Mapping Land Use

So lately all I have time for is looking through other people's blogs and reading what is goin' on outside of the campus (which is definitely more fun than reading what is goin' on at the campus), but I read Highly Allochthonous today, and found this post by Ms. Jefferson.

Land use has been mapped globally and regionally and everywhere in between looking at different use practices to use types (and yes those are different). However, what caught my attention to this was the use of the word "biome". It is a word that is usually applied to natural ecosystems that share climatic characteristics that affects the biotic systems found in those areas. Consequently, those biomes would also affect the land use. This map plots the types of usage, but more interestingly these land use types roughly approximate the biomes that are found there as well.

Picture from http://www.ecotope.org/ "A Framework for Ecology & Earth Science in the 21st Century" by Erle C. Ellis and Navin Ramankutty

Picture from Wikipedia entry "Biomes" - Vegetation - No Legend

Pretty much the general trend is that humans will use whatever land they can (or plants can) survive in. I would like to see what they mean by each of the types of land use, such as the definitions of their use of "Rice Villages" and "Irrigated Villages". However, this is a great example of GIS and land use mapping. Now, to see if I have time to explore more of the Ecotope website...

Friday TED Talks XII

Cary Fowler talks about saving genetic diversity through cold storage of seeds.

He is the Executive Director of Global Crop Diversity Trust where their mission is to store their seeds in a safe remote place.

However good the message is (and I agree with keeping a seed bank to preserve genetic diversity for other reasons), I question the seeds' value if the temperature rises as "in many countries the coldest growing seasons are going to be hotter than anything those crops have seen in the past." If these crops have not seen these temperatures in the past, what good will they do if kept for the future because of systematic crop failure? They couldn't have evolved different mechanisms to live in the hotter climate.

Algae’s Strange Bedfellows

Currently, there is (a minor) debate as to whether algae is a plant or not. Most do not include them as plants because they lack complexity in the cell, and do not share a few (but key) characteristics with plants. (However, that does not stop my old Bot Prof from asking what the oldest plant is and the “correct” answer is a type of green algae…grrrr)
Anyways, I digress… a new exciting branch of research is experimenting with producing oils from algae to be used instead of traditional fossil fuels (which ironically enough is probably fossilized algae too!) Craig Venter (of the Human Genome Project fame) is one of the leading scientists engineering algae to create the biosynthetic oils. However, he is catching some bad PR because of his strange bedfellow, ExxonMobil. This company, alike most of the prominent gas & oil companies around, are not too concerned with their energy gathering and environmental use. So, let’s critically think about what they are trying to do and see if this is a good idea or not:

(Photo on Left is of the Kelp Forest at Monetery Bay, Calif)

Using Algae as a Biosynthetic Oil Producer

Pros
Renewable resource – Algae takes little to grow and will produce lots considering size
Use excess fertilizer – Can create a market for using excess fertilizer and maybe even creating fertilizer as a byproduct (making less ammonia using Haber-Boscht?)
Defer energy crisis – could also be considered a con because this will prevent people from reducing the amount of energy they are using with their lifestyles. Because most North Americans, Australians, and Europeans have a resource-rich lifestyle, and refuse to reduce the amount of resources they are using, this also creates a large inequality with other countries around the world. Most developing countries will expect to have the same benefits as the post-industrial countries.

Cons
Continuation of Bad Energy Sources – Using algae will make other renewable resource energy sources such as photovoltaics and wind less attractive because of fluctuation. If people are lazy and choose the easiest type of energy source, they will not change their habits and therefore, problems will still exist.
Bioengineering – Plants have a nasty history of becoming less efficient as they become more bioengineered. Also, it creates a possible bottle-neck of genetics which becomes a possible endangerment of the whole industry if a disease outbreak occurred. Remember the one great maxim that everyone learns in Intro Bio: Genetic Diversity is Important. (For numerous reasons, but that’s another post for the future)
No Net Carbon Sink – It cannot be considered a carbon sink because if creating oil & gas as an energy source, it will be released in the near future. However, if used for creating other petroleum products that will be a sink for a long time to come (plastics, etc), it may be considered a sink, but as a fuel its not. That is the problem we have now is too much carbon (and frankly a lot of other greenhouse gasses that everyone ignores like methane and NOx’s and SOx’s).

