Ecology

One of the horrible existential challenges of being a student is that, in most cases, one must at some point leave school and begin work, presumably in an area for which one has been training these many years. For those reading this column, the area of interest is likely environmental, usually expanded these days to include sustainability. Put bluntly, the relevant questions are likely to be "How do I do well and what is the job market like?" Recognizing that planning your career on the basis of a 750-word column is probably not a great idea, here are some thoughts while you hit the books. First, the good news. There are plenty of opportunities to do great things: to help your employer (be it a private firm, government, or NGO), help the world, and feed yourself. Now, the bad news. Most of these opportunities are disguised, most have nothing to do with environment as currently taught and thought about at most schools, many of the opportunities have yet to be invented, and almost any worthwhile job will require that you develop it yourself, from inside.

To begin with, traditional environmental jobs that is, those based on current regulatory and policy structures, primarily cleanup and end-of-pipe emissions control will be with us for a long time, especially in developing countries. They are necessary. But this field is not growing, offers few intellectual challenges, and will have little to do with solving the larger problems of the anthropogenic world albeit improving health significantly in developing countries. So if you really want to help the environment in the broader sense - perturbed climatic and oceanic systems; anthropogenic carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and hydrologic system changes; biosphere disruptions - this is not the place for you.

The next step up is a position in the "sustainability industry." Superficially, at least, such jobs, which are frequently with niche consulting firms, are broader in scope and offer more intellectual opportunities. But caution is in order. The term "sustainability" has now grown to be so politically correct, and at the same time flown so far beyond mere ambiguity, that there is no substantive content to much of this work. In too many cases, it now amounts to a somewhat patronizing, highly ingrown dialog within a small circle of friends that tend to regard themselves as the great and the good, and spend a lot of time reinforcing one another's mental models.

The result is a nouveau utopianism that has tenuous connections with the real world, except for the few that are already True Believers. Thus, for example, I recently participated in a sustainability workshop where one conclusion was that firms should exist not for profit, but only to redistribute income (and that, by the way, money should be banned). Those with any historical background will recognize that this proposed policy closely tracks that of the early Leninist/Marxist Soviet Union. They did ban money - and the economy collapsed. Moreover, you can imagine how the typical executive would greet such a proposal as a model for how his/her firm could be "sustainable."

So, be careful if you want to work in this area. Before you jump in, you may want to work inside a firm first to get an idea of what companies really are like. It will help you maintain perspective. There are a few real opportunities - but caveat emptor.

So what to do? Back to first principles. The challenge of environmental (and related social) issues is precisely that they have become so all encompassing. They are not separable from the messy, multidisciplinary worlds of commerce, of ordinary life, of birth and death, of long natural cycles. So the kinds of things that contribute most to social and environmental progress - employee telework options, efficient network routing algorithms for air and ground transport systems, low-energy and reduced-water manufacturing technologies - come not from the environmental staff, but from the core operating competencies - engineers, business planners, product designers, and others. So, by all means remain committed to sustainability, but get expertise in international business, chemical engineering, or finance. Then, when you get your non-environmental, line position, you can start to change the world.

WORKING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT - INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

A while ago, I was reading an article on pollution prevention written by an ex-EPA consultant, and was both amused and somewhat surprised to see "industrial ecology" identified as industry green wash.

My first response, of course, was dismissive: didn't the author realize that meaningful environmental progress could be achieved only through such systematic approaches as industrial ecology, and its implementation through (for example) Design for Environment and Life Cycle Assessment methodologies?

Indeed, pollution prevention as usually interpreted by environmental regulators is a singularly limited concept, a relatively insignificant extension of end-of-pipe approaches, and it requires something like industrial ecology to energize it.

But my initial reaction was both unfair and superficial. The author was not really reacting to industrial ecology as laid out in existing texts or as being implemented in some firms today. Rather, the article implicitly made an important point about the nature of "environment" itself: the very concept (and closely related concepts such as "wilderness" and "nature") is constructed from underlying mental models, which may differ significantly and carry very different policy and governance implications.

Thus, "industrial ecology" does not enter the environmental discourse as an objective concept (although industrial ecology studies strive for objectivity and good science). Rather, an environmentalist will see it as a response to growing political pressure by powerful administrative and bureaucratic systems, with a belief system based on scientific and technical rationality - as, in short, a defensive thrust based on a state/corporatist managerialism mental model.

