Author Archives: JesseGorden

About JesseGorden

I grew up in New England, spending ample time outside and enjoying plentiful family trips to the White Mountains. These activities unquestionably altered my life forever, fostering a love for nature that led me sure-footedly in the direction of a great environmental passion. I graduated in May 2010 from the University of Connecticut, where I earned a degree in Environmental Sciences with a concentration in Natural Resources. Through several personal revelations and much reading, I have come to the conclusion that the most effective way to save our planet is to have as many people as possible care about it in some way shape or form; only then will we make such significant progress as to alter history. So my mission has become clear: educate everyone I can reach in my lifetime. Teach them the wonders of our world, why we need to protect it, and how we can do this, together. I am at CEA for the summer through an internship program with The Student Conservation Association.

Gubernatorial Forum- Energy & Environment

Posted on by
1

On June 29th, a two-hour gubernatorial forum was held in downtown Boston’s historic Old South Meeting House.

All candidates for Governor were welcomed to make a statement, followed by a short Q&A by the audience and two panelists.

The first candidate to speak, Governor Deval Patrick, spoke about Cape Wind, and addressed a question about the alternative of purchasing clean energy from other places, if it were cheaper than producing our own. In response to this, he unwittingly quoted Chairman Mao, “I don’t know who said it, but, we’re going to have to let a thousand flowers bloom,” and concluded that we’ve still got a long way to go, and no avenue should be left unexplored. Other topics he discussed were the state of parks after cut funding, the Evergreen Solar project and Chapter 40B. The overall theme for the Governor’s discussion was that “we have got a long way to go,” but the place Massachusetts is in now shows important progress.

The first new candidate to speak, Dr. Jill Stein of the Rainbow Green party, discussed passionately–

  • The need for transparency in government
  • The significance of Environmental Health factors as relate to human health and health costs
  • What she would like to change about taxes: She’d like to increase income taxes & reduce sales tax with goal of benefiting the lower & middle income folks who spend a higher percentage of their income on consumption. -But ultimately she would like to move towards a carbon tax.
  • Environmental Health issues – open communication of risks including a personal battle- mercury in fish

After Dr. Stein’s enthused and in depth discussion of environmental health and taxes, State Treasurer Tim Cahill took the podium. Mr. Treasurer announced right off the bat his less-detailed knowledge of environmental sciences, and the fact that his main goal was “jobs” and that it would inevitably mean clashing with environmentalists at times. He attempted to stress that he listens to all opinions before making decisions, but if it were environment versus development, he would unquestionably favor development.

Republican candidate Charles Baker had a previous speaking engagement, but he was represented at the event by Senate minority leader Bradley Jones. Mr. Jones was able to clarify that though Mr. Baker may not see that global warming is being caused by anthropogenic activities, he was able to see practicality, economical, and health-related reasons for fighting for cleaner practices.

State primaries will be held September 14, 2010, followed by elections for Governor on November 9, 2010.

California’s global warming fight in jeopardy

Posted on by
1

pollution by Gilbert R. As of this month, it’s official that California’s residents will be voting on the November ballot as to whether they would like to suspend the law that has been put in effect to help the state take responsibility for its greenhouse gas emissions.

When they announced a cutting-edge legislative initiative to fight the climate change caused by Global Warming in late 2009, California was hailed as ambitious, meant positively by some and negatively by others. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) was designed to aid California in meeting its goals of reaching 1990 level emissions by the year 2020, using a cap and trade program as well as other methods. The contention of some, was that cap and trade methods do not work to reduce the act of pollution but simply shift it around to those with the deepest pockets, and others suggested that the regulations would force citizens to purchase more costly energy options than other parts of the nation. Many were simply happy that someone was doing something concrete to fight Climate Change.

Thus far, a good portion of the law’s components have been approved and gone into effect. The industry of alternative energies has begun to bloom in California, but these successes may all be shut down in short order, should the people take the bate and vote it into suspension.

This move is, of course, backed by the oil industry that AB32 was designed, in part, to subdue. More surprising, perhaps, is that it is not only supported by those who make money through the oil industry, but it originated in the meeting rooms of Texas oil giants Valero Energy Inc. and Tesoro Corp. What they are calling the “California Jobs Initiative” paints AB 32 as a tax on homeowners, further suggests a definitive (unexplained) connection between this law and job loss, and devalues any and all progress that has been made and could be made in the direction of clean energy. The campaign, born in oil bureaucracy, uses the word “bureaucrat” to give AB 32 a negative taste several times in the few paragraphs on its home page.

The good news (for us, for Governor Schwarzenegger, for California, for the planet) is that there has been a push back- an organization called “Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs” has been formed by environmentalists and green tech professionals alike. They seem to be a group to reckon with, based on the bold imagery evident immediately upon arrival at their website’s home page.

