walmart goes green

"Green-light specials, now at walmart"
By Stephanie Rosenbloom and Michael Barbaro

January 24, 2009

Summary: Wallmart has began to sell many products that are Eco friendly and that are affordable.

"For decades, many consumers felt that going green was a luxury, too, reserved primarily for those with enough money — and time on their hands — to buy groceries at natural food stores and organic clothing from specialty retailers." About 200 million customers buy flourescent light bulbs that use about 75% less electricity than a regular light bulb. They also sell things that use less packaging or less energy in ohter ways aswell. After this took place walmarts bussiness began to rise. I think its awesome that energy efficiant items are now becoming more available to the average working class familes. This source seems pretty reliable because it has solid statistics and dates. It also has information given directly from walmart executives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/business/25walmart.html

Energy round 2

"Big Boost to Alternative Energy, Clean Tech If Obama Stimulus Passes Senate"

January 30,2009

By AndrewBurger

Summary: President Obama has come up with a plan that will create jobs and hopefully result in a doubling of US renewable energy output.

"Half-a-billion dollars worth of tax incentives, loan guarantees, deployment and research funding is slated to spur development of wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy resources. A total $25 billion is to be invested to put manufacturing workers into “green” sector jobs that would boost the economy and strengthen energy and national security while at the same time enhancing environmental protection and efforts to adapt to and mitigate climate change." This idea could have many benefits to my family and I because it will have both short and long term positive effects. This is because it will lower carbon pollutions and help with energy efficiency. It’s also estimated that this would create more than 41,000 jobs. This blog seems rather reliable because it is based off of facts that the president has planned out. Its not on opinions and its a widely known topic.

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/01/30/big-boost-to-alt-energy-clean-tech-if-obama-stimulus-passes-senate/

alternative energy 2

"Many States Implementing Solar Energy Projects"

By: Angelique van Engelen

January 16, 2009

Summary: This article is about a project in which a company will install solar panels on 425 homes in a $50 million project. "The company will generate enough energy to power 1,300 houses." It will provide a good idea for what to expect in the future for solar power and its positive and negative attributes.

This article provides information on projects that are currently underway involving solar energy pannels on homes. Edison has planned to be the United States largerts soloar provider. They currently rent "607,000 square feet of ProLogis’ roof space in the Californian town of Fontana. Output will be produce 2.2 megawatts, enough for up to 1,426 households. Edison has plans to generate 250 MW of solar energy in around five years’ time." This is exciting news! I feel that my family along with many families will benifit from the trial. It will allow scientists and technitions to fix the tweaks of the system. Hopefully the solar power will become a main source of energy, reducing the amount of natural recourses that we are over using. With companies working at such rapid paces, the system might be effective very soon. "The main selling point of the panels is that they’re going to be professionally managed. That’s a great way of reducing your carbon footprint." I think this article is very practical and reliable because their are many examples of projects and solid statistics.

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/01/16/state-wide-solar-energy-projects/

alternative energy

"Algae Farming In The Face Of The Oil Price Situation - Still a Viable Alternative Fuel Source?" By: Angeleique van Engelen
on January 21, 2009

Summary of blog: This article is about a project that uses algae to clean the air of CO2 and other pollutants. The algae grows very quickly and can be made into a liquid fuel eventually aswell. The algae may also be a way to "get ride" carbon dioxide by allowing it to be buried underground.

I think this idea of an alternative fuel is very creative. It has multiple aspects that could be benificial such as having a place to store pollutants and provide an alternative fuel. Nevertheless it is thought to be quite expensive, much more than regualar oil is now. Ranging between 18-30 dollars PER gallon compared to the 2 dollars that it is now with oil. It is also untested so is could be subjected to harming the envirment just aswell. The competition for an alternative energy source will be to the consumers advantage. I would personally benifit from this project in the sense that the atmosphere may get cleaned up but i would never be able to afford it. This article is not that reliable because it it a very new subject and has not been tested anywhere. More research needs to be conducted on it or in different areas than one.

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/01/21/algae-farming-in-the-face-of-the-oil-price-situation/

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

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

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