SAVE ENVIRONMENT

Electric Car Conversion – Better Way to Save Money and Environment

2010-12-27T19:39:00.003+05:30

If you are considering making the switch to an electric car, then there are some things you should consider before getting started. The transforming is a method that say could save you money and lower the carbon footprint. However, there are some disadvantages and advantages of electric car conversion to consider.
Electric car conversion:
Rather than buying an electric or hybrid vehicle, some owners carry out an electric car conversion, in which gasoline-stimulated engine is converted with an electric-stimulated one. Electric car conversions are generally known as do it yourself projects.
There are pre assembled kits or full do it yourself car electric conversion instruction for sale. Generally, all of the non engine parts of the vehicle are not changed- car body, safety features, breaks etc.
Advantages:
If you choose to transform your car to electric, there are some genuine advantages to the project. Rather than filling up at the gasoline station, you can plug in your car. Your carbon foot print will be eloquently reduced. The conversion process is naturally easy to do with some mechanical skills. Normally this process can run less than $15000 and could easily save you money in the long term.
Some more benefits:
-You can convert your car to electric in few days
-You can follow step by step conversion process
-You can travel up to 65 miles per hour
Most people are capable to convert their cars by themselves. The result of car conversion depends on how much the car weighs and how many batteries you use. Charging the car is not that expensive. You only need to plug in your car to charge.
Some disadvantages:
Converted electric cars can beIf you are considering making the switch to an electric car, then there are some things you should consider before getting started. The transforming is a method that say could save you money and lower the carbon footprint. However, there are some disadvantages and advantages of electric car conversion to consider.
Electric car conversion:
Rather than buying an electric or hybrid vehicle, some owners carry out an electric car conversion, in which gasoline-stimulated engine is converted with an electric-stimulated one. Electric car conversions are generally known as do it yourself projects.
There are pre assembled kits or full do it yourself car electric conversion instruction for sale. Generally, all of the non engine parts of the vehicle are not changed- car body, safety features, breaks etc.
Advantages:
If you choose to transform your car to electric, there are some genuine advantages to the project. Rather than filling up at the gasoline station, you can plug in your car. Your carbon foot print will be eloquently reduced. The conversion process is naturally easy to do with some mechanical skills. Normally this process can run less than $15000 and could easily save you money in the long term.
Some more benefits:
-You can convert your car to electric in few days -You can follow step by step conversion process -You can travel up to 65 miles per hour
Most people are capable to convert their cars by themselves. The result of car conversion depends on how much the car weighs and how many batteries you use. Charging the car is not that expensive. You only need to plug in your car to charge.
Some disadvantages:
Converted electric cars can be more difficult to repair. Every few years’ electric vehicles will also require battery replacement. These are some of the major disadvantages of electric car conversion.
Electric vehicles help to reduce noise pollution. Their lower maximum speeds could mean less road deaths and are quiet running. New movements in machinery may show abundant advancement in environmentally friendly road vehicles but meanwhile it is not a bad deal- save the environment and save money. more difficult to repair. Every few years’ electric vehicles will also require battery replacement. These are some of the major disadvantages of electric car conversion.
Electric vehicles help to reduce noise pollution. Their lower maximum speeds could mean less road deaths and are quiet running. New movements in machinery may show abundant advancement in environmentally friendly road vehicles but meanwhile it is not a bad deal- save the environment and save money.

Time to say goodbye to petrol and diesel

2010-12-26T21:43:00.005+05:30

There is potentially a very bright future out there for personal transport that doesn't rely on petrol, diesel or chip fat to power the engine of your car. So where is it and why are we not using it then? Well the truth is people love their petrol engines because they're cheap (reliable?) and they don't cost much to buy or run. Throw in the fact that alternative power sources for vehicles are expensive to buy, more complicated to refuel and generally are seen as inconvenient compared to the internal combustion engine. You basically end up with a one horse race and we all troop off down to the nearest BP or Texaco to fill our tanks, swearing and complaining as we're forced to practically empty our wallets. The oil companies and the retailers are happy, they've never had it so good. The government is happy because they're raking in the fuel duty (see earlier gripe) and of course the car manufacturers are probably quite happy churning out new and ever more efficient (?) cars. But are you happy with the way things are? Do you get a warm fuzzy glow when you fill up at the petrol station in the morning, knowing full well you'll probably be paying even more for the same amount of fuel next week? You probably don't think much about the pollution and CO2 emissions, but that's not what this gripe is about so we'll ignore that for now. As I said earlier there are alternatives out there but people just aren't interested, either that or they just didn't know about it in the first place. I can't in all honesty believe that the average consumer has deep enough pockets to go for an alternative option and there's also the fact that the infrastructure just isn't there never mind the cars. Who wants an electric car that costs five times as much as a petrol car and only goes a fraction of the journey before needing a recharge? Who wants a hydrogen or fuel cell car that you can't refuel at any old motorway service station?
	Well it's coming, and one day you wont be able to run your car on petrol or diesel. Maybe it will be a case of you can't afford to run it on petrol because it's too expensive. These alternative power sources have slowly been evolving over whether we want them or not. Battery and fuel cell technology for example has made a rapid amount of progress in the last few years. More efficient motors, lighter and stronger car chassis, regenerative braking, ultra efficient solar cells and wind turbines for recharging at home. All this and more is already out there and it keeps getting better and better. Hybrid cars are a good start and could prove to be a good stepping stone to wean ourselves off oil once and for all. For those wishing to lead a fully sustainable lifestyle it is well worth investigating the use of alternative fuels to run your road vehicles. Vehicle emissions are second only in emitting harmful carbon dioxide output to the energy industry itself, accounting for 25% of all carbon emissions. Sustainable 'Alternative Fuel' is fuel that can be used to power an engine, whilst not depleting resources or contributing damage to the environment. A truly sustainable alternative to petrol or diesel will be able to replace its energy source as quickly as it is consumed. With some alternative fuels coming cheaper than petrol and diesel, and with tax incentives to use these alternatives, converting to environmentally sustainable fuels really can be a viable undertaking. Solar energy is perhaps the best example of a sustainable fuel, as it is immediately replaceable, with no direct damage the environment involved in its use (the use of solar energy does not deplete the suns energy, it merely utilises it). However, solar energy for road cars is still in the developmental stage and is not a viable option for the individual, or business user. Other popular sustainable alternatives to petrol include: Ethanol, Methanol and Butanol, which are all sourced form fermented plant matter, most commonly sugar beet. Liquid Petroleum Gas (or LPG), commonly used to fuel camping stoves, is a naturally derived heavy gas derived from petroleum during processing and stored as a liquid.. Compressed Natural Gas (or CNG) is similar to LPG but is compressed in a gas, rather than liquid, form. Biofuel or biodiesel is made from oil extracts sourced directly from vegetables and plants, or from recycled household vegetable oil.

Impact of pesticides in kerala

2010-12-20T21:12:00.001+05:30

The endosulfan tragedy which occurred in Kasaragod district of Kerala, India is now well known. It is considered by many experts in the field of pesticide toxicity as one of the worst pesticide disasters to happen to a region and its people. The tragedy occurred for various reasons, starting with the recommendation to use such a chemical in a populated, waterbody
rich area like Kasaragod. It was then continually aerially sprayed by the Plantation Corporation of Kerala on its cashew plantations for 20 years, without even once looking into its impacts. This report is a preliminary appraisal of the impact of the remedial and relief efforts among the affected community and has been compiled primarily with the help of community doctors, government doctors, officers in charge of the relief cell and activists associated with the relief measures.

Whose Environment is it?

