Using Waste, Swedish City Cuts Its Fossil Fuel Use

Kristianstad, a city in Sweden, is using trash as am alternative for oil. Items like wood clippings, pig intestines, stale cookies, potato peels, manure, and cooking oil are burned so that they form biogas, which is a form of methane gas. This city is in a major region of agriculture in Sweden, so it has access to a myriad of wastes. As you can imagine, this is saving the city money because they don't have to purchase foreign oil. It also has created new jobs.

The United States, though, is not fully embracing this new technology. We only have a little over 100 biogas plants in the country, and they are only burning manure. The reason we haven't looked into it as much is because the cost is high at first, and we don't really have a plan as to how we would use the gas or how we would transport it from one place to another. Personally, I definitely think we should look into this alternative energy. Just think of how much trash you bring to the curb every week. Imagine if all of it could be turned into fuel. We know that fossil fuels are someday going to run out, and I feel like we are nowhere near prepared for that day. However, I think that now is the perfect time to begin investing in alternative fuel, and what better alternative than something that you will constantly have an abundance of?

Questions:

1) Do you think we should embrace this new form of alternative energy? Why or why not?

2) If we did invest in this technology, how long do you think it would be before it finally became widespread? Why?

3) Do you feel that we would eventually be able to replace oil with biogas formed from trash? Why or why not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/science/earth/11fossil.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Wind Energy

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101121195434.htm
By: Kristi Rice

Summary

       Ever since 2008 there have been new wind turbine power generation added in the US.  The cost of producing energy form the turbine continues to drop.  But wind power is far from the optimal way to get our energy.  The efficiency of the wind turbines is all based on the winds and their changeability.  They are most efficient under a steady flow of wind.  Researchers are designing "new types of air flow technology may soon increase the efficiency of large wind turbines under many different wind conditions."  Researchers from Syracuse University are testing new intelligent systems that will help the efficiency of the turbines.  From their research they could reduce the noise that the wind turbine makes.  Another problem that the scientist had to face was the drag, resistance felt by the tribune blades as they hit the air.  The University of Minnesota put tinny grooves on the turbine blades.  The groves form triangular riblets scored into the coating on the blade surface.  This will help increase the efficiency by about 3%.

       I think that it is great that the US is adding more wind turbines.  The wind power is an extra way for use to get eco friendly power.  Plus it is also getting cheaper to produce them.  I'm glad that they are improving the ideas that we have already created.  It is always good to use our resource to their best of their ability.  I think this was a interesting article to read.  I remember doing an article on wind power when I was younger and I remember a good amount form then but I still learned a few new things by reading this article. 

Question

1.Do you think it is good thing that we added more wind power even when they only work really well with a steady supply of wind?
2.Is it worth putting all our time, money and energy into improving old ideas or creating new ideas? The new ideas could be better or worse for the environment.
3.Was this article worth reading or not? Why? (Don't say you had to read it. Give your honest opinion.)

Enhancing the Efficiency of Wind Turbines

National Renewable Energy Law

The United States has been one of the top polluters in the world, and many of the reasons are because of our huge use of non-renewable energy sources. If we continue to waste like this, we are going to run out of fuel and have to spend a lot of money to fix it. However, recently scientists have done some calculations and found out that the United States could gain $342 million! This could be done by adapting the Renewable Energy Standard policy from other places like Europe who have already established this.This is a twenty percent rise for our economy, which would definitely help us in times like this. By using renewable energy sources more efficiently and more often, we would also be helping the Earth.
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/12/08/us-would-gain-342-billion-from-a-national-renewable-energy-policy-pew-report/
Susan Kraemer
December 8, 2010
Reflection:
I think that this is a great idea to gain money AND help the environment at the same time, but not very realistic. From what I got out of the article, it seems that narrowing down our energy sources to mostly or all renewable is a long shot. Maybe later in the future when we have more information and research we will be able to, but right now it seems close to impossible. The article also didn't take into account the expenses in building and maintaining these sources. I don't really think they explained all the information well enough, and more research should have been done before making it an article. But in general I personally think that it would be a really good idea to power homes and big factories that use up a lot of energy. I know that my home uses a lot of electricity.
1) Do you think that this is a realistic goal to have for the United States? Why or why not?
2) Why do you think other countries already have this policy established and are more advanced in this field?
3) Do you think that we should aim for this goal, or continue to use non-renewable sources? Is the $342 billion worth it?

