Saturday, April 12, 2014

Society's Vulnerability to Natural Disasters by Roxanne Wyant



We live in the Northwest with the beauty surrounding us, the agriculture, forests not to mention the springtime when the area is full of the beautiful blooming trees and flowers. My personal favorite time of year here; the green even on a rainy or snowy day is still prevalent.  I wonder how many of us take all of this for granted. We are also in the area of multiple volcanos, I think if we stopped to think about what this could entail we could be a little frightened of all this beauty, and how fast it could all be gone. However, where would we go, we have flash floods in the desert, mudslides on the side of mountains or hills, tornadoes in the plain states, levees break in the south, etc. I think we get the idea. There is natural disaster all around us.
Just how many volcanoes are there in the Northwest? The Cascade Volcanoes, also known as the Cascade Volcanic Arc stretches from British Columbia to Northern California a span of over 700 miles. There are major cities along the way and encompass a population of more than 10 million people. The Cascade Arc includes nearly twenty major volcanoes and over the last 37 million years has been erupting a chain of volcanoes, which has created our the mountain ranges in the area.
These volcanoes have proven that they can erupt, as on May 18, 1980, when Mt. Saint Helen blew up the entire north face of the mountain, rising 60 thousand feet into the air causing mudslides as far away as the Columbia River, nearly fifty miles to the Southwest. The eruption was also responsible for depositing ash over eleven U.S. states.
I lived in Salt Lake City, UT at the time but my parents were staying at the John Day Dam at the time. My Aunt, Uncle, Mom and Dad all had their trailers parked in the parking lot at the damn they were heading for my other Aunt and Uncles farm in Othello, WA.  I did see ash fall from the sky in Salt Lake but my relatives were right in the thick of it. The ash would clog the air filters in the cars and you would have to stop to clean them out before you could travel a few more miles. When my parents returned home, they related the story of what they experienced. They finally made it to Othello, WA; a little farming community located about 185 miles from Mount Saint Helen. In Othello, the air quality was so bad no one was to go outside without a mask. Breathing the ash caused multiple respiratory incidents flooding the tiny emergency room of the local hospital.
The cleanup took years and caused devastation to this farming community. They were not alone, in Pullman, Washington the ash was so deep they used snow shovels to try to clean up the mess. Fifty-seven people were killed or missing according to Live Science.
The eruption, which removed the upper 1,300 feet of the summit, left a horseshoe-shaped crater and a barren WASTELAND. Today the land is healing, having recovered its natural beauty, but the landscape has been permanently altered. (Bagley, 2013, para. 1)
There have been minor eruptions over the past century and will probably be more in the next century or possibly another major eruption. There is much marketing in the media today to make sure we have emergency rations and supplies. If this ever happens, we need an emergency plan; the rule of thumb according to the Emergency Preparedness Center, Inc. is we need at least seventy-two hours of food for each member of the household, including pets. You should also store at least one half gallon of water per day for each person in your family.
How do we keep safe from natural disasters? We cannot always do this but we can be prepared in the event of a natural disaster by always thinking about safety wherever you go in the Northwest whether it is hiking, skiing or hunting in our beautiful area.

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Anadarko Petroleum's Big Win

Watching TV last night (April 7) found out that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation was fined $5.15 b
(that is 5 thousand-one-hundred and fifty million dollars!) for a settlement on agreement with the feds in relation to misbehavior of one of their companies Tronox that did a lot of environmental pollution and personal damage. Tronox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tronox) is a global chemical company that used to process plutonium for nuclear reactors. The plant that is now closed in Oklahoma had allowed radioactive products to get into the environment and some workers to be contaminated. As the announcement about the settlement of $5.15 b came out the stock on Anadarko went up 14.5%! (http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/04/03/anadarko-erases-silkwood-uncertainty-with-5-billion-tronox-settlement/ )
Good news for Anadarko indeed, as it was estimated that the settlement was supposed to be in the $14 b range  http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/08/is-there-too-much-optimism-about-anadarko-petroleu.aspx.
This is a great lesson for the general public, pollution and misbehavior pays, and pays good if it is a lot of damage, the more damage the better!
How do you think we will end up after a few years of increasing power of transnational corporations?

