Do the Math!

The main focus of this blog is on environmental issues in the Greater Boston area. Unfortunately, what happens globally is affecting us locally more and more. In particular, the damaging effects of global warming and a fossil fuel based society. This is caused by humans and it's real. Its an issue that transcends political, economic and regional divisions. We need to get on this ish! Check out the presentation put together by this guy, especially if you are skeptical or don't care. http://math.350.org

Ecosystem Helping!

Our first act of ecosystem helping! We pulled two bags of recyclables (beer cans and bottle) and 1 bag of trash out of Breakheart reservation in Wakefield. Breakheart reservation regulates the micro climate in Wakefield, and provides clean air and water for the residents. On a global scale, Breakheart reservation is a carbon sink, meaning the plants in the reservation are absorbing some of the extra carbon dioxide contributing to global warming. Plus it's also such a sexy place :)

Map of the reservation, original home of a branch of the Saugus native Americans! It didn't show up here but if you click on the blank square it will.

Trying to get that dam floating can!

Hey chris!

A diaper :P

Trash in our woods

Chris had a little accident when trying to get that dam can :p

Chris and Balbs!

Eco-nomics

          "Clean coal?" Really? It's a wonderful way to appeal to the average voter in a political climate that clamors for sustainable energy while opposing investment in the harvesting of natural resources like sun and wind, but as Mitt should know by now, just saying something doesn't make it true. Coal, Petroleum, and Natural gas are all fossil fuels; million-year-old bodies of plants that were compressed into an energy-rich goo.  They can only be extracted through strip mining, stripping away the forest and soil, building hundreds of miles of roads and pipes that disrupt the rest of the landscape. Waste water from the mining process filled with toxic chemicals is stored indifferently in artificial lakes, and the land is completely unusable for anything else after the mining is complete. In the case of natural gas, the process of extraction, or "fracking" has even been known to contaminate ground water and cause outbreaks of disease human communities. Of course, companies that extract fossil fuels claim extraction will not damage the land, the same way cigarette companies used to deny that cigarettes cause lung cancer. BP certainly made that promise when it began drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and then cut their budget on safety and maintenance. They broke no laws, or restrictions. Of course, many drilling companies are more responsible that BP, and the damage they cause spans a smaller area, but all fossil fuel drilling and mining operations cause permanent damage to the land.
          Mitt is trying to make it out like caring for the environment means you don't care about people; that you have to chose between having a job, and not destroying the air, water, and the habitats of other beings. However, protecting the environment also improves the economy. All ecosystems provide humans with "ecosystem capital;" goods from that ecosystem that can be used to make goods. Every single good in the economy comes from the ultimately comes from a forest, an ocean, or a pastureland. Humans can harvest a certain amount of ecosystem capital and the beautiful thing is that what is it will GROW BACK, meaning that amount of goods can continue to be harvested FOREVER. This is called a "sustainable yield." A certain amount of pollution can also be put into a natural ecosystem with out damaging it forever. If a person or an industry takes more than the sustainable yield, meaning more than what can be grown back, its spending more ecosystem capital than is earned. People tend to think of harvesting from a forest or an ocean as withdrawing money from a savings account, meaning that it shouldn't be spent all at once, but it shouldn't just sit there forever with nobody using it. However, economists, ecologists, and social scientists agree that the well-being of human communities is intrinsically connected to the well-being of the environments they are in. Taking too much from an ecosystem, then is more like regularly maxing out your credit card when you have an adjustable rate mortgage. You can live a nice life for a little while, but sooner or latter you're house is going to get taken away. Think about it; we live here! You wouldn't fill you're house or apartment up to the celling with trash because you were to busy at work to take it out. You wouldn't smash down the walls and sell off the pieces. So why do that to forests, which our comfort and security also depend upon?
          The foundation for the anti-evironmentalists claims that eco-conciousness is bad for the economy is that businesses have to spend more on proper waste disposal and they cannot always harvest as many resources as they would like. They therefor have fewer profits and therefor are less competitive and can create fewer jobs. However, a study by M.I.T. can out in that argues environmental regulations actually make businesses MORE competitive. The main difference between conventional and "green" technology is that green tech is way more energy efficient. After the initial investment in the new technology, costs of production and maintenance go way down. This means they can produce goods at a much cheaper rate. The same goes for solar and wind energy. Why would you use energy that costs millions of dollars to extract, process, and ship when you can use energy that falls from the sky for free? Energy companies know this, and they know that if we continue to use fossil fuels at our current rate they will be gone in approximately 200 years. The use of solar and wind power is inevitable. Many companies even made attempts to develop and promote green energy production. That's why BP is "Beyond Petroleum." However 200 years worth of oil represents 200 years worth of what is currently an extremely lucrative business. Companies have already paid for the fossil fuels and the rights to drill it, so if oil suddenly became less profitable, because people figured out solar was way cheaper say, they would lose a lot of money. For this reason, they have an interest in developing technology to produce solar and wind energy, but preventing it from being widely used until all the fossil fuels are used up. Our political leaders and most of our citizens do recognize the damaging effects of a fossil fuel based society, but feel the transition to a more sustainable lifestyle would be to serve, especially in an economic crisis. However, the transition need to happen soon. Many people are not convinced of or concerned about global warming, it is very real and very serious. Though cost estimates of the damage it will cause vary greatly, the lowest has been placed at 500 trillion dollars worldwide over the next 500 years. The freak weather and higher food prices that have proved fatal for many people around the would already struggling are only the beginning. Extraction of fossil fuels damages the forests and oceans which absorb some of the extra carbon dioxide, increasing the rate at which the planet is warming. There is one ultimate limiting factor to economic growth, more limiting than any environmental regulation could ever possibly be; if the air, water, and land are wreaked, if all the resources are used up, everyone will die.
           Mitt, instead of trying to develop fictitious "clean coal" to help out your billionaire buddies invest in some sustainable energy sources. You're right; we have to do what makes the most economic sense. The use of solar and wind energy inevitable, necessary, and ultimately cheaper than fossil fuels
in both money and lives.

