The European Space Agency (ESA) reported that because of a warm summer and late storms in the past few months, a brief channel has been opened in the Arctic Ice. This channel is big enough to allow a ship to sail to the North Pole.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/denyszyn/Arctic2003/GriseIceChannel.jpg

    The ESA spotted “dramatic openings” in an area which normally stays frozen all year. This area is bigger than the British Isles in the Arctic’s sea ice. Mike Drinkwater of ESA’s Ocean and Ice Unit says, “This situation is unlike anything observed in the previous record low ice seasons.” “It is highly imaginable that a ship could have passed from Spitzbergen or northern Siberia through what is normally pack ice to reach the North Pole without difficulty,” Drinkwater added. Spitzbergen is a Norwegian island in the Arctic Ocean.

http://www.tgo.uit.no/articl/magnorpe.gif

    The ESA says that the cold autumn temperature are freezing the sea again and the openings have appeared to have closed.

    There seems to be a growing concern about a possible link between global warming and extreme weather. Polar bears drowning and receding Arctic glaciers have been blamed on global warming.

    “If this anomaly trend continues, the northeast passage or ‘northern sea route’ between Europe and Asia will be open over longer intervals of time, and it is conceivable we might see attempts at sailing around the world directly across the summer Arctic Ocean within the next 10 to 20 years,” Drinkwater said.

    According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary when something is biodegradable it is capable of being broken down especially into innocuous products by the action of living things. Organic substances biodegrade by being broken down by other living organisms into their constituent parts, making them recyclable again. The process of breaking down occurs much faster when oxygen is involved, aerobically, because oxygen helps break apart molecules.

http://www.kobo.ch/balsiger/images/context.gif

    Does this mean that because landfills are packed so tightly and oxygen can’t reach the organic substances that biodegradation doesn’t occur? No, although most landfills are packed tightly this just means that biodegradation takes place slower. Consumer advocate and author Debra Lynn Dadd states that researchers have uncovered recognizable 25-year-old hot dogs, corncobs and grapes, as well as 50-year-old newspapers that were still readable.

http://www.kvii.com/uploadedImages/kvii/News/Stories/Landfill(1).jpg

    Some landfills are now injecting water, oxygen, and even microbes to promote biodegradation. Today, these kinds of landfills have not yet caught on because they are costly to create. Also, they are starting to have separate sections for compostable materials, such as food scraps and yard waste. Currently, some analysts believe that as much as 65 percent of waste currently sent to landfills consists “biomass.” Biomass biodegrades quickly and can generate a new income stream for landfills: marketable soil.

    As long as we continue to Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle we are helping solve this environmental problem. With landfills all over the United States and the world reaching capacity, technological fixes are less likely to make our garbage problems disappear.

    Here’s a table showing how long it takes for some common used products to biodegrable, when scattered together as litter:

Chart: http://www.worldwise.com/biodegradable.html

http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/biodegradable.htm

In today’s society, consumers possess the mentality of “bigger is better”.  After today’s class lecture I decided to do some further research on America’s love interest in SUV’s and trucks.  I found out the along with its even bigger, uglier, warlike cousin, the Hummer, SUV’s make up almost a third of the population.  It has made “light trucks” the most successful category the United States car industry has ever known and one of the most profitable. Indeed, its popularity is matched only by the controversy it provokes. Its gas-guzzling reputation has made it detested by environmental activists.

http://archive.cardesignnews.com/autoshows/2002/losangeles/highlights/images/hummer-h2-03s.jpg

“A new National Academy of Sciences report examines whether these popular vehicles can be built to consume less gasoline. Among other things, the study finds fuel efficiency can be improved by 20 to 40 percent, using technology that already exists; and implementing these improvements would take at least ten to 15 years. But improving fuel efficiency has its tradeoffs, potentially affecting vehicle safety, cost, and consumer preference.”

Paul Portney, who chaired the National Academy of Sciences study, believes that because car manufacturers have a certain way of building a car, it would take three to four years for any improvements in fuel efficiency.  He also states that any ambitious improvements would take place between ten and fifteen years.   

Congressman Tauzin, a Louisiana Republican, and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, says that there will be five billion gallons of gas saving through technology improvements in the various SUVS and mini-vans.  By moving to quickly, he believes that cars will become too light and less safe.  “Saving five billion gallons over the next six years through fuel efficiencies and technologies as recommended by the NAS Study would be equivalent to parking that fleet for two years, not even running it for two years out of the six years. That is a significant impact, about a 20 percent increase in efficiencies in the fleets that will be produced over the next six years. That equates to something like that as much as 3.5 miles per gallon if it’s implemented properly”.

Representative George Miller, a Democrat from California and sponsor of a bill to raise standards to 40 miles a gallon,  By adopting the amendment to erase the SUV loophole, he believes that about 35 billion gallons of gasoline will be saved.

Hopefully with all these ambitions we will be able to increase fuel efficiency.  Because we are giving the freedom to by any car we want doesn’t mean that we have to harm the environment by doing it.  Someone who drives an SUV, does not care about the environment or America’s dependence on Middle Eastern states that are soft on terrorism. At the heart of this controversy, like so many here in recent years, is America’s favorite drug – oil.  By buying small cars we will be able to get more miles per gallon and save money.  Then why is it so hard to say “no” when buying an SUV?  It’s because we are self-oriented and could care less about the environment.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec01/fuel_7-31.html