Sustianable Upgrades for the Home or Office

Benjamin Roman of metaefficient.com brings us this incredible infographic on ways to upgrade buildings to save on energy bills, heating and cooling, and water bills. The coolest part of these sustainable systems is that they will pay for themselves in the long run. Check it out!

Note: the figures in red, or "added cost" denotes the initial investment in the technology. 

Give up the TP for a Sustainable Alternative

Could you ever go without toilet paper? Most Americans wouldn't dream of it, and you may even be shocked that I asked such a heinous question.

Yet in the rest of the world, toilet paper would be a novelty as bidets, the superior hygiene and environmental choice, dominate.

In case you are unfamiliar with this foreign piece of technology, it is like a cross between a toilet and a fountain that cleans you thoroughly, much better than with toilet tissue, without using your hands. For obvious reasons, the bidet is the much healthier option, especially considering that about half of all people do not wash their hands after using the loo. But is it any better environmentally? Wouldn't using water to wash after ever visit to the rest room just waste a lot more water? 

The Beautiful Bidet, Credit

According to Justin Thomas of metaefficient.com, Americans cumulatively use 36.5 billion rolls of TP every year, which equals 15 million trees, 573 BILLION gallons of water, and 253K tons of chlorine for bleaching the paper a nice white color. This process uses 17 terawatts of energy, and even more power and materials to package and ship the bathroom tissue. All in all, it takes about 37 gallons of water and 1.5lbs of wood to make a single roll of TP.

Bidets, on the other hand, use about an 1/8th of a gallon per usage.

Let's get math-matical, shall we? If your average roll of two-ply contains 500 squares of paper, and the average person uses five to ten sheets per visit to the loo, then the roll would be gone in 50 to 100 usages.
The same number of usages of a bidet would result in using 6.25 or 12.5 gallons, respectively, instead of the 37 gallons it takes to make a roll of toilet paper. It also saves all that electricity, wood, plastic, and other materials it takes to produce TP.  

Bidets come in a huge variety, but can cost as little as $69 (if you don't mind unheated water). At such an low one-time cost, its a wonder that America hasn't yet embraced the cleanliness and efficiency that is the bidet.

If you're not convinced yet, here is a review of the Japanese super toilet written by an American man.

Illinois First to Ban Polluting Face Wash

Facewash is one of those beauty products we just can't live without, and who can resist the pleasant scraping sensation of a facial scrub? Unfortunately, however, unless you are buying a scrub with an all natural scrubbing agent (like crushed appricot pit) that will decompose over time, chances are that your scrub is full of plastic microbeads. What are those? Literally tiny pieces of plastic. That's it. 

 

"Microbeads", Credit

So while plastic is not inherently bad for the skin in such small exposures (as far as I know), it turns out that washing all those tiny plastic particles down the drain and out into the closest lake or sea is extremely bad for the environment. Why? Plastic in our seas is a huge issue. The bigger, colorful pieces look like fish or other food that sea birds, turtles, and fish normally eat. These animals will fill up on plastic and actually starve to death. Smaller pieces of plastic are another issue, as it takes 500-1,000 years to degrade, they simply become this goopy plastic solution that floats on top of the ocean and attracts more debris, which creates ocean gyres. Similar disasters can occur in lakes too.

For this reason, Illinois is out to stop micro-plastic bead pollution. This summer, Governer Pat Quinn and other lawmakers voted to ban soaps, scrubs, washes, or toothpastes with the plastic beads. This ban will help to alleviate and eliminate plastic pollution in the Great Lakes.

Those are the amounts of plastic you put down the drain per bottle of wash, Credit

Like the plastic water bottle ban in San Francisco, this ban will gradually be put in place and only taking full effect by 2018. Some companies such as Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, and L'Oreal are already phasing out microbeads by themselves to beat the ban. 

New Research Could End the GMO Debate

[Note: Just for fun, I have included some of the most ridiculous shock-tactic anti-GMO pictures that the internet can provide.]

