Humpback whale

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/humpback-whale-is-stuck-off-sandy-hook/?scp=6&sq=garbage%20waste%20in%20ocean&st=cse

This article is about how large whales, such as the humpback whale described in the article, are getting caught in large fishing nets. Although not a huge threat to the whale population, it shows how bad commercial fishing is. Whales are already in trouble, and this is just another problem to add to their list. Generally roughly 30 whales get caught in nets each year, and those are only reported cases. The problem is that it is very hard to spot a netted whale. Often the whale can escape, but it brings along with it some of the net, which drags it down. Also the whale could just die if not seen early enough from starvation, the body sinks and so there could very well be many more unreported cases of net deaths. The main problem with actually rescuing the whale is that it is in pain because of the net, so when the divers go in to help it most likely connects it's pain with the divers, not helping the situation. The divers also use very sharp knives, which is also very dangerous to both diver and whale. I found this article to be very sad and almost unsurprising. This is just another example of how horrible commercial fishing is. The bycatch from this type of large net fishing is ridiculous and the whales are just one species that suffers from commercial fishing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/science/earth/10climate.html?ref=science

This article is about the pressure on the people attending the UN climate change convention. They need to reach some sort of deal before the top ministers (like Obama) come to the convention. The most important people come last to the convention just to make sure the deal is well made and to sign it. The US is being very stubborn in negotiations; our representative is refusing any deal that has to do with the US paying developing countries billions of dollars to help them go green. The reason the US is wanted to do this is because we have been a huge factor in climate change over the past 200 years. We claim, however, that no one knew about it until recently so it would be unfair for us to pay. We seem to be coming to the agreement to pay, along with other developed countries, developing countries in the most dire need of help with flood control and water supplies, as climate change is affecting them. I think this is absolutely ridiculous. This convention was supposed to be about a huge new deal coming out that would change the world, this is not what is happening at all. We are again trying to delay the inevitable by fixing the problems in the present rather than looking to the future. Although most of the developed countries are going to make an effort to go more green, it will not be enough because the major problems are the developing countries and China.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/science/earth/02iht-euclimate.html?_r=1&ref=science

This article is about the next UN conference to establish a new plan on conserving energy and lowering carbon emissions. This is a follow up of my earlier article, but now there is a large controversy. The European Union includes some of the greenest countries in the world. They want to be a fairly large influence in this upcoming conference. The problem is is that they are not a "superpower" like the US and China. These two countries are basically running the show, while the EU is taking a back seat. It has been infuriating for the EU because China and the US are making deals between themselves rather than with the UN. Another problem is the cost, different energy businesses, like oil companies, will not agree to much unless most other countries do also. This is creating problems because it is becoming very hard for any agreement to occur. I think this is all ridiculous. The more prominent countries should take control and not let the oil companies decide what is going to happen. If anything is going to be done we are going to need help from the EU, as they have the most experience, yet they are being disregarded. Something big needs to be done at this conference because we are not at all living a sustainable lifestyle today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17tumor.html?_r=1&ref=science

This article is about doctors finding a better way to treat cancer patients, especially ones with brain cancer. They now figured out how to more directly attack the tumor, rather than use chemotherapy throughout the whole body. It limits the side effects and allows them to use more potent poisons to kill the cancer. Doctors will now use extremely small tubes, called microcatheters, this allows them to directly spray the chemotherapy onto the tumor allowing for a more effective treatment of the cancer. I thought this was a really cool idea in that they're using older techniques for modern medicine. Microcatheters were originally used for people who had strokes, but now they can use them for chemotherapy. I think this is a major breakthrough for cancer treatment. This could also be a bad thing, as more people will survive and this will mean more population problems. This is a great break through though and many people will be saved because of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/business/energy-environment/11oil.html?ref=science

This article is about how the world's countries are finally getting a wake-up call. A major forecasting agency predicted that our current energy policy is not sustainable and that in 2030 global demand for electricity will have increased by 73 %. Our reliance on coal would grow by 44 %, half of that coming from china. They also said that no matter what the world is going to have to pay for cleaner energy, so we should do it now. If we continue how we are now there will be a dramatic effect on the global climate, temperatures will also rise dramatically. I think this article is ridiculous, scientists have been saying this for years; it's about time we're going to do something about our energy crisis. We should have started this years ago, now it will cost even more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/business/06corn.html?ref=science

This article is about how more and more farmers growing genetically engineered corn are not following the rules set up by EPA. When farmers grow genetically engineered corn they put bacterial genes into the corn DNA, which makes the corn produce a toxin that kills the insects that would eat the corn. The problem with this is that EPA is worried that some insects will become resistant to it. This would have a huge impact on the organically grown corn farmers, who use the same toxins produced by the genetically engineered corn on their organic corn. EPA set up rules for the farmers who genetically alter their crop. These farmers have to also grow regular corn in a close proximity to the genetically altered corn. The idea of this is so the insects will tend to go to the regular corn instead of the resistant corn and also so that if there is a resistant insect, it will have a high probability of mating with an insect that is not resistant, resulting in non-resistant offspring. I thought this was a really good example of how humans should not tamper with certain things in nature. It seems way to risky to me if there was a resistant insect that was to reproduce, it would totally ruin organic farming of corn.