Individual and Community

(07-06) 04:00 PDT Washington - — While the BP oil spill has been labeled the worst environmental catastrophe in recent U.S. history, a biofuel is contributing to a Gulf of Mexico “dead zone” the size of New Jersey that scientists say could be every bit as harmful to the gulf.

Each year, nitrogen used to fertilize corn, about a third of which is made into ethanol, leaches from Midwest croplands into the Mississippi River and out into the gulf, where the fertilizer feeds giant algae blooms. As the algae dies, it settles to the ocean floor and decays, consuming oxygen and suffocating marine life.

Known as hypoxia, the oxygen depletion kills shrimp, crabs, worms and anything else that cannot escape. The dead zone has doubled since the 1980s and is expected this year to grow as large as 8,500 square miles and hug the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Texas.

As to which is worse, the oil spill or the hypoxia, “it’s a really tough call,” said Nathaniel Ostrom, a zoologist at Michigan State University. “There’s no real answer to that question.”

Some scientists fear the oil spill will worsen the dead zone, because when oil decomposes, it also consumes oxygen. New government estimates on Thursday indicated that the BP oil spill had gushed as much as 141 million gallons since an oil-rig explosion and well blowout on April 20 that killed 11 workers.

Corn is biggest culprit

The gulf dead zone is the second-largest in the world, after one in the Baltic Sea. Scientists say the biggest culprit is industrial-scale corn production. Corn growers are heavy users of both nitrogen and pesticides. Vast monocultures of corn and soybeans, both subsidized by the federal government, have displaced diversified farms and grasslands throughout the Mississippi Basin.

“The subsidies are driving farmers toward more corn,” said Gene Turner, a zoologist at Louisiana State University. “More nitrate comes off corn fields than it does off of any other crop by far. And nitrogen is driving the formation of the dead zone.”

The dead zone, he said, is “a symptom of the homogenization of the landscape. We just have a few crops on what used to have all kinds of different vegetation.”

In 2007, Congress passed a renewable fuels standard that requires ethanol production to triple in the next 12 years. The Department of Agriculture has just rolled out a plan to meet that goal, including building ethanol refineries in every state. The Environmental Protection Agency will decide soon whether to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline blends from 10 percent to 15 percent.

A 2008 National Research Council report warned of a “considerable” increase in damage to the gulf if ethanol production is increased.

Pet cause of Congress

One of the authors of that report, agricultural economist Otto Doering at Purdue University, said that a 50 percent boost in the ethanol blend in gasoline will significantly raise corn prices, driving farmers to pull land out of conservation and pastureland and into corn production. They are also likely to add more nitrogen fertilizers to boost yields.

Corn ethanol has been heavily subsidized since the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s. Viewed by the corn industry as a lucrative market, ethanol is a perennial favorite in Congress.

Ethanol consumes two-thirds of all federal subsidies for renewable fuels, said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group, leaving solar, wind and the rest to fight over the remaining third. Corn ethanol cost taxpayers $17 billion from 2005 to 2009, his group estimates.

“This is another industry that’s entirely a creature of the government, even more so than corn growing per se,” Cook said. “The production of ethanol wouldn’t happen at all without government subsidies and protection.”

The National Corn Growers Association ran a media blitz in Washington last week to press for the renewal of the 51-cents-a-gallon tax credit for ethanol. With pictures of the BP oil spill looming in the background, the Corn Growers’ video announces, “Ethanol: Now is the time.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Oil Covered Birds – Gulf Oil Spill

You can appreciate the timesaving benefits through a measure devised by the economist William D. Nordhaus: how long it takes the average worker to pay for an hour of reading light. In ancient Babylon, it took more than 50 hours to pay for that light from a sesame-oil lamp. In 1800, it took more than six hours of work to pay for it from a tallow candle. Today, thanks to the countless specialists producing electricity and compact fluorescent bulbs, it takes less than a second. That technological progress, though, was sporadic. Innovation would flourish in one trading hub for a while but then stagnate, sometimes because of external predators — roving pirates, invading barbarians — but more often because of internal parasites, as Dr. Ridley writes:

“Empires bought stability at the price of creating a parasitic court; monotheistic religions bought social cohesion at the expense of a parasitic priestly class; nationalism bought power at the expense of a parasitic military; socialism bought equality at the price of a parasitic bureaucracy; capitalism bought efficiency at the price of parasitic financiers.”

