A City Prepares for a Warm Long-Term Forecast

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/science/earth/23adaptation.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss






     Climate Scientists have told citizens of Chicago that the climate change in  their area will make their air wet and steamy. The public was told to prepare themselves for this new weather. Drastic measures are being taken, like new air conditioners in schools. As Aaron N. Durnbaugh, deputy commissioner of Chicago’s Department of Environment, says, “Cities adapt or they go away,”. Not only are temperatures changing, but extreme weather events, like tornadoes, hurricanes, and blizzards, are on the rise. Scientists claim that if Chicago continues to burn carbons into the atmosphere then they would have summers like the deep south, with temperatures well over 90 degrees, before the end of the century. By 2070 Chicago can expect 35 percent more rainfall in winter and spring, but 20 less in the summer and fall, two major swings. The city also may run into problems with heat related death. Chicago needs to change drasctically if it wants to survive in global climate change.

     In class we are learning about the atmosphere, and the sector of the atmosphere clostest to earth is the troposphere. Most of the weather happens in the troposphere, so what is happening in global climate change relates directly to the atmosphere. I find it disturbing that Chicago, a city so far north, could turn into a warm, humid place. The global climate change must be very extreme if it has the capability to do this. What were are doing to the atmosphere is very dangerous and needs to stop immediately. I like the fact that Chicago is adapting to the new climate, but I'm afriad they may be too late. It's a shame Chicago didn't realize their faults sooner, and now must rely on changing their way of life to fix things.

Questions:
1. How many tax payer dollars are being spent on this adaptation?
2. How much air pollution does Chicago make?
3. Is there any way to reverse Ozone damage?
4. Are other cities in the same predicimate?
5. Why are people just realizing this now?

Stench from waste facility overwhelms Calif. town

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_stinky_town

Summary:

A town in California called Mecca, a poor, working class town, recently had an air quality issue. The town had a "rotten egg" type smell. The smell was so strong and disgusting, that it made people drop to their knees when they smelled it. When authorities investigated, they traced back the smell to a tribal soil recycling facility. The facility is known as Western Enviormental Incorporation and is located on an Indian reservation. The company treats dirt laced petroleum, heavy metals and other chemicals that are considered hazardous materials in California. They then ordered the recycling company to stop opperating, and searched to make sure no hazardous materials were being released. Though, the comunity fears once the media stops paying attention, the company will go back to realeasing the horrible smell.

Reaction:

I think this plant should be shut down. There is no excuse for a company to still be in buisness to hurt the community. The materials that they are releasing are also illegal. The authorities did the right thing by shutting down the plant to investigate. If the company goes back to realeasing the horrible smell again, the owner should be arrested for violating state laws. I can relate this to the Denora incident. Peoplee are getting sick from the air that contains pollutants from a factory.

Questions:

How is this different then Denora?

What can the government do to help the people?

If the company goes back to polluting the air, what shall be done?

What can the community do?

Is there anything we can do from Pennsylvania to help?

"Sustainable Decadence": A Wind-Powered Hot Tub Built From Scrap

Link:http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/05/sustainable-decadence-wind-powered-hot-tub.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_cgn=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29

Summary: Ross Stevens showed that he can do many things with junk when he completed what he called a "Sustainable Decadence" which is a wind-powered spa and hot-tub made of pure trash. Stevens believes that many of the joys in life can and should be connected to sustainable energy sources. His overall approach began by trying to locate objects that have already served their purpose in life. The hardest part for him was how to connect these different pieces into an overall structure. He used parts such as a walk-in fridge, many beer bottles for the turbine blades, and a reused tractor gearbox. In the end, Ross Stevens proves that there are ways to enjoy life while being environmentally friendly.

Reflection:

I think this is an amazing accomplishment for Ross Stevens. Not only did he make a wind power hot tub, but he made it using only trash. He saved fossil fuels and landfill space, and he did it in a way that he can enjoy it and have a true feeling of accomplishment. The only thing that confuses me is why he decided to use wind power to heat his hot tub, than some other source that directly creates heat, such as geothermal or solar. I though this idea was also very creative because most people try to find one contraption to prevent the use of fossil fuels, but he found a way and successfully built it single-handedly, using only trash. Hopefully, more people will be inspired by this and invent new ways to help the environment in multiple ways.