Natural gas fracking operation in Pennsylvania. Fracking has been called "green" and "renewable" but is is neither. Fracking contaminates groundwater with chemicals used to bring the natural gas to the surface, the removal of forests exposes land to erosion, and changes the weather patterns. 

The BP oil spill as seen from space.

The toxic bi-products of "clean" coal mining operations are left to sit indefinitely in artofficial lakes, "slurry pools."

A "clean" coal mining operation in SriLanka.

Yeah!!!!!

       
       

Trees in Cambridge, pictures from my 1st post. Hope you like!

Trees in Lilac Court, near central square, giving owners privacy, and looking nice.

Some of my favorite Cambridge trees; Hawthorn trees on Memorial Drive.  These babies flower white and pink every may, looking beautiful and preventing erosion on the river bank. They can also treat chronic heart failure, apparently.

Sumac tree providing shade outside the Fresh pond Community center.  

Slow release watering system used on baby trees in Cambridge.

Taking the circumference of a tree.

Old photo of an American chestnut tree. American chestnuts could grow to be 50 ft. tall. Trees were mostly harvested for their lumber, although people liked the nuts too. Think of the song lyric "Chestnuts Roasting on an open fire." Before the blight, American chestnuts made up 25% of the tree canopy in American forests. 

A Japanese chestnut. Also a tall and beautiful tree.  The U.S. forest service is working on the American Chestnut Restoration Project; an attempt to hybridize Japanese and American chestnuts to create a disease-resistant American chestnut.

Where are you at?

Where are you at? Lets play 30 questions :)

1)Where do you live?

2)What is the average temperature range where you live?

3)How much rain do you usually get per year? How much snow?

4)What are ten plants that grow where you live?

5)What are ten animals that live in you're area?

6)What industry(s) support your community?

7)What direction do storms travel in where you live? What characteristics do those storms share?

8)Where does the water in your tap come from?

9)What is the soil like around your home?

10)How long is the growing season where you live?

11)What forms pollution (trash, industrial pollution in water, smoke in air, ect.) are present where you live?

12)Are there any non-native species in your area?

13)How have humans used the land where you live in the past century?

14)What geological processes shaped the land where you live?

15)What kinds of creatures lived on the land where you live before it was converted to human use?

16)What kinds of rocks/minerals are found where you live?

17)Do any migratory birds pass through your area?

18)Have any species gone extinct in your area?

19)How many people live near to you? What are their names?

20)How many miles do you drive per week, on average?

21)What do you spend the most money on per week, on average?

