Global Warming Issues

These articles on Global Warming are the original work of our submitters and are here for educational and informational purposes. We provide them for your enjoyment with the expectation that they are not to be plagiarized. Please do not use any part of these articles directly, or reference these articles without proper citations. For more information on plagiarism and correct citation, please click here.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

BEFORE, AFTER, AND THE NEXT 9/11
A post by Dr. Edward Romanoff

As a young man, growing up in Siberia setting fires on thawing permafrost was a favorite past-time. Then, little did I know, these flames were burning methane and I had stumbled on to a contribution to Global Warming, an indication of how the world could end.

In the U.S., I joined the Preventech Foundation the developers of technologies preventing Global Warming.
We submitted these technologies to the authorities, but received no response. Finally, the article in Fresno Bee by Seth Borenstein AP (09/07/06) might convince the Public, that there is no escape from Global Warming. So, we have submitted this technology again! As you may have guessed – no response! History repeats itself – for example, the technology of ‘motioncodes’ which would makes the 9/11 terrorists attack impossible, was submitted one year before 9/11, but again no response!

Actually the scientists receive an automatic electronic form letter, saying “Thank you, we would contact you” – but they never did. Preventive technologies were submitted by different groups of scientists independently from different parts of the world. Ignoring modern technology is the reason why 9/11 did happened.

It appears that the U.S. may not necessarily be destroyed by environmental disaster or by terrorists. Americans could destroy themselves! The mystery – why have Americans decided to self-destruct?

This time we are appealing directly to all citizens. We are looking for a producer to make the multimedia phenomena ‘THE END OF THE LAST EMPIRE’ movie. It would demonstrate technology preventing the END.
The ‘all-in-one’ – drama, horror, suspense and education tool for children, teaching that crime and terrorism will no longer be possible. To avoid the shock and sensationalism the movie will be released as ‘science fiction.’ Once the movie is released, this preventive technology would become every day commodity. Please request for Motion Science Memorandum – the listing of preventive motion devices and systems.

GLOBAL WARMING – WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?
by David Clifton

In the past, whenever global warming was raised as an environmental concern, it was often met with suspicion and doubt. Politicians would point out scientific studies which were inconclusive and showed no definite connection between human activity and global warming. Besides, what would it matter if a few penguins lost real estate; penguins certainly can’t vote, and telling voters to purchase “Environmentally friendly” vehicles instead of that nice new SUV, well that was just not sensible. All of this over some phenomenon that had happened many times in the past. The world regularly changed temperature, significantly changing for long periods of time. Look at the Ice Age. Why bother dealing with something that probably isn’t a threat, and one which might go away in a few years anyway. It certainly isn’t a threat now, so why even bother with it and scare the voters? It wasn’t worth worrying over.

Of course, problems become more difficult to ignore once they become obvious to the general public. Watching glaciers melt, glaciers which had been in existence well before America was founded, was a not-so-subtle hint from nature that perhaps global warming wasn’t just a fad. In the summers of 1998 and 1999, massive heat waves struck across America, delivering temperatures that had never before been attained. It is also difficult to disregard the small changes in sea water elevation, which has slowly but surely been ascending over the past century. Apparently, global warming was more than just a temporary phenomenon, and scientific research showed that global warming was not natural either; it broke away from the established trend. Greenhouse gasses are the cause of global warming, and are released by most forms of power generators. When burned to provide energy, all fossil fuels produce several greenhouse gasses, like carbon dioxide (CO2), which escape into the atmosphere. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, fewer fossil fuels must be burned. Probably the most prominent way an individual person contributes to the problem is by driving an automobile. Burning gasoline produces large amounts of greenhouse gasses and is a primary cause of ‘smog’, an air pollution problem that plagues many major metropolitan areas. Because of gasoline’s contribution, several alternatives have been developed, or are in development which could potentially replace gasoline some time in the future.

Currently, the most promising of these is ethanol. Ethanol, CH3CH2OH, is an alcohol made from cellulose. Cellulose is everywhere, all plants are made of it, and so are many plant by-products, like paper and cardboard. In fact, most of the ‘biomass’ thrown away each year consists of cellulose. Potentially then, garbage could be converted into ethanol, and replace a significant portion of gasoline with an ecological substitute. However, transforming most types of cellulose is a process currently beyond our ability to carry out efficiently. Most ethanol is made in a dry mill from corn kernels, which are put through an eight step process.