Progress this century could be impeded by politics, wars, plagues or climate change, but Dr. Ridley argues that, as usual, the “apocaholics” are overstating the risks and underestimating innovative responses.

“The modern world is a history of ideas meeting, mixing, mating and mutating,” Dr. Ridley writes. “And the reason that economic growth has accelerated so in the past two centuries is down to the fact that ideas have been mixing more than ever before.”

Our progress is unsustainable, he argues, only if we stifle innovation and trade, the way China and other empires did in the past. Is that possible? Well, European countries are already banning technologies based on the precautionary principle requiring advance proof that they’re risk-free. Americans are turning more protectionist and advocating byzantine restrictions like carbon tariffs. Globalization is denounced by affluent Westerners preaching a return to self-sufficiency.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/science/18tier.html

http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/welcome

Since 2004, testing by water utilities has found 315 pollutants in the tap water Americans drink, according to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) drinking water quality analysis of almost 20 million records obtained from state water officials.

More than half of the chemicals detected are not subject to health or safety regulations and can legally be present in any amount. The federal government does have health guidelines for others, but 49 of these contaminants have been found in one place or another at levels above those guidelines, polluting the tap water for 53.6 million Americans. The government has not set a single new drinking water standard since 2001.

Water utilities spend 19 times more on water treatment chemicals every year than the federal government invests in protecting lakes and rivers from pollution in the first place.

Based on these data, EWG believes the federal government has a responsibility to do a national assessment of drinking water quality. It should establish new safety standards, set priorities for pollution prevention projects, and tell consumers about the full range of pollutants in their water.

Because it has not, EWG launched a 3-year project to create the largest drinking water quality database in existence. This user-friendly, interactive resource covers 48,000 communities in 45 states and the District of Columbia.

Mount Vernon Iowa Water Quality can be found here

Exceeds National Health Guidelines in 7 chemicals

including radium, arsenic , lead

to be continued.

American Lung Association

State of the Air 2009 Report
Iowa
http://www.stateoftheair.org/2009/states/iowa/

For Particle Pollution:

Johnson County Gets an F with 11 Orange Days (Unhealthy for Sensitive Populations)

Linn County Gets an F rating with 10 Orange Days

What you can do
Individual citizens can do a great deal to help reduce air pollution outdoors as well. Simple but effective ways include:

• Drive less. Combine trips, walk, bike, carpool or vanpool, and use buses, subways or other alternatives to driving. Vehicle emissions are a major source of air pollution. Support community plans that provide ways to get around that don’t require a car, such as more sidewalks, bike trails and transit systems.
• Don’t burn wood or trash. Burning firewood and trash are among the largest sources of particles in many parts of the country. If you must use a fireplace or stove for heat, convert your woodstoves to natural gas, which has far fewer polluting emissions. Compost and recycle as much as possible and dispose of other waste properly; don’t burn it. Support efforts in your community to ban outdoor burning of construction and yard wastes. Avoid the use of outdoor hydronic heaters, also called outdoor wood boilers, which are often much more polluting than woodstoves.
• Make sure your local school system requires clean school buses, which includes replacing or retrofitting old school buses with filters and other equipment to reduce emissions. Make sure your local schools don’t idle their buses, a step that can immediately reduce the emissions.
• Get involved. Participate in your community’s review of its air pollution plans and support state and local efforts to clean up air pollution.
• Use less electricity. Turn out the lights and use energy-efficient appliances. Generating electricity is one of the biggest sources of pollution, particularly in the eastern United States.
• Send a message to decision makers. Send an email or fax to urge Congress to oppose measures that weaken the Clean Air Act.