This reminds me of an article on geothermal hot tubs and how easily they can be made at home. They both use alternative energy to enjoy a hot tub, which can help the environment as well as help the stress on bones.

Questions:

1. What may be some possible disadvantages of his creation?

2. What are some other possible creations that can be made that help the environment in multiple ways?

3. In what ways can we use trash to replace the items we use daily?

4. How is wind power used to heat a hot tub?

5. How long will it be until we are completely independent of fossil fuels?

Plastic Eating Bacteria

Summary: In May of 2008 Daniel Burd age 16 won a science fair with his amazing discovery, of a new way to dispose of plasitc. As of now plastic is the most harmful thing to our enviroment. Accoridng to The Clean Air Council all of Americans use up to 1 billion plastic shopping bags per year. Which is equal to 300,000 tons of waste in landfills, when cheekced only about 1,000 plastic bags were recycled. However Daniel Burd's discovery will have major effects on our conseption and desposing on plastic. Burd knew that plastic decomposes it just takes about 1,000 years but he saught a way to make that faster. With this idea in hand he went to work. Burd used fine ground powedered plastic and put this into yeast. This produces microbial growth, then he sealed off the product with the most produtive organisms. In just six weeks he disovered that 43% of the plsatic had been decompsed.

Reflection: This I find to be amazing. How is it that a 16 year old kid figured this out, when we've been dying for a way to keep our plastic around forever. Yet I fear that people might see this as the answer. This could mean the stop to trying to be more eco friendly which I hope doesn't happen. I feel that this process should maybe be used to get ride of the platics in landfills now. Then the things that we can find no other alternative use, I stilll really believe that we should try hard to be eco friendly and cut down plastic conseption.

Questions:

1) How has this effected the community with plastic consuption?

2) Is this being used on a larger scale?

3) Is this being used at all?

4) Are there other wasy to speed up decompation of plastic?

5) Is this way enviromentally friendly?

Solar Fest celebrates renewable energy

By Tracy Idell Hamilton

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Summary: For the eleventh year in a row Maverick Park in San Antonio is having Solar Fest. It is a festival which includes live music, fun run, kids activities and more importantly countless solar exhibits. This festival is 100 percent ran off of renewable energy and promotes San Antonio’s Bring Solar Home campaign. This campaign links local residents with installers who lend low-interest solar loans. This campaign translated into 3 million dollars in economic activity. This has campaign has proven to work better than offering rebates to the community, only five homes signed up when they offered rebates but 70 signed up with the campaign. This festival also helps promote the building of green homes, hybrid and electrical vehicles and tree planting.

Response: This event seems like it is a really good one for the community and the future of renewable energy. I can’t believe that this is the eleventh you San Antonio is doing this. It is really helping promote solar energy in homes, which is good because that region of the country is a great candidate for solar energy considering the amount of sun they have. More cities around the country should start their own Solar Fest so we can expand the use of solar energy and even green housing and other things they are promoting. A lot of people are starting to use solar energy which is a promising source of energy. Three neighbors of mine already have about 30 panels each on the top of their roofs and more are enquiring about it. It is really great for the future of our country.

Questions:

1. How did this event start?
2. What is San Antonio, Texas a good place for this event?
3. Why is solar energy a good renewable resource?
4. Are they expanding this event to other cities around the country?
5. How come this event is mostly solar energy?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/energy/article/Solar-Fest-on-Saturday-highlights-growth-of-1367921.php#ixzz1LgB1egIj

Solar & Engergy Efficiency are "Cute" But Not the Answer, Bill Gates Says. Nuclear Power Is.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/05/solar-energy-efficiency-cute-not-answer-bill-gates-nuclear.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29




Summary: Bill Gates, along with many others, believe that we can "invent our way out of climate change." Huge loads of cash are spent (or some would say wasted) on trying to find one energy source that can cut our dependance on fossil fuels, have no harmful emmisions, and no dangerous byprouducts. Gates is optimistic that an energy source like this is possibly . In a journal report Gates called solar energy "cute", and saying it was rather ineffective. He thinks money would be better spent looking into nuclear power.  The article goes on to explain some advances madew in the nuclear energy department, some of which were funded in part be Gates.

