Steps To Protect Pandas

Conservationists have been aware of the Panda problem for decades, and have taken steps to protect the Pandas from being killed as well as attempting to breed more Pandas in captivity in order to keep the species alive. To date, only 180 Giant Pandas have ever been bred in captivity, which makes captive breeding a less than likely solution to the species’ current desperate situation. Yet, in the wild they are being denied the ability to freely migrate and find mates in order to produce young on their own.

Solutions To Prevent Extinction

Authorities for the World Wildlife Fund in Beijing are also aware of the precarious position of the giant Pandas and are working hard to find a solution. Unfortunately, when human progress and animal rights clash, human beings tend to take precedence no matter how many species become extinct. Ideally, a solution would be found wherein the Pandas get to keep their natural home and China gets to develop its land and resources unhindered. Hopefully that will indeed be the case, and hopefully it will happen soon…for the Giant Pandas simply do not have much time left.

Related Posts:

• No Related Post

Various Possibilities

One possibility is that a marine parasite may have infected the sockeye population as they leave the river, swimming past commercial fish hatcheries where sea lice can be a problem. This could reduce the population drastically before the sockeye ever reach adulthood and return to the river to spawn.

Another possibility is that the rising temperature of the river may have weakened the fish, causing a massive die-off. This raises eyebrows in the conservative community who recognize that the documented temperature of the Fraser River has only risen by one degree Fahrenheit over the last half of a century. It seems unlikely that this gradual change would cause the sudden death of nine million fish.

Also up for consideration is the possibility that climate changes in the river and the ocean have reduced the Sockeye’s natural food supply, which also seems like a very gradual change causing a rather sudden shift in the salmon population.

Essentially, no one really knows why the Sockeye population is only one tenth what it is assumed it should be, in spite of efforts to protect the salmon and ensure their ongoing health and reproduction in the Fraser River. Hopefully the mystery will be solved before the Sockeye disappear altogether.

Related Posts:

• No Related Post

We point fingers at pollution-producing factories, too many automobiles on the road, aerosol cans, and the elimination of the rainforests, but we don’t want to consider that gases produces by America’s favorite form of entertainment could be partially contributing to the earth’s climbing temperatures.

The fact is, the old-style version of television that employed the use of cathode ray tubes did not cause any problems at all.

However, today’s newer LCD and plasma versions both employ nitrogen trifluoride, a gas which lingers in the atmosphere for no less than 550 years and is said to contribute more to the effects of global warming than coal-fired power plants! So when one shops for a new television, what is one to do? The obvious choice would be to just stick with your old CRT television until it simply stops functioning, but considering that televisions are no longer built using CRT’s, you will have to decide at that point what you will choose to do.

Several manufacturers claim that their technology actually produces a lower level of nitrogen trifluoride in the atmosphere, which would make their television the greener choice…if this claim is factual, which is nearly impossible to prove. Meanwhile, consumers are left with reading manufacturer data and deciphering for themselves which is the more environmentally-conscious television to purchase.

Then again, if we were truly so environmentally-conscious, we would spend more time outdoors and less time in front of a television anyway.

Perhaps that would be the “greenest” choice to make.

Related Posts:

• No Related Post

Believe it or not, the rejects at the grocery store aren’t even the worst contenders.  But there is hope, at least for the watermelon rejects. Scientists think that we can turn those watermelons that have been left behind into biofuel.

Sweet!

Literally it’s the sugar in the watermelon that makes ethanol production possible.

Check out the full article at Science Daily.

What is not to love about watermelon?

Related Posts:

• Is Human Hair The Key To Solving The World’s Energy Problems?
• Think You Can Offset Your Carbon Footprint? Think Again

UPDATE (9-10-09): Looks like this one is a hoax!

Solar panels that use human hair? It sounds like something out of a very bad sci-fi novel but that is exactly what one young man has invented.

With the intent to provide electricity to home and then his village in Nepal, Milan Karki may have just revolutionized solar energy.

The panel uses human hair as a conductor instead of silicone, produces 9V of energy and costs about $45 bucks to make. The best part, Karki is just 18 years old! 

Read the full story at Daily Mail

Is this an affordable answer to our increasing energy needs? Leave your comment below.