Log on at www.LungUSA.org to see how easy that can be.

source: http://www.stateoftheair.org/2009/key-findings/executive-summary.html

Useful Air Quality Links

Iowa

• Iowa Weather Alerts including Air Quality Alerts from the National Weather Service
• Iowa Air Quality Forecast
• Pollution Rankings in Linn County Iowa
• Iowa Department of Natural Resouces

EPA SuperFund Cleanup Sites List – Locations in Iowa

The 25 Most Ozone-Polluted Regions from 2005 American Lung Association

1. Los Angeles-Long Beach-
   Riverside, CA
2. Bakersfield, CA
3. Fresno-Madera, CA
4. Visalia-Porterville, CA
5. Merced, CA
6. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX
7. Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-
   Truckee, CA-NV
8. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
9. New York-Newark-Bridgeport,
   NY-NJ-CT-PA
10. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland,
    PA-NJ-DE-MD
11. Washington-Baltimore-Northern
    Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV
12. Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC
13. Hanford-Corcoran, CA
14. Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH
15. Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN
16. Modesto, CA
17. Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA
18. Youngstown-Warren-East
    Liverpool, OH-PA
19. Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH
20. Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI
21. Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus, NY
22. Sheboygan, WI
23. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan
    City, IL-IN-WI
24. El Centro, CA
25. Lancaster, PA

source: http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/09/07/the-25-most-polluted-regions-in-the-united-states.htm

QI colors

EPA has assigned a specific color to each AQI category to make it easier for people to understand quickly whether air pollution is reaching unhealthy levels in their communities. For example, the color orange means that conditions are “unhealthy for sensitive groups,” while red means that conditions may be “unhealthy for everyone,” and so on.

Understanding the AQI

The purpose of the AQI is to help you understand what local air quality means to your health. To make it easier to understand, the AQI is divided into six categories:

Each category corresponds to a different level of health concern. The six levels of health concern and what they mean are:

• “Good” AQI is 0 – 50. Air quality is considered satisfactory, and air pollution poses little or no risk.
• “Moderate” AQI is 51 – 100. Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate health concern for a very small number of people. For example, people who are unusually sensitive to ozone may experience respiratory symptoms.
• “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups” AQI is 101 – 150. Although general public is not likely to be affected at this AQI range, people with lung disease, older adults and children are at a greater risk from exposure to ozone, whereas persons with heart and lung disease, older adults and children are at greater risk from the presence of particles in the air. .
• “Unhealthy” AQI is 151 – 200. Everyone may begin to experience some adverse health effects, and members of the sensitive groups may experience more serious effects. .
• “Very Unhealthy” AQI is 201 – 300. This would trigger a health alert signifying that everyone may experience more serious health effects.

source: http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqibasics.aqi#sens

“Hazardous” AQI greater than 300. This would trigger a health warnings of emergency conditions. The entire population is more likely to be affected.

COPYRIGHT CRIMINALS PREMIERES TUESDAY, JAN. 19, 10PM
ON THE PBS SERIES INDEPENDENT LENS (check local listings)

Can you own a sound?

COPYRIGHT CRIMINALS, a documentary produced by Benjamin Franzen and Kembrew McLeod, examines the commercial and creative value of musical sampling, including the ongoing debates about artistic expression, copyright law and money.

COPYRIGHT CRIMINALS showcases many of Hip Hop music’s legendary figures like Public Enemy, De La Souland Digital Underground along with emerging artists such as audiovisual remixers Eclectic Method. The film also provides an in-depth look at artists who have been sampled, such as renowned drummer Clyde Stubblefield, the world’s most sampled musician, best known for his work with James Brown, as well as commentary by Funk legendGeorge Clinton.

JAN 19: Broadcast & DVD Release Partywith ECLECTIC METHOD, MR. LEN & DJ SPOOKY
FREE with RSVP at IndiePix Evite. Doors at 8pm. Broadcast Premiere on Independent Lens at 10pm. Brooklyn Bowl 61 Wythe Ave Brooklyn NYC 11211. Facebook Event Page
kembrew mcleod

associate professor
university of iowa
dept. of communication studies
kembrew-mcleod@uiowa.edu

http://www.freedomofexpression.us

http://copyrightcriminals.com

http://kembrew.com

“This boy is definitely out to lunch, the same place I eat at.” – George Clinton on Sun Ra

http://www.robotainment.net/musicvideo

Am looking for online documentation of

the Science of Climate Change & Science of Global Warming

• Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/
• The InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change
• RealClimate “Climate science from climate scientists”
• The New York Times maintains a section
• Pew Center on Global Climate Change has links to reports, Fact Sheets, including “During the twentieth century, the earth’s surface warmed by about 1.4 °F. There are a variety of potential causes for global climate change, including natural and human-induced mechanisms”

The Politics of Global Climate Change

• Google Living Story with the New York Times – “The Politics of Global Warming”
• various attempts to address the Politics and show how science does not support some of the Political claims:
  • Global Warming Science

…. to be continued ….

