FAREWELL PLASTIKI!

Hi everyone.

I’ve came across an article about a unique expedition that hope to raise awareness of plastic waste in the ocean, as well as to raise interest in using waste in new ways. Have you heard of The Plastiki Expedition?? The Expedition is a bold adventure that aims to capture the world's imagination and draw our attention to the state of our oceans.

The Plastiki concept was birthed nearly three years ago following the United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP) report 'Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep Waters and High Seas'. The report highlights the way fisheries, pollution and other stresses such as those arising from global climate change are impacting and affecting the marine world.

The Expedition is the brainchild of David de Rothschild, and the goal is audacious: to sail 12,000 nautical miles across the Pacific Ocean from San Francisco, California to Sydney, Australia in a boat made entirely out of plastic bottles and recycled waste products.

Now, the idea is not just a sweet dream anymore when the Plastiki, a 60-foot (18-meter) catamaran made of over 12,000 plastic bottles, as well as other recyclable plastic is already built and set for departure. The Plastiki was engineered by a number of experts in the field of sustainable design, boat building, architecture, materials and innovative design technology. The design aims to be completely self-contained in terms of its energy generation, fresh water creation and waste treatment.

The Plastiki expedition carries (among others) four scientists from the Scripps Research Institute who will study ocean acidification, marine debris, overfishing, and coral bleaching. The four month voyage will see The Plastiki pass through a number of environmentally sensitive regions. The most notable of which has been ominously named the 'Eastern Garbage Patch' (the world's largest landfill located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean), a region six times the size of the United Kingdom where vast quantities of plastic pollution have accumulated because of the currents.

"We hope that this expedition will not only bring light to the marine litter problem, but also inspire innovative solutions," said Elisabeth Guilbaud-Cox of UNEP's Regional Office for North America.

For more information, you can google ‘the Plastiki’ and lots of information is out there for you.

And guess what guys, the Plastiki is ready to begin her momentous voyage on Saturday 20th March 2010 at around 9:30am PST (TOMORROW!).
Farewell Plastiki… I would love to know about your discoveries later.

p/s: Anyone have ever heard of this ‘Great Pacific or Eastern Garbage Patch’?? This is the first time I heard about it and very eager to see its photos.

-Muharniza-


.

Wind Energy

In recent years, the growth of capacity to generate electricity from wind energy has been rapid, growing from almost none in 1980 to 11,603 megawatts (MW) in 2006 in the United States and about 60,000 MW in 2006 globally. Wind power is a source of renewable energy with conversion of wind energy into a form of energy, such as using wind turbines to make electricity. This means that its does not lead to a depletion of a global natural resource in the way like the burning of coal or gas results in reduced reserves.

Generation of electricity by wind energy has the potential to reduce environmental impacts caused by use of fossil fuels to generate electricity because, unlike fossil fuels, wind energy does not generate atmospheric contaminants or thermal pollution, thus being attractive to many governments, organizations, and individuals.

Others have focused on adverse environmental impacts of wind-energy facilities, which include aesthetic and other impacts on humans and effects on ecosystems, including the killing of wildlife, especially birds and bats. Some environmental effects of wind-energy facilities, especially those from transportation (roads to and from the plant site) and transmission (roads or clearings for transmission lines), are common to all electricity-generating plants; other effects, such as their aesthetic impacts, are specific to wind-energy facilities.

Though wind power is non-polluting, however the turbines may create a lot of noise, which indirectly contributes to noise pollution. Wind energy is requiring knowledge of the weather and wind conditions on long term basis. Also, the wind energy will have the risk associated with the reliability of the wind power resource available at a particular site and the risk attached to the use of wind power equipment.

Soot - Contributor to Global Warming!

Hi everyone,

I read an article on global warming, an issue that is alarming seriously today. As we knew global warming is increase of temperature and causes climate change. This article highlighted how soot contributes to global warming. Although it is a less notorious form of carbon, it is relatively dangerous to the environment. It is described as fine, black, powdery pollutant contributed from diesel engines, power plants, clearing of forest and open cook stoves. As it settles to the ground it is said to absorb sunlight, warmes up and radiates heat.

However, this article has highlighted that sulphate and nitrate particles help to particles overcomes the effect of soot as it reflects sunlight and gives a cooling effect to the ground. However, combination of these particles with so enhances global warming as it form a new form of substance.The high solar energy absorption of soot aerosols is significantly increased when coated with sulphates and nitrates from the atmosphere.

Heating effects are rising due to the amount of soot produced by diesel engines and other sources contributing to warming. It is believed that soot blown to the north is likely to fasten the warming of Artic. Researchers also believe that soot contributes to shrinking cover in the Himalayas.

What are the measure been carried out to overcome this problem?

