Friday, April 27, 2007
Canada and SFM (Sustainable Forest Management)
I do not believe that Canada is upholding our end of the bargain in regards to Sustainable Forest Management practices. It is my belief that Canada has good intentions, as we should for the fact that Canada accounts for 30% of the world’s boreal forest; however, we must implement realistic measures in order to maintain our beautiful forest. Not only does the forest provide an aesthetic value, but also produces a great deal of jobs and economic value. In regards to data collection, we must collect true data with which we can examine current trends, as well as extrapolate future trends. Currently, statistics are taken from federal forests such as, land operated by the Department of National Defence or the First Nations. This data is then consolidated for provincial statistics. Therefore, true data is not collected and no analysis can be conducted. This current process appears to serve no valuable function, as it is a mere logistical practice. There is no way to accurately track current management trends when data is not collected. Furthermore, I believe the Canadian government should have stiffer punishments for companies who commit illegal acts (both federal and provincial laws and legislations). Furthermore, I believe Canadian logging businesses should have to acquire more licensing requirements to ensure they are both abiding by Canadian laws as well as conducting business in a moral and ethical manner. No matter how we look at the issue, socially, morally, ethically, or environmentally, it is my belief that Canada has yet to “get in the game” with respect to Sustainable Forest Management. This issue is especially important to us, Canadians, as we depend on the forestry industry in our society.
Friday, April 20, 2007
GMO's & Should they be labeled?
I think that a “genetically modified organism” (abbreviated to GMO which can be more specifically named: genetically modified food) is a concept with which the human race should embrace as it offers new advances and new products that could revolutionize our world. Genetically modified food offers more nutrients in some foods, new resistances to pests, longer shelf-life, and the list goes on.
Before a country can impose a law in which all products that are genetically modified must be labeled, the general pubic must be educated in such an area. Many individuals are unaware of what genetically modified food actually means. A concern out there is that GMO’s are unnatural. But what is natural? Nucleotides are natural, aren’t they? All living organisms on earth contain the exact same nucleotides: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. Each of these nucleotides is combined with a ribose sugar and a phosphate group and this complex is then coupled with its respective partner (A-T, and C-G). The amino acids that are created are repeated in different orders to form varying proteins. Therefore, if we insert a protein that is indigenous to a certain organism, and insert it into another, we are merely adding a protein (set of amino acids) that the one organism was not fortunate enough to obtain by itself. Once individuals are educated in such an area, we may impose laws dealing with labeling GMO’s.
I do not believe that GMO’s should have to be labeled by law. This law is good in theory as it allows the consumer to know, not only where the food was grown, but how it was grown as well. However, labeling GMO’s would become quite excessive as even cross-pollination in flowers is a form of genetic modification: it does not only take place in the lab, but at farms as well with cross-breeding and cross-pollination. If we were to label every single GMO, the market would be flooded with such labels, and their purpose would, in essence, be obsolete. We could save a great deal of time, resources, money, and unnecessary concern by not labeling GMO’s.
For benefits and controversies concerning GMO’s, visit the following site: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml. For more information on how GMO’s are unique, how they are modified, and the role different individuals have in the process, visit the following site: http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~asap/expanded/gmo/gmo.html.
A very innovative GMO is called “golden rice”. This rice contains more nutrition, more specifically Vitamin A. This product is then sent overseas to Third World countries where both a lack of nutrition and a significant amount of cased pertaining to child blindness are predominant concerns. There are disputes over the rice’s benefits, but progress is being made in aiding those who are in need of our help (via GMO’s). If we are producing such products today, what may the future hold? For more information on the story of “golden rice” visit the following site: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7196.
Visit the following site to read “GMO Labeling: Threat Or Opportunity?”: http://www.agbioforum.org/v1n1/v1n1a07-phillips.htm.
