EnviroWave by Robert Green

Today, the US Department of Interior requested that Polar Bears be considered a threatened species. They will now spend the next year learning and substantiating this request including studying the reasons for its concern.

I hope this is a precident setting action by this administration to recognize the role of global warming and the risks that are inherent in the climate crisis of global warming. Scientists have recently reported risks to other species of creatures, including fish, birds, reptiles, insects, and plants around the world because of global warming, but Polar Bears have a relatively small enough population to be at high risk of "downsizing" and the ever important cuteness factor.

It doesn't matter what begins the main stream acceptance of the reality of global warming, so long as we accept it and do something intelligent about it.

Robert

I believe we have a certain responsibility towards the management of the earth, its inhabitants and its environment. To further this statement, it pains me to see the failure of our stewardship responsibilities cause the unnecessary deaths of millions of dogs and cats.

The number one responsibility as pet owners, or shelters of unwanted pets is still to prevent unnecessary population growth by spaying and neutering these creatures. This should be mandatory for anyone who seeks to own a pet, but unfortunately it's up to the owner.

The ethics of a society can be measured in how we treat other beings. We in the United States are killing between three and four million animals a year due to unwanted overpopulation. We could be serving our wards much more ethically by not allowing the population to grow so large by simply spending a minor amount of time and money to prevent a greater dilema.

In the words of Bob Barker "Help control the pet population. Have your pets spayed or neutered."

Support your local dog and cat shelter and adopt responsibly.


Robert

Environmentalism should not be a dirty word. I have had my car radio tuned to conservative talk radio for years, but only recently started to listen to what was said. My eyes and ears have been re-opened in a wide number of interests.

I heard one commentator say something about how "Environmentalists" think. He dismissed the human impact on the environment as being "just the way they are". If a chemical spill kills some fish in a river, then all man made activites are guilty of killing the fish. [sic].

It really is a shame, that people are willing to go to lengths to ignore the fact that humans do have an impact on their environment. According to one study http://www.atmosresearch.com/NCGG2a%202002.pdf , human activity is responsible for 70 percent of the total methane emissions. Wetlands decomposition, termites, oceananic activity and fire are responsible for the other 30 percent.

Considering we only have one environment, that it affects every living being, and that we have the power to influence in both positive and negative ways, should not be overlooked by anyone.

Robert

When I think about the role we (humans) have on this planet, I notice we have two kinds of people. Participants and Observers. There are probably many more than this, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll keep it a short list.

Participants, are actors who are involved in forming, shaping, managing, and affecting our world. In contrast, Observers, are the actors who do not form, shape, manage, or otherwise affect our world (with exception to consuming from it).

It seems there are many more observers than participants, and I want to encourage a shift in this ballance. I'm doing something by writing and moderating this blog and encouraging others to read, think and act. I work in an environmentally responsible "green" company, and encourage considerate thought in my children, friends, family and readers.

What are you doing to be a participant in your world?

My 10 year old son gets it. His 5th grade science fair project was very wise indeed. "What is the effect of global warming on brine shrimp?" He chose this topic without my involvement.

By taking samples of water with varying degrees of salt content, he showed that changes in salinity levels would affect the hatch rate of brine shrimp eggs from hatching if the concentration was not high enough.

He concluded that global warming's effect on glacial melting would alter the salinity of the water, resulting in a disruption in aquatic life.

I asked him about what this means, and he said that melting glacier ice will change the salinity of the water, and that it can kill off lots of sea life; sea life that would ultimately affect the global food chain, and raise sea levels. His reasoning and forecasting skills seem pretty good for a 10 year old.

One day, I hope he see's his father as doing something to help mitigate the global warming problem. I know his generation will be left to deal with the mounting problem that is now revealing itself to us if we don’t get moving now.

The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 passed by the US Senate opens 8.3 million acres of gulf waters have been opened to extract oil and gas. Enough resources are believed to reside in these waters to service US petroleum and gas requirements for 15 years or more.

This is great news if we a concerned about our reliance on foreign oil, but we might see additional risks rise. Offshore drilling has been a deeply contested issue for the gulf states due to environmental reasons for decades.

