1.Hyo Jin, CHO 2.Confusing global warming 3. We had heard about climategate in early time of this semester; The Climategate emails revealed that scientists used terms like "trick" while discussing climate modeling techniques, which was enough to set off skeptics, who considered it proof that scientists were bending data to reach their conclusions, and making climate change seem worse than it really was.(Time magazine) According to the article, owing to ‘climategate’, there is increasing number of people not believing in seriousness of global warming. Therefore, scientists gathered together to address that we should concern global warming and take actions. Normally, people are not much aware of scientific knowledge while most of environment issues are highly related to science. Therefore, environment issue investigating scientists are the main path that people percept, concern the reality of environmental issue and finally are motivated to take action. In climategate, people lost faith on scientists on global warming issues and they conclude hastily that global warming is not real. The importance of sensitivity of responsibility of scientists seems evident from the event, climategate. I reminded a book, ‘Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (지구온난화에 속지 마라: 과학과 역사를 통해 파헤친 1,500년 기후 변동주기론)’. The authors, Avery and Singer, argue that global warming is not caused by pollution but actually it is natural phenomenon; global temperature increases and decreases in the 1,500 year-cycle. After reading the book, although I had been worried a lot about global warming, I got curious whether global warming is really a problem. Because lots of scientific evidences that authors are suggesting were hardly to rebut or suspicion with my lack of scientific knowledge. This is another problem, what we should do in confusion of environmental issue; whether global warming is really just a natural phenomenon or not. Still I cannot assure whether global warming is a problem. Where we can guarantee our assurance on environmental issue? ------------------ 4.Has any field suffered a faster drop in public confidence than climate science? Two and a half years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was finishing up its widely acclaimed fourth assessment on global warming, which made an unequivocal case for the threat of man-made climate change. (..) But that was then. Thanks in part to the events of "Climategate" last November — when someone hacked and released thousands of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's East Anglia University — climate scientists now find themselves under fire. The Climategate emails revealed that scientists used terms like "trick" while discussing climate modeling techniques, which was enough to set off skeptics, who considered it proof that scientists were bending data to reach their conclusions, and making climate change seem worse than it really was. In the aftermath of Climategate, critics also uncovered factual errors — small and few, but real — in the IPCC's fourth assessment. (...) The cost of these assualts is real. Despite the fact that a Parliamentary inquiry in Britain looked into Climategate and in March exonerated Phil Jones, the head of CRU, of any wrongdoing, the damage had been done. A British survey in February found a 30% drop over just one year in the percentage of adults who said climate change was "definitely" real, and polls in the U.S. have found a similar decline. (See one of the latest global warming worries discovered by scientists.) In the face of that dwindling in public confidence — and a renewed surge in attacks from global warming skeptics — climate scientists are finally fighting back. -------------------- 5.http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987697,00.html
3. China's five-year plan 2006~2010 of clean energy production is not bright at the moment. China is facing rising energy use and declining energy efficiency. China's plan is to improve 20 percent of energy efficiency. I think China is on its way to become real diplomatic figure in contemporary society by having economic and global energy market in one place. In domestic market, China have moved to heavy industries (steel, cement) from light industries (garment, shoe production. ----------------------------------- China has been the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases each year since 2006, leading the United States by an ever-widening margin. A failure by China to meet its own energy efficiency targets would be a big setback for international efforts to limit such emissions.
Such a failure would also be a potential diplomatic embarrassment for the Chinese government, which promised the world just before the Copenhagen climate summit meeting in December that it would improve energy efficiency.
China’s current five-year plan, from 2006 to 2010, already sets an efficiency target that the country may now be less likely to meet.
Without big policy changes, like raising fuel taxes, “they can’t possibly make it,” said Julie Beatty, principal energy economist at Wood Mackenzie, a big energy consulting firm based in Edinburgh, Scotland. ---------------------------------------
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was occurred. Much oil was released per day making the ocean black. When I heard the news, I recalled the sea covered with tiny plastic. Since I felt some fear to eat marine food contaminated by trash or chemical materials during the study subject, I worried only human’s health. But, due to the terrible accident, now, I concern about not only human health but also marine life.
Also I feel actually we need to change ourselves. During the class, I have realized the cost of environment degradation. Especially, oil based industry have caused a lot of environmental problems ranging from air pollution to ocean pollution. I admit the impossibility to stop using all oil suddenly. However, people have to know the side effects from the using oil and try to reduce the dependency on oil. Even though people just know the fact that oil is dangerous to environment and people’s health, we don’t have deeper understanding about it and the new change in us doesn’t appear. I think we are too passive, so we are satisfied with the fact few changes(like renewable energy) are in progress. Thus, we merely were sad emotionally when knew the news, but any special actions were not. I consider the passive attitude toward environmental problems comes from the relief on current situation. I don’t know whether the top down makes the people’s attitude or not. But the clear thing is that people have to become active to protect environment, regarding environmental problems as our problems.
4. BRETON ISLAND, La. — As the oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon spreads across the Gulf of Mexico, environmentalists and government officials have been working frantically to protect shoreline habitat like this island in the Breton National Wildlife Refuge, eight miles off the coast of Louisiana.
Breton Island, with its hundreds of nesting birds, has been protected by orange booms, as have many other areas of delicate estuaries and wetlands.
But biologists are increasingly alarmed for wildlife offshore, where the damage from a spill can be invisible but still deadly. And they caution that because of the fluidity between onshore and offshore marine communities, the harm taking place deep at sea will come back to haunt the shallows, whether or not they are directly hit by the slick.