Seen in this light, the concept carries several implications which to an environmentalist may be problematic: a powerful (and polluting) elite co-opting "real" environmentalism; establishment of a playing field (high technology and industrial systems) which implicitly degrades the knowledge base and operational characteristics of traditional environmental NGOs; and, more subtle but all the more powerful for that, a vision of a future "sustainable" world based on a high technology, urbanized society as opposed to an agrarian, localized world with large portions of limits to people.

It was important, therefore, not to take that article as just a naive rejection of industrial ecology and its promise, but to understand it as a reflection of deeply conflicting worldviews which were all the more critical for being implicit and, to a large extent, even unconscious.

And, of course, these two mental models - call them the managerialistic and the edenistic - are not the only common ones. Others which might be identified include the "authoritarian" (environmental crises require centralized authoritarian institutions); "communal" (with the caution that some communities can be extraordinarily violent towards minorities and outsiders); "ecosocialist" (capitalistic exploitation of workers and commoditization of the world are the source of environmental degradation); "ecofeminist" (male exploitation of nature andм women derive from the same power drive, and must be addressed concomitantly) and "pluralistic liberalism" (open collaboration involving diverse interests is the proper process to achieve environmental progress).

All of these raise some very difficult questions. For example, ecosocialism is somewhat tarnished by the abysmal environmental record of Eastern European communist governments.

The obvious question for the manager blessed with the opportunity to manage among these minefields is which one of these mental models is "right"? The unfortunate truth is that we as a society are not ready to answer that question yet.

This is not just because most people - environmental professionals, environmentalists, regulators, industry leaders - are naive positivists, and therefore unwilling or unable for the most part to recognize their own mental models, much less to respect other parties' mental models.

It also reflects a disturbing and almost complete ignorance about the implications of each model for the real world. What levels of human population, of biodiversity, of economic activity, would each mental model imply? What kind of governance structure? Who would win and who would lose (more precisely, what would the distributional effects of each model be)?

The important point, I think, is not the correctness of any particular model. Rather, it is the need to under- stand that differences among stakeholders in environmental disputes may arise not just from factual or economic disagreements, but from differences in fundamental worldviews - and that, at present, our current knowledge cannot anoint any particular one as "privileged."

A little sensitivity to how one's position and practices are understood by others can go a long way towards facilitating collaborations, which are both necessary and plenty difficult as it is. Before one too readily criticizes others, one should recall the Socratic admonition and know thyself - and thy mental models.

PRE-CAMBRIAN PERIOD

The Earth formed under so much heat and pressure that it formed as a molten planet. For nearly the first billion years of its formation - called the Hadean Period (or "hellish" period) - Earth was bombarded continuously by the remnants of the dust and debris - like asteroids, meteors and comets - until it formed into a solid sphere, fell into an orbit around the sun, and began to cool down.

As Earth began to take solid form, it had no free oxygen in its atmosphere. It was so hot that the water droplets in its atmosphere could not settle to form surface water or ice. Its atmosphere was also so poisonous that nothing would have been able to survive.

Earth's early atmosphere most likely resembled that of Jupiter's atmosphere, which contains hydrogen, helium, methane and ammonia, and is poisonous to humans.

Earth's atmosphere was formed mostly from the out gassing of such volatile compounds as water vapor, carbon monoxide, methane, ammonia, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrochloric acid and sulfur produced by the constant volcanic eruptions that besieged the Earth. It had no free oxygen.

About 4.1 billion years ago, the Earth's surface - or crust - began to cool and stabilize, creating the solid surface with its rocky terrain. Clouds formed as the Earth began to cool, producing enormous volumes of rain - water that formed the oceans. For the next 1.3 billion years (3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago), called the Archean Period, first life began to appear (at least as far as our fossil records tell us... there may have been life before this!) and the world's landmasses began to form. Earth's initial life forms were bacteria, which could survive in the highly toxic atmosphere that existed during this time. In fact, all life was bacteria during the Archean Period.

Toward the end of the Archean Period and at the beginning of the Proterozoic Period, about 2.5 billion years ago, oxygen-forming photosynthesis began to occur. The first fossils, in fact, were a type of blue-green algae that could photosynthesize.

Some of the most exciting events in Earth's history and life occurred during this time, which spanned about two billion years until about 550 million years ago. The continents began to form and stabilize, creating the super continent Rodinia about 1.1 billion years ago. (Rodinia is widely accepted as the first super continent, but there were probably others before it.) Although Rodinia is composed of some of the same land fragments as the more popular super continent, Pangea, they are two different super continents. Pangea formed some 225 million years ago and would evolve into the seven continents we know today.