Before a country can impose a law in which all products that are genetically modified must be labeled, the general pubic must be educated in such an area. Many individuals are unaware of what genetically modified food actually means. A concern out there is that GMO’s are unnatural. But what is natural? Nucleotides are natural, aren’t they? All living organisms on earth contain the exact same nucleotides: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. Each of these nucleotides is combined with a ribose sugar and a phosphate group and this complex is then coupled with its respective partner (A-T, and C-G). The amino acids that are created are repeated in different orders to form varying proteins. Therefore, if we insert a protein that is indigenous to a certain organism, and insert it into another, we are merely adding a protein (set of amino acids) that the one organism was not fortunate enough to obtain by itself. Once individuals are educated in such an area, we may impose laws dealing with labeling GMO’s.
I do not believe that GMO’s should have to be labeled by law. This law is good in theory as it allows the consumer to know, not only where the food was grown, but how it was grown as well. However, labeling GMO’s would become quite excessive as even cross-pollination in flowers is a form of genetic modification: it does not only take place in the lab, but at farms as well with cross-breeding and cross-pollination. If we were to label every single GMO, the market would be flooded with such labels, and their purpose would, in essence, be obsolete. We could save a great deal of time, resources, money, and unnecessary concern by not labeling GMO’s.
For benefits and controversies concerning GMO’s, visit the following site: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml. For more information on how GMO’s are unique, how they are modified, and the role different individuals have in the process, visit the following site: http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~asap/expanded/gmo/gmo.html.
A very innovative GMO is called “golden rice”. This rice contains more nutrition, more specifically Vitamin A. This product is then sent overseas to Third World countries where both a lack of nutrition and a significant amount of cased pertaining to child blindness are predominant concerns. There are disputes over the rice’s benefits, but progress is being made in aiding those who are in need of our help (via GMO’s). If we are producing such products today, what may the future hold? For more information on the story of “golden rice” visit the following site: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7196.
Visit the following site to read “GMO Labeling: Threat Or Opportunity?”: http://www.agbioforum.org/v1n1/v1n1a07-phillips.htm.
Friday, March 30, 2007
To reduce GHG emissions in your community there are many simple and easy steps:
1. Drive less, and when you do drive, drive moderately. If you are traveling to school, work, or the store, walk or bike instead of driving. If you have to drive, use gradual accelerations and decelerations to reduce fuel and emissions.
2. Use less lighting. If it is a bright day out, open the curtains and utilize what nature has to offer! There is no need for wasting energy.
3. Lower your thermostat in your house. By decreasing your thermostat from, let’s say, 25 degrees Celsius to 23, you can save a great deal of energy (and money!).
(http://envirorentals.com/Topic_of_month/reduceemissions.html)
4. Wash your dishes by hand. Personally, I do this as my household does not have a dishwasher, and it doesn’t take that much time, yet it saves a great deal of energy!
5. Buy Energy Star appliances.
6. Turn off the lights when you leave the room
7. Replace incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent light bulbs, which are much more efficient.
8. If you are considering buying a new vehicle, consider a hybrid one.
9. Combine multiple trips into one; if doing errands, do all of them at once, rather than making several trips.
10. Buy local produce as less fuel is required to transport the goods.
11. Plant trees. Trees serve as a carbon sink and use this carbon in photosynthesis, which yields oxygen for us to breathe.
12. Rake your leaves instead of using a leaf blower.
13. Recycle!! It requires much less energy to recycle a product than to create one from scratch.
(http://www.wikihow.com/Reduce-Your-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions)
1. Drive less, and when you do drive, drive moderately. If you are traveling to school, work, or the store, walk or bike instead of driving. If you have to drive, use gradual accelerations and decelerations to reduce fuel and emissions.
2. Use less lighting. If it is a bright day out, open the curtains and utilize what nature has to offer! There is no need for wasting energy.
3. Lower your thermostat in your house. By decreasing your thermostat from, let’s say, 25 degrees Celsius to 23, you can save a great deal of energy (and money!).
