Leading Consumer Brands Get Behind WindMade Certification Scheme

There was no picture with the article..

Website:

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/leading-consumer-brands-get-behind-windmade-certification-scheme.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Summary: Back in January, the WindMade certificate scheme was put into place and it allowed companies to buy renewable energy. The scheme seems to be going good and many companies are purchasing the energy. The companies buy at least 25% of their electricity from wind, which is a pretty easy goal for them. There are many companies that signed up for this plan, such as, Motorola Mobility, Deutsche Bank, Method, Lego and Bloomberg. "We believe in leading by example and have increased our use of clean electricity from 7 percent to 65 percent over the last four years," says and officer from Deutsche Bank.

Opinion: I think it is great that these companies are switching to renewable energy. Their clean energy has gone up so much. Hopefully this will cause less pollution. Also, many other companies should start doing this too. I have seen many windmills when I drive out to the countryside and that is good!

Questions:

1. How do you think they came up with this?

2. Would you do it if you owned a company?

3. How would this effect negatively?

Solar Panels Are Cheaper Than We've Been Told

By: Sami Grover
Energy / Renewable Energy December 8, 2011
Treehugger-Copyright © 2011 Discovery Communications
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/solar-panels-are-cheaper-weve-been-told.html

This is a picture of solar panels on a house.

Summary: It is predicted that solar panels will be cheaper than coal in the near future. Joshua Hill reports that many postive reports about grid parity and solar competitiveness are overestimating solar's true costs. Solar panels also lose efficiency much more slowly than older technologies. Coal and other fossil fuels are hidden with very high costs. Some poeple do not think they can afford solar panels because it is too expensive, but really the fossil fuels we use now will end up being more expensive than solar power. Not only are coal and fossil fuels expensive, they are very bad for the environment. Solar panels would help the environment because they are a clean. renewable source of energy.

Opinion/Reflection: I had no idea that solar panels would end up being cheaper than coal and the other fossil fuels, in the near future. The fossil fuels we use now are very bad for the environment and I think it would be smart for more people to start using solar panels. If more people got solar panels, than it would really help the environment and it would help us financially in the future, so it is a win win! I made a connection with this because some of my friends have solar panels and I have heard that they are very expensive, but now I know they would really be helping us in the future.

Questions:

1. Do you think it would pay off for more people to get solar panels now, with our economy? Why or why not.

2. Why do you think the fossil fuels we use right now will be more expensive than solar panels in the future?

3. What would be the impact of the environment if more people used solar panels?

Buses Turning Green in Big Cities...Literally!

Green Buses

By: John Tarantino, published on "The Enviormental Blog" on November 25th, 2011

Picture: The picture above shows two ecofriendly buses that are going to start appearing more in big cities, such as New York City and Chigaco.
Summary: Transportation is important, and although in big cities people are able to walk where they need to go, quicker transportation such as buses is still a requirement. Buses are typically known for being non-ecofriendly, and pollute the air and major cities. They use tons of gas and diesel, create plenty of pollution, and everything else in between. In NYC, their subway project is already years and billions of dollars behind schedule. Some say that building mass transit is a waste, while others say it is important even though it would be pricy. Buses are known for supporting low-income people with transportation, and dimishing buses because they aren't ecofriendly would cause chaos. Cars will be cars and pollute, but people have been looking into getting greener buses (literally, and ecofriendly). Major American cities including New York, Chigaco, Los Angeles, and Washington have starting introducing these green buses. The green buses run on solar, electric, hydrogen energy, or even a combination of all three! While other methods of transportation are burning fossil fuels that will take millions of years to replace, the bus industry is beginning to change for the better.

Reflection: I personally think that this is awesome...for everyone! The bus companies don't get complaints about how much they pollute, the people are happy with the eco-friendly buses, and they even look good!! Because buses are so popular in highly popullated cities, the amount of air pollution in the cities should decrease once the buses have went to the green side. This impacts me, because now when I go to the city, and take a bus (hopfully a green bus), I know I will be helping the enviorment and won't feel bad about taking a bus. I was just in NYC yesterday, and it was so polluted, and even with such a small change with the buses, it would point the city in the right direction.