Earth's atmosphere was first supplied by the gasses expelled from the massive volcanic eruptions of the Hadean Era. These gases were so poisonous, and the world was so hot, that nothing could survive. As the planet began to cool, its surface solidified as a rocky terrain, much like Mar's surface and the oceans began to form as the water vapor condensed into rain. First life came from the oceans. Free oxygen began to build up around the middle of the Proterozoic Period around 1.8 billion years ago - and made way for the emergence of life, as we know it today. This event, of course, created conditions that would not allow most of the existing life to survive and thus made way for the more oxygen dependent life forms.

By the end of the Proterozoic Period, Earth was well along in its evolutionary processes leading to our current period, the Holocene Period, also known as the Age of Man. Thus, about 550 million years ago, the Cambrian Period began. During this period, life "exploded" developing almost all of the major groups of plants and animals in a relatively short time. It ended with the massive extinction of most of the existing species about 500 million years ago, making room for the future appearance and evolution of new plant and animal species.

And then, about 498 million years later - 2.2 million years ago - the first modern human species emerged.

EARTH'S TRUE VITAL SIGNS REVEALED FROM SPACE

Circling the Earth 16 times a day 438 miles above the surface, new satellite technology is revolutionizing earth science and now scientists are able to understand the health of the planet and distinguish between human impact and natural phenomenon. On February 4, scientists began collecting images of the earth's vital signs from its bus-sized Terra satellite, the flagship of NASA's 15-year Earth Observing System (EOS). EOS is an international collaboration designed to help scientists develop those answers about Earth's climate and environmental changes that have not been available before.

Though the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, the earliest ancestors of the human race only appeared between three and four million years ago, according to most scientists. This is only one-tenth of one percent of Earth's time span, a relatively insignificant period. Even the first known civilization did not appear until about 6,000 BC. But since the dawn of humankind, the earth supplied all of their wants and needs, which led to settled life in groups or villages. Yet during the entire lifespan of the earth, natural geologic forces have constantly been changing and rearranging the planet's features, climate and environment. And now, there is "compelling evidence that human activities have attained the magnitude of geological force and are speeding up the rates of global change," according to Dr. Yoram Kaufman, Terra Project Scientist.

According to Dr. Kaufman, these changes have occurred without much knowledge at all about their impact on earth's life systems. "Scientists don't understand the cause-and-effect relationships among Earth's lands, oceans, and atmosphere well enough to predict what, if any, impacts these rapid changes will have on future climate conditions," he said.

This image from Terra shows chlorophyll concentrations and phytoplankton health in the Arabian Sea via its MODIS instrument.

"There are some basic questions about the Earth system that need to be answered in order to understand our world's climate system well enough to predict future changes, and how those changes may impact our quality of life," - said Dr. Kaufman during a recent NASA news briefing in Washington, DC. "Terra data, along with other measurements, will feed earth science models so we can predict climate variations and climate change, and prepare for the future. We anticipate that Terra data will revolutionize our understanding of the Earth's climate system and help show the human impact," - he continued. "Terra is measuring a wide array of vital signs, many of them for the first time, to help us understand our planet, to distinguish between natural and man-made climate change, and to show us how the Earth's climate affects the quality of our lives."

Dr. Kaufman describes that this revolution in earth science is necessary to help in the understanding of our world's climate systems enough to accurately predict changes and how those changes will impact quality of life. Questions, which need to be answered, include "How are the soils and vegetation types changing around the world?"

"What are the changes in the extent of snow and ice, and why are 2 - 3 of the world's glaciers disappearing each week?"

"What are the variations in the phytoplankton in the ocean and how are these plants affected by windblown Saharan dust?"

"What is the concentration of atmospheric airborne particles and gaseous pollutants, and how do they affect the ability of the atmosphere to cleanse itself?"

"What fraction originates from natural or man-made sources?"

"How do the availability of water vapor and the presence of pollutants affect cloud formation, properties and precipitation?"

"Is the Earth system taking in more radiant energy than it reflects and emits back into space, or is the radiation budget in balance (global warming)?"

"Is there a change in the frequency of wild fires, floods & volcanic eruptions?"

"Is the frequency related to climate change?"

The Terra observatory uses five instruments to thoroughly study and track Earth's vital systems: Land,

Ocean, Atmosphere, and the life, exchange of nutrients, carbon, heat, moisture and pollution among them. The first instrument is called the Moderate-resolution Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MODIS). MODIS provides frequent global views of changes occurring within the Earth system, including the study of snow and ice cover, cloud cover and cloud type, vegetation cover and other land covers, the temperature of the oceans, and the study of plant life on land and in the oceans.

