Agriculture is Good, But at What Cost?

From earthobservatory.nasa.gov

I read a very thought provoking article this past week, about the Chaco Thorn forest in Paraguay. The article discussed a major problem that the people of this region are currently facing: the burning and bulldozing of over a million acres of their beautiful forest, all with the hopes of creating room for farming and exportation of beef.


The article, Vast Tracks in Paraguay Forest Being Replaced by Ranchers, states that over 1.2 million acres of this beautiful forest have already been destroyed, and that if the deforestation continues at its current rate, almost all of the forest could be gone in less than 30 years time.


The author, Simon Romero, does a very good job of creating an emotionally stimulating story that remains unbiased and presents both sides of the argument. Romero has a great nut graf to start the story, and I can say that it personally grabbed my attention from the very start. In this piece, the author has created a story; it does more than just relays information, it makes the reader feel as well. By using quotes from hunter-gatherer groups such as the Ayoreo, the reader gets the emotional side of the story, seeing how the deforestation of this area is directly affecting those living there. On the other hand however, Romero does not fail to mention those who are doing the deforestation, providing quotes from the mayor of Porto Murtinho in Brazil and the communications manager for a Mennonite cooperative in Paraguay. Because these quotes are included, the reader has a chance to understand why such deforestation is going on, and the reasons behind these actions.


Romero ends his writing with a quote from Arturo Chiquenoi, a 28 year old Ayoreo man who occasionally works as a ranch hand. '“We’ll never live in the forest again," he said. ”That life is finished.”' By ending this way, Romero brings the article full circle, back to the emotional component from which he started. This article is very well written, with great facts and quotes which explain the heart-wrenching situation in Paraguay. I'm glad I had the opportunity to read it


Read this article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/world/americas/paraguays-chaco-forest-being-cleared-by-ranchers.html?ref=environment

CO2 Emissions Capped

In a New York Times article this past week, Obama's new rule to control Carbon Dioxide emissions was the topic of discussion. In a fairly well-crafted story, Felicity Barringer quotes the opinions of spokesmen and politicians, and how they feel about the new caps on CO2 emissions.

From Global Warming blog  

While the story is chalk full of reliable and useful sources, it seems that there may be more quotes than are entirely necessary. Barringer's sources include the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Rick Santorum, and the executive director of the Sierra Club. She successfully portrays both sides of the issue, quoting both those in favor and against the new rule. That being said, however, Barrington doesn't talk in-depth about the effects of such a rule on the environment, and how capping the amounts of CO2 emissions aloud for new power plants would effect the environment.

The article is well-written and remains unbiased, but seems to be a bit source-heavy. I personally would have liked to know more about what people predict this rule will do with regard to global climate change. The only thing in this article about that is a quote from the Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa P. Jackson, who says that the new rule is “a common-sense step to reduce pollution in the air, protect the planet for our children and move us into a new era of American energy.” Overall it is a very interesting and well-written article; I enjoyed reading it.

Read this article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/science/earth/epa-sets-greenhouse-emission-limits-on-new-power-plants.html?ref=earth

Short Winters Throw Ecosystems out of Whack

It seems that for some insects, early spring has meant more than just the early blooming of flowers. The effects of global warming on our seasons seem to have thrown the phases of some insects completely out of whack.

The Mormon fritillary butterfly for one, is completely dependent on the cold to support the species' population. As the days of winter decrease, however, the population of this delicate butterfly has begun to dwindle. Another insect, the deer tick, while having been no worry to dogs and humans in past winters, now seem to have abandoned its typical winter resting habit, and people are finding these pests apparent much earlier in the year.

From solardarkroom.com

I find it very interesting how the two articles in the New York Times -- one about the tick problem and the other about the decrease in butterfly numbers -- go about the discussion of global climate change. The butterfly story, written by author Josie Garthwaite, seems to do a fuller job of displaying the human impact. Part of the first sentence, "Early snow melts caused by climate change could deliver a mighty one-two punch to the delicate Mormon fritillary butterfly," states the problem fairly plainly: the climate change is causing these butterflies to die. That being said, there is nothing in the article about why there is climate change, or how people could help to prevent the decrease of this lovely insect.


The tick article, written by Karen Ann Cullotta, does an even poorer job of displaying the human impact part of the story, saying absolutely nothing about why the weather is so warm this early in the year, and how human beings have contributed greatly to that. The story focuses solely on how pesky these ticks are, and how they seem to be affecting people and animals all year round, while in the past they were only present in the spring through fall seasons.