(http://envirorentals.com/Topic_of_month/reduceemissions.html)
4. Wash your dishes by hand. Personally, I do this as my household does not have a dishwasher, and it doesn’t take that much time, yet it saves a great deal of energy!
5. Buy Energy Star appliances.
6. Turn off the lights when you leave the room
7. Replace incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent light bulbs, which are much more efficient.
8. If you are considering buying a new vehicle, consider a hybrid one.
9. Combine multiple trips into one; if doing errands, do all of them at once, rather than making several trips.
10. Buy local produce as less fuel is required to transport the goods.
11. Plant trees. Trees serve as a carbon sink and use this carbon in photosynthesis, which yields oxygen for us to breathe.
12. Rake your leaves instead of using a leaf blower.
13. Recycle!! It requires much less energy to recycle a product than to create one from scratch.
(http://www.wikihow.com/Reduce-Your-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions)
Friday, March 23, 2007
My Footprint
My results from www.myfootprint.org showed that I needed the following hectares for each area of my life: 3.3 hectares for food, 0.2 hectares for mobility, 1.7 hectares for shelter, 2.0 hectares for goods and services. This results in 7.2 hectares being needed. If each person were to require this amount, 4 planets would be needed to provide us with enough land. The average for a Canadian is 8.8 hectares, and so I require quite a bit less than the average Canadian, which is pleasing.
On my “lifestyle” footprint (http://www.takingstock.org/lifestyle.asp), it was determined that I am a F4: Factor 4. The website states the following about F4: “As people reinvent a new kind of quality of life in local communities, true wealth spreads more evenly. The ecological footprint is reduced overall by a factor of four, by combining increased efficiency, better distribution, and zero-waste closed cycle production and consumption”.
I believe I could reduce my ecological footprint by walking more frequently when weather permits. I actually enjoy walking around town when running errands, and so, this will be more environmentally-friendly, and will keep me active. Furthermore, I can put more energy-efficient techniques to use in my home. We have already converted to using fluorescent light bulbs, and I always make sure I turn off the light when I leave the room. Furthermore, we do not own a dishwasher, and so we wash dishes my hand. More techniques to reducing my footprint could be to carpool more, and to run many errands in one trip.
On my “lifestyle” footprint (http://www.takingstock.org/lifestyle.asp), it was determined that I am a F4: Factor 4. The website states the following about F4: “As people reinvent a new kind of quality of life in local communities, true wealth spreads more evenly. The ecological footprint is reduced overall by a factor of four, by combining increased efficiency, better distribution, and zero-waste closed cycle production and consumption”.
I believe I could reduce my ecological footprint by walking more frequently when weather permits. I actually enjoy walking around town when running errands, and so, this will be more environmentally-friendly, and will keep me active. Furthermore, I can put more energy-efficient techniques to use in my home. We have already converted to using fluorescent light bulbs, and I always make sure I turn off the light when I leave the room. Furthermore, we do not own a dishwasher, and so we wash dishes my hand. More techniques to reducing my footprint could be to carpool more, and to run many errands in one trip.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Canadian Carbon Tax
I believe this carbon tax proposal is a magnificent idea. It is my belief that companies and individuals pollute far too much, and there are no consequences for such actions. In addition, some individuals may not recognize how much they pollute. To be quite honest, I would find it fascinating to see how much I personally pollute compared to others.
According to one website, “compliance-based markets” are often run by a third party, such as the government (http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/cl11179). This is essential, especially in the carbon tax proposal because GHG emissions must be monitored and regulated by an unbiased party. For example, the state of California has passed legislation that required the reduction in GHG emissions by law.
Such a carbon credit system would operate very similar to that of the Kyoto Protocol. It would function as a cap-and-trade system; however, there is one exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol). In Canada’s carbon credit system, companies would only be allowed to buy and sale credits with fellow Canadian companies, as to not allow Canadian revenue to go over seas. I believe this system would function very effectively in our country, or in any country for that matter. If a particular company feels the need to excessively pollute, then they must buy credits from other companies; this serves as a great disincentive. On the other side of the spectrum, those companies would pollute less can sell their credits to other companies and make a substantial profit; this serves as a great incentive.