More Ethanol in Gasoline is Risky

Summary:
The BP oil spill was a clear indicator that we need to find safer and cleaner energy sources for our cars, homes, and businesses. An example of a clean alternative is biofuels. Biofuels are energy grown on the surface of the land, instead of deep underground. However, although there are many clean and safe biofuels, there are also some that are dangerous to the envioronment. One of these harmful biofuels is ethanol from corn. Ethanol is resposible for more global warming than the amount of oil it produces. That means the amount of global warming it causes is greater than the amount of oil it produces! Ethanol also contaminates our sources of water and causes the price of food to skyrocket. There are alternative biofuels, such as ones made from switchgrass and winter-cover crops. However, these biofuels are being left alone in the dirt while the ethanol biofuels are being used left and right. Worsening the issue, the EPA recently changed the amount of ethanol we may use in our gasoline from 10% to 15% for all vehicles made since 2007. The burning of ethanol from tailpipes of cars causes air pollution, and it is even more of pollutant now that there is 15% of ethanol in gasoline. All of this is being funded by taxpayers, so that means that the money we pay for taxes is going towards ethanol, a substance that harms our envioronment. With this being said, we should look for cleaner biofuels so we are putting our tax money towards something effective and environmentally safe.

Reflection:
I had no idea that ethanol was that bad for the environment. On top of that, I am even more shocked at the fact that the government continues to allow the use of ethanol in gasoline, knowing that it pollutes our air when cars drive. I do not like the fact that our tax money is going towards ethanol, because that basically means that we are paying to harm the environment. I think that we should find an alternative substance to put into our gasoline, something that is more environmentally friendly. That way, we would be paying for something that is helping the environment, not hurting it. In addition, I was also very surprised that the EPA contributed to this issue by allowing the amount of ethanol in gasoline to rise from 10% to 15%. This is awful, considering that the EPA is supposed to help our environment, not contribute to negative aspects that are harming it. I hope that the EPA lowers this percentage in the future and I also hope that one day we will be able to find an alternative biofuel for our gasoline, so global warming does not progressively get worse and worse. Using all of this ethanol worries me because it plays a major role in global warming, so if we continue to use more and more of it, our earth will get worse and worse, and will have a shorter lifespan. I think the government and EPA and other environmentalists need to work together and come up with an alternative.

Questions:
1. How do you feel about putting your money (from taxes) towards ethanol, which is contributing to air pollution and global warming?
2. What are your opinions on the EPA raising the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline from 10% to 15%? How do you think this will affect the environment?
3. What do you think needs to be done to prevent further damage and pollution to our environment (in particular the air)?

Link:


http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/20/greene.ethanol.risk/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Recently, scientists have discovered a way to discover what the atmosphere was like on Mars and Earth millions of years ago. This was originally found out by Robina Shaheen, who had been doing research on this topic for the past four years. This can be done by using a chemical reaction found in the atmosphere from very small particulates. Discovering this also gives an explanation for chemical compounds that were found on Mars years ago. They were thought to have been signs of Martian activity but now we know that this is not the case. Although not much more is known on the matter yet, this is basically a new and efficient way to measure the Earth's atmosphere which can help us make greater discoveries in the future.

I think that this is a great discovery and will help us find many other important things in the future. If we have fast and efficient ways to find out what the Earth and Mars's atmosphere is like, I can't imagine what we will have the capability to do later! This could lead to so many other discoveries like what life might have been like on Mars, or how the atmosphere changed on Earth over the years. It could also help us solve major climate issuses having to do with the atmosphere like the ozone layer and global warming.