Reflection:   I agree with Bill Gates on some of his arguement and disagree on other parts. I do think we should invest more in renewable energies. Fossil Fuels will run out and deteriorate the environment, and we definitely think they should be replaced. Until we do invent our way out of the climate change other alternative energies must be used. I disagree, however, with the use of nuclear power. I understand safety improvements are being made, but I still don't trust it. In class I had the role of "environmentalist" for nuclear power, so I know all the risks involved in this energy source. Until there is a completely safe way to dispose of nuclear waste we will have to rely on alternate sources.

Questions:
1. How much more powerful is nuclear energy than solar energy?
2. What scientists are looking into this "Ultimate" energy source?
3. Does Bill Gates get his electricity from nuclear power?
4. Who else is with Bill Gates?
5. What is the safest, most powerful alternative energy right now?

Solar Panels Rise Pole by Pole, Followed by Gasps of ‘Eyesore’

By: MIREYA NAVARRO

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/science/earth/28solar.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Summary:

In Oradell, New Jersey, PSE&G installed over 200,000 solar panels on the top of telephone poles just like in the picture above. It cost over $515 million. Oradell chose to install the panels because the state mandated that by 2021, 23 percent of New Jersey's electricity had to come from renewable resources. The only problem was, PSE&G never gave the citizens a choice or even told them they were installing the panels. This made a lot of residents extremely upset. Many residents felt that the panels were ugly and were devaluing their house.

Reflection:

I agree with what PSE&G was trying to do, but not how they went about it. It is a good idea to use renewable energy and solor energy is a good way to achieve this goal. It is cleaner for the environment and the solar panels do not take up very much space. I disagree with PSE&G because they should have informed the citizens before they installed the solar panels. I can relate to this because when I was in a soccer tournament in New Jersey, I saw the panels and I thought they looked wierd. At first I was not even sure what they were. Now I know that they are solar panels and towns are using them to comply with the renewable energy mandate. they are. I would have never expected full towns to be run on only solar power.

Questions:

1. Where did all the money come from to install the solar panels?

2. Why don't more states follow New Jerseys lead?

3. How long will it take for PSE&G to pay this off?

4. How much energy do the solar panels produce?

GM Crops Disrupt Animals' Livers & Kidneys, Research Review Finds by: Matthew McDermott

Link:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/04/gm-crops-disrupt-animals-livers-kidneys-research-review.php?campaign=th_rss

Summary: Recently, a paper published in Environmental Sciences Europe shows that certain GM crops can harm animals' livers and kidneys. This report tested 19 studies of mammals being fed GM soy bean and corn to discover shocking results. 43.5% of males had kidney problems, while 30.8% of females were affected in their livers, according to the European report. It is possible that there may also be issues with the heart, spleen or blood cells. However, these tests were unable to prove the long term affect of GM crops. Scientists in the European report have covered 80% of the world's GM crops in these studies, but they are trying to further their research to take account for other possible affects to the organs.

Reflection:

This really worries me about GM crops. We are finding side affects of these crops very quickly, which makes me feel like there are plenty more out there. This time, GM crops are proven to animal liver/kidney problems and that they occur about 1/3 of the time. It makes me wonder that since humans are technically mammals, that we would also have these internal issues. What also worries me is that they reported issues with the heart, spleen and blood cells of some animals. With all of these problems, humans are bound to see some problems very soon.

This reminds me of the 2 other articles on GM crops we blogged about earlier because all three articles deal with the problem of GM crops. They all show different side affects of the same problem.

Questions:

1. What will have to happen in order to convince the government that GM crops are bad?

2. Is this study actually strong enough to support that GM crops are related to kidney/liver problems?

3. What can Environmentalists do to help people see the problems of GMO's?

4. Why should more people be concerned about this debate, instead of other issues?

Weaning the World Off Oil

Summary: Tom Rand speaks to us about why it is important to "kick" the fossil fuel habit. Says that its a dangoruse road to go down and that we've reached the end and we need to turn back. When asked why he belives we should stop using fossil fuels he had many answers. One of which is what we are doing to the Gulf of Mexico. He stats that "We are sticking straws a mile underwater and taking enough oil to destroy the Gulf but couldn't run the economy for a whole day." If this isn't reason enough there are plenty of others including the tar melting in Canada which he says "Is complelty backwards." Right now we are at the bottom of the barrel. We have huge issues what we need right now is a way to slove them not make more issues. Orginally taking the idea that renewable energy was "kids" stuff his changed his mind stating that this renewable engergy stuff is a big deal. A solar power plant as big as a coal plant can prduce power 24 hrs a day. They even keep things powered after the sun goes down. On top of that geothermal energy can do the same. In fact one geothermal energy plant can provide power for an entire civalaztion.

