Biosphere2 - Citizen PhotoArizona’s much maligned, highly controversial Biosphere 2 is on it’s way to becoming a world-class ecological research facility, according to an article in the Tucson Daily Citizen newspaper. The University of Arizona announced today it would take control of the facility July 1st, and promises to have world-class researchers on site by year’s end.

The university has formed B2 Earthscience to operate a think tank, and conduct ecological research at the property, 35 miles north of Tucson near Oracle. The main thrust is expected to be a study of Earth’s ecological processes and global climate change, claiming the research will be relevant into the next century.

The property was developed in 1984 by billionaire Edward P Bass at a cost of $200 million, and enjoyed a not-so favorable reputation. The biosphere was originally designed as a for-profit venture, to help researchers determine ways to explore and settle other planets, and as a tourist attraction. In both cases, the facility failed to live up to its investor’s expectations.

In 1991, four men and four women entered the 2.5-acre, sealed terrarium for a two-year experiment, complete with plants, animals and insects. It also contains climatic regions meant to mimic that of Earth, including a rain forest, an ocean and a desert. Their experiment reportedly fell short of expectations nearly two years later when oxygen was pumped into the biosphere. Crewmembers were said to be fatigued, and had difficulty sleeping because the environment wasn’t supplying enough oxygen. They ended their stay shortly afterward.

To make a really long story short, a second crew entered the facility in 1994 when seven people, five men and two women, tried living in the biosphere to conduct ecological experiments over a period of 120 days to one year. That lasted less than a month when someone sabotaged the biosphere by opening doors and breaking the atmospheric seal.

In 1996, Columbia University began management of Biosphere 2, conducting research until 2003, when they vacated the property. Since then the facility has remained a tourist attraction to this day. The U of A will continue to court tourists

On June 5th of this year, a Texas home builder purchased Biosphere 2 and 1,700 surrounding acres for development of a 1,550 home development with a 200-room resort. Construction isn’t expected to begin for another two years.

The U of A will lease the terrarium and some neighboring buildings for from the developer for $100 annually. According to UA President Robert N Shelton, the university has $30 million set aside to launch management of the biosphere and sustain annual operating costs for 10 years.

First project on the list, according to the university, will be a study of how water interacts with flora typical of deserts, grasslands and savannahs. Researchers hope to learn more on how water is lost, how the area will be affected years from now and what vegetation will survive.

UA officials are quick to say failure is no longer an option at Biosphere2. One spokesman said, “We’ll be chugging along with the Biosphere for decades.”

Paul Hawken"Something earth-changing is afoot among civil society, a significant social movement is eluding the radar of mainstream culture." That's the uplifting and optimistic prelude to comments made by environmentalist and author Paul Hawken in his new book Blessed Unrest, and in an article for Orion Magazine. I was inspired by his thoughts, and wanted to share them.

Today we’re going to talk about small businesses and their role in laying the foundations for clean and ecologically sensitive industries in this country. Our guest is a long-time advocate of the environment and small business, his name is Byron Kennard, and he is Executive Director of The Center for Small Business and the Environment.

Mr. Kennard has a long list of credits, starting as a community organizer for the Conservation Foundation in the late 1960’s, helping to “lay groundwork for the environmental movement and the subsequent explosion of grassroots action on Earth Day.”. He was awarded the Leadership Medal of the United Nations Environment Program for “distinguished contribution to the cause of the environment.”

He served as National Vice Chair of Sun Day in 1978, National Chair of Earth Day in 1980 and as Special Consultant to the EPA Administrator for Earth Day 1990.

He also authored the book of essays on social and political change, “Nothing Can Be Done, Everything Is Possible.” The Christian Science Monitor called the book “a primer for the modern-day activist.”

I’m confused (which is pretty much my natural state).

Before going any further, I have to admit that until I started paying attention to the research and development of alternative fuels with my two websites, I was paying little attention to environmental issues.

There’s no real excuse for that, so none is offered. A chance phone conversation with an old high school chum in the Midwest sparked my interest in ethanol and, eventually, the entire alternative fuels picture. That led to my establishing two websites: one a collection of links to news stories on research and development of alternative fuels; the other a podcast site covering the same topics. That’s when I first paid attention to the immensity of our environmental problems.

On April 1st of this year, a misunderstanding on my part led me to Green Options, and my eyes have been opened even further. And that has led to this state of not understanding the hostility some people have to cleaning up our environment.

What can it hurt to use less electricity, burn less gasoline by driving less, developing and using alternatives to fossil fuels, saving our forests, cleaning up our waterways and oceans? You and I know the drill here, so what can be so wrong that some local, state and federal lawmakers, to name only a few of a long list of dissenters, oppose our efforts? Do they have something to gain from our living in what is slowly becoming a toxic wasteland? Is it politics, money, power, a way to get noticed, or have they just been blind-sided by the promises of big industry and big profits? Maybe it’s a combination of all of that, but in any case, at the best, it's irresponsible.

