nuclear power is a green energy source because it does not cause carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. Like so many environmental issues, nuclear power is complex. Here are some facts and figures to help you decide where you stand on nuclear power:

Nuclear power is big. The US is the largest generator of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30 percent of the global generation. Thirty power companies operate 104 plants in 31 states in the US. Most reactors were built between 1967 and 1990. The top 10 companies account for 70% of generation.

We depend on it. Our dependence on nuclear power has actually increased. Nuclear accounted for 11 percent of all power generation in 1980 in the US; it was up to almost 20 percent in 2008.

Nuclear is relatively inexpensive – in the short term. According to the World Nuclear Association: “The operational cost of nuclear power – 1.87 ¢/kWh in 2008 – is 68% of electricity cost from coal and a quarter of that from gas.”

Waste not… However, the picture changes when one examines the cost of disposing of nuclear waste. This ongoing problem is in need of urgent attention. A blue ribbon panel reporting to the Energy Secretary has noted the urgency of dealing with nuclear waste amid problems of where to site storage facilities, how to fund them, and what body should have oversight. Some 65,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel is stored at about 75 operating and shutdown reactor sites around the U.S., with more than 2,000 tons being produced each year.

The US government provides incentives to build nuclear power plants. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 offers tax credits and federal loan guarantees to incentivize construction of advanced nuclear power plants. This year saw the approval of the first new nuclear plant construction since the Three Mile Island incident in 1979.

Nuclear jobs are green jobs?! According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: “In private industry, the utilities industry accounted for 65,700 Green Goods and Services sector jobs, or 11.9 percent of total private utilities employment. Among theindustries involved in private sector electric power generation, nuclear power had the highest GGS employment with 35,800 jobs in 2010.”

Nuclear isn’t safe. After the earthquake and tsunami in Japan last year the world saw the unthinkable happen, as a nuclear power plant on the coast was hit by the double disaster and suffered a meltdown. Could such a catastrophe happen elsewhere? The Fukushima events have greatly affected the adoption and promotion of nuclear energy around the world. Germany, for instance, shut down eight nuclear plants in the wake of Fukushima and revamped its energy policy. Switzerland and Spain have banned any new plant construction.

In the US, five nuclear reactors are in zones prone to earthquakes. Given the danger of released radioactivity, nuclear plants need far greater safety and security than, say, a solar power facility. Any number of elements, even a large swarm of jellyfish, can threaten a nuclear plant.

More Americans (but not most) are questioning the value of nuclear power. A recent Harris survey shows that slightly more Americans (though not a majority) now believe the risks of nuclear energy outweigh the benefits (41% to 40%).

There are alternatives…and no easy answers. While renewable energy still accounts for just 11 percent of US energy use, the sector is growing. Other countries are making great strides with renewables: Iceland generates over 80 percent of its energy from renewables. In addition to wind, wave, solar and geothermal alternatives, new technologies and efficiencies are needed. A 2009 study by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory found that more than 58 percent of the energy generated in the US is wasted every year due to inefficiencies such as wasted heat, particularly in the transportation sector. Government subsidies also create false advantages and artificially low prices for the nuclear and fossil fuel industries.

From the Titanic to the Hindenberg to Three Mile Island and Fukushima, time and again we have seen that technology is neither perfect nor predictable, and is often no match for nature. There is no magic cure to our quest for clean, abundant energy, but for many in the green movement, that search cannot include nuclear…the consequences of failure are just too high.

Read more: , , , , , , , , , ,



Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/nuclear-powers-promise-pales.html#ixzz1tBcLCP8J

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!