By the year 2030, it is expected to reach zero emission of soot. Scientist have found out that capturing soot is easier than controlling carbon dioxide emission. Particle traps are installed in vehicles to cut emission form diesel engines by 90% and more. Coal-power fired plants are made to install bag house filters. Even China and India has involved in the campaign of controlling soot emission where by, by swapping biomass and coal stoves for nearly soot free gas burning cookers.A test carried out at EPA has stated that eliminating black carbon could immediately slow down the loss of Artic ice. Measures are highly being implemented to prevent catastrophic climate change, in the war of climate change tackling black carbon may be a relatively simple and powerful flux says this article.

World countries are invited to join hands to reduce their annual emmission of carbon dioxide.Besides that usage of new technologies to eliminate emission of soot are highly recommended in diesel engines, coal power plants. Vehicles running on diesel engines are expected to be replaced with modern gasoline engines that emit virtually no soot although it does contributes to carbon dioxide. Indoor burning of coal and biomass to be reduced and therefore global warming might be mitigated marginally.

Article source: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/9-the-easiest-way-to-fight-global-warming/article

by Panimalar Baskaran

What is Biodegradable?

With the evolution of green technology in this era, most people are going with the term 'biodegradable' but are we aware that biodegradable is a legal and appropriate term to use? Or there are just too many who misused the term in order to deceive the general public......

There is no legal definition of “biodegradable,” but the American Society for Testing and Materials defines the term as “a degradation caused by biological activity, especially by enzymatic action, leading to a significant change in the chemical structure of the material.” The European Union deems a material biodegradable if it will break down into mostly water, carbon dioxide and organic matter within six months. But despite such precise sounding definitions, the term “biodegradable” has been applied to a wide range of products—even those that might take centuries to decompose, or those that break down into harmful environmental toxins.

According to the Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports magazine), there are no specific standards for the “biodegradable” claim, and no official organization exists to verify the use of the claim. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the U.S., however, has issued some general guidelines on what types of products qualify as legitimately biodegradable, and has even sued companies for unsubstantiated, misleading and/or deceptive use of the term on product labels.

According to the FTC, only products that contain materials that “break down and decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short amount of time when they are exposed to air, moisture and bacteria or other organisms” should be marketed as “biodegradable.” But the FTC acknowledges that even products appropriately-labeled as biodegradable may not break down easily if they are buried under a landfill or are otherwise not exposed to sunlight, air and moisture, the key agents of biodegradation.

”Biodegradable” Does Not Guarantee Health or Safety

Of course, just because a product or ingredient is biodegradable does not mean it is healthy or safe for people or the environment. For example, the toxic pesticide DDT biodegrades to the compounds DDD and DDE, both of which are more toxic and more dangerous than the original DDT itself.

Consumers with questions about what qualifies a given product to carry a biodegradable label should contact the manufacturer directly. The Consumers Union maintains that “if a manufacturer has solid scientific evidence demonstrating that the product will break down and decompose into by-products found in nature in a short period of time, then claiming that it is ‘biodegradable’ is not deceptive.”

(Adopted from EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881)

Sources Of Pollution In Waterways Revealed

Sources Of Pollution In Waterways Revealed
March 10, 2010

Stormwater runoff is the main source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon pollutants to the NY/NJ Harbor.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are components of petroleum products such as gasoline, coal, and oil. They are also produced as by-products of the combustion of fuels including petroleum and fire wood. PAHs can cause cancer and other health effects. Because they are produced during combustion, they are ubiquitous, and their levels are high enough to be a concern in all urban waterways. However, because there are so many potential sources of PAHs in the environment, it is not clear which of these sources are most responsible for the contamination in the water. Knowing what the major sources are would help states formulate more effective strategies to control them.

A group of scientist funded by the New York Academy of Sciences undertook an extensive review of the possible sources of PAHs to the New York/New Jersey Harbor. They estimated the input magnitude of 10 individual PAH compounds to the harbor from tributaries, atmospheric deposition, wastewater treatment plant discharges, combined sewer overflows, and storm water runoff. They also estimated the amount of these PAHs removed from the harbor by tidal exchange between the harbor and the coastal ocean and Long Island Sound, volatilization into the atmosphere, and accumulation or burial of sediment-bound PAHs at the bottom of the harbor. Results from the study were published in the March-April 2010 issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality.

The authors primarily relied on data on PAH concentrations in wastewater treatment plant discharges, combined sewer overflows, storm water runoff , and the water column of the New York/New Jersey Harbor collected by the Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Project (funded by the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey). They also used data from the USEPA's Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP), and from the New Jersey Atmospheric Deposition Network, which is run by one of the authors (Lisa Rodenburg) and was funded by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection. These data sets were collected during 1998 to 2002, so the study represents a snapshot of the harbor at that time.

