Nick Edmonds’ Environmental Science Blog

Cars are the second largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the world, and with the population of humans constantly increasing, cars are being built at a higher rate than ever before. People cannot refuse advances in technology, and as long as car company continue to create gas guzzling cars with low fuel efficiency and high emission rates, people will have nothing to do but buy what is available. It is up to the car companies to think of ways to build cars with lower carbon dioxide emissions. However, these car companies have been reluctant to change their ways, blind to the fact that change is an absolute necessity if we plan on keeping the earth alive.

Big car companies such as Ford and GM are not trying to create more environmentally friendly cars because their main priority is money. Multiple people who were interviewed in Heat stated that the most important thing to their company is their shareholders. The shareholders demand that the company create as much money as possible. These companies, looking for the sustainability of their own business rather then the environment, continue to build new gasoline cars because they are selling in large numbers and they know that people will continue to buy them. Also, they believe that the company will lose too much money if they begin to try making new alternative energy vehicles. They say that research on alternate fuel sources will take away work hours that can be used working on cars that are already making lots of money. Also, as we’ve researched earlier in the year, electric cars cost more to create than normal gas cars.

California has always been a leader in the advancement of better fuel efficiency and has always tried to think of new ways to clean the environment. California is one of the biggest car using states. Therefore, they have a say in what should come out of the car. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been a strong fighter for better fuel economy and said that he said that the standards in California would be 42.5 miles per gallon. Schwarzenegger has crushed 20,000 gas-guzzling cars every year, drastically lowering carbon dioxide emissions in California. He also promised that greenhouse gases will be cut by 90% by the year 2050.

California tried to get more states on board in their fight for better fuel efficiency and higher standards. However, without the approval of EPA, the standards were unable to turn to law. Also, car companies lobbied to places such as EPA, Congress, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, saying that the new standard would cripple several car businesses that are currently a cornerstone of the nation’s economy. If a law could not be made for Schwarzenegger’s idealistic standards, his ideas would be nothing more than empty promises.

Unable to handle the pressure from the public, car companies have begun projects for creating environmentally friendly electric cars. This looks like a very good alternate for gasoline, but like all alternatives, there are both pros as well as cons. Electric cars drastically lower emission rates. If every car was powered by electricity, there would be far less carbon dioxide emitted into the environment. However, companies and their customers are reluctant to accept electric cars due to their price. Electric cars cost more to produce and therefore cost more on the market. Also, we still need lots of time to work out the kinks in the electric car technology, as seen in the documentary, where the car could barely get up a small hill, and died out a few minutes later.

Before humans, predators ruled the wild, taking advantage of their superior size and speed to dominate smaller creatures. The ancient role of predators has always been to control the size of other animals’ population. When man first began living with large predators, they were constantly fighting for the top spot in the ecosystem. However, due to superior brain capacity, humans were able to create tools and weapons that could kill predators, thus making humans the new leaders of the wild. Today, man is taking a harmful advantage of their advanced technology, no longer hunting animals for necessity, but rather we are killing off thousands of animals just for sport. One example of this naivete is the killing of wolves.

Humans fear that wolves live too close to their neighborhoods and are worried that they will harm citizens. For this reason, humans are killing wolves in defense when really the threat is completely in their minds. Humans, however, are unaware that every organism in an ecosystem is essential to the system’s survival, especially a keystone predator like a wolf. Humans have now killed too many wolves, and the entire ecosystem is suffering the consequences.

When a wolf kills an animal for food, it is not just feeding itself and the other pack members. One wolf’s kill in fact feeds hundreds of organisms. When the wolves are done with the carcass, scavengers such as crows come and eat the remaining meat. Even lower down the food chain, insects such as flies are able to feed upon the rotting meat several days after the initial kill.

Another problem caused by a lack of wolves in the ecosystem is the overpopulation of the wolves’ prey, such as elk. Without wolves to control the population, elk are able to roam free and multiply as much as they want. This overpopulation leads to the elk eating too much vegetation, seen in such places as Yellowstone Park. There has recently been a lack of trees in Yellowstone and scientists believe that it is due to a lack of wolves in the park. Without wolves, elk can eat as much vegetation as they please and eventually kill several plants. Another victim of wolves being killed, are beavers. Beavers need the branches that the elk are excessively eating in order to build their dams.

Despite all of these problems from lack of wolves, there would still be grave problems if wolves were to return to their full population in areas such as Yellowstone, where there are people are living nearby. People still fear that wolves will be living too close to their homes, as one woman described that a pack of wolves devoured an elk right in her own backyard. If wolves were to return, history may sadly repeat itself in that people’s fear of great predators will get to their heads and they will want to kill them off once again.

As keystone predators, wolves play a massive role in an ecosystem, and there must be a sustainable amount of them in order to maintain the populations of the rest of the ecosystem’s organisms. Humans must see the bigger picture and accept that wolves, like all other creatures, must be a part of our lives so that we can all live together in one great ecosystem that is Earth.

     Like many other Americans, I always used to ask myself “If hybrid cars are so much better for the environment and get so many more miles to the gallon, why aren’t the streets filled with them?”  It was not until recently that I found out that such a simple question could not be asked about such a complex problem. 

