CFLs good?

Yes, it is hard to believe, but CFLs are actually good for both the environment and the wallet.  CFLs cost about 10 times the amount of a normal lightbulb, and will last around 4 years longer.  The true savings come over time on energy bills.  Because they demand less energy, the power plants that are used to produce the electicty to power these lightbulbs are needed less.  When dealing with a coal burning power plant, this would mean that less radioactive materials are released into the air.  This material is released in small amounts through ash that is left over after the coal is burned.  Although this amount is small, there is so much coal being burned that it adds up.  By switching to CFL lightbulbs, you reduce the amount of coal that is burned, which helps the radiation situation. 

The amount of lightbulbs that are disposed yearly will also shrink due to the long life of the CFL bulb.  This will help cut down on landfill space that is quickly filling up in our country.  This will lower the demand on these landfills which will in turn, lessen the necessity to create new landfills, which will save entire ecosystems.  Also, the necessity for mining new coal and other fuel sources will decrease because of the drop in demand for electricity, which will also play a part in saving many ecosystems.  In addition to this, the need for new roads connecting the mines to cities and power plants will also lessen, which will also save valuable ecosystems.

Overall, the CFL may seem like a bit of a rip off, due to its high price when compared to its competition, but when all is said and done, the CFL is not only better for the wallet, but also better for the world as a whole.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html 

http://greenecon.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/cfl.jpg

http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/products/energy_smart.htm

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99402.HTM

BAD GREENPEACE, BAD! don’t do that anymore…

Before I say anything…GO TO THIS SITE AND LOOK AT THE MOVIE NEAR THE BOTTOM…I sure love greenpeace…

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

Anyway, many people in this great world of ours see nuclear power as a menace that threatens the very foundation of humanity…well, this is just not true.  Greenpeace states in their website that using nuclear power on a greater scale will  flood the world with radioactive material that could be used in nuclear bombs.  Well unless you are using Plutonium reactors, which the United States does not, you will not be producing weapons grade radioactive material.  And this non- weapons grade Uranium wouldn’t be worth stealing! You need a high level of technology to enrich it into a bomb!  And I seriously doubt countries or terrorist groups who have this technology are going to go through the trouble of stealing radioactive materials from US power plants when they could just simply go to Niger and get better quality uranium (I’m sure that someone would sell you some…). 

Greenpeace also has declared that Nuclear power presently does not make a difference in our struggle to limit greenhouse gases, and it would cost trillions of dollars to build enough plants to make a difference.  Well, take a look at this site http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html and you will see the stats of nuclear power usage in the world. 

The Greenpeace site also attacks nuclear power plant safety, claiming that a “Chernobyl-scale” accident would occur around once every decade.  The answer to this problem has already been answered, however.  Passive safety coupled with improved equipment drastically increase safety at these power plants.  Passive safety takes all human error out of the equation and regulates the reactor pressure through natural means. 

I believe the one and only valid point Greenpeace has made regarding nuclear power is the problem of nuclear waste.  This is a serious problem, and solutions like Yucca Mountain have been introduced, but many people believe this to be too dangerous.  But if nuclear waste is stored at Yucca Mountain or other sites, isn’t this safer than pouring Co2, mercury, and other toxic residues out from coal plants?   There is no perfect energy solution, and most likely never will be.  This means you can’t tell people to trash the best option and use old coal plants until you find something else.  The fact is that while alternative energy possibilities are being developed and used in small amounts, they still need more improvements.  Solar energy needs to become more efficient, as does Wind power. Geothermal energy is only effective in small regions of the world, biodiesels need a mass amount of methane or other gas to create fuel, and candles just don’t cut it anymore. 

http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/logos20-1/passive01.htm

http://www.huri.harvard.edu/workpaper/chart2.gif

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4753771.html

http://www.corrosioncost.com/government/nuclear/nuclear2.gif

Water and air problems?

We are all rather familiar with the constant political crisis in Israel and the Palestinian territories, but there is another problem that is not often spoken of, and that is the environmental problems in this area. 

The main problem in this area is the water crisis.  The Middle-east is a naturally dry area, and in recent years a severe drought has caused the problem to worsen.  To add to this, a population boom in the region has led to a severe stress on the water supply. 

To add to water shortages, the available water is often very polluted due to chemical industries.  This problem is so bad that Israeli rivers are actually considered more polluted than most American and European rivers.  Israel has taken major steps to fix this problem and has banned the dumping of industrial wastes into rivers.  Hopefully, this will improve the water quality in most areas. 

The air quality in areas like Jerusalem is also suffering because of a sharp increase in car ownership all throughout the region.  This problem is being experienced throughout the world however, and can only be fixed by reducing the pollution output of each car.  Other areas that are experiencing this problem are China, India, and even the United States.  The problem has gotten so bad in Jerusalem however that the city is now being compared to Mexico City, which is one of the most polluted cities in the world. 