This thermal infrared image shows the urban heat island effect in the San Francisco Bay area through Terra's ASTER instrument.

The second instrument is the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) that physically characterizes the Earth's surface, atmosphere, and clouds, and how they interact with sunlight, the primary energy source for Earth's climate system. The third instrument, the Advanced Space borne Thermal Emission and Reflection radiometer (ASTER) is a joint US-Japan project provided by Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry. It is the zoom lens of the Terra satellite. The primary goals of ASTER are to characterize the Earth's surface and to monitor dynamic events and processes that influence habitability at human scales. The Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) is a fourth instrument that helps scientists to determine the amount of carbon monoxide and methane at different altitudes in the atmosphere. MOPITT is a joint effort of the US and Canada.

The final instrument is called Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES), which measures reflective sunlight. Measuring the energy emitted by the surface and atmosphere of the Earth, CERES monitors the balance of the "radiation budget" which indicates whether the earth is warming or cooling. If the radiation budget if perfectly balanced, the earth should neither be warming nor cooling.

THE OZONE LAYER

Although ozone (O3) is present in small concentrations throughout the atmosphere, most ozone (about 90 %) exists in the stratosphere, in a layer between 10 and 50 km above the surface of the earth. This ozone layer performs the essential task of filtering out most of the sun's biologically harmful ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation. Concentrations of ozone in the atmosphere vary naturally according to temperature, weather, latitude and altitude. Furthermore, aerosols and other particles ejected by natural events such as volcanic eruptions can have measurable impacts on ozone levels.

THE OZONE HOLE

In 1985, scientists identified a thinning of the ozone layer over the Antarctic during the spring months, which became known as the "ozone hole". The scientific evidence shows that human-made chemicals are responsible for the creation of the Antarctic ozone hole and are also likely to play a role in global ozone losses.

Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) have been used in many products which take advantage of their physical properties (e.g. chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have been used as aerosol propellants and refrigerants).

CFCs are broken down by sunlight in the stratosphere, producing halogen (e.g. chlorine) atoms, which subsequently destroy ozone through a complex catalytic cycle. Ozone destruction is greatest at the South Pole where very low stratospheric temperatures in winter create polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). Ice crystals formed in PSCs provide a large surface area for chemical reactions, accelerating catalytic cycles. The destruction of ozone also involves sunlight, so the process intensifies during springtime, when the levels of solar radiation at the pole are highest, and PSCs are continually present.

Although ozone levels vary seasonally, stratospheric ozone levels have been observed to be decreasing annually since the 1970s. Mid-latitudes have experienced greater losses than equatorial regions. In 1997, the Antarctic ozone hole covered 24 million km2 in October, with an average of 40 % ozone depletion and ozone levels in Scandinavia, Greenland and Siberia reached an unprecedented 45 % depletion in 1996.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH EFFECTS

The amount of UV reaching the earth's surface has been shown to correlate with the extent of ozone depletion. In 1997, UV-B levels continued to rise at a rate of 2 % per annum. Increased UV levels at the earth's surface are damaging to human health, air quality, biological life, and certain materials such as plastics. Human health effects include increases in the incidence of certain types of skin cancers, cataracts and immune deficiency disorders. Increased penetration of UV results in additional production of ground level ozone, which causes respiratory illnesses. Biologically, UV affects terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, altering growth, food chains and biochemical cycles. In particular, aquatic life occurring just below the surface of the water, where plant species forming the basis of the food chain are most abundant, are adversely affected by elevated levels of UV radiation. The tensile properties of certain plastics can be affected by exposure to UV radiation. Depletion of stratospheric ozone also alters the temperature distribution in the atmosphere, resulting in indeterminate environmental and climatic impacts.

FUTURE PERSPECTIVE

Despite existing regulation of ODS, there continues to be severe ozone depletion and maximum stratospheric levels of chlorine and bromine are predicted to occur only during the next decade. Without further measures, the ozone hole will continue to exist beyond 2050. However, the success of the Montreal Protocol has already been observed in terms of changes in the concentrations of man-made chlorine-containing chemicals in the troposphere (i.e. the rates of release of ODS to the atmosphere have been reduced). Additional measures are currently being proposed by the European Commission to accelerate the phase out of various ODS and there by to provide much-needed additional protection for the ozone layer.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER

You have already taken the first steps to help protect the ozone layer by informing yourself of the problem and its causes. Try to find out as much as you can about the problem from publications, schools or public libraries. The only way to mend the ozone hole is to stop the release of CFCs and other ozone depleting substances (ODS) into the atmosphere. European legislation aims to achieve this by phasing out ODS as soon as viable alternatives become available, and where no such alternatives are available, restricting the use of these substances as far as possible. However, there are a number of practical initiatives, which can be taken at the individual level to help protect the ozone layer: try to use products, which are labeled "ozone-friendly".

