Hybrid Buses

This may not be news to some people, but the other day I was going on a walk and I was surprised to see a hybrid bus. I had seen the blue/green buses around town before but I'd never taken the time to read the side. They are hybrids, running on a diesel/electrical blend the buses are surprisingly fuel efficient and environmentally friendly (at least in comparison to their non-hybrid counterparts). Picture below:

I had never heard of a hybrid bus before, but I think it is a fabulous idea. Not only does it mix the standard fuel efficiency of public transportation with low cost, it also adds in the extra bonus of lower emissions and less gas consumption. According to the website:

• The battery is located on the top of the vehicle, towards the back, and can generate enough power to completely sustain the bus at speeds around 10 miles per hour and lower. This may seem like a small contribution, but buses make a lot of slow stops and starts, and that is when this battery comes into play.
• The braking system is a fairly new technology called, "regenerative breaking" where the traction is actually harnessed to help recharge the battery and helps the bus slow down much quicker than the leading traditional diesel-only bus.
• The bus is suspected to save over 35 thousand gallons of fuel over its 12 year life expectancy.
• Over the 12 years, the bus is expected to emit 352 tons less carbon dioxide. 

Currently in Spokane, WA there are nine hybrid buses. The first bus was introduced in October of 2007 and the Spokane Transit Authority is looking to go even greener in the future. 

And on a broader scale, it turns out that green buses have been in use all around the nation since the early 2000s. With almost 400 of them delivered to New York, New York in 2005 and 214 to Seattle, Washington. Across the nation, dozens of cities have turned to cleaner energy for their public transportation. 

And its a good thing too, because according to the EESI, 60% of the transit trips taken in the US every year are by bus, 84% of which are powered by diesel engines. The EESI website also says that the buses can emit up to 75% less greenhouse gases when used effectively, and have the lowest carbon dioxide emission rating of all vehicles in its class. As an added bonus, the buses also have a much smoother acceleration, have a much quieter engine, and an extended break life.

Any way you look at it, hybrid buses are a great idea and an excellent option for public transportation. They have been proven to have lower emission rates, fuel consumptions, and even cost over some bus models. I hope that this technology will catch on even more, and that within a few years there are no non-hybrid buses. Here's to a greener future...

- Amber 

Hiking

This past weekend, Morgan and I went for a hike up Mt. Spokane. Although the temperatures were close to freezing, and the trails were covered with snow and ice- we had a lot of fun. So, for today's article I decided that I will share some of my pictures of the great out of doors, as opposed to talking about current news in the environmental community. Because why are we rallying for better emission standards and smaller carbon footprints? To protect the Earth, to protect nature, and to protect future generations. That is why it is so important to get outside and enjoy nature. Not only does going on hikes and walks outside give you a chance to take in the world around you, but it is also good for your health; and may help promote the protection of wildlife and national parks so that you can continue these activities!

Here we are, Amber on the Left and Morgan on the Right.

As I said, the hike was a lot of fun and a great way to spend a weekend. Mt. Spokane is a fairly short distance away from our house, so in less than an hour we were out the door and on the mountain. We hiking 2 miles each direction, and weather permitting we would have gone even farther. We are already chomping at the bit for all of the snow and ice to melt so that we can go on more hiking and camping trips. National parks and wildlife reserves are there for a reason, and you should get out and enjoy them! 

- Amber

This Week, Summarized

Yes, I know that I forgot to write my article on the correct day again. It is obvious that I have failed the 'post your articles' on time challenge, but I think that the paper towel challenge went very well. I did quite a bit of research on paper towels and the cloth alternate, and shared some of that information with you. Amber and I used 5 paper towels this week, which is a lot less than what is normal for me. We have cloth rags in our kitchen that before now, I never really used. This week, I wiped up more messes with the cloth rags than with paper towels. The only times that I actually used paper towels was to clean up beans in the microwave, and when making sandwiches. I will continue to reduce the number of paper towels that I use, and try to wean myself off of using paper towels entirely.

Also this week, we are finishing off our one month vegetarian challenge. I cannot believe that it has actually been an entire month without meat! The change was surprisingly easy and I didn't face any difficulties. There has been no significant change in the vitamins that I have been getting, so I do not feel any different health-wise, than I did before the challenge. I do feel that not eating meat is a very easy thing to do, and very healthy as well. I would encourage anyone to try a month off meat to see how they feel about it. At the beginning of the month, I was very intimidated about having a while 30 days with no meat. I thought that it would stretch on forever. Now, I am actually kind of sad that the month is over. I am not sure yet whether or not I will become a full time vegetarian or not. Knowing what I know now about how bad meat is for our planet, I think that I would feel bad to eat it when there is tofu and other options out there.

And so, I think that I will have those fish sticks that Amber has been craving, and I am kind of intimidated to eat a steak or hamburger after so long. I don't that meat has the same appeal as it did when I started the challenge. Not only because I will bad about the environmental aspects, but also because of the health aspects. And, the smell and texture of meat are not as appealing as they used to be. I know that I will not eat meat nearly as often; I will continue to experiment with and eat tofu, I will eat vegi-burgers instead of hamburger ones, etc.

The tofu meals, and favorite vegetarian meals of this month would be:

• Our first official tofu meal - tofudogs, fried tofu, stuffed tofu bell peppers, creamed spinach and curry burritos, vegetarian chili and pastas, pumpkin ravioli, rotini pasta with beans, lots of quesadillas, and tons of delicious fresh fruit.

The one thing that I must point out about this whole month that is probably the funniest, is that not once did we have a salad! I used to eat salad quite frequently, but over this whole month I didn't eat any!

Well, the week is over, and so is the month. We are now officially 1/12 of the way done through our big one year challenge, and I am feeling pretty good about it. Amber and I have learned a lot about how we can make a difference already, and are excited to learn more. I feel really good to know that I have already reduced my carbon footprint so much. It is one thing to care about the environment, and it is another thing to actually do something about it. We are doing something about it, and it feels great. 

I look forward to telling you about our first experiences with meat and how my tastes have changed - I know that I am curious. 