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are exactly what they sound like; any living organism that is genetically modified, aka, has undergone a procedure at some point in its life cycle to produce a result desired by humans. We have made salt-tolerant tomatoes,  water-conserving cotton, and fish that glow in the dark.

Yes, really. They are called GloFish, Credit

Genetically modifying plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria may seem suspiciously like playing God, and it is no wonder that the GMO debate continues to rage as one of the more controversial ethical, health, and environmental issues.

I mean, honestly. 1 2

Having taken university courses on this topic, I feel that I can unbiasedly and simply summarize both sides of the argument.

PRO-GMO: The geneticists behind GMO crops are problem solvers. They see overly-salted ag land and decide to make a crop that can withstand excess salt. They see that children in third-world countries are going blind from mal-nutrition, so they create Golden Rice high in Vitamin A.These are the do-gooders and dreamers who want to use technology to solve the world's problems, oftentimes by making more or new types of crops available.
Of course, there are also fortune 500 companies like Monsanto that appear to be in GMO technology only for the bottom line of exponentially maximizing profits. I say this because stories abound of small, independent farmers around the world getting caught up in buying their seed and the vicious GMO treadmills that result: Because the seed is genetically engineered, it is the intellectual property of Monsanto, and so farmers cannot "save seed" for next year, even though they bought and grew the seed themselves. When Monsanto suspects that farmers are saving seed, or even that wind pollination has brought their intellectual property into a neighboring farmer's fields, they can go to that field, take samples, and then sue the farmer into poverty (even if he had no idea that GMO genes where fertilizing his crops). So, is Monsanto working to spread the wonders of increased yield and pest resistance? Or are they destroying small, honest ag in favor of creating agribusinesses and factory farms that they essentially own?

My personal favorite. Credit

ANTI-GMO: These people are not just the dreadlocked, organic-loving, "free spirits" you might be imagining, but also the concerned parents, the health-food addicts, and the environmental activists. These people often protest outside supermarket chains, demanding local, organic, and sustainable options, not "franken-food".

There are actually human genes in rice. Credit

They are suspicious of genetic engineering, especially of what unknown effects it may have on the human body once digested. GMOs have only really been around since the 80's, and GMO crops didn't dominate our food choices until the late 1990's.  Since we have really only been exposed to GM foods for around 15 years, anti-GMOs think it is hard to say what their impacts of daily, long-term exposure might actually be. Anti-GMO's don't believe there is enough research to prove that GMOs are not harmful, and if they have learned anything from past environmental catastrophies (like the widespread use of DDT, CFCs, and other chemicals) is that everything must be considered guilty until proven innocent.
While perhaps touted as Luddites by the pro-GMO do-gooders, anti-GMOs simply see that organic food is what our ancestors ate, and believe that it is what we should be eating too: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But are they actually selfishly keeping back a technology that could help to end world hunger and bring about more jobs?

Plus, look how un-original their propaganda is. 1 2 3

Do I seem biased? I don't mean to be. In fact, this week I'm reporting on an article published by Forbes entitled The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks to a New Trillion-Meal Study. Is the debate really over? The controversial nature of GMOs is solved? GREAT! I'll tell all the organic-grazers they can shut up and sit down. But before I do, let's review the article.

Author Jon Entine begins by mocking anti-GMO websites for their fear-tactics and potentially faulty science. He says that, while these sites quote research, they very seldom link to the studies. According to Entine, over 2k studies have been conducted that show how biotech and GMOs do not harm humans or livestock. In fact, GMO foods may just be better somehow. While the occasional outlier will show harm done to test animals, the majority show how safe GMO is.

Entine harps on anti-GMOs like Jeffrey Smith for using anecdotal evidence on his personal website in his dismissal of GMO crops. However, Smith also includes twenty-eight other citations from peer-reviewed papers, mostly from European Journals where science isn't stiffed by capitalism.

Credit

Earlier, I admitted to being biased. Isn't is possible that, in working for Forbes and the fact that Monsanto is a Fortune 500 company, Entine is more than a little biased himself?


