Why Our Oil Boom Hasn't Lowered Gas Prices

By Chris Neiger |  
December 14, 2012

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/12/14/why-our-oil-boom-hasnt-lowered-gas-prices.aspx

Summary: This article says that even though we have found a boom in oil in the Midwest there still might not be a decrease in gas prices. In states like Texas,  and North and South Dakota they have found a lot of oil with new technology that help them locate oil pockets. Even though all this oil is found we still have to confined it which is a lot of money. Also gas prices are determined globally as well as nationally. This means that they may decide not to lower gas prices that much. 

Opinion: In my opinion I believe that this is a very interesting article. I think it is a good article about finding oil in our country. I am happy that we are finding a lot of oil in the Midwest because then our country has a better chance of keeping more oil available. The only thing that was disappointing to see was that our gas prices might not go down. I would hope with all the oil received that maybe we would have lower oil, but it looks like the price will stay the same. I am for the idea of drilling for oil on shore, but i hope that we can in turn lower the prices of gas. 

Questions: 

What do you think we should do about the current gas situation? 

Do you like on-shore drilling? 

Do you think that the prices for gas will go down if we strike oil? 

http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/05/13/on-shore-oil-and-gas-drilling-reform-also-needed/

Greenhouse Gases

What is the Greenhouse Effect?

After 150 Years of Industrialization, Climate Change is Inevitable

From Larry West, former About.com Guide

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/greenhouse.htm

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect?

Life on earth depends on energy from the sun. About 30 percent of the sunlight that beams toward Earth is deflected by the outer atmosphere and scattered back into space. The rest reaches the planet's surface and is reflected upward again as a type of slow-moving energy called infrared radiation.

The heat caused by infrared radiation is absorbed by "greenhouse gases" such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone and methane, which slows its escape from the atmosphere.

Although greenhouse gases make up only about 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, they regulate our climate by trapping heat and holding it in a kind of warm-air blanket that surrounds the planet.

This phenomenon is what scientists call the "greenhouse effect." Without it, scientists estimate that the average temperature on Earth would be colder by approximately 30 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit), far too cold to sustain our current ecosystem.

How Do Humans Contribute to the Greenhouse Effect?
While the greenhouse effect is an essential environmental prerequisite for life on Earth, there really can be too much of a good thing.

The problems begin when human activities distort and accelerate the natural process by creating more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than are necessary to warm the planet to an ideal temperature.

• Burning natural gas, coal and oil -including gasoline for automobile engines-raises the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
• Some farming practices and land-use changes increase the levels of methane and nitrous oxide.
• Many factories produce long-lasting industrial gases that do not occur naturally, yet contribute significantly to the enhanced greenhouse effect and "global warming" that is currently under way.
• Deforestation also contributes to global warming. Trees use carbon dioxide and give off oxygen in its place, which helps to create the optimal balance of gases in the atmosphere. As more forests are logged for timber or cut down to make way for farming, however, there are fewer trees to perform this critical function.
• Population growth is another factor in global warming, because as more people use fossil fuels for heat, transportation and manufacturing the level of greenhouse gases continues to increase. As more farming occurs to feed millions of new people, more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere.

The Average Global Temperature is Increasing Quickly

Today, the increase in the Earth's temperature is increasing with unprecedented speed. To understand just how quickly global warming is accelerating, consider this:

During the entire 20th century, the average global temperature increased by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (slightly more than 1 degree Fahrenheit).

Using computer climate models, scientists estimate that by the year 2100 the average global temperature will increase by 1.4 degrees to 5.8 degrees Celsius (approximately 2.5 degrees to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit).

Summary:

              The world needs sunlight and about 70% of it gets to earth the rest is  sent back into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect can be too much sometimes and how we affect it is burning natural gases and coals, farming practices, deforestation, and population growth. The temperature of the earth is increasing. The increase by 2100 year, the temperature is going to be between 2.5 degrees and 10.5 Fahrenheit. 

Questions:

1. Why do you think that the temperature of the earth is increasing?

2. What do you think happens to the 30% of energy that is lost from the sun?

3.What are the some of the effects of the greenhouse effect?

Are Factory Farms Inherently Unsustainable? The Environment at Risk

Are Factory Farms Inherently Unsustainable? The Environment at Risk

By Stephanie Pedersen

SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

Photo: NDSU Ag Communication

Summary: 

      My article that I chose talks about factory farms and their sustainability through the future. Factory farms produce 99% of the meat we consume, and if these are not here in the future they could cause a huge problem. There are very serious environmental concerns besides the slaughtering of many animals. These animals are kept together and produce a lot of waste. Cows release methane as a waste product and are contributing 28% of our methane emissions. However, factory farms feed them diets that stop the production of methane, so instead they release nitrogen. This could turn into acid rains and could cause major problems for the environment and even for humans. When these farms obtain manure, they don't use it as fertilizer but dump it in lagoons. This contributes largely to the global warming crisis as these gases are released into the atmosphere and help destroy the o-zone layer. With all this happening, the biggest part of this crisis is that this is not sustainable. These farms run almost entirely off of fossil fuels and there is a limited supply of these. When temperatures change and supply's begin to limit, there is no way that we could sustain these farms.

