Today, our temperatures are rising, and it is beginning to become noticeable in the far north.  Winters are becoming shorter in areas like north Alaska and Canada, and the ground is staying unfrozen for longer.  Now, wouldn’t this be good for the animals who call this land home, like the caribou for instance? 

Well it is true that the plants are around for longer, which provides more food, but at the same time, this longer summer brings several problems.  The first of these would be the increased insect population.  These insects can be so intense that they will force caribou off their grazing lands during their migrations.  This can lead to hunger amoung the caribou, and eventual starvation.  In addition to this problem, the issue of severe storms soon becomes a problem as well.  With warmer weather, the far north has actually been experiencing rain during the winter months, which causes a layer of ice to form on top of the snow.  This ice is extremly sharp, and will often cut the caribou and slow them down.  It also creates a barrier of ice between the caribou and their food underneath the snow. 

All of these problems have put massive stress on the caribou population, and thus, the human population and all other animal populations that use the caribou as food.  And this problem is all due to a few degrees increase in the average temperature of our planet. 

A Fuel Cell engine can be compared with a battery powered one, with the main difference being that the energy that powers the battery in a Fuel Cell is added at fueling stations like gasoline.  This energy source is Hydrogen, and these cars would rely on it as today’s cars rely on gasoline.  The main products of a Fuel Cell engine are energy and water. 

Fuel Cells still produce Co2 however, but not in the same obvious ways gasoline engines produce it.  One way Co2 is produced is during the actual production of the fuel, which requires electricity, which in the production of this causes Co2 to be released into the environment.  In addition to this, the production of other components of the car, such as the wheels and other necessities release Co2 into the atmosphere as well.  To add to this, the paint used on all cars releases Co2 into the environment during its drying stages, which is a problem that cannot be solved by changing a car’s engine.  In addition to these problems, the heaters in these cars still produce Co2.  Furthermore, people driving them obviously add Co2 to the environment…so the the car system is not perfect, but it is far better than any of our other options

http://www.greenerchoices.org/globalwarmingsavecarbon.cfm

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=27760

http://www.bio.ilstu.edu/Armstrong/syllabi/rubber/rubber.htm

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/ 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030311074526.htm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/factsheets/fcell_fs.pdf

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

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

Mercury is an incredibly destructive toxin that is  damaging to humans, animal life, and plant life.  Now many people and websites will tell you that this mercury level is low and will not be released into the environment unless the light bulb is broken during desposal.  Well, light bulbs are not exactly the most durable waste product, and even though these light bulbs last about three years, they still add mercury into our environment.

“The problem with the bulbs is that they’ll break before they get to the landfill. They’ll break in containers, or they’ll break in a dumpster or they’ll break in the trucks. Workers may be exposed to very high levels of mercury when that happens,” says John Skinner, executive director of the Solid Waste Association of North America.

It is also important to recognize that coal plants, which are the most common type of power plant in the United States, produce a large amount of mercury in their production of energy.  But the presence of mercury in our own houses is caused but the CFl light bulbs. 

  So what is more important to the environmental community?  The levels of mercury in the earth, or the over use of energy that is needed to light conventional light bulbs.  Pick your poison. 

http://www.eartheasy.com/live_energyeff_lighting.htm  

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288684,00.html

Strip mining is the process of removing the mineral rich upper level of material and leaving the underlying rock.  It is incredibly destructive to the environment primarily  because it involves taking away the top layer of material, exposing bare

rock and destroying all the vegitation in the area.  This in effect can destroy whole ecosystems in vast areas of the world.  This type of mining is found in many countries including the United States, Canada, and China. 

Strip mining takes place in multiple phases.  First, the vegitation at the top of the area is completely removed and destroyed.  Then, the soil is removed and taken to another area.  After this, small holes are drilled in the bed rock and explosives are inserted into these holes.  The resluting explosions will create a mining strip.  Big machinery is then brought in to help remove the minerals (usually coal).  The soil is then brought back and  used to fill in the strip. 

Now, this may not seem that destructive.  After all, the soil is put back into its original place. But the process still has destroyed the local ecosystems.  The transplanted soil that is taken away during strip mining causes the first of many problems.  When placed in its temporary relocated site, this soil buries other ecosystems, and can block rivers as a result of rain causing the soil to runoff into the river, causing flooding and mass devistation.  The lack of vegitation after the soil is put back also leaves a barren dead landscape. This can cause extreme erosion and possible mudslides. 

The United States government now requires mining companies to try to recover the land after mining.  This means  that the company must replant vegitation to try and bring back a functioning ecosystem.  Now while this does not always work, it is still movement in the right direction. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_mining

http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00461/stripm.htm

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200506/09/eng20050609_189256.html

http://www.mongabay.com/reference/eco/Strip_mining.html

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect5/03867.jpg

Before I begin to rant, it is important to know what the Kyoto Protocol is.  It is an agreement between many nations to limit and stabilize the greenhouse emissions that would interfere with our climate. 

175 nations have signed the agreement, and of these, 36 countries are required to lower the greenhouse emissions  by a certain date.  These 36 nations are developed countries in mainly in Europe and North America.  Nations that are underdeveloped or third world are excempt from many of the greenhouse restrictions.  One of these countries is China.  China is basically given a license to do whatever it wants to the environment, while the United States is supposed to sit back and allow it’s competitor to gain a huge advantage.  Why would a country voluntarily economically criple itself? 

While many of the points in the protocol are good and would positively effect the world if they were inacted, it is far to biased to be truly effective.  It needs to include every nation as full participants for it to truly succeed.  While many people say that the United States is selfish for not agreeing to this protocol, just ask yourself, why should the United States voluntarily hand over economic power to China and India? Would this not destroy competition between the countries, giving nations which consistently abuse the environment on a mass scale a license to become supreme on the world stage?  While the United States is by far the largest producer of greenhouse gases at the moment, it is only a matter of time before this title shifts to China because of its extreme development.  While I am all for China’s industrialization, they cannot be allowed to do it in the same manner we did.  By this, I mean that they should not knowingly destroy the Earth. They know better now, which is a key difference between our industrialization and their’s.  We had no idea about the environmental hazards, so why should we allow others to make the same mistake we did? 

Third world countries should be allowed to industrialize; it is after all their right.  But we should aid in their industrialization and not allow them to make the same environmental mistakes we did.  They should not be given the right to destroy the environment; it is absolutely unfair and biased.  We need to create a fair agreement that will adequately include all parties, not just the ones that are already strong. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/kyoto.htm

http://www.geocities.com/k_s_sudeep/climate.jpg

http://www.tamug.edu/labb/images/97%20CO2%20by%20countries%203.gif

There has been a lot of talk going around about global warming.  And while I am probably one of the most conservative people you will ever meet, even I am convinced of its existence.  Many politicians from an unnamed party have been denying its existence, citing articles from scientists who also deny its existence.  People have been rallying against this however, starting protests, and even asking for some head officials to resign.  The fact is, the scientists who have been denying global warming’s existence are in fact practicing Junk science.  They are allowing politics to sway their scientific duty to publish the truth.

Now why I do believe somethings are sometimes exaggerated by the media because they do not understand the science behind global warming, and will sometimes make it sound worse than it is, I do believe that Junk science turns people away from the solution.  Members of the opposite party previously mentioned in my opinion will often use their own form of Junk science to attack the other party.  They will claim things are far worse, and that they are the true saviors of the world.  This is just as inappropriate as the first form.  There are extremes on both sides of the argument, and it is important to look for a happy median.  We cannot let Junk science prevent us from working together to solve a great problem. 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?

ARTICLE_ID=50450

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=1&threadid=162424