Major Corporations Contradict GOP By Profiting From Carbon Reduction Projects

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09/major-corporations-contradict-gop-profiting-carbon-reductions.php

Summary:
This article is from treehugger.com, a popular environmental blog. The article is about how companies are beginning to invest in carbon reduction. For long, environments-saving organizations have been portrayed as "job-killers." The media often shows how environmental protection loses a lot of money. However, high-end companies are beginning to invest in carbon reduction without the incentive of government bonuses. They are beginning to realize that this actually increases efficiency and profit. Still, though, there are people who fight against carbon reduction in factories.

Opinion/Reflection:
I've always thought that factories should reduce carbon emissions. I realized that doing so would cost the organizations a lot of money, but it still seemed like the right thing to do. But now that companies have found that it actually increases profit, it seems like the only logical thing to do! It doesn't make sense that some corporations and politicians are still fighting against it.

Questions:
1: Why would a company not invest in carbon reduction?
2: Are there any unseen downsides?
3: Why are some politicians and lobbyists so adamant on making environmentalists look like bad people?

For sharks, A race to the fin-ish line? http://www.grist.org/food/2011-09-08-shark-fin-ban

The picture shown here is a shark without a fin, that was found dead on the ocean floor. The reason as to why sharks die without fins is because the sharks no longer have that "swimming motion" and therefor water is not passed through from their gills for oxygen and they die.

Summary:

The article I read was about how the California Senate had just recently "passed a legislation banning the possession, sale, or trade of shark fins." As the article states, about 73 million sharks are cut a year and their fins are cut off and they are sent back into the ocean to die. Some shark species are now to be considered endangered because of this act and so many are happy this law. Others are not as happy because they make their profits off of the shark fins. This ban can make an impact on California because they have two huge Asian fish markets in which shark fins are eaten here more than any other state. One said that they percent of shark fins caught and eaten by the community is small, as to where most of it is from abroad.

Opinion/Reflection :

I feel as though this issue should be brought up more in other countries or states besides California. Yes I know maybe some sharks people catch are baby sharks and are worth throwing back into the ocean to be dead, but don't they understand that they're doing harm to the community of the animals and also the population of them? It sickens me that humans are a cause of endangered animals because we don't think twice about things like these. We don't go into research about it, we act before we think.

Questions:

1)Why isn't shark fining brought up a lot in the media if it's such a big problem on the west coast?

2) What are the people that make profits off of the shark fins now going to do since this is now banned to even have possession of them?

3) Besides shark fining, are there any other major problems that us as humans cause to harm the sharks in general to decrease their population?

4) Are they going to eventually pass a law that restricts California from importing shark fins from out of country like Asia?

Nature and Animal Conservation http://www.globalissues.org/article/177/nature-and-animal-conservation

The article Nature and Animal conservation basically sums up animals around that world whose population is on the decline. The article mentions tigers, lions, rhinos, polar bears, vultures, penguins, amphibians, monkeys, apes, and other types of primates. Like most global problems have in common humans seem to have a part in this horrible crisis. Poaching and habitat loss are both human related and as the article states, "Tigers continue to face challenges imposed by poaching, retributive killings and habitat loss." we are yet again responsible. Of course there are other reasons for the declining of animals populations, but because of the fact that we are partially responsible it makes me disgusted. Another reason for animals dying is caused by pollution, which also lies in human hands. Animal conservation is becoming more important because of the fact that more animal species are being found. Animals we do not even know about can die off before we have the opportunity to study them because of our own actions. This needs to change and we need to do what we can to change the way animals lives are conserved.

Questions:

1. Right now, which animal is closest to extinction?

2. If this has been a problem in the world for so long, why haven't we been able to solve the problem. What problems failed and what haven't we tried yet.

3. What can we do as a school to help stop this crisis?

Hercules, Inc., to Pay $245,521 Civil Penalty for Violations of Clean Air Act’s Leak Detection and Repair Requirements

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/73FAC3D2F31B9ABD85257905005E7DE8



This picture is of a part of Hercules, Inc. This is a chemical company.

Summary:
This article was about how Hercules, Inc. violated the Clean Air Acts Leak Detection and repair requirements. They agreed to pay $245,521 to the United States to make up for it. There was a judgement in St. Loius Missouri filed on the 8th. They were using chemicals such as formaldehyde, pentaerythritol, methanol and acetaldehyde which are classified as hazardous. They did not have the technology that allows the company to see when there is a leak which could be harming the environment. Some side effects from this happening are cancer, birth defects, and reproductive health problems.

Opinion/ Reflections:
I was surprised that there was a judgement filed against Hercules, Inc. I was not aware that they had people measuring how much pollution companies produce and they could get fined for that. I believe this is a good idea because it could help reduce the companies carbon footprint. I believe that this will make everyone more aware of their carbon footprint and help theenvironment.

Questions:
1.) If all companies started being more concious of their carbon footprint would it actually make a difference, or is it already too late?
2.) If this is such an issue, why isn't it something you hear about on a daily basis?
3.) Is there a way to reverse the damage that has already happened due to chemical companies?