As the opposing sides battle this controversial proposition out over the next 5 months, hopefully all truths will come to light so that citizens of California may make the most wise decisions, unskewed by false information.

Climate Legislation Panel, Cambridge

Posted on by
Reply

On June 3rd, a panel of experts was convened at the Cambridge Public Library to discuss the federal climate policies being proposed at that time to regulate greenhouse gases, and what their impacts might be. The panel was moderated by Rob Garrity, the Executive Director of Massachusetts Climate Action Network (MCAN). The panelists were three climate policy experts: Policy Consultant Sonia Hamel, Professor Michael Dorsey, and Policy Analyst Peter Shattuck.

The panel discussed the American Power Act extensively, concluding that there were both positive and negative aspects of the bill and there was not agreement whether the bill should be supported or not.

If you could not make it, or would like to revisit the panel session, we have posted a version for your viewing pleasure, the question and answer period is a separate video:

E2.0 Blogger nikitaob contributed a climate legislation status update on Monday.

King Corn, 1st in Environmental Film Series

Posted on by
2

corn extending into the sky by *MarS Several Boston/Cambridge groups have collectively organized an open-ended Environmental Film series, the kick-off of which was this past Tuesday, at Cambridge’s Main Library. The second film in the series, Kilowatt Ours, will be shown on July 29th in the same location: Bottom floor (L2), Cambridge Main Library, 449 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02138-4191 at 6:30pm. Another (yet to be selected) film will be shown on August 19th, so save this date!

The first documentary “King Corn” was shown at 6:30 and light refreshments were served afterward.

This film follows two young men who, after finding corn molecules in strands of their hair,  trace their genealogical footsteps back to their Iowan homeland and learn that the land their ancestors once farmed is covered in corn. Not just corn, but a variety of corn that can’t even be eaten.

To fully understand today’s agriculture system, the two guys arrange to purchase and register one acre of land, on which they go through all of the expected farming measures to create maximum yield. While their 31,000 seeds are growing into full-sized high-yield cornstock, these gentlemen explore what happens to the starchy corn they are now growing once it leaves their farm.  The corn is used several ways, none of them direct human consumption. Cows on beef farms are fed with it, some of it is exported or used for ethanol, and a vast amount of it goes into becoming a sweetener—high fructose corn syrup. They go on to find that the corn in their hair came not necessarily (and certainly not solely) from eating actual corn, but from everything else they were consuming, including products like beef, bread, soda, chicken, french fries, and spaghetti sauces. This is a timely film that takes a hard look at the farming industry in the US today, the use of our bread basket for something we can’t eat, the beef industry, and the ubiquity of corn syrup in today’s society, among other significant topics.

Some eye-opening facts mentioned in this film:

  • The type of corn grown all over Iowa today is bred to be starchy, and to tolerate close planting- resulting in almost 10,000 pounds of corn being produced on each acre, and none of it edible.
  • More than half of the corn crop goes into feed for animals, mainly cows (i.e. beef farms).

    From the movie:

    • The meat that we eat in this day and age is produced in a feed lot.
    • It’s grain-fed meat, and we produce a characteristically obese animal, animals whose muscle tissue looks more like fat tissue than it does lean meat in wild animals.
    • …if you look at a T-bone steak from a grain-fed cow, it may have as much as 9 grams of saturated fat; whereas a comparable steak from a grass-fed animal would have 1.3 grams of saturated fat.
  • Meat cows that are not butchered within two years on this diet will die from the acidosis the corn causes.
  • 70% of the antiobiotics used in the U.S. are those given to livestock- a large portion of which are for beef to fight off the acidosis.
  • The corn a farmer produces cannot sustain him- he will always come out with a deficit when comparing produce value to the cost of production. The reason they stay afloat (if they do) is because of government subsidies.
  • The over-production of corn in the U.S. is looked on by some as a plus- an asset. The roots of this lie with the history of farming, and the portion of income it used to take to feed a family.
  • Corn syrup is in everything from kool-aid (as expected) to spaghetti sauces and breads (for “browning qualities”–less expected). [Challenge yourself to find items in your home that do NOT have corn syrup- you will be surprised- only two portions of our after-film refreshments did not have corn syrup!]

As you may have grasped, I highly recommend seeing this documentary, and sharing it with everyone you know. The film is not only highly informative in an easy to comprehend way, but it has got a strong vein of humor woven throughout the eye-opening footage. Here’s the trailer:

Painting The Roof of Our World White

Posted on by
3

St Albans city center - from the roof of the Abbey by chris5aw When we consider the many actions we may take to fight global warming and become more responsible citizens of earth, do we often think of our roofs?  At most, green roofs are the topic of impassioned discussion, but other alterations aren’t mentioned or considered.