Questions:
1) What do you think of this idea? Is it good or bad, and why or why not should bus companies use it?
2) Do you think green buses will catch on? Will they work for the people? Why or why not?
3) Do you think that these buses will cause the city to become more green as a whole? Why or why not?
4) Do you see any downsides to using these green buses? How are these downsides?

United Airlines Flies Biofuel Commercial Flight in the U.S

http://www.treehugger.com/aviation/first-commercial-biofuel-flights-us-take-week.html

Picture: This picture shows Boeing 737 in flight using biofuels.

Summary: United Airlines used a mix of Solazyme algae biofuels and traditional jet fuels. Passengers flew from Houston to Chicago. Business Green reports that 40% of the fuel is biofuels and 60% is traditional jet fuels. United airlines wasn't the first to come up with this idea. Insiders speculate that Alaska Airlines was the first to think of this idea. United Airlines however, rushed to get the first biofuel flight off the ground. Alaska Airlines has shown that they are more commited to this biofuel idea in planes but United Airlines just stole their idea. United Airlines was greatly praised for a great discovery that biofuels with traditional plane fuels actualy work.

Opinion/Reflection: I think this is a great idea. We can cut back on how much traditional jet fuel and use more of biofuel. We have to be careful when using biofuels too, because that could run out too. United should of waited until Alaska flew the first flight with biofuels because it was orginally Alaska's idea. I think this will definatley conserve the traditional gas and save that for the future. I fly alot because of vacations and visits with family members. I flew all over the world. It would be awesome if i could get on a flight with biofuel being used.

Questions:

1) How do you think Alaska Airlines came up with the idea of Biofuels in airplanes?

2) What are the positives and Negitives of the new method of fueling airplanes ?

3)How would this help the environment? Why or why not?

Two New Visions for America's Next Energy Future

http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/323
Submitted by Matt Kallman

PICTURE: Former vice president Al Gore makes a speech on his challenge to do what is called "Repower America."

SUMMARY: Former vice president Al Gore made a speech in Washington to talk of his challenge "Repower America." He wants the whole U.S. to move from using the electricity sector to wind, geothermal, and solar in about 10 years or so. He says that since prices of fossil fuels and such resources are increasing, we should switch to affordable eco friendly ways for power. 90 percent of the electricity in the United States is provided by fossil fuels. Already the use of fossil fuels have been picking up speed of polluting the planet. We must build and spread infastructures to areas like the southwest

Picture: A woman in Africa is poring water into the solar filter.

http://www.treehugger.com/solar-technology/eliodomestico-solar-house-still.html?campaign=th_rss

Summary: Half of humanity is going to be effected by the water crisis that is spreading to different countries. Their water is not cleaned properly and many people are getting diseases. But, designer, Gabriele Diamanti, has found an inexpensive and easy way to change the issue. The filter doesn't use electricity, it is solar so always dependable and filters 5 liters per day. This great filter is called eilodomestico, it is an easy way to filter your water. First, you just pour the water into the spout and walk away and finish what you need to. Then, over the course of the day, it will filter using the solar power. "The heat turns the water into steam, which travels down through a nozzle and condenses against the lid of the bowl at the bottom of the still." At the end of the day, all of the water is purified. The bowl can easily be carried on one's head to bring it home.

Opinion/Reflection: I think it is really cool that someone is trying to help the problem in Africa where there is not much clean water to drink for many people. This idea seems like it would work really well, according to the article. It ties really well to our unit because we watched the Jay-Z diaries and we read about the arsenic issue in India. Hopefully this contraption will work for the people and spread around to help all of the other countries in need.