“Under the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism was created as a way of helping industrialized countries, such as Canada, meet their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, while helping developing countries at the same time. Forestry projects known as ‘sinks’ absorb greenhouse gas emissions and if properly designed and implemented, could promote sustainable development in developing countries. Those projects will be able to qualify for carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which investors can earn and use towards their Kyoto targets” (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Campaigns_and_Programs/Climate_Change/News_Releases/newsclimatechange11260302.asp).
Once again, it is my belief that this carbon tax proposal could effectively reduce Canada’s GHG emissions. This would be an excellent idea only if the revenue made from such a system would be redirected to act as an incentive for those who are environmentally friendly; otherwise, it will be yet another tax among many others. This carbon tax system would work very similar to that of North Middlesex’s garbage tag system. For each garbage bag, you must buy a sticker that costs a few dollars; this is a small amount of money, but such a cost is a great disincentive. To meet Canada’s obligation to the Kyoto Protocol, this system would be of great help.
According to one website, “compliance-based markets” are often run by a third party, such as the government (http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/cl11179). This is essential, especially in the carbon tax proposal because GHG emissions must be monitored and regulated by an unbiased party. For example, the state of California has passed legislation that required the reduction in GHG emissions by law.
Such a carbon credit system would operate very similar to that of the Kyoto Protocol. It would function as a cap-and-trade system; however, there is one exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol). In Canada’s carbon credit system, companies would only be allowed to buy and sale credits with fellow Canadian companies, as to not allow Canadian revenue to go over seas. I believe this system would function very effectively in our country, or in any country for that matter. If a particular company feels the need to excessively pollute, then they must buy credits from other companies; this serves as a great disincentive. On the other side of the spectrum, those companies would pollute less can sell their credits to other companies and make a substantial profit; this serves as a great incentive.
“Under the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism was created as a way of helping industrialized countries, such as Canada, meet their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, while helping developing countries at the same time. Forestry projects known as ‘sinks’ absorb greenhouse gas emissions and if properly designed and implemented, could promote sustainable development in developing countries. Those projects will be able to qualify for carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which investors can earn and use towards their Kyoto targets” (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Campaigns_and_Programs/Climate_Change/News_Releases/newsclimatechange11260302.asp).
Once again, it is my belief that this carbon tax proposal could effectively reduce Canada’s GHG emissions. This would be an excellent idea only if the revenue made from such a system would be redirected to act as an incentive for those who are environmentally friendly; otherwise, it will be yet another tax among many others. This carbon tax system would work very similar to that of North Middlesex’s garbage tag system. For each garbage bag, you must buy a sticker that costs a few dollars; this is a small amount of money, but such a cost is a great disincentive. To meet Canada’s obligation to the Kyoto Protocol, this system would be of great help.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
A Little TOO "Inconvenient"?
After seeing An Inconvenient Truth, I am now aware of how much our world has changed over the last century – whether it was natural or anthropogenic. Nonetheless, our world has increased in both temperature and carbon dioxide emissions. I concur with Al Gore that an immediate resolve must be met to ensure Earth’s survival, and therefore, human kind’s survival. The overall message is very important and everyone should hear it, as it affects everyone on Earth; however, there were a few parts I did not necessarily agree with. Some of the predictions presented in the movie seemed to be too drastic, and it would be impossible to see (with the naked eye) differences in atmospheric gases in the ice cores over a mere couple of years. Nevertheless, I agree with Al Gore that global warming is an imminent threat to our world and that we must set plans in motion to alleviate the effects of the last century of significant pollution. Whether the increase in temperature and carbon dioxide is nature or anthropogenic, reducing green house gas emissions leads to beneficial results.
