Sunday, April 19, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Some Facts Related to the Meat Consumption
With the obvious exception of humans, it's odd to think that any animal could seriously damage the environment. Beef cows, however, are giving it a go, and apparently they've been successful. Conservationists now refer to the animals as "hoofed locusts," and not only because they trample, pollute, and destroy all land they graze. Studies also show that cows play significant roles in deforestation, soil erosion, water scarcity, global warming, depletion of fossil fuels, and loss of biodiversity. Odd as it may sound, the environmental impact of the cow is perhaps even more calamitous than the automobile.
Of course, the problem is not really with the cows, but with eating them. Every time you swallow a piece of beef, you consume both food and natural resources twice. The same land, labor, water, and fuel used to raise, slaughter, package, and transport livestock is also needed to grow and harvest feed grain. And this double use of resources leads to a seemly preposterous statistic: while the average vegetarian consumes between 300 and 400 pounds of grain per year, the average meat-eater consumes over 2000. Of course, eighty percent of the meat eater's total is first digested by cows, pigs, and chickens. Needless to say, this process is both and extravagant and inefficient.
Given the above, anyone environmentally conscious enough to recycle should also consider reducing his or her meat consumption. Doing so is arguably more beneficial to the environment, and, in many ways, easier. While it's no picnic sorting and recycling trash, not eating beef requires little or no work at all. You only have to pick something else on the menu.
Finally, here's a modest proposal. Why not cut beef production in half and convert the cattle ranches of America's tornado alley into wind farms? Given the growing scarcity of fossil fuels, surely the plan holds enough economic potential to offset resulting job losses in the cattle industry. Until that happens, though, here are a few facts to consider about the environmental impact of the beef industry.
* Nearly half of the total amount of water used annually in the U.S. goes to grow feed and provide drinking water for cattle and livestock.
* In the US, 33% of all raw material consumption is used solely in the production of meat, egg, and dairy products.
* The annual beef consumption of an average American family of four requires more than 260 gallons of fuel. The result is 2.5 tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, or about as much as the average car over a six month period.
* According to some estimates, supplying the entire world with a western, meat-centered diet would deplete the planet's oil reserves within ten years.
* Cattle produce nearly 1 billion tons of organic waste each year. The average beef cow produces more than 47 pounds of manure every 24 hours.
* From 1995 to 1997, more than forty animal waste spills killed some 10.6 million fish.
* 85% of topsoil loss in the US is the result of livestock production, with each pound of steak resulting in 35 pounds of eroded US topsoil.
* 260 million acres of US forests have been cleared for cropland to produce grain for livestock.
* From 1960-1985 40% of the Central American rainforests were destroyed to create gazing land for cattle.
* According to the US General Accounting Office, more plant species in the United States have been eliminated or threatened by livestock grazing than by any other cause.
* In an effort to combat "nuisance" animals preying on livestock, in 1989 the US Department of Agriculture killed 86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 1,220 bobcats, 236 black bears, and 80 wolves. Four hundred pet dogs were inadvertently killed in the process.
* Cows produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, three gases largely responsible for global warming. Through daily belching and flatulence, cows emit over twelve percent of the total methane released into the atmosphere per year.
Of course, the problem is not really with the cows, but with eating them. Every time you swallow a piece of beef, you consume both food and natural resources twice. The same land, labor, water, and fuel used to raise, slaughter, package, and transport livestock is also needed to grow and harvest feed grain. And this double use of resources leads to a seemly preposterous statistic: while the average vegetarian consumes between 300 and 400 pounds of grain per year, the average meat-eater consumes over 2000. Of course, eighty percent of the meat eater's total is first digested by cows, pigs, and chickens. Needless to say, this process is both and extravagant and inefficient.
Given the above, anyone environmentally conscious enough to recycle should also consider reducing his or her meat consumption. Doing so is arguably more beneficial to the environment, and, in many ways, easier. While it's no picnic sorting and recycling trash, not eating beef requires little or no work at all. You only have to pick something else on the menu.
Finally, here's a modest proposal. Why not cut beef production in half and convert the cattle ranches of America's tornado alley into wind farms? Given the growing scarcity of fossil fuels, surely the plan holds enough economic potential to offset resulting job losses in the cattle industry. Until that happens, though, here are a few facts to consider about the environmental impact of the beef industry.