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Assessing Natural Resources by Craig M. Winbush


   PHS 100A:  Environmental Studies       
Warner Pacific College
March 22, 2014
                  Withgott & Laposata (2014) asserted, “Rising human population and resource consumption are putting ever-greater pressure on the flora and fauna of our planet.  We have been diminishing Earth’s diversity of life the very quality that makes our plant so special.” (p.276) As I reflect on the readings I realized we all have a stake in conserving our natural resources; from preserving the wet and marsh lands of Louisiana to the frozen tundra of Alaska. Recognizing this, President Obama stated “bold and decisive action is needed now to curtail the rate of ecosystem loss in the area and, where possible, to restore the ecosystems and the services they provide.” (p 1)  In October 2009 President Obama created a the Louisiana‐Mississippi Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Working Group, which was co‐led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as well as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with varies governmental agencies comprising of senior‐level officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Homeland Security, Interior, and Transportation (p1). The mission of the working group is to work with State and local and public officials to develop a roadmap for restoring the ecosystem’s resiliency and sustainability in the Louisiana and Mississippi coast region
            On March 4, 2010, the working group published a roadmap for restoring the ecosystem resiliency and sustainability in the Louisiana and Mississippi coastal area that placed emphasis on protection and restoration of the coastal ecosystems as a key element to the long-term safety and viability of the region. In an effort to ensure the people of the aforementioned coastal areas were supported, procedures were create to cut through the governmental bureaucracy and thus granting them access to the tools and funds they need to rebuild.  Additionally, the roadmap outlined federal actions to address policy, process, and legal hurdles to coastal restoration in the region.   
             As I stated during class, I am very concerned about the long term affects the oil companies such as BP are creating in the southern coastal areas.  Companies like BP drill for what I refer to as “Black Gold” (Oil) for self-profit, while promoting an economic agenda. For example, they set up operation and start drilling without really taking in to consideration how their operations are affecting the local fishing and shrimping industries, respectively.  It appears local and State officials are in cahoots with the oil companies when they turn a blind-eye to the many violations; only addressing them when a catastrophic event occurs; such as the devastating oil spill which crippled the Gulf Coast a few years ago.
            Finally, I believe it is imperative that we become more cognizant of today’s environmental issues. For example, we can no longer remain idle or passive about the state of the endangered Pillard Sturgeon in Louisiana or the endangered Red-headed Woodpecker in North Carolina.  Also, governmental agencies like USACE and Fish & Wild Life should be able to work in concert to create regulatory guidance that would allow humanity and its natural resources to co-exist.                                                                                                   
                                                              Reference
Withgott, J., & Laposata M., (2014) Environment:  the science behind the stories (5th Ed)
      New York, NY, Pearson Benjamin Cummings. ISBN-13:978-0-321-89742-8  
      School Counseling, 8, 102-115, Retrieved from, http://ezproxy.warnerpacific.edu:2048/
      login?                               
 na (nd), Gulf coast ecosystem restoration: Retrieved from use.gov/administration/eop/ceq  
       eqiinitiativesgulfcoast                                                                                                                     
na (nd) Saving the mississippi river; Retrieved from http://willsull.net/la370/resources/                              
       Ecology/Daily.pdf










                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Paul Barnum III's view on Scientific Method and Western Culture


Scientific Method and Western Culture
Paul Barnum III
PHS 100A Environmental Studies
David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
March 21, 2014

Scientific Method and Western Culture
            It has been said that the scientific method has had quite an influence on Western culture over the years.  Since I have not spent much time studying either of these concepts, I am looking forward to learning more about each of them.  For this paper, I will discuss what the scientific method is along with defining Western culture and how science has had an effect on what it is today.
            When Western culture is discussed, many people have different opinions on what things are responsible for shaping it into what it is today.  In my research, I found that “Western culture is a body of knowledge derived from reason.  This foundation of reason has made possible a vast accumulation of understanding related to reality or nature, including human nature” (Western Culture Global, 2009, para. 1-2).  There are many main ideals involved with this understanding which include individualism, happiness, rights, capitalism, science, and technology.  Since a lot of this understanding and development is based on science and technology Western culture is also referred to as advanced culture.  The thought behind this is that the ideas and values within the culture promote the development and sustainment of advanced civilization (Western Culture Global, 2009, para. 3-4).  This is where the scientific method comes in.
            To keep civilizations and culture moving forward into the future, scientists have to test new ideas by critically examining evidence.  To examine this evidence, scientists use the scientific method.  In very basic terms, this method:
Involves looking at the world around you, coming up with an explanation for what you observe, testing your explanation to see if it could be valid, and then either accepting your explanation (for the time being…after all, something better might come along!) or rejecting the explanation and trying to come up with a better one. (Helmenstine, 2014, para. 1)
This ongoing process has been proven over the years to be very effective in validating different observations.  These observations can range from very simple to some of the toughest theories ever tested.
Typically there are four to five steps in this process, but it really depends on how you break up the steps while doing your research.  The first step is to develop a hypothesis.  The textbook states that “scientist’s address their questions by devising explanations that they can test.  A hypothesis is a statement that attempts to explain a phenomenon or answer a specific question” (Withgott & Laposata, 2013, p. 11). 
Next the scientist comes up with predictions based on their hypothesis.  These are specific statements that can be directly tested.  Then the scientists test the predictions.  This can be done by gathering evidence that could disprove the hypothesis.  The main form of testing is done from experimentation.  During the experiment scientists try to manipulate different conditions that can change.  It is important to stage multiple tests of the same comparisons to ensure that the test results are valid (Withgott & Laposata, 2013, p. 11). 
Finally, the scientists have to record data and then analyze and interpret the results.  A lot of times the data is not clear which may require more experiments and retesting until a conclusive result can be reached.  If these experiments disprove their original hypothesis, a new one is formulated and the process starts over again (Withgott & Laposata, 2013, p. 11).
            Overall, I feel that science makes sense as one of the core values of Western culture.  As cultures grow and move forward, new ideas and thinking have to be tested and using the scientific method is a solid process to use.  Because this method is centered heavily on reason, it is no surprise that is has played an important role in influencing so many things including Western culture.