Questions:

1. Do you think this will work? Why?

2. If you were living in Africa, would you want to use it?

3. How do you think that they thought of this?

Arsenic can be Removed with Plastic Bottles and Nutrition Supplements?!

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/removing-arsenic-from-water-withplastic-bottles-and-nutrition-supplements.html?campaign=th_rss

Picture: This picture shows a plastic water bottle sitting in a body of water. This represents the water bottle that can remove the arsenic.








Summary: When people think of water bottles, they think of a serious problem. Well, scientists are saying that plastic water bottles can get rid of some arsenic in the water and make it clean water. The American Chemical Society reports that more that 100 million people are exposed to very high levels of arsenic in their drinking water. With this simple technology, we can fix that. Areas such as India, Bangladesh, and other southeast Asian countries are at an encounter with arseninc in their drinking water. The scientists have a method when it comes to taking arsenic out of the water. First they coat pieces of the plastic water bottles with cystiene- an amino acid found in dietary supplements and foods. Then stur the plastic in the contaminated water. This works like a magnet. All the arsenic in the water sticks to the plastic and you just pull out the plastic and the water is safe to drink.

Opinion/Reflection: I think this a great way to recycle all our used water bottles. So many people just litter or throw out water bottles. You could donate these and save some less fourtunate people. Whoever found out this method should get a lot of credit and fame. Arsenic is a very dangerous substance and can harm the human body as learned in class. I can connect to this because we learned about the Indian people who have high levels of arsenic in their water and I saw the man with the messed up feet and hands.

Questions:
1) How do you think this was method was discovered?
2) Do you think this is going to save a lot of people? Why or why not?
3)Why do you think these certain people/countries have aresenic in their water supply?

Are Americans Ready To Start Drinking Their Treated Toilet Water?

by Elizabeth Svoboda
From the November 2011 issue; published online October 28, 2011

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/nov/06-americans-ready-drinking-toilet-water?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiscoverMag+%28Discover+Magazine%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

More people are now drinking treated toilet water which was tested to be clean and safe.

Summary: As Southwest Americans are in the one of the worst droughts, some communties are extracting drinking water from urine and other liquid waste. A small Texas city of Big Spring is the latest to take the risk. They announced that late next year they will begin adding 2 million gallons of recycled water daily to their drinking supply. People should know that the filtration process makes recycled wastewater as safe to drink as tap water. If toilet water is as safe as tap water, then why havent more communities bought it? Money is a problem because it is very expensive to operate the filtration process with toilet water. Another problem is just what people think about it. People hear toilet water and they automatically don't want it, but they don't know that it's as safe as tap water.

Opinion/Reflection: I think this is very interesting. I didn't know that wastewater could be cleaned completely to be used as drinking water. I'm surprised that communities have started to use toilet water as their daily drinking supply and that people have agreed to drink it. I think that it is smart for the Southwest Americans to use it since they are in major drought. Personally, I would rather just drink tap or bottled water rather than toilet water even if it has been filtered. If the only thing to drink was the filtered toilet water, then I would drink it after I now know that it is as safe as tap water.

Questions:

1. Would you rather drink tap water over the filtered toilet water even if they are both the same amount of safeness and cleanness?

2 Do you think it is gross that communties are using the filtered toilet water as their drinking supply? Why?

3. If the filtered toilet water is expensive to use, then why do you think the communities are using more of it over tap water when they are in drought?

Removing Arsenic From Water Using...Water Bottles?!?!

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09/removing-arsenic-from-water-with-plastic-bottles-and-nutrition-supplements.php?campaign=th_rss Removing Arsenic From Water With...Plastic Bottles and Nurtition Supplements?! By: Jaymi Heimbuch by TreeHugger

Picture: This picture shows a water bottle, which could be used to clean water contaminated with arsenic.