* Nearly half of the total amount of water used annually in the U.S. goes to grow feed and provide drinking water for cattle and livestock.
* In the US, 33% of all raw material consumption is used solely in the production of meat, egg, and dairy products.
* The annual beef consumption of an average American family of four requires more than 260 gallons of fuel. The result is 2.5 tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, or about as much as the average car over a six month period.
* According to some estimates, supplying the entire world with a western, meat-centered diet would deplete the planet's oil reserves within ten years.
* Cattle produce nearly 1 billion tons of organic waste each year. The average beef cow produces more than 47 pounds of manure every 24 hours.
* From 1995 to 1997, more than forty animal waste spills killed some 10.6 million fish.
* 85% of topsoil loss in the US is the result of livestock production, with each pound of steak resulting in 35 pounds of eroded US topsoil.
* 260 million acres of US forests have been cleared for cropland to produce grain for livestock.
* From 1960-1985 40% of the Central American rainforests were destroyed to create gazing land for cattle.
* According to the US General Accounting Office, more plant species in the United States have been eliminated or threatened by livestock grazing than by any other cause.
* In an effort to combat "nuisance" animals preying on livestock, in 1989 the US Department of Agriculture killed 86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 1,220 bobcats, 236 black bears, and 80 wolves. Four hundred pet dogs were inadvertently killed in the process.
* Cows produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, three gases largely responsible for global warming. Through daily belching and flatulence, cows emit over twelve percent of the total methane released into the atmosphere per year.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Saving Birds
LETTERS FROM READERS…
(Abridged letter to On the Bay, holiday edition 2008, by George K. Peck, Research Associate, Ornithology, Royal Ontario Museum)
The nesting bird colonies on Nottawasaga Island are of a far greater importance than saving a now obsolete, manmade Lighthouse.
There are more than a dozen nesting bird species on the island, of which seven are in colonies. Among the latter is our province’s largest and most northerly colony of Great Egrets, now increased to 135 nesting pairs, from its appearance on the island in 1985. This magnificent all-white heron and the other island nesting birds have been monitored and an annual census is done annually by the Canadian Wildlife Service and myself. The island has been posted to keep visitors away during the nesting season.
If it is necessary and financially possible to repair the damaged Lighthouse, I would strongly suggest the importance of making those repairs outside the birds’ nesting season (the beginning of April to the end of July). Any work done within that period would seriously jeopardize the bird colonies, which should be regarded as a precious part of our heritage.
TASKS:
1. Reading comprehension questions (for higher levels):
Who is the author of this letter? Which Bay does the magazine relate to? What article in a previous issue does the author respond to? What point does he make?
Why does Mr.Peck think that birds are more important?
Name some of the birds in Ontario. Which of them exist in your country?
What does the writer mean by “a precious part of our heritage”? Can you think of anything else as a Canadian heritage?
What do you know about bird watching / bird counting?
In your opinion, should engineers, builders, city developers and other experts consult with biologists? Why or why not?
[Learn more: Janine Buyens: Biomimicry, see our book list]
2. Check the meaning of these words: nesting birds, bird colony, bird watching, bird census, ornithology. Find more words related to the birds.
3. TRUE / FALSE (for lower lvels)
1. Nottawasaga Island is a home to many birds.
2. There is a lighthouse on the island.
3. The lighthouse is not in use.
4. All the birds on the island are egrets.
5. The Great Egret is a white heron.
6. There are more than 12 bird species on the island.
7. There are 270 Great Egrets on the island.
8. People can not come to the island.
Find the words in the text that give answers to these statements.
4. Match the words on the left with the explanation on the right:
Obsolete - not in use any more
Colony - group
Appearance - show up
Magnificent - beautiful
Census - counting population
Jeopardize - endanger
Annual - yearly
Precious - dear
Heritage - part of the culture
Monitor - watch
5. Use the words above in these sentences:
The lighthouse on Nottawasaga Island is ________.
__________ies of birds live on the island now.
The first ________________ of Great Egret on the island was in 1985.
That _____________ bird is a part of Canadian _____________.
The island is ______________ because many species of birds live there.
The birds have been ______________ed.
An ____________ ___________ is taken to count the birds on the island.
Building works on the island during the nesting season can ______________ the birds.
6. Divide the class in two teams: those who are in favour of repairing the lighthouse and those who oppose it. Debate it.