Entine goes on to say that since livestock consumer almost all of the GMO crops produced, wouldn't farmers notice if large numbers of their animals were sick or dying? What Entine doesn't realize is that, yes, American farmers and ranchers have noticed how sick their animals are, from GMO feed, poor living conditions, close confinement, or other factors. This is why 80% of antibiotics are used on our food, and not on us. Our food is ill, yet is kept alive by cocktails of antibiotics and hormones. The misuse of antibiotics in this way is no secret, and anti-biotic resistance has become a huge concern because of it.

But I digress. The main point of Entine's article is a newly published study in the Journal of Animal Science by Alison Van Eenennaam of UCD have compiled a meta-analysis of studies done from the present to before 1996. The study consists of over 29 years of studies on animal health and productivity from before and after the time that GMOs rose to dominance. According to Entine, they discovered that:

"GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact."


Entine also shares a link to the Federation of Animal Science Societies and their list of GMO feeding studies.
All of these show that GMO feed is safe. 

This breadth of literature put forward by Entine is impressive. If this research is correctly done and unbiased then we should surely take it into account. However, we must not be blinded by this seemingly long study. Twenty-nine years may be long for a single human lifetime, but it is not compared to the length of human existence. While we may not worry about the harmfulness of GMOs for humans in this generation or even the next, we must think of the generations that will follow after our grandchildren for the rest of time. We should strive to think about the consequences of any major action to the seventh generation and beyond, as was originally done by Native Americans.

Let's for a moment imagine that GMOs are no worse for you than their organic counterparts. In this case, I would still argue that they are hazardous to the small farmer and to our agricultural heritage, both of which could (and will) be destroyed by big agribusiness. Studies show that GM corn and and will interbreed with heirloom varieties and destroy that unique and valuable diversity (from which new GMO crops are reliant on) possibly forever. And there is still the issue of pesticides and herbicides, most of which runoff to impact communities down-stream or involve the farmer in costly treadmills of resistance where more and more is needed to ensure maximum yield. When a crop, like Round-Up Ready, is genetically engineered to be sold hand-in-hand with a poison like Round-Up that will be sprayed over the field, there is no way to say that the crop is truly safe. Perhaps more frightening are Bt crops that don't need pesticide, because they have their own pesticide built right in.

With so many factors at play and with the game continually developing and changing, it is nearly impossible to come up with a yes or no answer to the question of "are GMOs good? bad? safe? evil? etc". It seems to me that there are good and bad studies on both sides of the debate.

I wholeheartedly disagree with Entine in that the GMO debate is over, and I ask you, which combination of factors lead you to whichever shade of grey you agree with? What is you opinion on GMOs?

How Sustainable Cities Save the Earth

The global population is booming. The US Census Bureau has estimated that global population will reach 9 billion before 2050. With so many people on a planet almost stretched to its limits, it is more important than ever to prepare and plan for a sustainable future. This nifty infographic lays down some cold, hard fact on how sustainable cities might save our future.

Credit: [www.citytowninfo.com]

Cheap Solar Gives Utilities Companies a Run for their Money

I feel like I've been blogging a lot about solar recently, disproportionately so over other forms of renewable energy. But maybe that's just because solar is really taking off in the here and now, and I've just got to share all the exciting articles I find on it!

This new article, Solar Power is growing so fast that older energy companies are trying to stop it, is from Vox.com by Brad Plumer. Despite the overly-dramatic headline, his message reads true: solar is soon going to be a highly competitive form of energy, so much so that it could really threaten typical gas and oil utility companies. In fact, Plumer states that solar popularity dramatically increases, utility profits may decrease as much as 41%.

While solar still contributes only a miniscule portion of America's power, companies like SolarCity are making it easier than ever to install pannels with their no-downpayment policy. Big upfront costs used to scare the average consumer away, but paying monthly increments make solar so affordable that it becomes a viable option for everyone. Even now, every four minutes a new solar setup is installed  in America. 