“I have more respect for people who change their mind after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes.  Ideologues and zealots don’t”  - Michael Crichton, “State of Fear”

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/

Finally we post some pics of our trip:

Photo Albums are at: http://picasaweb.google.com/gare.calhoun

Another source publicly saying what has been said before.

Vegetarian Diet Better for Environment, Says UK Climate Change Leader
Damian Robin
EpochTimes Staff Oct 28, 2009
LONDON—One of the UK’s most prominent climate change experts, Lord Stern, has said a vegetarian diet is better for the environment.

Author of the 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, and former chief economist of the World Bank. Lord Stern believes that the Climate change conference in Copenhagen in December should call for prices of meat and other foods that contribute to climate change to increase.

“Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases,” he said in an interview with The Times on Tuesday 27th October. “It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources.”

“I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating.”

Nearly one fifth of the world’s current greenhouse gas emissions are produced by livestock – about 50 per cent higher than the level produced by all the vehicles in the world.

Lord Stern’s comments were welcomed by some environmental and farming groups, but dismissed as over-simplistic and irresponsible by the the farmer’s union in the UK.

“Cutting down on meat is a win-win for healthier people and a healthier planet”, said Friends of the Earth’s senior food campaigner, Clare Oxborrow, “but we also need the Government to make big changes to the way it’s produced.”

National Union of Farmers President Peter Kendall commented: “Livestock production is based on grasland which stores more carbon than other land use in England. Focusing on a single issue as a way of saving the planet is extremely iressponsible and likely to be counterproductive.”

Compassion in World Farming said: “Reducing meat consumption in affluent nations will release land for growing food for people rather than feed for factory farmed animals or fuel crops to power our vehicles and it will reduce the emissions of some of the most noxious greenhouse gases.”

“By reducing meat consumption and supporting higher welfare farming, we can help to revive the planet, restore dignity to farmers’ livelihoods and enable the animals themselves to lead lives of quality,” said a statement on their website.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in 2006 concluded that worldwide livestock farming, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds, generates 18 per cent of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison, it said, all the world’s cars, trains, planes and boats accounted for a combined 13 per cent.

source: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/24455/

“Surreal” Vegetarian Spider Found — A First
Matt Kaplan
for National Geographic News
October 12, 2009

A new discovery has taken the bite out of spiders’ status as meat-eaters.

A tropical jumping spider that eats mostly plant buds has been identified, a new study says—making it the only known vegetarian out of some 40,000 spider species.

In the late 1800s, naturalists named the spider Bagheera kiplingi after a panther in British author Rudyard Kipling’s 1894 children’s book The Jungle Book.

“At that time in history, all the [naturalists] had was a tattered dead specimen,” said study leader Christopher Meehan, a biologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

“They had no idea what it ate. But perhaps they knew that jumping spiders were cat-like in their movements, and [they] decided to name the spider after the agile panther Bagheera in Kipling’s book.”

“Utterly Surreal”

Between 2001 and 2008, Meehan and colleagues studied the spider in its tropical habitat in southeastern Mexico and northwestern Costa Rica. (Get spider facts.)

They observed that the spiders ate nutrient-rich buds that grow on acacia plants.

Vegeaterian Spider Found

The acacias are also home to a species of ant that live in the plants’ hollow thorns. In a classic example of mutualism, the ants protect the plant in return for shelter and food, said Meehan, who conducted the research while at Villanova University in Villanova, Pennsylvania.

Yet the fast, stealthy Bagheera has figured out how to leap from thorn to thorn to collect its meal—while avoiding the highly aggressive ants.

Though the spider does occasionally snack on ant larvae, the bulk of their diet is plants, Meehan said.

“It is utterly surreal,” he said, “to see a spider use such effective hunting strategies to hunt a plant.”

Study published October 12 in the journal Current Biology.

© 1996-2008 National Geographic Society. All rights reserved.

source:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091012-vegetarian-spider.html