Ensure technicians repairing your refrigerator or air conditioner recover and recycle the old CFCs so they are not released into the atmosphere.

Vehicle air conditioning units should regularly be checked for leaks.

Ask about converting your car to a substitute refrigerant if the a/c system needs major repair.

Remove the refrigerant from refrigerators, air conditioners, and dehumidifiers before disposing of them.

Help start a refrigerant recovery and recycling program in your area if none already exists.

Suggest school activities to increase awareness of the problem and to initiate local action.

PROTECTING YOURSELF FROM UV RADIATION

There is a direct link between increased exposure to UV radiation and elevated risk of contracting certain types of skin cancers. Risk factors include skin type, sunburn during childhood, and exposure to intense sunlight. Recent changes in lifestyle, with more people going on holiday and deliberately increasing their exposure to strong sunlight, are partly responsible for an increase in malignant skin cancers. In order to minimize the risk of contracting skin cancer, cover exposed skin with clothing or with a suitable sunscreen, wear a hat, and wear UV-certified sunglasses to protect the eyes.

CARBON MONOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE

Human activities cause nearly half of the world's carbon monoxide pollution. It is produced by the deficient or incomplete combustion of gasoline and other fossil fuels such as used in automobiles, furnaces and industry, as well as by the burning of natural organic matter such as wood and grasses (from fireplaces to forest fires). Not only is carbon monoxide dangerous by itself, but it also produces ozone, a greenhouse gas that forms naturally in the upper atmosphere but is dangerous to humans.

According to NASA, Terra has allowed scientists to observe carbon monoxide in the atmosphere from two to three miles above the Earth's surface where it forms ozone through interaction with other gases. Once the pollutant moves higher in the atmosphere, high winds can blow it rapidly across great distances. By tracking this movement, scientists can also track the movement of other pollutants that are also produced by combustion but are not easily detected from space.

Using the Data Such technology not only gives scientists details on the state of the Earth's current condition, but the information it produces will help scientists, engineers, researchers, consumers and industry plan a course of action to correct the problems. People have known for years that the burning of fossil fuels and organic matter creates pollution, but technology such as the Terra satellite provides specific detail on what happens to that pollution. Contrary to many theories and common beliefs that air pollution simply dissipates in the atmosphere or is remedied by Earth's natural processes, we have learned that these pollutants not only can remain in the atmosphere for very long periods of time, but they can reach anywhere in the world. The Antarctic is a very good example. This pristine, ice-covered continent is untouched by industry and dense human populations that are strong sources of pollution. Yet, traces of these pollutants can be found in Antarctica's ice shelves and the seawaters that surround it.

Methane hydrates, found in large deposits underneath ocean floors, could meet the world's energy needs for centuries, but mining them and their environmental impact are still questionable.

Armed with this information, scientists and engineers - supported by industry - are racing to develop alternative energy to the point where it can effectively and affordably replace the need for fossil fuels, and to find ways to burn fossil fuels more efficiently. Already, hybrid combustion cars - which operate primarily from an electric engine and is supported by a separate combustion engine when needed - have entered the mass market- place and are expected to develop firm roots among consumer over the next ten years. The hybrid automobile is seen as a bridge between today's all-combustion engines and the non-combustion engines of the future. Solar energy is slowly becoming utilized as a feasible alternative form of energy, but has not yet been able to meet the extraordinary energy demands of industry. Water and wind have been tapped as energy sources throughout history, and they will continue to serve as important sources for part of the world's energy needs.

The key challenges may not be pollution so much as the dwindling fossil fuel reserves that remain. With fossil fuels being consumed faster than they form, we can expect to deplete them before the end of this century.

Methane hydrates could solve the planet's energy needs for centuries to come, but the impact they could have on the environment is poorly understood.

THE PROJECT: REDUCE POLLUTION

What are SО2, NOx, and CO2? How do they contribute to pollution?