Of course, to save their own skins, utility companies are trying to retract or downgrade solar subsidies. Other groups are proposing monthly fees for residents with solar--some upwards of $50! But the pro-solar stance is strong and backed by groups like TUSK (Tell Utilities Solar Won't Be Killed) and, surprisingly, an offshoot of the Tea Party that focuses on environmental issues.

Who will win out? Will solar be able to surge ahead, undisturbed by this political whiplash? Read the full article here and stay tuned for more updates!

The Aral Sea: A Story of Despair and Redemption

As unfortunate as it is true, the media is full of stories of how prominent environmental features have been squandered due to the greed of modern day society. Take, for instance, the state of rivers in dense urban areas. China's Yangtze, Han, and Jianhe Rivers are but a few examples of how poor waste management, chemical runoff, and disregard for natural resources can leave water sources polluted, poisonous, and colored in a very unnatural palette. 

Pollution of Biblical proportions in the Jianhe, Credit

However, not every tale of environmental woe ends so disturbingly; some even seem to have a happy(-ish) ending. The case is such for a body of water that sits on the boarder of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, a once mighty sea called the Aral.

The Aral Sea was once the the fourth largest landlocked body of water in the world at 26,000 square miles. It was a mecca of fishing and hosted over 20 towns and villages whose people prospered in their trade. However, in the early1960's the Soviet Union diverted water from its main influx--the Amu Darya--to support the irrigation of water-heavy agriculture in the famously arid surrounding steppes.

By the 1980's, the sea had such a reduced influx of fresh water that it retreated from its banks and dried up significantly, to the point where a once great body of water  has become three distinct bodies, one of which is threatening to dry completely this year. As evaporation continued the sea become so saline that the fishery collapsed, and with it disappeared 24 species of endemic fish.

The Aral Sea in 1989 (left) and 2008, Credit

When the fishery vanished, so did the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen, cannery workers, and railroad workers. The Aral shrank to about half its size by 1985, and with it shrank the populations that once lined its shores. Those that decided to stay behind on the now arid plains found themselves without food or work in a land turned severe without the Aral there to buffer temperatures. Pesticides left in the soil from Soviet Agricultural runoff caused cancer and respiratory disease, and without fish, protein deficiency ran rampant and infant mortality increased.

Fishing vessels left in the sand, Credit

After Kazakhstan became independent in 1991, efforts to restore the Aral began. A dam was constructed to isolate the Southern basin from the North Sea, with the hopes that the trickle coming in from the Syr Darya would restore the North Aral. And slowly, it did. By 2005, a permanent eight-mile dam was constructed in its place, and this raised the North Aral by about 13 feet more, which lowered the levels of salinity and allowed fish to repopulate. In only about eight months, the North Aral grew by 20%. Native plants and birds returned as well, a good omen for any restoration.

Some fishing operations have resumed in the north, though on a much smaller scale than in the 1960s. The canneries are reopening and once-residents are returning to begin a new. However, while the North Aral has been somewhat of a success story, the same cannot be said for the South Aral. Much and more has been lost, and perhaps will never fill again.

While progress may be slow, it is clearly there. Locals hope that with help from the Kazakh government, World Bank, and expert scientists, the Aral may one day refill and flourish beyond any past prosperity.

Adapted from [Aral Sea Recovery?]

SF to Ban the Bottle

In March of this year, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously decided to ban disposable plastic water bottles on city property. Gradually, the sale and distribution of plastic bottles 21oz or less will be phased out for the entire city of SF. This ban is set to begin elimiating all plastic bottles for SF public property this month, if Mayor Ed Lee signs the bill. 

San Francisco plans to ban plastic water bottles, starting in October 2014. Credit

SF has always been a national leader in banning environmentally harmful products and practices. SF is aiming for the goal of being a zero-waste city by 2020, and this ordinance puts them one step closer to their goal. The bay-area city already banned plastic shopping bags in 2007, and cities around the state--like Santa Barbara--have followed suit.

