"Senate Rejects Exploration of Oil and Gas Bill" Response

On May 18th, the Senate rejected a bill for off-shore drilling for gas and oil and a speedier process of approving permits for drilling.  One of the greatest reasons cited was the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last summer. Though the Republican bill included plans for cleanup and containment in the case of a spill, it was still voted down 57 to 42.  Many Democrats felt that this plan was reckless and that it would damage the delicate coastal areas.
Before watching Gasland and learning about the mining processes that are used to get to oil and gas, I probably wouldn't have cared too much either way.  The documentary really brough to light that seriousness of the situation and how much is at stake if these coastal areas are damaged.  I completely I agree that this bill would have made it too easy to recieve drilling permits and find the Republican reasoning that it will lower gas prices to be weak at best.  The short-sightedness is concerning and makes me wonder what experts are telling them that this bill wouldn't do any lasting damage to the environment.

Waste=Food

I try to not waste things in my house, but I never really thought about how all of the things that I do through away just end up in a landfill.  I think that the waste=food thought process is a really innovative way of thinking.  Not only is it beneficial for the environment, but I was surprised to find out that people have found a way to make it  a socially and economically viable option as well.  It was really interesting how the green changes in the buildings led to greater productivity and better attitude overall at work.  With results like that, it makes sense that multibillion dollar companies are using these methods in their production plant.  On top of that, they began to develop more environmentally safe products that can be broken down and reused.  They used their pull as a huge consumer to push their raw product vendors to make better materials that can be reused and made into something of equal or greater value.  The movie did a great job of pointing out how recycled products are often used for things of lesser value, like all the paper we recycle doesn't turn into more notebook paper, but instead in turns into toilet paper, which then turns into waste.  My only concern is that creating these green buildings seems to be too expensive for the smaller companies to invest in.  I wonder if many of those companies would find it worth it to undergo that new construction.

Nuclear Energy

       I don't think that nuclear energy is the solution to the upcoming energy crisis.  To begin with, the risks that surround it far outweigh any benefits that could come from using nuclear energy.  Accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl may be rare occurrences, but the fact that a simple mistake could cause billions of dollars worth of cleanup and health concerns for many people. In addition, the mining for uranium and  the transport of all of the materials needed to run a plant take a shine off of the idea of nuclear energy being our clean solution.  While pollution and radiation is a scary thought, even more so is what could happen with the left over nuclear waste.  It could be used to make weapons that wipe out entire cities.  The threat of terrorism is a very strong proponent against the nuclear energy question.
      Instead of using nuclear energy, I think it would be a wiser solution to invest in other methods such as wind and solar powered energy. Unlike coal, there is a guarantee that we will have the resources to power these types of energy.  Unlike nuclear energy, there isn't any radioactive waste that could poison people's health or be used to make weapons. 

Oil Crisis?

After reading the two articles on whether on not there was an oil crisis that would change the way the world works, I was caught somewhere in the middle of the two views.  On one hand, I definitely agree that we have quite a bit of time before oil becomes a serious issue, but at the same time, I think that we need to be finding new energy sources that could replace it.  The time lag between where we are now and when oil becomes too expensive to become economically efficient should be used to explore and perfect the alternative energy sources we do have.  What concerns me the most is that people will wait until oil does become a serious problem and won't have another stable energy source to fall back on.
I don't believe that the world will ever be as extremely altered as either article predicted.  The image of empty highway and food only being from local sources seems highly improbably to me.  It might decrease as prices increase, but I don't think that it will ever reach the levels that the author predicted it will.  I do agree, however, that mass transport, such as trains, will become more and more popular, especially with the shipping industry and work commute.  The poor economic situation that has been persisting for the past few years has shown that when people will make the more cost effective choice when it comes to traveling.
Overall, I think that the views presented in each article were extremes.  Especially when they are placed right next to each other, it's easy to see how people are confused over whether they should be worried or not.  Despite the convincing evidence used to support each point of view, I think that what will really happen is a combination of the two, including more mass transport, but also an increased use of technology that will play a vital role in the world after oil becomes economically inefficient.

