BP Wins U.S. Approval for First Drilling Plan Since Macondo

Eric Hernandez 11/10/2011

"BP Wins U.S. Approval for First Drilling Plan Since Macondo"

The purpose of this presentation was to further look into the topic of energy, in this case I focused on petroleum. This article caught my attention because I had a flashback to the one of the most horrific oil spills in U.S. history caused by British Petroleum. The idea that the after year and a half, the united states has given permission to BP to do deep-ocean oil drilling in the gulf coast is quite a surprise. The article gives a brief overview of the approved  oil-drilling that is going to happen and very interesting facts about it. According the article, BP has vowed to overachieve the current safety regulations set by the United States Government. Many environmentalist are outraged because the oil spill still lingers in the gulf today and BP should completely mend the gulf until it is given another project. Ultimately, gasoline has been the primary energy source of CO2 emissions and on top of it, its extraction process is prone to disasters. 

Discussion questions

Should BP still be allowed to drill in our shores even after the causing the biggest spill in the countries history?

Should the US implement heavier restrictions on BP considering it caused the massive oil spill?

Looking back the topic of energy, our dependence on oil for a couple centuries, there is so much trouble that  petroleum brings whether oils spills and co2 emissions? Is smart to move to cleaner energy?

Link To The Article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/21/bloomberg_articlesLTFFN16S972L.DTL

Additional Links http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/photogalleries/100608-gulf-oil-spill-environment-birds-animals-pictures/#/gulf-oil-spill-killing-wildlife-laughing-gull_21359_600x450.jpg

Charlotte's News Report

Charlotte Kamai, November 8^th, 2011

“Bracing for a Bullfrog Invasion”

How Climate Change Affects Biodiversity

The purpose of my news report was to link the class’ current material about biodiversity to what we previously studied: climate change. I found out that climate change has begun to seriously alter the migration patterns of different animals throughout the world, which in turn affects many other species. The American Bullfrog is endemic to the US and Canada. As an amphibian it relies “on external temperatures, moisture levels, [and] rainfall to regulate [its] own conditions”. The article discusses how even the slightest of changes in the bullfrog’s environment, especially in terms of temperature, will cause the species to move. With recent climate change in North America, the bullfrog has already begun to move south and invade Argentina and Paraguay. This is not preferred in those areas, but the most recent predictions are even more frightening. They will soon enter parts of northern Brazil, southeastern Colombia, eastern Peru and southern Venezuela.  The main concern about this is that the bullfrog will invade the Atlantic Forest in Brazil, “a biodiversity hotspot in tropical South America.” Bullfrogs are very adaptable creatures, so they thrive in almost every location. If they are allowed to live in the Atlantic Forest they will slowly push out the native species by causing new competition for resources, increasing predation (bullfrogs eat literally almost everything), and spreading new diseases. The bullfrog species will slowly take over and destroy the biodiversity of the area, possibly causing the extinction of hundreds of species that exist nowhere else in the world.

1.     Would you suggest using resources to kill the frogs, or is that just a temporary fix to a larger problem?

2.     Scientists suggest allocating money to study other species and where the climate might push them. Is this a useful way to spend money?

3.     How important is this issue today? Should biodiversity hotspots be protected and other areas ignored?

4.     Is maintaining biodiversity more or less important than bringing an end to climate change? Are they interconnected?

Additional Info:

This is also happening in the oceans; for 14 millions years king crabs lived in one part of the waters but recently over 1 million moved deep into the Antarctic shelf, destroying a lot of life. Scientists have also found that many different plant and animal species are actually moving away from the equator, at a rate of eight inches per hour. These show that the bullfrogs are not an isolated event.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mvV8OT-mmE

http://www.globalissues.org/article/172/climate-change-affects-biodiversity

Link to article:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/bracing-for-a-bullfrog-invasion/#more-120831

Carbon Recycling -

Jane Cavagnero, November 4th, 2011.

Purpose:

The purpose of my presentation was expose the class to a new technology that I personally believe has a very promising future. Carbon recycling is one of the few carbon negative technologies around and instead of just reducing carbon emissions it is taking the carbon dioxide out of the air and turning back into fuel to be reused. It is done with the power of the sun, it takes in the CO2 and is mixed with water at very high temperatures until the carbon and the hydrogen bond to create Syngas. The article I found through National Geographics explained how this biomimicry of photosynthesis could soon become a reliable alternative once it is made more affordable. There are still several issues that need to be addressed with this technology: the fact that it needs a substantial amount of water to function, this does not encourage people to change their habits and this way the amount of carbon emissions is not reduced whatsoever.

Discussion Questions:

Where do you guys stand on this issue, how important do you think it is? And do you think it is worth the money to continue developing this technology?