A local supply of gas and oil has some tremendous benefits, but there is a bottleneck in the production system. The U.S. does not have the refining capacity to deal with this new supply. The main reason for this is that people do not want a refinery, or other chemical plant in their backyard. We witnessed the impact on gas prices as hurricane Katrina (2005) disrupted the gulf coast's production and distribution systems when refineries were damaged.

I believe it's good for our country to reduce our dependance on foreign resources, but as we consume and deplete these resources, we should seriously invest and transition to alternative energy sources, alternative fueled vehicles, production plant(s) and equipment with the goal of eliminating our demand on non renewable resources.

Robert

It's no secret, that there are many things we can do individually to contribute to the mitigation of Global Warming. We can find these common tips everywhere. Recycle. Use a carpool. Offset carbon emissions. Hang your clothes out to dry. Use energy efficient lights and appliances. Use hybrid fuel cars. Shop locally...and other environmental consumer practices. These area all good ideas and should be considered in your personal fight to ward off GHGs.

There is a more powerful way we can make a difference. It's not new but it's a growing trend in environmentally conscious investors. It's called ethical investing. This means, consciously considering where our investment dollars go, and contribute to investments that specialize in environmentally responsible companies. According to the article below, the performance of these funds typically perform higher than traditional funds managed under the same firm.

In a recent article in thisismoney.co.uk (Invest... and save the planet) Co-operative Bank's Spokesman Craig Shannon is quoted:
'If, as many scientists are saying, we have ten years to make a dent in climate change or face the appalling consequences, we need ethical consumerism to become the norm.'

There is a side benefit to investing in green funds that is not readily apparent. It implies an opportunity risk for companies not participating in environmentally responsible ways for your investment dollars, and may then begin to earn your investment dollars by switching to greener sources, means and products.

You can Google green investments for a good staring point for information on green investing.

Economic analysis by the Stern Review on the economics of climate change puts the financial or economic arguments in place to pressure world involvement to mitigate the risks and effects of Global Warming.

It's disappointing that GW is still regarded as a political issue, as evidenced by the case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court between the EPA and the Bush administration. The President continues to ignore the world's plea for Kyoto Protocol acceptance, claiming it is unfair towards other countries that have lower GHG emissions requirements. The U.S. Is responsible for 25% of the total annual emissions, but does not take part in mitigation exercises at the federal level. Even if not participating in the Kyoto Protocol, its not unreasonable to implement other policies via the EPA, to start working to stabilize and reduce GHG production.

I think current U.S. Policy is motivated by economic impact, but as the Stern report suggests the cost of mitigation now is minimal compared to the cost of correcting the largest economic failure of human experience.

A little investment now will be much less painful today, than a large investment tomorrow.

Robert

If you haven't seen this presentation, and you claim to be concerned about the environment, then go see it. You can find it online at www.climatecrisis.org, or at your favorite video store.

This presentation provided me one of the most profound awakenings in my adult life. This issue Global Warming crosses all party lines and affects us at the biological level, not the political level.

Perhaps, the messenger should not have been Al Gore, who gives a phenomenal presentation, because of his previous political involvement; members of his opposition party may be turned off by his mere presence.

I find it very interesting, that despite global warming as having a political perception, many governments around the world, along with scientific communities have contributed to the data collection, analysis and reporting that lends credibility to the theory of global warming.

It is no longer a liberal idea that global warming is a growing problem. The mechanical measurements over the past 180 years have set the benchmark from which the current measurements are compared, and the results are leading towards a rapid change in our environment.

As improvements in the measurement technologies have come about, and the sheer volume of data now being collected around the world, it has become an overwhelming fact, that radical and rapid environmental change is afoot.

The Earth's normal cycles, according to ice records, tar analysis, and the fossil record, shows a fairly consistent periodicity of 100,000 years for a major heating and cooling. One of the constants among human history has been a relatively low population density until the past approximate 200 years. Since the human population boom and the industrial demand we have placed on the environment, we have helped to accelerate the heating and cooling cycle to a period of only a few hundred years (if that).

In a recent study of carbon dioxide emissions, Dr Raupach of the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Organization (http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/ps2im.html) says “Recent emissions seem to be near the high end of the fossil fuel use scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On our current path, it will be difficult to rein-in carbon emissions enough to stabilize the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 450 ppm.”