-Morgan

Vegetarians No More

As our month comes to a close on the eve of tonight: Sunday, February 21, Morgan and I are no longer required to remain vegetarian under the parameters of our challenge. It is hard to believe that it has already been one month... and just to take a look back at the progress we've made, here are some statistics regarding our ever shrinking carbon footprint:

According to the New York Times, the average American eats roughly 200 pounds of meat in a year, or roughly 0.55 pounds per day. So, by Morgan and I (two people) abstaining from meat for one month (30 days), we saved around 33 pounds of meat.

Just to put that in perspective for you, the production of that meat would have emitted enough greenhouse gases to power an SUV for 1,320 miles. And according to Goveg.com, each pound of meat requires 5000 gallons of water to produce; meaning that Morgan and I saved 165,000 gallons of water in only one month's time. The equivalent of not showering for 33 years!

As far as our shortened showers go, federal regulations dictate that a new shower head not use more than 2.5 gallons of water per minute. Assuming that we have a new shower head (which I believe we do), that our showers before this month were around 15 minutes in length, and that now our average shower time is more in the realm of 5-10 minutes, that means in only one month we saved, between the two of us, about 1,200 gallons of water!

I'm not sure how to calculate our cut backs based on reduced use of electricity, turning off the tap while brushing our teeth, or hand-washing dishes, but I'm sure that the combined reduction is great in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and water usage. One thing is for certain, we are making great progress in our new green lifestyle, and we have decided to continue vegetarianism as a trend, allowing leeway for the occasional family dinner.

When we first began our vegetarian challenge one month ago, I thought I would have some difficulties abstaining from meat. But to be honest with you, I didn't think twice about meat (with the exception of those fish sticks). Going vegetarian was easy, inexpensive, and delicious. It was a chance for me to reduce my carbon footprint, do my part for the planet, develop a healthier lifestyle, and improve my culinary skills. I can only hope that after reading an honest account of how easy it is to become vegetarian, that you feel a little inspired to try it yourself. I would not ask anybody to give up meat entirely, but even not eating meat for one day a week saves 0.55 pounds of meat and 2,750 gallons of water.

Remember that you can always make a difference, and that reducing your carbon footprint is not as daunting a task as it sounds. Good luck with your own challenges.

- Amber

The Copenhagen Accord

Sorry I didn't post yesterday. After Morgan posted last night, the internet went down! ...But here is the article I was going to have up for yesterday:


In 2007, a leading Scandinavian had the brain child that became the Copenhagen Climate Council. The purpose of the council is to increase awareness, and stress the importance of the UN Climate Summit (COP15); and is comprised of 30 global climate leaders, from scientists to policy makers and business leaders. You could say, in layman's terms, that the council met as a practice run for COP15 in order to practice their arguments and better prepare for the upcoming UN meeting.

After the Copenhagen Climate Council conference, the leaders went to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference where they fought for stricter emission standards, and managed to pass the Copenhagen Accord, although by no means unanimously. The key idea of the Accord was to keep global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius, and this proposal was not taken lightly. Many countries remain very resistant towards climate regulations, but here are some of the promises that other large nations made:

• Australia: cut carbon emissions by 15 to 25% by 2020
• Canada: cut carbon emissions by 20% by 2020
• China: cut CO2 emissions by 40-45% by 2020
• European Union: cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020 (with Germany agreeing to reduce emissions by 40%)
• Mexico: reduce emissions by 50% by 2050
• Russia: reduce emissions by 10-15% by 2020, or 20-25% based on the Kyoto Protocol
• United States: cut emissions by 17% by the year 2020

As you can see from some of the other major nations pledges, the United States is certainly falling behind. Even large, rapidly industrializing nations such as China have pledged more than us. The only country that would like to do less than the United States is Russia, and even they agreed to up their efforts if a long term global effort is agreed upon. I know that we are making a definite step in the right direction by even supporting the Copenhagen Accord in this country, but it is obvious by other nations efforts that we could do so much more. That is all for day- I have some hiking to do. (I posted some excerpts form the actual treaty below).

- Amber

Excerpts from the Copenhagen Treaty Below:

1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change. We recognize the critical impacts of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects and stress the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation programme including international support.

3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy- wide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.

12. We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015, including in light of the Conventionís ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

[thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COP15 for the information on the COP15 council meeting, and to http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf for the actual Copenhagen Accord text].

Paper towels & Fish

I have unfortunately already failed one challenge this week, and that is the posting articles on time challenge. This article is a day late unfortunately. I got caught up in watching old Bones reruns. But, back on track... I have been able to keep up with the second challenge, and that is the paper towel challenge. I promised earlier in the week that I would write about the environmental impact of paper towels, and why we should all switch to rags instead. Here it goes:

Did you know that over 90% of American families use paper towels instead of rags (courtesy of Ezine). In the United States alone, we produce 3000 tons of paper towel waste that goes directly to our land fills every day. That is a lot of waste. But since paper towels are being used to clean up spills, they cannot be recycled. The best way to help our environment is to switch to cloth rags that you can wash in the dishwasher or rinse out in the sink, but if you do not feel comfortable giving up the luxury of disposables, you can use paper towels made from recycled paper.

Recycled paper towels can save a lot of trees from being cut down, and that in turn saves a lot of water and pollution from having to make new paper products. They are definitely a more eco-friendly way to go. But, the difference between throwing out a recycled paper towel and throwing out a regular paper towel is not that great.

The problem with paper towels, like many of the other products that fill our dumps, is that they are so easy and cheap to get. You can buy 12 rolls at one time for a ridiculously low price from a store like Safeway. And if people don't have to worry about running out, they can use them with abandon. I'll give you an example, one that we all have done: Let's say that you knock over a glass of water. You are having a snack and have a paper towel with you. You immediately right the glass and wipe up some of the water with your paper towel, but it doesn't really put a dent in the amount of water still left of the table. And so, you run to your kitchen and grab an armful of paper towels. You promptly soak up the mess and are left with about 20 half-used sheets of paper towels. That is a huge amount of waste! What you should have done, is find the nearest towel and soaked up the water with that. Now, you haven't wasted any paper, and can just pop your towel in with your next wash or just let it dry out. See the difference, and it's easy too!

