Food Inc 2

I was really happy that they talked about the problems with using ethanol as a fuel source. Using corn to make ethanol for use in auto mobiles is a really bad idea. Using corn might have seemed like a potential solution to the pollution problems associated with fossil fuels but when you realize that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than you can get from burning it, it doesn't have the same appeal. On top of wasted energy is inflation to the price of corn as a food crop. The major agricultural companies are able to obtain corn at such low prices that they pursued ethanol technologies without really thinking about how that might affect the average American.
The book gets a nice change of pace in the Why Bother? chapter. I felt as though the argument was lost a little on me when I was reading it because I already have a garden at home and try to be conscious of what I'm purchasing at the super market, but say that was not the case... they do a nice job of convincing the reader that a little bit might not seem like a lot, but if a lot of people do a little bit its possible to get big results. Many people do feel detached from what they're eating; everything we eat has become so inexpensive and commonplace that we just assume that everything is O.K. I think that this is what the authors feel is the underlying tone of the average American consumer. The chapter gives the reader hope that they can make a difference, even if they are doing good for goodness sake.

Film/Reading

The part of the film that I found to be the most disturbing, and therefore the most persuasive, was the part about the seed collector. The film pointed out that Monsanto owns 90% of the soybeans in our country and they even have the rights to the genetic material inside of the soybean seeds. The part in that segment that really made me question the practice of patenting genetic material was the fact that even if the Monsanto soybean plants accidentally mix with the non-Monsanto soybean plants, the company owns the seeds that result from reproduction. If that is truly the case then Monsanto will own every soybean seed in America within a few years. I don't think that it is the best interest of the people of the united states to allow one company to have that much control. If you look at the amount of products that rely on soy the prospect of monopoly gets even scarier.

When I was looking at the reading there were a one passages that really stood out to me.
In the section on organics, I really liked how they defined organic.
"Organic stands for many things -- a philosophy of wholeness, the science of integration, a rallying cry for keeping nature humming as the interdependent web of life. Organic is also highly pragmatic -- a real solution to society's ills. It's a sensible farm policy and helps migrate health-care-woes -- you eat better, you are better. ..."

Effects of Pollution and Exploitation on Fresh Water

Cullen Hodgkiss
Research Prospectus
Eng 308J
February 1, 2010

Introduction
The first issue that came to my mind when we were presented with this assignment was Biodiversity and its importance to healthy environments. I remembered reading in Lost Mountain that 1 in 10 plant species were known to contain anti cancer compounds and that if we don’t start making some drastic changes we may see the extinction of 20% of our plant and animal species by 2030. These kinds of statements were corroborated by my research; Wikipedia reported that 30% of all plant and animal species will be extinct by 2050. At this point I knew that Biodiversity was definitely an issue worth looking into, especially since I plan on being around in 2050 (62 is not that old anymore).

As I dug deeper into the effects that pollution and exploitation were having on the biodiversity in our environments, I noticed that Fresh Water ecosystems were the most at risk. Threats to biodiversity in general include habitat destruction, invasive species, pollution, human over population, and overharvesting. When considering fresh water specifically, chemical pollutants seem to be the biggest problem. Water pollution regulations have dramatically increased since the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, but there are still many chemicals that are slipping into our water supply that could be potentially quite harmful to humans. Just because the river isn’t burning doesn’t mean that chemical pollution is not a problem.

Fresh water can be broken down into two sub-categories, surface water and ground water. Surface water is basically rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, while ground water is found in the pores of soil and aquifers. On the subject of surface water, I found hat that 55 percent of our yearly household water supply comes from rivers and lakes, unfortunately 40% of our rivers and 45% of our lakes are polluted. Surface water pollution is primarily caused by runoff, which is pollutants washing off the land. Some of the most harmful pollutants included in this runoff are chemical fertilizers. According to pollutionissues.com, fertilizers account for 80 percent of the phosphates being dumped into our waterways. Ground water seems to be the most affected by leaking municipal landfills, sewage lagoons, and chemicals from industrial activity. According to pollutionissues.com the EAP reported 318 disease outbreaks associated with ground water systems between 1971 and 1996, that’s roughly 12 outbreaks a year. Ground water is also affected by leaking underground oil tanks and gas spills. Again according to pollutionissues.com, 400,000 leaking underground storage tanks were reported in 2001.

This kind of pollution kills plants and animals that are vital to the stability and overall health of fresh water ecosystems. With only 3% of the world’s water supply being fresh, the pollution taking place today is something that we should all be concerned about, especially as an increasing population puts more strain on our water supplies. Chemical pollutants destroy many organisms that are essential to our survival. If we hope to continue thriving on this planet it is essential that we take steps to recognize and correct the problems facing our ever dwindling water supply.


Bibliography
1) Biodiversity. Web.
.
2) Shah, Anup. "Biodiversity." n. pag. Web. 29 Jan 2010. .
3) "Water Pollution: Fresh Water." n. pag. Web. 29 Jan 2010. .
4) "Freshwater Ecosystems." n. pag. Web. 30 Jan 2010. .
5) Gordon, Christopher. "Freshwater Ecosystems in West Africa: Problems and Overlooked Potentials." n. pag. Web. 1 Feb 2010. .

I have been looking into the importance of biodiversity and the roll it plays in environmental stability. Biodiversity is basically the variety of life on earth.The term refers to the number of species of plants, animals, and microorganisms, the enormous diversity of genes in these species, and the different ecosystems on the planet ( such as deserts, rainforests and coral reefs).
Throughout human history almost all cultures have recognized the importance of the natural world and its potential benefits to mankind. Unfortunately in these turbulent times, power, politics, and greed have led people to do some awful things to the environment.