Write a letter back to Mr. Peck defending the lighthouse restoration.
.
Write a post that the Canadian Wildlife Service would put on the island. Write more posts for the places you know need protection.
Write a letter to a newspaper suggesting a repair of some site that you would like to protect.
Write a letter to the Canadian Wildlife Service offering your help as a volunteer. Mention at least three reasons why you would qualify.
(Abridged letter to On the Bay, holiday edition 2008, by George K. Peck, Research Associate, Ornithology, Royal Ontario Museum)
The nesting bird colonies on Nottawasaga Island are of a far greater importance than saving a now obsolete, manmade Lighthouse.
There are more than a dozen nesting bird species on the island, of which seven are in colonies. Among the latter is our province’s largest and most northerly colony of Great Egrets, now increased to 135 nesting pairs, from its appearance on the island in 1985. This magnificent all-white heron and the other island nesting birds have been monitored and an annual census is done annually by the Canadian Wildlife Service and myself. The island has been posted to keep visitors away during the nesting season.
If it is necessary and financially possible to repair the damaged Lighthouse, I would strongly suggest the importance of making those repairs outside the birds’ nesting season (the beginning of April to the end of July). Any work done within that period would seriously jeopardize the bird colonies, which should be regarded as a precious part of our heritage.
TASKS:
1. Reading comprehension questions (for higher levels):
Who is the author of this letter? Which Bay does the magazine relate to? What article in a previous issue does the author respond to? What point does he make?
Why does Mr.Peck think that birds are more important?
Name some of the birds in Ontario. Which of them exist in your country?
What does the writer mean by “a precious part of our heritage”? Can you think of anything else as a Canadian heritage?
What do you know about bird watching / bird counting?
In your opinion, should engineers, builders, city developers and other experts consult with biologists? Why or why not?
[Learn more: Janine Buyens: Biomimicry, see our book list]
2. Check the meaning of these words: nesting birds, bird colony, bird watching, bird census, ornithology. Find more words related to the birds.
3. TRUE / FALSE (for lower lvels)
1. Nottawasaga Island is a home to many birds.
2. There is a lighthouse on the island.
3. The lighthouse is not in use.
4. All the birds on the island are egrets.
5. The Great Egret is a white heron.
6. There are more than 12 bird species on the island.
7. There are 270 Great Egrets on the island.
8. People can not come to the island.
Find the words in the text that give answers to these statements.
4. Match the words on the left with the explanation on the right:
Obsolete - not in use any more
Colony - group
Appearance - show up
Magnificent - beautiful
Census - counting population
Jeopardize - endanger
Annual - yearly
Precious - dear
Heritage - part of the culture
Monitor - watch
5. Use the words above in these sentences:
The lighthouse on Nottawasaga Island is ________.
__________ies of birds live on the island now.
The first ________________ of Great Egret on the island was in 1985.
That _____________ bird is a part of Canadian _____________.
The island is ______________ because many species of birds live there.
The birds have been ______________ed.
An ____________ ___________ is taken to count the birds on the island.
Building works on the island during the nesting season can ______________ the birds.
6. Divide the class in two teams: those who are in favour of repairing the lighthouse and those who oppose it. Debate it.
Write a letter back to Mr. Peck defending the lighthouse restoration.
.
Write a post that the Canadian Wildlife Service would put on the island. Write more posts for the places you know need protection.
Write a letter to a newspaper suggesting a repair of some site that you would like to protect.
Write a letter to the Canadian Wildlife Service offering your help as a volunteer. Mention at least three reasons why you would qualify.
MUSCLE POWER
1. Did you ever spend time on a treadmill or exercise bike and speculate about how all that energy could power more than your bike?
Could you imagine what else you could power while working out?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. A new book by Tamara Dean, called The Human-Powered Home (New Society Publishers, 2008) is a compendium of household devices gathered from a unique collection of experts on human power.
What household devices use pedal-power? Could some others use it too?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Most of us are familiar with hand-cranked juicers and grain or coffee mills, treadle sewing machines and push lawn mowers (which are becoming popular again).
But what about a pedal-powered television or computer?
What do you think would be advantages and shortbacks of such devices? Would they be more or less expensive than the existing ones?
TEACHING SUGGESTIONS:
1. For this reading / discussion task students should fold the paper after each paragraph, without reading the next. Pairs discuss each question after the paragraph and report to the class.