The first website that supports An Inconvenient Truth is RealClimate at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/. There are eleven climate scientists that maintain this website. It provides a well-balanced critique of An Inconvenient Truth. They believe it is a very effective and well-researched movie, while noting a few small errors as well. They try to be unbiased on their website, and I believe they are successful in doing so. They appear to be up-to-date on their knowledge and educated in the field. The author collaborates his ideas with his colleagues to get a wider view from the scientific community.
The second website is Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth. Wikipedia provides an overview of An Inconvenient Truth, as well as scientific research from external sources, such as the first website RealClimate. In addition to scientific proof, Wikipedia also provides clarification on some unclear points in the movie, such as the confusion between the drastic increase in ocean levels due to glacier’s breaking off and the less drastic increase in ocean levels due to gradual melting.
The first website that criticizes An Inconvenient Truth is http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=. This website uses documents like the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to support his criticism. It is apparent that this Panel came to less drastic predictions of the expected increase in ocean levels. Furthermore, the author also uses a piece of literature to provide support that the Arctic’s recent acceleration in ice loss has been reversed.
The second website that criticizes the movie is http://blog.nam.org/archives/2006/05/an_inconvenient.php. It provides references to other scientific research that has refuted Gore’s predictions. They also refer to other websites, such as blogs, where it is evident that not everybody agrees with Gore’s claims. The website agrees with some of the facts that Gore uses, but claim these facts do not support his claims, as some these facts are irrelevant to his claims.
I believe that the “docuganda” line is a very thin one. I believe that this movie is a very educational and well-researched movie, and it provides scientific proof to support Gore’s claims, and is therefore a documentary. However, in some ways An Inconvenient Truth is a docuganda because the impression one gets from watching Gore talk is that you are either in agreement with him or look like a fool to some degree because of the “proof” he provides. It is my belief that this movie is indeed a docuganda to some degree because of some of the unsupported and misrepresented claims. However! I believe it is a very beneficial and educational docuganda. Even if it is a docuganda, does that make it so bad? I believe that this movie conveys the message that Gore wanted to send and at the same time grabs the attention of the viewer to invoke change. Therefore, if this movie is a docuganda to some degree, it is well warranted.
The first website that supports An Inconvenient Truth is RealClimate at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/. There are eleven climate scientists that maintain this website. It provides a well-balanced critique of An Inconvenient Truth. They believe it is a very effective and well-researched movie, while noting a few small errors as well. They try to be unbiased on their website, and I believe they are successful in doing so. They appear to be up-to-date on their knowledge and educated in the field. The author collaborates his ideas with his colleagues to get a wider view from the scientific community.
The second website is Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth. Wikipedia provides an overview of An Inconvenient Truth, as well as scientific research from external sources, such as the first website RealClimate. In addition to scientific proof, Wikipedia also provides clarification on some unclear points in the movie, such as the confusion between the drastic increase in ocean levels due to glacier’s breaking off and the less drastic increase in ocean levels due to gradual melting.
The first website that criticizes An Inconvenient Truth is http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=. This website uses documents like the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to support his criticism. It is apparent that this Panel came to less drastic predictions of the expected increase in ocean levels. Furthermore, the author also uses a piece of literature to provide support that the Arctic’s recent acceleration in ice loss has been reversed.
The second website that criticizes the movie is http://blog.nam.org/archives/2006/05/an_inconvenient.php. It provides references to other scientific research that has refuted Gore’s predictions. They also refer to other websites, such as blogs, where it is evident that not everybody agrees with Gore’s claims. The website agrees with some of the facts that Gore uses, but claim these facts do not support his claims, as some these facts are irrelevant to his claims.
