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