PHOTOS: Artist "Runs the Numbers" of Big Ocean Threats
From National Geographic.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/photogalleries/chris-jordan-massive-photomosaics/index.html
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Environment and Photography Converges
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/photogalleries/chris-jordan-massive-photomosaics/index.html
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Summary of talk by Angela Johnson Meszaros
I attended a talk a few days ago given by Angela Johnson Meszaros. A lot of information was related to environmental justice on which she had been working for 15 years.
The current biofuels made by corn is not good. She said that the cellulosic technology will help but it is not ready for industrial use yet.
She said that carbon trading does not work because:
One audience asked a question about the EJ community. She said that they are the people who practise the most "sustainability". They are the ones who always find ways to reduce the cost and reuse resources. The infrastructure is not available for extensive use, so people cannot just trade 3 hours of public transit to driving their car to pick up the kids.
She also said that carbon capture/sequestration is not recommended because it is just another way to "encourage" the use of fossil fuels (I think short-term "coverup"). It is just putting CO2 somewhere else, and there is no guarantee that the "storage" will be safe in the long-term.
My sidenotes and thoughts:
There is a new article today saying that ethanol production requires much more water predicted before. So a lot of water is used for corn production and then another lot of water for ethanol production.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2009/04/14/1/
Carbon trading won't stop climate change
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227046.200-carbon-trading-wont-stop-climate-change.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=climate-change
The current biofuels made by corn is not good. She said that the cellulosic technology will help but it is not ready for industrial use yet.
She said that carbon trading does not work because:
- the caps are too high
- the cost per ton is way too low, about $3 per ton (vs $300,000 per lb for particulate matter)
- industries will buy their way to continue their current business of burning fossil fuels
- they can do the same thing as well by buying carbon offsets
- the acid rain cap and trade program is not a comparison for carbon because it followed regulations (the Clean Air Act), also there were technologies readily available for industries to immediately employ to reduce SO2 emissions. For CO2, there are no regulations or emission limit to follow and no good current technologies to switch to.
- the price per ton does not include external (environmental and social) cost
- the current programs in EU, the one in the East Coast, and the RECLAIM program in SoCal all are not working.
One audience asked a question about the EJ community. She said that they are the people who practise the most "sustainability". They are the ones who always find ways to reduce the cost and reuse resources. The infrastructure is not available for extensive use, so people cannot just trade 3 hours of public transit to driving their car to pick up the kids.
She also said that carbon capture/sequestration is not recommended because it is just another way to "encourage" the use of fossil fuels (I think short-term "coverup"). It is just putting CO2 somewhere else, and there is no guarantee that the "storage" will be safe in the long-term.
My sidenotes and thoughts:
There is a new article today saying that ethanol production requires much more water predicted before. So a lot of water is used for corn production and then another lot of water for ethanol production.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2009/04/14/1/
Carbon trading won't stop climate change
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227046.200-carbon-trading-wont-stop-climate-change.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=climate-change
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Photography and the Environment
In addition to taking the environmental studies class, I am currently studying photography at CCSF. I mainly shoot B&W film, and make my prints in the darkroom. Traditional photography has been utilizing toxic chemicals and uses a lot of water and paper. I would like to make my processes more environmental-friendly. A few months ago, I have switched to a paper developer made by SilverGrain , which is non-toxic and uses ascorbic acid. The results are very satisfactory and the prints do not look different from the ones that I had previously made using a paper developer with toxic ingredients. I am very glad that this works out and hope that there are other products that are non-toxic and/or help reduce the usage of resources.
On the other hand, digital photography has its own disadvantages as well, in terms of paper, ink, and electricity usage, and e-waste. The rapid advancement of new models and the reduction of price has enabled the expansion of the digital camera market to the general public. Linked to the usage of digital cameras, computers and printers are used. With the advancement in technology, the problem of e-waste has to be solved when people dispose of their old cameras, batteries, chargers, computers, monitors, computer accessories, etc. A lot of e-waste has ended up in developing countries (sometimes unknowingly exported from the e-waste companies), leading to toxic problems including cancers for the residents (many residents make their living dismantling the components for resale) and the environment.
On the other hand, digital photography has its own disadvantages as well, in terms of paper, ink, and electricity usage, and e-waste. The rapid advancement of new models and the reduction of price has enabled the expansion of the digital camera market to the general public. Linked to the usage of digital cameras, computers and printers are used. With the advancement in technology, the problem of e-waste has to be solved when people dispose of their old cameras, batteries, chargers, computers, monitors, computer accessories, etc. A lot of e-waste has ended up in developing countries (sometimes unknowingly exported from the e-waste companies), leading to toxic problems including cancers for the residents (many residents make their living dismantling the components for resale) and the environment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)