While this bottle-ban may be novel on the west coast, several towns, universities, and national parks across the country and on the east coast have already institued such bans. The town of Concord, Massachusetts set their ban in early 2013, banning bottle water in 34oz or less. Why SF opted to allow for the bigger bottles to stay is a mystery, unless they intend to allow those big bottles for a time until a new vote vetoes them as well.

 

However, some stipulations to stop the ordinance from banning all plastic bottles from SF forever. The petro-based bottles will still be sold at the San Francisco International Airport and atsome athletic events. Further, street vendors and the Gay Pride Parade will be able to sell it until 2018.

 

Despite these allowances, the American Beverage Association is angered by the news. They named the ordinance "a misguided attempt by city supervisors to decrease waste in a city of avid recyclers."

The Next Step in Solar

Photovoltaic Solar may be the posterchild of renewable energy, yet it has always had its share of drawbacks. For one, it is an inconsistent source of energy (what do you do on a cloudy day or at night?) and one whose total generating capacity is still insufficient to meet large-scale demand.  These drawbacks and expense are due to technological shortcomings associated with solar being a relatively young technology. It's energy and cost efficiency will only improve with time, especially as more countries invest in it and more research is done.

A PV Solar array, Credit

William Flanagan, CEO of VARTA Microbattery, writes on what he believes will bring solar one step closer to becoming an ideal power source: battery storage. He notes that solar has grown by 418%, gaining 9,731 MW of generating capacity, in the last four years in the US. Yet, even with these investments in solar, only 1.13% of energy generated in the US is solar. Flanagan remains hopeful that, as the technology for solar continues to develop, so too will more consumers opt for sun-power.

Flanagan's solution to the intermittent nature of solar is simple: find a way to store it during the times without sunlight. The answer? Batteries. While solar and battery combinations have not become a major focus for various reasons, combining the two has been proven to work for remote, off-the-grid customers.

Batteries combined with PV arrays may allow for energy savings, efficiency, and independence, Credit

Flanagan writes that developments in solar have not been deeply explored as of yet because we Americans still have faith in traditional fossil-fuels and their ability to give us continuous, inexpensive energy. However, coal plants are slowly being decommissioned and not being replaced due to clean air requirements. Subsequently, energy is costing more and customers are concerned about intermittentcy should another climate change-caused super storm roll around. Consumers want energy that is affordable, constant, and increasingly green, and so grid operators cross the country are working to promote energy efficiency and solar storage. Battery technology and chemistry is advancing as well, and it seems that "storage is an energy technology whose time has come — particularly when combined with solar systems".

While Flanagan proposes a very logical argument for solar development, his article makes me question the overall impact of a combined PV and battery system. While in theory both the solar panel and the lithium battery can be recycled to create a closed loop production cycle, this may not be the practice. We can hope that as solar grows more common, the panel manufacturers and independent waste companies will develop ways to recycle and reuse the entire panel. Yet, as it stands now, it seems that solar is currently in a linear production pattern and that recycling is not prevalent.

Combining un-recyclable arrays with lithium batteries and implementing it throughout America may be a recipe for disaster because of the economic nature of lithium. This metal is itself non-renewable, yet once the lithium reaches the end of its product lifecycle, it most certainly will not be recycled. Although lithium is 100% recyclable, "recycled lithium is as much as five times the cost of lithium produced from the least costly brine based process."  To compound this lack of recycling, 70% of deposits sit below the undisturbed forests and lush mountains of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, which ensures environmental degradation for years to come.

While renewables like solar are often heralded as the salvation from the evils of fossil fuels, we must think critically about their reality. Surely solar's lack of GHG emissions makes them more innocent that fossil fuels in the long run, yet I will not call solar saintly until it boasts a highly efficient, closed-loop production system. Sometimes energy choices feel like picking the lesser of two evils; which one would you chose?

IT'S OFFICIAL: California Has Banned One-Use Plastic Bags!

Just a short update to let you know that today, 9/30/2014, Governer Jerry Brown signed the first ever plastic shopping-bag ban into law.

This is a huge victory for landfills, streams, and sea creatures everywhere!

Keep shopping, but please don't forget your reusable bags!