Reflecton- I find it hard to beleive that we have all of these unused resoucres. I didn't even know half the things in this ariticle. If solar power produces the same amount of energy as coal and it is renewable why don't we just use the solar power. It seems a lot less risky and since it works when the the suns down what is stopping us?

Questions-Whats stopping us from using solar power? How much solar power would it take to power the high school?

What other green energys are there that we could use?

How many places in the world use solar power?

How much longer to we have to use coal, if we keep using it at the rate we do?

New Research Finds That Roundup Ready GMO Crops May Cause Animal Miscarriages

Link: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/02/roundup_ready_crops_to_blame_for_animal_miscarriages.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29

Author: By Colleen Vanderlinden 2.22.11

Summary: Some people are still disagreeing with the recent approval of Genetically Modified Organisms alfalfa and sugar beets. Researchers are now saying that Roundup Ready GE crops contain an organism that causes miscarriages in farm animals. This new organism was detected after researchers used a 36,000X microscope, it is about the size of a virus. This can cause disease in both plants and animals. Professor Don M. Huber of Purdue University, he penned a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack urging the dangers of this organism, how it was discovered, and his thoughts about what should be done. Vilsack stated, “We request USDA's participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.” If it is causing miscarriages in animals then, what is it doing to us?

Response: This is sort of alarming, if this is the effect the GMO alfalfa and sugar beets are having on animals, what is it going to do with us. With this new research we need to do something about it. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack needs to look in greater depth into this new discovery. Not only look into the animal side effects, but the human as well. If we are eating the animals the alfalfa and sugar beets are effecting there has to be something that is getting transferred to us. After learning about GMO’s in class I did not really know my exact opinion of them, but now reading this I am very skeptical of how these GE crops work. There has to be some long term side effect that we haven’t seen, but will come up eventually.

Questions:

1. Does GMO’s have any other effects on animals other than miscarriages?
   
2. How do GMO’s effect humans?
3. Is the use of GE crops being monitored?
4. Who was the first person to discover how to use and engineer GMO's?
5. Why do we need GMO's?

California Court Overturns Order to Destroy GMO Beets

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/03/california-court-overturns-order-to-destroy-gmo-beets.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29 




     Last December a federal judge ordered that 258 acres of genetically modifyed sugar beets be destroyed , making it seem like genetically modifyed organisms (GMOs) were losing favor. However, a federal apeals courts has overturned the ruling and the sugar beets will not be destroyed. Some argue that genetically engineered (GE) crops will cause gene contamination. The USDA started relaxing some of it's regulations and let farmers plant GE crops "while it finishes work on a full environmental impact statement on the beets' effect on other crops and the environment." The recent court hearing stated the the plaintiff failed to show any likelyhood of irreparable injury. Organic farmers worry that the winnd could possibly carry genes from GMOs that could contaminate the organic food that was grown without additives.

    Reaction: To be honest I take side with the GMO side and disagree with the article, which is written supporting the ban on GMOs. Sure the GE crops may present a problem by creating resistant pests (even though the article doesn't mention this). however, GMOs are very important to the economy. Not only do they create jobs and supply a lot of tax money, but they are 95% of the USA's crops. I understand that organic farmers don't want their crops contaminated by GE genes, but their crops protection should be in their responsibility, not the responsibility of the GE farms. If GE crops cover 165 million acres they obviously are very important and are the staple of our food supply. We can't stamp out such a great oppertunity just because it has doubters. While there is visible downsides to GMOs, they can be fixed overtime and the benefits are too great to ignore.

