Should I Really Buy Into It? Environmentally Friendly Paint.
Over the past few years, more and more people have become quite aware of the need to take care of the environment and take responsibility for our part in saving the planet from ecological disaster brought on by the inventions and waste products created by man. As a natural result of the many developments, inventions, and innovations made by man, the environment has slowly been degraded to the point that it has become a real point of concern for everyone living on the planet. The toxic byproducts of the manufacture of most of the inventions of man have slowly choked and poisoned the environment, slowly producing adverse conditions that would take years to undo, if at all. Other than the production of fuels and modern lubricants, another source of chemical pollutants that are not only toxic to the environment but also directly to humans as well, are the various paints being made in manufacturing plants. These paints have pigments that are laced with lead, and this lead is a heavy metal that is highly toxic.
Thankfully, some paint manufacturers have taken the problem to heart and devised new compounds that are lead free and contain no other toxic chemicals, in effect, environmentally friendly paint. This is probably one of the best developments in the field of synthetic materials, since having environmentally safe paint is beneficial not only to the environment long term, but also directly and immediately upon humans, since this paint does not exude the strong toxic fumes that people have come to associate with freshly applied paint. Environmentally friendly paint is in many ways better then the traditional paint of old, not only in the fact that it will not poison the environment, and the residents of the house using it eventually, but also because of the fact that formulation of the environmentally safe paint actually allows it to dry quite faster than traditional paints. What’s more is that the colors found available in environmentally friendly paint are as varied as the ones you find in traditional paint, so finding the paint color that you like in non-toxic form should be quite easy now.
In case you are wondering just how environmentally safe paint is beneficial to you, here are just a few pointers:
Not a health hazard
There are millions of people with both diagnosed and undiagnosed chemical allergies that are easily triggered by numerous stimuli, and one of the most popular irritants are the traditional paints and their strong, noxious fumes. Environmentally friendly paint exudes little, if at all, chemical fumes when they are applied and while they are drying, making it ultimately ideal for the home and for places where people tend to stay indoors for a long period of time.
Safe for the environment
Like the name suggests, environmentally safe paint is just that, safe for the environment. Production of this type of paint did not in any way contribute to the contamination of groundwater and landfills, and does not have any substance in it that will deplete the ozone layer even faster. This is the entire reason for making this type of paint. Rest easy knowing that as you use environmentally friendly paint, you are in no way damaging the environment
Cost-efficient and effective
Environmentally friendly paints are known to perform rather well in coverage, scrubability, and in hiding the flaws that came out during previous coats of paint. People who have used environmentally safe paints say that the paint itself has enough body to allow more areas to be covered with the same amount of paint that would normally only cover a smaller surface area. This translates into significant savings by not having to buy more paint than is necessary.
Water-based paint
Being water based means it can be easier to clean, since it will not retain and absorb dirt and other stains, much like what traditional paint tends to do. A lot of discoloration in old paints is primarily because of dust and dirt actually seeping into the paint, causing it to grow darker and uneven in color.
Rico Franco is an SEO Copywriter/Marketing Specialist specializing in optimized written content and marketing/advertising copy. He was awarded by the Catholic Mass Media Awards in 2005 for Best Business/Feature story written, produced, and aired. Rico also writes various articles in paint colors, online games, and other topics.
Recycle, Reuse and Reduce – A Quiz For Families Who Want to Recycle Cans
Does you family recycle aluminum cans? Do they do it to get a little extra cash or because it is the responsible thing to do? How much do they, and you, know about what happens to the can after the soda is gone? Here is a quick true and false quiz on recycling. It will only take 2 or 3 minutes to find out what you know and what you need to know about the importance of families recycling.
Circle the answer for each of the 6 questions. Now test the other members of the family.
1. In the time it takes you to read this question, 50,000 12-ounce aluminum cans are made.
True or False
2. When you recycle one aluminum can you save enough energy to equal a half gallon of gasoline?
True or False
3. There is no limit to the amount of times aluminum can be recycled.
True or False
4. We use over 80,000,000,000 (billion!) cans a year.
True or False
5. At one time, aluminum was more valuable than gold.
True or False
6. More aluminum goes into beverage cans than any other product.
True or False
Surprise! All of the answers are true.