Sustainable Seafood Update

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) recently released a new online tool to keep you and your family healthy and safe at meal-times. You can use the EWG’s Seafood Calculator to get a personalized recommendation of how much and what kinds of seafood to eat to avoid mercury while getting those heart healthy Omega-3’s! This web-tool also allows users to select the most sustainable options, such as wild Alaskan Salmon, Pacific-caught sardines, and farmed rainbow trout. Don’t forget to check out the EWG’s Good Seafood Guide for more information. 

Eat for your health and the health of our global fish stock! Credit

US is Most Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise in World

Global Climate Chage (GCC), whether anthropogenic or not, is proving to be a major force that is producing tangible changes in the world all around us. The severe drought occurring across Southern California and Super Storm Sandy are but a few of the possible natural disturbances that will continue to plague the earth.  Another major concern about GCC is Sea Level Rise (SLR), and how it may be speeding natural coastal erosion.

SLR is a special topic to me and my beach-front, bluff-top community of Isla Vista. I would hate to see IV fall into the sea well before it's time, but increasing SLR and more forceful storms may do just that. A state study shows that, in 2002, 72% of California's beachfront was actively eroding. The California Coastal Commission has stated that typical retreat rates can reach 42cm/year, although some areas can be much worse; Point Ano Nuevo erodes at 9ft/year. Some sources indicate that local Goleta Beach has been eroding at an incredible 20ft/year, and there has been a community dispute about whether to save the beach or the Goleta Beach Park (because you definitely can't have both!).

A precariously placed home overhanging the eroded cliff in Isla Vista, Credit

For all of these reasons, I was pleased to see that a new scientific report was published by the open access Journal of Environmental Protection (Volume 5, Number 12) on the topic of Sea Level Rise.

This article, entitled Empirical Assessment of Coastal Environmental Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise and authored by Martin Lee Collin and Abraham J. Melloul, postulates that SLR will destroy unique coastal ecosystems around the globe. Their study aims to assess the vulnerabilities of the world's coasts to SLR. They also focus their study on natural and anthropogenic causes for SLR that might further risk coastline. These variables include vegetative cover, waves, and tides, as well as population growth rate, GDP, and urbanization.

Through a careful consideration and selection of natural and human parameters (Section 2.1) and precise calculations of combinations of variables in regards to each of the six selected global coastlines (Section 2.2), Collin and Melloul were able to rank those six in order of vulnerability to SLR. The countries included in this study are: Israel, Iceland, Australia, India, China, and the USA. Except for Israel, the South-eastern coastline was always examined.

Taken from Empirical Assesment by M.L. Collin and A.J. Melloul, Page 1209

Collin and Melloul discovered that the South-eastern coast of the USA is the most vulnerable to SLR of all of the six global coasts studied. The USA is distantly followed by China, India, and Australia.

These results prompt the authors to suggest a prioritization of those coastlines most highly impacted, including cities like New York, Boston, and Miami. Reducing SLR in these areas is a daunting task, but Collin and Melloul suggest nine coastal management measures that may help to recognize and manage SLR. These suggestions include:

• "Special attention ought to be paid to preclude and reverse the annihilation of coastal wetlands, forests, and other protective vegetation parameters that significantly influence the enhancement of SLR’s effect upon the coastal environment.
• As numerical assessments involved would be relative and qualitative rather than quantitative; resultant models should be subsequently calibrated by in situ data, as was the case with the vulnerability mapping of Israel and such subsequent data-acquisition programs as POLLSITE [82].
• High-resolution shoreline mapping and surveillance of coastal areas having steep slopes with erodible rocks and unstable cliffs should be carried out, in light of expected SLR and increased wave action."

While this study was informative, what we really need is an easily-adoptable action plan that decides which of the numerous parameters discussed in this paper are most responsible for SLR and that states how to stop them. Perhaps that will be the next paper written by Collin and Melloul--keep your eyes peeled for it!

SC Beach Boardwalk is Surprisingly Eco-Conscious

Such fond memories, Credit

That classic jingle will forever be deeply imbedded into my mind:

"At the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk, in the warm California sun--BOARDWALK!"