1) What are your thoughts on this new discovery? Do you think it is important and should be pursued further?
2) What are some other ways that you think this can be used to help us today and in the future?
3) Do you think that Martian life really did once exist on Mars? Should we use this new evidence to pursue topics like that or more current issues like global warming?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101108151330.htm
Science Daily
November 13th, 2010

Every Person Emits Two Tons of Carbon Dioxide a Year Through Eating, Spanish Study Finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.htm

By: Kristi Rice

A new study by researchers in Spain finds that every person emits the equivalent of approximately two tons of carbon dioxide a year from the time food is produced to when the human body excretes it.

A team of researchers in Spain did research on the Spanish diet and found out that we play a part of the cycle of food; this is the first time that it has ever been tested with human excrements.  Iván Muñoz main author and researcher said,"food in Spain produces emissions of around two tonnes of carbon dioxide per person and per year more than 20% of total emissions per person and per year.”  This study showed the relationship of food production and consumption with global warming and excess of nutrients.  The data that they got was that getting food from animals (meat and dairy) had the most impact, and for the greatest souce of carbon dioxicide it was fishing, agricultural and livestock.  Our excretion is a major part of polluting water.  In this article they also make a point that it is not so bad returning some of the waste water because it can add nutrients.  In the end people do not have an effect of the global warming at least by eating, and that we contribute to water pollution by nitrate and phosphorus.

 

When I first read the title I was intrigued by it because it was something different and yet it somehow had to do with recycling and waste.  I never knew how much CO2 we put into the air by eating.  It is an interesting fact to learn about.I think that it was an good thing to learn about.  Also it was a good to learn about a different type of doing an experiment.  After having our water hydrosphere unit I am not surprised in learning that we are a big contributor to water pollution.  I am glad to know that I am not affecting the earth by eating food.

Question

        1. What do you think about this article? (Personal opinion)

        2. Do you think this is worth knowing or not? Explain what you think.

        3. How accurate do you think this research is because they only studied people that live in Spain and that have a diet of 881 kilograms? Why do you think this.

Drugs In The Water: Even When Careful, Pharmaceuticals Can End Up In Water

Even though most of us dispose of prescription drugs by throwing them in the trash, they can still end up in our drinking water. Water drains through a landfill, and some of the prescription drugs get into the water. The water from the landfill, called leachate, eventually goes into rivers. When drinking water is drawn from these rivers, there is a chance that the water could be contaminated with prescription drugs. To prevent this, Maine is debating a law that would force drug manufacturers to develop a program to properly dispose of the medications.

Personally, I'm glad that this is finally happening, and I'm actually surprised that such a program didn't already exist. There are programs for fluorescent light bulbs, which are not as widespread as prescription drugs. I don't know about everybody else, but I don't want my water to be contaminated with something that could be harmful. Plus, if we are taking in prescription drugs and antibiotics with our water, couldn't that make more diseases resistant to the drugs? It seems to me that having a disposal program like this would be beneficial to most people, and would solve more problems than it would cause.

1. Do you support the pending law in Maine? Why or why not?

2. Do you feel comfortable knowing that there could be prescription drugs in your drinking water?

3. Who do you feel is responsible for prescription drugs in drinking water, the government or the drug manufacturers? Explain.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/08/drugs-in-the-water-even-w_n_453502.html

Summary:

A new monkey species was discovered in Myanmar recently. This monkey is not an ordinary monkey though, it is very unique and diverse. It is a type of snub-nosed monkey and is called Rhinopithecus strykeri. What makes this monkey different is the way its nose is upturned and points upwards. As a result, this monkey sneezes every time it rains! How weird is that? Since their noses are upturned, they can easily inhale the rain without trying to, so to avoid doing so, they must sit and put their heads in between their legs and look downwards whenever it rains. This monkey was discovered by the Myanmar Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Association, primatologists from Fauna and Flora International, and the People Resources and Biodiversity Foundation. This research team was originally studying gibbons, when residents reported sightings of the monkeys. By the descriptions the residents gave them, the researchers figured they had been seeing the snub-nosed monkey, however that monkey is only found in China and Vietnam. They soon discovered that it was a new monkey, who was only a type of the snub-nosed monkey. These monkeys are about 21 inches in length, with 30 inch tails. They have black fur with white ear tufts, and their faces are naked and pink, except for the thin white mustache. Although they are newly discovered, there are only about 330 of them in the whole world, making them endangered. They are threatened by planned dam deconstruction and logging roads.

Reflection:

I think that this next discovery is great and very interesting, and I love the fact that there are still new animals out there that we don't know about yet. When I think about how many different species live on the earth, a large number comes to mind, and it is mind boggling to know that there are even more species that still remain unknown. This monkey in particular is very interesting and I have never heard of nor seen anything like it. I think it is very different and somewhat amusing that the monkey sneezes whenever it rains, that must be cool to see! I also think its different how the monkey has to stick his head between his knees when it rains. That must be horrible, because when it rains they have to sit like that for possibly hours at a time! It is also interesting how their tails are even longer than their bodies, because not many animals are like that. I personally hope that these animals can breed and become more common because they sound very interesting and I would like to see more of them.

Questions:

1. What are your thoughts about a monkey of this type and diversity?

2. What connections can you make of this animal and another animal? (Similarities between this monkey and another animal)

3. What can we do to discover new species?

Link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39859947/ns/technology_and_science-science/

High Winds Destruct A Wide Area

Tuesday morning, a huge storm went into the Midwest with winds exceeding 70 miles per hour. This rainstorm was so strong that scientists said it was capable of embedding tornadoes. In Missouri, there have been reportings of damage from falling trees and severe winds. This storm covered a huge area, in Illinois someone reported a huge tornado ripping off their roof and almost collapsed their whole house. In Chicago, Illinois, the airport had to close due to high winds and rain passsing through the area resulting in over 125 flights being cancelled. Fortunately, there were no serious injuries that are known of so far.
My opinion on this is that there needs to be things done to clean up the area. The government has a responsibility to take care of cities and people after a natural disaster. Although it may cost some money, it is neccessary to be done. They can't just deny people of support in getting their lives back together. I know that if my house and town had been affected by this terrible event, I would be furious if the government decided not to help me.
1) Do you think the government should spend money on helping these people whose homes have been ruined, or should they come up with the money himself?
2) How do we prevent things like this happening by surprise? Should scientists work on finding out how to predict these more accurately and to the actual extent they are going to happen?
3) Does the airport have an obligation to give a refund to those whose flights were cancelled? How do you think they should get this money? Should they have to resort to getting it from taxpayers?
The picture included shows the tornado and how destructive high winds can be.
Link: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/26/midwest.weather/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29
Author: CNN Wire Staff
October 26, 2010 10:41 a.m. EDT

Plane Exhaust Kills People

Plane Exhaust Kills More People then Plane Crashes
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-planes-pollution-deaths-science-environment/

Summary

  "There's a new fear of flying: You're more likely to die from exposure to toxic pollutants in plane exhaust than in a plane crash, a new study suggests."  Researchers have learned that about  a thousand people die in a plane crash and about ten thousand people die form the plane's exhaust fuels.  The airplanes exhaust fuels include sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.  About 8 thousand deaths accour at cursing alltitude which is about 35,000.  About 2 thousand accour at take off and landing.  The air is affected to because the fuels pullute the air.  When people breath in the exhaust fuels they may get lung canncer.  In the US there is only about 450 deaths form this and in India there is about 1,640 deaths per year.  A way to reduce this is to take sulfer out of the jet fuel, sulfer is a major killer.  To remove sulfer it would cost another 5 cents per gallon.