2. Try to change the interrogative sentences in the text into affirmative so that the meaning is not changed.
3. Try to change all the questions in the text into statements without changing the message
Could you imagine what else you could power while working out?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. A new book by Tamara Dean, called The Human-Powered Home (New Society Publishers, 2008) is a compendium of household devices gathered from a unique collection of experts on human power.
What household devices use pedal-power? Could some others use it too?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Most of us are familiar with hand-cranked juicers and grain or coffee mills, treadle sewing machines and push lawn mowers (which are becoming popular again).
But what about a pedal-powered television or computer?
What do you think would be advantages and shortbacks of such devices? Would they be more or less expensive than the existing ones?
TEACHING SUGGESTIONS:
1. For this reading / discussion task students should fold the paper after each paragraph, without reading the next. Pairs discuss each question after the paragraph and report to the class.
2. Try to change the interrogative sentences in the text into affirmative so that the meaning is not changed.
3. Try to change all the questions in the text into statements without changing the message
Alternatives That Will Clean
Fill in: will clean, will remove, will take out or will make:
Salt _____ _______ wine or fruit stains.
Club soda _______ ______ lighter coloured stains.
Baking soda and cornstarch _______ _______ good deodorizers.
A paste of baking soda, salt and water ________ ________ your oven.
One part water to one part vinegar in a spray bottle _______ ________ most areas of your home.
Vinegar _____ ________ toilet bowl stains.
Learn more:
Green Clean: The Environmentally Sound Guide to Cleaning Your Home by Linda Mason Hunter, Mikki Halpin (Melcher Media,2005)
The Naturally Clean Home: 101 Safe and Easy Herbal Formulas for Non-Toxic Cleansers by Karyn Siegel-Maier (Storey Publishing,1999)
Clean and Green: The Complete Guide to Non-Toxic and Environmentally Safe Housekeeping by Annie Berthold-Bond (Ceres Press, 1994)
You Tube, search for Lindsay Coulter (demos how you can make your own candles, cleaning material etc.)
Source: Natural Life Magazine, January/February 2009
Salt _____ _______ wine or fruit stains.
Club soda _______ ______ lighter coloured stains.
Baking soda and cornstarch _______ _______ good deodorizers.
A paste of baking soda, salt and water ________ ________ your oven.
One part water to one part vinegar in a spray bottle _______ ________ most areas of your home.
Vinegar _____ ________ toilet bowl stains.
Learn more:
Green Clean: The Environmentally Sound Guide to Cleaning Your Home by Linda Mason Hunter, Mikki Halpin (Melcher Media,2005)
The Naturally Clean Home: 101 Safe and Easy Herbal Formulas for Non-Toxic Cleansers by Karyn Siegel-Maier (Storey Publishing,1999)
Clean and Green: The Complete Guide to Non-Toxic and Environmentally Safe Housekeeping by Annie Berthold-Bond (Ceres Press, 1994)
You Tube, search for Lindsay Coulter (demos how you can make your own candles, cleaning material etc.)
Source: Natural Life Magazine, January/February 2009
Friday, December 26, 2008
Faster Climate Change Feared
Published on Friday, December 26, 2008 by The Washington Post
by Juliet Eilperin
by Juliet Eilperin
The United States faces the possibility of much more rapid climate change by the end of the century than previous studies have suggested, according to a new report led by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Ice sheets in the Antarctic and Greenland, above, are losing 48 cubic miles per year, pushing up sea level worldwide. (By John Mcconnico -- Associated Press)The survey -- which was commissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and issued this month -- expands on the 2007 findings of the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change. Looking at factors such as rapid sea ice loss in the Arctic and prolonged drought in the Southwest, the new assessment suggests that earlier projections may have underestimated the climatic shifts that could take place by 2100.
However, the assessment also suggests that some other feared effects of global warming are not likely to occur by the end of the century, such as an abrupt release of methane from the seabed and permafrost or a shutdown of the Atlantic Ocean circulation system that brings warm water north and colder water south. But the report projects an amount of potential sea level rise during that period that may be greater than what other researchers have anticipated, as well as a shift to a more arid climate pattern in the Southwest by mid-century.