Related Posts:

• Watermelon Bio-Fuel A Renewable Energy Reality
• Think You Can Offset Your Carbon Footprint? Think Again
• What Is Clean Coal?
• How ‘Green’ Are Soybeans?
• Tips And Myths For Saving Money On Gas – Including Walking!

While it is true that proponents of the global warming theory have largely blamed both carbon dioxide and methane gas emissions for the increase in global temperatures and melting of the polar icecaps, they have also offered possible solutions, or at least helpful measures that they claim might help to slow the progression of global warming by decreasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Planting Trees Is Not Enough. Here’s Why:

One of the proposed methods is that of planting trees that have a particular affinity for binding carbon, such as fir and pine. Both of these types of trees consume huge quantities of carbon dioxide form the environment in which they grow, and proponents of so-called “carbon offsetting” say that by planting these trees we will reduce atmospheric carbon.

But there are a few problems with this whole theory:

1. First, it has never been proven that planting more trees reduce atmospheric carbon in any measurable amount.
2. The second problem is that while these large trees do use a high level of carbon through their own growth, they also consume huge quantities of water and other soil nutrients leaving these resources unavailable to the neighboring organisms, including humans.

In some areas where this plan of large-scale tree planting has been implemented, there were measurable reductions in available water in local streams, creating problems for the inhabitants of those areas who rely completely on the local water supply. Trees also limit the growth of grasses and short underbrush, contributing to hillside erosion and runoff. Ultimately, planting all of these trees might cause more harm than good.

The Real Way To Help Offset Your Carbon Footprint

On the other hand, there are a few simple measures that most people can take if they want to do their part in reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

• Be responsible with vehicles and machinery that produce carbon dioxide. Combining trips in your car and reducing unnecessary airplane trips are ways that most of us can do our part without going to extremes.
• Limit the use of aerosol sprays and other noxious chemicals is another way to act responsibly.
• Turn things off when you’re not using them. Any attempt to use as little electricity as possible will help reduce man-kinds carbon footprint.

The point is, thinking that we can counteract the buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide by simply planting certain foliage or taking other extreme measures is probably folly.  Using less energy and finding cleaner alternative energy sources is a more logical path to carbon neutrality.

The war to reduce carbon emissions is fought on the individual level. Planting more trees doesn’t necessarily get rid of the problem.  But rather it can be likened to sweeping the dirt under the proverbial rug.

Related Posts:

• Watermelon Bio-Fuel A Renewable Energy Reality
• Is Human Hair The Key To Solving The World’s Energy Problems?

A seed bomb sounds really scary, right? Most likely, you have never heard of it before. However, a group called the Green Guerrillas first introduced the seed bomb in the early 1970s. Instead of loading their bombs with nerve gas, they loaded their bombs with seeds, fertilizer, and water and then proceeded to throw them over fences into New York City. Their goal was to make the city more beautiful. What became of this was a guerrilla gardening movement. So today when you think you are so “in” being green, remember that back in the 1970s people were already making this movement.

Today’s seed bombs are very sophisticated. They actually look like regular bombs without anything explosive. Their contents instead are clumps of soil with vegetation planted in them. Everything is planted in a biodegradable container. When the bombs impact with the ground, the containers break apart and the seeds roots are able to penetrate into the ground.

While this sounds great and different and like a great idea for a TV show, some wonder how practical it is. The upside to using seed bombs is you would be able to replant a large area very easily. For example, there are areas in which the vegetation has been destroyed because of fire or other natural disaster. Using a seed bomb, you could easily replant the area. The downside of the project is that although everything sounds eco-friendly – the plants, the biodegradable containers, etc, the fuel to make it all happen is unfortunately not very friendly to the environment. There is a chance for it to be potentially dangerous. And some argue that part of the environment is that it is supposed to reproduce on its own. So, why interfere?

For now the seed bombs are useful in efforts for reforestation efforts, especially in areas that are uncivilized. However, don’t mistake the seed bombs for something that is exciting like you would see on TV. For now they are simply being used as a helpful tool for the environment.

So if we use seed bombs, does that make us terra-ists?  (Sorry I couldn’t resist.)

Related Posts:

• STOP! Don’t Put that on your Face!