Questions:
1. How do plant genes get carried by wind?
2. What is the most effective way of stopping gene contamination?
3. Would America have enough food if we cut GE farms in half?
4. Is GMO food exported by the US to other countries?
5. Why do some people think that organic food is better than GMOs?

U.S. Meat Farmers Brace for Limits on Antibiotics

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/us/15farm.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

By: Erik Eckholm

Summary: The pigs that live in factory farms are kept in tight quarters as shown in the picture above. To maintain their health, they are given antibiotics even when they are not sick. The pigs are also given steroids so they grow faster with less food. The Food And Drug Administration is saying that providing these drugs to the pigs poses a risk to human health. The Factory Farmers disagree and say that there is no direct link to these drugs and human health. The FDA says that there is no noted effects because the type of steroid being fed to the pigs is relatively new. Not using the drug would raise the price of pork by about five cents per pound. Should the FDA ban the antibotic and steroids even though human health has not yet been effected?

Review: I am against the Factory Farm. The only thing that farmers are concerned about is how much money they make. It is animal cruelty to force animals into tight quarters and feed them medicine they do not need. I also think that it is dangerous for humans to consume animals that have been overmedicated. Common sense says that if you eat an animal that had steroids in its system before it was slaughtered, it will have steroids in its system after they were slaughtered. These steroids will most likely end up in your body. It is better to be safe than sorry. What happens if ten years from now, we realize that eating these pigs is dangerous to human health? I think the FDA is correct and these drugs should be banned.

Questions:1. Why are there factory farms?

2. What are some bad effects to the enviorment of factory farms?

3.Do you think that feeding steroids and unnecessary antibiotics to pigs effects human health?

4. Do you think the FDA should ban feeding steroids and unnecessary antibiotics to pigs?

5. Why would meat prices go up if the factory farms stopped giving steroids to animals ?

Can Networking California's Coastline Save Fishing Industries? by Jaymi Heimbuch

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/03/ocean-film-fest-2011-can-networking-californias-coastline-save-fishing-industries-video.php?campaign=th_rss#ch02

Summary:

Marine Protected Areas, or MPA's, are areas designated for marine animals to have an easier time living. Some species thrive so well in that area that they go beyond the border. Multiple MPA's come together to form a network, and human can then benefit from the life that exits the zone. The Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation is trying to connect and expand the MPA's so that marine life get an overall healthier area to live in. In time, it will help " boost fishing industries". As of 2007, 60 MAP's have been designated in Central California, but the MSBF are trying to encourage other areas of the nation and the world to designate areas for MPA, as it will benefit Marine life, Environmentalist, Fishermen and the entire ecosystem.

Reflection :

I think it was a spectacular idea to create these zones around California. All marine life in that area can finally go back to living the way they did about 200 years ago, with little to no human impact. What's more amazing is that how much all these animals thrived in the areas. Many different types of species rapidly increase in number thanks to less causes of death, such as the school of fish above. This made me realize how much we affect our oceans, by adding pollutants and waste into the ocean. I can relate to this article because when I was in 4th grade, I remember watching a video on MPA's, and now that I read this article, it makes me feel so bad for the marine animals that have to suffer through living in more polluted water. I hope more coastlines countries consider this idea to not only help their marine animals, but their fisherman as well, by giving them enough fish out side the zone to capture and keeping the ecosystem in control.

Questions:

1. What is so bad about this idea that makes most countries not want to make MPA's?

2. Who came up with this idea to make protected zones?

3. What are some good/bad things that would happen if more and more MPA's are built?

4. Why does marine life thrive more in MPA's than any other part of the ocean?

5. What other countries have a lot of MPA's?

http://oceanicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/07/court-oks-aquatic-ecosystem-destruction.html