Thirty-two scientists from federal and non-federal institutions contributed to the report, which took nearly two years to complete. The Climate Change Science Program, which was established in 1990, coordinates the climate research of 13 different federal agencies.
Tom Armstrong, senior adviser for global change programs at USGS, said the report "shows how quickly the information is advancing" on potential climate shifts. The prospect of abrupt climate change, he said, "is one of those things that keeps people up at night, because it's a low-probability but high-risk scenario. It's unlikely to happen in our lifetimes, but if it were to occur, it would be life-changing."
In one of the report's most worrisome findings, the agency estimates that in light of recent ice sheet melting, global sea level rise could be as much as four feet by 2100. The IPCC had projected a sea level rise of no more than 1.5 feet by that time, but satellite data over the past two years show the world's major ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than previously thought. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are now losing an average of 48 cubic miles of ice a year, equivalent to twice the amount of ice that exists in the Alps.
Konrad Steffen, who directs the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder and was lead author on the report's chapter on ice sheets, said the models the IPCC used did not factor in some of the dynamics that scientists now understand about ice sheet melting. Among other things, Steffen and his collaborators have identified a process of "lubrication," in which warmer ocean water gets in underneath coastal ice sheets and accelerates melting.
"This has to be put into models," said Steffen, who organized a conference last summer in St. Petersburg, Russia, as part of an effort to develop more sophisticated ice sheet models. "What we predicted is sea level rise will be higher, but I have to be honest, we cannot model it for 2100 yet."
Still, Armstrong said, the report "does take a step forward from where the IPCC was," especially in terms of ice sheet melting.
Scientists also looked at the prospect of prolonged drought over the next 100 years. They said it is impossible to determine yet whether human activity is responsible for the drought the Southwestern United States has experienced over the past decade, but every indication suggests the region will become consistently drier in the next several decades. Richard Seager, a senior research scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said that nearly all of the 24 computer models the group surveyed project the same climatic conditions for the North American Southwest, which includes Mexico.
"If the models are correct, it will transition in the coming years and decades to a more arid climate, and that transition is already underway," Seager said, adding that such conditions would probably include prolonged droughts lasting more than a decade.
The current models cover broad swaths of landscape, and Seager said scientists need to work on developing versions that can make projections on a much smaller scale. "That's what the water managers out there really need," he said. Current models "don't give them the hard numbers they need."
Armstrong said the need for "downscaled models" is one of the challenges facing the federal government, along with better coordination among agencies on the issue of climate change. When it comes to abrupt climate shifts, he said, "We need to be prepared to deal with it in terms of policymaking, keeping in mind it's a low-probability, high-risk scenario. That said, there are really no policies in place to deal with abrupt climate change."
Richard Moss, who directed the Climate Change Science Program's coordination office between 2000 and 2006 and now serves as vice president and managing director for climate change at the World Wildlife Fund-U.S., welcomed the new report but called it "way overdue."
"There is finally a greater flow of climate science from the administration," Moss said, noting that the report was originally scheduled to come out in the summer of 2007. "It really is showing the potential for abrupt climate change is real."
The report is reassuring, however, on the prospects for some potentially drastic effects -- such as a huge release of methane, a potent heat-trapping gas, that is now locked deep in the seabed and underneath the Arctic permafrost. That is unlikely to occur in the near future, the scientists said.
"It's unlikely that we're going to see an abrupt change in methane over the next hundred years, but we should worry about it over a longer time frame," said Ed Brook, the lead author of the methane chapter and a geosciences professor at Oregon State University. "All of these places where methane is stored are vulnerable to leaking."
By the end the century, Brook said, the amount of methane escaping from natural sources such as the Arctic tundra and waterlogged soils in warmer regions "could possibly double," but that would still be less than the current level of human-generated methane emissions. Over the course of the next thousand years, he added, methane hydrates stored deep in the seabed could be released: "Once you start melting there, you can't really take it back."
In the near term, Brook said, more precise monitoring of methane levels worldwide would give researchers a better sense of the risk of a bigger atmospheric release. "We don't know exactly how much methane is coming out all over the world," he said. "That's why monitoring is important."
While predictions remain uncertain, Steffen said cutting emissions linked to global warming represents one of the best strategies for averting catastrophic changes.
"We have to act very fast, by understanding better and by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, because it's a large-scale experiment that can get out of hand," Steffen said. "So we don't want that to happen."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)