2010-12-16T17:17:00.002+05:30

Problems of Poverty and Development in India
As India prepares to enter a new millenium, the degraded state of India's natural environment cannot escape comment or analysis. Some believe that the deterioration in the environment is of such magnitude that all development must cease for the planet to survive. Others dismiss the entire environmental movement as comprised of loony troublemakers who have no right to interefere with the sanctity of private property and private enterprise. Still others berate the environmental movement for being an exclusively middle-class movement that is irrelevant to the class struggle.
Lost in the middle of these antagonistic positions are those who see environmental pollution as a serious issue that affects people cutting across class lines but also recognize the unfairness of the existing order in which the earth's resources and benefits of modern technology are monopolized by a minority of the rich on this planet. For them, issues of environmental degradation must be tackled on a war-footing, but they reject solutions that preserve the unfair distribution of the world's products and natural resources. For them, fairness and justice - the idea that there must be progress for all, cannot be sacrificed in the name of "saving the environment". For them, environmental concerns must be integrated into the general class struggle, and against the tendency of private interests to violate and exploit both people and the environment. Their world-view is in sharp contrast with those environmental elitists who wish to enjoy all the fruits of modern industrial development while denying those same benefits to the proletarian masses who must struggle and survive under the most primitive of human conditions.
Air and Water Pollution in Delhi
Take the issue of air and water pollution in Delhi and the recent supreme-court rulings in that regard. Few can deny that Delhi's air is deadly to breathe. By some estimates, one in three is now afflicted with chronic breathing ailments. Almost a sixth of all children are reputed to suffer from lead induced mental retardation. Gastro-epidemics (resulting from water-borne pollutants) have been all too frequent in recent years, with children being especially vulnerable. Yet, for some industrialists this is not a "serious" enough problem to warrant further regulation or even ensure the implementation of existing regulations. Curiously, some unionists have adopted the absurd position that this is not a "class" issue, as if the poor and the working class don't suffer from lung diseases or water contamination. If anything, it is the other way around. The poor are the first to suffer from the effects of air and water pollution. While the rich can limit their exposure to air-borne toxics by driving around in air-conditioned cars, the poor who must walk to work, or use bicycles or public transport simply can't escape the ill-effects. The rich can buy bottled spring water or distilled water, but the poor usually can't afford anything but tap water. Rather than dismiss such concerns, unionists and others involved in the class-struggle ought to be the first to take up the battle against air and water pollution.
Instead, this aloof attitude has led to solutions that don't go far enough, and are decidedly unfair to the poor. For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that "polluting industries" must be relocated out of Delhi. Does that mean that these polluting industries are now free to destroy the health of residents in Ghaziabad, Meerut or Rohtak? Does the Indian Supreme Court only care about the health of those who reside in the nation's capital? And what of the hapless employees of those industrial units that were given the orders to relocate? How are they supposed to cope with unemployment and lack of income?
Shouldn't the real solution have been to insist upon correcting manufacturing processes so that they didn't pollute in the first place? Of course, one of the obstacles to any environmental regulation is that businesses will scream that it hurts their "bottom line". When the right to profits is supreme there is little arguing with such views. Yet, not many in the environmental movement consider public ownership of industry as a possible solution where environmental regulations could be enforced across the board, without the risk of corruption or lobbying by private business interests.
A significant source of pollution in India's cities are vehicles - cars, two-wheelers, three-wheelers, trucks and buses. Although there have been small steps in moving towards unleaded fuel, little has been done to improve and encourage the use of public transportation. Railways have been neglected and buses for commuters are poorly maintained. Private bus, tempo and truck manufacturers have largely gotten away with producing poor quality vehicles that routinely exceed emission norms. In a socialist economy, private cars would not be a priority. Expanding the rail network and improving the quality of buses and goods transport vehicles would instead, get their due importance. Unfortunately, a majority in the environmental movement are unable to break from their affinity with private ownership and support of private enterprise. As a result, society makes little, or very slow progress in solving these pressing issues.
The Issue of "Big Dams" and National Sovereignty
Another divisive issue for India has been the growing controversy over "big dams". Over the years, critics of India's dams have presented a host of damning evidence pointing to the deplorable neglect of displaced people - especially poor tribal communities. Critics have also correctly pointed out how many dams are started but never completed, or else poorly constructed. Corruption and mismanagement have often led to huge cost overruns, and too often, there is a lack of follow-up in building adequate feeder canals, or else, the canals that are built are not properly maintained.
But rather than calling for the rectification of such grievious errors, many have adopted an idealogical and blanket opposition to all hydro-projects. This has led to grave consequences for the nation. By increasing the nation's reliance on thermal power stations, it has created chaos in the national grid. Thermal power stations are much less suited to handling fluctuating demand. Given the poor quality of India's coal, and the long distances it has to be transported, India's thermal power plants are more polluting, relatively expensive to maintain, and prone to frequent tripping. What is even worse is that the neglect of hydro-power is leading to a growing reliance on even more expensive imported fuel based power plants of the Enron-type. Not only are these very costly (and also entail environmental risks), they involve a grave loss of national independence.
While it is not surprising that US-based anti-dam groups might encourage the shift to oil and gas-based energy, it is tragic how some Indian environmentalists are falling into that trap. As it is, India's oil import bill is too large for the country to afford. By building more oil and gas based power plants, India will become even more vulnerable to pressure from the US, which has a virtual stranglehold on the world's oil trade.
It is important to note that historically, manipulating water resources has been a powerful tool for political conquerers. When Mandu was conquered by invaders from the North-West, Bhojpur's dams were destoyed so as to demoralize and weaken the local peasantry and destroy the legitimacy of the Parmar rulers. The Parmar Rajahs of Bhojpur were particularly renowned builders and admired and venerated for their acumen as great architects and civil engineers. By destroying Bhojpur's dams, Mandu's Afghan conquerers were able to hasten their defeat. Several centuries later, India's British colonial rulers, through a policy of deliberate and wanton neglect, destroyed Bengal's traditional water-works, thus compromising the region's ability to feed and defend itself. It is therefore, not surprising that powerful neo-colonial interests in the West would wish to keep India energy deficient, and dependant on imported sources.
The negative reation to India's nuclear tests, and the resistance to India's nuclear power policy, stems at least partially from the desire of some to constrict India's development. Even though India's nuclear power plants use resources that are locally available, and have a safety record that matches the highest international standards, India's nuclear policy has been severely criticized in major international fora. International groups are particularly hypocritical in their condemnation of India's nuclear efforts when in fact, it is the rich industrialized countries like France, Sweden, Japan (and many others) who are the biggest users of nuclear energy. Although new technologies reduce the problem of nuclear waste-management, and make it much more manageable, many in the West prefer to foist oil-based energy use in oil-poor countries like India.
"Independence in the energy sector is central to the national sovereignty and national well-being for an oil importing and developing country like India".This was the view expressed recently by Dr S. K. Chopra, Senior Advisor to the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources. Dr Chopra was speaking after making a presentation on "Energy Policy for India - Towards Energy Independence" in Delhi. A strong advocate of alternative energy, he spoke against the oil intensification of the Indian economy. He pointed out that there was inadequate use of renewable sources of energy which must be stepped up. "We are one of the leaders in harnessing wind energy, but must widen our net", he remarked. On the atomic energy front, Dr Chopra stated that India and France had begun harnessing atomic power at the same time. But while France was getting 80 per cent of its energy needs from atomic power today, its contribution in India was only 2.35 per cent of the entire need.
Energy Management
Ideally, India should do far more to manage the demand for power. Sections of Indian industry are extremely wasteful in their use of energy. India's homes could be better designed to be cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. More could be done to strengthen the national power-grid, minimize transmission losses and rebuild and improve outdated power plants. Non-polluting alternative power sources such as wind, solar and tidal power need far more national support and funding. These should be particularly useful in residential use and in electrifying remote and poorly connected villages of the country.
But these alternatives cannot replace conventional sources of energy production entirely. It should be noted that the development of "alternative energy resources" presumes highly developed conventional energy sources. Wind-turbines require manufacturing that would be impossible without energy supplied by conventional power plants. Solar panels also need advanced high-energy industrial manufacturing. Hence, it would be naive to argue that India could simply abandon the development of conventional energy resources and suddenly switch to alternative sources. Those who advocate 'small decentralized plants' seem unaware of the heavy requirements of modern industrial production.
The transition to alternative sources will take several decades. In order for India to expand it's use of non-polluting alternatives to thermal or oil/gas based power, it will also have to expand the production of conventional energy in that interim period. Moreover, for energy alternatives to became fully viable, considerably more research and seed capital will be necessary. This is unlikely to come from private sources, and will require greatly increased state-funding.
'Decentralization' and 'Small is Beautiful'
Although 'decentralization' and "small is beautiful" have become very popular slogans, these are fraught with their own contradictions. Consider the proliferation of "small" private generators. Powered by petroleum derivatives - these are energy- inefficient, extremely noisy and highly polluting. But unlike Narmada-Bachao, there is no Generator-Bachao movement. Inconsistencies like these could lead to questions about the sincerity of some environmental activists. How many dare to speak out against the growing use of luxury cars, high-powered air-conditioners, and the reliance on private generators?
Another charge levelled against some of India's environmentalists is that they are hostile to progress. That while they are extremely sensitive to the victims of developmental displacement, they are insensitive to the suffering of those who have been denied any benefits of development. In their exclusive advocacy of "small" hydro projects, they are unwilling to consider that these may sometimes be inadequate even in fully meeting irrigation and drinking water needs (let alone generate electricity).
Recently, Gail Omvedt (at Pune University) pointed out how small irrigation projects while helpful were insufficient to meet the needs of some of Maharashtra's small farmers. She made this observation after a ten-year study of districts where small-scale water harvesting projects had been developed to the fullest for over a decade. She also observed how the "small is beautiful" mantra - while initially helpful in improving the lives of poor communities, eventually puts those communities at a disadvantage vis-a-vis richer farmers with access to more advanced irrigation schemes, and allows the rich farmers to continue to politically and economically exploit the poorer farmers.
What is particularly ironic is how some of the "small is beautiful" mantra is posed as a counterpoint to "Western Models" of water management. But, building large dams is not a Western invention at all. India has one of the oldest traditions in elaborate water-management projects going back to the times of Mohenjo-Daro. Many of India's medieval rulers diverted rivers, built artificial lakes, canals, dams and water-reservoirs. Today, the large lakes and reservoirs of Jaipur, Udaipur, Hyderabad or Bhopal may seem "natural" - but they are all the result of human endeavour. The Bhopal lake required diverting a river more than 10 kms away. Neither is silting of rivers exclusively a problem of 'modern development' as some contend. There are references to India's medieval rulers recognizing the problem of silting and organizing campaigns to desilt rivers. Rajni Palme Dutt, in his classic book on colonial rule in India - 'India Today' - bemoans British neglect of the vast irrigation networks that had been constructed and carefully maintained in Bengal and Assam before the Plassey defeat.
As already mentioned, the highly popular Parmar Rajahs of Central India were noted for their devotion to "large" water-management projects. As skilled architects and promoters of large construction projects, they won considerable popular acclaim in their times.
Environmental Destruction in the Past
There is also a common myth that there was no environmental destruction before the onset of the industrial revolution. In fact, some of the greatest deforestation in the lands around the Mediterranean took place in the Greek and Roman era when indiscriminate logging and mining led to rapid clear-cutting and consequent desertification. As the world's population has grown, the tribal practice of slash and burn agriculture has also become less environmentally viable in some places, and in recent times this has been a major obstacle to forest preservation in Africa and even parts of India. Some environmentalists project an idealistic view of ancient practices and tribal customs. But they forget that the lack of modern technology can also be a source of environmental destruction. When the forest cover dwindles, even the cutting of trees by poor peasants for heating and cooking can pose a problem. (Of course, the primary source of deforestation in India is not the construction of dams but indiscriminate commercial logging - which deserves much greater scrutiny and control.)
The history of the planet is marked by environmental destruction and by serious attempts at resisting and managing such trends. Industrialization greatly heightens this conflict. But it would be wrong to romanticize the past. It is important to realize that there is a dialectical relationship between environmental preservation and human technological development. The point is to strike the best and most sustainable balance.
Dialectics of Development and Environmental Preservation
Ultimately, the strength of India's environmental movement will depend on how it builds alliances with popular movements and sympathizes with the concerns of all of India's down-trodden. There is a great deal to be done in terms of cleaning and protecting the environment. But it cannot be done by simply ignoring the poverty that results from under-development. Neither would it be correct to espouse environmental concerns in a manner that preserves the right of the rich to every modern luxury even as the poor huddle in slums in the heat and cold.
Take the "Narmada Bachao Andolan". Activists involved with Narmada Bachao rightly bring up the issue of "development for whom?". Who pays the price, and who garners the benefits of "development" are extremely important issues facing India as a nation. But is the final answer that all development must cease - or that development must be structured differently? Is the problem of developmental inequality a cause or more a symptom of existing class relations in society?
At present there is a huge chasm between opponents and proponents of the Narmada dam. Some argue that the dam should have never been built. Others point to how it has already succeeded in preventing the frequently recurring flooding that occurred along the banks during heavy monsoon years. In Gujarat, support for the dam is almost universal and even extends to popular NGOs. The problems of the dam oustees are real and exceedingly important. But so too are the drinking water problems of Gujarat's poor. While the rich can buy water from tankers, or buy Bisleri (or it's equivalent) for drinking, Gujarat's rural and urban poor have far fewer options. In a bad year, dalit and tribal women often bear the biggest burden in trudging miles to find water for their families. Although much more could be done to augment rain-water harvesting in Gujarat, it is important to recognize that most of Gujarat's ground water is extremely brackish. Without any major all-weather rivers of it's own, it is little wonder that the Narmada project is defended with such passion in the state.
Many of India's environmental controversies are a result of the high density of India's population. Unlike Europe, which was able to ease the pressure of it's burgeoning population through colonial conquests in America and Australia, India has few options when countries like the US and Australia have limited immigration to a trickle. Partition further aggravated the situation for India when the best naturally irrigated lands went to Pakistan and Bangladesh. Even a cursory look at the map will demonstrate how Pakistan and Bangladesh are blessed with a unique natural network of rivers. Pakistan is ideally situated for the construction of modern dams and is a power surplus nation but it's unyielding hostility towards India means that India cannot avail of those natural resources.
There is also tremendous undeveloped hydro potential in Nepal and the Indian North-East. While India can do little about the opposition to joint development of water resources with India in Nepal - the North-East is fairly sparsely populated, and at least some of the hydro-potential could be harnessed without too much controversy. The Brahmaputra which is prone to deadly flooding urgently needs new check dams if nothing else. But the lack of a national water-management and power policy, the reluctance to support state-investment in new projects and the headlong rush towards privatization prevents some of the best hydro-resources in the sub-continent from being carefully developed.
The problems of development in India are exceedingly complex. Class inequities, geographical and political limitations greatly compound India's environmental situation. But with greater sensitivity towards basic human needs, one hopes that India's future development will be harmonized and reconciled with environmental contradictions. But without a doubt, that will entail restrictions on the "freedom" of private capital to use land and mineral resources at will. It will also entail curtailments on the lifestyles of India's rich and powerful. It will require India's environmentalists to embrace the class struggle, and require India's activists for the oppressed to embrace environmental concerns.
Whose environment is it? It is everyone's - to preserve and to keep healthy and sustainable. But it is also to develop and share equitably - not an exclusive preserve of the rich and well-heeled alone to enjoy and exploit.

What is Environmental Disaster?

2010-12-15T21:22:00.005+05:30

Many say that at the current rate of development, we're headed for and environmental disaster. Is this correct? Have humans really destroyed, pillaged, and polluted enough to cause a serious, wide scale, disaster? If not, then should we continue forward without changing our way of living? All of these questions hold great pertinence for our current situation.



Humans don't exactly hold the best track record for environmental protection and preservation. Throughout time we have exploited nature and its creatures for our own benefit. We have made technological advances that threaten and disrupt the environment with total disregard for that fact. We took slipshod short cuts that are now catching up to us today, and we can think of no available alternatives that will remedy the problem quickly and usefully.



We have developed a huge and thriving society; and in the process we deforest huge sections of land for living and livestock grazing. This decreases oxygen and increases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; possibly adding to global warming though the greenhouse effect. This mass population produces mass amounts of waste, so to deal with that we just throw it into the ground, which in turn contaminates our water supply and contributes to further deforestation. We develop motorized transportation; and then burn non-renewable fossil fuels that put lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, ozone, excess carbon dioxide, and other harmful particulates into the atmosphere (Skjel & Whorton 95-108). This produces dangers like smog and cancer and contributes to global warming. In the production of fuel we exhaust oil reserves and pollute the oceans through spills from tankers. This endangers wilderness and wildlife. We produce an inert, easily producible propellant for aerosols; and then realize it's only inert on the ground. Once it's bombarded by UV ray in the upper atmosphere it releases a highly destructive ion that wreaks havoc on the protective ozone layer shielding us from those same deadly UV rays, creating a hole in the layer allowing the radiation through, increasing cancer and other genetic defects. We build rockets capable of going into space and breaking the earth's gravitational pull; and then immediately start to pollute this new environment with spent rockets and boosters along with other miscellaneous particles of debris (Curran and Haw 3).



Michael Crichton writes, "What we call nature is a complex system of far greater subtlety than we are willing to accept. We make a simplified view of nature and then botch it all up. ...You have to understand what you don't understand. How many times must the point be made? How many times must we see the evidence? We build the Aswan Dam and claim it is going to revitalize the country. Instead, it destroys the fertile Nile Delta, produces parasitic infestation, and wrecks the Egyptian economy" (Jurassic Park 91).



To the common person our current situation contains little hope. All the advancement and improvements have done little to further our species. With each one has come a new environmental issue. You almost need to evaluate each situation in terms of positives and negatives. However, at the root of all this chaos you'll find anthropocentrism, a human centered way of thinking. This way of thinking as an attitude, and moral theory, centers on humans as the highest of the significant beings. The theory views nature and the environment in terms of their use value for humans only (Michaels 7). So all of the above developments with costs can be justified through their usefulness for humans.



The human centered ethic is deeply rooted in the past through the ancient Greek and Roman societies. In these societies the Bible was a main source of ethical information and moral theory. Through a liberal and literal interpretation of the Bible the Hebrews first, and the Christians after them, viewed themselves as supreme beings created by God with the granted right of dominion over the planet (Singer 265-267). With this attitude they saw fit to use every creature, plant, and aspect of the planet for their sole benefit only, taking whatever steps necessary to please themselves. Unless doing so meant harm to another human, then you need not take restraint in harming the natural world.