One of the primary reasons that ethanol is viewed as a viable alternative to gasoline is substantially reduced effect it has on the environment. Ethanol is completely biodegradable, and burns considerably cleaner than gasoline — so much so that a 10% ethanol blend has a significant effect. Otherwise known as E10, 10% ethanol 90% gasoline can be used as fuel by any car. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 12-19%, depending on other factors. This alone has a substantial effect, and in 2005, ethanol blends reduced carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 7 million tons in the USA alone. This is the equivalent of removing one million vehicles from the street. Another blend of Ethanol is E85, 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. This blend can only be used in certain car models, but it is even more environmentally friendly. E85 is not especially common now, but if more cars are manufactured to use it, then it could potentially reduce the rate of gasoline consumption.

The reason that ethanol is environmentally friendly, while gasoline is not, lies in the source of the carbon dioxide. Gasoline is processed from oil, which is obtained from underground sources which have been otherwise dormant for all of human history. Essentially, carbon dioxide is taken from the ground and released into the atmosphere, to disrupt the careful balance that has existed for millennia. Ethanol, however, obtains carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, the process that provides plants with glucose to use as energy. During photosynthesis, plants take in carbon dioxide and emit oxygen (O2) which animals then use for cellular respiration. So, all of the carbon dioxide released by the burning of ethanol is carbon that the plant had taken in earlier in its lifespan. This causes a net effect of zero on the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, meaning that it is neutral. Gasoline is so harmful because it brings up carbon dioxide from beneath the surface of the earth that otherwise would have remained locked away. This increases the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while never reducing it.

Ethanol provides other benefits as well. Ethanol has a considerably higher octane rating than gasoline, which increases horsepower. Regular gasoline usually has a rating of 87, ‘plus’ usually 89, and ‘premium’ usually 91. Ethanol has an octane rating of 113, and blending it with normal gasoline can raise the octane rating. According to Howstuffworks.com, “The octane rating of gasoline tells you how much the fuel can be compressed before it spontaneously ignites. When gas ignites by compression rather than because of the spark from the spark plug, it causes knocking in the engine. Knocking can damage an engine, so it is not something you want to have happening. Lower-octane gas (like “regular” 87-octane gasoline) can handle the least amount of compression before igniting.” Ethanol, with a rating of 113 can be compressed to a higher degree without igniting, and therefore increasing the horsepower. In fact, some gasoline stations have started using ethanol to increase the rating on the gasoline they sell. E10 made with regular gasoline (87) will turn it to plus (89), and E10 with plus will turn it to premium (89). Economically, this is good for the stations, because adding ethanol is cheaper than buying fuel that has been processed to a higher grade. It is even possible for the stations to purchase sub-grade gasoline, which can be damaging if run in a car; however, when used in E10, the octane is raised to 87, the regular rate.

A common myth about ethanol is that more energy is used in its creation than can be gained from the ethanol. However, studies have shown that this is not correct, and the Department of Energy estimates a 34-66% surplus of energy from ethanol. As ethanol producing technology improves, and more types of cellulose can be used, this percentage will go up, and the cost of ethanol will decrease dramatically. Another comment frequently made by ethanol critics is that corn should be used as food, and not as fuel. Making 2.8 gallons of ethanol out of a whole bushel of corn seems like a bad trade. However, ethanol is not the only product of that bushel. Ethanol production uses the starch part of the corn kernel, and the remaining fat, protein, vitamins and minerals are not discarded, but are instead used as livestock feed. The remainders from a bushel of corn can produce at least 17 pounds of distiller’s grain, high quality feed.

As practical as ethanol appears, however, it is not without disadvantages. While ethanol does have more potential horsepower than standard gasoline, a car capable of taking advantage of this unused power would be incapable of running on pure gasoline – the high compression ratio would cause the gasoline to spontaneously and prematurely ignite, damaging the engine. Also, normal cars cannot be run on E85, and car makers have not approved use for any blend above 10% on all cars. Only FFVs (Flexible fuel vehicle) are built to function with E85, and although they are also capable of running on pure gasoline, only thirty four 2006 models exist in the USA, and only 6 million have been sold. Also, although ethanol has more potential horsepower, it also has less energy per gallon than gasoline, roughly 80,000 BTU (British thermal units) compared with 124,800 BTU. This means that a gallon of gasoline is equivalent to roughly a gallon and a half of ethanol.

Another flaw with ethanol is that it is an alcohol, and a corrosive one. Anything that is exposed to the ethanol must be made of corrosion resistant materials, like plastic or stainless steel. E10 does not cause significant corrosion, but E85 does. In addition, E85 is the highest possible concentration that can be used because E100 cannot start a car on a cold morning. At least 15% gasoline is required to ensure a start. Also, producing ethanol requires power, and that power is often provided by coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel.

