Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.
Editor’s note: For the last few months, we have run a number of guest posts from students in Professor Simran Sethi’s “Media and the Environment” course at the University of Kansas. We’ve all been pretty impressed with the work these students have done, so we were delighted to agree to publish a small-group final project from students J.J. DeSimone, Lindsay Crupper, Denzyl Janneker, Bobby Grace, and Adam Bowman. They focused on biodiversity in their project, and we’ll publish all five parts over the course of this week. Today’s post was originally published on May 9, 2008.
As humans, we collectively tend to be self-absorbed and not think outside our sphere of influence. More specifically, if something in the world doesn’t directly affect us we give little or no attention to it (I’m one of the worst culprits, myself). As such, it’s very easy for us not to think about what human wastefulness and global warming are doing to our plant and animal life. However, losing our earth’s bio and eco-diversity has frightening ramifications for humanity.
Photo credit: Adam Bowman
Taken in the Uintah Mountains, this photo illustrates what humans could lose unless they act to preserve open spaces.
According to Baker University Biology Professor and Natural Areas Director Roger Boyd, biodiversity is the amount of species in a given area. More broadly, eco-diversity refers to the number of ecosystems there are on the planet. If eco and biodiversity continues to decrease on the planet, then less food is available to sustain life. In essence, all of the earth’s biological life is interconnected; if our furry and scale-covered brethren run out of food, so do we.
Whether or not we’re actually in a recession (it feels like one from where I’m standing), there’s been a lot of discussion about if that could be a good thing for the environment.
The pro side’s argument goes like this: Yes, because people spend less during a recession. That means fewer miles driven and flown, fewer factory items shipped, more items reused and recycled rather than replaced.
Sounds logical, right?
By Beth Bader •
May 6, 2008
© Mtomczak | Dreamstime.com
While accompanying me on a trip to the more scary storage area of our house, my three-year-old spied an old “yard art” statue of a Rottweiler that belonged to my spouse. (The movers would not accept a bribe to, uh, lose a few items during the move).
Later that evening, she remarked to my husband, “Daddy, we need a real dog, not a plastic dog.” Between this plea and having to stop and ask to pet every, every, single dog we encounter in public, I set about the task of getting my spouse to agree to add a new member to the family.
It was not easy. He was heartbroken after losing his last dog, and pretty set against a puppy. This does not mean no — it just means choosing your moment wisely.
“Oh, I’ve got a dog for you. Chocolate Lab. I’ll spay her and everything,” my brother, a vet, offered. We were out for a family dinner. My husband was deep into his second beer. I gauged my opportunity. The moment looked right, or my husband looked a bit drunk. Either way, works for me.
The following ten stories, organized by region, made international headlines from April 27 to May 4 for their impact on the environment and society. For more stories that changed the world, see our archive, here.
North American Environmental News
Canada has proven once again that it is way ahead of the rest of world with its progressive government. Ontario has banned the use and sale of lawn and garden pesticides for homeowners. Quebec instituted a similar ban on 20 some pesticide products back in 2006.
The new ban is set to take effect by spring of 2009. Home Depot has already agreed to stop selling the pesticides by the end of 2008! This is a huge victory for anti-toxic supporters all over the continent. If only someone in the United States government could take such affirmative action we could all be spared. Ontario will basically phase out some 80 different chemicals and over 300 products that contain them.
Continue reading this article at the Environmental Blog. Join the discussion about this article at Care2.
This post is by Ramon Cruz, Senior Policy Analyst for Living Cities at Environmental Defense Fund.
It’s ironic. In many parts of the world, there is no clean drinking water. Here in the U.S., pure, drinkable water flows out of every tap, and yet Americans buy a staggering amount of bottled water. We pay big bucks for it, too - over $15 billion a year.
Worst of all, the bottles are overflowing our landfills, and contribute to global warming.
Take a look at this video from Doug James, and then check out these surprising facts.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/OZbTXDkrD1o" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
By Pem Charnley •
March 24, 2008
Greenpeace recently released their quarterly guide entitled The Guide to Greener Electronics.