I believe that the “docuganda” line is a very thin one. I believe that this movie is a very educational and well-researched movie, and it provides scientific proof to support Gore’s claims, and is therefore a documentary. However, in some ways An Inconvenient Truth is a docuganda because the impression one gets from watching Gore talk is that you are either in agreement with him or look like a fool to some degree because of the “proof” he provides. It is my belief that this movie is indeed a docuganda to some degree because of some of the unsupported and misrepresented claims. However! I believe it is a very beneficial and educational docuganda. Even if it is a docuganda, does that make it so bad? I believe that this movie conveys the message that Gore wanted to send and at the same time grabs the attention of the viewer to invoke change. Therefore, if this movie is a docuganda to some degree, it is well warranted.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
"January is Warmest on Record" Response (Feb. 20)
The NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Their website is www.noaa.gov/.
The Goldilocks Effect is the term applied to the comparison between Earth, Venus, and Mars with respect to atmospheric gases. On Earth, 99% of atmospheric gas is nitrogen and oxygen; the remaining 1% are greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane. On Earth, there is the right amount of greenhouse gases to allow life to survive. However, on Venus and Mars there are too little, or too much, greenhouse gases to sustain life. Therefore, Venus is too hot, Mars is too cold, and Earth is right in the middle; hence the term, the Goldilocks Effect (named after the childhood story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears). The website from which I received this information is: http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_1_2_1t.htm.
As convincing as this article is, it is impossible to determine if global warming is the culprit behind the increase temperature around the world. It is my belief, and therefore my bias, that greenhouse gas emission is causing the drastic increase in temperature. However, some may find it hard to believe that such a short time of environmental damage could cause such an impact on our Earth. Nevertheless, this article should be taken seriously as our environment, and our Earth, is standing in the balance.
More research must be conducted to conclude whether or not the emission of greenhouse gases is causing this increase. The information and the statistics are very persuasive, but one must ask oneself: Could this not just be an anomaly in atmospheric conditions that occurs once every few hundred years?
Therefore, it is my belief that we should implement measures to alleviate the effects of global warming, whether it is global warming or not that is causing this increase. No matter what, a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions could not hurt, and so, we should start being considerate of our environment today. We do not want our foolish actions today to jeopardize our future. Although the only way to know if global warming is causing this increase is for us to wait and collect data over future years or even decades, we should help eradicate greenhouse gas emissions as a precaution if nothing else.
The article that is being described in this blog, January is the Warmest on Record, is from the website: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070216_jan07highest_temps.html
The Goldilocks Effect is the term applied to the comparison between Earth, Venus, and Mars with respect to atmospheric gases. On Earth, 99% of atmospheric gas is nitrogen and oxygen; the remaining 1% are greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane. On Earth, there is the right amount of greenhouse gases to allow life to survive. However, on Venus and Mars there are too little, or too much, greenhouse gases to sustain life. Therefore, Venus is too hot, Mars is too cold, and Earth is right in the middle; hence the term, the Goldilocks Effect (named after the childhood story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears). The website from which I received this information is: http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_1_2_1t.htm.
As convincing as this article is, it is impossible to determine if global warming is the culprit behind the increase temperature around the world. It is my belief, and therefore my bias, that greenhouse gas emission is causing the drastic increase in temperature. However, some may find it hard to believe that such a short time of environmental damage could cause such an impact on our Earth. Nevertheless, this article should be taken seriously as our environment, and our Earth, is standing in the balance.
More research must be conducted to conclude whether or not the emission of greenhouse gases is causing this increase. The information and the statistics are very persuasive, but one must ask oneself: Could this not just be an anomaly in atmospheric conditions that occurs once every few hundred years?
Therefore, it is my belief that we should implement measures to alleviate the effects of global warming, whether it is global warming or not that is causing this increase. No matter what, a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions could not hurt, and so, we should start being considerate of our environment today. We do not want our foolish actions today to jeopardize our future. Although the only way to know if global warming is causing this increase is for us to wait and collect data over future years or even decades, we should help eradicate greenhouse gas emissions as a precaution if nothing else.
The article that is being described in this blog, January is the Warmest on Record, is from the website: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070216_jan07highest_temps.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