Did you know that for every $10 spent buying things $1 or 10% goes for packaging that is thrown away. Packaging, and that includes aluminum cans, represents 65% of household trash. Wow. What a waste of money and resources. We can do better than that.
Our family is making a special effort to Recycle, Reuse and Reduce. Will you join us in helping to protecting our earth and natural resources? Maybe your family could put up a special box to save aluminum cans for the recycling center.
(c) Judy H. Wright http://www.ArtichokePress.com You have permission to reprint this article in your blog, ezine or offline magazine as long as you keep the content and contact information intact. Thank You.
Artichoke Press is the home site of Judy H. Wright, family relationship coach and author. If your organization would like to schedule Auntie Artichoke, the storytelling trainer, for a workshop please call 406.549.9813.
You are also invited to visit our blog at http://www.AskAuntieArtichoke.com for answers and suggestions which will enhance your relationships. You will also find a full listing of free tele-classes and radio shows held each Thursday just for you.
Thanks for joining our community of caring parents, family members,coaches, teachers and mentors who want to help raise a generation of responsible adults.
We have all heard about Global Warming, where the planet’s atmosphere is supposedly heating up. Of course, we as common citizens have no real proof, only what our scientists tell us, along with the Think Tanks and mass media. But how can we trust this when Global Warming researchers have been paid 100s of millions of dollars, and they know if they disagree with global warming theory the money stops being funded and they are out of work?
One of the most fascinating debate points for Global Warming goes something like this; “The majority of scientists say global warming is real and we are already seeing its impact (the drought in the Western USA and the long term drought in Australia.”
This is seriously a flawed argument and let me tell you why. You see it is irrelevant and may not even be true. After all, 55% would be most of the scientists and thus the majority, still leaving a huge contingency of doubters, with plenty of data and research to back up the opposite point of view.
Likewise, during Copernicus’ day only one man believed the world was round, everyone else said it was flat; so the “majority of scientists” argument is irrelevant; majorities don’t mean anything. If you were one of a 100 people and they all jumped off a bridge because they agreed to, would you jump too? That is illogical.
Now then, the second part of the argument has to do with droughts in the world. And we all know that droughts come and go. Remember the Dust Bowl “Grapes of Wrath” in the US? And in the 1950s Australia had a drought just as bad during the same period, same as the one they are having now. This one we notice more because there are more people demanding the same amount of water.
In California, the snowpack this year is normal and anymore puts us above normal, thus, the drought theoretically is over? So, does that mean this so-called Global Warming is over? Of course, not the powers that be, behind global warming will continue to pursue this until it’s no longer in their interests. Think on this.
So How You Do’ing? In the spirit of recycling, I thought I would use those famous words from Friends character Joey. I have shared with you in other articles ideas that my family are using to cut our carbon footprint on this precious Earth that we call home.
Reducing is always a challenge, because it goes in the face of our societal values of having more and doing more, but it is the highest form of recycling.
Re-using is something that has been natural for me through out my life. It may be challenging at times to creatively transform old household items into new uses, but this has become one of the staples of our family’s efforts to be more environmentally friendly…and save money.
Recycling has become the catch phrase for the 3 R’s, but is strictly speaking altering one thing into another. It is important that we recycle as much as we possibly can, because making consumables from recycled goods is always cheaper and better for the environment than making them from raw materials. But we should recognise too that recycling should only be used after we have reduced and re-used. For our children and their futures, we must use all the arsenal of tools embodied in the 3 R’s: reducing wherever we can, re-using everything that we possibly can, and recycling every item that our councils and recycling centres will accept.
Today I am wanted to look at those things that my family could do better:
1) Reducing excess packaging. I think this might be the most challenging to tackle; partly because a great deal of it is beyond our control. We are, I admit, large consumers of electronics (blame techie husband). Have you ever noticed how much packaging goes into one tiny piece of plastic? A memory stick that is one inch by two will most often come in a plastic (non-recyclable) package with a large cardboard inset and an information packet. I recognise that this is an anti-theft device, but aren’t there other alternatives? What about putting such items behind the counter? The other side of that is that the packaging contributes to the cost of that piece of plastic and metal. Of course, this is an issue that will require a concreted effort from consumer and most likely government intervention to address. What I can do for now is to choose to purchase my fruit and vegetables loose. I am also hoping this will cut down on both spending and waste by purchasing only what we need.