Philosopher Peter Singer points this fact out through the interpretation of the passage in the Bible dealing with creation; "So God created man in his own image...blessed them...and God said...have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl in the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth," Gen. I:28 (Singer 266). Though alternative views can be reached, the prevalent one places man in the position of supreme moral being and all other animals, plants, and the environment at the mercy of man for their full utilization. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle held the same hierarchy between humans and nature. He saw a logical order of plants for animals and then animals for us (Singer 267). Thus so he determined that we might as well make use of nature for our own gains.



To pursue further development based on this ethic would be disastrous. With our current numbers of population and rate of growth we're just asking for an environmental catastrophe of the highest magnitude to act as a wake up call. Granted that a great deal of the population realizes that unless action is taken today then we'll have to face that disaster tomorrow. The principle question is how to go about alleviating and repairing the damage we've already caused. We also need to address how to prevent doing further damage for the sake of future generations.



Singer sees the problem in the way we view the environment and our place in it. He recommends a series of attitude adjustments of various degrees that would help to repair the damage we've already done. The first is to view the wilderness in the environment in the utilitarian view, looking at its full future potential of pleasure to bring to future generations of society (Singer 270). This adds considerable wealth to the environment, allowing that if any piece is destroyed then future generation will miss out on experiencing the joy and awe that comes from the untamed wilderness and its splendor.



This way of thinking is consistent with conservationism, the most popular of the current environmental philosophies. Conservationists attempt to conserve natural resources while still looking for better ways to keep society functioning using modern techniques (Michaels 2). This way additional adverse effects are minimized and an attempt is made to maintain some areas of open wilderness.



The only problem with this view is that it is still a human centered ethic. It still sees the environment as a thing to be utilized by humans for their own pleasure. It doesn't do enough. The problems aren't getting fixed. Better ways of doing things are being researched, but the underlying problem is not receiving any attention. So the environmental downward spiral is only slowed down and is not fixed. We've still got the same problems.



To take the conservationist attitude further you would see all sentient beings as holding moral standing and due consideration. This includes most of the animals in the world; any animal capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. Through these experiences you form the basis for the extended moral theory. If the animals perish through their habitat's destruction or outside influences, then their future pleasures will no longer be. When you take into account whole societies and communities of animals then the added value to the environment increases exponentially as you combine their happiness with the happiness never experienced by their future generations (Singer 275-276). So by taking this viewpoint you place even more intrinsic value on the environment through the experiences of all sentient animals involved.



The only problem with this theory is where do you draw the line? What counts as a "sentient being"? It can be argued that even humans are not sentient. Crichton writes, "What makes you think human beings are sentient and aware? There's no evidence for it. Human beings never think for themselves, they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species only repeat what they are told-and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. The characteristic human trait is not awareness but conformity, and the characteristic result is religious warfare. Other animals fight for territory or food; but, uniquely in the animal kingdom, human beings fight for their 'beliefs.' The reason is that beliefs guide behavior, which has evolutionary importance among human beings. But at a time when our behavior may well lead us to extinction, I see no reason to assume that we have any awareness at all. We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion" (The Lost World 7-8). Granted this does not present a case for sentience on the basis of pain vs. pleasure, but it does present an interesting way to think about classifying sentience. So you can see drawing the cut off line for even lower animals could present considerable challenges. You have trouble reaching an adequate definition of "sentient." You are now facing how much awareness a creature has to perceive pain and pleasure along with joy from anticipation of future events to consider it morally significant. If a cat is significant, but not a fish, what makes the cat a moral patient while the fish is not? Where is there a difference? There is a problem of arbitrarily assigning moral value when actual feelings and emotions are beyond description.



To go a step further away from human sentience you would hold all living thing to be of moral value. This would then bring plants and non-sentient animals into the picture. This view holds life as the ultimate intrinsic value. Beings have moral value in just being alive. So life is viewed as an intrinsic good, and no verifying pleasures or pains being experienced are needed to allot this worth. Anything living is held with a reverence for that life (Singer 277-278).



The problem here too is where to draw the line. When looking at living things at the lowest levels the differences between the living and nonliving starts to get hazy. Since a relatively accurate depiction of a suffering is needed to fully consider a being sentient, then you have to wonder how important life is as long as there is no pain caused or happiness experienced (Singer 278). Since neither a bush nor a rock can experience ether of these experiences, then, from a utilitarian point of view, neither is morally significant. Why is the bush morally important because it's alive? Here the reverence for life argument provides a basis. By holding the uniqueness of life as an intrinsic value then you can then place higher moral value on that being. That is why a bush can be a moral patient while a rock cannot under the reverence for life philosophy.



There is only one step further that you can take away from anthropocentrism, and that is to even hold the land, water, and rocks as having moral value and an intrinsic goodness to them, this is called deep ecology. The whole ecosystem as a whole should then be treated as having immeasurable worth and should be regarded with the utmost respect (Singer 280). Many supporters of this view see the earth and the ecosystem metaphorically as a living being and refer to it as Gaia, or mother Earth. Through this theory, any destruction done to Earth is immoral and so all aspects of the planet demand protection.



The previous three theories are consistent with ecocentrism in various degrees. This philosophy sees nature as having dominance over man philosophically (Michaels 7). Ecocentrists place higher value on animal and plant life than their own lives and experiences. They also value maintaining and promoting wilderness protection



The main issue with ecocentric philosophies, particularly deep ecology, is that there is no common moral language between nature and humans to communicate with (Michaels 7). By thinking of the relationship between them in ethical terms little is accomplished but humanizing nature. There is no dialog between them, each adapts to the other individually. Another problem is that holding the environment that much higher than man is just the opposite extreme of an anthropocentric view. You're basically turning the situation around 360o; on either end you have an extreme dominant-subordinate relationship. A virtuous, happy medium must be found.



In order to find an effective environmental ethic we must make changes, attitudes don't do the work. Singer feels that the world's population needs to adapt its moral theory and practice to the current conditions. He suggests a theory that considers all sentient creatures while also promoting smaller families, less extravagant lifestyles, limited development, and decreased mass consumption of resources (Singer 286-287). This allows for maximum utilization of the environment and resources so that the problems faced today can be cognized and the fixed. These tenets provide a solid foundation for a flexible environmental ethic that will adapt to arising situations. Along with that, they're all changes that we can make happen.



Even if we wake up and try to fix our current conditions, face the facts, we may be too late. The possibility remains that the environmental situation may have gone too far and there's no fixing it; but in the end what's really in danger is us. Humans' only concern with fixing the environment deals with providing one in which we can continue to survive, whether that be in a dominant or submissive role. We're still stuck in a human centered philosophy. Some people think that no matter what we do, it will have an incredibly great impact on the environment. No matter how much we think we matter when dealing with the survival of the planet, in actuality we don't mean squat. In its four billion year existence the earth has undergone drastic change, violent geographic upheaval with mountains and oceans rising and falling, and life played out on top of this constant and chaotic change (Crichton 367-368). Even if we caused some quick, drastic change, like a nuclear accident, life, probably bacteria somewhere like in the icecaps or in the ground, would still survive after all the other plants and animals died. Crichton writes, "Life can take care of itself. ...We have been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we were gone tomorrow the earth would not miss us. ...The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got he power to destroy the planet-or save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves (Jurassic Park 367-369)."



So in the end we have a choice to make, how centered on ourselves will we be in the future when dealing with the environment? There may be time left to fix what we've done, or maybe not, and we'll just have to trust that the earth can take care of itself just like it has in the past.



I think that the thesis that we're headed for an environmental disaster is a bit extreme and a little too broad. Sure we've got our problem today, but they may just be part of the natural rhythm of things. The problems may be less serious than we've made them out to be, like UV radiation and global warming. In the past global temperatures have fluctuated greatly without excess carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere by humans (Chem. in Context 97). So maybe it's not us. UV radiation is good for some organisms. It allows them to thrive. And the mutations that could result in us could be good too. They promote change and diversity, and who said change is bad? So the real questions is not how badly we've endangered the environment, but how badly we've endangered ourselves. The environment is not possibly headed towards disaster, we are.

Giving 1% to Protect Our Environment

2010-12-15T21:19:00.003+05:30

Though most of the world's surface is covered by water, since the Earth is so large relative to human horizons, there doesn't appear to be a shortage of land. However, when one begins to think of land in terms of a human resource, i.e., a producer of food, a provider of wood, an expanse for passage, one realizes that many portions are either too lacking in nutrients, too high in elevation, too prone to flooding, or too cold or ice-ridden for extensive use. Furthermore, habitable lands are becoming less abundant due to desertification (the expansion of deserts due to the misuse of land), agricultural expansions and rising sea levels. Since humans aren't the only species that need land, it isn't surprising that this resource is becoming limited for other forms of life too. In part as a result of this added stress on living things, we are also witnessing extinctions of grand proportions-at a rate of many thousands species per year. Since these losses are largely due to human actions, such as deforestation and non-native species introduction, many are beginning to pay attention to how we use and protect land. Recent ecological research has also recently provided a message of hope concerning the future well-being of life on this planet.

In the world today, scientists estimate that the Earth is losing at least 1 percent of species every ten years, and the percentage loss may be close to 5 percent. Even if only the lower rate persists, the Earth will have lost near half of its biological diversity by 2070. Can this be possible? Many esteemed scientists think so. While the future appears bleak, several recent insights tell us that we have the potential to significantly reduce what amounts to a biotic holocaust, one not witnessed on Earth for over 60,000,000 years. While there are hopeful signs in the area of human activities (such as increased acreage of nature preserves and national parks), the hope of which I speak of here stems from specific characteristics of the other forms of life which may enable us to mutually coexist in the long term.

The Earth's organisms are wonderfully varied in size, shape, function, behavior, and genetic code. One only need to consider that there are ~ 15,000 species of butterflies and ~50,000 species of mushrooms worldwide to begin to fathom the immensity of variety that this planet has. Yet, as different as the species come, the bulk of living things are also similar in a couple of very important ways. Most living things live in relatively small regions and do not travel far from where they or their parents were born. In fact, recent biological and ecological work has determined that most land species are very particular about where they live. As opposed to humans whose choice of home is largely driven by economic and political forces (mobility driven by availability of wealth or forced relocation), flora and fauna find themselves in locations for which they are adapted. We now know that many species of insects and plants have a very restricted range in which they found. Very few organisms are ubiquitous like we are. It goes without saying that you aren't going to find a Great Blue Heron or a Grizzly visiting Antarctica or climbing Mt. Everest; yet you might find the snow bear (recently discovered and previously known as the Abominable Snowman) doing the latter. Recognizing that most living things are rather localized during their lifetimes has profound implications, both hopeful and cautious. On the one hand, it suggests that we can learn a lot about species by parking our scientific minds in specific locations. On the other hand, it means that if we destroy even small areas of the globe we are likely causing great and even irreversible destruction to the species that are found there.

We have also determined that there are specific locations on our planet where a disproportionate number of species live. For our species, Asia serves as the homeland for most. In fact more than 60 percent of humans lives on this largest of continents (which only makes up 24 percent of the land surface on the planet). With other life forms, geographic concentrations sometimes defy description. We only recently became aware that the vast majority of terrestrial (as distinguished from oceanic or riparian) species collectively live on just 1 percent of the Earth's land surface. (If humans lived at a comparable concentration level, we'd all have to cluster together in an area roughly the size of Antarctica or twice that of Australia.) This mind-blowing realization has prompted those that have been struggling to protect organisms a new way of thinking about such protection. They have concluded that if we humans could somehow find a way to avoid disturbing just 1-2 percent of the land surface, nearly 70 percent of the world's terrestrial species might be able to survive. Recently some conservationists have refocused their attention on these unique locations.

The regions of the globe that contain such a splendid array of biological diversity have been named "hot spots," a name that communicates their critical status. In what has to be the most beautiful books I have seen, Hotspots represents the collective work of scientists Russ and Cristina Mittermeier and Norman Myers as well as photographer Patricio Robles Gil. In this oversized volume, these four scholars have assembled more than three hundred vivid photographs of some of the world's endangered species and threatened ecosystems. These absolutely breath-taking images come from the what they refer to as "the 25 most critically important regions" in the world. These regions originally constituted almost 12 percent of the world's land surface but now, due to human pressure at many levels, only a little more than 1 percent remains intact. What makes these locations, which are found on all continents except Antarctica, so "hot" is that they are home to hordes of the Earth's plants and animals and they face imminent danger from a variety of human activities. The Hotshot authors and others strongly believe that the global community can do wonders if these areas move to the top of our priority list.