Reflection

I am suprised to learn that more people die form the exhaust feuls then the airplane crashes. I would have thought that it was the opposite way.  I'm not afraid of dieing form the exhaust fuel because there is a very small chance that it could happen to me considering that about 450 accour in the US.  The government should spend that extra 5 cents so that we can not only reduce the deaths but also the air pollution.

Questions

1. What is your reaction to this article? Explain.

2.  Do you think you could be affected by the exhaust feuls because you live near a naval air base?

3.  Do you think that the government should spend that extra 5 cents to save about 450 live or not? Why or why not?

Sun Chips' new bag to lose its crunch

Frito-Lay has decided to stop using biodegradable Sun Chips bags after public complaints about the noise. The bags, which went into use in January, are 100% compostable, but make a very loud noise when they are crinkled. As sales of Sun Chips have fallen since the bags were introduced, Frito-Lay has decided to revert back to the original bag. However, they will keep the biodegradable bag for the original flavor of Sun Chips, but look for a quieter material to make it out of. I don't really like Sun Chips, so I was unaware that the bag was loud in the first place. However, if you're trying to sell something, you have to please your customers. If they're complaining about the noise level of the bags, you really have no choice but to change them. Think about it: when we eat chips, the bag crinkles constantly. I can't imagine what it would be like if it was really loud.

1. Do you think they should keep the biodegradable bags? Why or why not?

2. What are your feelings on the noise level?

3. Do you feel that a biodegradable bag could be made from a quieter material? Explain your reasoning.

Link: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/sun_chips_new_bag_to_lose_its_crunch_FG5Iw57dI2h5KaLJllJQmK

Fifth of world's plants at risk of extinction, experts warn

Summary: It has been discovered that approximately 1/5 of all the plant species in the world are at risk for extinction. The main cause of the threat is because of humans. Use of plants for agriculture is the top reason as to why the plant population is decreasing so much. Other reasons include development of houses and buildings, logging, and the use of land for livestock. All of these reasons are somehow involved with humans. We are the foundation for everything that is occurring and scientists believe that if the government takes the correct approaches, we might be able to prevent some of the plants for becoming extinct. Plants are the producers, and basically control everything in an ecosystem. It is their duty to produce oxygen, provide water and food for animals and humans, and to give off vitamins such as phosphorus to animals. If the plants became extinct, so would animals and then so would humans. The area that is at the highest risk for extinction is by far the rain forests. Scientists have been taking samples and performing tests to see how bad this threat is, and how much at risk the plants are for extinction. Their results indicated that about 1/5 of the 380,000 plant species are at risk for extinction.

Personal Reflection: I personally think that this is a very serious as well as shocking problem. I, along with many others I'm sure, had no idea that plants were endangered, let alone at such a hight risk for extinction. I think that this is a very serious problem because plants are the basis for all life on earth. They provide us with oxygen and food, and they also provide animals food and water. They also give us vitamins and minerals, such as phosphorus. If a large number of plants become extinct, a lot more species of animals will become endangered, which will put us at risk because we rely on plants and animals for food, energy, and minerals. I really hope that there is some way we can prevent such a large percentage of our plants from becoming extinct. This threat really shows how unhealthy our environment and earth is.

Questions:

1. Did you have any idea that 1/5 of our plant species are seriously endangered? How did you react to when you read this?

2. How do you think life would be different without as many plants?

3. What steps do you think we can take to prevent the extinction?

4. How would the lack of plants affect our everyday lives?

link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39419038/ns/world_news-world_environment/

Cockroaches Could Save People

Recently, scientists have been doing research and found that the ground-up brains of cockroaches could actually help save peoples lives. Inside their head, there are chemical compounds that could help kill many infectious diseases, like E. Coli and MRSA. Both of these are really hard to treat, and cause a lot of problems for the people who get them. Using the cockroach brains could really help them. Scientists say that right now, cockroaches are still nasty insects but in the future it may be possible to go to the pharmacy and pick up some cockroach brains to help with that infection.