So is ethanol a feasible substitute for gasoline? The answer is both yes and no. Environmentally and economically, the answer is yes. While ethanol has drawbacks it is still very practical. Unfortunately however, ethanol alone cannot be produced in sufficient quantities to completely alleviate our gasoline dependence. In 2005, 95 factories produced roughly 4.3 billion gallons of ethanol, approximately 14 gallons of ethanol per US citizen, nowhere near the annual usage. In 2006, 40 new factories will increase that number to 6.3 billion gallons, but even that number is under 3% of the annual requirement. To significantly increase this number, more cornfields would have to be committed to ethanol production. 300 gallons of ethanol can be gained from an acre of corn, and to produce enough ethanol, 675 million acres, 71% of America’s agricultural land would be required. While future technology will make it possible to gain ethanol from more than just corn kernels, ethanol alone is unlikely to ever provide enough fuel. More likely, it will be used in conjunction with another renewable source.

One available alternative is electrical power contained in batteries. This kind of car is plugged in overnight, and in the morning it is fully charged. While the energy might come from a coal burning power plant, such plants are far more efficient with fossil fuels and harvest much more of the potential energy. Even counting the emissions from the coal plant, electric cars release less than a tenth of what regular cars do. Also, like hybrids these cars recharge while braking, conserving even more energy. They have good performance, are quiet, and cheap to use, only 2 cents per gallon. Even assuming a gasoline cost of $2.50 per gallon, and a good mpg rate, 30, a normal car costs over 8 cents per mile, more than four times more. Electric cars have yet to be perfected though, primarily because battery technology is not quite there. Typically they have a range of no more than 120 miles, and batteries must be occasionally replaced. Also, batteries must be charged, so if the driver needs to go somewhere and the battery is insufficiently charged, the car is inoperable stuck. Electricity has a lot of potential, but it all relies on the development of more efficient batteries. More likely, this system would be combined with an internal combustion engine for long trips, similar to the setup used in hybrids. The car would charge overnight, and for day to day usage, only the battery would be used. For extended trips the internal combustion engine would activate when the battery died, and the car would run just like a hybrid.

Biodiesel is another potential contender as portable energy. Although it still emits greenhouse gasses, 100% biodiesel reduces emissions by approximately 75%. And, because diesel fuel is innately more efficient than gasoline, a tank of gas can take a car further. Even better, unlike ethanol, 100% biodiesel can be run on any diesel engine without a decline in performance, because its energy content is very similar, 120,000-130,000 BTU. Like ethanol, one of the primary reasons that biodiesel is clean is that it contains oxygen, so the engine doesn’t have to take in as much, and more remains in the environment. Like all of the alternatives though, biodiesel isn’t perfect. Biodiesel costs roughly $3.50, about a dollar more than regular diesel. Also, a blend of more than 30% biodiesel gels in cold weather, eventually turning into a waxy solid that cannot be consumed by the engine. Additives can prevent this, or the tanks could be kept warm, but it is a significant problem with biodiesel. Overall, biodiesel is not perfect, but is a vast improvement over both gasoline and regular diesel.

The final alternative is the hydrogen fuel cell. It is also the least understood and uses the most advance technology. Currently, only prototypes exist, and the full models won’t be available to the public until at least 2020. While a finished version is still a long way off, the general idea behind the design is in the use of hydrogen to charge fuel cells, which then power the car. What is perhaps even more important is that the only byproduct of this reaction is water, so it has no negative effect on the environment whatsoever. In this way, hydrogen could easily be considered the perfect fuel, but because marketing is so far off most people are hesitant to herald it as gasoline’s successor just yet. Numerous problems could still appear, and at least one big hurdle remains. Hydrogen is by far the most common element on earth, so it stands to reason that it shouldn’t be hard to obtain. However, obtaining it without using a considerable amount of fossil fuel is developing into a problem. Before hydrogen could ever become a mainstream fuel source, large quantities of it must be obtainable in an efficient, clean, and reasonably inexpensive manner. Another, smaller problem that will appear in the future is the transition phase. The gas stations we use now are incapable of fueling a hydrogen car, so a nation wide refit would be required. And until such facilities are in place, the public will ignore hydrogen. Automakers and the government will also have to figure out how to get people to purchase hydrogen cars, possibly through tax breaks, discounts, or other incentives.