2) I am going to remember to use those little switches on the power plugs. As I mentioned, being American we do not have such things. It has been hard for me change a lifetime of habits. But with my husband’s help, I am going to use these magic little buttons more often.
3) We are going to replace all batteries with rechargeable ones. About half of our batteries are rechargeable; mostly the ones in our keyboards and mousse. But over the coming weeks, we will replace all batteries with rechargeable ones…since these are particularly toxic waste in our landfills.
4) I am going to use less water when washing dishes. I have this habit of running the water to rinse dishes as I go. The new plan is to wash everything and sit it on the counter until I am done. Then use the same pan to rinse the dishes in cold water.
5) I am going to have a spring clean out. I may be doing pretty well at re-using but I could help others to do better by donating all the stuff I am not using to Freecycle, the Islington Swap Xchange, or my local Mind shop. This will make my husband very happy as he has been complaining about my daughter’s toys for a while now.
So what can you do better? Remember though this is not about being perfect, but the little things that we can realistically do and continue to do. The things that may seem so small that you don’t think they will make a difference: things that if we all did would make a huge difference. I invite you all to share your list with me.
Terri O’Neale is the mother of six; ranging in age from 3 to 22. She has been both a working and stay-at-home mother at various times in her life. She was also a single mother for almost five years, before re-marrying the love of her life at the age of forty. Obviously, she has a life-time of training in raising a family on a tight budget. In addition to these real life experiences, she possesses a bachelors degree in health education and a minored in environmental management in her masters programme.
Terri feels strongly that this is one of the most challenging times in history for the family, but she also believes that families with the will and resolve to address the pressing issues of saving money, becoming greener, leading healthier lifestyles and spending more time with one another can endure these challenging times and come out victorious in the end.
Through Frugal Family articles, blogs, videos and social networking, she helps modern families rediscover some lost art forms such as cooking, sewing, and gardening. The goal is not to go back in time or become fanatical, but to help all families find simple and effective ways that fit into their lifestyle to make moderate changes with huge impacts. For more information, check out her blog http://frugalfam.wordpress.com/.
As part of the conservation and environmental movement worldwide there are several campaigns aimed at banning the plastic bag. These fit in perfectly with going green at home and with our longer term life styles.
A quick search on the web will take you to the San Francisco Bay Area, “Bay vs Bag”, to the Daily Mail’s (UK) “Banish the Bags” as well as similar situations in Canada, Holland, China, elsewhere in the US and even Zanzibar.
A lot of the focus is based on the damage done to wild life, including sea mammals and birds; the effects on waste and the average number of bags used per person in different countries. In one of the lists I saw, Singapore was topping the list at 625 bags.
One of the targets is to reduce by 10% the yearly consumption of these bags.
On the other hand there are also “Save the Plastic Bag” campaigns, with the plastic industry behind it. Their main focus is highlighting what they call misinformation. Their points are based on “exaggerations” on the damage done to wild life; errors in how plastic bags are made (from ethane gas that would otherwise be burnt and not petroleum); effects of co2 vs methane; potential job losses and so on.
On the banning side of the argument, there can be exaggerations as well as questionable scientific data – questionable as in anybody can question it, after all to have an argument you must always have at least two points of view.
From the “saving” the industry point of view, there can be many counter arguments to the data that is presented. And this is quite understandable, after all their industry could be hit very badly. (This just reminds me that all businesses have a life time curve that goes from birth, to growth, to maturity and finally to demise. The time scale can be as short as a year to as long as a hundred years or more, but the end result is that it is replaced by something else).
Some of the arguments are saying that nets and not plastic bags are causing marine life casualties, that paper bags are a worse alternative (side stepping the plastic bag issue) and basically attacking the “plastic bag misinformation campaign”.
Very probably both sides are looking to make their points by reducing or ridiculing their opponents point of view. But the overall issue is still there – are plastic bags affecting our environment?