References
Helmenstine, A. M. (2014). The scientific method. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from About.com Chemistry: www.chemistry.about.com
Western Culture Global. (2009). What is western culture? Retrieved March 17, 2014, from Western Culture Global: www.westernclutureglobal.com
Withgott, J., & Laposata, M. (2013). Environment: the science behind the stories (5th Ed.). New York: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Ricardo Gallegos' views on Environmental Regulations





Environmental Regulations
Ricardo Gallegos
PHS 100A Environmental Studies
Professor: David Terrell Ph. D.
Warner Pacific College
January 7, 2014
            Some would say (and they would not be wrong) that I have a rather negative view of most things. Yet I have come by this negativity honestly, through bitter experience. And that negativity certainly extends to the area of environmental regulation.
A hydrologist and good friend of mine once said to me (and I have since come to believe this essential truth) that, “it is not the defense of the environment – by any means necessary – that is radical, but rather the defense of the status quo” (J. Rhodes, personal communication, 1997). What I take this to mean is that the critical eco systems of our planet – the whole biosphere in fact – is at a tipping point. If serious action to protect the environment is not taken soon, our children and their children’s children may never forgive us.
            When I was young and naive, I thought, “well, if something is wrong with the environment, we should just pass a law that would protect it and all would be well.” Little did I understand the colossal obstacles that truly stand in the way of meaningful protection, not the least of which is human nature, that inexplicable ability to act in a manner only as it relates to immediate self-interest, forgetting completely that it is in the interest of our species to protect the planet in order to avoid extinction not only of God’s creatures, but also of ourselves.
Setting our human-centric nature aside for the moment let us discuss what environmental regulations are and why they have thus far failed to protect the environment.
In their book Environment: The Science Behind the Stories, Withcott and Laposata assert that environmental regulations are an extension of a wider environmental policy; and that policy “generally aims to regulate resource use or reduce pollution in order to promote human welfare and/or protect natural systems” (Withcott, & Laposata, 2013, p. 164). I don’t necessarily disagree with this statement; on the contrary I concede its inherent truth.
The problem, however, is that the text also claims that environmental policy addresses issues of fairness and resource use; yet, it outlines this fairness only as it pertains to the government, the private sector, and the citizenry (capitalism in other words), leaving fairness to the wider biomass of the planet out of the equation, thus refusing to recognize the rights of everything else to exist unrelated to human beings. Life is resilient, yet it exists only within a very narrow range of conditions. We are fortunate to live on a world which possesses those conditions, and, such wondrous biodiversity.
Until we are ready to postulate a policy that has at its core one self-evident truth, that ‘all life has a right to exist’ regardless of the needs of humanity, no policy or regulation will be adequate to protect it. It is the inability to come to terms with this truth that allows society to make such narrow, ineffectual, and loophole ridden policies in the first place, and explains our willingness to ignore the few environmental regulations that are well written. Consider the following example.
When I lived in Tucson, Arizona I worked for El Paso Natural Gas Company. El Paso has pump stations that have been in operation sense the 40’s and 50’s and are nowhere close to meeting current environmental air pollution standards. This is because when the regulations were written they gave the gas companies a loophole that says if they do not modify or repair more than fifty percent of the pump station equipment in a given year, they do not have to meet current air pollution standards. Meeting the higher standards is expensive, very expensive, so it is in the company’s economic interest never to change their old equipment. Normally these stations would last ten or twenty years, but I observed first hand that the predominant concern when performing maintenance is to never approach the fifty percent threshold! They will do practically anything to keep these massive (they’re as large as a building) antique engines running. There is no interest in being a good corporate citizen or protecting the environment. And this is a reflection of our society as a whole.
 The sphere of influence of both economic interest and political ideology must be reduced along with a corresponding increase in ethical behavior is essential in order to effect meaningful change. Sadly, to the greater extent, these cannot be regulated. It would require a fundamental shift in human nature away from self-interests. My people (I am American Indian) have a saying, ‘seven-generations.’ What this means is to think of your actions in terms of how it will affect the next seven generations to follow. With that understanding, if I were to be asked to write just one regulation that would most benefit the environment, it would be to limit the human population of the earth to less than 1.5 billion people.
According Ben Stallings of World Population Balance, an organization dedicated to the sustainability of our global home, “The Earth’s 29.6 billion acres of biologically productive land and water could sustainably support only about 1.5 billion people at an ‘American standard of living and consumption’” (Stallings, 2009). Reducing Earth’s population would have the greatest positive effect on all other forms of life on the planet, and would ironically help ensure our own survival as a species. It would be painful to be sure, perhaps even cruel. But if you had a cancer would you not remove it? Well, humans are the cancer on the planet body. And a reduction in population is a necessary step to move from cancer to symbiosis.
References
Withgott, J., & Laposata, M. (2013). Environment: the science behind the stories (5th Ed.). New
York, NY. Pearson Benjamin Cummings. ISBN-13: 978-0-321-89742-8
Stallings, B. (2009). World Population Balance: Current population is three times the
sustainable level. Retrieved from http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_ sustainable


