On the Metro Vancouver air quality website, there is various amount of public information available. Information sections include air emission data, programs aiming to reduce harmful emissions, woodsmoke and its potential dangers to your health, and greenhouse gas management. Apart from air quality, they have information on waste management, water quality, and other environmental resources. It is a compendium of advice and useful information about some of the resources Vancouver consumes, and what the city is doing to try and change our consumption.

Air quality monitoring network for Hamilton:
http://www.hamnair.ca/hamilton-air-quality-monitoring-network.aspx
There are 18 stations, serving 520 000 people, covering 1138 km2. (from Statistics Canada: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/Profil01/CP01/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3525005&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=hamilton&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All
Therefore, each station serves around 28 888 people (520 000/18) and covers an area of 63.2 km2  (1138/18).

Since the 2011 report has not been published yet, I took data from the 2010 report found here: http://www.hamnair.ca/hamn-annual-reports.aspx
I looked at the statistics for January 10th, the first measurement of that year. Sulphur dioxide levels were 87 ppb (particles per billion) and total reduced sulphur was 7.0 ppb. The reason I wanted to look at sulphur dioxide levels is because important man-made sources of sulphur dioxide are fossil fuel combustion, manufacture of sulphuric acid, conversion of wood pulp to paper, and coal mining. According to the reference standard posted on their site, this measurement/parameter level is usually at 4- hour AAQC (Ambient Air Quality Criteria) 100 ppb (parts per billion), therefore the level of sulphur dioxide measured on this day is below this and that could possible be because there are not as many fires in the winter time.

blog: blogs.ubc.ca/amlui89

Waste-to-energy projects that seek to  create sources of fuel from waste, are a current hot topic. According to an article from Straight.com, a report submitted by UBC environmental Sciences Students in 2010 claimed that a 500,000-tonne-per-year waste-to-energy project would “..sharply increase emissions of mercury, lead, cadmium, and dioxins from solid-waste disposal in Metro Vancouver “. The students spoke out against such a project, that on the surface, would seem to be beneficial by incinerating tonnes of waste. The report states that the energy facility would create harmful nitrogen oxide compounds that can accumulate in the body and lead to other harmful outcomes, such as cancer. The other article talks about a waste-to-energy facility in Boston that takes 600 thousand tonnes of waste and generates 40 megwatts of continuous power. However, environmental groups are protesting against the facility, claiming that the harmful sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions are polluting the environment, and that the resources spent on this process would be better put towards recycling efforts. Both articles seem to highlight the dangers in a supposed beneficial way of turning waste into something usable.

Sources:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20123706-54/waste-to-energy-green-or-greenwash/
http://www.straight.com/article-332598/vancouver/incinerator-opponents-fired-fight

Questions for panel
1) How would the accumulation of waste be impacted if this waste-to-energy scenario was no longer in place?
2) Are there other methods than incinerating waste? Methods that are less harmful.

One interesting pattern I found in the Gapminder graph was with regards to life expectancy and income per person for China.  According to the graph, the early 1940’s and 50’s had an increase in life expectancy but also a lower income per person. From the 1960’s to 1990’s, life expectancy continued to increase by income per person remained essentially static, and has only started to increase in recent years. There are many factors that could lead to the slowly growing/static rate of income. One is the large population, which cannot match the economic growth of the country, but instead becomes more disparate amongst the rich and poor. Furthermore, the booming economy of China is due in part to the low income per person of its citizens.  Life expectancy understandably increased due to improvement in lifestyles that arises from technology and more awareness.

Source:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Stefan-Karlsson/2010/0824/The-hidden-implications-of-China-s-low-per-capita-income

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/info.service/2011/climate20111104.htm

After doing the footprint quiz, I compared it to a theoretical person who is less sustainable than me.  My own ecological footprint was 6.1 global hectares, with a 7.5 Canadian football fields used as an equivalent. As well, the distribution of my consumption in the pie chart was pretty even, with the biggest contributor from “services” portion, and second most from shelter, possibly because I don’t use many energy conserving light-bulbs.  My second time on the quiz yielded different results. After changing car use to more frequent, and spending more monthly on electricity and water utilities, my ecological footprint was 8.3 and I consumed 10.1 hectares worth, with my biggest consumption coming from “shelter” according to the pie chart. One suggestion to reduce my ecological footprint was to use public transportation. The change from being less sustainable was probably due to me using much more electricity and driving very far on my own each week.

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!