When thinking of our energy future, only one thing is clear: that a substitute or combination of substitutes for gasoline must be found, that are cleaner and renewable. Whether the alternative is ethanol, electricity, biodiesel, hydrogen, or a combination of them, a replacement must be established. Our current oil dependant society is damaging the environment at a rapid rate, and in addition, oil is a finite resource: it won’t last forever

ENGINEERING THE WORLD
by David Walden

Imagine a colossal mirror the size of Alaska, made up of an infinite number of miniscule aluminum threads only one-millionth of an inch in diameter, floating above the earth. During certain parts of the year, this mirror would act as a second moon, glowing eerily in the night sky. Its purpose would be to filter 1 percent of the solar radiation absorbed by the earth, stabilizing the earth’s climate. This idea, described in the August 2004 issue of Popular Science, is the brainchild of physicist Lowell Wood, of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California, and is only one of the many amazing concepts developed by geoengineers to reverse global warming. Geoengineering is man’s attempt to change the planet to suit his needs and desires. Although it anticipates action on an enormous, worldwide scale, it is just another chapter in a long history of ambitious, man-made “enhancements” to the modern environment.

Big engineering projects like the space mirror often cost a lot of money and solve some problems while creating new ones. The Aswan High Dam in Egypt is a recent engineering feat. The Dam is made of rock and clay in the middle of the Egyptian desert and captures 6 trillion cubic feet of water from the Nile River in Lake Nasser, the world’s third largest reservoir. According to pbs.org, before the dam was built, the Nile River would overflow about once a year, leaving nutrient rich silt on the Nile Valley floor, renewing the land’s fertility. Once in a while, there would be years where the Nile didn’t over flow, causing extensive drought and famine. To solve this problem, Egyptian president Gamal Abdal-Nasser decided in 1952 to dam the river to regulate the water flow through the valley. The dam also would produce huge amounts of hydroelectric power. 90,000 Egyptian peasants were displaced and left homeless because of the project’s construction. It was completed in 1970 and cost $1 billion. Though it prevented droughts and provided power as planned, all the nutrient rich silt settled to the bottom of the reservoir. Farmers who can afford to, must now buy fertilizer to make up for the lost nutrients. Some farmers believe they may be worse off than before the dam. They prefer to deal with occasional droughts than the depleted soil. The loss of sediments from the Nile has caused the erosion of the Egyptian coast and a decrease in plankton, fish and shrimp. The dam cost a lot of money and solved the problem of drought, but also worsened the eco-system.

Another example of problems caused by man’s intervention is the mongoose population here in Hawaii. In 1872, a Jamaican sugar planter by the name of W.B. Espeut was having rat trouble on his plantation, so he decided that he would try introducing mongooses to get rid of the pests. He sailed to Calcutta to capture some mongooses and upon his return, introduced them into the wild. He found that they not only killed rats, but they also killed many other pests such as snakes, grubs, and beetles. Word soon traveled across the oceans to Hawaii, where sugarcane plantations were also having rat problem. In 1883, seventy-two mongooses were shipped to the Big Island of Hawaii, where they were raised and bred. Soon the mongooses were shipped to all the neighboring islands except for Lanai and Kauai. To the dismay of the Hawaiians, the mongoose and rat share separate sleeping patterns, and, though it does happen, the mongoose hardly has an opportunity to kill a rat. Instead, the mongoose must find other things to fill its ravenous appetite, and with a highly varied diet, this can mean almost anything. A mongoose will eat anything from small bugs to large mammals many times there size. Many native birds are facing extinction because of the mongoose.

In addition to engineering the environment, man seeks to solve problems by engineering the human body. Humans have developed ways to cope with everything from nausea, to high blood pressure, to cancer. One way we “engineer” the body is by working from the inside using medicines. Often medical engineering has the same result as the Aswan Dam did; it solves some problems and creates others. Vioxx is a drug that was used to help arthritis pain. Soon, however, it was found that it damaged the heart, leaving the patients with even more of a problem than they started with. For many patients, reducing stress, watching their weight, exercise and rest can help prevent or reduce arthritis, without negative side effects, but these things are more work than taking a pill. Also, drug companies make money when people buy pills like Vioxx and no one makes money if people watch their diet and keep fit.