But what will have to happen for these spots to be protected? There are no simple answers to this central question. Unfortunately, those of us in the United States who have the luxury of time to even ponder such questions, face many obvious difficulties. First, nearly all of the hotspots are located outside of our territorial boundaries, exceptions being the forests of Oregon and California as well as portions of Southern Florida (namely the Keys and the Everglades). Key hotspots are found in New Zealand, Madagascar, and Indonesia as well as the continental parts of south-east Asia. Obviously we cannot expect that we will be able to force other countries to enact and enforce laws that will greatly reduce biological degradation. Yet, while many other countries have ratified the Biodiversity Treaty that was drafted at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, it has never reached the floors of the U.S. Congress for a vote; Canada, Japan, and the European Union are among those to ratify it. By this inaction our nation apparently lacks the wherewithal to support global conservation efforts as a matter of principle. However, given that the wealthy nations in concert with international banks promote unsustainable extraction of resources in the world's developing countries, it would appear that we have an obligation to do so.

If our national policy makers are unwilling to commit themselves to the protection of global ecosystems and species, we still have ourselves to look to for sources of positive change. All of us have tremendous purchasing power, especially in comparison to the majority of the other human residents on this planet; Barry Bearak, a Pulitzer Prize-winner journalist who recently spoke at Knox College's convocation, referred to the residents of the United States as "filthy rich," a conclusion he came to after spending a great deal of time in the poorer regions of the world, particularly Afghanistan and India. What we buy makes a difference. The environmental campaign to support shade coffee rather than sun coffee is just one of many attempts for the consumer to support sustainable practices in regions of great ecological diversity. According to the Northwest Shad Coffee Campaign, shade coffee agricultural allows for the extraction of a desired resource but at the same time allows between 3-8 times as many birds species to persist not to mention many more mid-size mammals as well as amphibians and beetles. Coffee is also a particularly important commodity in terms of the health of ecological systems because the countries that produce the bulk of it are precisely the same countries that are home to the majority of the world's species; the countries of Brazil, Bolivia, Indonesia, Vietnam collectively produce ~40 percent of the 17 billion pounds of coffee that are harvested each year (folks, that's more than 3 pounds per person!). Burdensome debts also force many developing countries to endlessly delay infrastructure investment. Debt-for-nature swaps, an idea proposed by Dr. Thomas Lovejoy of the World Wildlife Federation in the mid-1980s, have enabled poor countries to relieve foreign debt and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to increase commitment to conservation programs both at the same time. In these swaps, NGOs pay off a poor country's debt to a bank or well-to-do country at greatly reduced costs in order to establish agreements for investment in national parks, for example. While not a cure-all, these efforts have begun the paradigm shift from unabated expansion and unhealthy extraction to one supportive of saving natural ecosystems and securing the health and welfare of all human populations.

Yet with human consumption levels growing and human populations increasing exponentially, it doesn't seem possible that much of the planet's landscape could go unaltered. In fact, from an ecological viewpoint, no location on the surface can now be characterized as unaltered, since detectable amounts of human made chemicals are found virtually everywhere. So unaltered is an impossible goal. However, as noted earlier, there are many locations that still are teeming with extraordinary levels of the Earth's life forms. If these locations can be given the attention they deserve huge numbers of species can avoid extinction. The clock is ticking though. Many scientists are telling us that time is running out as we speak. It is incumbent upon our species to take advantage of this truly momentous occasion.

Threats to these locations represent massive scale intrusions taken by societies found on every continent. Unfortunately, there is so much that will be lost if these "special" places aren't quickly protected from future degradation. On the bright side though, so much of the world's genetic diversity lives in just a couple handfuls of "hotspots" that if these locations were saved hordes of species would be able to persist into the next millennium. The time is now to respond to this fairly recent observation and insight. It is time for the world to begin to act like a civilized 21st Century society. It is incumbent upon us, those with time and wealth, to maintain the momentum that others have started. The masses of life forms are relying on us to make the best attempt at this daunting yet critical task. Hopefully our species will be sensible enough to leave at least 1 percent of land alone, so that other life forms may continue to exist. Do we need all 100 percent?

The Cause of Floods and Limiting Their Damage

2010-12-15T21:17:00.003+05:30

In this essay, I will be investigating why rivers flood and how we can
limit the damage that flooding causes. In this essay I will also be
investigating alternative ways to carry on with everyday life and
still be able to keep the rivers from flooding.

Rivers flood because of many reasons. Some reasons are deforestation.
This causes flooding because the trees and plants cannot absorb the
water because they are not there. There is no interception so
therefore nothing can be absorbed. An additional reason for rivers
flooding is too much precipitation. This means rainfall, snowfall and
hail. When it rains too much, the rainfall can fall straight into the
river or fall on the ground and infiltrate. This will then run towards
the river or percolate into the rocks underneath. This can cause the
water level to rise if there is not a great deal of sun to evaporate
the rainfall. A different cause of flooding is frozen ground or snow
thawing out. When it melts it causes surface run-off. This then runs
into the river, causing the river level to rise and overflow. This
would instigate soil saturation on the flood plain. The flood plains
can also become dry and cracks appear in the soil. The hot weather can
mean flash floods. When these happen, the ground is too dry and solid
for the water to infiltrate. This water then runs off into the river
and then causes the water level to rise. Flood plains are also
potential cause for floods. This is because they are very flat and if
it is built upon, then the concrete will not absorb it because it is
impermeable.

The effects these causes have on the land, the people or buildings and
business are devastating. Businesses are destroyed, property
destroyed, delayed traffic, death, crops and fields destroyed and the
emergency services are slowed down.

How can we prevent it? How can we slow it down? The problem is, we
cannot stop it because it is nature, but we can slow it down. How? All
we need to do is to not build on floodplains, or if you really have
to, build it higher up, say on stilts or with a wall in front of the
river. We cannot stop the infiltration in the soil and really we don't
want to. But we do want to stop the water levels increasing to reduce
the amount of flooding. What we could do for the infiltration is to
try and reduce the amount of rainfall. We cannot do this either
because we cannot change nature. Because of this flooding, people
cannot get anywhere, people's homes are destroyed, businesses are
destroyed, the emergency services cannot reach any affected area fast
because the floodwater has blocked everywhere and crops, fields and
farmer's livelihood are affected.

To limit the damage we may perhaps be
able to build a dam in the river and let only a little water out at a
time, we, as people, could not build industries on floodplains as the
concrete would not absorb anything so therefore the soil would become
saturated, people in general could refrain from chopping trees down as
they absorb the water through their roots from the banks and rivers.
This would decrease the flooding rapidly, but they would still flood,
because there may be other rivers nearby.

Oceans

2010-12-15T21:14:00.007+05:30

The ocean covers Seventy-one percent of our planets surface.Life is

concentrated, however, in about four percent of it, and it is this four percent

that is being polluted by the tons every day. Everyone needs to understand that

the oceans are not endless, and not bottomless. They also much see that the

ocean contains much marine life which are essential to our eco-system. And in

order to preserve this other world of life, we must stop polluting the oceans,

and begin to clean them up. Although using the ocean for a toxic waste dump may

provide for a cheap alternative, we must not succumb to these barbaric urges.

If we neglect to deal with these ideals, than the world as we know it may not be

as great a world for our children as it was for us.

First, we need to understand that the oceans are not the vast resources

that we believe them to be, but just vulnerable natural resources. Before

Columbus' day, the ocean were thought to be boundless. Although Columbus proved

this theory incorrect, the thought still remains in today's societies. “For we

of the 20th century still treat the ocean as the endless, bottomless pit it was

considered to be in medieval times.”(Heyerdahl) The majority of the world's

population still lives under the misconception that the ocean is a hungry abyss,

eager to devour all their waste. These beliefs, however, are all untrue. The

average depth of the oceans is only a little more than a mile, when in fact,

some lakes exceed this depth rather handily. Although the size of the ocean is

often pondered, the thought that it may one day be gone, is never even

considered.

The vast majority of all life in the ocean, inhabits only 1/25 of these

waters, but it is these surroundings that are in the most danger. In the

beginning of the world, marine plankton was vital to the evolution of man.

Today, it is even more important to us, being that it provides us with a great

percentage of oxygen we receive. “These minute plant species manufactured so

much oxygen that it rose above the surface to help form the atmosphere we have

today.”(Heyerdahl) With the disappearance of the plankton through increased

pollution, the obvious result will be a total deprivation of our oxygen supply,

in turn limiting all people to certain limits. And with urban expansion leading

to deforestation, our dependence upon marine life becomes heightened. The

importance of marine plankton cannot be emphasized enough, yet most people fail

to recognize it as the vital life supply it is.

Further, since the turn of the century, humans have continually polluted

the waters of the ocean. The trend has not lessened; but has increased as time

has passed. “Most of our new chemical products are not only toxic: they are in

fact created to sterile and kill. And they keep on displaying these same

inherent abilities wherever they end up.”(Heyerdahl) Although pollution reforms

are in place, the clean-up efforts cannot keep up with the constant pollution.

These wastes are not degradable; they remain in the ocean causing more death

until they wash up on a distant shore. “Through sewers and seepage they all

head for the ocean, where they remain to accumulate as undesired nuts and bolts

in between the cogwheels of a so far smoothly running machine.”(Heyerdahl)

Everyday, over 40,000 tons of garbage from the major cities of

America

alone are

taken on a one-way excursion. Where to? The ocean, to sit like the many

generations of waste before them. This constant abuse to our natural resources

will not be endured for long; for even the ocean has limits.

In order to survive longer as a species on this planet, we must stop

polluting the oceans, save the fragile marine eco-system, and understand that

even the ocean has limitations, and that they are being pushed too far. “Can

man survive with a dead ocean?”(Heyerdahl) The answer is clear and obvious: no.

We cannot conceivably survive without the immeasurable subsistence the ocean

provides us. Currently, we are on the path to self-destruction. We need get off

this often traveled beaten path, and blaze a new one for ourselves. These ideas

have been around since the beginning; now its time to adhere to them.

The Problems of Deforestation

2010-12-15T21:10:00.004+05:30

Introduction
------------

The clearing of tropical forests across the Earth has been occurring
on a large scale for many years. This process, known as deforestation,
involves the cutting down, burning, and damaging of forests. If the
current rate of deforestation continues, the world's rain forests will
vanish soon, causing unknown effects on global climate and eliminating
the majority of plant and animal species on the planet. It would also
change the water and oxygen levels dramatically, which would increase
the global warming. Deforestation is mostly experienced between the
Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn especially in the
Brazilian part of the Amazon, which covers 33% of the world's
rainforests.

Why is forest being cleared?
----------------------------

Deforestation occurs in many ways. Most of the clearing is done for
agricultural purposes. These include cattle farming which often
replace the rain forest to grow beef for the world market. Farming is
another reason for deforestation, this happens when poor farmers chop
down a small area and burn the trees in a process called Slash and
Burn. Deforestation by a farmer is often done to raise crops and is
driven by the basic human need for food. In most tropical countries
the farmers are very poor, in these countries the farmers do not have
the money to buy necessities and must raise crops for food and to
sell. Logging is another common form of deforestation, cutting trees
for sale as timber. Logging uses heavy machinery, such as bulldozers
and road graders, to remove cut trees and build roads, which is just
as damaging to a forest overall as the chainsaws are to the individual
tree.

Problems of Deforestation
-------------------------

First of all, many medicines come from plants. Most of the Amazon's
plants have yet to be discovered and catalogued, so we may lose
valuable cures or vaccines that could have otherwise been used to
fight illnesses such as cancer or AIDS. These plants could save the
lives of millions of people all over the world, but are lost as a
result of the destruction of the rainforests.

Secondly, the Amazon rainforest is sometimes called the "lung of the
world" because its production of over 1/4 of the world's oxygen makes
it possible for us to breathe. The faster we eliminate forests, the
closer we get to our own impending doom. Obviously, this behaviour is
suicidal, and must be stopped.

A lot of land in the rainforest is given to landless people by the
government. These landless people, together, have managed to clear
millions of hectares of rainforest and are still doing so today. As
these people farm, the soil becomes infertile, so the landless people
have to move elsewhere, clear more land and start again. In this way,
large amounts of the rainforest are lost forever.

Global Warming occurs when there is an increase in the Earth's
temperature.
This is due to the use of fossil fuels and other industrial processes,
leading to a build up of 'greenhouse gases'. In the Amazon, cattle
ranching increase the build up of methane, a gas which can lead to
global warming. The burning of trees, to quickly clear land for
ranching, increases the build up of carbon dioxide, another gas which
can lead to global warming. All this will eventually affect every
single thing on this planet. A build up of carbon dioxide causes a
rise in temperature in the Earth's atmosphere. This rise in
temperature will cause the polar ice caps to melt, causing a rise in
the sea level. This will cause problems for those living on low-lying
land, especially in Bangladesh. Those living in Bangladesh are always
experiencing floods, as the country lies on the delta of the River
Ganges. Floods in Bangladesh are frequent, and nearly always kills
some, while making thousands homeless. The floods are disastrous, and
cost a lot of money. If global warming increases (by the deforestation
of the Amazon), Bangladesh will eventually become totally flooded, and
millions will die. The country will be totally subdued in water, and
will not be seen above sea level, as it is already quite low lying.
Being a poor society (LEDC) as it is, Bangladesh would not be able to
cope with an increase in global warming

The Future
----------

The deforestation of the rainforests is a threat to life worldwide.
Deforestation have big effects on global climate and cause the loss of
thousands of species annually. Stopping deforestation has become an
international movement, seeking ways to stop the loss of rain forests.
So if we don't stop exploding the Amazon rainforest, the rainforest
will be in extreme danger. Below I have shown a picture a deforested
area.