Summary: An, Alaskan mine just got to okay to dump the mines waste into a local lake. The Lower Slate Lake, in Tongess National Park. This lake happens to be just 3 miles from the mine, and though all the fish will die from the mines toixns it was still approved. The mine had been closed for about 80years and its reopening was pending on the ruling of the dumpage. Evnviormentlist fear that this ruling will lossen protection on all lakes and streams. In usally when dealing with mines all their waste goes to a special talings pond. The judge agreed that this taling is not what is considered "fill material" and there for did not need any speical treatment from the EPA. The mine issued for their permint in 2005 just 3 years after the Bush administrain widened the parimiters of fill material making it so some conamtianed wastes could be dumped in water ways.
reaction: This is just absloutly ridclouse. I can not belive that congress or the judge allowed this to happen. With learning all we have about biodiversty and how at risk out water ways are I am shocked. I thought that more people who are in charge would have better sense than this. And it really makes me wonder way they just didn't go with a standered tialing pool like the do noramlly with mines.
questions
1) How many animals can die from this?
2) What effects will this have are the lake besides animals deaths?
3) Why didn't they use a taling pool?
4) Who were they people that voted for this?
5) Is the EPA trying to fix this in any way?

Will Congress Stop Spending $860,000 Annually on Bottled Water?

By Rachel Cernansky

Link: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/02/will-congress-stop-spending-860000-annually-bottled-water.php

Summary: The House of Representatives spends at least $860,000 on bottled water a year. George S. Hawkins, general manager of DC's Water and Sewer Authority said, “…I would remind them that our tap water costs about a penny a gallon, and bottled water costs hundreds of times more." Some members of congress are saying we need to stop spending almost a billion dollars a year on bottled water when we can get clean, purified water from the tap. Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) said, "Let's start cutting close to home and shifting our priorities from an entirely unnecessary expense to reinvesting in our nation's public water infrastructure.” They can get perfectly clean water from the water fountains on Capitol Hill, instead of using bottle water. Even though the bottles are compostable there is no guarantee that they will end up being recycled

Reflection: This is ridiculous! Congress is spending almost one billion dollars a year on bottled water. This means that every person is spending $2,000 a year on water, when they can get it much cheaper from the tap. In class when we tested our water from home, the tap water turned out to be extremely clean. There is nothing wrong with tap water in our area because it is treated well and purified, unlike other places around the world. Congress needs to stop this unnecessary spending on plastic bottled water; they would be saving tons of money and the environment at the same time!

Questions:

1. Who allowed congress to spend this money?

2. Does congress understand that tap water is clean and purified?

3. What are the alternates to using bottled water?

4. Why should congress use tap water instead of bottled water?

5. Is congress being irresponsible, by drinking bottled water?

Tongass National Forest

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/03/tongass-national-forest-receives-needed-protection.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29


summary:
     Last Friday night the news came that a district judge in Juneau, the capital of Alaska, overruled an exemption made by the Bush administration. He made it against the law for people to log in roadless areas of the Tongass National Forest. this is big news for everyone in the area and one more step in halting deforestation. Despite being so far north Tongass is actually a rain forest, says native Elizabeth Wagner. Tongass is vast, over 17 million acres. That's around 29% of the world's remaining unlogged coastal temperate rainforests. It provides a home for many grizzlies and spawning salmon. Many locals depend on the forest and it's animals for survival.

opinion:
     I am glad that we are perserving forests like Tongass. People are taking the right steps in environmental protestion. Giant rainforests like this are huge contributers to the fight against global warming, because they suck in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Sometimes resources that are found in the rainforest are needed by the people living in the area, like the people living near Tongass. I feel like this connects to what we are learning in class about wetlands. Both wetlands and rainforests are very easy to overlook but are actuall very crucial to the area around it.

questions:
     1. How much important forests remain unprotected?
     2. What else can we do to protect rainforests like Tongass?
     3. Should America push other countries to protect rainforests?

Surveying Rwanda’s Water Supply

http://scientistatwork.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/surveying-rwandas-water-supply/?partner=rss&emc=rss

The supply of drinking water is very scarce throughout Africa, but the article that I read focuses on Rwanda. Since 1994, after its civil war, the government has devoted its time and money to human sanitation efforts. Yet a huge part of the country lacks access to clean drinking water and even a larger portion lacks human sanitation which is what the government wanted to try and fix. Since Africa is one of the continents that is most vulnerable to climate change, global warming is most likely going to make its clean drinking water situation worse. As the years progress, the sanitation and drinking water situation in the African country of Rwanda is not getting better.