From National Geographic

While it seems that these stories were not intended to give people an understanding of what global warming and global climate change are and mean, I think that these topics are critical to each story's focus, and their lack of mention is an injustice to the reader. Both pieces are about changes in our environment, but neither takes the time to explain why these changes are occurring. Why is the beautiful Mormon fritillary butterfly population starting to dwindle? We are told that it is because snow is melting earlier in the year, but why is that? Why are people's dogs being infected with Lyme Disease in the middle of March, long before ticks are supposed to be an issue? We are told it is because winters are getting shorter, but why is that? These articles are interesting, and they get across the problems involving these two species, but neither really goes into why these changes are occurring, and what  can be done to deal with them.


Both pieces are well-written and use good sources, but in my opinion they are each missing information that is both vital to the story and also deserved by the reader.


Read these articles at: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/us/a-mild-winter-means-a-longer-tick-season.html?ref=animals#
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/a-spring-sprung-too-soon-is-death-blow-to-butterfly/?scp=6&sq=environment&st=cse

NYC Sewage Goes Green

In a very interesting article this week, the New York Times announced that the sewage system in New York City is "going green." The author, Mireya Navarro, does a very good job of explaining the shift from the city's older system to a more environmentally friendly version, and by citing city officials and lawyers involved in the program, her claims and facts are verifiable.

From holisticfuture.com

The program, which has already been put into place in other major cities in the U.S., involves solving the sewage overflow problem that New York has been facing for years. Until now, heavy rains have caused untreated sewage and storm water to run into city waterways, creating not only immense pollution, but also causing waterways not to meet "...federal standards for fishing, swimming and healthy habitats for wildlife." This new plan, one which the city has committed more than $2 billion, will solve this problem by using vegetation, soils and environmental infrastructure to retain storm water before it overloads the sewage limit.


I found this article to be both uplifting and well-written. It is short and to-the-point, but gives readers exactly what they need to understand all aspects of the new plan: the problem, recently accepted solution and facts that show what the expected results will be. The city officials either quoted or cited really help to substantiate the author's claims, and create a fuller story. I am pleased to see that this problem is finally being taken care of, and I think that this New York Times article does a wonderful job of displaying that to the greater American public.


Read this article at: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/a-greener-strategy-on-new-yorks-runaway-sewage/?ref=environment

Correction

In the previous version of the Progress in Oil Spill Court Case post, the location of the 2010 oil spill was cited incorrectly. The spill occured in the Gulf of Mexico, and the correction has now been made to the piece itself.

Bad Article on an Even Worse Situation

From EA Worldview

This past week in Afghanistan, a massive avalanche left over 50 dead and many more injured. In a somewhat poorly written New York Times article yesterday, the impact of the catastrophe is explained in a fairly biased and angry-sounding manner. The author, Graham Bowley, fills his story with run-on sentences and awkward phrasing, and while his article does have good quotes from spokesmen and disaster management authority, he doesn't do the best job of remaining unbiased throughout the article.


"After 10 years and spending millions of dollars, why can’t we establish food and medicine stocks in every province so that there are always supplies for natural disasters? This is the question the government should answer. Where are they spending the money?” This quote from Fawzia Koofi, a member of Parliament from Badakhshan Province, while very relevant to the current state of the snow-covered area, is not followed by any statement from the United Nations stating the reason for their lack of involvement. Having a quote from a UN representative would have been helpful in retaining Bowley's impartiality, but without one he appears somewhat biased. 


It looks as if the condition of this little town is only going to get worse, with Mohammad Daim Kakar predicting that soon the snow will melt and a flood will cause yet another disaster. While the bodies are retrieved from the snow-filled town, the future of this area looks rather bleak. It may not be particularly well written, but Bowley does do a good job of reporting on a horrible disaster, and that counts for something.


View this article at:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/world/asia/afghanistan-avalanche-death-toll-rises.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=avalanch%20exposes%20afghans&st=cse

Progress in Oil Spill Court Case

While looking at the New York Times online today, I read an interesting article about the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  The article, Accord Reached Settling Lawsuit Over BP Oil Spill, focused on the court case surrounding the spill, and how almost two years later, BP and the plaintiff's committee have just now come up with an "agreement on the terms of a proposed class settlement." The agreement calls for replacing the $20 billion fund BP created to compensate victims of the spill, while also paying additional costs to natural resources.