It has been reported by several news organizations, that significant numbers of species of animals will go extinct due to loss of habitat, changes in water salinity and temperature, significant changes in the temperature bounds that were previously "normal", or from interrupting the cycle of insect hatchings.

As Al Gore states, the damage we are seeing today is from what we have already done. The question now is what can we do to change the rate of this instability, or can we correct the problem.

It is possible that we have there may be so much damage, that the environment may have become so dysfunctional and out of balance, that we may not find a solution quick enough to stop our climate crisis.

Hopefully our collective efforts will be enough.

Robert

In "The Global Warming Hoax" Bud Simmons posts the article "The real climate change catastrophe" by Paul Driessen which leads with the statement 'Asserting "the science is settled" ignores the debate that still rages. Proclaiming that "climate change is real" ignores Earth's constant, natural warming and cooling.' And concludes with the argument that real catastrophe is not some climate cataclysm, but is a handy argument for repressing the lives of impoverished nations.

The first statement moved me to research this a little further. I have another argument against the latter.

It seems that most scientists who have studied the heating and cooling patterns of the Earth, agree that patterns are evident in the historical data. However, the significant changes to our environment are marked by a fact that is not present in this article, and is not present in many articles that claim to debunk the myth of global warming. The ignored fact is that during the cycles of heating and cooling identified in the distant and relatively near past (of 200 years and greater) are consistent with a stable population of humans of about 500 million. At 1804, the global population reached one billion. In 1927, the world population reached 2 billion. In 1987, the world population reached five billion, and in 2005, the world population reached 6 billion people.

Over most recent 200 years of history, there have been a number of things that have allowed the human population to boom to its current state. The use of soaps, antiseptics and other medical miracles have improved the quality of life and reduced the impact of diseases decreasing the mortality rate, and increasing the birth rate. Advances to the way we produce and harvest animals and foods has also evolved to become more voluminous and efficient.

Now that we have over 6 billion people on earth, each breathing and working in more industrial modes and with greater efficiencies, it seems reasonable that humans are having an impact on the environment. The increased resource demands on animals, food, water and oxygen, are having an "unnatural" affect and it’s showing up in scientific data that is rejected by the global warming hoax community.

We have already seen examples in smaller communities, such as the Florida deer population, which have yielded smaller and fewer animals each year due to overeating of its available resources. An additional example is Algae blooms in the ocean that bust (die out) because of their ravenous demand for oxygen and nutrients that cannot be found in the water immediately surrounding their colony as they grow.

I think the Earth may be reaching its carrying capacity very soon. This brings me to my arguments for Mr. Driessen's conclusion, that it’s unethical to not allow impoverished nations to flourish with hydroelectric or nuclear power, or modern technologies and conveniences, or insecticides that will help reduce mosquito born disease to improve their quality of life.

To me, the real problem exists when we have artificially grown the population to a point that the earth can no longer sustain its population. A sustainable population is possible, considering two things: First, the birth and mortality rate must balance each other. Second, we must consider that life in impoverished nations may not be sustainable with local resources. It may be necessary to either relocate the inhabitants to locales where resources exist, or discover or provide the means to sustain and improve the lives of those in impoverished nations where they are.

People's quality of life is extremely poor when they cannot cultivate land or get the electricity to power the homes and tools of every day life. Life has no quality at all when plants, animals or people cannot survive the environmental revolt caused by a deteriorating atmosphere from direct, or even indirect, human involvement.

To say global warming is a hoax may or may not be true, but to deny the impact of human involvement on our environment is simply not reasonable, and is the ignored fact in the existing environmental problem.

Robert

"No to carbon trading: Make the polluters pay" response to GreenLeft.org.au's article on carbon trading. http://www.GreenLeft.org.au/2006/691/35896

The proposition that carbon trading schemes/prjects do not make the polluters pay is incorrect. The fact is, that polluters are required to pay, via the purchase of "Certified Emission Reduction" (CER) credits, whereas those who do reduce their emissions, may profit from the sale of CER credits in the carbon market.

The carbon market has been around for some time and is growing substantially despite the volatility of the price of a CER, as a result of both the environmental need and business opportunities presented in reducing pollution. The net effect is an expedient market pressure for businesses to reduce the offensive production behaviors, and for consumers (on all scales) to influence production behaviors through their purchasing and consumption practices.

