On January 26^th, 2012, a town hall meeting held amongst Environmental Sciences students at UBC delved into the current topic of bio-fuels, and who they ultimately benefit. Much of the debate centered around corn and wheat based ethanol, which are currently two forms of biofuels that are manufactured globally. At this meeting, there was a pro-government section that supported the production of these fuels, believing them to be a sustainable source of energy, as well as mutually benefitting the environment and farmers who harvest/produce the crops needed for this biofuel source. The pro-scientists section also presented the benefits of clean-burning biofuels, and discussed interest in possibly researching other outlets of sustainable biofuels, not solely limited to ethanol. On the other hand, the con-scientists discussed the dangers of ethanol production, and the NGOs also pointed out that a result of all of this ethanol production is deforestation, which could even lead to decreased biodiversity in the ecosystem. Both sides agreed however that lowering CO2 emissions is important as a climate mitigation strategy, however the con side to biofuels also stated that there would be removal of indigenous people and habitat destruction if these biofuels were to be continued. Ultimately, a new biofuel was needed (such as the use of algae) because the use of unsustainable corn was not a feasible option that could be counted on for future generations, and therefore, it was the con-side that “won” the argument in the hot topic of biofuel use and production.

1.1   Research a possible climate mitigation strategy/technology and blog about it (include a description of the strategy/technology, could it contribute to a full wedge?, what is the evidence/feasibility for this strategy/technology working?). (3 points)

Climate change mitigation strategies, which involve taking actions to reduce future effects of global warming, are many. One such strategy is the long term geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) (Hepple et al., 2002). This strategy involves storing the gas in geological “sequesters.  It has been proposed as a way to slow the atmospheric and marine accumulation of greenhouse gases, which are released by burning fossil fuels (2002). Important climate change mitigation strategy will depend on varying factors: availability, capacity and location of suitable sites, the cost of geologic storage compared to other climate change mitigation options, and public acceptance. In order to calculate the feasibility of this strategy, calculations were used to look at the seepage rate, which would determine how much CO2 would seep back into the atmosphere annually based on a predetermined amount of sequestered CO2 (2002). Overall results from the study conducted by Hepple et al. concluded that the quantities of CO2 that must be sequestered are in the range of the estimated global geological sequestration capacity and that seepage rates would be less than 0.01% each year. Main drawbacks include financial cost of sequestering the CO2, as well as energy requirements for the process, both of which can be high. (2002)

Sources Used:

Hepple P.R., Benson M.S., 2002. Implications of Surface Seepage on the effectiveness of geological storage of Carbon Dioxide. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/19/gm-microbe-seaweed-biofuels
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/idUS141616+23-Jan-2012+HUG20120123
The article from “The Guardian” discusses the recent advent of using seaweed as a low carbon biofuel, through use of a genetically engineered microbe. It is mentioned that this would be a good source of biofuels partly because of the seaweed industry that already exists, which means that harvesting of seaweed is already done worldwide. It is just a matter of converting that seaweed into the biofuel.  The main drawback to using the seaweed is the cost of the biofuel, which is reported to be five times higher than a reasonable biofuel price.  The article from “Reuters” talks about a collaboration between Royal DSM and POET (which is one of the largest producers of Ethanol in the world), in order to produce ethanol from corn crops using enzymatic hydrolysis. This venture is expected to cost 250 million dollars, and aims to achieve production of at least 20 million gallons of biofuel within the first year. Overall, the efforts towards use of corn crop ethanol could potentially reduce gasoline use in America by almost one third.

BLOG/PREP Questions:

1) Would the focus on biofuel production affect third-world countries in any way? if so, how?

2) Does Canada have any biofuel production companies?

http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html

This page was chosen due to an interest in sea-level changes that have been a consequence of climate change. It was also chosen because it meets the requirements of evaluation for internet sources.  The people in charge of this site (sources) can be located in the “about us” section tab, which lists various scientists and post-doctorates along with their qualifications and email addresses (as a means to contact them). Accuracy is also taken into account with this website, as there are several resources at the bottom of the article listed, all of which are peer-reviewed sources. The site also links to several publications that it is affiliated with, and which represent peer-reviewed journal sources. Statistical data is presented clearly, with graphs and charts, and citations are used throughout the article to give credit to the original source of information. The page is relatively current, with updated news on climate news dating back to September 1, 2011, discussing “black carbon control as a climate quick-fix”. The site is objective; there are no ads or inflammatory language. Facts are presented with scientific evidence from peer-reviewed sources. In regards to coverage, the page is not under construction, and seems to be fully functioning in all facets. The primary purpose of this page is given under its “mission” tab, and is to provide objective and comprehensive information on climate change and its consequences.

Sources Used:

Climate Institute, 2010. Oceans and Sea Levels rise.  Retrieved January 12, 2012, from http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html

Mo Brooks, chair member of the US House of Representatives’ Science Committee, Brooks is a lawyer and elected state county official from Huntsville, whose district includes NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, and heads the panel that oversees research activities at the National Science Foundation (NSF) (Mervis, 2011).As a veteran, he is sceptical about forcing the U.S. government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (2011). He claims, “30-some years ago the big scare was global cooling, and once they drained that [topic], they shifted to global warming” (2011).

The evidence he presents for his side is mainly a consensus from different scientist “on the fence” who disagree as to whether human activity is causing global warming (2011). He also believes that the current amount of scientists needed for such a big undertaking to reduce global warming is insufficient at present time (2011)
The main logical fallacy from this skeptic is “appeal to tradition”. Due to Brooks’ position as a government official and his repeated referral to US traditions and his own experiences, he believes that this provides enough basis for him to be sceptical about the current issue of climate change and does not choose to examine all scientific evidence at hand.
Sources Used:

Mervis, J., 2011. Science Insider. Taken from:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/02/new-science-subcommittee-chair.html

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!