I was not surprised with the information in this article. I was also aware that this situation is occurring. It is not our job to try and support the government of Rwanda. We have our own government with its own problems. We also should only be sending minimal money Africa, as our country has debt problems and cannot balance the budget. I can relate to this because when I was in second grade, there was a water main break. We had to drink from bottled water and use minimal amounts of water. The picture above is of three kids drinking dirty water. It shows how scarce the water is and also how unsafe it is to drink.

Questions:

1. How long will it take to fix the water problem?

2. From what bodies of water can the people of Rwanda obtain clean water?

3. Why is the United States government sending money to Rwanda when it has a large debt?

4. Is it possible to tap into the water tables in Rwanda?

5. Why does global warming affect clean water in Africa?

Owls Change Color to Cope With a Changing Climate

Article:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/02/owls-change-color-to-cope-with-a-changing-climate.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+treehuggersite+(Treehugger)

Summary:

In Finland, the tawny owls with gray feathers are usually more common than the ones with brown feathers. But every year, more and more brown feathered owls are present and are starting to outnumber the gray feathered owls.

Usually the brown ones are less common because they are easier to see in the snow and are therefore unable to survive form their predators as well. But with the climate change, meaning less snow, the gray owls become more visible and prone to predators. This is a concerning issue for the species because of the brown owls are more vulnerable to environmental changes and because the brown owls have weaker immune systems.

Reflection:

This article reminds me of the natural selection lab we did with the peppered moths.

Before this article, I thought that owls were at the top of every food chain mentioned. I never knew that owls are a prey to some species. It's amazing how the owls follow nearly the same concept of the peppered moths and that the camouflage to an animal's ecosystem is extremely significant for their survival. However, since the brown owls are less stable to survive in their given ecosystem, I hope effort is put into helping the gray birds survive.

Questions:

1. How could the brown owls adapt in time to survive?

2. Should we get biologists to help this issue? Why?

3. How many other species deal with this type of natural selection?

4. How could the gray owls overcome their population deficit?

5. What other animals are affected by the population change?

questions?????????
1) What are the other sharks on the list of not to be hunted?
2) How did these sharks become extince?
3)Of these speices how many are in the oceans now?
4) How likely are these sharks to attack us?
5) Since this law has been passed have there been more shark attacks in the Atlantic?

summary: The articale I found was all about endagered sharks and the things the U.S are doing to help them. There are over half a dozen different speceis that are illegal to hunt here in the Atlantic coast . Four of the six types are the scalloped, smooth and hammer head along with the ocean white tip. These along with two other sharks can not be targetted or kept if accidently caught. Along with this passing we learned that it adds to the only other shark that was preasant on the list before which is the big eye thrasher. Upon learning this we also find that over 50% of all free swiming sharks are endangered. There are however some draw backs to these passings, since these laws are only for the Atlantic this means sharks are know more likely to swim in the Atlantic ocean. Which to be honest is a tad scary. But it is for the best seeing as we do not want sharks to go totally extinct.
review: I was actually really surprised in reading this article. I think it mainly has to do with the fact that you never hear about endagered sharks. I found the articel really infromtive and interasting. But I'm not ggoing to lie i really don't like the idea of more sharks swimming in the Atlantic ocean. It is a really scary thing to think about. Even though there are rarley shark attacks. Another interasting thing was that this was only for the Atlantic ocean. In other oceans it is okay to fish for these sharks. In fact in china they even use them in soups. But it was a really good article.

Biologists Help Endangered Penguins Find True Love

Summary: Biologists are playing matchmaker for the endangered African Penguins. These animals are in danger of becoming extinct within the next twenty-five years. African Penguins need a baby-boom in order to keep their species alive. Biologists are matching penguins at the New England Aquarium so they will reproduce in the hopes of keeping the African Penguins alive. They have recently matched two sets up penguins who are compatable to produce optimal offspring.

Reflection: I think its funny that biologists are becoming eharmony for penguins. I wonder what caused these species to become extinct. Before this article I have never heard of the African Penguin, but now I know they are on the endangered species list. Hopefully biologists will find compatable matches and will be able to keep the African Penguin alive.

Questions:
1. What caused the African Penguins to become extinct?
2. Why are these particular penguins so important to our ecosystems?
3.Where is the African Penguin from?
4. How do biologists determine weither penguins are compatable to produce optimal offspring?
5. How many penguins will it take for the African Penguin to be taken off the endangered species list?