To get back to the plastic bag banning situation, where paper bags have the negative effect of more trees cut, the information that is being retrieved is very important. But it must also be as objective as possible. Having said that, we know that it takes literally centuries for plastic to degrade and this should be the foremost argument.
Just to expand a little on the paper bag argument, which is totally reasonable, the option is not to cut more trees. The options are to recycle and use bio-degradable alternatives.
In the old days, when plastic bags hadn’t been invented but grocery shops had, natural fiber bags were used and the customers were the ones who brought their own to the shop.
With just a little effort on the individual front, these campaigns wouldn’t be necessary.
Want to know about environment and natural living? Information, news and facts can be found at: http://natural-living-tips.com/
Water Efficiency – The Resource Matrix Part 4 of 4 – The Illusions Behind Water Shortages
The Resource Matrix IV: Layers
A new-age freak grinned at me last Friday and shared her relevation, “Everything’s energy. And everything’s connected. Don’t you get it, man?”
But you know, she’s right.
Otherwise, how would you explain melting polar ice and island nations disappearing under rising ocean levels? Randomness just doesn’t cut it as a solid excuse anymore.
A couple of years ago, some determined energy interests utilized hired hypnotic practitioners (several US senators and climate scientists) to declare to the public that there is no global warming. Early on, they tried introduce confusion into the debate with their term, “climate change,” which suggested that the environment changes randomly and there’s no proof that global warming is a serious trend.
Unfortunately for them, their efforts didn’t work, and ironically “climate change” is another term for “global warming.”
Have broken through that layer of illusion, the Do-Gooders (concerned scientists and environmental groups) and the Hybrids (for-profit companies that actually do some of those same things that someone who cares about you would do, rather than merely say, “We care about you,” which all companies say) have helped us gain greater awareness and provided with the means to change:
“Global warming is real, and here’s a CFL lightbulb and more info.”
“Water shortage is real, and it has nothing to do with long showers.”
Today, in our final article of The Resource Matrix, we peel back layer after layer to get to the core and break the code that sends the whole system crashing down like a ton of bricks. And what you find will surprise — even shock you!
Let’s begin with the first layer:
Layer 1:
the illusion that non-sustainable costs less than sustainable
We began The Resource Matrix by explaining that economics comes out of 18th century political economy, and that political economy itself comes out of moral philosophy, and this moral philosophy apparently had room for colonialism, a fancy term for the answer to the eternal question: “How can I get that for free?”
Within economics and its moral background is the concept of the “free good:” a good that is not scarce. A free good is available in as great a quantity as desired with zero opportunity cost to society. Earlier schools of economic thought proposed that free goods were resources that are so abundant in nature that there is enough for everyone to have as much as they want.
To sustain the illusion that products that pollute the air and water are cheaper than those that don’t create a mess, the scroundels just pay the referees fat sacks of hush money. “What foul? Play ball!”
Layer 2:
the illusion of separation
The next layer we peel away is the seeming “illusion of separation.” The grinning new-age freaky girl has it right again: “Everything’s connected.”
Global warming is not a fossil fuel issue. It’s a consumption issue that involves insane water policies that dictate growing cotton in the Egyptian desert, installing the world’s highest-shooting fountain in the desert city of Phoenix, Arizona to run 12 hours out of every 24, draining rivers to grow rice for exports, polluting the same rivers in India that people drink from with toxic chemicals used for dyeing cotton and wondering why nearly every single person in town died. And on and on ad nauseum.
Layer 3:
it’s up to government and industry to bring change
In the commercial marketplace, you vote with your feet. If you’re sitting in a movie theater and the film sucks, you stand up because you can’t take it any longer. And walk out. Just remember who the lousy director or actor was so you’re not doomed to repeat your history of lousy film choices.
If we leave it to government and industry to form a partnership to solve water usage issues, it will be virtual warfare, as we described in our last article (The Resource Matrix part 3 of 4: the coming cold water waters):
In this game, you start as leader of a country which has certain industries, a growing population, and dwindling water resources. Your objective is to maintain or enhance the lifestyle of your people by shifting water use to other countries in order to prevent internal strife and your eventual overthrow and death by coup d’etat.