     As fuel efficient hybrids are, many people still believe that the money saved on gas over time, does not outweigh the fact that the car’s initial price is more expensive than a normal gasoline-powered vehicle.  The average hybrid car’s initial price ranges from $19,000 to $25,000.  These hybrids cost about $8,000 more than the average gasoline-powered sedan.  If it is assumed that the average driver drives 12,000 miles a year, with gas being $4 per gallon, you would have to drive that hybrid for just under thirty years to make up the money that you lost by buying a Prius instead of an Aveo.  The prius is $10,040 more than the Aveo.  The prius saves $345.10 each year in fuel efficiency.  To make up the $10,040, one would need to drive their Prius for 29.1 years, quite the unlikely time length for keeping one car.  So if you are buying a car simply on saving money, the Aveo is the better choice. 

    However, sacrifices must be made in order to protect the environment.  We must ask ourselves if we are willing to pay the extra money in order to preserve the environment for our prosterity.  The hybrid has a lower emmisions rate and does not depend on gasoline.  Even though they still use a gas motor, one of the car’s two motors, it is not fully dependent on gasoline.  The two-motor system has its downfall in that it the hybrid is more likely to break down.  Hybrids also need more money for maintenance, needing to change the electric battery throughout the year.

The fact that the world’s supply of oil is limited is undeniable, and the need for an alternate energy source is quickly approaching.  Our dependence on international oil has crippled America’s economy.  If a new and sustainable source of energy can be found, we will now longer have to rely on other countries or pay ridiculous gas prices. 

 Booze Into Biogas-  In Sweden, customs officials use confiscated alcohol to create a biogas by combining the drinks.  This biogas has been powerful enough to power buses and trains.  If we bring this energy idea to America, we can use the alcohol biogas to power our cars and no longer use gasoline.

Diapers Into Diesel-  Scientists have discovered that you can create “cost-effective, synthetic diesel fuel” by burning diapers.  Around 30,000 tons of diapers can anually be transformed into over 10,000 tons of diesel fuel at fifty cents per liter.  This has brought up the question, “Why don’t we burn all landfill materials into fuel.”  Scientists fear the inconsistency of the items in the landfill.  There is no doubt that diapers will be the same each time.  This energy source is even better for the environment becuase there are zero emissions. 

Waves in the Water- One man invented a way to remove the hydrogen and oxygen from saltwater using radio waves.  The man was originally using the radio waves to try to kill cancer cells.  This invention can lead to steam engines and turbines and can be an extremely clean replacement for gasoline in cars.

Garbage Into Gas- When garbage decomposes, it produces methane gas, which can be used as a fuel source.  By using the methane as a fuel source, we can prevent just burning the methane to prevent an excess.  We can kill two birds with one stone with this process: We can get rid of landfills and become independent of oil.

Veggies Into Vehicles- One man has converted his car to run on vegetable oil instead of gasoline.  He has already traveled 300 miles for just $3.  This stuns me the most.  With this evidence, how can we still say we need oil.  But then again, would vegetable oil just become the next crude oil?  If everyone wanted vegetable oil to run their cars, coundn’t they just raise the price of vegetable oil?

Grounds Into Gas- Through the process of gasification, you can use your old coffee grounds can be converted into a burnable fuel. 

Why Wood?- Some people think we should use wood to power vehicles.  Although it would make us less dependent on oil, it is not exactly the most environmentally friendly alternative.  I’m pretty sure that burning wood for energy is a step backwards in time.

http://ecoble.com

For Decades, Congress has been trying to gain the right to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.  However, the proposals have always been rejected due to the Eisenhower administrations wishes to “preserve unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values”(.   But with demands for oil and gas prices both higher than ever, there is a good chance that the proposal will finally be passed.   

The main reason that drills have yet to enter the refuge is the presence of wildlife.  Many refuge supports say that that the land is too valuable to the environment to be drilled.  The land is home to many animals, such as the porcupine caribou, whose populations are decreasing due to the fact that there are not many places left for them to live. 

The real question is, “Is there enough beauty in the land to keep the drills from penetrating the Alaskan soil.”  People such as Senator Jim Talent believe that we have the rights as a country to take oil from anywhere within the borders of our nation.  Personally, I believe that we must look out for the greater benefit of the country as a whole, and that means drilling the oil.  Although it may mean that some animals would have to be moved, I think that drilling will produce great benefits for humankind.  The people living in the area have just gotten flushing toilets and running water in the year 2000 so it is clear that their way of life will benefit from drilling.  Actually, many senators agreed that the area is a “barren wasteland,” with minimal wildlife and next to no trees around.  If that is not enough, local eskimo, Fenton Rexford said, “. . .it is, you know, barren. There’s no animals — hardly any animals there in wintertime.”  I believed that drilling would mean a decrease in the demand and price of oil.  However, Eleanor Huffines explains, “. . .at peak production in 20 years at best it will only reduce the price of gas by about a penny. And our imported oil will still be above 60 percent.”  I believe that as a people, we must look out for the well-being of our own society, and there is currently an oil crisis.  Currently, there is not an alternate energy source sustainable enough that we can replace it with oil.  Therefore, I think that we must begin drilling.