…
“Unfortunately, we’ve had a lot of experience in how oil affects marine life, ecosystems, coastal communities, and fisheries,” said Christopher Mann, with the marine program of the nonprofit Pew Environment Group. “The iconic images of oiled seabirds are just the tip of the iceberg, because oil spills affect life up and down the food chain.”
…
Spring is mating and spawning season for almost everything in the gulf: Fill a jar with plankton from the local waters in the spring and it will typically contain the larvae of 80 species. All the eggs and hatchlings are surface dwellers, with almost no ability to swim away from the slick.
…
The components of crude oil can produce developmental deformities at low concentrations, and “any such deformities are ultimately lethal to organisms in the wild.”
…
Whales and dolphins that must come up through the oil to get air are likely to suffer skin and eye irritation. In some cases, they may breathe in the toxic fumes of evaporation. In areas where oil is viscous, the marine mammals can risk having their skin and eyes irritated. More rarely, they risk breathing toxic fumes from the evaporating oil, and becoming drugged and sleepy.
The fumes are particularly dangerous when the crude is fresh, because some strong toxins evaporate early. With a onetime spill, the slick gets less dangerous over time, but in the gulf, where the well has not been capped, there is a constant supply of new vapors.
…
Even normal feeding might expose sea creatures to harm from the spill: sea grass and other vegetation covered in oil are ingested by fish that are then eaten by bigger fish and finally by manatees or other marine species. It is this food-chain effect that worries Larry Schweiger of the National Wildlife Federation. “It is not a question of whether all these species will be affected now. It is when,” he said.
3. The government is planning to destroy organic farms to make bicycle paths and a park. We can see a lot of bicycle campaigns these days. It is urged people take bicycles because it's good for the the health as well as the environment (as less people will take carbon-emitting vehicles) but this key point of the campaign seems to be lost in the government's recent plan to destroy organic farms to build bicycle paths. When we were studying the treadmill theory, and that due to globalization, now monopoly capital and the state is cooperating at a global level. At that time, I thought that the reason civil movement was so weak was because they are behind in cooperating at a world level. In a similar sense, there are a lot of environmental movements going on in Korea, including bicycle campaigns and organic consumption, but the two movements, rather than cooperating together and making a synergy effect, is overlapping and hindering each other. Also, the government seems to be promoting the bicycle campaign for a show-purpose; if they were sincerely concerned about the environment, they would equally value organic farms as they do of the bicycle campaign.
---
Organic farms over bicycle paths
April 30, 2010
It seems that the Lee Myung-bak administration has at last made the decision about the fate of the Paldang Organic Farm. We are speechless that the government is willing to plow over an organic farm on which fresh vegetables are raised and pave it over with bicycle paths and a park. The Paldang Organic Farm supplies chemical-free vegetables to Seoul-area residents. The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (MLTM) says it is forcing through measures to appropriate land to build a park as a part of the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project on the organic farm around Paldang in Gyeonggi Province. One can only be stunned by the never-ending rash behavior of the Lee administration.
To begin, we are shocked by the idea of turning up land being used for environmentally friendly farming to build recreation facilities. It is a vulgar attitude that does not leave nature wholly as it is and digs it up to transform it into artificial structures. Moreover, the Paldang Organic Farming Complex is a central supplier of environmentally friendly vegetables to Seoul and other areas around the capital. The farmers there have spent decades farming without pesticides to turn the land into an organic farm, boosting the soil fertility. We do not know how the idea of destroying this place to build a playground is even possible.
The district the government says it plans to forcefully appropriate is the venue for the IFOAM Organic World Congress that is to be held in September 2011. Paldang is just that symbolic as an organic farm on a worldwide scale. President Lee Myung-bak also visited the farm when he was a presidential candidate in September 2007, and encouraged the farmers, saying organic farming was an alternative of the South Korean agricultural industry. He drove a fertilizer distributor and even showed off his closeness with the farmers. Now he is stubbornly trying to kick them off their land. Does he also intend to break this campaign promise, claiming he is allowed to say anything during an election?
3. Seeing this article after reading Rachel Carsons’s silent spring, the seriousness of this problem seemed more apparent to me. As the article says, environmental factors are probably a prominent actor which causes cancer and it is very unsettling to know that these chemicals or other electromagnetic waves are with us all the time in our daily lives. The article says that a panel warned of pesticides, chemicals and pollutants: all of which are unavoidable in our daily lives. The presidential cancer panel says in this article says that the impacts of these cancer causing substances are underestimated and that there are many chemicals that are used among the public without proper testing. Until I read Silent Spring from the class reading, I never really realized how much of these were around us. Pesticides for example are probably applied to most of the crops and food we eat. Chemicals are actually in all of the household cleaning products, cosmetics, hair spray and even shaving cream. Pollution is of course always around us as we are well aware of. Really realizing this and the information sinking in was very depressing. I now realize just how far in we are in this now. It’s not a matter of choice, since our lifestyles are already chosen for us at the top. From this article, I realized that this was not the only problem, but there were also problems caused by cell phones as well, another big part of the modern life. It was pretty scary to think we are surrounded in this environment. It also reminds me that there is a good chance that there are some synthetic chemicals in my body too. Even now, as I am watching television and using my laptop, it occurs to me that I really don’t know the impacts of these electrical devices on my body in the long term and that worries me.