Summary: You read correctly. Plastic water bottles and a nutrition supplement can be used to remove arsenic from water to make it safe to drink. How is this possible?  Pieces of plastic water, soda and other beverage bottles are coated with cysteine (an amino acid found in dietary supplements and foods). This combonation is stirred in arsenic-contaminated water. The process works like a magnet, having the cysteine bind or "magnetize" to the arsenic. Once you remove the plastic, you have drinkable water. How cool is that? Almost 100 million people in developing countries have their drinking sources contaminated with dangerously high levels of arsenic. This new way is a cheap way. In tests, the normal water with the arsenic in the water contained 20 ppm, which is TWICE the EPA standard in the US. After using the plastic bottles with the supplement, the water's arsenic contaminates was reduced down to only .2 ppb. The process is extremley easy, as well as cheap, which would allow practically anyone to clean their drinking water.

Opinion/Reflection: THIS IS THE COOLEST THING EVER! When I first saw the headline, I figured it was a super complex way that wouldn't work...but I guess it does! I think this is awesome, especailly for the people who need it in developing countries. There are 100 million people with poisoned water due to arsenic. These people have probably been drinking water from bottles, so they should have plenty around. Developing countries don't have money laying around to clean their water, so this practically free way is awesome for them. My personal connection to this could be that if we ever had our water polluted with arsenic or I was somewhere where the arsenic levels were a problem, I could clean it myself to make it drinkable.

Questions:
How could this become a problem, if any?
Do you think that this actually works/is used? Why or why not?
Do you think it is worth the time to clean the water, or should they jst get it from somewhere else?
How do you think scientists/someone came upon this?
Should other places use this that don't have "illegal" arsenic levels? Why or why not?

Water-A Hotly Contested Resource for Survival and Development

Author: johntarantino1 Date: Thursday October 6, 2011 on theenvironmentalblog.org
http://www.theenvironmentalblog.org/2011/10/water-contested-resource/
Some rights reserved on picture below by mikebaird

Picture: This picture is showing water that is streaming down rocks that could soon be scarce. This water and its easily availability could be scarce sometime in the near future.

Summary: Many People around the globe in most places believe that we should be more concerned about oil levels instead of water, but they are wrong. Fresh water is rapidly becoming more scarce than anyone realizes. There has been an estimate that half a billion and two billion people are under high water stress and is intended to increase at a rapid rate by 2025. The biggest reason for this problem is the rapid growth. It is estimated that by October 31st, our population will reah a whopping 7 billion. Due to the climate change mostly because of human impact, the water quality is suffering. Not only would we not have much water, but the water that is available is not clean enough to actually use. This could result in sickness around the world due to uncleanly water. The warmer air temperatures would melt polar ice which raises sea levels and could cause mass flooding. Note that the ice melting into the ocean is not drinkable; therefore floods would make matters much worse. There would be too much phosphurus in the water and major odor problems. It is known that one in eight people around the globe do not have acess to clear drinking water. Hopefully we can learn more on how we can prevent major climate changes and ways to quit polluting the water before our time is too late.

OPINION/REFLECTION: I am honestly not surprised that we will have problems with water availability in the future. We have learned about helping the environment but no matter how much we learn, we just will not quit progress. Humans just go go go but forget that they are affecting many other people, animals, and other organisms. No matter how much we help, there is someone out there that is still making matters worse. It seems that it is much easier to destroy than build and that is exactly what is happening here. With a low amount of water there would be competition between our own kind and it is very scary to think about. When we talk about competition in nature, we just think of wild animals or plants competing for sunlight. I bet that no one would have though we would be fighting for a resource such as water. I truly think that we are going to get much worse before anything gets any better.

QUESTIONS:
1) What problems other than what has already been said will occur due to low water availability?
2) Where do you think most of our water supply comes from? Why do you think so?
3) If you were the president, what kind of laws would you pass to preserve the environement and water supply?
4) What do you think is the major problem ocurring that is contributing to scarce water availability? Why?
5) Why do you think the media has not been covered more than other stories in the media?