CO2. Carbon dioxide is the principle "greenhouse gas" implicated in global warming. CO2 is released into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Coal is particularly dirty, producing about twice as much CO2 for the same amount of power as natural gas. CO2 is also generated in smaller amounts by forest clearing and cement production.

NOx. Nitrogen oxides cause smog, irritate the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. Smog is formed when nitrogen oxides, which are emitted by burning fossil fuels at electric power plants and in automobiles, mix with other chemicals in the air, sunlight, and heat. The two largest sources of smog-forming pollution are motor vehicles (30 %) and power plants (26 %).

The effects of short-term exposure to nitrogen oxides are still unclear, but continued or frequent exposure to concentrations higher than normal may cause increased incidence of acute respiratory disease in children.

Nitrogen oxides are an important precursor to both ozone and acidic acid rain and can affect both land and water ecosystems.

SO2. Sulfur dioxide comes from the combustion of fuel containing sulfur, mostly coal and oil. It is also produced during metal smelting and other industrial processes. The major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations of SO2 include effects on breathing, respiratory illness, alterations in the lung's defenses, and aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease. While everybody is adversely impacted by SO2 to some degree, people that are particularly at risk include asthmatics and individuals with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease, as well as children and the elderly.

WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING AND WHY ARE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS RAISING THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE?

Increases in concentrations of carbon dioxide and other pollutants contribute to global warming, which is predicted to raise average temperatures, alter precipitation patterns, and raise sea levels. These changes may negatively impact our quality of life, including increases in infectious diseases, respiratory illness, and weather-related deaths. Global warming may also decrease crop yields, water quality, and regional forest health and productivity. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been increasing at a rate of about 0.5 % per year and are now about 30 % above pre-industrial levels.

HOW DOES SO2 CREATE ACID RAIN?

Scientists have confirmed that sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the primary causes of acid rain. Acid rain occurs when these gases react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form various acidic compounds. Sunlight increases the rate of most of these reactions. The result is a mild solution of sulfuric acid and nitric acid.

WHAT IS THE ELPC?

The Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) is the Midwest's leading public interest environmental legal advocacy and eco-business innovation organization. We develop and lead successful strategic environmental advocacy campaigns to protect our natural resources and improve environmental quality. We are public interest environmental entrepreneurs who engage in creative business deal making with diverse interests to put into practice our belief that environmental progress and economic development can be achieved together. ELPC's multidisciplinary staff of experienced public interests attorneys, environmental business specialists, and policy advocates and communications specialists brings a strong and effective combination of skills to solve environmental problems. ELPC promotes development of clean energy efficiency and renewable energy resources to reduce pollution from coal and nuclear plants, advocates high-speed rail and smart growth planning solutions to combat sprawl, and implements sound environmental management practices to preserve natural resources and improve the quality of life in our communities. Our vision embraces both smart, persuasive advocacy and sustainable development principles to win the most important environmental cases and issues in the Midwest.

AS THE EARTH WARMS: THE THINNING OF THE ARCTIC ICE CAP

The geographic North Pole was last covered with water about 50 million years ago, during the early part of the present Cenozoic Era. Known as the age of Mammalsо and the recent Life Era, this modern age, which saw the dawn of human beings began 65 million years ago.

This global view of the Arctic Ocean, captured using advanced radar that sees through all weather conditions, is enabling researchers to determine how global warming may be affecting the Polar Ice Cap. The Arctic sea ice is providing clues to the Earth's overall climatic condition.

During the Cenozoic Era, the continents that formed Pangea, the super continent, had begun to move into their present positions. As these continents drifted northward, they formed the shoreline of the Arctic Ocean, which lies directly over and around the geographic North Pole.

About 15 million years into the Cenozoic Era (about 50 million years ago), the Arctic Ice Cap formed over the Arctic Ocean, virtually covering the entire sea with a sheet of ice. As the continents continued to move, climatic changes brought about by shifts in water and air currents caused the Earth to gradually cool down. This created the glaciers that mostly dominated the land masses through the end of the Great Ice Age in the Pleistocene Epoch, about 10,000 to 1.8 million years ago, and that still exist today on Greenland.

The same climatic conditions that created the glaciers, which are essentially great ice sheets formed on land, also formed the Arctic Ice Cap. Yet the ice sheet covering the Arctic Ocean rests directly on top of the ocean instead of land, and it has remained relatively stable and frozen since it was formed...