22)How much do you spend on energy costs each week, on average? What form of energy do you spend the most on?

23)What is the largest area of wilderness near where you live?

24)What development projects are underway where you live?

25)Who is the mayor in your town? Who is on the city counsel?

26)Who is your congressional representative?What congressional district are you in?

27)How have human demographics where you live changed?

28Do you know the name of the native American group that lived where you live?

29)Do you feel the infrastructure where you live is efficient and in good condition? Does it meet the needs of your community?

30)Where does your food come from?

Post your answers in the comments section if you want :) Answering these questions has made me think a lot.

Trees in Cambridge

          The National Arbor Day Foundation has recognized Cambridge, Massachusetts, award this year with the Growth Award and Tree City U.S.A for the health of trees with in city limits. Cantabrigians say there are more trees in Cambridge than any other city in the country. Cambridge does seem like a forest in some ways; trees line the sidewalks, dot parks, fill tiny private yards. My biology class set out today to measure the biodiversity of our urban forest; the types of trees were planted, how old and how healthy they were. I'm sure our methods were way less precise than those of the National Arbor Day Foundation, since we were only able to study the trees on one block. We used a transect, a traditional tool of scientists exploring biodiversity. Usually a transect is taken in a rainforest or some other cool place but you take what you can get. Basically the enterprising scientist picks their section of forest (Sumner Road, near Harvard square), measures out a rectangle, and records all the species he or she finds there. With trees, a scientist must also measure the circumference, which can tell the tree's age. In our 1 block length x street width rectangle we found 13 different trees of 6 different species, varying in age from 5 - 80 years. This is only counting sidewalk trees, not the ones in private yards. All of you in the 'burbs or the country may not be impressed but keep in mind we're talking about a CITY.
          Of course, in a real forest could be hundreds of types or trees in an area that size. It is always important to have different types and ages of trees in an urban or otherwise ecosystem. Forests work better with many types of trees than with one. A forest with only a few types of trees means individual trees compete more for water and nutrients, support fewer other plants and animals, and are more susceptible to decease. In the early 1900's, cities planted hundreds of thousands of America's favorite tree, the great American chestnut. The trees were a monoculture; they were all of the same type, and all right next to each other. In 1904 imported Japanese chestnuts brought with them a fungus American chestnuts couldn't withstand. The fungus swept though cities, spreading easily from one chestnut to another one planted just down the block.  Eventually, it spread to forests as well. By 1950 there were no American chestnuts left, although researchers for the American chestnut Restoration Project are working to create a disease resistant hybrid from Japanese chestnuts and American chestnut seed.
          While I was glad to see Cambridge had a healthy and diverse crop of trees, I couldn't help but wonder why Cambridge has so many. Trees are expensive; they have to be planted, watered, pruned, mulched, all of which costs money. Trees can also be dangerous, they can't be placed near power lines, they can damage property in storms. After hurricane Katrina, many property owners in New Orleans cut down trees in their yards, believing they weren't worth the risk. Most communities regard trees as luxuries, contributing to the character of the neighborhood, but not an absolute necessity. In the town of Ware, Massachusetts, they even cut down all the trees along main street and put plastic trees on the stumps. Trees in Cambridge are probably part of the look; all the trees that I saw were some type of maple, whose red Fall colors give Cambridge that Old New England, Ivy-league feel that has impressed and intimidated tourists since 1636. However, trees in cities have real economic benefits. They help regulate temperature, keeping cities cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. They improve the air quality. They limit the effect of floods by absorbing and holding water in their roots. The damage from floods and poor air quality, and increased heating and cooling costs would cost money.
          Trees also have an elusive and hard to measure effect on how people feel. On average, people in cities with less trees claim to feel more stressed out. A hospital patient will recover faster when placed in a room with a view of a tree through a window. Trees make people feel, comfortable, relaxed, safe. As a city, Cambridge has it's ups and downs; living here is expensive, and while Cambridge wasn't hit very hard by the 2008 recession, many people are jobless, homeless, or struggling to pay their bills. However, I think the good outweighs the bad; Cambridge is clean, crime is low, and support all the little shops and businesses and the city is full of college students that make living here fun. Most people don't think about our trees as being part of Cambridge prosperity, but trees have been under appreciated for hundreds of years. What unmeasured effects do a healthy, diverse forests have on our wallets and our quality of life?