Since the beginning of time life on this planet has been dependent on the earths natural resources. Humans are no different from other forms of life in that we need these natural resources to survive. What is different about humans, as opposed to other animals, is that we seem unable to find the harmony in our environments that our wild counterparts do. While many people believe that man is to be the steward of the world and protect its beauty, scientists have estimated that 30% of all the natural species will be extinct by 2050.

One of the things that shocked me the most as I read through some articles on biodiversity was that fresh water ecosystems were the most at risk. When I thought about how important fresh water is to our survival I got a little scared. I don't want to be associated with a generation of people that had the opportunity to put an end to the destruction of our planet and did not take any action. Hopefully as I look deeper into this issue I will come across some possible solutions to the problem, or at least some strategies to get us back on the right track.

LM Ending

The rest of Lost Mountain

In the second half of the book Reece uses many of the same visuals and sappy stories about nature that he did in the first half of his book to make his point. He continues to bombard the reader with descriptions of blackberry bushes that have disappeared and rants about the gaping hole that now stands in the once lush landscape. Its not that the points are not solid but after 150 pages of the same thing your beating a dead horse.
The part of the second half of the book that I found the most interesting was the recount of the Robert Kennedy visit. I think what Reece is trying to do in that chapter is show how things were bad back then and how little to nothing has changed. The description of the participation and community involvement in the reenactment give the sense that the issues are still very close to hearts of the individuals being afflicted. When Robert Kennedy says "that there is absolutely no reason why in a country with such affluence that people should live in such poverty" (paraphrase) he is absolutely right. It is this point that Reece is trying to drive home the hole book. It is the responsibility of the people at large to take care not only of our environment but of each other.
All in all, Reece wants his reader to walk away from his book knowing that Mountian top removal and strip mining are not some ancient technologies from a distant past but real issues that we need to deal with today. He brings attention to the destruction of homes, water contamination, devastation of forests, and perpetuation of poverty and disease that the coal industry has brought to Appalachia. His warhearted descriptions and factual evidence support his argument that something needs to drastically change in order to ensure a better future for all of us.
Make sure to do your part!

Lost Mountain 86 - 162

In our second installment of Lost Mountain, Reece describes the strip-mining process and the devastation it causes the surrounding area. Each chapter in this section seemed to focus on one specific example of how the coal industry was destroying the area. Topics included clear cutting, contamination of the water supply, the extinction of local wildlife, and property damage. By looking at the problems one at a time, Reece not only paints a detailed picture of the destruction caused by the strip-mining but also makes the reader realize that everything is being affected, not just a few people or a few trees.

I feel like one of the strongest points that Reece makes in this section is that one in ten plant species contain anti cancer compounds, and we are destroying plant species on a daily basis. When he said, “if we kept our conservation efforts and deforestation rates at the same level s they are now, that a fifth of the plant and animal species would be gone or committed to extinction by 2030” (Reece 99)it really made me think. That is something that all of the people in our class might experience in our lifetimes. By making that kind of prediction, Reece connects the reader to the current problem by making it their concern.

Another key point that Reece makes is that reforestation can be cheaper than water filtration plants. He states, “In 1999, the EPA ordered the city to build a water-filtration plant that would cost $800 billion to build and $300 million a year to maintain. Instead, New York spent $2 billion reforesting a 2,000-square-mile watershed in the Catskill Mountains” (Reece 109). The trees resumed their ancient water purification duties, solving the problem for billions of dollars less. This example suggests that a wiser approach to mining and logging would not only be more environmentally friendly but cheaper as well.

This is Reality and America’s Power, two web sites devoted to spreading the truth about clean coal, have very different opinions about what the truth is. The This is Reality site would have you believe that the “clean” coal ad campaign put forth by America’s Power, and their associates, is the coal industry’s dirty little secret. In the midst of a “green” energy craze, coals future provides an interesting debate.

Following a brief loading screen, the Reality site’s home page immediately engages the viewer with an interactive animation. A bright yellow canary flies in from the right of the screen before crashing into a virtual billboard which reads “Burning coal is a leading source of global warming pollution” –US EPA. A moving arrow next to the unconscious canary points to “click for more reality”. The TV spots used by the Reality site were entertaining and informative.
The America’s Power home page has a welcoming feel. The smiling faces adorning the light background and soft colors seem to represent ever day Americans. The site portrays coal as a vital American resource responsible for half of America’s electricity. While coal might not be clean, according to the America’s Power website it’s getting cleaner. The site claims that from 1970 to 2005 the emissions per billion kilowatt hours fell from 30, 510 short tons per billion kilowatt hours to just 6,970. Now personally I think that 7,000ish still sounds pretty high but apparently it is 77.15% better.

Both sites contain hard hitting one liners and information supporting their claims; however, the edge in the content department has to go to America’s Power. A wealth of videos from prominent politicians and the interactive factuality tour from the seemingly well funded America’s Power site make a compelling pro-coal argument. Quantity, though, is not always as good as Quality. The simple yet artsy Reality sites use of punch-lines like “Burning coal is the dirtiest way we produce electricity” and, “CO2 emissions from U.S. coal-based electricity are greater than emissions from all the cars and trucks in America “ speak volumes. Not to mention, many of their statements are from government agencies like the EPA and US Department of Energy.

In the end the videos make the difference. The well produced, entertaining TV spots from the This is Reality site make most lasting impression. The boring political interviews from the America’s Power site left me yawning. The message that I’ll remember is that “Clean” coal doesn’t exist.

One Man’s Opinion