Bicycle Oriented Development in Portland

http://www.theenvironmentalblog.org/2011/09/bicycle-oriented-development-portland/

Picture: People gather round a park while their bikes are all locked to the racks.

Summary: Portland is trying to "go green" by creating a bicycle friendly environment and trying to switch people from cars to bikes. So far, about 7% are going to work and other places on bikes, and the national average is usually under 1%! By the year 2030 they want to have at least 25% of their population using bikes instead of cars. Lots of businesses have bike racks and storage and even lend a bike lock to people who forgot theirs. In their plan for the future, Portland wants to create bike boulevards and tracks so the workers and people in general who want to get around are not stuck with the conflict of cars. They also want to increase the amount of parking and storage for the bikes and increase the funding for the bikes.

Opinion: I think that this idea is really cool. If you're not going far to work and it is a nice day, why not ride bikes and save some energy? It's a great concept that maybe will inspire places like New York and large cities to walk and bike more. Plus, it costs less to get a bike then to buy a car and pay for gas.

Questions:

1. Do you think this is a good idea? Why/why not?

2. Would there be a negative factor about this? Explain.

3. Would this help solve our global warming issue? Why/why not?

Why Are the Rainforests Disappearing?

http://www.theenvironmentalblog.org/2011/09/rainforests-disappearing/

Picture:This graphic is a picture that was taken in a rainforest. These are some areas and habitats that are being destroyed due to certain human activity.

Summary: Rainforests are one of the most important ecosystems on the planet due to the variety of species it holds and the large perentage of the air we breathe. There are plants that produce medicines that are needed to cure certain diseases that lie within these forests. As you may have heard, rainforests are being torn down every seond of the day. This priceless resource that is so important is being torn down and paved over. It says here in the article that 50,000 square miles has been lost due to deforestation from 2000 to 2005. After a large area of rainforest is torn down, that land is only fertile for a certain amount of time. All if this means that farmers are going to move on to another section of the rainforest to clear. After using the land to farm, the soil turns dusty, rough, and unusable. These people are never satisfied and have to keep taring down parts of the rainforest. This technique called 'slash and burn' is what farmers use and is known for destructing half of the total rainforest. Another thing that is tearing down the rainforests is called logging. This is the second biggest reason for the destruction of these forests. There are countless other factors that have put the rainforest in this situation that also include mining and global warming.

Opinion/Reflection: I know that this information is kind of considered old news, but I just cannot believe how much worse this is getting. How come the government or others actually living around the rainforest are not doing anything? I do not think it is right that we just keep going into places like forests or natural areas and destroy nature. Knowing that this priceless natural resource is being destroyed by the people that need it most is astounding. We share the earth with countless other organisms and we do the most damage to everything. If this gets even worse, oxygen levels will be going down to shocking levels and air will be even more polluted than it already is.

Questions:
1) What other things, other than what has already been mentioned, are destroying the rainforests?
2)Who is the main fault for these problems?
3)Are there any things that the government or anyone else can do to slow down or stop the disappearing of the rainforests?
4) What problems would we have if there were little to no rainforests?

Flawed Hunting Ban Put Birds at Risk in Lebanon

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09/flawed-hunting-ban-puts-birds-at-riski-in-lebanon.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29&utm_content=Google+Reader




Picture: This picture shoes the storks that are being killed in Lebanon and it's causing an outrage.

Summary: Lebanon provides habitat for some 400 species of birds. At least 15 are threatened with extinction and many more are decreasing because of a hunting ban that is so poorly enforced even environmentalists are working to overturn it. Throughout the year, hunters drive through mountains killing whatever they see. Over-hunting is killing the bird populations in Lebanon. Even gun sellers are all in favor of a law to regulate hunting. Many experts believe the ban has distorted the tradition and led to out of control hunting, like this past spring when a man killed dozens of migratory storks in Lebanon and posted pictures of himself with his dead prey on Facebook. Some poeple think the government should allow controlled hunting seasons.