And as you read, this game has no winners. It’s not sustainable.
Rather than blindly obeying the on-screen instructions (“Please pick a COUNTRY, PLAYER NAME, and Press the START button to begin now.”), it’s best never to press the START button at all.
Instead of giving your power over to the Government/Industry Gamers, vote with your feet.
Like doing business with those who conduct themselves in line with your own beliefs (cruelty-free products manufacturer, member of your own religious faith), you can make certain individual decisions consciously.
In certain cases, you make conscious decisions that consciously support certain businesses:
retailers (and the manufacturers) of compact fluorescent bulbs
shade-grown coffee
cruelty-free health and beauty products
In certain cases, you make conscious decisions that unconsciously reduce support for certain businesses:
using daylight instead of manufactured light sources reduces coal production and its polluting effects, in addition to saving energy
How about water? What choices do you have? Here’s possible near-future scenes:
Online resumes now include diet preferences as an indicator of personal water footprint and employment site search tools include diet as a filter.
Business headlines: “Demand for beef-free Hindu programmers causes short squeeze in software development market – low-waterfoot print computer geeks ask for, get 25% more than meat-eating peers” and “All-vegan employee company Sustainatrix International goes public in huge stock offering – market value of $150 billion confirms validity of sustainability in capital and financial modeling”
The Matrix and Vanilla Sky:
Not what it seems
In The Matrix, Morpheus explains that “the Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.”
In the 2001 Tom Cruise psychological thriller Vanilla Sky, built layer upon layer of seeming reality, Cruise’s handsome character enjoys the charmed rich life, then gets into an accident that mars his face, over which he needs to wear a mask. Eventually distraught, he goes out drinking, and ends up literally in the gutter to sleep it off.
He wakes to continue his life in an sequence of odd experiences. Finally remembering some repressed memories, he gets help and peels back one layer of the illusion: all his “experiences” since landing in the gutter have been a dream.
Trying to cope with his shattered worldview, he peels back another layer: worse, he’s been “dead” for 150 years and in a state of suspended animation.
And yet, the movie itself is not what it seems. Vanilla Sky was a Hollywood idle rich American kid adaptation of the 1997 Spanish original entitled Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes) and also co-starred Penelope Cruz in her same role.
I introduced this four-part series by explaining that:
the Resource Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
You take the blue pill and the story ends.
You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
I’ve shown you how deep the rabbit hole goes, and now you can wake in your bed and choose to continue to live like Tom Cruise, or you can break the code.
To break the code that creates the graphical user interface and see the illusion for what it really is, you need only do one thing, as repeated by Tom Cruise’s alarm clock each morning in Vanilla Sky:
Open your eyes.
And see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you.
Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .
To your green, brighter future,
Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19
And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.
The 3 Rs (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle) is no longer simply a mantra for environmental activists, it’s a ticket to saving you money while you consider the planet. The 3Rs ask you to buy less, reuse more, and recycle products at the end of their useful life-wonderful guiding principles for reducing our environmental footprint and bringing our lifestyles into balance with nature. But in practice, how many of us are really willing to cut back on the stuff we want to own, to reuse what we’d like to throw out, and to recycle when doing so is often incredibly inconvenient? Fortunately for budget-conscious Lazy Environmentalists, the 3Rs are receiving a twenty-first-century facelift, making them easy to implement and even easier on the wallet.
Reduce, the first of the 3Rs, releases you from the hassle, expense, and waste of unwanted stuff while helping you use less energy and create less trash. And while most of us can’t imagine life without our most prized four-wheeled possession, the first place to embrace Reduce is with our cars. That’s because our automobiles generate about half of our personal greenhouse gas emissions-the other half comes from our homes.
