In California, Carports That Can Generate Electricity

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/science/earth/26parking.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fscience%2Fearth%2Findex.jsonp

In California they have installed seventy-five solar carports in elementary schools and community colleges. It is set up to where the parking lot is covered and the cover generates electricity. Some have outlets for solar-charging electric cars. This great solar carport will generate 75% of the electricity for the school during the school year and cover all the cost for electricity during the summer months. Many people in California oppose the idea of these solar carports. If we could get people to agree on the idea we could help save the enviroment and save people a lot of money. Total saving in some places over a twenty-year period could add up to be twelve million dollars. People would soon think covered parking lots were normal rather than uncovered parking lots being normal.

"New Hurdle for California Condors May Be DDT From Years Ago"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/science/16condors.html?_r=1&ref=earth

California condors now face more threats than before with their attempt to repopulate. The first nesting attempt was regarded a failure, though the reason was determined to be the young birds' inexperience in mating. However, when the eggshells were examined, they were discovered to be dangerously thin, so thin that DDT is believed to be the cause. Scientists believe the source of DDT comes from marine animals which are a source of the condors' diet. The Montrose Chemical Corporation used DDT, though ceased when the ban was implemented in 1971. However DDE, a by-product of DDT, was found in the blubber on sea lions, likely the source of DDT in the California condor. This news disturbs me, as the California condor already had enough of a struggle repopulating itself. I feel scientists should remove the condors from the area where they believe the DDT is located to prevent them from continuing to consume this dangerous pesticide.

Ocean Acidification study shows more troubles for our already struggling coral reefs

With rising carbon dioxide levels in the oceans, the water is becoming more and more acidic. Having more acidic waters is only increasing the struggle's corals are facing now. Higher temperatures have been threatening our coral reefs for years, and now they are going to be battling waters with a lower pH. Corals are not able to reproduce very easily in a lower pH environment, making the survival of the Acropora palmata (Elkhorn Coral), much more difficult.

This coral larva can only survive in somewhat basic waters, if not neutral waters. Coral larva are very vulnerable to diseases and predators with normal water parameters, never mind water that has a lower pH. This coral is considered one of the main building blocks of coral reefs. Elkhorn coral has a large skeleton that is left behind when the organism dies, creating a lot of real estate for new coral larva to grow on, and develop a new colony. These corals have an exoskeleton much like clams, crabs, and sea urchins. Having acidic water makes it much more difficult for these calcifying organisms to build there skeletons, thus allowing predators to easily come along and snatch the organism up. Ocean Acidification is a major issue that can be solved by lowering our carbon emissions, and no longer polluting our oceans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101108151328.htm

130 Feet Above the Amazon Rainforest

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/scientists-capture-pristine-air-particles-untouched-industry-deep-rainforest

The damages of the Industrail Revolution will never be known considering the fact that the revolution brought about a new technological era and doing so it brought about a new era for science too. but do you ever wonder what the air quality was like before the revolutionary changes due to industrialization? Well then just climb up to the top of the rainforest canopy and take a deep breath. And that is exactly what some scientist chose to do in order to get some air that was before human activity crowded the air. This was the first time anyone had gotten unmessed with aerosol particles. Which means that when we test the particles now to the before particles were not really getting anything but paticulate noise. So read more!

Atlantic Sea Turtle

A team of scientists have discovered a fungal infection within the Atlantic Sea Turtle population. This factor may have contributed greatly to the decline of the Atlantic Sea Turtle in the past 30 years. Everyone believed it was solely due to human impact, however they're seeing it's more in depth. Fusarium solani is a fungus that infects the soil and can cause serious plant disease. When the eggs are developing under the warm humid sand, the disease thrives in these conditions. Scientists knew this disease infected other species but never related it to the shells of the turtles. The research conducted shows the true significance and reality of the failing population of Atlantic Sea Turtles. I think researchers should develop an antidote of sorts and apply it to nesting sites that people find so maybe the population will have a better fighting chance.

If you want more specifics from the article, you can find it on Sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101029104610.htm

Do the Benefits of Recycling Outweigh the Costs?

Over the last couple of years, many enviromental critics have argued that recycling uses more energy than it saves, and is not worth the effort to recylcle. The argument has bubbled up around 1996 when a columist John Tierney wrote in the New York Times that " Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in America." Enviromental Groups took data and actually found out that recycling was doubling energy consumption and pollution while costing taxpayers more money than disposing of regular garbage. So, why would an individual want to continue to recylce when it is costing them more money? Statistics prove that recycling were costing citizens twice as much as disposal. Even though recylcing is obviously better for the enviroment, people are not going to pay more money if everyone is not going to contribute to the recycling proccess.

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

"Dead Coral Found Site of Gulf Oil Spill"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/science/earth/06coral.html?_r=1&hp

It seems that the BP Oil Spill has yet to stop affecting the planet. A dead coral reef near the spill strongly suggests the spill is responsible, but the evidence is circumstantial, such as the darkened corals and documented presence of oil in the area. This evidence strongly points to the BP Oil Spill, though more research and investigation will have to prove this. This is among the first evidence to support that the oil spill was a detriment to marine life. Investigation is under way, but unfortunately only robots can go to the deep, marine area, prohibiting human investigation of the possibly ocean floor coral reefs and the impact of the oil spill on that area. Another issue is the fact that the toxins will unlikely be able to trace back to the oil spill. Personally, I feel this asserts the environmental dangers and disadvantages to oil spills, and will hopefully give light to the problems with the recent BP oil spill and its environmental impact.