Our World and Everything in It

Boeing premieres its 787 “Dreamliner” jet tonight at around 7:00 pm EST. It will more than likely be on CNN since they announced it. It is more environmentally friendly than the usual airliner because it is lighter and more fuel-efficient. Boeing estimates the 787 will use 27% less than the jets it will be replacing.

The Dreamliner isn’t huge. It’s a wide, mid-size, twin-engine jetliner that will hold 210-330 people in two interior sections. There will be three categories of 787, the 787-3,  8, and 9 with a price tag that spans from lowest to highest also. For a mere $138-143 million you can purchase a 787-3. The 787-8 will cost $148-157 million, and the 787-9 a whopping 178.5 to 188 million. Over 500 of these planes are sold already. If you want to preview the plane and get more info on-line click here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/787premiere.html#time.

On the same note, the British have come up with a smaller jet that is really different in design and meant for the short haul such as cross-country. It has been called easyJet ecoJet because it will emit 50 percent less CO2 and 75 percent less nitrous oxide than our newest short haul jets. Now that’s really environmentally friendly.

The ecoJet uses much the same material for its body as the Boeing “Dreamliner.” It uses open rotor engines and is supposed to be 25 percent quieter. With all the jets going over my house, I hope we get these up and running soon. Major airliner manufacturers are applying the same type of technology to new jets in development all over. When this jet comes out, the airlines are poised to eat them up.

It appears the original easyJet wasn’t that hard on the environment to begin with. When the amount of CO2 emitted by the jet is divided among the passengers per kilometer it only generates 97.5 grams of CO2. The Toyota Prius emits 104 grams. The European car industry has a target of 130 grams of CO2 per kilometer for the energy standards. 

If you’re wondering why this is important, well NASA did a study in 2004 that showed a 1 percent per decade increase in cirrus cloud cover over the U.S. due to air travel. You know all those jet trails that blend in with the clouds? Those jet plumes caused a 1 percent increase in clouds per decade. If you don’t think that’s much, I would have to say that it shouldn’t be evident at all, at least not an amount that can actually be measured. No wonder all our patio furniture gets so pitted up. Those emissions eventually rain down on everything. We breathe that air. We’ve become way too comfortable with pollution. It’s good to see the easyJet is not that far off from production and that most jet manufacturer’s are embracing that same technology.  For now we have the 787 Dreamliner, a step in the right direction for going green. Read more about the easyJet ecoJet at Live Science:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070615_easyjet_ecojet.html.
 

NASA had to shelve a $200 million dollar satellite mission headed by a MIT professor because of budget cuts by the Bush administration. They also had to cancel the Deep Space Climate Observatory, a project that measures global precipitation, and the launch of a new satellite to replace one of our aged, primary weather satellites. All would help scientists better understand the impact of global warming.

What does that mean for us? With the weather growing more erratic, we won’t know sooner, but possibly later, maybe too late, what lies in store for us as far as droughts, floods, and hurricanes. It also affects the accuracy of severe weather forecasts and scientist’s ability to improve climate models with greater precision so that we know what’s going to happen far enough ahead of time to save our lives.

 And where are the funds going instead? Well, president Bush has a goal to complete the International Space Station and get astronauts back on the moon by 2020. Is it just me, or is he out of sync with everything just a tad on purpose? After all, it is a fact that the present administration is anything but environmentally friendly since it has a vested interest in big oil. It’s just a little too coincidental that funding to NASA has been cut, and it’s goals redirected by the president, especially when NASA scientists were the ones to come forward in protest that their expertise and predictions about global warming were censored by this administration. Evidence about those alterations aired on BBC news.