Environmental Regulation and Economy by Lynn Wong-Thai


The Environmental Regulation and Economy
Lynn Wong-Thai
PHS 100A - Environmental Studies
Professor David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
January 6, 2014 

Carbon pollution is the leading cause of global warming, increasing the chances of natural disasters, drought and flood, hurting our health and costing our nation millions to trillions of dollars in health care costs.  When it comes to connecting the dots between climate change, extreme weather and health, the lines are clear.  It’s time to listen, take action, and protect our planet from further damage by our own activities.
How can we help to reduce the carbon pollution and increase the effectiveness of Environmental Law?        
Studies shows that the rise in greenhouse gases primarily results from the combustion of fossil fuels for energy and from the loss of carbon-absorbing vegetation due to deforestation.  Many scientists across the world are urging governments to address this issue.  In 2005, the national academies of science from 11 nations gathered together to address the global warming issue and they issued a joint statement asking political leaders to take action.  The statement simply asked people to be more conscious about the climate change and take prompt action to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (Withgott, Laposata, 2013).  In the United States, many heated debates over climate change cast doubt on the scientific consensus.  These individuals together with corporate interests admit that the climate is changing but remain doubtful if humans were to blame.  Businesses and individuals often view regulations as overly restrictive, bureaucratic or costly. 
Environmental policy aims to promote plans and principles; it acts as a guide for decision making.  The goals of environmental policy are to protect resources against the tragedy of the commons and promote fairness by eliminating free riders and addressing external costs.  For example, the polluter-pays principle, suggesting those responsible for pollution should shoulder the cost for its impacts.  Most environmental laws and regulations use a command-and-control strategy in regulating agency, prohibiting certain actions and punishing those who violate the rules and regulations.  This approach has allowed many citizens of the United States and many other nations to have cleaner air, cleaner water and healthier neighborhoods that we live in today. 
Most people recognize that fossil fuel consumption is altering the planet that our children will inherit.  As citizens of this society, everyone, not just leaders in government and business, is responsible for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Reducing fossil fuel requires many baby steps and it involves many people and institutions across many sectors.  This effort can be achieved using current technology and implementing these changes immediately will stabilize our CO2 emission level.  As scientists Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow suggest, if we follow the age-old wisdom by breaking the jobs into small parts, the job won’t be too big to handle. 
We can make lifestyle changes to reduce electricity consumption by replacing light bulbs with compact fluorescent lights reducing energy use for lighting by 40% according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star Program.  Some people choose to move closer to their workplace while others use mass transit including buses, subway trains, light rail and even remote-in from home.  For example, Google is working with investor-owned energy from Duke Energy to reduce its carbon footprint to zero by purchasing renewable energy credits.  It wants the energy and the credit to help move the market towards more green energy (Environmental Leader, 2013). 
Actions are being taken by nine northeastern states collaborating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative by joining cap-and-trade programs for carbon emissions from power plants.  A similar approach is called fee-and-dividend or green taxes; funds or fees paid to government by polluters are transferred as a tax refund or dividend to taxpayers.  If polluters pass their costs to consumers, these consumers will be reimbursed in the form of a tax refund.
Global climate change maybe the biggest challenge we face in our society today.  If we want to leave a sustainable earth for our future generations and to safeguard the living planet that we know, we should reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and increase our use of clean, renewable energy.  Support and encourage our government and political leaders to advocate for this and protect us our planet.