The space mirror reduces global warming, which is a result of pollution, but it doesn’t reduce the pollution. Our culture treats the symptoms and the immediate problem. It doesn’t spend much effort to fix or change what is causing the problem. We know that being overweight, not exercising and smoking cause many illnesses like arthritis, heart disease and cancer. Yet the National Cancer Institute reports that cancer is one of the leading causes of death and that rates are not going down. The American Cancer Society states that $74 billion per year is spent in the US on cancer treatment, and even more if cancer research were counted. Cancer patients go through chemotherapy to get rid of their malignancy. Often it works, but sometimes the patient will suffer a relapse and never recover if the cancer comes back a second time. Cancer is a major cause of death because treatment of disease can never compensate for a lack of prevention. So much time and money goes into chemotherapy and other drugs, which attack the cancer, but not the cause of the cancer. Not as much attention goes to preventing cancer by reducing obesity, inactivity, smoking, or exposure to pollutants.

The space mirror may create unexpected problems and it raises questions about whether we should spend more effort to reduce greenhouse gases by reducing pollution instead of building a giant structure to deal with the greenhouse gases. Also, the problems of managing a giant project like the space mirror that impacts people all over the earth are huge. The main questions are: Cost—how much will it cost, what else could the money be spent on, who pays? Complexity—who is going to design the details of a project, who will decide if and how something will work? Control—who is going to be in charge of it, who’s responsible if something goes wrong—who dismantles and disposes of it? And who will decide if a project is successful and should continue?

It would take trillions of dollars to finance a project like the space mirror, a massive blow to the worldwide economy. Similar projects in history have rendered entire countries nearly bankrupt. For example, the construction of the Great Wall of China drained almost all of the country’s money and resources, and near the end of the wall’s construction, China was invaded, and a new power took over the country.

Even if we could come up with trillions of dollars, we also should look at other ways the money could be spent. It takes an average of fifty-five cents a day to feed one person in East Africa. World-wide, 25,000 people die a day, so it is apparent that hunger is a global problem. 852,000,000 people go hungry each day and, assuming that the mirror would cost about 3 trillion dollars, this is enough to stop world hunger for about 6400 days. That is equivalent to nearly eighteen years, and that near the lower end of the spectrum of what we are looking at paying for the mirror. Another suggested approach to solving global warming is to create a ring around the entire world consisting of countless particles. This project would cost anywhere from $6 trillion to $200 trillion dollars. The number of other global issues that could be addressed with this money is endless.

In order for this project to be successful, many scientists in the world would have to work together to design the details and logistics of the project. This is always difficult and inevitably, the scientists that have the most financial backing and best reputation would dictate decisions, leaving the others with little or no say. Because of this, issues could be overlooked that might otherwise have been addressed if more scientists were allowed to contribute there own thoughts and ideas.

Possibly one of the most important things that need to be decided is who will be in control of the operation. The reason this is such an important and fragile matter is because certain people or countries will have control of the project, but the whole world will be affected by it. If one country or group doesn’t feel like they have enough say, they might try to force others to do what they want. People would inevitably end up protesting and even rioting over what should be done. Countries would get into arguments, and things could escalate, possibly ending in war.

Another thing to be concerned about is how to decide whether the mission was a success or not. For example, if everything went well, except plants weren’t able to properly grow on certain parts of globe, and people there were dying of starvation, then how would we decide whether or not to continue the project? If we did decide to abort the mission, then we would have to come up with the funds, once again, to bring the mirror back down from space. Then we would be stuck with the task of dismantling and disposing of 600,000 square miles of mirror.

Already, scientists and leaders from around the world have come together to discuss possible solutions. From these discussions came the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which requires participating nations to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. Another possibility that had been debated at that conference was whether or not to use geoengineering to solve the problem of global warming, but the countries decided that cutting back on emissions was a more appropriate solution for the time being. Because it is the planet that is being engineered, the planning and budget of the intended project must be on a much larger scale. Also, the repercussions of a misstep are potentially disastrous and could affect the entire planet. If the mirror turned out to be as disastrous as the mongoose experiment was, the consequences would be more than just a few dead birds.

With global warming becoming an increasing threat, it has been calculated that the temperature on earth will rise approximately one degree per every thirty years. The giant mirror would filter out some of the infrared light given off by the sun, stabilizing the temperature, at least for a while. There are many other technologies that have been proposed, all with their own advantages and disadvantages. The mirror would effectively lower the temperature by filtering infrared light, but it would require an excessive amount of money and resources to carry out the project. Scientists have also suggested that we enhance the oceans to absorb CO2. Vast amounts of iron powder would be released into the ocean, causing massive blooms of CO2 consuming plankton. With less CO2 in the atmosphere, heat from the sun would more easily radiate back into space. This would be relatively cost effective compared to some of the other ideas, but it would also be one of the most risky, because deep underwater currents take much of the nutrients that plankton feed on northward. Fish in the north that live off the nutrients would starve if the plankton numbers extensively accumulated instead in the south.