Conclusion
----------

Money is the root of evil that is what I have concluded from my
report. Logging companies clear big areas of rainforests to sell it as
timber. Farmers clear the forests so that they can survive
economically. The government clears the forests so that they can pay
back the many foreign loans and multinational investments that they
have taken and give the landless people a place to live. So to stop
deforestation we must attack the causes of poverty as best as we can.
Poverty in Brazil is caused by the bad policy and economics of the
Brazilian government. Another cause for the poverty is the rapid
population growth. So to prevent deforestation the Brazilian
government must be more efficient. They must improve the living
conditions of the poor people because they are often the people
responsible for deforestation. To reduce the rapid population growth
they could follow the example of China. China has made a law that says
no couples are allowed to have more than one child. This law has
proven to work, it has decreased the level of growth of the
population. Another important issue is that the forests have to be
sustainable. This can be done replanting the trees after they have
been chopped down. This way we won't harm the rainforests because for
every tree we cut we will plant another.

Fossil Fuels: Are they Worth the Cost?

2010-12-15T20:57:00.002+05:30

Fossil fuels are a very important part of our society today. Natural gas, Coal, and oil are the world’s primary and most important source of energy. “90% of the energy used in this USA comes from fossil fuels.” Unfortunately, there are costs of using these fossil fuels to run our society. Some costs are obvious such as the cost of labor, equipment and supplies needed to extract, refine and transport the fossil fuels. These costs are taken care of in electricity bills, in the price of gasoline for automobiles and other governmental and company funding. There are many other costs that are less obvious. These costs are the effects fossil fuels have on our environment and on human health. Air pollution caused by the burning of coal and oil as well as dust in mines is causing problems for human health. The environment is suffering from acid rain, globalwarming and water and air pollution. Many times, the costs go unpaid for and unnoticed. It is imperative that we as a society take responsibility and strive to reduce the negative effects of fossil fuels on our environment.

The global warming is a major environmental issue that is caused by the use of fossil fuels. When fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide is emitted. It captures heat in the earth’s atmosphere. What is happening is that the more carbon dioxide emitted the warmer the earth’s climate is getting. I know some may be thinking that warm weather is great! Keep the global warming and the carbon dioxide coming! Global warming, however, is seriously dangerous for our society, economy, and our environment. Global warming can cause coastal cities to go under water due to a rise in sea level because of melting glaciers. Agriculture will be greatly affected as well. If temperatures keep rising, farmers will have to go through more extreme droughts. Global warming is caused by the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and has many adverse effects on the environment, our societies, and our economies.

Another cost of fossil fuels is air pollution. We need clean air to live. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and hydrocarbons plus particulates put into the air from burning fossil fuels cause air pollution. Air pollution can cause head aches, add stress to people with heart problems, can cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and can also produce smog and acid rain. “Acidic pollution [rain], arising from the emission of the oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, is implicated in the increasing incidence of asthma and other respiratory diseases, the acidification of lakes, and damage to trees and buildings.” (Source 2) Smog is the haziness that can be seen in a city skyline. “Human exposure to ozone [smog] can produce shortness of breath and, over time, permanent lung damage.”(Source 1) When fossil fuels are burned, gases are emitted that pollute the air and cause severe health problems aw well as acid rain and smog.

Our land and water are being polluted by the use of fossil fuels. Oil spills and other accidents can pollute our water and kill all plant and animal life in our rivers and lakes. Coal mining has serious effects on our land. After mining has been done, the land will be barren. Other materials brought up with the coal are left at the sites as waste and are destroying the earth’s topsoil. Precautions need to be taken in order to reduce the amounts of oil spills and waste deposits at mine sites in order to keep our land and waters clean.

The government has put restrictions on the amount of fossil fuels that can be used as well as restrictions on how much carbon dioxide and other pollutants can be emitted. Although the government is attempting to save our planet, they are not trying hard enough. The limits are not sufficiently low enough. We as a society need to keep the issue of environment in mind when it is time for another election. If the environment does not become of more importance to us we will be left with a polluted world that is hard to live in.

Modern technology's effect on ecology

2010-12-15T20:48:00.001+05:30

?It is because of those scientists? inventions.?
?Modern technology owes ecology an apology!?
This is what some people say when the read the news about haze, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna and global warming. They blame modern technology, the materials and ideas developed in the last century to assist humans in their activities, for the deterioration of ecology. The ecological cycle has been very much disturbed by the developments humankind have achieved. Despite these allegations, we should stop and think, does modern technology really owe ecology an apology? For what reason does it owe ecology an apology? Is it because it took away its attractiveness and reduced attention and respect to nature?s beauty? Is it because it harmed the environment? Has all modern technology harmed Mother Nature? I think modern technology does owe ecology an apology as some but not all of it has negatively affected the ecology.

First of all, let?s examine the consequences of modern technology on the environment. Modern technology indeed has harmed the environment. It created bulldozers, cranes, guns, nuclear weapons and other dangerous equipments that have been used by man to clear forests for the sake of urbanization. Nuclear weapons that have been used in wars such as the one that was detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 has left a huge impact on the environment. Radioactive waves that were produced has reduced the fertility of the land to zero and killed all living organisms in those areas. Not only has the usage of modern technology harmed the environment, its production itself involves harming the environment. One common example would be the production of paper. Approximately sixty kilograms of paper is produced from a tree. But the world uses hundreds of thousands of tons of paper annually. That means thousands of trees were cut so that people can use paper for the production of newspapers, books, advertisements, study materials, and many more. It not only reduced the number of trees existing, but also endangered the species that used to live in that habitat. Without a home, where do they live? Hence, they die and the ecological cycle that once existed there ceases to function.

Not only does modern technology harm the environment, it also reduces its attractiveness. From prehistoric times to the 1950s, nature was one of the most enjoyed wonders. Vacations were spent enjoying the sunset, enjoying the cool breeze in the jungles, and watching the animals. In this contemporary era, that sort of activity still exists at a miniscule level. People cannot find places to enjoy without paying a price to enter the national park that has to be declared a preserved area. There are no jungles or forests that can be explored on our own, without becoming a trespasser of a private property. Moreover, now majority of people go to shopping malls where some even lavish themselves clothes made of animal skin. They no longer go to parks for relaxation. Some even call park-goers ?like a frog under a shell? as they are considered out-dated. This is the mindset of people nowadays. Modern technology has clearly seemed a more attractive choice compared to the unchanging natural surroundings. Now, shouldn?t modern technology apologize to ecology for reducing attention given to it?

However, the recent modern technology, the technology developed in the last decade has made improvements to reduce damage to the environment. For example, the use of hybrid technology in vehicles like cars has greatly reduced pollution as it reduces the amount of exhaust fumes. A Japanese company, Toyota has adopted the technology and implemented it in Toyota Prius which has higher mileage and lower emissions compared to its older counterparts. Moreover, there are technological improvements in the generation of power that has minimal damage to the environment. For instance, solar power is now used in Mexico to be the sole electricity generator electricity for a small town. This hardly affects the environment. Every year, more houses in Asia are also using solar power to heat their water. Wind turbines built in Netherlands has effectively supplied a large amount of electricity to this country annually. In fact, 20% of power in Denmark is supplied by wind technology. Clearly, there are modern technologies that are aimed and have worked to minimize damage to the environment. With this perspective in mind, it does not really owe ecology an apology as it is allying with it.

In addition to that, there are some innovative sciences that have brought about recovery of nature. Newspapers worldwide have published at least a million articles about the deterioration of the environment. People, including scientists have paid attention. Thus, some technology has been helping ecology. The technology of recycling wastes, especially that of land resources like paper and metals like aluminium, have greatly reduced reliance on natural resources. Thanks to environmental technology, areas that were once barren could grow plants and trees with the usage of fertilizers used at an appropriate amount with precautions taken. Besides that, animal and plants conservation methods were developed to help save them. Egg incubators and designated areas that have the ideal environmental factors protect endangered species and threatened plants from harm so that it can breed and not become extinct. This has explicitly shown how advanced technology has helped the technology somewhat.

In any case, we should step back and think, who is really at fault for the impacts that modern technology has done to ecology? Some argue that it is the user to blame, not modern technology itself. How true is this? So, does that mean that humans, not modern technology is to blame for the decline in quality of the environment? Well, if you observe the usage of nuclear technology, when people use it for the good and dispose it well, it produces a lot more power than coal. That means pollution from coal is greatly reduced with the use of nuclear technology. However, in the wrong hands, whether at the hands of a terrorist or a careless manager, nuclear explosions would occur and cause massive destruction that destroys nature. In the case of plastics, materials that we use in our everyday lives, it is the human?s choice to use plastics although it is not biodegradable. It is the human?s choice to recycle it or to reduce its usage. These choices are the ones that determine whether or not modern technology harms the environment and to what extent if it does. This circuitously testifies that humans, not modern technology are the ones who caused detriments to the ecology.
In conclusion, modern technology has both helped and harmed the environment. Thus, although the human choices are the ones that determine its effects on the environment, modern technology is still essential to have such an impact on ecology. Since it is still partially responsible for the impairment of the environment, it does owe ecology an apology. Nevertheless, due to the fact that innovations have helped the ecology, ecology should ?forgive? modern technology and work hand in hand to complement each other. However, we should still work on conserving the environment first as it is the most pressing issue at hand, as emphasized by ex-vice president of the United States of America, Al Gore in his movie ?An Inconvenient Truth?. For that to be achieved, all levels of society should work together and support the government?s pragmatic actions towards conserving the environment. Without everyone?s support, this may not be achieved, as it takes two hands to clap. Just remember this, ?where there is a will, there is a way?. So I hope you have the will so that we can conserve and continue to enjoy one of God?s greatest blessings, mother earth.

Saving The World

2010-12-15T20:45:00.004+05:30

Saving The World

Is it too late to save the world? Probably not! Perhaps the real question should be if society will actually do something about it or not. Perhaps the world leaders are more interested in money than the welfare of the environment.

Money makes the world go round, this could be true from an economical point of view but from the environmental aspect money is being fed into the wrong areas and screeching the world to a halt. The world should be putting plans into action at this stage in the earths rescue. Instead scientists are still trying to ‘understand’ what is going on. This is just taking up more and more time, leaving the earth to rot as they do their ‘research.’

There are many different ways that we as the earths population are destroying the environment. For example, the tall cooling towers used by industries. They do not remove pollutants but simply push them higher into the atmosphere, in this way they reduce their concentration at that particular area. The pollutants may then travel over large distances and produce negative effects in areas far away from the original site.

This is only one example of how we are destroying the environment. Power stations are another source. These power stations make use of the cooling towers mentioned earlier, they also emit poisonous gasses such as some nitrogen oxides and probably more dangerous, greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

What are the consequences of this pollution? We have all heard about the hole in the ozone layer, global warming or even the famous armageggon. These are more drastic examples, why not look at some cases that have already happened. For instance acid rain is a regular occurrence all around the world. “It forms when oxides of sulphur and nitrogen combine with atmospheric moisture to yield sulphuric and nitric acids, which may then be carried long distances from their source before they are deposited by rain.” This quote from Encarta is very similar to what happens to the pollution caused by the cooling towers. That is strange!

Endangered Species, Can We Stop Their Extinction?

2010-12-15T20:38:00.001+05:30

What is a species? What exactly is an endangered species? What is an extinct species? How have these species come to the point of becoming endangered or extinct? What can we do to save the endangered species that are near extinction? Can we actually do anything to save these species, or is it a lost cause? Why should I care?



The answer to many of these questions is not know by most people. As much attention as this subject gets from environmental groups and agencies, it gets just as much ignoring by the general public. Many people feel compelled to help or contribute, yet few seldom do carry out their intentions. This is a very serious subject that needs to receive immediate and full attention from the general public. Only they can truly make a difference. The concept of extinction just doesnt seem to be fully understood by many people. Once theyre gone, theyre gone for good. There is no returning from extinction. If we continue at the present rate we are at now, we could lose one bird or mammal species per year by the year 2000. These concepts and questions will be fully answered by the time you have completed reading this paper.



According to The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language, A species is a fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking after a genus, and consisting of organisms capable of interbreeding . A simpler working definition agreed upon by most biologist is if two visibly different though similar groups of organisms live together with little or no sign of interbreeding, they are considered to be separate species. Dogs, cats, trees, flowers, and humans are all different examples of species. A definition of endangered species and a classification of when a species is endangered is such, organisms once common and abundant but now rare in numbers in the wild are considered to be endangered. And obviously, species that do not exist anymore are considered extinct. These are important fundamental concepts that need to be understood before anything can actually be done to help save or prevent endangered species from becoming extinct.