Today, you can enjoy the freedom of being in the driver’s seat while eliminating all of the expense of owning-or leasing-and maintaining a car by joining a car-share service. Zipcar is leading the way. Available in more than 40 U.S. cities, Zipcar lets members locate cars conveniently parked at designated spots around the city and reserve them for an hourly fee (typically between $10.50 and $16.50). Members arrive at the parking spot, swipe their membership card over the windshield sensor to unlock the door, hop in, and go. There’s no need to pay for gasoline or insurance; Zipcar has got you covered. You won’t sacrifice your ride either; Zipcar lets you choose from models like the BMW 325, Mini Cooper, Honda Fit, Volkswagen Jetta, Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, Volvo S40, Mazda 3, and Subaru Outback. According to the company’s surveys, over time Zipcar members reduce their car usage by as much as 50 percent. Zipcar estimates that each of its cars removes the equivalent of about 15 privately owned vehicles from the road. Other car-sharing services are popping up across the country and around the world. Visit Carsharing.net for a comprehensive list.
Reuse-the middle child of the 3Rs-has been a part of our lives before we were “eco” anything (eco-conscious, eco-savvy, even a tentative eco-curious). Think about it: Every day, we reuse items like T-shirts, cereal bowls, and underwear without a second thought. We don’t toss them after one use. We reuse. The secret to twenty-first century Reusing is to discover how to reuse other people’s really cool stuff as well as our own.
Reuse logic is in effect at Goozex.com, where gamers gather to swap their video game. Visit the website, create an account and list the games you own that you’d like to trade. Then Goozex quickly locates other gamers who want them and makes instantaneous matches for you. With each game you mail, you earn Goozex points, which you can then use to acquire the games you want from other members. Instead of spending lots of money on new games (and paying for all that packaging waste), you’ll pay Goozex $1 each time you receive a game. Whether you’re partial to Xbox, Wii, Nintendo, or many other gaming platforms, the Goozex trading community has got you covered. Get your reused copy of Call of Duty 2 or NCAA Football 09 today.
Swapping websites are emerging in all kinds of categories. Bookworms can browse more than two million titles available for trade at Paperbackswap.com. Movie collectors can visit Swapadvd.com to trade both new and classic DVD titles. CD fans (you know you’ve still got ‘em) can tap into more than 130,000 titles available at Swapacd.com. And new and expecting parents can trade for baby strollers, bibs, bedding, bumpers, and more at Zwaggle.com.
Recycle, the last of the 3R trio, is the most transformative of the Rs. When we recycle, we’re giving used products the chance to be reborn as something new. That’s especially the case thanks to companies like Preserve that has partnered with Stonyfield Farm to recycle its yogurt cups-from organic yogurt, of course-into ergonomic plastic toothbrushes, razors, and an assortment of colorful kitchenware (and now also does the same with Brita pitcher filters).
TerraCycle, another green innovator, is on pace to redefine much of America’s relationship with trash. The company that began with its signature Plant Food-made from worm poop, packaged in empty Pepsi bottles and sold at the likes of Home Depot and Wal-Mart-has evolved into an innovation powerhouse that continually introduces new products made entirely from waste. Take the E-Water Trash Cans and Recycling Bins available at OfficeMax for $10.99 each and made from crushed computers and fax machines (that would otherwise end up in a landfill). Or the rain barrels and composters made from Kendall-Jackson oak wine barrels that sell for $99 each at Sam’s Club. They’re both prime examples of a company that sees opportunity where others see garbage. In so doing, TerraCycle helps us make attractive choices that are mindful of the planet and our wallets.
Josh Dorfman is an environmental entrepreneur, media personality and author of The Lazy Environmentalist: Your Guide to Easy, Stylish, Green Living. He is also the founder and CEO of Vivavi, a retailer of modern, green furniture and home furnishings. His latest book, The Lazy Environmentalist on a Budget: Save Money. Save Time. Save The Planet, is now available. For more information, please visit: http://www.lazyenvironmentalist.com
Under the relevant European Directives, an Environmental Statement is the formal product of an Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental Statements are often organised in a way that describes the environmental baseline, mitigation and effects for each type of environmental receptors: ecology, water resources, archaeological resources, human beings etcetera. Contaminated land is often managed in the same ways as the various environmental receptor groups, although it is principally a cause of impacts rather than a receptor. It also often refers to a pre-existing condition and its damaging effect is on a variety of different receptors such as human health, structures and buildings, surface water features, groundwater features and ecology. This often means that land contamination specialists struggle with integrating the issue in a logical manner in an Environmental Statement. Sticking to the structured approach of an environmental statement is essential to ensure a clear description of the existing environmental condition, the potential impacts and the actions taken to avoid, minimise, offset or manage the impacts. This article is based on UK practice and legislation, although fundamentally the issues should be similar within other contexts.