Also, another con would have to do with the prominent Oil & Gas company. Would they be willing to clean up after themselves? What happens when this bioengineered algae escapes (ooooh good plot line for a novel), and oil slicks cover the water and suffocate many organisms (less air-water interactions mean less O2 dissolved in the water), or create a huge algae bloom and creates more dead zones in the oceans. Mmmmm. I have great respect for Craig Venter, lets see what he'll do.

Borrell, Brendan. 60-Second Science Blog. “Clean dreams or pond scum? ExxonMobil and Craig Venter team up in quest for algae-based biofuels”. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=clean-dreams-or-pond-scum-exxonmobi-2009-07-14

Prisons can Lead Environmental Change

Scientific American has a wonderful article today about inmates pitching in to help save the environment. I believe that this is a wonderful start, and that this idea should also be used in Canada.
All of the inmates in Canada have the ability to contribute something useful and because the environment is something that everyone shares, this may help them (and frankly, the general non-incarcerated population as well) to realize that this is a problem that is shared by a whole community.

I recently read a book, Deep Economy by Bill McKibben that explained that when people feel that they are in a community and inclusive group that they started acting less individually. The needs of the group were placed at an equal or higher value than the needs of an individual. Now, firstly I am all for individuality and individual choices. However, the two are not mutually exclusive of one another. Now, when people make decisions about family, work, environment, etc., never does community play a role in the outcome of those choices. This must change. You can have individuals making choices, but the community must be thought of within respect to those choices and how the choices reflect the needs and values of the community as well.

If we can get the general population of prisons helping outside communities, this will a) improve the environment and b) give the prisoners a sense of accomplishment and worth. I would rather these prisoners having the chance at operating large composts, manufacturing wind turbines, etc and using their skills instead of them watching TV and rioting. If they feel needed within the community (and for this it can be Canadian Community, Provincial Community, etc), it is a great way for them to reenter society and build skills in order to be a fully functioning member of society. Often prisons just teach prisoners how to be better criminals. Let us make them all tree-huggers instead.

Earth Day!

OK, I'll make this quick, as in a couple of hours I have my last Final of this Semester. Woo hoo! *Insert Happy Dance Here*

I found a great meme for Earth Day.... Small Bigger Better
Found it at The Questionable Authority
(I know... studying)

Mine are:
Small: Rinsing out & recycling individual yoghurt cups instead of throwing them away (I know, but its hard to do when your at school)
Bigger: Walking or biking to work/school at least 2 times a week
Better: Grow more veggies in my garden and finding ways to a) keep them longer through winter and b) tasty recipies that I can cook & then freeze ahead.

Also, for the cynical I found this at Ed Braytons site. A company that is about to see the **** hit the fan.


Enjoy & Happy Earth Day!

Phytoremediation as an alternative method in Reclamation Strategies

Phytoremediation is the use of plants to clean up toxic levels of heavy metals, organic contaminants or pesticides by the absorption within the plant body and either converting the compound or storing it in the plant material, or immobilizing the contaminant within the soil area. Phytoremediation processes include 1) Phytostabilization, 2) Phytodecontamination 3) Rhizosphere Degredation 4) Phytoaccumulation and 5) Phytoextraction. These processes can safely clean contaminated water, wetlands, soil and air pollutants. As shown above, plants can be used as a natural way to clean up polluted waterways, and can even safetly clean up effluent from sewage contamination.

In all of the processes, except for phytostabilization, plants actively take up the contaminant and process it in a variety of ways which depend on the nature of the contaminant and the plant species itself. Sunflowers have been used to remove arsenic compounds and brassicas to remove lead compounds. Each species has its own growth rate and bioaccumulation rate which are important factors for deciding how to remove contaminants. Seasonal removal of plant material thereby removes the contaminants from the area to be safely disposed or stored in an alternate location. This method requires several seasons for the complete removal, and in fact complete removal of the contaminant may not be possible.

Phytoremediation can even occur inside the home. Air pollution that occurs inside newly built homes, known as off-gassing of new products can affect the health of the residents. NASA had conducted a study in the 80's showing that plants are effective at removing formaldehyde and benzene and other off-gasses from the environment just by growing popular houseplants.