 Many cuts are being made by this administration as we run into the red more and more because of a war no one seems to want any longer. While Bush signs a $100 billion Iraq war funding bill, most of us should be wondering and inquiring how we’re paying for it. So far I’ve found federal funding to communities to repair/replace aging water lines has been cut, NASA’s funding has been cut, $78 million has been cut for federal energy efficiency programs, $2 million has been cut from FEMA’s budget, and Bush/Cheney have attempted another backdoor entry into the Artic Refuge for oil drilling, while they continue to propose to auction land in our National Parks to the highest bidder. And finally, please contact our representatives about the Farm Bill. Cuts have been made to almost two-thirds of the $23 million designated for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs that was allotted in the 2002 Farm Bill.

I’m warning everyone about the Farm Bill putting a pinch on farmers right at a time when we need to support farms in America if we want to eat untainted food again. As the Union for Concerned Scientists stated recently about the Farm Bill “These people rely upon grant and loan programs to support energy efficiency improvements and the purchase of renewable energy systems including wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy sources. At a time when America’s rural communities are facing economic challenges, funding renewable energy and energy efficiency projects would help establish an additional income source for landowners, create jobs, and lower energy costs for rural consumers. The Bush administration also attempted to slash this program in the 2005 and 2006 budget proposals.” Nice, real nice.

 Some might argue that Bush has raised federal funding for solar power to $148 million and doubled biomass research to $150 million. But it’s curious that geothermal and hydropower has been eliminated altogether. To me this just looks like he’s playing to monopolizing capitalists that can charge for corn (biomass) like they do for oil, using the same infrastructure nationwide. By limiting what types of alternative energy we promote, leads to less diversity in a country where one region, like Michigan, might benefit from hydrogen power more realistically than the desert of the southwest where solar power would prevail, and the northwest where geothermal activity might produce energy for that region. But heaven forbid there would be a reduction in national monopolies like big oil. We’re long overdue to think outside the box. This should be a time of welcome innovation for renewable energy sources and a surge in entrepreneurs for the “green.”

NASA had to shelve a $200 million dollar satellite mission headed by a MIT professor because of budget cuts by the Bush administration. They also had to cancel the Deep Space Climate Observatory, a project that measures global precipitation, and the launch of a new satellite to replace one of our aged, primary weather satellites. All would help scientists better understand the impact of global warming. What does that mean for us? With the weather growing more erratic, we won’t know sooner, but possibly later, maybe too late, what lies in store for us as far as droughts, floods, and hurricanes. It also affects the accuracy of severe weather forecasts and scientist’s ability to improve climate models with greater precision, so we know what’s going to happen far enough ahead of time to save our lives.

Today is the first time a global warming case has reached the Supreme Court. They will begin hearings based on testimony of 12 states that are asking the court to force the U.S. government to order its environmental agencies to control CO2 emissions from vehicles under the Clean Air Act.  Michigan is among 8 of the 12 states that support the EPA.

But do we really trust the EPA? It was originally established to be independent of government, focusing on public health and its relation to the environment. We all know any business or agency’s ethics and motives are only as good as the people governing them. Also, there are other governmental agencies that have an impact on the EPA. The White House Council for Environmental Quality, formerly headed by Phillip A. Cooney is one of them. Cooney was caught editing important data from scientific reports for quite awhile as well as pressuring the EPA to go along, so much so, that in 2002 the EPA removed an entire section on global warming from its annual report about air pollution. In 2003 it published an extensive report of the environment with no information whatsoever about global warming. Cooney came to his position at the council as a lawyer and former lobbyist  for the American Petroleum Institute.  He has no scientific background to make any alterations of scientific data. You might say throw the bum out, but he has already left the position and now works for Exxon Mobil.

James Hansen, a climatology expert from a NASA Space Study, was pressured by his superiors after giving a presentation about human related climate change. He was told it was still an uncertain topic by his administrator. He reported that in 30 years he never witnessed as much White House involvement and filtering of information from science to the public.