4. Panel Sounds Alarm on Environmental Cancer Risks New Report from the President's Cancer Panel Warns of Pesticides, Pollutants and Chemicals CBS) The risk of getting cancer is often linked to our genetics and choices like smoking, but Thursday a presidential panel said it's time to take a hard look at the environment for potentially cancer-causing chemicals in our daily lives, like the water we drink and the household products we use.
Like many Americans, Gail McDonnell worries environmental factors like cell phones may one day cause cancer in her children, reports CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook.
"They see - and I'm as guilty as anyone - all we moms on the phone, on the blackberry, and they start to mimic it," says McDonnell.
Thursday's report says more research should address fears like hers. The authors say environmental causes of cancer have been grossly underestimated.
"We think environmental factors are causing cancer," says Dr. Lasalle Leffall of the President's cancer panel.
The presidential panel notes more than 80,000 chemicals are used in the United States and only a few hundred have been tested for safety.
"Most Americans all across the United States have close to 200 synthetic chemicals in their body," says Dr. Philip Landrigan from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
The report says so far there is no conclusive evidence that some chemicals found in everyday products cause cancer. However, it recommends certain lifestyle changes. For example, even with no proof cell phones cause brain cancer, the group advises limiting their use or wearing a headset. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/06/eveningnews/main6467482.shtml
2.New State-by-State Wind Power Data Helps Build a Green Grid
3.Wind energy has been portrayed as one of the most applicable future energy in the past years. However, few state and federal policies have made legislation about that because they said they need valid evidence of wind/solar/hydro/etc potential to promote this clean energy source. This article talks about the first comprehensive data with regard to wind potential in US since 1993. It provides solid data for development and legislation of renewable energy. It shows how wind industry can add a lot energy capacity. At the same time, the wind power industry is also seeking an improved electrical grid in order to transport and sell wind-generated energy. We have to balance between the efficiency of transmission system and long-distance concern. Accurate wind and solar power estimates are essential in order to create a big-picture plan for a renewable energy future that makes sense for all of the public and private sector players involved. These estimates will help to provide accurate weather models so that utilities can keep a steady supply of electricity running through the grid to efficiently address demand.
---------------------------------- 4.New wind resource maps and wind potential tables for the lower 48 states were recently released by AWS Truewind in collaboration with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). This new data marks the first state-by-state comprehensive update of wind energy potential since 1993.
We know that wind power is an inexhaustible source of energy that can play a large part in creating a sustainable future, but there are real-life factors that keep this resource grounded. Transmission and storage of the generated energy requires a modern power infrastructure that is expensive and controversial. Additionally, developers need a stable policy environment if they are expected to commit to long-term projects with tremendous up-front costs. But no wind-power skeptic can spend a few days in Texas and claim that wind is not a viable solution to our future energy woes — just check the new map.
At the 80-meter height, the estimated wind energy potential of available development sites yield 10,459GW (gigawatts) of installed capacity. The new estimates are available on the AWS Truewind website and the NREL website. The current installed wind capacity in the US is 35GW and 158GW world-wide. In 2009, the U.S. wind industry added about 10GW of new capacity, enough to power the equivalent of 2.4 million homes.
The maps and estimates were created with a weather modeling system and then refined with measurements from wind monitoring stations. The NREL has already conducted a preliminary review and validation of the AWS Truewind’s 80 meter map estimates for 19 selected states across the US using wind monitoring station measurements at heights of about 50 meters and above from more than 300 locations. The estimates show the windy land area with a gross capacity factor (without losses) of 30% and greater. Capacity factor compares a turbine’s actual production over a given period of time with the amount of power the plant would have produced if it had run at full capacity, or at full sail, for the same amount of time.
Large-scale wind power projects need more than just good data on placement locations. They need a way to tie into the grid and sell that clean wind energy to big urban markets. Currently, this is a significant factor affecting the viability of many wind power projects. A speedy transition to a clean energy economy needs a Renewable Energy Transmission Highway, and this is one of the legislative priorities of the American Wind Energy Association. While an improved transmission grid might conjure up images of even more ghastly metal towers criss-crossing the US, there is a better alternative. Underground super-cooled transmission lines can efficiently transmit electricity when they are refrigerated, and the cost per mile is comparable to the standard above-ground transmission cables. However, this technology requires substations about every mile in order to keep the coolant cold, so it is best for shorter distances. Another technology instead uses direct current (DC) for a high-temperature underground superconducting transmission system. The Electric Power Research Institute recently released a report that indicates the high-temperature superconducting lines are a practical and efficient way to improve electric grids.
The large-scale concept of renewable energy calls for an interconnected, national renewable energy infrastructure so that wind, solar, and hydro developers and utilities can plug in. Others see long-distance transmission as expensive and unnecessary and promote local power generation and storage solutions. The local-power proponents point out that utility companies are lobbying for new transmission lines because they want to sell power regardless of its source. The actual solution that will emerge over the next decade is likely going to be a combination of local and imported power. The utilities themselves foresee a future “hybrid” model of power generation by 2050 that includes both centralized and distributed models. This will create a reliable, efficient, and well-balanced national grid so that the electrons will flow come rain or shine. Some areas of the United States are ideal for wind, while others barely squeeze by that minimum 30% gross capacity factor. For some cities, local power generation simply won’t cut it if there is any chance of weaning the united states off of coal power plants.