References

Environmental Leader (2013). Google Shrinks Carbon Footprint 9%. Retrieved on January 4, 2014. http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/08/15/google-shrinks-cabon-footprint-9/
Fulton, W., (2010). Governing: Do Environmental Regulations Hurt the Economy? Retrieved on January 4, 2014. http://www.governing.com/columns/eco-engines/Do-Environmental-Regulations-Hurt.html
Withgott, J., & Laposata, M. (2013). Environment: the science behind the stories (5th Ed.). New York, NY. Pearson Benjamin Cummings. ISBN-13:978-0-321-89742-8







This History of Oregon's Environmentalism by Tony Rieger



 Oregon’s Regulations
Anthony Rieger
PHS 100A Environmental Studies
David Terrell, Ph.D.
Warner Pacific College
January 8, 2014
Oregon’s Regulations
             When doing research for this topic I came across a very interesting timeline of when the state of Oregon implemented environmental regulations.  The first regulation put in place by the state of Oregon was in 1889 and it was a law that “prohibited the polluting of waters used for domestic or livestock purposes” (State of Oregon 1).  In class tonight we talked about different environmental issues but most of the were closely related to present day, I was pleased to learn that 124 years ago the people who lived here understood that there are different problems that we are causing and that need to be handled appropriately or the people and the state of Oregon could be in danger.
            Another law that was enacted which I felt was interesting was in 1969 about air quality, burning, and smoke.  I have seen this regulation in place but I had not read or understood why they did it.  If you travel along highway 213 from Molalla south to Stayton it is about a 45 minute country drive, and along the way you will see rolling hills of farm land.  During a couple of my trips down there in the fall I noticed that the farmers would drive tractors around their fields that had an attachment that several high  powered torches were on, and they would proceed to torch their fields. This was of course after harvest, and like we discussed in class tonight fire bring revitalizing properties to plant growth. Anyways, I noticed that the farmers would never burn all of their fields at the same time which I felt was inefficient, but come to find out it was a state regulation.  In 1969 the smoke from farmers burning their fields was so thick that it covered Eugene and resulted in a pedestrian being killed by a driver that could not see and a 12 car pile-up on I-5(State of Oregon 1). That is where there is a limit to how much land a farmer can burn in a day.  Also tied into this I found a list of materials that are illegal to burn at any time, the list mostly contained petroleum based products such as oil and tires but what surprised me was that you are not allowed to burn dead animals or wet garbage and food waste (State of Oregon 2). I cannot say that I have ever thought about burning those things, but I sure did not know they were illegal.
            The next regulation that I thought was interesting was in 1971 when the state of Oregon passed the nation’s first bottle bill.  This bill has been in place for 15 years longer than I have been alive, I never gave it a second thought, and as far as I have ever known people have always paid a five cent tax on their can’s and then had to take them back to the store to get your money back.  According to Oregon DEQ “In 2009, more than one billion beverage containers were recycled under the bottle bill” and in doing so Oregon saved “three trillion BTU’s of energy” (State of Oregon 3).  That is an astonishing amount of energy saved just by recycling beverage containers.  I knew that recycling was helpful, but I had no idea that we could do that much with beverage containers, I am surprised that this information is not more widely known to Oregonians.  It is one thing to tell everyone that recycling is good for our state and planet but I believe that if people understood exactly how much we can save with such little effort more people would join in and try to recycle just a little bit more.

References
State of Oregon 1. (n.d.). Oregon DEQ: Historical Timeline. Retrieved 1-8-2014, from: http://www.deq.state.or.us/about/historytimeline-p1.htm
 State of Oregon 2. (n.d.). Oregon DEQ: Air Quality Burning Smoke. Retrieved 1-8-2014, from: http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/burning/index.HTM
State of Oregon 3. (n.d.). Oregon DEQ: Land Quality – Solid Waste – Oregon Bottle Bill. Retrieved 1-8-2014, from: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/bottlebill/index.htm