Blog 11 Bird Death by Chemical

This was an article focused on species destruction do to human influence (a form of environmental destruction) in this case, birds.  According to the article, a large number of birds have been washing up dead or struggling to live on the south west shores of England.  The cause of this has been according to scientist almost certainly because of the chemical polyisobutene (PIB).  PIB is a chemical commonly used to make the engines of ships run more effectively.   So far the chemical has supposedly caused the death of around 350 seabirds consisting mainly of guillemots although razorbills, puffins, gannets and cormorants have also been found among the harmed.  This chemical is believed to be the same one that killed many birds earlier this year.  According to the article up until now the chemical could be legally released under certain conditions into the ocean but due to the rise in seabird mortality there have been many calls for it to b abandoned.

This article was a good example of how humans are unknowingly causing environmental destruction as all those birds would not have died so soon had it not been for the influx of that chemical into the region.  It also does a pretty good job of expressing the problem on a more human level as it describes people’s horrified reactions to the numerous dead birds on the beach as well as more personal impacts on such as no longer being allowed to walk the dogs on the beach and a hit to the tourist industry.  What it sort of failed at was saying more as to what is going to be done if anything about this problem which besides just trying to clean the birds up.

4/19/13  12:58 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22160051

Blog 10 Mines

This article discusses the recent setbacks placed on the Pascua-Lama mines, located high in the Andes on the Chile- Argentinean boarders, by the Chilean court.  The mine was supposed to one of the largest and lowest-cost gold mines in the world though it is now facing a more costly battle in order to try and complete it.  The reason for the setback has to do with the indigenous people claiming that the project is hurting their water supplies and claim (along with environmental groups in Argentina) that the project would harm the glaciers that remain in the Andes Mountains.   According to the article this is a large problem for Chile as it depended heavily on its mines, being the world’s top copper producer.  However, Chile’s mining companies while productive, have not kept up with regulations and could all face lawsuits and problems which could give environmentalists a better chance at gaining ground against the companies. 

This was an okay article.  The article could have had more of an impact on the subject if they mentioned more on how exactly mining effects the local landscape (which is a lot).  It also only briefly mentioned peoples concerns focusing more on the problems of the businessman rather than what the real public opinion was of the mines.  It did however point out some good information on how Chile would suffer without the mines and showed some good insight on how even though we want to try and protect the environment from destruction, a countries economy may suffer because of it especially if it starts to lose its most important revenue.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/10/us-chile-barrick-pascualama-idUSBRE93915J20130410
forgot to initially post time 
somewhere around 2:35 pm April 12

Blog 8 Honey Bee Decline

This article discuses’ the recent ban on the use of certain pesticides in the UK.  According to the article certain types of pesticides being used over in Europe have recently been under scrutiny and have also been banned.  Examples of such pesticides that have already been banned in place such as Germany France and Italy include  imidacloprid, clothianidin and TMX.  The reason for the ban has been because many of these pesticides have been linked to the decline of the honeybee populations over Europe.  Britain has been blocking any attempts at a Europe wide ban saying that the impact any of the insecticides have on bees is unclear.  Many EU governments have also not complied to the ban, specifically of three major pesticides linked to honey bee death. Thus the European commission has threatened to force the ban through if the countries continue to refuse to adhere to the ban.  The article also mentions Syngenta and Bayer which are the two main insecticide companies blamed worldwide for the decline in bee populations.  In order to forestall a European ban, the companies have recently proposed a plan to help support bees which includes building more bee habitats and closer monitoring of insecticide use to see how much of it is actually contributing to bee decline

This was an okay article.  What I think it should have included and didn’t was why the decline of bees is a problem as many people are probably unaware of the real economic and ecological role that honey bees play as pollinators.  They are one of the few bee species that successfully can pollinate flowers as many other bee species do not.  The article also said nothing of public opinion in Europe surrounding this issue and I would have liked to have read that.  I do like however that it also added input from the “bad guys” (the companies responsible) and what they are doing in response.

11:43 AM 4/5/13

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/05/us-britain-bees-idUSBRE9340AN20130405

China's Environment

This article is discussing the growing concerns over the environmental problem that China is facing.  The first part of the article focuses mainly on hoe the Chinese government has been covering up many of its issues facing its environmental problems simply claiming them to be state classified.  It touches on the fact that although China has been growing economically, it has been doing so at a price with a great deal of strain being placed on the environment.  This is sort of what we touched on in class where as the economy grows people want more which in turn begins to cost the environment more in the long run as it produces everything people want.  The public according to the article has generally been outraged that so much is being kept from them on the state of the environment.  The second part of the article discusses a specific part of the environment that Chine needs to be concerned over and that is the soil.  China irrigates about 40% of its crops with groundwater but 90% of that groundwater is contaminated but despite these facts (gathered by  Liu Xin, a food and health expert) Dong Zheng, an attorney was denied being allowed to view information on soil samples taken around the country since around 2006 and into 2010.  The article is basically stating overall that although the Chinese government is aware of the environmental issues they do not want to disclose and information (supposedly to prevent public opinion).  They have however recently caved in response to public protests and have given out data for the amount of pollution in the air over Beijing.

I like this article for two reasons.  One is that although I was aware of the issues facing the pollution levels of the air in China, I was not aware that the soil quality was also a pressing issue. That being said I wish that the article had touched a bit more on the cause of that pollution (I can infer some reasons but do not know for certain).  The second part I liked about the article was that it touched on yet another reason why both environmental destruction and fighting environmental destruction are such an issue and that is because many countries are reluctant to admit that there is a problem for fear of what will happen if they do such as economic repercussions.  While China claims it was to keep the citizens from panicking the article pointed out that now that some of the information is out people are calmer as it was not knowing what was wrong that was causing some of the panic.

 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51120861/ns/us_news-environment/t/china-public-anger-over-secrecy-environment/#.UUxzwDeWYng

March 22 3:07 pm 

Preventing Deforestation in Indonesia

This is actual a sort of follow up article to one of my previous blogs on deforestation in Indonesia.  This article discussed how the country of Norway has dropped Asian palm oil firm in support of preventing deforestation.  The Palm Oil firm was one of the companies mentioned in my previous blog as being responsible for deforestation happening in countries such as Indonesia.   According to the article, Norway’s 710 billion sovereign wealth fund has pulled out of 23 Asian palm oil companies accusing them of deforestation even though the palm oil companies have denied this.  This is a big deal as this Norwegian fund is one of the world’s biggest investors.  Norway has thus far been the leading developed nation at helping to stop deforestation not just including this recent act.  Norway had originally been receiving criticism for preventing deforestation in some countries while buying products from other countries that endorse it, thus this move by them has received a lot of praise from many different green movements and organizations.  They do argue however that Norway should work toward pulling out of other sectors causing deforestation such as logging companies and oil and gas firms something else they are heavily invested in. 

This was a very good article in that it was a great follow up on how the deforestation in Indonesia is actually facing some opposition, not just from local firms but from large companies in prominent developed nations.  It is a positive sign that countries can choose to endorse or not endorse products if their production is under questionable conditions.  This article also is good in that It briefly mentions other companies  who are cracking down on Palm Oil.  These companies include the Anglo-Dutch consumer group Unilever Pic. and the Swiss group Nestle.  Not much is said about them since that is not the focus of the article but it was interesting to read.  Also another good thing about this article was that although it praised Norway it pointed out that there was still plenty of problems associated with trying to stop deforestation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/08/norway-forests-idUSL6N0C05AX20130308

3//8/13 12:33 PM