All that I am trying to show you is that the switch from disposable paper that you have to buy at the store every week and constantly replace in your kitchen can easily be switched with a couple of cheap rags that you can just rinse in the sink or stick in the wash. When you think about it, having reusable towels is a lot easier.

And now, jumping to an entirely different topic, because the New York Times was not gracious enough to have an article on paper towels today, I give you a summary on dams and fish. Enjoy:

Today's New York Times article, written by William Yardley, is a piece called Pacts Signed to Help River and Salmon. According to Yardley's article, there has been a huge leap made for salmon and rivers today. Pacts have been signed to remove four dams that feed rivers into Northern California and Oregon from the Klamath River. These four dams along the river made hydroelectric power, but not without a cost - a dramatic loss of salmon populations. What has happened is, that the dams are messing with the irrigation systems that allow smaller rivers and streams that branch off of the Klamath. This is causing the salmon to not be able to sufficiently migrate upstream to spawn. Not only does this affect the salmon, but it also affects the Indians that use those streams to fish. In 2008, agreements were made that said that by 2020, the four dams would have to be removed. Just recently, these agreements were signed by the governors of California and Oregon, the head of the company in charge of the dams, leaders of Indian tribes, and various other important people who have been affected by these dams. Although removing these dams is a good thing, because protecting the natural habitats and lives of salmon is very important, is will cost over a billion dollars, and that clean energy source that powered over 700 homes will have to be found from somewhere else.

-Morgan

Nuclear Power?

This Tuesday, President Obama gave $8 billion in grants toward nuclear energy, intended to go toward to plants in Georgia. According to a recent New York Times Article, this isn't the first we've heard of Obama's nuclear energy. One theory that the article offers is that the president elect started endorsing nuclear power as a way to draw the Republican vote, but as the article also says "Mr. Obama should not be endorsing such a costly and potentially catastrophic energy alternative “as bait just to get talks started with pro-nuke senators.” 

Many of Obama's typically supportive environmental supporters are frustrated to the point of anger with his new endorsement. For the most part, President Obama has made little progress environmentally since he took office last year. And it is quite obvious, that nuclear power is NOT a step in the right direction. In this day and age, when nuclear power accounts for less than 20% of the United States' electrical power, we need to be looking towards the future and greener energy sources. Certainly not to nuclear power. Although nuclear power does emit significantly less CO2 into the environment than more traditional methods, can produce fairly large quantities of energy fairly quickly, and the technology is already out there... the list of cons definitely out weighs the pros. 

• First of all, once you create nuclear waste- you have to keep it, for literally tens of thousands of years. And it is highly dangerous, as it is by definition radioactive. 
• Second of all, in case of an accident, the repercussions could be astronomical. Do we really need another Chernobyl? 
• Also, nuclear power plants are a huge target for terrorism, because they are hugely explosive and unstable. If you are worried about national safety, relying on energy that can have hiroshima-esque consequences is not your best bet. 
• Additionally, the element Uranium gives the power to nuclear energy, and it is a rare resource. So, when we need more energy to supply dwindling amounts of our current main energy resource, is it really a good idea to turn to something that is both incredibly dangerous and expected to run out in the next 30 to 60 years? 
• And even if the United States were to turn to nuclear power, it would take 20 to 30 years and a lot of funds to build new plants- and by that time Uranium stores would already be so low it would be ridiculous to rely on them. 

So, obviously nuclear energy is not the way to go. Uranium is not a renewable resource, its supplies are dwindling, and the potential effects of an accident far out weigh the slightly lower carbon dioxide emission rates. What I am trying to get across here, is that it is completely ridiculous to be putting our time, efforts, and money into non-renewable energy sources. Come on Obama, nuclear energy? I am not one to criticize the presidents efforts, especially as he is doing something to help the environment, and is certainly much better, environmentally speaking, than the alternative... but we need greener options. Why not invest those $8 billion in wind, tidal, or solar power? We have the technology out there for those too! Here's to a hopefully brighter, greener future.

- Amber

 

[thanks to http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability for all of the information on nuclear energy]. 

Slow is Better

Just like in Aesop's most famous fable, "slow and steady wins the race." In this instance, I am talking about how reducing speeds can cut emissions and increase efficiency.

How does reducing speed increase efficiency? That is simple. You see, as an object speeds up, there is more resistance trying to slow it down. A good example of this would be when you drive you car. When you drive 5 miles per hour and the windows are down, you can't feel any wind. If you drive 50 miles per hour with the windows down, there is going to be tons of wind. This is because, as you speed up, the particles floating around in the air are hitting your car with a lot more force because you are coming at them with a lot more force. Like Newton said, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

The way that this theory works with slowing down is that, when there is less resistance, you don't have to work as hard to go as fast. Another example of this could be going up a hill. If you walk up the hill, you are going to take a while, but you won't get very tired doing it. If, on the other hand, you run up the hill, you aren't going to take nearly as long, but you will be really tired when you reach the top. This works the same with other things too. And so, in order to save that energy, you can lose time by going slower.

This concept of losing time is really difficult for us as Americans in general. Our whole lives are focused on improvements to make things faster. Because, we have been trained that faster is better. We used to all think that bigger was always better, but thankfully people have started to realize what a bad idea commercializing the Hummer really was. We can change our thinking just like we have been doing with size, by realizing that going slower can be a good thing.

For instance, according to the New York Times article that I am about to talk about in more detail, if a driver slows down from 65 to 55 miles per hour, they can save 20% more gas. That 10 mile per hour decrease in speed can save you tons of gas. In todays world, where there are speed limits, and going below them will just make everyone around you really mad, the best advice that I can give to you is to not speed. It might be fun, but it is dangerous, and really wasteful.

And now to my article: this related New York Times article for today's topic is written by Elisabeth Rosenthal and is called, Slow Trip Across Sea Aids Profit and Environment. The primary focus of this article, as you might have guessed, is about a Danish shipping giant named Maersk and his slower moving, more efficient boats. What Maersk did for the past two years, was to cut their top speeds in half, going a new speed which has been named 'super slow.' Going this speed, things are shipped 25% slower, but there are 30% less emissions and a 30% less fuel consumption. He plans on implementing this new 'super slow' speed plan in more boats. This is a great step forward for businesses, to realize that everything is not just about the speed at which it is done. I want to applaud Maersk for this excellent idea.

-Morgan

A Day in the Life

Today Morgan and I decided to make the most of our President's Day and our coinciding lack of school. We decided to first go for breakfast at Starbucks and indulge in some delicious pumpkin scones and a latte. Where we were pleasantly surprised by their green efforts.

According to their website: "By 2015, 100% of our cups will be reusable or recyclable. We will significantly reduce our environmental footprint through energy and water conservation, recycling and green construction."

And from our observations, they are well on their way: the java jackets, napkins, and paper bags are all made from recycled materials. Starbucks is also leaning towards more free trade coffee beans and community involvement, and their new environmentally friendly products and organic energy bars. Now, I'm not one for the corporate monopoly squishing out the little guy; and I've always favored the more grassroots all natural kind of cafe, but Starbucks really isn't all that bad. The only thing we could think to suggest would be some sort of recycling receptacle...

To continue on our epic journey, we went to the movies to watch The Lightning Thief. (Which both my sister and I would give a solid 9)

Afterwards, we stopped by the house for a bit of lunch, and continued on to the mall for a scavenger hunt; in which we compiled a list of random objets (including but not limited to: an unhappy child, green pants, a John Green book, and purple sunglasses) and took pictures of them to prove our find. (The scavenger hunt was a complete success by the way- we even made a wonderful poster using our pictures.) Before today neither Morgan or I had really thought about the mall in terms of the environment, but if you think about it, its impact must be huge. Hundreds of people drive across town every day to walk around in a highly air conditioned or heated space, just so that they purchase overly packaged items, and carry them around in excess plastic bags.

I know that with the state that this economy is in, consumerism is one of few things keeping us going.... but there wasn't a single recycling bin in the entire mall!!! At one point we purchased a Sobe and there was nowhere for us to recycle our bottle, so we were forced (like good little environmentalists) to carry around the bottle until we got home, so that we could recycle it. We were in shock that such a large establishment wouldn't have taken and the time to install a few recycling containers.

Anyways, I think that is enough ranting for me today. I'll be back again on Wednesday,

- Amber

Past and Future Weeks

We didn't have that much exciting happen in the world of our green transformation this week. I do not remember us actually setting up a green goal for this week. And so, we have not really added anything new to our plates, but homework levels have been pretty high, so I think I have a good excuse. Not that it is difficult to live a greener life style; the shortened showers, cutting down of phantom power, and vegetarianism have all been going really well for us. This week our showers have gotten a little longer than five minutes, but like I said last week, they are still under 10. We have also been turning off the tap when brushing our teeth and making sure that the faucets are all of the way turned off. For our phantom power challenge, we have been keeping things unplugged. I have doubled my efforts in turning off the lights when I leave rooms, or not turning them on during the day when natural light is all that is needed.

 Our vegetarian-ness has been going very well. We haven't really been monitoring the amount of protein and other vitamins that we have been eating to make sure that we are not suffering from not eating any meat, but I have not felt any different. I can assume then that we have been getting enough protein and iron from other sources, like tofu. One way that I know that my performance has not been affected by my lack of meat is that Amber and I go to our school's gym every Friday and workout. Over the past few weeks I have definitely not noticed a decrease in my levels of endurance. If anything, I am getting stronger from going to the gym. The point is, that not eating meat has not made me tired or sick feeling. I feel completely healthy and love eating more healthy foods.

This week, I think that our challenge will be to cut down on the amount of paper towels that we use. Our family uses a lot more paper towels than the average family. In fact, we generate a lot more trash than the average family. This has always bothered me, but as I learn more and more about the environment, it bothers me more. And so this week I will focus primarily on not using so many paper towels. We have rags for drying dishes and wiping hands on, but no one ever uses them. This is ridiculous, and I am going to stop using paper towels unless it is absolutely necessary.

As a sub-challenge, I am going to try and keep on track with my posting of articles. It is almost midnight here in Washington, which means that I almost missed my deadline. I'll write more about reducing trash and paper towels later in the week as this challenge starts.

Have a good President's Day if you have it off. I do, and I am so glad for the 3 day weekend.
-Morgan

Another Saturday Article

Hello. It looks like you'll be getting two fabulous articles today, because somebody- (Ahem. Morgan) "forgot" to write an article yesterday. And by the way, "forgot" is actually code for "fell-asleep-on-the-floor-watching-the-opening-ceremony-for-the-2010-winter-olympics-in-vancouver!" Wait, the olympics!?!


You may remember from a previous article last week or there abouts that I wrote on the super bowl, that I am kind of a sports nut when it comes to the olympics. I think they are pretty much the pinnacle of sportsdom. Well, because they are... Literally. For a few weeks every 2 years, hundreds of countries from across the globe put aside their differences, so that the best athletes on this planet can partake in a little friendly competition. That way in a brief armistice, countries that might otherwise be relieving their pent up aggression in the form of say... bombs, can instead more peacefully battle it out on the soccer field, or in this case, the ice rink.


But, there are many other benefits to the olympics, besides a little friendly international athletic cooperation. (Sorry, that was a quite failed Harry Potter reference on my part.) Such as:

• construction contracts
• massive influx of business
• influx of tourists 
• lasting infrastructure
• world prominence
• world wide tourism campaign
• lots of new jobs

[Thank you to Thematic-Device for this lovely list, and pugetsoundblogs.com for the image].

But, of course there are also some environmental repercussions to such a massive gathering of people. Literally thousands of people fly and drive from every corner of the Earth to see the games. All of the transportation alone just to get to the olympics emits massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the environment. Not to mention that for the olympics, millions of dollars are spent building fantastical arenas and stages, for the sole purpose of the games. Now, generally these buildings are 'recycled' in a sense and used for further sporting events, but for the most part this excess of building is just that, excess. And whenever you build something, there are emissions involved. In the transportation of people and materials, in powering machines to build, in heating and maintaing the building once it is completed, etc. 

In the past, the olympic games and their host countries have not been overly environmentally conscious when it came to building new venues and hosting thousands of tourists. But this year, Vancouver is taking a few steps in the right direction. In the words of, David Suzuki:

"Vancouver Olympic organizers have also tried to reduce the environmental impact of the 2010 Games. For example, venues and infrastructure have been built using energy-efficient technologies, clean-energy sources will be used for many aspects of the Games, and carbon offsets will balance out a significant portion of the emissions from the Games. As a result of these and other initiatives, the 2010 Olympics are expected to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than previous Winter Olympics."

Well, that's all for now. And I hope you are enjoying the Olympics.

- Amber 

Cash for Clunkers - A good idea?

Unfortunately, I forgot to post my article yesterday, and so I am writing one today. Amber will also write an article today so that we remain on schedule.

So, back on track....

I am going to be talking a little bit about the Cash for Clunkers program. The idea was that this program would encourage people to turn in their old, fuel inefficient cars for new cars that are more fuel efficient. The people who turned in their old cars for new ones would receive money off their new car for their old car. This was thought to help the environment, save gas, jump start the economy, and help the car industry. But were all of these things accomplished?

Technically, the answer is yes. Cash for Clunkers is expected to save 72 million gallons of gas this year, even though it cost 3 billion in tax payer dollars to fund it. According to fightcashforclunkers.org, car maintenance could save up to 12 billion gallons of gas a year. And, if everyone would just take care of their own cars, we wouldn't have to spend tax payer dollars, we would spend our own money. And the small amount of money that it takes to check your car regularly, is a lot less than the amount of money that it takes to buy a new car!

Economically, and environmentally, it makes a lot more sense to give tax credits to those who keep their cars properly maintained. I understand that this would not help the car industry or the economy. But it would save a lot more money to not spend loads of tax payer money on new cars, but just on tax cuts for maintaining our current cars. Plus, junking that many cars isn't good for the environment either. Cash for Clunkers was a good idea, and whether or not it will work to jump start the economy, which was it's main goal, is something that we will have to wait and see. Although it was a good idea, I believe that there were better, less expensive ideas that could have been created.

The article that I am summarizing today came from today's paper, not yesterday's paper. The New York Times article that I have chosen to summarize is Japan Calls Hummer H3 Fuel-Efficient, by Hiroko Tabuchi. This definitely surprised me! But apparently, since under Japan's own "cash for clunkers" program, they gave tax cuts for buying new fuel efficient cars. Originally, they didn't accept any American cars onto their list because of different standards. Obama pressured them into adding American made cars, and so, among others, they added the Hummer H3 to their list. This is because, according to Japan's standards, their 16 miles per gallon average compared to their 4700 pounds that it weighs, they are actually fuel efficient! Personally, I believe that even if Hummers are fuel efficient based on their weight, there are many other cars that are more fuel efficient that can be bought. Hummers are still ridiculously inefficient compared to almost all other cars on the road. Nonetheless, Hummer sales in Japan have increased 7.7 percent.

-Morgan

Ice Caps Melting

Unfortunately, I am not feeling my most eloquent tonight. So this article is going to be a short one, but hopefully also an informative one. Short and concise.

The topic for today's article is the rising sea level, and melting ice caps. According to the EPA, rising ocean temperatures will most likely lead to:

• expanding ocean water
• rising water levels
• melting mountain glaciers and ice caps
• melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, leading to erosion and land slides into the ocean

As the graph shows, sea levels are expected to rise 7 and 24 inches by the year 2100. That is a drastic leap in sea level, compared to the roughly 5 inch rise over the last century. The sea level on the majority of the United States coast has been rising at a fairly steady rate of 0.08 to 0.12 inches per year- with some variation due to natural land sinking and land rising, in places such as Alaska and Louisiana. 

If however, ice melting were to continue in a more linear fashion, and pollution levels and greenhouse gas emissions were to continue to rise at their current rate, the projected sea level rise by 2100 would be more along the lines of 19 to 32 inches. Now, a little over a foot in almost a hundred years doesn't seem like that much of a change- but it is. A lot of that sea level rising would be due to land slides on coastal Antarctica and Greenland, causing much erosion. Not to mention the fact that the expected rise in ocean temperature that would cause ice cap melting and sea level rising could drastically change the delicate balance of the ocean, destroying critical ecosystems. 

And if the ice sheets were to melt completely, which they are on their way towards doing over the next couple of hundred years, ocean levels would rise even more drastically than I've previously mentioned. According to the EPA:

• The West Antarctic Ice Sheet contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 17-20 feet
• The Greenland Ice Sheet contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 23 feet

The Antarctic ice sheet is actually reportedly unstable, and with sustained warming over a few centuries, could very easily break off and slide into the ocean. The Greenland ice sheet on the other hand is much more stable, and would require more time to melt completely. A much slower process. Luckily, none of these drastic ocean level changes will occur in any of our lifetimes; but the delicate balance of the ocean is already precarious. And with very limited knowledge on previous fluctuations in sea levels and temperatures, predictions are only rough estimations and educated guesses. But one thing is for certain. Ocean temperatures are rising. The sea level is rising. And human influence and carbon emissions are most definitely linked to it.

- Amber

[Information courtesy of: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureslc.html].

Agricultural Pollution

One huge source of pollution is caused by agriculture. Agriculture can cause, when not properly managed, a severe amount of water pollution. The type of pollution that is caused by this improper management is called non-point source pollution, or NPS pollution. Since agriculture includes that of raising animals, pollution can originate from animal waste, plowing, pesticides, irrigation, fertilizers, planting and harvesting. So, pretty much all actions that take place on a farm can cause pollution.

In order to manage the sedimentary runoff aspect of agricultural pollution that is caused by wind or water carrying dirt particles to a water body, they can reduce and control the direction and flow of the water they use to water their crops, reduce their amount of transportation of soil, and preventing erosion or planting scrubber plants that act as filtering systems. Taking these measures can reduce the sedimentary pollution by up to 90%. Sedimentary pollution causes water to cloud, which in turn reduces the levels of sunlight that can reach the aquatic plants at the bed of the waterbody in question. This can cause the death of food supplies and can even clog the gills of fish.

Nutrient pollution is caused by nutrients like phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium from fertilizers, manure, sludge, and irrigation water. When all of these things are used in excess of what the plant needs, they are not absorbed and can run off into water bodies. The fertilizers can cause the plant life in the water to grow out of control, causes a foul taste to the water, and kills fish.

Basically, there are many different types of pollution that are caused from agriculture, but they can be greatly reduced by taking simple management measures. The levels of harmful pesticides can be reduced by using less harmful varieties or by looking in to management plans. Animal waste can be managed by being disposed in waste bins and farmers can easily control the areas in which their grazing animals roam so that waste is not produced in areas where runoff is highest.

In the New York Times today, there was an article about the vast pollution in the waterways of China. This article was titled, China Report Shows More Pollution in Waterways and was written by Jonathan Ansfield and Keith Bradsher. According to the article, China just released their most detailed survey about their terrible problem with pollution. China has had many problems with pollution, most well known is probably the issues that they faced in the months before the Beijing Olympics with air and water pollution. The most dramatic change in results from previous surveys was the levels of water pollution. Before this survey, China never factored in the agricultural pollution caused by pesticides and other forms of agricultural waste. Because of this new inclusion, the levels of pollution reported in 2007 in waterways has jumped more than 200%. This new information means that China's officials who have been working on emissions goals have had their numbers wrong. They now have much more work to do than they previously thought. Agricultural pollution is a huge problem as the pesticides and fertilizers easily leak into waterways and cause lots of damage.

Agricultural information found thanks to the EPA.

-Morgan

Denny's Grand Slam Tuesday

Today is Denny's free grand slam Tuesday. For the last couple of years, Denny's has been giving away one free grand slam meal to each customer that walks through any of the chain's doors on the first Tuesday after the super bowl from the hours of 6AM to 2PM. Each grand slam is priced at $6.00, and is comprised of two eggs, two pancakes, 2 sausage links, and 2 pieces of bacon; for a whopping 770 calories. Last year over 2 million people visited Denny's for the grand slam deal, with an average of 130 grand slams served per hour, in each of their 1,500 locations. This year with the new popular catch phrase, "Great Day to Be an American, Tough Day to Be a Chicken," and a pricey super bowl commercial to go with- they are expecting even more customers to come through the doors.

Morgan and I decided to drive over to Denny's for lunch today and get our free meal (minus the meat of course), and we were greeted by a line out the door, and a restaurant packed full of hungry customers and busy waiters. While we were there, I have no doubt that they met the 130 grand slam per hour quota, if not exceeding it. So that means, in the roughly one hour that we were at the Denny's, 260 sausage links, 260 strips of bacon, and 260 eggs were consumed. Just think about the environmental impact of that.

Roughly 15% of the average 230 pound pig goes towards bacon. So, that is roughly 35 pounds of bacon per pig. That means that several dozen pigs must be slaughtered in order to sate all of those hungry Denny's hungry customers per hour per restaurant. Assuming that there is roughly 1/2 a pound of meat per order, that means that out of those 2 million orders, roughly 1 million pounds of meat will be consumed. That means that just for those animals that produce the meat for the grand slams of that 8 hour period, 3,000 tons of grain were used, emitting around the same amount of greenhouse gasses as driving an SUV around the Earth roughly 1,500 times! Not to mention the millions of gallons of water, and millions of miles driven by people all across the country in order to make the round trip from home or work the Denny's and back.

So, what exactly does Denny's gain from all of this? $5 million dollars down the hole. The average customer that walked through the door, as far as Morgan and I could tell did not order anything besides the grand slam. The promotional value may have been great, and there is no doubt a large customer return due to the satisfaction of a free, satisfying meal, and good service. But there is a huge environmental impact from that one promotional campaign.

Out of all of the cons I've listed, what are the pros? A free lunch, delicious food, and the potential for future profit in a monopolizing breakfast chain? As far as I can see, although the rewards seem great- they do not outshine the cost. And although Morgan and I did partake in the Denny's breakfast rush, we also abstained from the meaty portion of the meal. That does limit our portion of the emission total, but we were still supporting a mass market campaign with a blatant disregard for the environment, and for animal rights. With the slogan of, "Great Day to Be an American, Tough Day to Be a Chicken," it is obvious that conservation was not their top priority. I hope that I've yet again illustrated the huge impact that meat can have on the environment, and the impact that such consumer driven campaigns can have environmentally. See you on Thursday...

- Amber

Cut Back on Paper Usage!

Paper is a reasonably priced necessity; you can buy it at almost every store in bulk. Because paper is so readily available to all of us, it is sometimes hard to make the connection between paper consumption and trees. On average, the typical American uses 749 pounds of paper a year. That means that the United States alone produces 187 billion pounds of paper per year! That is a lot of paper! Even worse than that, in the last 40 years, the world's paper consumption has increased 400%! In total, the world consumes around 300 million tons of paper per year. That is a ridiculous amount of trees used just for paper. Although, it is true that most paper companies have privately owned tree farms that they cut down in 20-35 year cycles and so are not constantly depleting the number of trees there are in the world.

According to the EPA, paper mills are some of the worst polluters out of any factory. They release tons of toxic gasses like formaldehyde, methanol, chlorine dioxide, and hydrochloric acid during paper production. This is a terrible source of pollution just so that we can have thin sheets of bleached white paper.

Environmentalists are starting to make a difference on paper production however. In fact, almost 45% of the paper in the United States was kept out of landfills and recycled last year. This is a great thing, but there are still 55% of us throwing our paper away instead of recycling it. Recycling is a simple thing to do, and most people can get a free recycling pick up from their house so that the only difference between recycling your paper and throwing it away is which bin you put it in.

The world has come a long way from throwing all of their paper away into landfills, and I have to applaud us on that, but there is still much to be done. I see the future being all digital- no more newspapers delivered daily, books printed on paper, or barely-looked-at office memos. There are so many changes that could occur in the world that haven't yet because we are so familiar with reading printed books and newspapers. It is faster and more efficient to read books and the news online. But until the time comes for technology to be advanced enough for everyone to have free wifi and computers, we all need to do our part in saving paper! Just use scratch paper in your notebooks-fill up each page instead of only writing a sentence or two and then throwing it away. If you print something wrong, flip it over and use it for calculating math homework or writing down phone messages! Conservation is easy, so let's get to it!