The results showed that storm water runoff was the main pathway for inputs of all PAHs into the harbor, contributing about half the total load. Deposition from the atmosphere directly to the harbor surface was found to be important for the smaller PAH compounds. By estimating both the loads and losses, the scientists determined that PAH levels in the harbor are remaining steady; that is, the loads are roughly balanced by the losses, so no accumulation is occurring over time. The study also identified some gaps in the data that made it difficult to construct accurate estimates of loads and losses. These data gaps primarily concerned storm water runoff and combined sewer overflows. For both of these sources, more information is needed on both PAH concentrations and the magnitude of the flows themselves.

"This is the first time that we have been able to demonstrate just how important storm water runoff is in terms of contributing pollution to the New York/New Jersey Harbor. And since the harbor is pretty typical of urban waterways, our conclusions probably apply to most other cities in the United States and across the globe," says Lisa Rodenburg, who coauthored the study. The results of the study suggest that municipalities that want to reduce PAH levels in their waterways will have to develop storm water management plans to control the amount of storm water runoff entering their waters and to remove sediment from the runoff that carries PAHs.

The full article is available for no charge for 30 days following the date of this summary. View the abstract at http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/39/2/642.

The Journal of Environmental Quality, http://jeq.scijournals.org, is a peer-reviewed, international journal of environmental quality in natural and agricultural ecosystems published six times a year by the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA). The Journal of Environmental Quality covers various aspects of anthropogenic impacts on the environment, including terrestrial, atmospheric, and aquatic systems.

About The American Society of Agronomy
The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), is a scientific society helping its 8,000+ members advance the disciplines and practices of agronomy by supporting professional growth and science policy initiatives, and by providing quality, research-based publications and a variety of member services. For more information, visit www.agronomy.org.

Energy groups relieved that the Sage Grouse is off the endangered list?

The Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is the largest grouse in North America, where it is known as the Greater Sage-Grouse. Its range is sagebrush country in the western United States and southern Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada.

Residential building and energy development have caused the sage grouse population to decline from 16 million 100 years ago to 200,000 today. In Cheyenne, Wyoming, an Interior Department announced that it won't list sage grouse as an endangered or threatened species. This opens the way for continued development of the West's wind energy and oil and gas industries.

None the less, the industries will still face scrutiny in sage grouse habitat but much less so than if the bird were listed. The government concluded that listing the chicken-sized brown bird as threatened or endangered is warranted but precluded by higher priorities — other species considered in greater danger.

Sage grouse have experienced a 90 percent decline in their numbers and a 50 percent decline in their sagebrush habitat from a century ago, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said at a news conference.

My concern is did the government make such a move merely to bring on development and provide an increase in job opportunities for its state and lower unemployment. Or was the declining number of Sage Grouse considered too. With such a decision and the approved development of energy and oil and gas, what happens to the Sage Grouse?

What are your thoughts on this? Are they doing the right thing for the benefit of themselves or a mutual action for the protection of Sage Grouse species and development?

Climate Change, a source of inspiration?

This recent article 'Chanel does climate change, with real icebergs' caught my attention. But as I read on further into the article, I was fooled. I initially assumed that these fashion names are doing something to make a difference; creating an awareness on climate change. But sadly what I gathered from it, was that designer Karl Lagerfeld manifested an Artic production for his recent Chanel Fall- Winter 2010-2011 ready to wear look. Bringing on real Artic icebergs to create a realistic feel for top guns in the fashion industry.

The author, Jenny Barchfield, states 'what use is the threat of a catastrophe of global proportions if not to fuel fashion trends and inspire clever variations on Chanel's iconic styles?'. I find this a little offensive. What are your comments on this?

Models decked in yeti inspired creation stomped through puddles of Artic melt and struck high fashion poses in front of the giant icebergs which were specially delivered from Sweden! Such a selfish mannerism is similar to me uprooting one of my neighbour's trees to accessorize my little niece's fashion fantasy in my garden. I would probably get a shelling from my neighbour! Why was it possible to have a slice of your own iceberg flown for a fashion show?

In my opinion, such high fashion designers have the industries A-list celebrities and influential personalities under their creative creations influence. They have the ability to influence the global population with environmentally friendly designs using materials such as organic cottons, environmentally safe dyes and bleaches, etc. Also, to reduce their emissions via transportation emissions, factory emissions, etc.

For example, celebrities like Pamela Anderson who have resorted to being the Ambassador for PETA to eliminate animal killing for fur. Celebrities have the power to make a change. They go hand in hand with high fashion designers. Us, mere mortal of the ordinary life imitate what we see in magazine covers; fashion or not. If everyone became pro- environmental in reducing the effects of climate change, we may not be having such unbearable hot days as we are experiencing now.

What are we doing to reduce the effects of climate change? I'm taking baby steps with using recyclable shopping cloth bags and recycling paper, plastic, glass and aluminiums. My neighbourhood has a strong force of recyclers, it would be rather embarassing to dump my recyclables while the others recycle. Im curious, how many of us recycle?

The actual article can be accessed via this link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100309/ap_on_en_ot/eu_france_fashion_day_seven

Dash