Opinion:

     In my opinion, we should not get rid of factory farms now, but experiment with other ways that could be much better in the future. As stated in the article, 99% of the meat we consume comes from factory farms. That right there tells you that you can't get rid of them entirely. However, we have to change soon, because the detrimental impact they are having on the environment could be one that we can't fix. We should have more people working on developing new ways to run these farms because just like the article said, these run almost entirely on fossil fuels and those are limited. I for one know that I eat meat freely, but if we can't develop new ways to mass produce meat, everyone would have to eat it sparingly. This would have a loss in jobs in steakhouses, and a limiting of food choices. I can't tell you what exactly has to be done, but I can tell you something has to change; big time.

Questions:

1. What would you do to change this mass production system?

2. Do you think we should continue this process now even with it's negative impact on the environment? Why?

3. What rules or regulations could be set to change factory farms for the better?

http://www.theinternational.org/articles/258-are-factory-farms-inherently-unsustainabl

Zach Reilly


Article Title: The Basics of Landfills
Author: Environmental Research Foundation
Link: http://www.ejnet.org/landfills/ 




Summary:
Landfills are "carefully engineered" holes in the ground where solid and hazardous waste are stored.
They are made up of four main parts from top to bottom:  a bottom liner, a leachate collection system, a cover, and the area around where you are storing it. All these precautions are used to make sure waste doesn't seep into an aquifer, underground spring, or overflow into surface water. The liners used (clay, plastic, and composite) for a landfill are not perfect and are sometimes combined to make a more effective liner. Leachate is badly contaminated water that sinks to the bottom of the landfill. It is collected by pipes toward the sloped bottom of the landfill. These pipes are corroded and weakened by the weight on top of them, so they often break. The covers of these landfills are susceptible to pressure and are sometimes corroded, causing leaks and endangering the nearby ecosystem. All in all, landfills are environmental liabilities that are never good for the surrounding ecosystem, watershed, and organism communities.

Personally, i believe that while landfills are an easy and short term method for the disposal of waste, they pose more of a threat to the environment that we realize. Say if some contaminants were to leak out from the landfill and get into a creek. The small amount of diluted pollution wouldn't affect anything right away, but over time  organisms would accumulate a lot of toxins and spread disease among their species, throwing the equilibrium of the ecosystem out of whack. There are other ways of disposing of waste that don't harm the environment and i think that if we were educated more on those other methods then i believe that it would benefit ours and future generations. 

Questions:
1. Can you think of any more environmentally friendly ways to dispose of waste?
2. What would you do if you were in charge of the EPA to make landfills safer?
3. Do you think this will become a bigger issue with the environment than it already is? If so, when? If not, why?

deforestation

This arcticle, posted by the National Geogrphic, talks about deforestation, what comes from it and techniques used to do it.

 

Deforestation is clearing the forests on earth on a massive scale, usually resulting in damage to land quality. As stated in the article, forests are covering about 30% or earths land, and only ¼ of earth has land that you can stand on, so 30% of ¼ s not a lot. Currently, at the rate we are deforesting, earth will run out of forests in 100 years. Normally forests are cut down for money, for families to have homes, but mainly the reason is agriculture. Farmers cut down forests so they can have more area to plant on, or to let their livestock graze. Small farmers use a technique called “slash and burn”, where they cut down an area of forest and then burning it.in order to get paper products and wood, logging operations must be established, but they cut countless amounts of trees annually, and often, illegally. Also, not all deforestation is intentional; sometimes it is caused by both humans and nature from wildfires to overgrazing. Deforestation has many negative effects including the loss of habitat for millions of species, since 70% of earth’s plants and animals rely on forests for a permanent home. Another effect is climate change, the soil in a forest is moist but if you take the forest away, it will quickly dry out. The fastest way to stop deforestation would be to simply stop cutting down trees, but that’s not going to happen, instead, as suggested by the National Geographic, we could manage forest resources by eliminating clear-cutting to make sure forests stay intact.

I think that this is a very important topic since forests are like a filter keeping out greenhouse gasses just like a filter keeps junk out of you water. Not only that but forests also contain many keystone species, or we can assume it does because of its large biodiversity. This issue can also bring in job opportunity, such as becoming a scientist who would try to figure out ways to use other cheaper organic materials that you can use to make, say, paper out of, and by cheaper I mean easy to produce and quick to grow. That would act as an alternative to paper production and save the amount of trees as well as get people jobs.

Would it be a good idea to start a program that focuses on making cheaper alternatives for paper, as suggested in the paragraph above?

Should governments begin to regulate births and set a maximum amount of people aloud to be born annually per year or another similar system to help stop the demand for wood for housing projects?

Should there be more jobs dedicated to more efficiently recycling wood so that it may be used again for the same purposes?