A potential issue with this is the use of water, which is a limited resource, with an already high demand in water, would it be a good idea to depend on it for fuel as well?

Another issue is that the cars are still releasing the same amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, so this plan would have to go hand in hand with the reduction of carbon dioxide in other realms. In general, do you think it is more important to reduce of current carbon emissions or to take out the abundance of carbon from the atmosphere?

Additional Information:

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/recycleco2.aspx

Links:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/08/110811-turning-carbon-emissions-into-fuel/

http://www.cereplast.com/carbon-recycling-an-effective-way-to-reduce-carbon-dioxide-emissions-and-convert-them-into-renewable-fuel-sources/

Water Transfer Program: Using Water from Idled Farmland

1. Claire Fox, 11/4/11
2. Purpose: The purpose of my presentation was to describe and shed light on the water transfer program happening in Southern California. A limited water supply is a huge issue our country and state faces today and learning about what is being done by the government to address this issue is very important. I wanted to show through the new york times article the dilemma that farmers are facing in California today. They can either choose to stop farming for a period of time and earn money or keep farming regularly. I thought that the whole "moral" dilemma of the water transfer program is very interesting and I wanted to show that through presenting the pros and cons of the program to the class.
Discussion Questions:

1. What is your opinion on the water transfer program? Do you think the negative effects outweigh the positive or vice versa?

2.  Do you agree with the farmers that the principle of selling water for profit is unsettling? Why or why not?

3. The end of the article said that economists believe water markets could help fix the uneven distribution of water in the west? Do you think that this program or programs like this have the ability to change the way water is distributed throughout the country?

Additional Research: http://www.imperialgroup.info/PDF/IMPPolicyRelease.pdf

Link to NY Times Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/science/earth/24water.html?pagewanted=all

Ben's News Report

Ben Miller – Overpopulation and its effects on the environment

Purpose: For my news report, I wanted to convey how overpopulation is one of the largest environmental problems and needs to be dealt with quickly. I did this by showing a video that emphasized human’s exponential population growth and also by showing that developing countries are the biggest contributors to overpopulation and overconsumption of resources. My perspective was that we should start encouraging foreign governments to regulate population to two kids per household or less in developing countries. Also we should advocate for family planning and putting a price on carbon.

Discussion Questions:

-       Given the scale of this challenge, what should we be doing today? Or how can we best prepare for this future?

-       Should we make laws to reduce population or should we reduce consumption? If so, how?

-       Since much of the problem in consumption and population lies with developing countries, is it fair for the US to expect the people of China or India to consume less than we do?

Additional Info:

- While the population stays relatively the same for more developed countries, less developed countries have shown to have a much higher rate, and are the main cause of over population.

- An increase in population at our current rate means several unwanted consequences for the future:

-       Food consumption - To meet the projected global food demand, farmers will need to increase production by 70 – 100 % by 2025

-       Land conversion: In order to keep producing food and expand agriculture, it means increasing water and energy use, but also converting more land and forests into farming ground.

-       Energy consumption is projected to increase 150% by 2035, with the greatest growth in developing countries

-       Fisheries are becoming increasingly overexploited or depleted

-       Accelerated rate of water use

Sources/links:

-       http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/562 - (Used real magazine)

-       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_9SutNmfFk

-       Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation PowerPoint – “State of the Environment Board” PowerPoint on Overpopulation and its effects

Jen's News Report

Jennifer Katz, October 26, 2011

 

The Ford E-Bike

Purpose: The Ford E-Bike is a new innovation by Ford that uses magnetostriction technology used in Formula One racecars that combines manpower with electric power. The vehicle is lightweight and uses a bike frame, gets up to a 52 mile radius on one charge (which costs about $00.10). It has a range up to 85 km/hr and is especially appealing for people who want to be eco-friendly on their commute but don't want to be sweaty from biking. Since 61% of car journeys by car only contain one person, and the average speed of traffic in cities such as NYC and London is only 9mph, this sort fo technology could offer a more efficient and faster way to commute. Although this is just a proto-type, the projected worlwide sales of 2-wheel electric vehicles is expected to top 460 million units from 2010-2016. This is a really cool innovation that could indicate the future of green transportation.

Discussion Questions:

Should Ford build the E-Bike for the public to buy?

Would you use it? Why/Why not?

How does this compare to a regular car? A bike? A motorcycle? Is it better or worse?

More Info/Links I used:

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=35270
http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/09/ford-develops-bike-concept/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TriplePundit+%28Triple+Pundit%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/43316
http://www.thefordstory.com/our-articles/technologies/green/ford-debuts-its-first-ever-e-bike/