The Arctic Ice Cap is shrinking dramatically. Roughly the size of the United States, it has lost an area roughly the combined size of Massachusetts and Connecticut each year since the late 1970s. Since the 1950s, when data was first collected on the Arctic, the ice cap has lost nearly 22 % of its volume. It is projected that in another 50 years, nearly half of the Arctic Ice Cap will be gone.

So what is going on? We know that the Arctic Ice Cap, frozen for 50 million years, is melting. We also know that above normal Arctic temperatures from the ocean water to the air currents account for the melting. Global warming is real, and the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap is one of its symptoms.

Scientists have determined that the Earth's surface temperature has increased an average of 1 °F since the beginning of the 20th century, which is enough to trigger significant global climatic changes. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 20th century was the warmest century of the last millennium, and the 1990s was the warmest decade. Increased average temperatures have been recorded in both the southern and northern hemispheres, although some regions have recorded cooler temperatures.

Using the best available data, many scientists believe this warming trend will cause an additional 5 - 10 °F increase in the average global temperature in the next century. Still, there are many scientists who believe the global warming trend may reverse itself within the next century. The fact is, there is not enough known about WHY the climate is changing the way it is for scientists to determine what really is going on or what will happen in the future.

But there is enough information to tell us several things.

1. Human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, is releasing enormous volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are contributing to the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, the Earth's natural process of trapping the sun's warmth. About 5 - 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide are emitted each year due to human activity. This increase results in additional heat being trapped within the Earth's atmosphere.

2. The Polar Ice Cap itself reflects sunlight energy (heat) back into space, rather than the heat being absorbed by the Earth. This is called albedo, the amount of sunlight reflected by an object. As the Ice Cap melts however, the albedo is reduced and the Earth absorbs the energy that is not reflected. Thus, more heat is retained in the Arctic.

3. The Earth's natural carbon cycling process the amount of carbon dioxide that enters and leaves the atmosphere as a result of the natural cycle of water exchange from and back into the sea and plants account for about 95 % of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which contributes to the greenhouse effect.

4. Ocean waters constantly move along a giant oceanic conveyer belt, which travels, from the North Atlantic to the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. This circulation distributes warm tropical waters northward, which are then chilled and returned to the warmer southern oceans. This heat exchange also has a significant impact on global weather patterns.

Ocean waters are constantly on the move, carrying warmer waters north toward the Arctic and cooler waters south to the temperate and tropical zones. This ocean circulation is referred to as the great oceanic conveyer belt, which is a single continuous current that carries chilled water from the North Atlantic into the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific basins. The conveyer belt returns water warmed in the tropics back to the North Atlantic.

Ocean currents also affect global heat exchange by redistributing heat, especially in coastal regions. In fact, the oceans have the greatest impact on the Earth's climate.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

The point is that while all of these things are taking place at the same time none of them exists in a vacuum. They are all interrelated and can have a reciprocating effect on each other. To what extent, scientists do not know at this point.

The climatic changes that are taking place can have profound impacts on the Earth's ecosystems, human health, plant and animal species. Scientists fear that continued melting of sea ice could weaken the North Atlantic Current, the northward continuation of the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream transports 25 times more water than all the Earth's rivers, and a diversion could result in extremely cold winters in the North Atlantic regions, especially in northern Europe.

There are many-fold scenarios; however, human-induced global warming is one that we should pay close attention to because we can control it. If we can reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, it could have a penetrating effect on the natural climatic occurrences that have been affected by human activity. Scientists project that the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere in the next 30 years will double or triple. The number of cars in operation around the world will double by the year 2030.

ARCTIC ICE DELUGE

One concern that most people have with regard to the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap is the eventual flooding of the landmasses. What is commonly misunderstood is that the Arctic Ice Cap is relatively thin, about 10 feet thick on average.

And about 90 % of that is already displacing the water (taking up space that would otherwise be occupied by water). Thus, even a complete melting of the Arctic Ice Cap would only result in a small increase in sea water level.

Antarctica is a continental landmass 98 % covered by thick ice sheets. It contains 70 % of Earth's fresh water and 90 % of Earth's ice. The average ice thickness is 1.5 miles, reaching 3 miles deep in some regions.

The major concern, however, would be the increase of fresh, cold water into the marine environment. This would alter ecosystems and the food chain dependent on the saline waters would funnel more cold water into the oceanic conveyer belt. As a result, you would see a global climate change due to the introduction of the additional cold water into the southern oceans, and you would see a displacement of plant and animals species dependent on the more saline ecosystems. Some animal species will, of course, retreat to the land-based ecosystems.