Phytoremediation is not the whole story of course; important microorganisms such as Bacteria and Archaea are invaluable for providing in-house cleaning for a fraction of the work plants require. Already used in all tailings ponds (in the Tar-Sands of Northern Alberta), multiple fermentation Bacterias and methanogenic Archaeas provide the cheap & easy way of converting organic contaminants into methane and carbon dioxide. Of course this takes years as well, but they do not need seasonal removal of organic material like plants do. However, when plants and bacteria/archaea work in concert with each other, it is the fastest method of reclamation and probably safer than most other methods.

Gratao, P.L, et al. (2005). Phytoremediation: green technology for the clean up of toxic metals in the environment. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 17(1) 53-64.

Meagher, R.B. (2000). Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 3: 153-162

Meers, E., Hopgood, M., Lesage, E., Verv.aeke, P., Tack, F. M. G. and Verloo, M. G. (2004). Enhanced Phytoextraction: In Search of EDTA Alternatives',International Journal of Phytoremediation. 6(2): 95 — 109.

Van Aken, B. (2008). Transgenic plants for phytoremediation: helping nature to clean up environmental pollution. Trends in Biotechnology. 26(5) 225-227.

Wolverton, B.C., Johnson, A., and Bounds, K. (1989). Interior Landscape Plants for Indoor Air Pollution Abatement Final Report. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Stennis Space Center, MS.

Global Warming vs. Climate Change

If you've never heard of "global warming"* or "climate change"*, you may want to call the Guiness Book of World Records people. As the last person on earth to hear these terms, they may have you confused. I will try to explain...

The two terms have been used interchangably, but they might not be so. Useage between skeptics and believers have twisted the meaning of each. They refer to the phenomenon of energy that comes from the sun, bounced of the surface of the earth to the atmosphere and reflected back to the earth from the pollutants (hence the greenhouse effect and greenhouses gasses terms that are used). This leads to a rise in atmospheric temperature and ocean temperature (which is the source of the term "global warming").

Incidentally, this rising in temperature has other effects which lead to changes in wind patterns, melting of glaciers, etc. This in turn changes the entire climate of the world, but funnily enough, not equally around the world. Also the changes in climate may have different effects in different places (where some areas may get more hurricanes in general, others may get less hurricanes but they will be more severe). Also, changes in temperature become more severe for certain places. This leads us to the term of "climate change".

People who are conspiracy theorists, science deniers, or the USA government like to use the term "global warming". This phrase of two simple words brings to mind a simple meaning for many people. The only thing we should be worried about is having great temperatures year round, where we don't have to worry about frostbite anymore. Living in the great beyond (think Canadian Siberia), I cannot help but cringe every time someone uses this "global warming" for the process which is occuring on our planet now. People think it will be great having a tropical climate here (think swimming and tanning year round). Other people scoff when it hits -4o degrees celcius; "pffft, yeah right we have global warming... I'll just go run my car to warm up for 1/2 hour".

However, when you read about sea levels rising from glacier melting and thermal expansion, all of those island countries and coastal cities (yeah, think New York, Vancouver, Tokyo) where most of the world's population lives, and we've got real problems. We won't be worrying about war refugees anymore, we'll be concerned about refugees from islands that have disappeared, from areas where severe hurricanes are occuring, where water has run out, etc.

The environmental refugees not only will be fleeing from their homelands, but disease and sickness will also spread. Those countries not ready for the people and climate change will have an increase in diseases never seen before in that area. Malaria will continue to spread (as will West Nile). Cholera and other diseases from unsanitary conditions will increase and there will be stresses on health care systems (as well as current stresses from increases in cancer and obesity).

I'm not trying to act Cassandra on y'all. (Cassandra the prophetess from Homer's Troy who noone listened to, jeez go read some literature!) But, the more we open our eyes to what could happen, the more prepared we are. Canada has a chance to become a world leader in humanitarian causes, while increasing our own technology resources (and incidentally selling that technology to other countries), so there can be economic gain in the future.

I think what is needed is balance between resource management/sustainability and economic gain. Neither can be feasible at the extreme ends of the scale, but moderation with both would be nice and wholly welcome. But don't ever say to me that global warming is bunk, go to http://www.ipcc.ch/ if you want some scientific background on the issue. Everyone including those not involved in science or economy, needs to get in on the discussion. This is everyones problem, not just those worried about it.



*I put these terms in brackets only to denote that they are phrases in common use that must be separated from each other, not to give them quackery status as pseudoscience.