1.Franziska Mittelstädt 2. No Fooling Mother Nature 3. When I heard the first time from the oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico my very first thought was: “Finally!” I am pretty aware of many of the possible consequences and of the long term effects to the natural environment. I am not happy that this kind of accident happened at all – it is the opposite. But nevertheless I had a positive association when I read the news. Why? In our class I developed more and more the attitude that the developed countries are to less affected by the environmental damages caused by their consumption. If we outsource production we outsource in the same time the environmental risks. The U.S. is the biggest consumer in the world but they are not the one suffering most from environmental damages because of the good environmental laws. Maybe also inspired by my “Governance” class I developed the opinion that a change of the environmental policy program of the main global actors would start a change of the whole international policies. So I came to my conclusion: “If there will be new big catastrophes in environment – they should affect directly the American nation”. This would not only help other countries but also the Americans themselves because I think this is maybe the only way to change in sufficient time their policies. So I was only happy to hear about this sad because I saw a big chance for our global community. As mentioned in the article you need such a “crash” to fully realize that your system is not working probably. Also I like in this article the relations described between damage in the natural environment and social environment (jobs etc.) as well as the major role of U.S. in the international politics of environment. --- 4. There is only one meaningful response to the horrific oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and that is for America to stop messing around when it comes to designing its energy and environmental future. The only meaningful response to this man-made disaster is a man-made energy bill that would finally put in place an American clean-energy infrastructure that would set our country on a real, long-term path to ending our addiction to oil. That is so obviously the right thing for our environment, the right thing for our national security, the right thing for our economic security and the right thing to promote innovation. But it means that we have to stop messing around with idiotic “drill, baby, drill” nostrums, feel-good Earth Day concerts and the paralyzing notion that the American people are not prepared to do anything serious to change our energy mix. This oil spill is to the environment what the subprime mortgage mess was to the markets — both a wake-up call and an opportunity to galvanize a constituency for radical change that overcomes the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil. If President Obama wants to seize this moment, it is there for the taking. We have one of the worst environmental disasters in American history on our hands. We have a public deeply troubled by what they’ve seen already — and they’ve probably seen only the first reel of this gulf horror show. And we have a bipartisan climate/energy/jobs bill ready to be introduced in the Senate — produced by Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham — that would set a price on carbon and begin to shift us to a system of cleaner fuels, greater energy efficiency and unlock an avalanche of private capital to the clean energy market.
*continued* American industry is ready to act and is basically saying to Washington: “Every major country in the world, starting with China, is putting in clear, long-term market rules to stimulate clean energy — except America. Just give us some clear rules, and we’ll do the rest.” The Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill is an important step in that direction. It is far from perfect. It includes support for more off-shore drilling, nuclear power and concessions to coal companies. In light of the spill, we need to make this bill better. At a minimum, we need much tighter safeguards on off-shore drilling. There is going to be a lot of pressure to go even further, but we need to remember that even if we halted all off-shore drilling, all we would be doing is moving the production to other areas outside the U.S., probably with even weaker environmental laws. Somehow a compromise has to be found to move forward on this bill — or one like it. But even before the gulf oil spill, this bill was in limbo because the White House and Senate Democrats broke a promise to Senator Graham, the lone Republican supporting this effort, not to introduce a controversial immigration bill before energy. At the same time, President Obama has kept his support low-key, fearing that if he loudly endorses a price on carbon, Republicans will be screaming “carbon tax” and “gasoline tax” in the 2010 midterm elections. Bottom line: This bill has no chance to pass unless President Obama gets behind it with all his power, mobilizes the public and rounds up the votes. He has to lead from the front, not the rear. Responding to this oil spill could well become the most important leadership test of the Obama presidency. The president has always had the right instincts on energy, but he is going to have to decide just how much he wants to rise to this occasion — whether to generate just an emergency response that over months ends the spill or a systemic response that over time ends our addiction. Needless to say, it would be a lot easier for the president to lead if more than one Republican in the Senate was ready to lift a finger to help him. Our dependence on crude oil is not just a national-security or climate problem. Some 40 percent of America’s fish catch comes out of the gulf, whose states also depend heavily on coastal tourism. In addition, the Chandeleur Islands off the Louisiana coast are part of the Breton National Wildlife Refuge. It was created by Teddy Roosevelt and is one of our richest cornucopias of biodiversity. As the energy consultant David Rothkopf likes to say, sometimes a problem reaches a point of acuity where there are just two choices left: bold action or permanent crisis. This is such a moment for our energy system and environment. If we settle for just an incremental response to this crisis — a “Hey, that’s our democracy. What more can you expect?” — we’ll be sorry. You can’t fool Mother Nature. She knows when we’re just messing around. Mother Nature operates by her own iron laws. And if we violate them, there is no lobby or big donor to get us off the hook. No, what’s gone will be gone. What’s ruined will be ruined. What’s extinct will be extinct — and later, when we’re finally ready to stop messing around, it will be too late. ------ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/opinion/05friedman.html
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
1.Hyo Jin, CHO
ReplyDelete2.Confusing global warming
3. We had heard about climategate in early time of this semester; The Climategate emails revealed that scientists used terms like "trick" while discussing climate modeling techniques, which was enough to set off skeptics, who considered it proof that scientists were bending data to reach their conclusions, and making climate change seem worse than it really was.(Time magazine) According to the article, owing to ‘climategate’, there is increasing number of people not believing in seriousness of global warming. Therefore, scientists gathered together to address that we should concern global warming and take actions.