The methods and causes of many species becoming endangered and extinct are many and varied. Yet they are all related and caused by one all important underlying factor, humans. Humans are responsible for nearly every endangered species being that way and for very many of the species that have become extinct within the past few hundred years. The main reason for a species becoming endangered is the loss of natural habitats. Each year thousands of acres of rainforests are cut down or deforested, wetlands and marshes are drained, and slowly but surely the grasslands are being replaced by cities, towns, and highways . This is a world wide problem. When a species natural habitat is destroyed or reduced, there is basically nowhere to go. A displaced species of a destroyed or severely polluted habitat often times cannot adapt fast enough or well enough to survive. A species in a reduced habitat often times has to fight just to stay alive. The reduction causes an increase in the population density of not only that particular species, but every other species in that habitat as well . With higher population densities, resources such as food, water, and nesting places become so sparse that they cannot possibly support the demand. This leads to the endangerment of hundreds of species worldwide. Many of the already extinct species went through this exact process of their demise.



The second major reason of endangerment and extinction is poaching and commercial hunting . A poacher is someone who hunts and kills rare animals for profit. Often times an animal is killed in such a brutal way that it not only cruel but inhumane as well. Poachers do not hunt for food or for legalized game hunting. They will kill and massacre often times for one small part of the animal that they can sell on the Black Market. Elephants are hunted solely for their tusks which are made out of ivory, a extremely valuable material that is often use to make several different kinds of art or jewelry. Tigers, leopards, cheetahs and jaguars are hunted for their fur hides which can be made into all kinds of clothing and apparel. Lastly, Rhinos are hunted and killed for their horns which are believed by some to contain magical powers and spirits. Some of the time, rare animals are trapped and exported to private zoos or laboratories, which is just as serious of a crime. Although most countries have strict rules and regulations about the hunting and transporting of these animals, it seems that a few are always getting around these laws or getting away with their crimes . Commercial hunting is most popularly know by whale hunting. The whales of our oceans have been hunted nearly to extinction. The blubber and meats of whales are used in many, many different products such as lipstick, mascara, whale oil . Although many countries such as the US and Canada are now leading the way to ban all such whale hunting, many other countries such a Japan, Norway, Sweden, and Finland continue to hunt these whales . Laws and regulations have been raised to stop this hunting within 200 nautical miles of many countries. The sea still remains free though to any and all hunting that can be done.



Much is currently being done to help save the endangered species at this time. Zoos worldwide often help or contribute to governments and preservation groups working to preserve animals and environments. One such zoo, the San Diego Zoo is very prominent worldwide for the work that they have done over the years to help take species off the endangered species list. The SD Zoo is well known for its Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species (CRES). At CRES, the Virology and Immunology department is working to reduce the impact of deadly viruses and diseases in the world animal population . The Reproductive Physiology department is studying semen evaluation, cryopreservation, artificial insemination techniques, and embryo transfer . The Pathology department is working to pinpoint the cause of death of many animals and methods to prevent it . Ten or twenty years ago many of these projects and groups were not even in existence.



The SD Zoo is also the front-runner in captive breeding technology, a new way of preventing extinction of many endangered species. They have had much experience and positive results in this field. One example of a successful breeding is the Arabian Oryx. In 1960, the Arabian Oryx became extinct in the wild. Since then over 200 born and raised through captive breeding, worldwide. Recently, some of these Oryxs have been reintroduced to their native Middle Eastern habitats. Another success story is that of Prezewalskies Horse. Prezewalskies Horse became extinct in the wild within the past ten years. Since then, 1,000 have been raised in captive breeding and there are plans to soon reintroduce them to their native Mongolian-Chinese habitats. Finally the story that is closest to home happened here in the US. In 1982, only 9 California Condors remained alive. Now, since to captive breeding, and efforts of many preservation groups, 64 are now in existence. 1992 marked the first release of the California Condor into the wild after a 10 year captive breeding plan.



There are many things that you can do to help save the endangered species as well as cleaning up the environment. Help, whether direct or indirect is always appreciated. One such example of help is a program run by school children in San Diego. The program, Cans for Critters, is an aluminum can recycling program that helps raise money for the SD zoos endangered species . In one year alone, nearly $50,000 was raised through this program. The money was given to the zoos CRES and spent on some of the above mentioned research. You may wonder how recycling aluminum cans can help save endangered species besides just raising money. Well, believe it or not, by recycling all aluminum cans, bauxite a metal mineral mined from the soil beneath the Amazon Rainforest can be preserved. This mineral is used in all aluminum cans . This preservation will save the rainforests from being cut down and the destroying the habitats of millions of species. Also, energy conservation can help save endangered species. By turning off all the lights in your home that you are not using, energy will be saved. This will reduce the demand on the local power companies, thus causing them to burn less coal and oil (air pollution) or react nuclear materials in a nuclear power plant (extremely hazardous toxic waste).



You can even start your own programs for recycling, energy conservation, and other things. Two steps that will get you on your way are:



A. Hold a school, business, or neighborhood wide assembly to educateeveryone about recycling. Invite guest speakers such as a recycling center director or a community leader to talk about their activities.

B. Submit an article about your program to the local paper, work news letter, or school paper. Also, send a news release to newspaper editors or radio and television reporters. They may respond by publicizing your efforts.



Some other easy steps that you can take at home will indirectly help the environment and endangered species in the long-run. They are:



1. Buy products with minimal packaging.

2. Save cardboard boxes, and or paper or plastic bags for storing household items.

3. Buy products (like cleaners, toiletries, and dry goods) in economy sized packages. Consider buying your food in bulk, it will not only save money but reduce waste as well.

4. Turn decayed organic materials from your yard into mulch or fertilizer.

5. Reduce your junk mail. This saves lots of paper and trees. Just fill out a form at your local post office to remove your name from third class mailing lists.



The last and most important question everyone asks is, why me? There are hundreds of possible answers to this question, but in order to truly care, you must find this answer yourself. Humans must feel compassion towards animals in order to understand their struggle for survival. The preservation of all species is very beneficial to all of mankind. Many organisms have a conventional beauty that goes far beyond that on any other. Another simple argument is we exist, so why cant other animals have that same right to exist? Many of the benefits of preservation are extremely beneficial to mankind. Chemicals found in certain plants have been proven to be medically beneficial . Two such chemicals are the alkaloids, vincristine and vinblastine. These are used in the treatment of Hodgkins disease and other cancers. It is believed that the estimated quarter-million flowering plant species are potentially a gold mine of additional beneficial chemicals . Some animals also have very beneficial uses. Extracts from some marine animals related to those that built the giant coral reefs, show some promise as anti-cancer agents. So far, several broad-spectrum anti-bodies have been extracted from marine sponges . Sea Anemones, segmented worms, clams, sea cucumbers, sea squirts, moss animals, proboscis worms, sharks, and sting rays are all creatures of the sea that contain medical benefits. On land, ancrod, the venom of Malayan pit vipers is used as an anti-coagulant, an agent to prevent the formation of blood clots. Rats, mice, Rhesus monkeys, and chimps have served as surrogates for human beings in a wide variety of medical experiments. Perhaps though the greatest of all benefits derived from other organisms is that of nourishment which Homo Sapiens extracts from them .



Hopefully, as you can now see, this subject is not as complicated, boring, or hard to get interested in. I say this because I was just like you were when you first heard this topic discussed. I wanted to do something else or talk about something else, but once I got into researching it and writing about it, I realized just how simple it is to make a change. It is very easy to make a change or do something to make a difference, while it is harder to keep putting it off or making excuses to yourself and others why you cant help. Everyone should and can do their part. The key is education. Once a person is educated as to how or what they can do to help, they are open to a whole new window of opportunity. To answer my final question, is it a lost cause? Certainly not, we must never give up hope for it is our future that we are building and we will live with it, excitations and all, for the rest of our lives.

The Declining Environment

2010-12-15T20:36:00.001+05:30

Environment problem is nowadays a buzzword in many people’s mind. Unlike other factors, from a politician, a philosopher to a war, this is an enormous international problem, affecting any country regardless of boundaries. Human beings are hence urged to join together in this common struggle for life.
Neither a press-group nor a dramatic event can attract such widespread concerns as an environmental issue.
A politician, with all his credentials, for example, can at most affect citizens in his country through legislations and policies. Meanwhile, the declining environment may soon affect countless people from different countries by no words but a number of hazardous actions.
A philosopher, in another instance, is likely to receive both believers and skeptics for his theories and discoveries. The results of natural disasters, on the other hand, are true and direct enough to convince any conservative person.
Also, no matter how serious it is, a war can involve only a few related countries. In contrast, it takes harmful natural impacts from this country, or continent, just a little time, to reach any other one either through the air, the water or the wind.
If each country keeps ignoring environmental tragedies in its neighbor ones, such threats as pollution, natural disasters or shrinking land may soon become reality in its own area.
During the last ten years, China has been growing at a thrilling speed. This, in consequence, led to seriously polluted habitat. But no action had been taken by other countries until European scientists found out a massive amount of noxious smokes imported to their land through the Atlantic. There was, then, more evidence for the increasing number of patients with cancers in this green continent.
Besides, natural disasters happening in one country may in fact leave great influence on another. Its topography and climate will endure a silent, yet, gradual change. This is apparently a domino effect, challenging the existence of any nation.
Furthermore, one country faces up with shrinking or uninhabitable land means that another is hindered by uncontrollable immigration. Its social condition will therefore become chaotic, which is by no means up to its expectations.
On the opposite end of the scale, many problems can be handled with fewer difficulties by the cooperation between countries. When exchanging methods and experiences on an environment’s puzzle, countries will help each other save time and money, as well as reduce large – scale damage to the nature. Moreover, in unity, global citizens will be impulse to take a responsible attitude in maintaining the common habitat. There have been successful mutual supports between Japan and Korea, as well as the Commonwealth of Nations in reducing toxic fumes from factories. It is understandable why they are enjoying such healthy living environment.
On balance, environmental problems, which do not place impacts on a peculiar area but put many others under threat, should be conquered by contributed efforts of any member. It is the only way to avoid a tragic ending for human beings as a whole.

GO GREEN AND SAVE THE WORLD

2010-12-15T20:34:00.001+05:30

Many think that starting is the toughest part of doing anything and which it is. Many believe that it is not cost efficient and that the price of the eco-friendly technologies that are available will be more than what is to be saved; when the truth is that at first it will be more than what is saved but within a year or two those who decided to buy eco-friendly technologies will start seeing what they have saved and even maybe get some money for it in return.
The most difficult thing about starting is coming up with the money to buy expensive and ugly looking equipment for the house or other style of building.
The Government
The American Government could try to come up with more eco-friendly ways to help maintain their large facilities and testing sites. The American Government could also think of ways to make more of an earth friendly weapons technology that would help everyone in the end.

http://www.batguano.com/nuclear/nucgallery.html
If the American Government would change some of their ways about doing our war fighting and keeping up with an eco-friendlier way of supporting today’s military. Even though it would be very costly to find new ways of supporting our military, however it would be very beneficiary to the world.
Companies
Many computer companies use very harmful chemicals, such as mercury and many plastics; which the earth cannot deteriorate these harmful elements. Some computer organizations are working on eco-friendlier ideas; even though it would be better if they quit working on ideas and start marketing them.
There is not an organization out there that will not cut corners to save a buck; many of the companies that use harmful chemicals, are only thinking about ways to cheat the system and how to get more money for cheaply made with products a “good” American standard.
Green
Many places of business could in some way or another help the environment by spending the money to make “excellent” American products for the buyers; and also make even more money for wanting to help a good cause. No one would object to better and healthier products for them and the earth. So it is that I believe if the American Government, Places of Work, and Computer Companies would try new and eco-friendlier ideas than the world and times we live in would be a much better place with less fighting of Nations and more peace time.

The Environment and Big Business

2010-12-15T20:31:00.004+05:30

Since the rise of environmental awareness, business and industry have always considered environmentalism a waste of time, only getting in the way of profits and production. From the perspective of business, environmentalists push for regulations and restrictions on businesses which cost them more money and frequently restrict some of their practices. What business an the economy doesn't know is that they can actually save money by being environmentally responsible, while protecting the very resources they depend on . The protection of the environment not only has intrinsic value, but also economical value. Business and industry, can also benefit. These factors can lead to a newly developed economy that protects what it needs instead of destroying it. Despite historical differences between advocates of business and the environment, the fact is the two can and must utilize eachother for the future success of both.



It is important, in order for the economy to see the environment worth something, to put an economic value on it. For this reason, a group of scientists for the Center for Socialand Economic Research on the Global Environment have developed an economic valuation for the environment. According to them, it is necessary to impute a value to environmental goods or services (Pearce et al, online). This value is necessary because the economy needs to see that the protection of the environment can prove cost worthy to business and industry. The purpose of valuation is to show true costs of using up scarce environmental resources. It is a way for environmentalists and economists to put a dollar figure on the services the environment provides. Robert Costanza, an ecological economist from the University of Maryland, has done just this. The estimate of services provided by ecosystems worldwide is 33 trillion dollars annually, surpassing the gross national product of al the countries on earth combined by eight trillion dollars (Zimmer 105). The environment provides services not only commercially, such as timber, but also in less visible ways. For instance, forests protect from soil erosion, which proves costly to correct. With these facts in mind, depleting ecosystems an resources proves costly, while protection them can only save money.