What’s the guide all about? In Greenpeace’s words:
“The Greener Electronics Guide is our way of getting the electronics industry to face up to the problem of e-waste. We want manufacturers to get rid of harmful chemicals in their products. We want to see an end to the stories of unprotected child labourers scavenging mountains of cast-off gadgets created by society’s gizmo-loving ways.”
Nintendo came bottom of the league with no public policy on toxics elimination or recycling. And although the guide describes the behaviour of electronics giants regarding toxic waste, energy usage is not taken into account – something I want to discuss here.
Here at Eat. Drink. Better. we talk a lot about the process through which food moves from farm to market to plate. But responsible food consumption includes accountability for the manner in which food scraps are disposed. It’s all well and good to have a backyard composter if your property includes some green space or even a balcony, but what about apartment dwellers?
By Chad Crawford •
March 6, 2008
I was intrigued by this couple after they appeared on Oprah Wednesday, February 27. I know it’s been over a week. Did you really think I caught the episode on Oprah? I heard about this from a friend who never misses the show. Honestly! OK, I watch it sometimes.
Daniel Burt is an eye doctor and his wife Amanda is a civil engineer living in Nashville. Their hobbies include living a lifestyle that makes a statement against rampant overconsumption and wastefulness in America. In other words, they dive in dumpsters to redeem things that have been thrown away.
Daniel explains, “We try to live very simply, and we don’t spend a lot on ourselves. We are very happy with having a little. We like to make it a priority to share a lot of our money. A lot of that comes from our Christian values of sharing and generosity.”
By Gavin Hudson •
February 19, 2008
My “I’m a Californian, so what could I learn about recycling from Korea?” attitude was shattered on my first day in Seoul. It happened innocently enough. I just dipped into a corner store and was drop-jawed at what I found out: every food store in Korea has customer recycling and compost bins.
In fact, homes and businesses all over Korea recycle and compost as a general rule. More than 40% of solid waste is recycled and about 55% of food waste is composted as fertilizer and feed. Still, the recycling laws behind these successes are only part of the puzzle. Koreans, it seems, don’t fully appreciate their country’s recycling system; and it’s hurting recycling efforts.
Many believe that recycling and compost is either burned, buried, or dumped at sea. In fact, this is a common skepticism the world over that’s preventing better recycling. Despite growing up watching Mr. Rogers on TV visiting and explaining recycling plants (come on… we all think Mr. Rogers is cool, right?), too many people secretly suspect that their separated recycling and waste all gets burned or buried together in the end.
By Sarah Lozanova •
February 7, 2008
One of the most viable solutions to our large-scale environmental challenges is to use “waste” instead of virgin materials. This is especially true for the transportation fuels industry. Unfortunately, with the current infrastructure in place, virgin resources can actually be more cost effective than “waste.” I became aware of this when I toured the Coskata ethanol laboratory in suburban Chicago. I discovered that there is a cheaper and more consistent supply of harvested trees to produce ethanol than trash.
Trees, agricultural waste, storm debris and trash are all viable fuel sources for ethanol, using the Coskata process. This highly flexible technology allows future manufacturing plants to cater to locally available materials, making ethanol viable in parts of the globe that would not use corn or sugar cane for fuel. Argonne National Laboratory tests show that greenhouse gas emissions are up to 84% lower for Coskta ethanol than conventional gasoline. It has a net energy balance of up to 7.7, compared to 1.3 for corn-based ethanol. These results were achieved with a production cost of $1 a gallon when timber was used as an ethanol fuel source.
On face of it, you would think that garbage would be the cheapest way to produce fuel, given the flexibility of the Coskata process. In fact, one of the most available and economically viable fuel sources is trees, with the low price tag of $50 a ton. There is a very efficient infrastructure for harvesting and transporting trees. They are available throughout the year, unlike some agricultural products. It is actually cheaper to use trees than sorted garbage and agricultural waste.
Where does much of the world’s plastic trash end up? It ends up in a floating, Pacific gyre of “garbage soup” that’s now twice as large as the continental U.S. If the image of the jellyfish […]