"Rise of Slime" Response

Jackson believes that the marine ecosystems are changing for the worse.  Warmer waters is one way that the ecosystems are being altered by human activity.  Due to pollution, the water temperature has slowly increased over time causing a change in the ecosystems that once thrived there.  Run-off from fertilizers are create massive ares of water where nothing but algae can grow, also known as a "dead zone".  Most of the dissolved oxygen is sucked out of the water by the algae, which pushes out other species.  This creates the slime that Jackson referred to in the article. 
This article and the movie that we watched in class really opened my eyes to how much trouble the marine ecosystems are actually in.  Usually, when I think about endangerment, I think about the rain forests and pandas.  What I didn't know is that so many aquatic species are threatened today because of human activity.  What really surprised me was how much a consumer could do to help the marine aquatic system, even if it's something small like not getting a certain seafood dish because you know that the species isn't doing to well.  I was also surprised by how little some governments are doing to try to solve this problem.  You would think that they would be more concerned with their people's future, but instead, some seemed focused on how much money they can bring in.  I usually don't eat seafood, but when I do, I'll be sure to ask where it came from.

"Brazil Ethanol Looks to Sweeten More Gas Tanks" Response

I was surprised to find out that the country that is pushing ethanol as an alternative to oil is Brazil.  Not only are they already the leader in this movement, but they are looking to extend this trade to other countries around the world.  In doing so, a huge market would open up and improve the economic situation in South America.  They are hoping that recent economy crash will entice more people towards the idea of fuel made from sugarcane because it is more cost effective than corn based bio fuel. As more people are drawn in, Brazil is hoping that the strict trade barrier, 54 cents per gallon of fuel imported, will be lowered by the United States.

The US lobby group for ethanol fuel has reported that thousands of jobs and dollars if ethanol is pulled as an alternative.  These facts have been contested by UNICA, backed by a study done by Iowa State University,  which reports that amount of jobs loss is grossly overestimated.

One of the driving factors behind the debate of  whether or not ethanol is actually an environmentally friendly option for consumers.  US Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that ethanol's greenhouse gas emissions are 61% lower than that of oil.  Others are concerned that this ethanol use would only spark degradation of land as it is overused for sugarcane production.  It's kind of worrying that ethanol might only remove one problem and replace it with another.

"A Move to Replace Soot-Spewing Stoves"

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton announced her commitment to a  called Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.  The United States will be providing $50 million for five years worth of seeds and 100 million stoves that will be supplied to villages in Asia, Africa and South America.  The government plans to have all of these resources distributed by 2020.  In addition, numerous private companies made contributions that totaled up to $10 million.  The stoves, though inexpensive provide a much more efficient and healthier way for people to cook.  On the flip side, they aren't built to be long lasting and will need to be replaced every 2 to 5 years.  I found the article to be very interesting because it mentioned that even though this project will help so many people, it will only be reaching about 1/5 of the total population that needs help.  I know that there are a lot of people that don't have the modern conveniences that we have to cook food and be healthy, but I was unaware of the magnitude of the situation.  Since the stoves don't last a long time, I think that  they should set up a system or a chain of stores in order to supply the people with new stoves when theirs breaks. 
Replacing the open-pit fires with the solar powered stoves will provide the people, especially the women and children, with safer living conditions.  Women and children that live in the houses with the open-pits frequently develop health problems, such as heart problems and low birth weights.  It is also going to supply job opportunities for women.
The project will also combat global warming because the open-pit cooking and inefficient methods that they are using now are creating millions of pounds of soot that disrupt the atmosphere.  It is also thought to be the second biggest factor that contributes to global warming.  By eliminating this method of cooking, we will cut back on a ton of carbon in the atmosphere.
The cookstove project will also help to cut back on deforestation.  The people will no longer need such mass amounts of wood to burn, so they will consequently cut down less trees. This will also combat global warming because the trees will help eliminate the carbon dioxide that is in the air.