Opinion/ Reflection: This is just terrible. I can't believe the government isn't enforcing the hunting ban or making any new ones. They are just letting the hunters get away with killing these birds. Killing these birds can be destroying a food web and no one even realizes it. The gun sellers should not want to regulate hunting. They just want to make more money. They don't understand killing these animals and birds are ruining ecsystems. The government really needs to do something about this.

Questions:
1. What are some ways that this hunting can get under control?

2. Whose fault is it that this is happening?

3. What should the government do about this?

Top Predators Disappeearing in Food Chains?

When Large Animals Disappear, Ecosystems are Hit Hard

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/07/18/when-large-animals-disappear-ecosystems-are-hit-hard/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+80beats+%2880beats%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Picture: This picture shows a wolf (a top predator and an animal at the top of most food chain) eating an animal, possibly a deer, elk, moose, or something else. Without the wolves and other top predators to hunt for their prey, the population of them will grow, causing havoc in the rest of the food chain.

Summary: The loss of top predators is causing an unstable balance in the food chain. These predators aren't being killed by their prey, but by hunting and loss of habitat. This is starting to happen in all food chains, from land to ocean. With the top predator of a food chain missing, the rest of the population starts to rapidly grow. This population then needs to eat, but they are eating too much because there are so many of them, which kills off the smaller things, as well as producers. Without food, these animals that are usually eaten by the top predator will starve, which can lead to the end of a whole entire food chain.  In example, when wolves were removed from Yellowstone National Park, the population of the elk and deer (the wolves' prey) skyrocketed. These herbivores ate a ridiculous amount of willow and other tree saplings, destroying the habitats for some animals and even changing stream paths. The wolves had to be reintroduced to Yellowstone to keep the rest of the park wildlife at balance.

Opinion/Reflection: When I first saw this title, I thought that it was good if the top predators of a food chain started to die out, because the other animals would be okay. As it turns out, top predators help keep a whole food chain in balance and keep populations at a reasonable size. Without these predators, whole ecosystems could collapse and everything could end up becoming a disaster. Everything thinks that it's bad when animals kill other animals for food, but it keeps everything under control and without it, technically none of the animals would really be able to survive.

Questions:

1: What do you think are some good ways to help keep top predators alive, but not have too many at the same time?

2: What ecosystem do you think is mostly affected by the top predators disappearing and why?

3: You can't really stop hunters from hunting, but there obviously has to be control over hunting limits. What do you think they could do with the hunters?

4: What do you think destroying animal habitats (knocking down forests, oil spills, etc.) has to do with keeping animal populations under control? How could this be prevented, but still allow humans to live or use that land?

Invasive Tree-Killing Insects Cost U.S. Over $3.5 Billion a Year http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09/invasive-tree-killing-insects-cost-us-3-5-bil

Summary:

There has been a rise in invasive bugs all over the world that kills trees. The world has been shipping lumber all over the world. So, these bugs have been in the wood that is being shipped and is showing up in places that are not used to that kind of bug. These bugs have been feasting on wood. People say they and be disruptive, irritating, and really really expensive to clean up. In the biology journal PLoS One, they reveals that the invasive tree-killing insects are costing the US about one billion dollars a year. These insects cause the government to track them down and kill them. Since our trees have don't have any sort of protection, these insects will feast on a whole forest. Because of this many forests are close to gone and property value has gone down.

Opinion/Reflection:

I have known about this because my family goes camping a lot and the ask you not to bring any wood from other states because of the invasive insects. I believe that this is a huge deal and the government should do any means possible to end these insects. I also think that when companies export wood, they should check for these bugs so they do not go to other states or countries and cause big problems.

Questions:

1- Whos fault is it that these bugs are spreading?

2- What is the world going to be like with no forests? (If the bugs are not stopped)

3- How do the insects know to "catch a ride" and go to other types of wood?