Eco-Diving

Diving For The Environment

By:  Jacque

June 29, 2008

12:16 pm, the first of the more than thirty divers hit the waters of Grand Traverse (West) Bay in Traverse City, Michigan.  Minutes before, the divers were gathering in the parking lot of SCUBA North, a local dive shop.  From there, the divers were shuttled across a busy highway in a black and grey Chevrolet Suburban, with gear in a trailer a-tow, to the beach-side dive site. What brings these divers out?

On June 6, 2008, the Grand Traverse Bay received designation as the twelfth underwater preserve in the state; Grand Traverse Bay Unerwater Preserve (GTBUP).  According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), the preserve includes approximately 295 square miles. There are several known shipwrecks in the preserve including, John Thursby, A.J. Rogers, Lauren Castle, two modern sailboats and commercial fishing boats.  In addition, there may be up to nineteen other vessels in the preserve with historical significance.

“Coastal wetlands are an important feature of the … preserve that provides significant water quality and aquatic habitat functions in the shallow shoreline areas.”

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

 The divers were in the bay on a “scavenger hunt” for  golf balls, placed in a small portion of the bay by event coordinators.  At an event picnic later in the day, prizes will  given away, raffle style, according to a number written on each of the balls.  At registration, the quantity of balls the participants want to dive for are purchased for a reasonable fee.  The proceeds for the event are then donated to the Grand Traverse Bay Underwater Preserve.

“To sustain an Underwater Preserve by enhancing education, research and preservation of our Great Lakes and maritime heritage, and by the promotion of tourism and public recreation.”     Mission Statement of GTBUP

This is not the first time that divers in this community have gathered together in an attempt to protect the environment.  According to Bob Thorpe of SCUBA North, there is a twenty year tradition of diving events, in the Traverse City area, that have raised money for nonprofit organizations.  Beyond raising money, the SCUBA comminuty here pitches in on a regular basis to clean up the area water.  The day prior to the fundraising event, a group of divers cleaned up garbage from the bay floor. 

“The SCUBA community is more concerned, I would think, about the (equatic) environment.  It is what they are here to see.”  Bob Thorpe

Greenhouse Gases: What Can You Do?

Greenhouse Gases: What Can You Do?

By: Cam

Greenhouse gases 

First off I’ll name the MAN-MADE things that make greenhouse gases, such as vehicles, factories, boats, and airplanes. Deforestation is another cause for greenhouse gases. According to You can save the planet by: Jacquie Wines, greenhouse gases come in many forms, like water vapors, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and ozone gases. These gases trap more of the suns rays in earth’s atmosphere and warms us up. 

How you can help?

The best way to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases there are is, is to ride your bike or walk instead of driving places. Some people think they have an excuse because they live farther away from town, but if that’s the case public transportation is better than driving your own car. Another really good way is to get an electric or push lawn mower because according to the book You can save the planet 40 cars driving on the road for a year equals 1 lawn mower that runs on gasoline running for 1 year; it’s the same amount of pollution. 

What I plan to do 

I plan to ride my bike more places and turn off lights that aren’t needed.  Please post a comment telling what you do, or plan to do, to help reduce greenhouse gases.

MPG vs. GPM

Miles Per Gallon (MPG) vs. Gallons Per Mile (GPM):

By: Danny S.

Quiz time – Is it more economical (from a cost of fuel standpoint) to replace a vehicle that gets 14 MPG with a vehicle that gets 18 MPG, or replace a vehicle that gets 28 MPG with a vehicle that gets 40 MPG?

By looking at MPG alone, one might think that the 12 MPG improvement gained by replacing the 28 MPG vehicle would yield higher savings than the 4 MPG improvement gained by replacing the 14 MPG vehicle. The catch here is that MPG increases are non-linear. Looking at both the percentage increases and the means of the two vehicle combinations also leads to an economic misinterpretation. The first scenario leads to a 22% improvement in MPG while the second scenario leads to a 30% improvement.

Using the basic national average of 12,000 miles per year, the 14 MPG vehicle would use approximately 857 gallons of gas per year and the 18 MPG vehicle would use approximately 667 gallons of gas per year, resulting in a reduction of 190 gallons of gas per year. On the other hand, the 28 MPG vehicle would use approximately 429 gallons of gas per year and the 40 MPG vehicle would use approximately 300 gallons of gas per year, providing a difference of 129 gallons per year. The annual difference between the two vehicle scenarios is 61 gallons per year (190 - 129). At $4.20 per gallon, that is a yearly savings of approximately $256. At 20 lbs of CO2 per gallon of gas, that is a reduction of 1,220 lbs of CO2 per year. The idea here is that a larger fuel savings is seen by replacing low averaging MPG vehicles, even if it is only by a few MPG, than replacing high averaging MPG vehicles. This could be the situation of a family that has an SUV and a sedan. They may think that replacing the sedan with a hybrid would lead to the better economic choice because of the larger MPG reduction. However, as we have seen they would be better off replacing the SUV with a minivan, large sedan, or station wagon.

In a recent article, Duke University Professors Richard Larrick and Jack Soll produced a study showing that rating vehicles by gallons per mile (GPM) rather than MPG leads to more accurate choices. A simple rating of gallons per 100 miles or per 10,000 miles would show exactly how much of a fuel savings is gained or lost when comparing two vehicles. In our scenario above, the 14 MPG vehicle uses approximately 7.1 gallons per 100 miles, while the 18 MPG vehicle uses approximately 5.6 gallons per 100 miles. In the second scenario, the 28 MPG vehicle uses approximately 3.6 gallons per 100 miles, while the 40 MPG vehicle uses approximately 2.5 gallons per 100 miles. If this information were listed on a vehicles spec sheet you would simply subtract the gallons per mile from one another (7.1 – 5.6 = 1.5).

Let me ask the question again – Is it more economical (from a cost of fuel standpoint) to replace a vehicle that uses 7.1 gallons per 100 miles with a vehicle that uses 5.6 gallons per 100 miles, or replace a vehicle that uses 3.6 gallons per 100 miles with a vehicle that uses 2.5 gallons per 100 miles?

The original article and charts can be found at Science Magazine (subscription required)

For addition research from Duke University

Just For Fun!

Sports Games

Political Games

Taking Action For Animals

For more information, please visit the official website

www.TakingActionForAnimals.org

* This is not an advertisement. This post is for information only. All images have been borrowed from and are the property of Taking Action For Animals.

Green Pets

Resources For Your Four Legged Family Members:

Feline Pine - Cat litter made from pure pine and natural guar bean gum.

Green Office

Here are some resources to help make your office green. 

Mohawk - Paper company.  According to their advertisment, their two most popular business paper products are “carbon neutral”.  They also offer recycled papers with 100% postconsumer fiber.

EPA Making it Easier to Pollute?

06/23/2008

EPA Making it Easier to Pollute National Parks?

By: Jacque

Not if Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander has anything to say about it.  In an interview with the Associated Press, the Republican Senator vowed to urge Congress to overrule the Environmental Protection Agency if necessary.

What is the issue?  The EPA may adopt a rule, that has been pending since last June, that will make it easier to build coal-fired power plants near national parks.  Instead of focusing on reducing the impact of a new pollution source, the rule would change the way the EPA calculates the impact.  According to John Bunyak of the National Park Service’s Air Resources Division in Denver, instead of looking at peak periods of pollution, the new rule would use annual averages.

National Parks Conservation Association representative, Don Barger, compares it to someone puting one hand in a block of ice and the other in a fire. “Your average temperature is just fine, but your hands are not.” (AP)