The State Department pressured an international panel of representatives known as the Artic Council to alter their report on global warming. The final draft withheld recommendations for policy to reduce green house gas emissions in order to stop its horrible impact on the Artic. The State Department was also successful in ousting Dr. Robert Watson who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1996. During his time the IPCC produced a report that predicted an increase of 2.5 to 10.5 F in avg. global warming by 2100 with new evidence it was due to human activities. Exxon Mobil opposed the proposed regulation of CO2 and wanted Watson out. The State Department complied. Dr. Watson lost the support of the U.S. and his position as chair.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service developed a brochure on ways to curb agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. They managed to send the first printing but the White House’s Council of Environmental Quality objected to it and a reprint was canceled. 

As I stated in a previous blog, many Americans are wondering how our environment got so bad, so fast. Well this White House accomplished what they set out to do. Appointments to key environmental positions throughout the administration were filled by people that were once employed by the tobacco industry, and are now busom buddies with the petroleum industry. By altering scientific facts, they’ve attempted and succeeded in concealing from and confusing the public about the ever-increasing effects of global warming due to CO2 emissions. The biggest culprits of CO2 emissions are jet airliners, automobiles, refineries and coal burning facilities.  I watched a CBC segment by The Fifth Estate called “The Denial Machine.”  Phil Klapp cornered Jeffrey Holmstead, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation about altering scientific documents. Klapp had in his hand documents with visible alterations. As he read the changes, it was clearly understood they were meant to dilute the message of the reports. We weren’t just duped about the war folks. We’ve been lied to about the state of our world. And now the race is on to clean it up. It can be done and hopefully the U.S. will emerge as a model in that endeavor. It will take each and every one of us to do our part.  

     There are all types of casualties we endure on a daily basis especially during times of war. Losing someone or something precious can happen moment to moment. And although our lives are upset to the point we don’t think we’ll recover, we do. I just wonder how many people realize the biggest casualty of all is happening in small increments every day that none of us will recover from if we don’t turn it around.

Our environment is taking hit after hit, and many of us still do not know that when it’s stated we have 10 years to do something, it does not mean we have ten years before we start doing something. It means if we do not start today toward reversing global warming by controlling our pollution it will be irreversible within 10 years. It’s a good idea to control pollution to begin with. By all the water bottles I see these days, I realize that everyone does get the idea that maybe our water isn’t all that clean, and probably our air.  What I also see by those same water bottles is that we really aren’t getting it at all. Where do you think those plastic bottles go? If your community recycles that’s great. If you recycle on your own, then bless you, but unfortunately only 70% of all our garbage is recycled. Those bottles end up in landfills of which there are approximately 6000 in the U.S.  Plastic takes around 500 years to decompose. Do we love our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren? Then what are we doing?

The intent of this news blog is to be in your face about our world because we’re all in this together, and if you or my other neighbors don’t jump in and help, the experience of living won’t be what we once knew. Right now it is what it is “An Inconvenient Truth” as Al Gore aptly named it. Many of our little conveniences in life may have to be abandoned to save our earth, save ourselves. It’s a rude awakening, but the sooner we snap out of it, the sooner we turn it around. No more burying our heads in the sand or waiting for “they or them” to do something. They or them is us, all of us.

Anyone who has any questions about anything environmental feel free to blog. If you know something you don’t think the rest of us are aware of blog it. If you don’t quite believe in global warming yet let us know why. Anyone who has already adapted his or her lifestyle differently to save on anything let us know how, so we might adapt. One idea becomes a ripple that becomes a wave and the whole community benefits.

None of us are perfect angels about the environment. I still drive a gas hog, although I’m looking at all hybrids and beseeching Ford to revive the cobra body style with an electric/ethanol motor. I’m a baby boomer that wants a hybrid sports car. Any baby boomers out there want to weigh in on that? Doesn’t an environmentally friendly sports car sound good? My tip to any other gas hog drivers out there, consolidate your running around. I’m down to 2 days per week. Group up and ride to work together. Quit running your kids around and enjoy family nights. Quitting our rat race can help the environment.