Normally, people are not much aware of scientific knowledge while most of environment issues are highly related to science. Therefore, environment issue investigating scientists are the main path that people percept, concern the reality of environmental issue and finally are motivated to take action. In climategate, people lost faith on scientists on global warming issues and they conclude hastily that global warming is not real. The importance of sensitivity of responsibility of scientists seems evident from the event, climategate.
I reminded a book, ‘Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (지구온난화에 속지 마라: 과학과 역사를 통해 파헤친 1,500년 기후 변동주기론)’. The authors, Avery and Singer, argue that global warming is not caused by pollution but actually it is natural phenomenon; global temperature increases and decreases in the 1,500 year-cycle. After reading the book, although I had been worried a lot about global warming, I got curious whether global warming is really a problem. Because lots of scientific evidences that authors are suggesting were hardly to rebut or suspicion with my lack of scientific knowledge. This is another problem, what we should do in confusion of environmental issue; whether global warming is really just a natural phenomenon or not. Still I cannot assure whether global warming is a problem. Where we can guarantee our assurance on environmental issue?
------------------
4.Has any field suffered a faster drop in public confidence than climate science? Two and a half years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was finishing up its widely acclaimed fourth assessment on global warming, which made an unequivocal case for the threat of man-made climate change. (..)
But that was then. Thanks in part to the events of "Climategate" last November — when someone hacked and released thousands of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's East Anglia University — climate scientists now find themselves under fire. The Climategate emails revealed that scientists used terms like "trick" while discussing climate modeling techniques, which was enough to set off skeptics, who considered it proof that scientists were bending data to reach their conclusions, and making climate change seem worse than it really was. In the aftermath of Climategate, critics also uncovered factual errors — small and few, but real — in the IPCC's fourth assessment. (...)
The cost of these assualts is real. Despite the fact that a Parliamentary inquiry in Britain looked into Climategate and in March exonerated Phil Jones, the head of CRU, of any wrongdoing, the damage had been done. A British survey in February found a 30% drop over just one year in the percentage of adults who said climate change was "definitely" real, and polls in the U.S. have found a similar decline. (See one of the latest global warming worries discovered by scientists.)
In the face of that dwindling in public confidence — and a renewed surge in attacks from global warming skeptics — climate scientists are finally fighting back.
--------------------
5.http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987697,00.html
1. Ye Eun Cho
ReplyDelete2. China’s Energy Use Threatens Goals on Warming
3. China's five-year plan 2006~2010 of clean energy production is not bright at the moment. China is facing rising energy use and declining energy efficiency. China's plan is to improve 20 percent of energy efficiency. I think China is on its way to become real diplomatic figure in contemporary society by having economic and global energy market in one place. In domestic market, China have moved to heavy industries (steel, cement) from light industries (garment, shoe production.
-----------------------------------
China has been the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases each year since 2006, leading the United States by an ever-widening margin. A failure by China to meet its own energy efficiency targets would be a big setback for international efforts to limit such emissions.
Such a failure would also be a potential diplomatic embarrassment for the Chinese government, which promised the world just before the Copenhagen climate summit meeting in December that it would improve energy efficiency.
China’s current five-year plan, from 2006 to 2010, already sets an efficiency target that the country may now be less likely to meet.
Without big policy changes, like raising fuel taxes, “they can’t possibly make it,” said Julie Beatty, principal energy economist at Wood Mackenzie, a big energy consulting firm based in Edinburgh, Scotland.
---------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/business/energy-environment/07energy.html?pagewanted=2&ref=earth
1. Hye Jung, Choi
ReplyDelete2. Concern about our attitude with the oil spill
3.
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was occurred. Much oil was released per day making the ocean black. When I heard the news, I recalled the sea covered with tiny plastic. Since I felt some fear to eat marine food contaminated by trash or chemical materials during the study subject, I worried only human’s health. But, due to the terrible accident, now, I concern about not only human health but also marine life.
Also I feel actually we need to change ourselves. During the class, I have realized the cost of environment degradation. Especially, oil based industry have caused a lot of environmental problems ranging from air pollution to ocean pollution. I admit the impossibility to stop using all oil suddenly. However, people have to know the side effects from the using oil and try to reduce the dependency on oil. Even though people just know the fact that oil is dangerous to environment and people’s health, we don’t have deeper understanding about it and the new change in us doesn’t appear. I think we are too passive, so we are satisfied with the fact few changes(like renewable energy) are in progress. Thus, we merely were sad emotionally when knew the news, but any special actions were not. I consider the passive attitude toward environmental problems comes from the relief on current situation. I don’t know whether the top down makes the people’s attitude or not. But the clear thing is that people have to become active to protect environment, regarding environmental problems as our problems.
-----------------------
>continued<
ReplyDelete-----------------------
4.
BRETON ISLAND, La. — As the oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon spreads across the Gulf of Mexico, environmentalists and government officials have been working frantically to protect shoreline habitat like this island in the Breton National Wildlife Refuge, eight miles off the coast of Louisiana.
Breton Island, with its hundreds of nesting birds, has been protected by orange booms, as have many other areas of delicate estuaries and wetlands.
But biologists are increasingly alarmed for wildlife offshore, where the damage from a spill can be invisible but still deadly. And they caution that because of the fluidity between onshore and offshore marine communities, the harm taking place deep at sea will come back to haunt the shallows, whether or not they are directly hit by the slick.