Contaminated land is in many countries considered on a source-pathway-receptor basis. This is important to understand the impact land development can have on the issue of contaminated land. Development can interfere with any of these three elements. It can introduce sensitive receptors by changing the use of land, for instance by building new residential units on a site that was previously used for heavy industry. New pathways linking pre-existing contamination with an existing receptor can be formed, for instance when piling through a non-permeable layer connecting a layer of contaminated soils with a deep aquifer. Finally by introducing pollutants on the site a development project can introduce a potential source of contamination.
The second element to consider is the structured approach of an environmental statement. Apart from the introductory and procedural elements described in the environmental statement, a good environmental statement comprised the following sections:
environmental baseline conditions
potential environmental impacts
mitigating measures
residual environmental impacts
There should be a logical relation between the different sections. Any receptor that is affected and described in the section about the potential impacts and effects should have been introduced in the section describing the baseline. Any material impact should be assigned a mitigation or management action etc. Implementing this structure allows a clear description and understanding of the environmental impacts and the way it will be managed.
Applying these principles to contaminated land will result in a baseline condition section that describes the current sensitive receptors that are present within the potential sphere of influence of the development, the sensitivity and importance of these receptors, the presence of any pre-existing contamination and the presence of actual and potential pathways. The next section, potential environmental impacts or effects, first considers the impacts that the development will have in terms of the introduction (or removal) of sensitive receptors and the creation of new pathways between existing and potential pollution sources and receptors. In addition this section will describe the potential environmental impacts that are associated with the introduction of new sources of contamination. In the third section, mitigating measures, a description of the actions to mitigate each of the impacts that may occur should be provided. Finally a statement of the residual impact of the development is provided in the last section: residual environmental impacts.
Antarctic Peninsula Climate – A Change in Krill Ecosystem
Antarctic Peninsula has been experiencing warming trends for over 40 years with an increase of 2-3 C, thus correlating with lower sea ice conditions in the Amundsen Sea and Bellinghausen Sea. Warming temperatures around the Antarctic Peninsula is changing the dynamics of the ecosystem. The rise in atmospheric temperature is causing increasing in melting of freshwater glaciers and ice shelves. Fresh water emerging into the sea counteracts the salinity within a regional area. Changes identified are;
• Decrease in sea water salinity up to 60 miles offshore
• Lower sea ice
• Decreased krill population
• Increased salp (open ocean tunicate that is reminiscent of a jelly-fish) population
• Increase in cryptophytes (single cell phytoplankton algae)
• Decrease in diatom phytoplankton
• Increase in carbon sequestering in deep ocean sinks
• Decrease in carbon availability in the food chain
The Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba), a small shrimp like crustacean is the most important zooplankton species associated with the sea ice and plays a crucial role in the Antarctic food web. On a regional basis the amount of krill appear to be declining in the southern ocean. There are definitely lower trends in krill population during lower sea ice years around Antarctica. Part of the rational for the population decline is that ice algae rely on the sea ice for protection and growth. The krill need the sea ice in order to feed on the algae and phytoplankton.
Krill occur in groups or large swarms. They are less than 3 inches in size and feed primarily on phytoplankton and sea ice algae. Krill filter diatom phytoplankton out of the water column and scrape algae from the sea ice. Apart from frequenting the sea ice to feed, krill in particular juveniles, seek protection from predators in the many nooks and crannies formed by the deformed sea ice floes. Krill is the staple food of many fish, birds and mammals in the Southern Ocean. The biomass of Antarctic krill is considered to be larger than that of the earth’s human population.
Sea- ice algae utilizes atmospheric carbon dioxide for its energy source, the same as plants do on land. Krill diet of the sea-ice algae and phytoplankton is essential for converting the carbon for use in higher animals such as fish, birds, and whales. This carbon conversion is a very critical role in predatory nutrition. Additionally krill do eliminate some of the silica from the diatom shells and carbon in sticky balls that sinks nearly two miles into the deep ocean. These cold, deep waters are able to contain carbon dioxide and prevent the gas from rising to the surface, thus immobilizing carbon that is not passed into the food chain.