The discussion of altering roofs first became a heated (ha) topic in the U.S. when the U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, a Nobel prize-winning scientist, brought the concept of white roofs to the table in 2009. He proposed that, though it may seem a silly action to suggest, if we could make all of the roofs and dark paved surfaces white, we would be able to save emissions equal to taking all the cars off of the roads for eleven years.

Using white surfaces to fight warming works because the white roofs reflect the Sun’s rays before they are absorbed; after absorption the rays are only emitted by the receiving material (e.g. a black roof, black pavement, etc.) as heat (long-wave radiation or infrared), which has a hard time getting back out through the atmosphere. The shortwave (UV) rays that the sun sends in are much more capable of penetrating the atmosphere, in both directions. As a result, the white roofs effectively send the heat back out the way it came, before it’s turned into heat!

Keith Oleson, a National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist, performed a study released in January of this year that found that white surfaces could reduce the urban heat island as much as 33% in some cities.

This concept continues to be relevant; a study came out last month that suggests that urban areas are warming at accelerated rates when compared to rural areas. The study also found that areas that have the highest potential for increased urban heat island effects, have the most potential for increased populations within the next 50 years, meaning more people in smaller spaces, including many without access to air conditioning. While daytime temperatures may warm equally, the nights in urban areas are expected to grow much warmer, resulting in a smaller difference between day and night temperatures as global warming accelerates; city residents will say goodbye to the relief of a cool night after a sweltering sunny day. Since this is expected to be a significant and near-future impact, several actions were suggested within the study, including usage of green spaces, strategic architecture, and white roofs.

Additionally, the aspect of home heating comes into play. Dr. Chu insisted that the white roofs not only reflect sunlight to keep homes cool in the summer, but that they would actually reflect heat back into homes in the winter, effectively reducing costs (and emissions) in both seasons. This was disputed by Keith Oleson, who suggests that in winter, the effects of white roofs would be the same, cooling by reflection. This conclusion illustrates the point that the world is not uniform; white roofs may be a perfect tactic for urban areas in locations that do not experience cold, but perhaps a less ideal choice for locations with less-than-mild winter months.

Here’s a video of Secretary Chu’s explanation that is posted on the US Department of Energy’s official YouTube page (also a great source for high quality video of the oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico, presently…).

Ultimate Re-Use: Storage Container Buildings

Posted on by
Reply

A new type of architecture has been infiltrating the traditional world for years; homes, condominiums, offices, and all other manner of buildings are being built from industrial storage containers that we would normally see on the back of an 18-wheeler or a shipping barge. The containers are easily stacked, and work quite well for the inhabitants once they are properly insulated, and turned into homes.

These new structures are subtly environmentally-friendly, in the most obvious way. We are all familiar with the chant “Reduce, re-use, recycle,” and this type of construction is a legitimate way of re-using the excess industrial storage containers that are finished with their initial use.

Shipping container architecture has been around for several years, but this topic presently comes to light again because the American firm Lot-EK, once again, takes it to a new level.

Their soon-to-be constructed Anyang Public Art Project (APAP) Open Art school in Korea has made news, and that’s not surprising at all upon taking a look. This is a project meant to engage the local community with its open structure, including an amphitheater layout, leading down to the river it is set along. The building will feature offices, open galleries, open meeting space, as well as work space for researchers; as has been the trend with these buildings, the non-traditional shape takes nothing away from the functionality of the new structure. These structures are a method of waste-management that results in beautification and functionality wherever they are planted: The ultimate re-use!

U.S. Climate Change Belief: Rising?

Posted on by
Reply

3D Character and Question Mark by 姒儿喵喵 Just last December, polls had the US’s belief in Global Warming down 8%, and 9% fewer people believed its anthropogenic (man-made) origins. The same trend had been measured by various polls several months prior, as well.

There was plenty of speculation as to the reason for this, some pointing to the unusually extreme snowstorms (which are, if anything, only an indication of Climate Change, by the by), “Climate Gate” or the Republican discontent with a new Democratic president. While, since the release of those poll results scientists have shaken their heads in disappointment and wonder, no concrete reason for the downturn in public understanding  was ever identified.

A  study released June 8th by researchers at Yale and George Mason Universities suggests that public concern for global warming (and the resulting climate change) is finally on an up-sweep:

“Since January, public belief that global warming is happening rose four points, to 61 percent, while belief that it is caused mostly by human activities rose three points, to 50 percent. The number of Americans who worry about global warming rose three points, to 53 percent. And the number of Americans who said that the issue is personally important to them rose five points, to 63 percent.”

One can only imagine how many environmentally minded citizens and scientists heaved relieved sighs across the country, having heard this news, thinking “Phew, thank you, there is still hope for our people, after all.” I know this was my initial thought.