Business and the American economy has much to gain by altering their current practices. One prime example of how protection the environment can prove beneficial to a company is a program created by 3M called Pollution Prevention Pays. This program creates incentives to prevent hazardous and toxic wastes by changing processes, redesigning equipment, and recovering waste for reuse or recycling. Since the program was designed in 1975, 3M has been able to save over $537 million, while reducing its air pollution by 10,000 tons, its wastewater by one billion gallons and its solid waste by 410,000 tons (Hawken 61). This is one example of a business making money fro preventative waste, while becoming environmentally responsible. While at the same time, not being environmentally responsible can cause businesses to lose money. The cost of cleaning up waste can be extremely expensive, while reducing waste and recycling can prove worthwhile. From a surface view, it would appear that the American economy doesn't need to make any change to its current practices. After all, the U.S. is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. The problem rests in the foundation of the economy. America was founded on and flourishes because of its natural resources, most of them non-renewable. These resources, such as petroleum, natural gas an timber, will run out someday, it is inevitable. Research of programs to prevent this or to incorporate alternate forms of energy have barely been researched. Perhaps the reason for this is that actions that deplete lands an species are rewarded in the market, because they are less expensive, while actions that preserve them are not (Schuss and Western 329). It is much less expensive, for instance, to buy a car that is fueled by gasoline than to buy a car that runs on hydrogen, even though hydrogen is a renewable resource an produces barely any waste.



As Paul Hawken, an environmentalist and author of "Ecology of Commerce", explains, "the single most damaging aspect of the present economic system is that the expense of destroying the earth is largely absent fro prices set at the marketplace" (13). Market prices set for products don't include the cost that future generations will have to pay to clean up the mess the current economy is fueling right now. An economy based on the rapid depletion of its own non-renewable resources is certainly destined for doom, while protection of these resources will save the businesses or corporations money while protecting what fuels it.

Alternative Fuels

2010-12-15T20:28:00.004+05:30

The environment is a hotly debated topic in today's society. Some of the subtopics that are going to be discussed are going to be those related to the way technology is changing, what industries are doing to help prevent further pollution, some of the methods used in paper recycling, and some discussion of renewable energy sources. For the most part, this section of the research paper, unlike the other sections, is going to attempt to discuss some of the ways the public has been dealing with, and are finding new ways to deal with environmental problems that we are presently facing.



There are currently three main sources of pollution: they are, water pollution, waste pollution, and air pollution. Of these three forms of pollution, the one that affects our healthmost directly is air pollution. Scientists believe that all cities with populations exceeding 50,000 have some degree of air pollution.1 Some sources of air pollution include emissions of sulfur dioxide and other noxious gases by electric power plants that burn high-sulfur coal or oil.2 Air pollution can range from factory emissions, to auto emissions, and even house hold product emissions such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), once found in abundance in spray containers and has been drastically reduced in these products.



Air Pollution has been that target of some of the most complicated legislation ever discussed. In 1970, the United States Congress passed legislation aimed at curbing sources of air pollution and setting standards for air quality.3



One of the strongest weapons against industrial pollution that many factories are currently using to combat air pollution is a scrubber. A scrubber is a series of filters placed in smoke stacks and other points of industrial emissions to try and filter out many of the contaminants that tend to be released into the atmosphere.



In addition to factory emissions, auto emission pollutants have also been reduced by the use of a tool that has been around for quite some time, the catalytic converter. Because gasoline is not completely utilized upon combustion, many toxic gases are able to escape in the form of exhaust. A catalytic converter is a box-like device that is placed somewhere in the exhaust system between the point of exhaust release from the engine, to the actual release of the exhaust to the environment. A catalytic converter works by transforming harmful gases through a series of chemical reactions to essentially non-harmful gases. Catalytic converters have been proven to be very beneficial in reducing the amount of harmful gases released into the atmosphere.



Instead of just trying to reduce auto emissions, car companies are also researching alternative fuel sources. The most popular forms of alternative fuels currently are electricity, which can be harnessed directly in the form of solar energy from the sun and stored in batteries, or natural gas which is a much cleaner burning gas.



In addition to wanting to know what was being done to prevent the air from becoming more polluted, students also wanted to know something about recycling, and what methods are used to turn old waste into new products. Many reused paper products are normally turned into cardboard boxes and tissue products. Rarely is paper that is collected reused as reading/writing paper again.



One of the largest waste products in the United States today is paper. It has been found that the U.S. is currently collecting between 26 and 30% of all paper wastes for recycling.4 One astounding fact is that the U.S. also exports 22% of this paper waste, which amounts to some 28.9 million tons of paper, abroad to European countries and to countries in the Orient.5



How many trees saved by recycling is still not clearly known. It has been widely reported that every ton of paper, if made from 100% recycled fibers, saves approximately 17 trees.6 In reality, the number of trees required to generate a ton of paper depends on many factors including tree size, species, and the type of pulp and paper being manufactured.7



For a paper to be reprocessed into a new product, many steps must take place during the transformation. A process known as deinking must be utilized. There are many methods of deinking and each uses different physical and chemical properties or sometimes both to make a new white pulp again. Some of these process are discussed and listed below.



Washing is a process whereby detergents, wetting agents, and other chemicals are added to make the ink hydrophilic (attracted to water). Another method used is called Flotation. This process makes the ink hydrophobic (repelled by water). The pulp is continuously aerated and the air bubbles attract the in particles as they rise up to the surface. Dispersion is a process that involves breaking up the ink particles to such a small degree that they cannot be seen by the eye. Theses are just some of the methods used to recycle old paper in to new pulp.



In addition to the recycling of various wastes into new products, another topic that is of great interest to environmentalists is alternative or renewable power sources. Some of Nature's most cleanest power sources are solar energy, wind energy, hydropower, and geothermal energy.



Solar devices now exist that are capable of supplying all the energy needs of a residence, including electricity, water and space heating, and space cooling.8 Some of these devices are too expensive to be put into use by the average homeowner. The problem that faces many of today's researchers is too make this technology competitive with other forms of energy that are already in use.



Hydropower cannot be used directly by the homeowner, however, while still a better method of harnessing power in a cleaner manner, it still has environmental drawbacks. Hydropower has the capability of liberating a country such as the U.S. from any foreign power sources such as oil. The process of obtaining energy from water is quite simple because the kinetic energy of water is what is being utilized. Water is first damned up, and then allowed to flow over turbines which spin and thus form energy. The rate at which water passes by these turbines can be controlled. One of the major drawbacks of this form of energy is the damage it can do to surrounding ecosystems. Lowlands behind damns now become lakes, and fish have a harder time of getting up streams to reproduce. "Nature's" natural balance can be altered quite severely but new methods of getting around these problems have been, or are currently being developed.

Caring About Our Environment

2010-12-15T20:26:00.003+05:30

Improving and maintaining the earth’s environment is becoming a more important task every day of our lives. Due to ignorance and frequent carelessness, this important task is quickly becoming a critical one. For this reason, I took it upon myself to construct a strategic plan to enlighten my peers to the problems of our environment. I did this in hopes that it would encourage everyone to act responsibly towards improving and maintaining the environment. With ongoing threats to the earth’s water supply, atmosphere, and surface, I found it necessary to devise a method of environmental enlightenment. I plan to apply this method at my place of academic study, The University. If supported by the faculty and staff and approached with confidence and determination by the student body, I am convinced that our environment on campus would undergo a drastic improvement.

GOING GREEN

2010-12-15T20:25:00.004+05:30

Recently, people have started hearing the phrase “going green” everywhere; on the news, in magazines and even on billboards. To illustrate this point we are reminded to turn off the lights before we leave a room, use less hot water, purchase energy-efficient appliances. These are all great ideas and ones that should be incorporated into our work environments. Going green in the workplace can save employers money while benefiting the environment. Some of the key factors to keep in mind when choosing to go green at work include:
• The benefits of a green work environment
• How a green workplace can improve efficiency.
• Eco-smart supplies and equipment

2010-12-15T19:40:00.000+05:30

Depletion and the future availability of petroleum resources.

Petroleum resources are the only major mineral commodities where many experts fear resource depletion will produce significant scarcities over the next several decades. This paper proposes to examine this concern. More specifically, it proposes to construct cumulative availability curves to assess the future availability of conventional petroleum (oil, gas, and natural gas liquids) and three unconventional sources of liquids (heavy oil, oil sands, and oil shale). Petroleum resources in this study are defined by the combination of these conventional and unconventional resources. Unconventional gas, such as tight gas sands, is not assessed since the focus is on sources of liquids (tight gas sands are analyzed in Aguilera et al., 2008). Nonetheless, the present study does assess conventional gas since it is part of the 'conventional petroleum' definition given by the U.S. Geological Survey in USGS (2000).

This analysis is global in its scope, considering petroleum resources for the entire world. In addition, it assumes that society can over time substitute among different types of conventional and unconventional resources.

Two concerns or questions are of particular interest. First, is depletion likely to create significant scarcities of petroleum resources over the next several decades? Among the pessimists, who believe this will be the case, are Deffeyes (2001), Campbell and Laherrere (1998), Goodstein (2004), Banks (2005), Simmons (2005), and Tertzakian (2006). On the other side are the optimists, who are less concerned. They include Adelman et al. (1983), Adelman and Watkins (2008), Economides and Oligney (2000), Hefner (2002), Lynch (2005), Radetzki (2002), and Watkins (2006). The optimists view petroleum resources as working inventories that are constantly being renewed as they are extracted. The pessimists' point out that petroleum resources are fixed physical stocks that will eventually be depleted. Bentley and Boyle (2007) provide descriptions of the methodologies used by petroleum supply forecasters, including pessimists and optimists. The authors also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the models.

The second question of interest is if society will experience a smooth or difficult transition as it moves from its current dependency on conventional petroleum to unconventional sources of liquids and other alternative energy sources. In particular, does a transition from conventional petroleum to alternative energy sources imply sharply higher energy prices with considerable economic dislocation as traditional users are forced to cutback their consumption? Here again one finds a divide in the literature between the pessimists and the optimists.

SAVE ENVIROMENT SAVE LIFE

2010-12-13T23:21:00.006+05:30

"Save environment save life" is a very common and most important saying that is on top of every human mind these days. Many people are going green with a key objective to prevent nature and ecology from the harmful effects of various human activities. With so much of pollution and ecological imbalance the present situation has become threatening. The issues are now alarming even to the best of environmentalists who are constantly and rigorously in search of ways and methodologies to save the environment that is gradually taking its toll on human life. Therefore it has become very important to take significant steps and save life.

There are many factors that have contributed to the threatening effects of the environment. The most alarming among them are global warming, depletion of ozone layer, air pollution, and water pollution.

Global warming is a very common problem the world is facing today. It is a condition when the temperature of the earth rises due to the action of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The emission of these gases into the atmosphere traps heat and light from the sun which eventually rises the earth’s temperature. Though the issue has become life-threatening there are significant ways we can further reduce the harmful effects of global warming. The most measurable step is to switch over to fuel-efficient cars that produce comparatively less amount of carbon dioxide emissions. As carbon dioxide is the leading cause of global warming, a drastic reduction of its emission into the atmosphere will be of great help to environment as well as to human life. There are other ways as well like insulating home, car pooling, planting a tree, and using more of public transportation.

Depletion of ozone layer is another alarming issue for the environmentalists. Ozone is an important component in the earth’s atmosphere that protects human from the harmful ultra-violet rays. Sadly, human activities has caused ozone depletion which if not controlled now can be disastrous. The key factor causing this depletion is the increase in the level of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). In the stratosphere this compound breaks down to release a free chlorine atom that reacts with an ozone molecule to form chlorine monoxide and a molecule of oxygen.

The resultant chlorine monoxide also reacts with ozone molecule to form a chlorine atom and two molecules of oxygen. The reaction keeps on repeating as and when a free chlorine atom is released. In the process amount of ozone in the stratosphere is drastically reduced which has become a serious concern. There are various ways to fight the issue like avoiding the use of aerosols, insulating home, and avoiding purchase of polystyrene products. It is also very important to keep a regular check of air-conditioner fitted in cars because any leakage in the coolant will release high amount of CFC.

Air pollution caused due to various human actions like smoking, forest destruction, excessive use of air-conditioners, and increasing reliability of private vehicles has considerably caused a serious threat to the environment. It is very significant to keep a control on the increasing pollution in order to save nature and life from the grip of destruction and disaster. To fight the problem the best ways are to use car pool or public transportation as much as possible, avoid both active and passive smoking, minimize the use of air-conditioner, stop the use of wood stoves, avoid purchase of formaldehyde products, remove asbestos if found anywhere at home, and make maximum use of energy-efficient appliances.