I spent many long summer days at the boardwalk, riding the up-jumped carnival rides and playing in the cold, cold water. No matter how cheesy, grungy, or dumpy the Boardwalk appears, it will forever hold a special place in my heart.

Who doesn't love the rickety-old Sea Swings? Credit

While reminiscing about my summers past, I never would imagine that this iconic California "theme park" would also host a eco-consciousness and commitment to environmental preservation.

That's why I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the boardwalk, in fact, does have a green mindset. Their Eco Profile notes that they are in close proximity to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and that they are dedicated to preserving it.

The Boardwalk also boarders the Monterey Bay Aquarium, home to the ever-adorable California Sea Otters, Credit

The Boardwalk also boasts an award-winning recycling program, which is recognized by both the city and the State.

With nearly 2 million visitors per year, this is an impressive feat, Credit

Their webpage also boasts a plethora of green efforts, including:

• "Recycling or reusing approximately 180 tons of material annually
• Reclaiming approximately 1 million gallons of water annually for landscaping and other non-potable water applications
• Installing waterless urinals and low-flush toilets in 2008 and beyond
• Prohibiting the use of polystyrene (Styrofoam) at all Boardwalk food locations
• Installing the first solar powered trash compactors in Northern California
• Recycling oil generated from vehicles and rides, green waste generated from landscaping, and electronic waste
• Cleaning the beach in front of the Boardwalk daily during the Spring and Summer
• Participating in valued community programs such as Coastal Clean-Up Day and Bike-to-Work Day
• Providing discounted bus passes, as well as bicycle and skateboard locker to encourage employee use of alternative transportation
• Providing electric vehicles for maintenance crew"

Who knew that this park full of cheap summer thrills and disposable waste would be doing such a good job towards reducing their environmental impact? Good for you, Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk!

Credit

Death of Corals Linked to New Source

Coral reefs are a notoriously fragile indicator species. Yes, those brightly colored underwater structures you may have seen in tropical seas are not rocks or plants, but actually billions of tiny invertebrates called polyps who secrete a hard calcium carbonate test (or shell). As the organisms reproduce, their offspring build their home on the wall of their parents test, thus adding on to the structure over time. These little inverts are aptly called  ecosystem builders as the structures they create provide food and shelter for an array of colorful fish, turtles, crustacea, enchinodermata, and annelidea to name a few.

Biodiversity of a Caribbean coral reef. Credit

Yet, as beautiful and important as they are, corals have been experiencing die off (bleaching) in the last 40 years, to the point where some reefs have declined by over half their original size. Scientists argued over the cause of this bleaching phenomenon; many blame the warming waters due to Global Climate Change. Others point to acidification of the oceans, pollutants, disease, or physical destruction as the cause.

The polyps emerge from their CaCO3 shells in order to filterfeed. Credit

However, new research points to a different culprit altogether, and luckily, this cause is much easier to address than Global Warming or non-point pollution sources. A new report compiled by Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the United Nations Environment Programme entitled the Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970-2012 has put forth that the real destroyer of coral reefs is overfishing. Specifically, the overfishing of urchins and parrot fish.

 

Bi-color Parrot Fish. Credit

Long Spined Sea Urchin. Credit

These creatures are herbivores that feed mainly on green algae, like the kind that grows on reefs in tropical seas. This algae is a real problem for the corals because it blocks the sun. Coral polyps themselves are not photosynthetic, but their tissues host a symbiont zooxanthellae that is. These tiny, unicellular algae produce sugars which they then share with their host in exchange for protection. Around 90% of the polyps nutrition comes from their symbionts, so it is easy to see how a thick covering of algae over the reef would hinder the photosynthetic process of the zooxanthellae and consequentally, starve and kill the polyp.

What a tragedy to lose this stunning ecosystem. Credit

 Because parrot fish and urchins are relentless grazers, they clear away the algae layer so that they entire system continues to run smoothly. However, removing these herbivores from the system (by fishing industry or for sport) is beginning an unfortunate trophic cascade in which algal layers smother coral reefs and polyps starve.