…
“Unfortunately, we’ve had a lot of experience in how oil affects marine life, ecosystems, coastal communities, and fisheries,” said Christopher Mann, with the marine program of the nonprofit Pew Environment Group. “The iconic images of oiled seabirds are just the tip of the iceberg, because oil spills affect life up and down the food chain.”
…
Spring is mating and spawning season for almost everything in the gulf: Fill a jar with plankton from the local waters in the spring and it will typically contain the larvae of 80 species. All the eggs and hatchlings are surface dwellers, with almost no ability to swim away from the slick.
…
The components of crude oil can produce developmental deformities at low concentrations, and “any such deformities are ultimately lethal to organisms in the wild.”
…
Whales and dolphins that must come up through the oil to get air are likely to suffer skin and eye irritation. In some cases, they may breathe in the toxic fumes of evaporation. In areas where oil is viscous, the marine mammals can risk having their skin and eyes irritated. More rarely, they risk breathing toxic fumes from the evaporating oil, and becoming drugged and sleepy.
The fumes are particularly dangerous when the crude is fresh, because some strong toxins evaporate early. With a onetime spill, the slick gets less dangerous over time, but in the gulf, where the well has not been capped, there is a constant supply of new vapors.
…
Even normal feeding might expose sea creatures to harm from the spill: sea grass and other vegetation covered in oil are ingested by fish that are then eaten by bigger fish and finally by manatees or other marine species. It is this food-chain effect that worries Larry Schweiger of the National Wildlife Federation.
“It is not a question of whether all these species will be affected now. It is when,” he said.
-----------------------http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/us/05ecology.html?scp=1&sq=concerns%20up%20and%20down&st=cse
1. Wonmi Nam
ReplyDelete2. Destroying Organic Farms for Bicycle Paths
3. The government is planning to destroy organic farms to make bicycle paths and a park. We can see a lot of bicycle campaigns these days. It is urged people take bicycles because it's good for the the health as well as the environment (as less people will take carbon-emitting vehicles) but this key point of the campaign seems to be lost in the government's recent plan to destroy organic farms to build bicycle paths. When we were studying the treadmill theory, and that due to globalization, now monopoly capital and the state is cooperating at a global level. At that time, I thought that the reason civil movement was so weak was because they are behind in cooperating at a world level. In a similar sense, there are a lot of environmental movements going on in Korea, including bicycle campaigns and organic consumption, but the two movements, rather than cooperating together and making a synergy effect, is overlapping and hindering each other. Also, the government seems to be promoting the bicycle campaign for a show-purpose; if they were sincerely concerned about the environment, they would equally value organic farms as they do of the bicycle campaign.
---
Organic farms over bicycle paths
April 30, 2010
It seems that the Lee Myung-bak administration has at last made the decision about the fate of the Paldang Organic Farm. We are speechless that the government is willing to plow over an organic farm on which fresh vegetables are raised and pave it over with bicycle paths and a park. The Paldang Organic Farm supplies chemical-free vegetables to Seoul-area residents. The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (MLTM) says it is forcing through measures to appropriate land to build a park as a part of the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project on the organic farm around Paldang in Gyeonggi Province. One can only be stunned by the never-ending rash behavior of the Lee administration.
To begin, we are shocked by the idea of turning up land being used for environmentally friendly farming to build recreation facilities. It is a vulgar attitude that does not leave nature wholly as it is and digs it up to transform it into artificial structures. Moreover, the Paldang Organic Farming Complex is a central supplier of environmentally friendly vegetables to Seoul and other areas around the capital. The farmers there have spent decades farming without pesticides to turn the land into an organic farm, boosting the soil fertility. We do not know how the idea of destroying this place to build a playground is even possible.
The district the government says it plans to forcefully appropriate is the venue for the IFOAM Organic World Congress that is to be held in September 2011. Paldang is just that symbolic as an organic farm on a worldwide scale. President Lee Myung-bak also visited the farm when he was a presidential candidate in September 2007, and encouraged the farmers, saying organic farming was an alternative of the South Korean agricultural industry. He drove a fertilizer distributor and even showed off his closeness with the farmers. Now he is stubbornly trying to kick them off their land. Does he also intend to break this campaign promise, claiming he is allowed to say anything during an election?
...
---
[http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/418603.html]
1. Sung Yeon Lee
ReplyDelete2. Cancer in the environment
3. Seeing this article after reading Rachel Carsons’s silent spring, the seriousness of this problem seemed more apparent to me. As the article says, environmental factors are probably a prominent actor which causes cancer and it is very unsettling to know that these chemicals or other electromagnetic waves are with us all the time in our daily lives. The article says that a panel warned of pesticides, chemicals and pollutants: all of which are unavoidable in our daily lives. The presidential cancer panel says in this article says that the impacts of these cancer causing substances are underestimated and that there are many chemicals that are used among the public without proper testing. Until I read Silent Spring from the class reading, I never really realized how much of these were around us. Pesticides for example are probably applied to most of the crops and food we eat. Chemicals are actually in all of the household cleaning products, cosmetics, hair spray and even shaving cream. Pollution is of course always around us as we are well aware of. Really realizing this and the information sinking in was very depressing. I now realize just how far in we are in this now. It’s not a matter of choice, since our lifestyles are already chosen for us at the top. From this article, I realized that this was not the only problem, but there were also problems caused by cell phones as well, another big part of the modern life. It was pretty scary to think we are surrounded in this environment. It also reminds me that there is a good chance that there are some synthetic chemicals in my body too. Even now, as I am watching television and using my laptop, it occurs to me that I really don’t know the impacts of these electrical devices on my body in the long term and that worries me.