Water pollution is also increasing due to uncontrolled human activities. Air and water both are necessary for life and if polluted it will directly leave a distressing impact on human life. Take necessary steps to reduce water pollution by keeping a thorough check on the water supply. Don’t dump or dispose any kind of chemical or toxic substance down the drain or in any kind of water body. There is also an urgency to do a periodic test or verification of the drinking water as it may contain bacteria, metals, and various other toxic chemicals.

Just one step ahead and you can save the environment, eventually save life on earth.

Its time for us all to wake up and take significant steps to Save the Environment

Dhoni roars for our tigers!

2010-12-12T19:53:00.000+05:30

2010-12-11T23:26:00.000+05:30

Types of Environmental Pollution

There are three major types of environmental pollution:

Air pollution
Water pollution
Soil pollution (contamination)

For a list of other pollution types, please see the Types of Pollution article.

Some of the most important air pollutants are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and airborne particles, with radioactive pollutants probably among the most destructive ones (specifically when produced by nuclear explosions).

Please refer to the Summary of Air Pollutants article for a brief overview of sources and effects of air pollutants.

Water pollutants include insecticides and herbicides, food processing waste, pollutants from livestock operations, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, chemical waste and others.

Some soil pollutants are: hydrocarbons, solvents and heavy metals.

Sources of Environmental Pollution

Fossil Fuel Sources of Environmental Pollution

Fossil Fuel Pollution
Photo: Rachel Scopes

In modern industrialized societies, fossil fuels(oil, gas, coal) transcended virtually all imaginable barriers and firmly established themselves in our everyday lives.

Not only do we use fossil fuels for our obvious everyday needs (such as filling a car), as well as in the power-generating industry, they (specifically oil) are also present in such products as all sorts of plastics, solvents, detergents, asphalt, lubricating oils, a wide range of chemicals for industrial use, etc. (8)

Combustion of fossil fuels produces extremely high levels of air pollution and is widely recognized as one of the most important “target” areas for reduction and control of environmental pollution.

Fossil fuels also contribute to soil contamination and water pollution. For example, when oil is transported from the point of its production to further destinations by pipelines, an oil leak from the pipeline may occur and pollute soil and subsequently groundwater. When oil is transported by tankers by ocean, an oil spill may occur and pollute ocean water.

Of course, there are other natural resources whose exploitation is a cause of serious pollution; for example, the use of uranium for nuclear power generation produces extremely dangerous waste that would take thousands of years to neutralize.

But there is no reasonable doubt that fossil fuels are among the most serious sources of environmental pollution.

Power-generating plants and transport are probably the biggest sources of fossil fuel pollution.

Common sources of fossil fuel pollution are: (9)

Industry:
Power-generating plants

Petroleum refineries

Petrochemical plants

Production and distribution of fossil fuels

Other manufacturing facilities

Transport:
Road transport (motor vehicles)

Shipping industry

Aircraft

Fossil fuel combustion is also a major source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and perhaps the most important cause of global warming. Learn more about the causes and effects of global warming here.

Other (Non-Fossil Fuel) Sources of Environmental Pollution

Among other pollution sources, agriculture (livestock farming) is worth mentioning as the largest generator of ammonia emissions resulting in air pollution. Chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers are also widely used in agriculture, which may lead water pollutionand soil contamination as well.

Trading activities may be another source of pollution.

For example, it’s been recently noted that packaging of products sold in supermarkets and other retail outlets is far too excessive and generates large quantities of solid waste that ends up either in landfills or municipal incinerators leading to soil contamination and air pollution.

Residential sector is another significant source of pollution generating solid municipal waste that may end up in landfills or incinerators leading to soil contamination and air pollution.

2010-12-11T23:16:00.001+05:30

In Your Home – Conserve
Energy

Clean or replace air filters on your air conditioning unit at least once a month.
If you have central air conditioning, do not close vents in unused rooms.
Lower the thermostat on your water heater to 120.
Wrap your water heater in an insulated blanket.
Turn down or shut off your water heater when you will be away for extended periods.
Turn off unneeded lights even when leaving a room for a short time.
Set your refrigerator temperature at 36 to 38 and your freezer at 0 to 5 .
When using an oven, minimize door opening while it is in use; it reduces oven temperature by 25 to 30 every time you open the door.
Clean the lint filter in your dryer after every load so that it uses less energy.
Unplug seldom used appliances.
Use a microwave when- ever you can instead of a conventional oven or stove.
Wash clothes with warm or cold water instead of hot.
Reverse your indoor ceiling fans for summer and winter operations as recommended.
Turn off lights, computers and other appliances when not in use.
Purchase appliances and office equipment with the Energy Star Label; old refridgerators, for example, use up to 50 more electricity than newer models.
Only use electric appliances when you need them.
Use compact fluorescent light bulbs to save money and energy.
Keep your thermostat at 68 in winter and 78 in summer.
Keep your thermostat higher in summer and lower in winter when you are away
Insulate your home as best as you can.
Install weather stripping around all doors and windows.
Shut off electrical equipment in the evening when you leave work.
Plant trees to shade your home.
Shade outside air conditioning units by trees or other means.
Replace old windows with energy efficient ones.
Use cold water instead of warm or hot water when possible.
Connect your outdoor lights to a timer.
Buy green electricity - electricity produced by low - or even zero-pollution facilities (NC Greenpower for North Carolina - www.ncgreenpower.org). In your home-reduce toxicity.

WAYS TO SAVE ENVIRONMENT

In Your Home – Reduce Toxicity

Eliminate mercury from your home by purchasing items without mercury, and dispose of items containing mercury at an appropriate drop-off facility when necessary (e.g. old thermometers).
Learn about alternatives to household cleaning items that do not use hazardous chemicals.
Buy the right amount of paint for the job.
Review labels of household cleaners you use. Consider alternatives like baking soda, scouring pads, water or a little more elbow grease.
When no good alternatives exist to a toxic item, find the least amount required for an effective, sanitary result.
If you have an older home, have paint in your home tested for lead. If you have lead-based paint, cover it with wall paper or other material instead of sanding it or burning it off.
Use traps instead of rat and mouse poisons and insect killers.
Have your home tested for radon.
Use cedar chips or aromatic herbs instead of mothballs.
In Your Yard
Avoid using leaf blowers and other dust-producing equipment.
Use an electric lawn- mower instead of a gas-powered one.
Leave grass clippings on the yard-they decompose and return nutrients to the soil.
Use recycled wood chips as mulch to keep weeds down, retain moisture and prevent erosion.
Use only the required amount of fertilizer.
Minimize pesticide use.
Create a wildlife habitat in your yard.
Water grass early in the morning.
Rent or borrow items like ladders, chain saws, party decorations and others that are seldom used.
Take actions that use non hazardous components (e.g., to ward off pests, plant marigolds in a garden instead of using pesticide).
Put leaves in a compost heap instead of burning them or throwing them away. Yard debris too large for your compost bin should be taken to a yard-debris recycler.

In Your Office

Copy and print on both sides of paper.
Reuse items like envelopes, folders and paper clips.
Use mailer sheets for interoffice mail instead of an envelope.Use mailer sheets for interoffice mail instead of an envelope.
Set up a bulletin board for memos instead of sending a copy to each employee.
Use e-mail instead of paper correspondence.
Use recycled paper.
Use discarded paper for scrap paper.
Encourage your school and/or company to print documents with soy-based inks, which are less toxic.
Use a ceramic coffee mug instead of a disposable cup.
Ways To Protect Our Air
Ask your employer to consider flexible work schedules or telecommuting.
Recycle printer cartridges.
Shut off electrical equipment in the evening when you leave work.
Report smoking vehicles to your local air agency.
Don't use your wood stove or fireplace when air quality is poor.
Avoid slow-burning, smoldering fires. They produce the largest amount of pollution.
Burn seasoned wood - it burns cleaner than green wood.
Use solar power for home and water heating.
Use low-VOC or water-based paints, stains, finishes and paint strippers.
Purchase radial tires and keep them properly inflated for your vehicle.
Paint with brushes or rollers instead of using spray paints to minimize harmful emissions.
Ignite charcoal barbecues with an electric probe or other alternative to lighter fluid.
If you use a wood stove, use one sold after 1990. They are required to meet federal emissions standards and are more efficient and cleaner burning.
Walk or ride your bike instead of driving, whenever possible.
Join a carpool or vanpool to get to work.

Ways to Use Less Water

Check and fix any water leaks.
Install water-saving devices on your faucets and toilets.
Don't wash dishes with the water running continuously.
Wash and dry only full loads of laundry and dishes.
Follow your community's water use restrictions or guidelines.
Install a low-flow shower head.
Replace old toilets with new ones that use a lot less water.
Turn off washing machine's water supply to prevent leaks.
Ways to Protect Our Water
Revegetate or mulch disturbed soil as soon as possible.
Never dump anything down a storm drain.
Have your septic tank pumped and system inspected regularly.
Check your car for oil or other leaks, and recycle motor oil.
Take your car to a car wash instead of washing it in the driveway.
Learn about your watershed.

Create Less Trash
Buy items in bulk from loose bins when possible to reduce the packaging wasted.
Avoid products with several layers of packaging when only one is sufficient. About 33 of what we throw away is packaging.
Buy products that you can reuse.
Maintain and repair durable products instead of buying new ones.
Check reports for products that are easily repaired and have low breakdown rates.
Reuse items like bags and containers when possible.
Use cloth napkins instead of paper ones.
Use reusable plates and utensils instead of disposable ones.
Use reusable containers to store food instead of aluminum foil and cling wrap.
Shop with a canvas bag instead of using paper and plastic bags.
Buy rechargeable batteries for devices used frequently.
Reuse packaging cartons and shipping materials. Old newspapers make great packaging material.
Compost your vegetable scraps.
Buy used furniture - there is a surplus of it, and it is much cheaper than new furniture.

2010-12-11T23:12:00.002+05:30

Environment & Science

Environment is a terminology that is comprised of all living and non-living things that occur naturally on Earth or some region thereof. Environment is of many type like natural and man made environment.

Natural environment is that which include all ecological factors such as natural vegetation, animals, microorganisms, rocks, atmosphere and natural phenomena that occur within their boundaries without massive human intervention. Built environment and man made environment is that in which impact of human is strong and more than natural things. The study of environment and all related factor is known as environmental science.

Science has a strong impact on environment. Environmental science is the study of interactions among physical, chemical, and biological components of the environment. Environmental science encompasses issue such as climate change, conservation, California Solar Initiative biodiversity, water quality, groundwater contamination, soil contamination, use of natural resources, waste management, sustainable development, disaster reduction, air pollution, and noise pollution.

Today’s natural environment faces so many changes due to human activities. Humans made environment as they want they even don’t try to adjust with natural environment Humans want all luxuries, facilities andcomfort at any cost which affected an environment a lot. Interior Plantation Shutters by Keywest for the home. Keywest specialise in a wide selection of adjustable louvre shutters made bespoke for residential and commercial properties. Beautiful Mothers day flowers,flowers for Mothers day and Mothers day gifts hand delivered by a local florist. Order flowers by 3pm for same day delivery. Freshness and hand delivery guaranteed. wasp next removal Ant Extermination, Wasp Nest Removal and Mice Extermination is only a few of our services and they've never been easier, All kind of household pest control is available at affordable prices. energy saving lightbulbsLow energy light bulbs from Efficient Lighting - electrical and lighting retail & wholesale online shop. Electrical Current Optimisation Blue Carbons electrical current optimisation services UK Buy Bulk Sesame Seeds . Yo Sesame - Worldwide Sesame Seed Supplier.Baxi combi boilers are some of the most energy efficient available in the UK. Contact us today for more information on our range of combi boilers Saturn Energy, providing Business Gas and Electricity, Commercial Gasand Electricity. Keeley Hire are leading providers of Prop Hire, Theatre Sets, Movie Props and Stage Props B2B marketplace for renewable energy and environmental technology: FREE company profile!!! Enventure Technology Services is a leading provider of Mechanical Engineering, FPGA Design, PCB Design and Environmental Compliance. Litway Trading are leading online providers of research chemicals such as plant food, NRG-1 (Naphyrone) & NRG-2 - all high quality and delivered directly to your door. Bingo-sites.co.uk bring you the latest reviews and bonus deals for foxy bingo bonus and the latest deals to play both for money and for free. garden studios Gas Combi Boilers Rubbish Clearance London Waste Removal Kent Litway Trading are leading online providers of research chemicals such as plant food, NRG-1 (Naphyrone) & NRG-2 - all high quality and delivered directly to your door. Ink Toner Cartridges at great discounts. Hp Toners, Samsung Toners, Brother Toners and many morecheap ink cartridges and toners. Energy saving light bulbs Saving Light Bulbs have a wide range of high quality energy saving light bulbs for the home and commercial use.The lamps are Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) , Halogen, Light Emitting Diode (LED) and other technologies. These bulbs are very energy efficient and will help to save the environment.Publish Post