I think that this new discovery is kinda gross, but if we need to do this in order to save peoples lives then we should. The idea of putting cockroach brains into my body just creeps me out, though, and I'd rather have alternative options to this. I think that scientists should work on different ways to save people from these diseases, because a lot of people probably wouldn't be willing to take this medicine. I would also be kind of scared that the cockroach had some sort of disease, and by taking it I could get something.

1) If you were faced with the option of taking cockroach brains to help fight off a dangerous infection that other medicines couldn't help with, would you? Why or why not?

2) Do you think that in the future, you will actually be able to go to CVS, Walgreens, or some other sort of pharmacy and pick up some of this? Or does that not seem realistic? Why or why not?

3) Do you think there could be any dangers associated with doing this? What are they?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/63806/title/FOR_KIDS_Cockroaches_could_be_good_medicine

Hybrid Panthers Helping Rare Cat Rebound in Florida

Hybrid Panthers Helping Rare Cat Rebound in Florida


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100924-science-florida-panthers-texas-hybrids-endangered-animals/

The Florida panthers used to be hunted during the 1900's and the few remaining ones were driven to South Florida swamps. At first the panthers were bread them with each other but that lead to health problems. One of the health problems was hearts problems.They then were bread with the Texas cougars, which is what some panthers did in the 19th century. The cougars help the population of the panthers increase. This genetic change has help the panthers for example they now live longer and are better at surviving. O'Brien, chief of the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity said, "we don't feel like we fiddled so much with nature." The panthers are not completely out of danger but they have made progress in bring the population up. Their next challenge is to "conserve existing habitat for these animals, as well as allow them to expand into some areas of their former range." These new panthers have been researched and monitored for more then twenty years and will most likely be monitored until there is more then a hundred. Overall combining the old and new genes together has helped the panthers.

 I think that they have done the right thing in helping the panthers. There seems to be a lot of work that needs to be done and it seems that it will take a lot of time to increase the population. I also think that we should have done more to protect these animals before they became endangered. We should have made it illegal to hunt them back then and now. It's a good thing that they monitor the animals so they can know how they're doing or else we would not know how they are doing. I'm glad they can not only increase the population but also make them better adapted for survival. A prediction I would make about the challenge is that if we exceed then they would be able to survive on their on without us having to interfere with them.  Also I would predict that it will take a lot of time and might not be easy.  In my opinion we should have taken more steps to prevent the panthers form becoming endangered.

 1.) Do you think they should have put all this time into these animals or do you think that we should have kept the few remaining ones in captivity? Why or why not?


2.) Do you think that the hybrid panthers should be sent into their old habitat now or a few more years?


3.) Do you think it was right for the panthers to be crossbreed with another species?


4.)If you made a prediction about their next challenge what would it be?

GM Salmon: FDA Hears Arguments To Decide Approval Of 'Frankenfish'

Summary:

The FDA is going to begin hearing arguments about whether or not to approve genetically modified salmon, being referred to as "frankenfish." Genetic engineering has been used with farm crops for years, but this is the first time the government may approve an animal. These salmon grow to be twice the size of farm grown salmon in half the time. Many people, however, are very worried about the health of consumers and the salmon's effect on the environment. People could be allergic to the fish, and the fish could make its way into the wild and reproduce with wild salmon. The company that is producing the fish, AquaBounty, is keeping their studies secret, which is only adding fuel to the fire.

Reflection:

I personally believe that this fish should not be approved. It does not seem safe, and I don't care for the idea of eating salmon that was bred in a factory. If this becomes approved, only more genetically modified animals will be approved. This could have a disastrous effect on the health of Americans.