TRACKING AIR POLLUTION FROM SPACE

NASA's Terra spacecraft is providing scientists the most complete view of global pollution. Terra sees C in the atmosphere from 2 - 3 miles above the surface, where it interacts with other gases and forms ozone.

NASA's Terra Spacecraft has assembled the first ever-complete view of the world's air pollution as it treks around the globe. Terra's new global air pollution monitor, contributed by the Canadian Space Agency, allows scientists to identify the major sources of air pollution and see what happens to it anywhere on the planet.

Terra is one of the United State's major Earth-observing satellite systems (EOS), designed for the accumulation of data needed to predict future changes in the global environment.

It takes pictures with digital cameras, about 435 miles (700 km) above the Earth, basically to catch reflected sunlight and released heat on or from the Earth, rather than scanning the global surface by microwaves.

Unlike other satellites, Terra travels in a North-South polar orbit.

Through Terra, which launched in December 1999, air pollution is clearly identified as a global problem, with pollution from sources in one region having a dramatic impact on others. Among the greatest impacts observed so far there is the transcontinental drift of an immense carbon monoxide plume from a source in South-east Asia across the Pacific to North America. The pollution reaches North America in fairly high concentrations. In the winter, a major source of pollution captured by Terra is the burning of fossil fuels for mass transportation and business and residential heating in the northern regions of the planet, which is observed traversing a majority of the hemisphere.

A NEW LOOK AT HUMAN EXTINCTION

The very powerful technologies of the new Millennium - from robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnologies - "are threatening to make humans an endangered species," according to the April 2000 issue of

"Wired Magazine" ("Why the Future Doesn't Need Us") in an article by Billy Joy, co-founder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems. As man's dependence on technology continues to substantially increase, so does his progress in developing intelligent machines that can and will do all things better than humans can do them-selves. In a way, it is the technological version of Charles Darwin's "survival of the fitted." If technological evolution reaches the point where sophisticated systems of machines can function on a cognitive level, and make decisions and perform tasks without the need for any human intervention whatsoever, then, as Mr. Joy points out, the human race would be at the mercy of machines.

So, why doesn't the future need us? Mr. Joy covers this possibility in extraordinary thought which considers a simple theme in our efforts to improve the quality of our lives, we - humans - strive to make things that can do things better than we can ourselves. In so doing, we create things that replace what humans once did exclusively. Just consider such simple creations as the calculator, remote control devices, personal computers and microwave ovens.

Yet, the 21st century will provide such compelling technologies as genetic engineering and nanotechnologies (work at the atomic, as opposed to the molecular level) that have the potential to threaten any human involvement whatsoever - far more than the simpler technologies of yore. According to Joy, "Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots (robots on the atomic level) share a dangerous amplifying factor: they can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once - but one can become many, and quickly get out of control." And the risk of this would be substantial damage to the physical world, the environment on which humans and all of

Earth's other organic co-inhabitants depend.

The promises of these new technologies are equally powerful: virtual immortality, providing treatments and cures for almost every disease, and solutions and advances that could expand the human life span indefinitely and improve the quality of our lives - particularly the environment. All the while, Joy says, "with each of these technologies, a sequence of small, individually sensible advances leads to an accumulation of great power, and, concomitantly [coupled with], real danger."

Simply getting rid of machines would be suicide, Joy points out. So perhaps an equally viable option is that human progress be tempered with the care of ensuring that human involvement remains essential to that progress, thereby ensuring that human needs are maintained and the quality of life improved. While it's true that machines and other products of our technologies have no consciousness, it does not mean that they will not some day have the cognitive qualities to perform tasks as humans do. Today, that is called science fiction.

But as we have learned from our science fiction literature of the past, such things are based on real possibilities, many of which we have already witnessed in our lifetime, such as space travel, visiting other planets, the creation of the atomic bomb, nuclear power and machines that will talk to you. Perhaps English author H.G.

Wells, considered by many to be the father of modern science fiction, could foresee such human decline "at a time when civilization passes it zenith," when he authored his first literary work, "The Time Machine" in 1895.

In speaking of the result of human progress witnessed far into the future by the Time Traveler, he wrote: "The great triumph of Humanity I had dreamed of took a different shape in my mind. It had been no such triumph of moral education and general co-operation as I had imagined. Instead, I saw a real aristocracy, armed with a perfected science and working to a logical conclusion the industrial system of today. Its triumph had not been simply a truth over Nature, but a triumph over Nature and the fellow man."