4.
Panel Sounds Alarm on Environmental Cancer Risks
New Report from the President's Cancer Panel Warns of Pesticides, Pollutants and Chemicals
CBS) The risk of getting cancer is often linked to our genetics and choices like smoking, but Thursday a presidential panel said it's time to take a hard look at the environment for potentially cancer-causing chemicals in our daily lives, like the water we drink and the household products we use.
Like many Americans, Gail McDonnell worries environmental factors like cell phones may one day cause cancer in her children, reports CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook.
"They see - and I'm as guilty as anyone - all we moms on the phone, on the blackberry, and they start to mimic it," says McDonnell.
Thursday's report says more research should address fears like hers. The authors say environmental causes of cancer have been grossly underestimated.
"We think environmental factors are causing cancer," says Dr. Lasalle Leffall of the President's cancer panel.
The presidential panel notes more than 80,000 chemicals are used in the United States and only a few hundred have been tested for safety.
"Most Americans all across the United States have close to 200 synthetic chemicals in their body," says Dr. Philip Landrigan from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
The report says so far there is no conclusive evidence that some chemicals found in everyday products cause cancer. However, it recommends certain lifestyle changes. For example, even with no proof cell phones cause brain cancer, the group advises limiting their use or wearing a headset.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/06/eveningnews/main6467482.shtml
1.Dingyuan Hou
ReplyDelete2.New State-by-State Wind Power Data Helps Build a Green Grid
3.Wind energy has been portrayed as one of the most applicable future energy in the past years. However, few state and federal policies have made legislation about that because they said they need valid evidence of wind/solar/hydro/etc potential to promote this clean energy source. This article talks about the first comprehensive data with regard to wind potential in US since 1993. It provides solid data for development and legislation of renewable energy. It shows how wind industry can add a lot energy capacity. At the same time, the wind power industry is also seeking an improved electrical grid in order to transport and sell wind-generated energy. We have to balance between the efficiency of transmission system and long-distance concern. Accurate wind and solar power estimates are essential in order to create a big-picture plan for a renewable energy future that makes sense for all of the public and private sector players involved. These estimates will help to provide accurate weather models so that utilities can keep a steady supply of electricity running through the grid to efficiently address demand.
----------------------------------
4.New wind resource maps and wind potential tables for the lower 48 states were recently released by AWS Truewind in collaboration with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). This new data marks the first state-by-state comprehensive update of wind energy potential since 1993.
We know that wind power is an inexhaustible source of energy that can play a large part in creating a sustainable future, but there are real-life factors that keep this resource grounded. Transmission and storage of the generated energy requires a modern power infrastructure that is expensive and controversial. Additionally, developers need a stable policy environment if they are expected to commit to long-term projects with tremendous up-front costs. But no wind-power skeptic can spend a few days in Texas and claim that wind is not a viable solution to our future energy woes — just check the new map.
At the 80-meter height, the estimated wind energy potential of available development sites yield 10,459GW (gigawatts) of installed capacity. The new estimates are available on the AWS Truewind website and the NREL website. The current installed wind capacity in the US is 35GW and 158GW world-wide. In 2009, the U.S. wind industry added about 10GW of new capacity, enough to power the equivalent of 2.4 million homes.
The maps and estimates were created with a weather modeling system and then refined with measurements from wind monitoring stations. The NREL has already conducted a preliminary review and validation of the AWS Truewind’s 80 meter map estimates for 19 selected states across the US using wind monitoring station measurements at heights of about 50 meters and above from more than 300 locations. The estimates show the windy land area with a gross capacity factor (without losses) of 30% and greater. Capacity factor compares a turbine’s actual production over a given period of time with the amount of power the plant would have produced if it had run at full capacity, or at full sail, for the same amount of time.
*continued*
*continued*
ReplyDeleteLarge-scale wind power projects need more than just good data on placement locations. They need a way to tie into the grid and sell that clean wind energy to big urban markets. Currently, this is a significant factor affecting the viability of many wind power projects. A speedy transition to a clean energy economy needs a Renewable Energy Transmission Highway, and this is one of the legislative priorities of the American Wind Energy Association. While an improved transmission grid might conjure up images of even more ghastly metal towers criss-crossing the US, there is a better alternative. Underground super-cooled transmission lines can efficiently transmit electricity when they are refrigerated, and the cost per mile is comparable to the standard above-ground transmission cables. However, this technology requires substations about every mile in order to keep the coolant cold, so it is best for shorter distances. Another technology instead uses direct current (DC) for a high-temperature underground superconducting transmission system. The Electric Power Research Institute recently released a report that indicates the high-temperature superconducting lines are a practical and efficient way to improve electric grids.
The large-scale concept of renewable energy calls for an interconnected, national renewable energy infrastructure so that wind, solar, and hydro developers and utilities can plug in. Others see long-distance transmission as expensive and unnecessary and promote local power generation and storage solutions. The local-power proponents point out that utility companies are lobbying for new transmission lines because they want to sell power regardless of its source. The actual solution that will emerge over the next decade is likely going to be a combination of local and imported power. The utilities themselves foresee a future “hybrid” model of power generation by 2050 that includes both centralized and distributed models. This will create a reliable, efficient, and well-balanced national grid so that the electrons will flow come rain or shine. Some areas of the United States are ideal for wind, while others barely squeeze by that minimum 30% gross capacity factor. For some cities, local power generation simply won’t cut it if there is any chance of weaning the united states off of coal power plants.