This sad story is a reality in the Caribbean Sea where overfishing threatens to destroy the $3 billion tourist industry. Local Caribbeaners have begun reef restorations in hopes of bringing in corals to fill in the gaps, and the US government has banned the fishing of parrot fish in the US Virgin Islands in an attempt to increase their numbers and stop the algal accumulation. However, stricter measures like enforcing marine protected areas may help in limiting the take of urchins and parrot fish, which would keep the corals clean and alive.

Solar Starts in Santa Barbara County

The town of Cuyama in north-eastern part of Santa Barbara County will soon be shining brighter and generating more renewable energy than any other part.

A similar photovoltaic array in Nevada. Credit

On Septermber 9th, the County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to approve the construction of a 40 megawatt (MW) photovoltaic solar array plant. This plant will occupy 327 acres in Cuyama and will by the County's first taste of industrialize renewable energy.

This new solar plant, first proposed four years ago by First Solar, will be able to power over 15,000 homes, create around 200 construction jobs, and lead to more maintenance careers in the future.

A further vote by the Board of Supervisors is needed to decide whether to install one large, 40 MW plant or to instead construct several smaller projects.

California Goes Up in Flames

As all Californians know, we are in a drought crisis unmatched by any other in recorded history. Without our usual measly rainfall, the hillsides and valleys of California have become especially crisp. With California's history of large wildfires, the drought, high wind, and even higher temperatures, it comes as a shock to absolutely no one that the state is combusting around us.

This article by the Washington Post details most of the damage excellently with the use of tweets, fire database modeling, and aerospace imagery. In this post, I merely mean to sum up the damage:

Since the drought really took hold of California in 2012, there have been innumerous fires, with over 100 fires occurring in 2012 alone. Fires currently ravaging our state include the Boles Fire, Courtney Fire, Dog Bar Fire, King Fire, June Fire, Meadow Fire, Silverado Fire, the Irene Fire, and three more.

Fires currently burning in CA. Credit

Of these eleven, the 70, 994 acre King Fire which currently rages east of Tahoe is the worst by far. Only 3,500 acres of this fire have been contained, and this spells disaster for rural residents.

The King Fire, courtesy of Google Maps.

The King Fire, whose origins are unknown, is massive a growing and moving fast. Yesterday, Abby Ohlheiser reported that it is threatening over 1,600 homes in Northern California. These factors have “prompted specially trained federal firefighters to take command of the fire early Tuesday morning,” USA Today reported. These firefighters are attempting to slow the movement of the blaze and ensure that it will not jump the gap provided by Highway 50. Some 6,500 firefighters are currently battling the fire and attempting to ward off spread into the highly forested residential area across the highway.

The King Fire at Highway 50, with embers floating across to the Southern side. Courtesy of Nick Janes (@nick_janes).

The King Fire at a closed section of Highway 50, courtesy of Trevor Hughes (@TrevorHughes).

Perhaps the runner-up to the King Fire may be the Boyles Fire that alone has destroyed 150 buildings in the City of Weed, California, including two Churches, the library, an elementary school, and the building of the town's major employer.

While these fires are truly devastating to everyone involved, there is little that can realistically be done. Let's all hope the El Nino and it's down pours of rain are coming, and soon. 

Camarillo City Chooses Ag Land Over Suburban Sprawl

On the 11th of this month, the Camarillo City Council of Ventura County decided to deny a General Plan amendment that proposed rezoning 620 acres of prime agricultural (ag) land to residential. Such a rezone would have allowed the Conejo Creek Project to pave over that land and construct 1.5 million square feet of industrial space and 2,500 tract homes. 

The Conejo Creek Development Plan Map that now will never be. Credit

The City Council's decision to unanimously vote against this development was fulled by a very concerned public presence, whose comments encouraged the decision to save the open ag space. The Environmental Defense Center and Camarillo Sustainable Growth also helped to fuel the decision with their support of keeping the ag land in agriculture.