Photo: Marcellus Protest

There are some indications that America may be experiencing a bit of a natural gas “boom” right now.  Last year the country produced 22.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, up 3.1 trillion from 2005.  Natural gas is seen as a better alternative to coal (which is used to generate half the country’s electricity) and is cheaper and more abundant than wind and solar.  In 2009 the U.S. recorded the lowest amount of emissions since 1995.  This is due in part to the lame economy, sure, but renewable energy and increased use of natural gas played a role as well.

What accounts for this increase?  New drilling technology called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” (not to be confused with a style of dance banned at your local Jr. High).  The process has come under fire lately (literally) as residents living near extraction sights have voiced concern over the chemicals used; there have been accounts of igniting tap water.  Shockingly so far it has gone widely unregulated, and only 5 states require public disclosure of the chemicals used.  The French think it’s wack to frack, and have already placed a moratorium on the process and are close to a full ban.

The EPA are now looking into it, and in 2009 House Democrats proposed legislation requiring companies to disclose chemicals used.  Why the delay?  Well it’s kinda like watching Scooby Doo, you most likely already know who the bad guy is before he’s unmasked, but you have to go through the whole episode for the punch line to take effect.  “And I would’ve gotten away with it too if wasn’t for you meddling environmentalists!”

More details in the May 14^th-20^th edition of The Economist

Photo Credit: Radio Nederland Wereldomroep

When David Lobell, a Stanford University researcher, and Marianne Bänziger, of the International Maize and What Improvement Centre, in Mexico, began talking about the future effects of climate change on crops in Africa, Lobell didn’t anticipate for his pet project to come up in conversation.

Dr. Bänziger and her colleagues had been conducting a set of field trials created to discover what types of maize (that’s corn to us Americans) grow best in various parts of southern and eastern Africa. Bänziger and her team were paying special attention to draught resistance, but fell short when it came to funds to obtain the results from 123 separate research stations into a cohesive, tractable database.

This is where Dr. Lobell came in. Lobell realized that if he helped Bänziger, he could use the results to correlate yields with meteorological conditions other than draught—and reveal any damage done by hotter-than-usual weather in the process.

Lobell’s findings were published in Nature Climate Change in early March and confirm for the tropics the findings for temperature climes of a recent American study. They reveal that peak—as opposed to average—temperatures matter most to maize, and days above 30°C (86°F) are particularly destructive. During a draught, yields take a hit of 1.7% per day over 30°C.

So why is this important? Increasing the average temperature only a little bit can multiple the number of the hottest days by a large number. According to research predictions, a 1°C rise in average temperature will reduce yields across two-thirds of the region of Africa in which maize grows—even without draught.

The one issue with using data from crop trials risks exaggerating the problem because the plants in the trials are well fertilized—unlike the maize planted in Africa. Encouraging fertilizer use in Africa is important because unfertilized crops have lower average yields—yet they are usually not as affected by heat and draught as well-fertilized ones. The results, however, do accord with one of Dr. Lobell’s previous studies based on actual harvest data as opposed to crop trials and suggested yield losses of 20% or more for African maize by the middle of the century.

The insight provided by the data is perhaps more important than the specific results, as it could be used to look at the effects of warming on other farms in other locations. For her part, Dr. Bänziger is now planning to examine wheat, which is thought to be more sensitive to climate than maize. Although this green news isn’t positive, it is positive that data on climate and farming in the poor world is emerging.

Read more at The Economist.

Photo Credit: Evadb

Are you against whaling?  If so, then you will be happy to hear that anti-whaling activists are putting up a real fight over in Japan.  Recently, the Japanese ended its whaling season early, bringing all of the ships back to port due to “harassment” from environmental activists, such as Sea Shepherd.  Since Japan fisheries could no longer ensure the safety of the whalers, they were forced to end the season early.  Although the whaling has only ended for the season, this is a huge step in whale protection because it shows that activists are making whaling very difficult for places like Japan.

The Japanese whaling fleet consists of 180 people spread out among four ships.  If allowed to continue whaling during the southern winter season, the fleet was expected to kill around 945 whales.  Commercial whaling was banned in 1986, but Japan is allowed to continue whaling because it receives permits to hunt whales for scientific research.  Although most people in Japan have tried whale meat at one point, most do not eat whale meat on a regular basis.  The Japanese who do eat whale meet regularly argue that international powers have no right interfering with their cultural traditions.  Australia and New Zealand are very strong opponents to whaling and Australia is even in the process of going through the International Court of Justice to fight Tokyo over whaling.

Upon doing research on this topic, I discovered an interesting article from 2007 highlighting a bowhead whale thought to have lived to about 130 years old!  The whale had been hunted off the coast of Alaska and a 130-year-old spearhead had been found stuck in its side.  This implies that the whale was hunted once before as a calf, but since traditional whale hunters did not capture calves, the whale escaped.  Biologists claim that this evidence helps support the idea that the bowhead whale is the oldest living mammal on earth.  Keep an eye out for more anti-whaling news to help preserve this awesome mammal!

Click here to read about Japan calling off whaling ships.

Click here to read about 130-year-old whale.

Photo Credit: Joachim S. Muller

Evolution tends to be though of as something that occurs over thousands of generations. The tomcod defies this generalization and in only 50 years the fish has evolved a resistance to toxic chemicals that pollute its home in the Hudson River.

The toxic chemicals that the tomcod has resistance to are called PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls. Between 1947 and 1976 around 1.3 million pounds of PCBs were dumped in the Hudson River by two General electric facilities. At first the chemicals killed juvenile tomcods causing lethal heart defects. However, as the fish continued to be exposed to the PCBs natural selection stepped in and the tomcod built up a resistance through a mutation in their DNA, which causes base pairs to go missing from a specific gene. This single mutant gene prevents the toxic chemicals from binding onto the cells in the fish, and allows the tomcod to continue living its polluted home.

It amazing that after humans have been so destructive towards the environment, nature still provides a way for continued life in even the most damaged habitats. Although the story of the tomcod is fascinating, we can’t ignore the fact that human induced pollution caused these fish to change and that with continued pollution, some organisms may not have the same luck that the tomcods did.

to read more click here

Photo Credit: Karim Cherif

Recently, a friend of mine and his new bride traveled to Africa for their dream honeymoon.  In their preparation for their amazing trip, my friend looked into all kinds of adventure tours and activities that most people typically think of when they go to the African continent.  One question I asked him, which he admitted he had not considered, was if any of these adventures were sustainable?

Like with most vacations and cruises, people often don’t think about how their trip can effect the sustainability of the country or region they are visiting.   In the case of my friend traveling to Africa, our discussion helped to promote sustainability and alter his mindset when planning his honeymoon trip.  After some quick googling, there were some really great sustainable options that were available to him, and are also available to you.

One of these options was an Eco Safari Adventure for those that are looking for some more wild adventures.  Not only will you experience the African environment first-hand,  a portion of your safari fee will be used to help protect endangered species, expand lands dedicated to wildlife protection, rehabilitate traumatized elephants, strip away non-indigenous, invasive plant species to protect the local flora and fauna, and fund environmental curriculum programs.

Another option that I came across offered similar sustainable tours and honeymoon safaris of the African landscape.   Hills of Africa Travel, specializes in customized, eco-friendly, sustainable safaris in southern Africa. These eco-friendly safaris add value to the lives of the inhabitants and the wildlife of each area. Whenever couples stay at an eco-tourism establishment, donate to a local project, visit a community school, or purchase art from locals, they give the community a tangible benefit.

According to the company’s CEO, “Every couple’s dream honeymoon is different, and every couple has their own view of what giving back means. We balance their needs with the needs of the communities they’ll visit to continue the sustainable tourism cycle.”

Whether your planning an African safari or a trip a few hours away, look for the sustainable options available to you and ensure that our natural world will be around for generations to come.

Photo Credit: Mixy Lorenzo

To my disappointment, I recently learned that less than one percent of plastic bags are recycled, since the cost of recycling one bag is greater than the cost of producing a new one. So what happens to all these plastic bags that aren’t recycled?

The answer to my question left me despondent. Although I knew that plastic bag pollution was problem, I didn’t know just how destructive it was. I didn’t know that about 1 million plastic bags are used every minute, that every square mile of ocean has 46,000 pieces of plastic floating in it, and that most of that plastic will float to the ocean floor where it will may never degrade. Plastic that floats near the oceans surface slowly gets degraded by the sun and eventually turns into smaller, more toxic particles. These microscopic pollution particles easily enter the food chain and are ingested by animals. Nearly 200 different species of marine life are killed each year due to plastic bags alone, including whales, seals, dolphins, and turtles.

Plastic bag taxes and bans are becoming more widespread every year. Opt to be a part of this movement and use a cloth bag instead of plastic. You could save around 300 plastic bags from entering the ocean each year, and maybe even an animal’s life.

Photo: Patrick Emerson

There seems to be this instinctive human compulsion to drain wetlands.  The Neanderthal probably looked upon prehistoric swamps and grunted amongst his peers about how to make the useless land dry.  The people of Russia recent learned the importance of wetlands the hard way.  Their peatlands were scorched by a summer so hot it defied modern precedent.  The peat-bog caught fire and engulfed Moscow in smog and carbon monoxide.  Russia’s daily death rate doubled to 700 people.

Whether the fires were caused by global warming is a different argument entirely.  What is clear however was the colossal amount of carbon dioxide liberated by the fires.  This occurs even when the peat isn’t smoldering.  Even just the process of draining peatlands for agriculture spikes carbon emissions, to the tune of 1.3 billion tons- 6% of the world’s total- annually.  That figure signifies a far greater contribution than even the aviation industry.

There may be a silver lining in all of this.  The solution to ending these types of peat-bog fires is devastatingly simple: stop draining.  This was exactly what was under consideration at the recent United Nations climate negotiations in Cancún.  “Rewetting,” as it has been so elaborately named, could be a good means for some countries to offset their emissions from other sources.

In poorer countries it can be as cheap as $13 a ton to preserve wetlands.  Even in richer countries the soggy turf can actually be put to agricultural use to produce such coveted commodities as reed, alder, and moss.  A consequential benefit lost in all of this climate change pragmatism is the preservation of habitat for various forms of wildlife, endangered as most of them undoubtedly are.  Moisture, is the essence of wetness.

Check out the December 18^th issue of The Economist for more

Photo Credit: World Island Info

What’s been on people’s minds lately?  Well, dead animals certainly have- blackbirds in Arkansas, turtles in Italy, manatees off the Florida Coast…you name it.  In fact, these incidents have been the talk of green news as of late; three of Google’s top ten “Hot Searches” are related to the hundreds of dead birds that fell from the sky in Arkansas and Louisiana.  Is this simply a media-induced frenzy, a sign that our precious world is ending, or an environmental concern that needs to be addressed?  While substantial amounts of information are missing, there are still some essential things to take from this unique series of phenomena.

First, it is important to note that many species (including the birds in Arkansas and Louisiana) are prone to far greater threats than “fireworks” or other human induced trauma. Greater environmental problems pose much more of a risk in the long term, such as large-scale habitat destruction and climate change.  And although nearly 30 “mass animal deaths” have been reported, there are certain questions we must ask ourselves as rational individuals: “What is the normal amount of large animal deaths per year?” or “Could climate change or another form of environmental strain be part of the problem?”

Scientists have stated that large mortality events in wildlife are by no means uncommon.  Paul Slota, spokesman for the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wildlife Health Center (which has been tracking mass animal deaths since the 1970s) says they have logged “188 cases just involving birds with mortality exceeding 1,000 animals per event” in the last 10 years.

Either way, information exchange in this day and age is far superior to what it was in the past and, simply put, some stories are just more captivating than others.  Still, we can use these publicized incidents as a stimulator of awareness for the environment around us, and be on the look out for accurate information as it comes.

Check out a map of the incidents on a global scale here.

Photo: Felix Neiss

In 2008 scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel used satellites to observe Saharan dust traverse the Atlantic and land in Brazil.  Significance?  Researchers believe the dust may be stimulating plant growth in the nearby Amazon by supplying the phosphorous that’s lacking.  Dust may sprinkle a similar type of magic on parts of the ocean short on iron, i.e. plankton blooms in nutrient-poor waters off the Gobi desert.

Dust above = cool below. Not only because it reflects the sun, but it also helps clouds to form.  Let’s put this into quantifiable perspective: industrial carbon emissions add about 1.6 extra watts of solar power per square meter, dust cools it at 0.14.   Bust out the industrial sized megafans in Chad right?! Nnnnot so fast…cooling the desert can mean a change in airflow patterns lessening the rainfall in surrounding areas, vis-à-vis plants dying, ergo greater chance of wildfires, thus increased carbon emissions, keep up Neo!

Over the past century the planet has become twice as dusty.  This is due in part to things like construction and farming but global warming also may be shifting the boundaries of deserts and thus intensifying dust production in certain areas.  We may even be underestimating the amount of dust by as much as 8 times.  Dr. Kok of the National Center for Atmospheric Research reckons that by measuring the dust merely by satellite we might be missing the heavier particles that are lifted up and crash back down; makin’ even mo’ dust.  It’s hard to make any clearcut assessments about the consequences of this, but we may never look at seasonal allergies the same.

Learn more in the January 8^th-14^th issue of The Economist

Photo Credit: Ivan Mlinaric

The deforestation situation in the Brazil Amazon Rainforest has always been very controversial.  Rainforests support some of the world’s most diverse ecosystems.  They create a beautiful and unique experience if you ever have the lucky chance to see one in person.  Fortunately, Brazilian President Lula recently announced that the Amazon deforestation rate has declined 14% from August 2009 to July 2010, the lowest rate recorded since 1988!  President Lula is proud to say that this new rate clearly displays Brazil’s commitment to decreasing their deforestation rates and reducing Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Deforestation has always been a hot topic for debate when it comes to global climate change.  Deforestation is the process of cutting down trees by clearing an area that was once a forest.  However, although the trees are used as a natural resource, there are many negative consequences to deforestation.  The process of cutting down trees releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the lack of root stability increases soil erosion, and since there is a smaller amount of trees, less carbon dioxide is converted to oxygen.

Many people think that when the trees are cut down, the foresters can simply just replant the seeds as they go.  Unfortunately, it is sometimes very difficult to replant trees in the rainforest because the nutrients that were once in the soil are now stored in the trees.  When the trees are cut down and taken away, the nutrients are then gone, leaving it very difficult for the soil to try to grow another tree of the same magnitude.  Although Brazil greatly decreased its deforestation, it still cut down 2,490 square miles of the Amazon during the 12-month period.  If deforestation continues, it could potentially destroy some of the world’s most diverse wildlife.  Fortunately, the Global Carbon Project has reported that global emissions from deforestation has decreased 25% in the last decade, compared to the data collected in the 1990s, so these rates are on a steady decrease.

Click here to view the original source