No matter what the political situation is in Israel-Palestine, they both share the same environment, and they need to start preserving it together.  This does not seem to be a major possiblity in the future however.  The two sides are drifting apart faster than ever.  The Israelis have recently began the construction of a wall to seperate the Palestinians and Israelis and reduce the terrorist threat.  This political division will only add further stress to the environmental situation. 

http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/envirois.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/scarcity.html

Sorry Hybrid Owners

Any easily offended hybrid owners should probably stop reading now because the fact is you’re not as environmentally smart as you thought.  Now, while it is true that a hybrid burns less fuel than most cars and thus pollutes less, these cars are in fact imposters.  The making of these cars involves the construction of two separate engines, one standard 76 horsepower engine, and one battery powered engine.  The construction of these two engines uses more than 1000 tons of nickle annually, which makes many hybrids more environmentally destructive than a Hummer. 

Also, the reduction of CO2 that hybrid owners claim is very insignificant.  In fact, with the world’s fast growing population, the hybrids have almost no effect on the CO2 level in the atmosphere. 

Hybrids are not actually the answer that many people have been looking for; they are more polluting than many cars and still dump a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.  The only solucion to our energy and environmental problem of transportation is to find a new power source. Until then, hybrids are not even a bandaid solution; they are just adding to the problem  

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188

http://www.helium.com/tm/215530/order-understand-agianst-hybrid

Americans sure love their lawns

In today’s political world, people are looking for new environmental problems to focus their attention on.  These Environmental fantasys have now turned to the destruction of the old fashoned American lawn.  Cristina Milesi has been researching the effects of the large amounts of grass in today’s landscape.  She points out that other countries like Italy do not actually use grass like many American households.  In Italy, many yards are far smaller, and thus have less grass.  In adition to this, the Italian lawn does not usually contain what many Americans would consider grass.  This clash of cultures is more than soil deep; it has lead to enivronmental idealogical differences.  Melesi claims that the Italian lawn has many benefits over the American lawn.  She believes that the Italian lawn prevents water run off and better conserves the water resource that is becoming stressed in today’s world.  Where American lawns may use around 2 meters of water per year, Italian lawns use far less water because they need far less.  She points out that the average American lawn is completely unnatural when you look at the Western environments in the United States.  While lawns are semi-natural in the Northeast, they are unnatural everywhere else.  What she fails to point out is that in many areas, such as Florida, the citizens use a special water absorbant grass that prevents water waste, and also is extra resistant to the sun.  They also water the lawns with nonpotable water in many areas.  So in this way, people do not actually bring their environments with them as Milesi claims, they simply adjust to the environment and attempt to make their environment SIMILAR to their former home. 

She did point out however that a large amount of the United States is infact covered with grass.  This large amount of unnatural plant does effect the environment in a significant way.  Her conservative estimates claim that there are approximately 79535.51 square miles of grass in the United States, or around 219,947,506 feet.  This is a truly shocking amount, but it is not completely surprising.  This large amount of grass can cause carbon “sinks”.  A carbon sink is the process of changing carbon dioxide into organic material and storing it in the soil.  Grass does this to a far greater extent which can add more green house gasses into the atmosphere.  In this way, trees would be far better environmentaly than grass.  This is due to the fact that trees give out about 22 pounds of carbon a year, while grass gives out about 3.68 X 10^10 pounds per year. 

Also, the large amount of grass can lead to a large amount of water usage.  This can be a major problem in dry climates in western America.  This can easily be resolved, however, if a watering system was matched with a meteorology program to help regulate water.  In most climates, people should be watering their lawn around 2 meters per year.  This would prevent people from watering their lawns when it is absolutely unnecessary.  Also, further environmental problems can arise in relation to grass clippings.  The decomposing grass clippings will cause increased carbon in the atmosphere, which can increase the green house effect. 

No matter how grass lawns effect the environment, the government still should not have the power to regulate it to a large extent.  We live in a free society, and giving the government extra powers over trivial things like regulating lawns would be ridiculous.  By asking the government to regulate this, we would simply be asking “big brother” to interrupt our lives, and it is a slippery slope that could lead to further crazy regulations in the future.  No one should lose the right to have a lawn the way they like it.  After all, Americans sure love their lawns. 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Lawn/

 

What’s with Easter Island?

Easter Island in many ways can be seen as a possible future for the earth itself, primarily because it shows the devistating results of overuse of resources.  Easter Island today has virtually no trees on it, but in fact a few hundered years ago the entire island was covered with trees.  What exactly happened to them?  Well, there are multiple theories about this.  One is that the settlers of the island brought rats that ate the seeds of the trees and thereby stopped the expansion of the species.  Then, the overuse of the resources by the natives of the island began to depleat the tree population.  The native’s would use the trees as rollers to move statues into place and also as their main source of fuel and building materials.  After the tree population was all but wiped out, birds ceased flying to nest on the island, and wood became almost impossible to find.  This wood was needed in order to build and maintain boats.  This made fishing increasingly difficult and escape from the island impossible.  The lack of wood also made errecting more statues impossible, which put tremendous stress on the social organization.  In addition to this, soil errosion began to take place which today has had a massive effect.  The outcome of this disaster is simple; the island’s natives were thrown into chaos, and the civilization was forever crippled.  Now, by looking at this example, it becomes easier to see why we should all work to preserve our planet’s resources.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_island 

 http://www.apj.co.uk/rapanui/display_article.asp?specifier=history                 

http://www.primitivism.com/easter-island.htm