Questions:

1. Would you eat the genetically modified salmon? Why or why not?
2. What is your biggest concern about the salmon?
3. Would you eat any other genetically modified animals?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/gm-salmon-fda-hears-argum_n_731224.html

Study: To Save Tigers, Protect Key Breeding Areas

Summary: Tigers are an endangered species, and their population has severely decreased through the years. In an effort to help the tigers, conservationists say that they need to protect the breeding areas of tigers, rather than trying to protect areas around the tigers. If the tigers population is going to grow, they need to breed, so that is why it is especially important that the breeding areas are safe and protected. Less than one third of the remaining tigers are female breeding tigers. Tigers are endangered due to hunting, trade, and habitat destruction, but the main threat is poachers, people who sell and purchase tiger fur, and in some cases, believe that tiger parts can be a form of medicine and increase the health of humans. As a result of the poachers, the number of tigers has dropped from 5,000 in 1998 to 3,200. In order to save the tigers, we need to protect the females in general and ensure that they breed. The plan requires a strong law enforcement as well as surveillant and would cost about $82 million per year.

Opinion: I think that is is extremely important that we take a step to protect the tigers. I also think that it is a good idea to protect the breeding areas, because if the tiger population is to increase, they need to breed. We should spend the $82 million, and then once the population increases, we will not have to spend as much money. But as of right now, this is a very severe issue and I think we need to do something about it.

Questions:

1. Do you think it is a good idea to spend so much money just to protect tigers?

2. Do you think we will be able to increase the population of the tigers? How?

3. What are your feelings about the fact that the tiger population is so low?

4. Do you think we will be able to override the poachers and keep the tigers safe?

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39174334/ns/us_news-environment/

Turtles in Danger

Summary:
According to Conservation International, over 280 of freshwater turtle species are endangered and being threatened for extinction. Turtle eggs are being used for food and turtles are very popular in pet trade which is a main cause for this. In China they are used for medicinal reasons and are on the market for a high price. These turtles live for about 50 years, and if they are killed before they reach 15, which is when they can have more turtles, then no more turtles will exist. Another problem is that their habitats are being ruined because of drilling for hydroelectricity and mining. Slowly, human activity is decreasing the amount of freshwater turtles.
Reflection:
I think that it's sad that freshwater turtles are close to becoming extinct, especially since it is being caused mainly by humans. If they put an age limit on how old the turtle is before it can be used, I think this problem will definitely be closer to being solved. For example, before they could be taken for pet use they would need to be 20 or older, so they can keep the turtle population going. I personally like pet turtles, and it would be sad if it reached a point where the wouldn't be allowed.
Questions:
1) What are your ideas on ways this problem can be solved?
2) Should using turtles as pets be banned?
3) Do you think people will care about this issue and try to help it, or will they brush it aside and concentrate on more "important" ones like they tend to be doing for other endangered animals?

Turtles in Trouble
No Particular Author
September 15th, 2010
Environmental News Network

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=24053

Funneling Solar Energy

Funneling Solar Energy: Antenna made of carbon nanotubes could make photovoltai
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100912151548.htm

Summery

 This article is about a new way of using solar energy.  The new way is descoverd by Professer Strano.  This way of using solar energy "...boots the number of photons that can be captured and transforms the light into energy that can be funneld into a solar cell."  With the new antenna you would not have to have a full roof set of antenna's like you would have to have for a solar panel roof.  Two other ways that it can be used as is for telescopes and night vision gogles. The one flaw that the antenna has is that it losses 13% of the energy that it absorbs. Professer Strano and his team are trying to lower that number to 1%.

Reflection

 I think that this new idea could help us use our resorces and help save the enviornment.  When this idea becames more populer and is proven to help the eviornment more people will chose solar power vurs cool and oil.  I think that if we keep thinking and inventing new ways to use the suns energy I think we would use less amounts of oil.

Questions

1. What do you think about the new way of using solar energy?

2. Do you think people would switch ways to get energy?

3. Would you use the antenna? Why or Why nor?