----------------
http://greeneconomypost.com/wind-power-data-helps-developers-8460.htm
1.Franziska Mittelstädt
ReplyDelete2. No Fooling Mother Nature
3. When I heard the first time from the oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico my very first thought was: “Finally!”
I am pretty aware of many of the possible consequences and of the long term effects to the natural environment. I am not happy that this kind of accident happened at all – it is the opposite. But nevertheless I had a positive association when I read the news.
Why? In our class I developed more and more the attitude that the developed countries are to less affected by the environmental damages caused by their consumption. If we outsource production we outsource in the same time the environmental risks. The U.S. is the biggest consumer in the world but they are not the one suffering most from environmental damages because of the good environmental laws.
Maybe also inspired by my “Governance” class I developed the opinion that a change of the environmental policy program of the main global actors would start a change of the whole international policies. So I came to my conclusion: “If there will be new big catastrophes in environment – they should affect directly the American nation”. This would not only help other countries but also the Americans themselves because I think this is maybe the only way to change in sufficient time their policies.
So I was only happy to hear about this sad because I saw a big chance for our global community. As mentioned in the article you need such a “crash” to fully realize that your system is not working probably.
Also I like in this article the relations described between damage in the natural environment and social environment (jobs etc.) as well as the major role of U.S. in the international politics of environment.
---
4. There is only one meaningful response to the horrific oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and that is for America to stop messing around when it comes to designing its energy and environmental future. The only meaningful response to this man-made disaster is a man-made energy bill that would finally put in place an American clean-energy infrastructure that would set our country on a real, long-term path to ending our addiction to oil.
That is so obviously the right thing for our environment, the right thing for our national security, the right thing for our economic security and the right thing to promote innovation. But it means that we have to stop messing around with idiotic “drill, baby, drill” nostrums, feel-good Earth Day concerts and the paralyzing notion that the American people are not prepared to do anything serious to change our energy mix.
This oil spill is to the environment what the subprime mortgage mess was to the markets — both a wake-up call and an opportunity to galvanize a constituency for radical change that overcomes the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil.
If President Obama wants to seize this moment, it is there for the taking. We have one of the worst environmental disasters in American history on our hands. We have a public deeply troubled by what they’ve seen already — and they’ve probably seen only the first reel of this gulf horror show. And we have a bipartisan climate/energy/jobs bill ready to be introduced in the Senate — produced by Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham — that would set a price on carbon and begin to shift us to a system of cleaner fuels, greater energy efficiency and unlock an avalanche of private capital to the clean energy market.
*continued*
ReplyDeleteAmerican industry is ready to act and is basically saying to Washington: “Every major country in the world, starting with China, is putting in clear, long-term market rules to stimulate clean energy — except America. Just give us some clear rules, and we’ll do the rest.”
The Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill is an important step in that direction. It is far from perfect. It includes support for more off-shore drilling, nuclear power and concessions to coal companies. In light of the spill, we need to make this bill better. At a minimum, we need much tighter safeguards on off-shore drilling. There is going to be a lot of pressure to go even further, but we need to remember that even if we halted all off-shore drilling, all we would be doing is moving the production to other areas outside the U.S., probably with even weaker environmental laws.
Somehow a compromise has to be found to move forward on this bill — or one like it. But even before the gulf oil spill, this bill was in limbo because the White House and Senate Democrats broke a promise to Senator Graham, the lone Republican supporting this effort, not to introduce a controversial immigration bill before energy. At the same time, President Obama has kept his support low-key, fearing that if he loudly endorses a price on carbon, Republicans will be screaming “carbon tax” and “gasoline tax” in the 2010 midterm elections.
Bottom line: This bill has no chance to pass unless President Obama gets behind it with all his power, mobilizes the public and rounds up the votes. He has to lead from the front, not the rear. Responding to this oil spill could well become the most important leadership test of the Obama presidency. The president has always had the right instincts on energy, but he is going to have to decide just how much he wants to rise to this occasion — whether to generate just an emergency response that over months ends the spill or a systemic response that over time ends our addiction. Needless to say, it would be a lot easier for the president to lead if more than one Republican in the Senate was ready to lift a finger to help him.
Our dependence on crude oil is not just a national-security or climate problem. Some 40 percent of America’s fish catch comes out of the gulf, whose states also depend heavily on coastal tourism. In addition, the Chandeleur Islands off the Louisiana coast are part of the Breton National Wildlife Refuge. It was created by Teddy Roosevelt and is one of our richest cornucopias of biodiversity.
As the energy consultant David Rothkopf likes to say, sometimes a problem reaches a point of acuity where there are just two choices left: bold action or permanent crisis. This is such a moment for our energy system and environment.
If we settle for just an incremental response to this crisis — a “Hey, that’s our democracy. What more can you expect?” — we’ll be sorry. You can’t fool Mother Nature. She knows when we’re just messing around. Mother Nature operates by her own iron laws. And if we violate them, there is no lobby or big donor to get us off the hook. No, what’s gone will be gone. What’s ruined will be ruined. What’s extinct will be extinct — and later, when we’re finally ready to stop messing around, it will be too late.
------
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/opinion/05friedman.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete