Sunday, December 21, 2008

is recycling more expensive?

"Do the Benefits of Recycling Outweigh the Costs?"

By : Larry West


Summary: This article shows that it is possible that recycling may cost more than the cost of regular garbage pick-up and disposal.

According to Michael Shapiro, director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste, “A well-run curbside recycling program can cost anywhere from $50 to more than $150 per ton…trash collection and disposal programs, on the other hand, cost anywhere from $70 to more than $200 per ton. This demonstrates that, while there’s still room for improvements, recycling can be cost-effective.” This sounds accurate to me because this is what i've been raised to believe. This article makes me think maybe society is just brainwashed to THINK recycling is cheaper when it maybe it is not. I've never personally compared. Although i know recycling makes much more sense to me than wasting things, I am not informned on any of the costs. "According to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the benefits of recycling plastic and glass were outweighed by the price -- recycling cost twice as much as disposal." This article has decent sources (atleast it claims) But only the director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste has a direct quote. This article does make me want to look more into the facts and statistics for myself. It also makes me wonder if recycling is more expensive do the actual outcomes outbalenace the financial cost?



http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/benefit_vs_cost.htm

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Coal plants are now more important than wildlife

Title: Rule eases mandate under a law on wildlife

Author: Felicity Barringer
Published: December 11, 2008

Summary: A rule was announced that has largely freed federal agencies from their obligation to consult independent wildlife biologists before they build dams or highways or permit construction of transmission towers, housing developments or other projects that might harm federally protected wildlife.

I think this sounds nuts! I'm kind of confused actually. We are always trying to look out for our wildlife and perserve their natural habitat as best as we can but now the army corps of engineers are relying on their own personell to whats okay to build and whats not? How can they decide what impact a project would have on a fish, bird, plant, animal or insect!?!? The interior secretary claimed this was so that projects couldn't be blocked off when not neccisary. I don't know about this one... I guess Legal experts said "the change seemed intended to ensure that the protection of species like the polar bear would not impede development of coal-fired power plants or otherfederal actions that increased emissions of heat-trapping gases. " Well geez sorry that the polar bears and natural planet are in the way of your building cola plants! It does seem like the The Endangered Species Act is very complicated thought. Soposable its even infuriated business interests and property rights advocates. I wonder what polar bears would say about this if they could speak. This article seems it has a lack of professionals and facts included in it. Brian E. Gray, a professor at the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco gave a lot of his imput but the article never says why he is important to the actually issue. This article's topic doesn't directly effect me but it does bother me a bit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/science/earth/12species.html?_r=1

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Miss piggy is giving off high emisions

Title: As More Eat Meat, a Bid to Cut Emissions

By: Elisabeth Rosenthal
Published: December 3, 2008


Summary of blog: This blog is mainly about the idea that trillions of farm animals around the world generate 18 percent of the emissions that are raising global temperatures. According to United Nations estimates they are giving off more emissions than cars, buses and airplanes.

Farm animals are cute and a primary source of our food but as this article states "when looked at through the lens of greenhouse gas accounting, they are living smokestacks, spewing methane emissions into the air." This just recently became an issue because more and more people are beginning to consume meat around the world. The main concern with this is that the problematic issue will be over looked...when thinking of emmisons we usuually jump to think of cars and factories, and smoggy cities...not farmlands or little miss piggy! One thought up solution for the problem is called the "methane capture". This method would invente food that will make cows belch less methane, which traps heat with 25 times the efficiency of carbon dioxide. "Other proposals include everything from persuading consumers to eat less meat to slapping a “sin tax” on pork and beef. Next year, Sweden will start labeling food products so that shoppers can look at how much emission can be attributed to serving steak compared with, say, chicken or turkey." How bizzare is it that on your food label you will find out out much emisions your dinner had given off? I guess thats a good way to raise awareness but to be honest as much as I want to keep the environment healthy I'd also like keep my stomach and tastebuds health and happy. This will affect my family because we do eat a lot of meat. I do not think it wil become a major issue while i'm a young person but it may effect my granchildren's generation. I think that this issue is not as dangerous as the statistics try to exemplify.As a nation I do not feel this issue will become very large either. There other contributors that we are better off trying to fix like cars and such. People can control that better then there intact of food (one is more a luxury where the other is a bigger factor in survival when it truely comes down to it). I think this article was pretty interesting overall! It seems pretty reliable with statistics from a few different countries along with facts from the chief of sustainability at the Swedish agricultural group Lantmannen.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/science/earth/04meat.html?_r=1