Picture from U.S. Coast Guard

The article had a good feature lead, followed by a nut graf to state the story's relevance, and also remained fairly unbiased with regard to the issue. The nature of the agreement being over what it is -- a horrible environmental accident -- makes it hard to remain unbiased when writing a news article, but I think that it was done well here. The author quoted both parties, and finished by quoting the policy director of the Mississippi River Delta program and Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, both of whom simply want this issue to be put in the past, with money going to the right people in order to rehabilitate the gulf to its former glory.


Read the article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/us/accord-reached-settling-lawsuit-over-bp-oil-spill.html?scp=2&sq=BP&st=cse

Animal Hunting -- Yea or Nay?

While glancing through the New York Times this past week, two articles: one about a bill to ban the hunting of sharks, the other about a bill to allow the hunting of cranes, caught my interest.

Photo via Flickr via istolethetv

I was very surprised to see the differences in the way these two stories were framed. Elisabeth Rosenthal's, New York May Ban Shark Fin Sales, Following Other States, published Feb. 21, did not seem like an unbiased, reporting story.  The text contained many quotes from those in favor of the ban, and also several from those who could care less, but none from any opposing party.  The topic of shark hunting has been very controversial for years, so it is hard to believe that everyone would be accepting of such a ban. The lack of this input leads to a very biased-sounding story.

Sandhill cranes-- Mike Siegel/The Seattle Times, via New York Times Article

To contrast, Monica Davey's, Wisconsin Bill Would Allow Hunting of a Once-Rare Crane, published on Feb. 23, took a slightly different approach. Davey's summary lead, while stating what the upcoming story was about, also described the cranes in a very kind and relatable way.  "In Wisconsin, a place where word of dwindling numbers of sandhill cranes set off elaborate conservation efforts decades ago, the birds — elegant, prehistoric-looking creatures that bugle hauntingly — are once more at the center of discussion among state leaders." Davey went on to quote those both in favor and against the bill, only to end with a quote from Mark Berres, an assistant professor of avian biology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Berres is against the bill, and simply stated that more information needed to be gathered about the Sandhill cranes before it could be decided whether open hunting would hurt the species. 


Davey's format -- opening with a summary lead that described the Sandhill cranes as very majestic and lovely creatures, getting quotes from those on both sides of the bill, and ending with a quote from Berres -- is much smarter than that of Rosenthal, who focused solely on how much better the world would be without the hunting of sharks.


The opinions of both writers is fairly clear: they do not want the hunting of these animals to be allowed. The ways that the two went about portraying their opinions however, is very different. By showing both sides of the argument, only to end with a quote from a scientist who disagrees with the bill, Davey did a better job of concealing her bias than Rosenthal, who's entire story points at the fact that she disapproves of shark hunting.

The article can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/us/wisconsin-consider-hunting-of-sandhill-crane.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=cranes&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/nyregion/bill-in-albany-would-ban-sale-of-shark-fins.html?ref=animals

Moving Forward

An artists interpretation of Global Warming.
Taken from Cookie Jars page on Tumblr.

This week it seems as if the United States is finally making significant progress in the fight against climate change. The New York Times aired a story this past week about a new program to reduce common pollutants that lead to global climate change.

The program, which was announced to the State Department on February 16th by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, targets three pollutants specifically: soot, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons. Scientists say that drastically reducing these pollutants will not only reduce the global temperature by 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, but also prevent millions of cases of heart and lung disease.

While many critics argue that the program completely ignores the threat of CO2 emissions, it seems to be a fairly good first step. At the last United Nations climate summit meeting in South Africa, negotiators agreed to "try" to come up with a climate change treaty by 2015, which would not take effect until after 2020. This however, is far too late, considering how many scientists predict irreversible global damage to the atmosphere long before then.

This program, while not appealing to all, is at least doing something about this worldwide problem right now. It plans to implement many of the new strategies researchers have found to control the amounts of soot and methane being released into the atmosphere.  

It may not be a solution, but I think the program seems like a definite start.  With the 12$ million and 3$ million contributions from the US and Canada, the program can get underway and start to reduce these emissions. Hopefully many more countries will soon show interest, and this can actually have a significant impact on climate change.

Worldwide agreement is important, but waiting around for a treaty that everyone in the United Nations can agree upon is not what needs to happen here.  Climate change is happening now, and this is a program that can start tackling the threat sooner rather than later.

You can find find the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/science/earth/us-pushes-to-cut-emissions-that-speed-climate-change.html?ref=opinion

The Infamous First Post

For the next several weeks, I will be using this blog as a means to analyze and discuss the environmental beat of the New York Times.  It is acting as my Jour200 honors project, and also forcing me to learn how to use modern technology.  Anyway, I hope everyone enjoys it.