Further confirmation of the public’s understanding comes from a Stanford poll completed June 7th; it indicates that trust in climate scientists is high, up three points to 71% trusting moderately or highly. It’s important to note that their results show a 5 point drop (from 2008 to 2009) in public belief in the fact that global warming is occurring, but the scientists maintain positivity in that the majority of the U.S. understands that global warming is happening.

Jon Krosnik, the scientist in charge of the Stanford-AP poll regarding public opinions of environment and energy. They have been conducting annual pools since 2006 with the same questions, and suggest in a new study that wording is key and can change the results of a study dramatically. Krosnik and his fellow authors were unabashed in naming names of problematic polls from otherwise esteemed institutions, and some feathers have unquestionably been ruffled. While Mr. Krosnik remains certain that our country’s concern for Climate Change has only been underestimated by most pollsters, others maintain that “waning belief in global warming and fading concern about its effects are consistent findings.”

How are we to know whose findings to believe? For now, let us move forth with the conclusion that we ought to err on the side of caution when it comes to poll wording.  Possibly more importantly, remember that polls are simply surveys of samples, and the future is in our own hands.

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Leaks On

Posted on by
2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uscgd8/4542937668/ On April 20th, 2010, in the open ocean 42 miles southeast of Venice, Louisiana, a 560-million-dollar deep-water oil rig licensed to BP, experienced an explosion. Eleven workers were killed and 17 were injured in the explosion, with the other 98 on board exiting safely unharmed. After the initial explosion, the rig burned and two days later sank to the bottom of the ocean.

A few days after this shocking event made headlines, the resulting oil spill became apparent. Oil from the rig’s well immediately began to spew forth into the water column through a damaged well-head, forming a 5-mile long oil slick on the ocean’s surface in short time. Within two weeks, BP had tried and failed to use the well’s blowout protection, President Obama declared dedication of any and all available US resources to the purpose of resolving  the spread of this spill, BP stated that it would take all financial responsibility for legitimate claims and the cleanup of the spill, and began the two-month project of drilling a relief well.

In the following month, a fishing ban was extended to 19% of the Gulf of Mexico’s waters, all new drilling projects in the area were suspended, and several different remedial attempts were made, some simply failing and others actually increasing the oil’s flux into the ocean. The rate of the spill that began 51 days ago has not yet been determined, due to several factors including communication barriers between BP and external scientists, but the official government estimate is between 12 and 19 thousand barrels per day.

Although it was once thought that the spill could be contained offshore, the oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico has now reached over 120 miles of coastline. Tar balls are washing up on shore, animals are being covered in oil with a plethora of horrifying effects. It is not clear what the effect of the toxic oil dispersants being used will be on the delicate marine and coastal wildlife. Though it sounds extreme, it has been discussed that there is serious potential for this oil spill to be considered ecocide, or to reach that level in the coming months or years. I won’t link you to the videos of oil-covered struggling or already-deceased wildlife—seek them out at your own risk (of heartbreak).

As these negative events continue to affect the shorelines, locals are concerned. The fishing ban is necessary, but is just a concrete representation of the loss of money on the part of the fishing industry. The coasts are soaked in oil, animals are dying, and the tourism business is not looking good, either. “My concern is after everything is cleaned up, if they can clean it all up, and they leave, what is our business going to be like?” said Dudley Gaspard, owner of the Sand Dollar Marina and Hotel on hard-hit Grand Isle, Louisiana. While all of these local businesses are concerned, so are the oil drilling workers who operate in the Gulf. The six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling that has been imposed has the potential to eliminate as many as 20,000 jobs, according to some; the ban on shallow water drilling has been lifted. BP’s stock value has dropped dramatically, as would be expected during a crisis such as this.

On June 4th, a partially successful capturing system was put into place. BP has lowered a cap over the leaking well, sucking some of the leaking oil up through a mile-long pipe it is connected through. There are vents in the dome-shaped cap that allow some oil to escape, and oil is also billowing out from below the hood. While this is not a large step forward, it is a step: some oil is being captured. BP’s most recent estimates suggest they were able to capture 10,500 barrels of oil in 24 hours using this method, and they expect they will soon be able to use an additional containment system to increase this control. They have even made preparations for the event of a hurricane.

Here is a video of the underwater spill in action:

There is some murmur that this oil spill may be the push that the U.S. needs to secure clean energy and energy efficiency legislation. Thus far, concrete statements have only been made about the wish to change legislation revolving around oil drilling. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, after meeting with several committee heads, told reporters a wide range of legislation was being considered, including oil leasing reform, liability reform, ensuring worker safety and the “integrity of the certification process” when oil companies want to start a new offshore drilling project.