In my article summary for today, I am going to talk about saving money and trees but cutting down on paper usage. The article, Hawaii Senate Says Cutting Back on Paper Has Save $1.2 Million by The Associated Press, states that, the Hawaii Senate has saved over 800 trees in the last 2 years by cutting down on the amount of useless paperwork and excess copies they make. Not only have they saved 800 trees by not using almost 8 million pages of paper, they have also saved 1.2 million dollars! To save trees, the Senate simply said, 'no more paper unless absolutely necessary.' For only $100,000 they bought all of the necessary electronics to start sending information via internet and email. Not only does this save money and trees, it also saves a lot of time and energy that was spent couriering copies and memos to all of the members of the Senate. Because of all of the money they have saved, they can put that money into good use instead of having to make budget cuts. This is great example of how excellent saving paper is.

Thank you, ecology.com for the facts in this article!

-Morgan

Audi Brings Green to the Superbowl

Today is super bowl Sunday! And as a tradition, my family and I got together and watched the big game. We are typically NOT football people, or even TV sports people at all... But once a year for the super bowl, and every 2 years for the olympics we become a little crazed. This year we were rooting for the Saints, the underdogs! They had never even made it to the super bowl before- and on they won (despite an unpromising first quarter).

Regardless of the fact that it was an amazing game (31-17 people, come on!) the reason that I am writing an article today on the game is because as I was watching the game and its stereotypically mildly humorous commercials I came across this one by Audi: Green Police Superbowl Ad.

Even though it was only one add, I thought that it was definitely a step in the right direction as far as green advertising goes. The add was quite funny, depicting a man on a scooter labeled 'green police', driving around the city and giving people citations for their various eco-crimes; at one point even stopping a police officer for using a styrofoam cup. I thought the way that Audi portrayed greenness, in a humorous yet positive light, was very refreshing, not to mention the fact that they are selling low a emission vehicle.

Honestly, outside of the Disney Channel, there really aren't very many green ads out there. And for such a successful green commercial to be aired on national television, during one of the most watched sporting events in this country, was huge. I can only hope that next year there will be even more green ads- and that maybe next time someone picks up a styrofoam cup they will think twice. Thats all for today.

- Amber

Week 2 Summarized

It's the second week of our blog! Time has really gone by quickly... This week, Amber and I have been vegetarian for 2 weeks now. We cooked 2 different tofu recipes that we invented ourselves, and they both turned out surprisingly deliciously!

• For our first official tofu meal attempt, we cut extra firm tofu into strips, soaked it in a little bit of Bragg's and thai seasoning and then fried it. We served it with curry quinoa. A delicious dish, that we will definitely try again. 
• Our second tofu dinner was tofu and rice stuffed bell peppers. We seasoned the tofu with Bragg's again and added some red pepper flakes. After about 45 minutes in the oven at 350, we had a very good dinner.

Over all, we have had a lot of fun being vegetarian. I haven't really missed eating meat, and while the rest of our family ate pot roast the other day, I was happy eating a cheese quesadilla. The only meat that we still seem to miss is fish sticks! I cannot believe that we are already half way done with our vegetarian challenge, I think that after this month is over, we will continue to not eat meat nearly as often. The idea of wasting all of that water and food on just a little hamburger is ridiculous, and fresh local fruit tastes better anyways.

In other news, our phantom power challenge was not nearly as eventful as I would have thought. Since we live on the bottom floor of our house, we just kept the lights off when they were not in use. Other than the fact that I fell asleep with the iHome on one night, we did pretty good. The rest of our family likes to keep lights on at night, or forgets to turn them off. We have taken to going behind them and turning off the lights in the empty rooms.

Also, our 5 minute showers have gotten a little lax. We haven't enforced a time frame, and honestly, 5 minutes is cutting it close to how much time is needed for one to get sufficiently clean. But, we have been cutting our shower time down to under 10 minutes, which is saving us a lot of water.

-Morgan

p.s. I am very excited for the Superbowl tomorrow. I cannot wait to see the Who at halftime! Go Saints!

Wind Power

Currently, the United States relies mainly on forms of energy that cause great amounts of pollution like burning coal. This releases a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. However, there is a lot of research being done on the clean energy front. What I am going to talk about today is wind energy.

Wind energy is what is called a free energy source. It comes from the Earth, and cannot be used up. Wind turbines are put up that spin much like a fan from the wind that is blown across the propellers. As the turbine is moved by the wind, the energy of that motion is stored and used as power. The beauty of wind is that it exists everywhere in the planet and using it for power does not take it away like burning fossil fuels does. The current turbines do not harness nearly all of the potential energy that could be gained from wind, and research is constantly being done to improve turbines.

The problem with wind is that, although it may blow everywhere, it does not blow strong in enough in many places to be properly harnessed. This means that only high-wind areas make good spots for wind farms. According to the AWEA, with the current turbines, wind could only sufficiently power about 20% of the United States. There is a lot of research that is being done about making offshore wind turbines that will be larger and can harness more wind. Turbines vary in size. The original wind turbines were much smaller and more inefficient than the ones that we have now. Wind turbines can be bought for personal use that are much smaller than the ones found in wind farms.

Basically, wind energy has a huge potential- as do all clean forms of energy. There is still tons of research to be done in the field, and the efficiency of turbines will only continue to increase. Small businesses and even homes can purchase their own turbines to run off of clean power. This is a great thing, and the future of energy is bright. The best thing that America can do right now is continue to fund the research of clean forms of energy, because as gas and coal start to run out, other resources will be needed, and wind has a huge potential.

Jad Mouawad's article, Wind Power Grows 39& for the Year, talks about the fact that although America is suffering from a great recession right now, we are still making advancements in clean energy. As the articles title says, the country's wind power reliance went up 39%, making almost 2% of our energy come from wind! The article says that one of the main reasons that the amount of wind turbines has increased is because of the stimulus package, which grants tax credits to those who put up wind turbines. Going back to the accord I talked about in my last article, Europe has planned to rely on 20% wind power by 2020. America is far behind other countries in the 'race' to having a clean energy driven country, with places like Denmark already running on mostly wind power. The article then goes on to state that a lot of the growth of wind turbines in the United States came from orders made in 2008 when the recession was just getting started. It is expected that our growth in clean energy will slow. The future of a zero-impact planet isn't near coming to fruition, but it isn't all that far away either.