I see the debate as not being a matter of whether carbon pollution is being controlled, but at what rate is it being controlled. The rate at which pollution control is occurring is still slow, but it does happen. I seriously doubt, however, that market pressure is enough to control carbon emissions alone.

I agree with Tim Stewart and Pip Hinman, that the best place for coal is in the ground, and we should wean ourselves of our dependency on it. However, coal is deeply ingrained in power production around the world, and a large-scale replacement fuel might be enough of a challenge to not be feasible.

Decentralization of power production, coupled with the decentralization of the production of goods or crops as a solution, to follow the Cuban model, will require a new market balance. The shift in centralized production to decentralized production will require a significant market force to initiate that movement, which is not yet in place, and may not outweigh the benefits of the current global production.

One of the promising technologies to help reduce our demand on coal and other fossil fuels are the petrochemicals derived from sustainable crops such as soybean, corn and algae. One of the companies I am interested in seeing develop is PetroAlgae, LLC , which is commercializing a proprietary, environmentally-friendly algae that generates over two hundred times more oil per acre than traditional biofuel crops like soybeans.

The algae can be harvested daily and fifty percent of its mass is expressible oil, and has many environmental benefits as well, including absorption of greenhouse gases, and water purification.
There is no single silver bullet for eliminating our pollution woes, so we must take consideration and action on all promising technologies, policies and philosophies that can help reduce our carbon signature, both individually and as members of our global environment.

Robert

I re-read Roderick Nash’s book The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics (History of American Thought and Culture) this weekend. This is a fantastic chronicle of the history of environmental ethics that all students of environmental ethics would benefit from reading. Nash’s historical perspective at the time of his writing, coupled with the importance of the topics of today, make this book as relevant today as it was 20 years ago.

For those who have not read this book, Nash’s central theme is the widening sense of identification that humans have developed regarding the environment and other forms of life throughout human history. It is more of a history of “Deep Ecology” as it has matured greatly philosophically from mere conservationism.

It seems to me today, that the trend in philosophical thinking towards Deep Ecology is still moving forward. This movement has instilled in us individual requirements to do something for not only our environment, but more selfishly, for ourselves, even though the benefit is global. I’ve read countless articles concerning the dire state of our ocean fishes being fished to extinction, global warming, and our deteriorating air quality. I’m talking about Green Policies, things like greenhouse gas reduction, carbon reduction mechanisms, efficient and renewable energy sources, and sustainable growth policies, at the governmental, trans-governmental, and economic or commercial levels that can influence a change in [slow] at least the rate of environmental breakdown.

With regards to the Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, I think we at least have a model from which to take on industrial-sized carbon emissions reduction projects. This model may require adjustment, as well as more countries to ratify it to make it more relevant and influential. Various cities and states around the world are also implementing their own methods and markets for carbon reduction projects, which in turn increases the demand for the carbon market.

Individuals have the ability to also practice these conservationist actions with a global impact. These things would be to reduce, reuse, and recycle as well as purchase offsets of your emission-causing activities via operations like Driving Green, TerraPass, Green My Flight, and Cool Driver for vehicle, fleet, airplane and residential emissions.

The fact that we debate these topics, the fact that we have political policies on these subjects, and the fact that we are doing something both individually and collectively to resolve these issues, are all indicative that the momentum of the environmental ethics movement has proliferated from a 1960’s university activity to a global ecological awareness and call to action.

Robert

My first posting on this site is geared towards my readers, friends, colleagues and co-workers in the field of environmental ethics and environmental solutions to the growing problems indicated in our environment.

I'm sure some of you may be interested in my background. First, my education has been both wide in terms of subject areas, and deep in terms of concentrations. I completed by BA in Philosophy from the University of West Florida where my efforts concentrated on environmental ethics. I have also completed studies at Tulane University to bolster my career in the IT field. After several years of IT work, I have been given the opportunity to contribute my IT skills and environmental ethics background to a green company - AgCert International and have a vested interest in this subject, as should all other members of the biotic community.

I look forward to receiving your feedback and will report my take on the importance of being environmentally responsible through thought provoking dialog and ethical challenges.

Robert