In recent years there have been increases in algae phytoplankton called cryptophytes. Mark Moline, California Polytechnic State University, states that the cryptophyte population correlates with warmer temperatures and lower salinity waters that are produced by the melting of the freshwater glacier. Cryptophytes measure around 2 mm, while other plankton in the Antarctic waters are much larger and measure 15 to 270 mm. Along with the increase in cryptophyte population an increase in salp, a pelagic tunicate, population has also occurred. There are differences between salps and krill. Salps feeding efficiency is capable of grazing on smaller food sources less than 4mm, whereas, the Antarctic Krill efficiency declines on any food less than 20 mm. The salps compete with krill for the phytoplankton and thus decrease the krill population. Additionally the salps feed on krill larvae, which also cause a decline in krill numbers.
The warming trend in the Antarctic Peninsula is showing a pattern of increasing cryptophytes over other phytoplankton and the increase in the salp. This influence is due to the low sea ice and the lowering of the salinity in the seawater. Salps and cryptophytes do better in the lower salinity, while the krill and other plankton are unable to tolerate the increased freshwater regime from the glacier ice melts. This selectivity gives preference to the salps as the dominant species while decreasing krill abundance. During lower sea ice seasons the density of krill declines while the salp population increases.
Carbon sequestering into the deep ocean from the algae and phytoplankton occur by both the salp and krill. Both species eliminate the atmospheric carbon received from the primary producing algae by producing fecal pellets by the salps and sticky balls by the krill, thereby, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The salps though sequester more carbon into the cold deep ocean than the krill. However, the krill provides the most efficient pathway for carbon transfer up into the food chain. The cryptophyte dominated waters are less efficient in the food chain due to increased feeding by salps and the difficulty of the krill to utilize the cryptophytes as a food source. Migration patterns by penguins are changing, in part due to the changing krill population. Krill is a mainstay diet for penguins, and if the krill population changes, many other ecological changes occur with it.
Steve Bynum has worked at Palmer Station along the Antarctic Peninsula. He not only enjoyed the ecosystem along the Bellinghausen Sea but he has also witnessed the changing climate conditions.
Does you family recycle aluminum cans? Do they do it to get a little extra cash or because it is the responsible thing to do? How much do they, and you, know about what happens to the can after the soda is gone? Here is a quick true and false quiz on recycling. It will only take 2 or 3 minutes to find out what you know and what you need to know about the importance of families recycling.
Circle the answer for each of the 6 questions. Now test the other members of the family.
1. In the time it takes you to read this question, 50,000 12-ounce aluminum cans are made.
True or False
2. When you recycle one aluminum can you save enough energy to equal a half gallon of gasoline?
True or False
3. There is no limit to the amount of times aluminum can be recycled.
True or False
4. We use over 80,000,000,000 (billion!) cans a year.
True or False
5. At one time, aluminum was more valuable than gold.
True or False
6. More aluminum goes into beverage cans than any other product.
True or False
Surprise! All of the answers are true.
Did you know that for every $10 spent buying things $1 or 10% goes for packaging that is thrown away. Packaging, and that includes aluminum cans, represents 65% of household trash. Wow. What a waste of money and resources. We can do better than that.
Our family is making a special effort to Recycle, Reuse and Reduce. Will you join us in helping to protecting our earth and natural resources? Maybe your family could put up a special box to save aluminum cans for the recycling center.
(c) Judy H. Wright http://www.ArtichokePress.com You have permission to reprint this article in your blog, ezine or offline magazine as long as you keep the content and contact information intact. Thank You.
Artichoke Press is the home site of Judy H. Wright, family relationship coach and author. If your organization would like to schedule Auntie Artichoke, the storytelling trainer, for a workshop please call 406.549.9813.
You are also invited to visit our blog at http://www.AskAuntieArtichoke.com for answers and suggestions which will enhance your relationships. You will also find a full listing of free tele-classes and radio shows held each Thursday just for you.
Thanks for joining our community of caring parents, family members,coaches, teachers and mentors who want to help raise a generation of responsible adults.