-Morgan

History of the Green Movement (Part II)

(Last time I left you with Teddy Roosevelt's "wise use" conservation setting the ground work for future environmental politics...)

During the progressive era in the late 1800s to early 1900s, environmentalists such as John Muir, Ellen Swallow Richards, Jane Addams, Florence Kelly, and Alice Hamilton rallied for outright protection of the environment. With the help of organizations such as the Sierra Club conservationism began to take root, along with municipal reform and the groundwork for laws protecting the environment. 

By the 1920s or thereabouts, more leagues and conservationist groups were popping up all over America. People rallied against pollution and its affects on the environment as well as the people. Way ahead of their time, the supporters of the chemurgy movement demanded "replacement of petroleum with farm alcohol and other industrial uses for agricultural crops," (radford.edu). A few years past, and the war began. Environmentalism was less mainstream for awhile as the war waged on in foreign lands. But by 1957, the Scipps Oceanographic Institute discovered that there was increasing CO2 build up in the ocean waters. (That was 53 years ago and we still haven't done anything about the drastic disregard for the ocean.)

In 1962, Rachel Carson's groundbreaking novel, Silent Spring was published and the environmental movement really kicked in. By the 1970s the Environmental Protection Agency was developed and called for reform in environmental policies. Air pollution was cut back, unleaded gas became the first choice, sewage treatment programs decreased water pollution, and an ever shortening oil supply lead to "some restrictions on refinery and oil pollution" (radford.edu). 

As we get closer to present day, in the 1980s and 90s, disasters around the globe struck fear in the hearts of many. The Bhopal mass poisoning in India and Chernobyl explosion in the Ukraine, the Challenger space shuttle and Exxon Valdez oil spills in the United States. People everywhere were too dependent upon science and technology, and the emissions they produced were proven to be potentially dangerous. Soon scientists discovered that the ozone was being depleted by fluorocarbons, and in an attempt to quell some of those fears and enforce more strict environmental policies, the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987.

Over the next few years, scientists did more and more research on global climate change- convinced on its existence. More information compiled, and some actions were taken. But the problem was that the people did not change. People continued to flagrantly disregard and pollute the environment, not bothering to enforce emission restrictions on automobiles or spread the importance of recycling. And sadly, today- more than 20 years later things still haven't gotten much better. The sad truth is that people have been rallying in support of the environment against the government for years. But nothing has been done. We can only hope that in the years to come, politicians create stricter environmental policies and head the warnings of generations of scientists. 

- Amber

[see post from February 1, 2010: 'History of the Green Movement' for sources].

Emissions

Today, I want to talk a little bit about greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale. I was reminded of the severity one person can make in the environment today, when I saw an out of tune truck spewing exhaust into the atmosphere. It is important for those of us who drive to get regular tune ups, and when looking for a new car, making it an energy efficient one. On an individual scale, our cars are a huge source of pollution, and one of the easiest (but definitely not the cheapest) ways to curb our emissions. Ideally, everyone would walk or bike for travel, but in today's society, that kind of goal is unrealistic. And so, it is always nice to use public transportation when possible, but I understand that to some people, using public transportation isn't always an option. I myself cannot take the bus to school and have to drive to and from every day. For those us us who have to own cars, we should check our tire pressure and get tune ups regularly, and buy more energy efficient cars when needed.

Leading industrial countries like the United States and China put out a lot of CO2 emissions. According to UCSUSA, China is leading the world for most emissions per capita with over 6 billion metric tons of carbon output, or 4.58 tons of carbon per capita. The United States is second, with 5.9 billion metric tons of carbon emitted per year. But, our amount of carbon emitted per capita was well above China's with 19.78 tons of carbon per capita. Just to put this into perspective, the third ranking emitter of carbon was Russia with 1.7 billion tons of carbon. This is a ridiculous amount of carbon! The world- China and the United States especially- need to curb their emissions significantly. Here is a graph showing the world's leading carbon emitters. All of us need to work together to stop our own private emissions; if we work together, we can make a difference.

Today's article, Countries Submit Emission Goals by John M. Broder talks about the Copenhagen Accord on climate change that was reached in December. In total, 55 different countries included their goals to stop or cut emissions by 2020. Unfortunately, even with all of the pledges that countries have made, researchers believe that this will not cut emissions enough to stop the progression global warming. Although the world is still in danger, this accord could make a huge difference. For instance, China has pledged to cut their CO2 emissions by 40-45%. There are still some kinks to be worked out with the accord, but this was a huge step in the right direction for stopping climate change on the global scale.

-Morgan

History of the Green Movement

The 'Green Movement' that seems to be so popular today- has actually been going on for a lot longer than you might think. With roots in as far back as the 1800s, environmentalism is definitely more than just a fad.

Popular belief is that environmental consciousness began in the 1970s, with Rachel Carson's novel, Silent Spring; however, the seeds for the green movement were actually planted in the early 19th century with the transcendental philosopher, Henry David Thoreau. According to WebEcoist.com, "Environmentalism isn't a trend, or a cult, or a form of hysteria. It is rooted in American philosophy and, being at once innovative and practical, idealistic and active, one could easily define modern environmentalism as quintessentially American."

By the mid 1800s in America and London, the Industrial Revolution was going strong, and living conditions began to suffer. Smog, water pollution, and disregard for the environment became evident, and conservationism began to take root. In 1851, an iconic sequoia, the "Mother of the Forest" was chopped down in California- and outraged, the people began to call for wild parks and protection of the environment. By 1872, (only 21 years later) Yellowstone, the nation's first national park was established.

By the late 1800s, the progressive era set in and Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot promoted the "wise use" theory of conservation. Soon new organization such as the Sierra Club and National Coast Anti Pollution League were formed, setting the groundwork for environmental politics to come.

to be continued...

- Amber

[Information courtesy of http://webecoist.com/2008/08/17/a-brief-history-of-the-modern-green-movement/ and http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/envhist/].