We may have the technology to attempt great things, but we aren’t able to predict all of the side effects that geoengineering will have on the world. As with Vioxx medication or the mongoose in Hawaii, a space mirror could end up causing an even bigger problem than before, or the good and bad effects might just cancel each other out, as happened with the Aswan Dam. Even if we could anticipate everything that would happen with geoengineering, it would be a misuse of our resources because we still have the ability to simply change our ways, we still have the ability to reduce our energy use. The money that we would have to spend on geoengineering to stop global warming could be spent in other, more valuable ways. It is obvious we are damaging our planet; should we let it get to the point where we have to do something as extreme and unpredictable as an Alaska-sized mirror? If we do use geoengineering to reduce the catastrophic effects of pollution on the earth’s climate, but we continue to pollute, then environmental problems will soon return, and we will have to once again take the risk of engineering our planet.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

*Brian, Marshall. “What does octane mean?” How Stuff Works. 7-6-06
* “All About Ethanol.” Ethanol.org American Coalition for Ethanol. 7-5-06
* “Global Warming: Early Warning Signs.” 7-6-06 Sponsoring groups: Environmental Defense Natural Resources Defense Council Sierra Club Union of Concerned Scientists U.S. Public Interest Research Group World Resources Institute World Wildlife Fund
* Motavalli, Jim. “The Outlook on Oil.” E Magazine. Jan-Feb 2006 26-39. 7-5-06
* Clayton, Mark. “Carbon Cloud Over a Green Fuel.” Christian Science Monitor. 23 march 2006 7-5-06
* Hinman, Norman. “The Benefits of Biofuels.” Solar Today. July/Aug 1997 28-30 7-5-06
* Barringer, Felicity. “Debate over Wind Power Creates Environmental Rift.” The New York Times. June 6 2006. A18 7-6-06
* Tolme, Paul. “Energy, Blowing in the Wind.” Newsweek. March 13 2006. 9. 7-7-06
* Davidson, Keay. “It’s Official, We Live in Hot Times.” San Francisco Chronicle. June 23, 2006. A1. 7-6-06
* Davidson, Keay. “Permafrost Melt Could Speed up Global Warming.” San Francisco Chronicle. June 16, 2006. A6. 7-5-06
* Allen, Mike. “How Far can you Drive on a Bushel of Corn?: Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels.” Popular Mechanics. May 2006. 75-81.
– DC

*Behar, Michael. “Saving a Scorched Earth: Six Spectacular Technologies to Halt Global Warming.” Popular Science August 2005: 52-58.
*Allen, Mike. “The Truth About Bio Fuels.” Popular Science May 2006: 74-81
*Walden, Anton. Personal interview. 9 July 2006.
*“Kyoto Protocol.” Wikipedia. No editor given. 9 July 2006. Media Wiki. 9 July 2006.
*Darcey, Laurie. “The Mongoose: A Maui Menace.” Naturally Speaking. No editor given. 3 May 2006. No sponsoring organization. 8 July 2006.
*Berenson, Alex. “Follow-up Study on Vioxx Safety is Disputed.” New York Times. No editor given. 13 May 2006.
*“Cancer Trends Progress Report 2005 Update.” National Cancer Institute. No editor given. 3 April 2006.
*“Statistics for 2006.” American Cancer Society. No editor given. Copyright 2006.
*El-Sayed, Sayed, and van Dijkin, Gert L. “The southeastern Mediterranean ecosystem revisited: Thirty years after the construction of the Aswan High Dam.” Quarterdeck 3.1. No editor given. Updated 24 July 1995.
*“Wonders of the World Databank, Aswan High Dam.” PBS Online. No editor given. Copyright 2000-2001.
*Brennan, John, and Stapleton, Jennifer. “Bread for the World Institute Presents a Vison for Improving Food Aid to More Effectively Fight Hunger.” Bread for the World. No editor given. 21 April 2006.
*Michaelson, Jay. “Geoengineering: AClimate Change Manhattan Project.” Stanford Environmental Law Journal. No editor given. January 1998.
*Cadenhead, Rogers. “East Africa Suffers Worst Famine in Decades.” Workbench. No editor given. 26 March 2006.
– DW

——————————————————————————————————————————–