A glaring case in point, the recent actions of Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn(R). Even today, 45 years after Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, Coburn has said he would block a planned resolution commemorating the 100th anniversary of her birth, May 27, 1907. Coburn, on his website, continued to vilify Carson and her call for the sensible use of chemical pesticides, including DDT, which was used during WWII in the Pacific and Europe to eradicate malaria-bearing mosquitos. DDT usage was banned in many regions, including Africa, in the 1970's and 1980's. On his website release, Coburn blames Carson, 43 years after her death, for millions of deaths in Africa due to malaria, simply because of that ban on DDT.

Carson's biographer Linda Lear, in response to Coburn's actions, stated that "Rachel Carson never called for DDT ban", or that pesticides never be used. She simply advocated for the responsible use of synthetic chemical pesticides. The United States banned the use of DDT in 1972, but not the manufacture or export of the chemical. It has and is being used in many countries, including Africa as we said, with somewhat limited results especially on mosquitoes that carry infectious diseases like malaria. They adapted quickly and have become resistant to DDT. Yet Coburn continues to beat his anti-Carson malaria-death drum.

This continuing knee-jerk reaction to Silent Spring by chemical companies and some of our lawmakers confounds me, especially after all these years. Some have said her book so aroused public awareness of synthetic chemicals and their impact on our environment that public pressure resulted in establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Could that be part of the reason?

We've all witnessed the scorn heaped on the efforts of so-called “tree huggers”. Environmentalists have been branded as “nut cases”, and Al Gore has been accused of trying to create a panic with his movie An Inconvenient Truth. Some loudly proclaim that global warming is a myth, created by far left special interest groups. Interesting, isn’t it, that many of those naysayers represent a far right philosophy and special interest groups? Harry Nilsson said it best with his CD The Point: "Everyone has one". Environmentalists are "hugging trees", and industrialists are chopping them down.

On the matter of global warming, let's give mother earth her due: she too has moods. Our planet is, after all, a living thing, constantly evolving as it has since its fiery beginning. My purpose here is not to debate global warming or offer any conclusions: there's enough going around without my input.

It all comes back to the same thing: what’s wrong with doing some industrial-strength house cleaning? Who is threatened, and why is there so much hostility? Or is it not so much a case of threat, as it is something we seem to have a lot of in this country?

It reminds me of a panel from cartoonist Wiley Miller, who's Non Sequitur is one of my favorites. It portrays two men sitting in a bar, one with a drink in his hand and a dour look on his face. He's watching the TV set on the back bar, with a smiling news commentator displaying a large arrow pointing downward. Around a bend in the bar is another man, a big smile on his face, his hand clutching a mug of beer. He says, "Yeah, I used to get depressed watching the news, too. Then I discovered the miracle of apathy." Is this who we are?

It took more than 4-billion years to create this beautiful planet, and we've managed to trash it in slightly more than a century. We call it progress (and in some ways it is), but in our rush to have more as quickly as possible, we've ignored our moral obligation to provide responsible stewardship of our environment. It just may be that we are the only sentient life forms in the entire, limitless cosmos. What a shame it would be if we destroyed ourselves by depleting our home of its natural resources, and failing to clean up our messes. Life would flicker out, and no one would notice. Our world would be empty, spinning aimlessly in the black void, a remnant of our carelessness. Humanity would never have existed; there would be no legacy to pass on.

How very sad that would be.

Additional Resources:
Wikipedia: Rachel Carson
The Time 100: Rachel Carson
Senator Coburn (R-OK)

Editor's note: We're very pleased to welcome Max Lindberg to our writing team. The publisher of the Lindberg Report podcast, now a part of The Fuels Report, Max is a retired broadcast journalist. We're very happy to have his wealth of experience on the team! Stay tuned — once we get the technical kinks worked out, Max will be producing the first GO podcast series, "Greening the Golden Years."

So you're going to join the May 15th MySpace members Gas Out. Good for you! We need to show those greedy, and not necessarily nice, oil-rich countries in the Mideast that we don't like their attitudes and hit 'em where in counts: in the pocketbook.

What a great idea: 72-million MySpace members avoiding gas stations for one day. I didn't do the math ( too complicated for me!), but based on a fill-up costing between $20 and $30, the boycott would cost the Middle Eastern oil companies more than $2,000,000.000 in revenue. That's $2 Billion. Wow!

But, wait a minute. There's only one hitch to this great idea. To pull it off, all 72 million who drive a gasoline-fueled vehicle would have to leave their cars, trucks or whatever, home for 24 hours and take a bus, ride a bike, walk or hitch a ride with someone who doesn't care. You can bet your baby-blue-booties it ain't gonna work.

And what about those who do avoid filling stations for 24-hours and still drive? Well, bunky, think about this. On May 14, the price of gas will be, let's say for the sake of argument, $2.85 a gallon. So you drive on the 15th, and you burn several gallons of gas, which eventually has to be replaced. On the 16th, the price of petrol jumps to $2.95 a gallon. So on your next fill-up, you'll pay $.10 more for a gallon of gas, and the oil companies would have made a modest profit anyway.

But, if you must, join the "gas out", I'm sure they'll notice your absence at the pump.

Why not take a more pro-active approach? Drive a little less than usual, join a car pool, support the use of alternative fuels and use them if appropriate for your vehicle. Use less energy any way you can. The emphasis here is not to "punish" the oil companies, but to save our environment. It's the least we can do."

Oh, and if all this sounds very familiar, you're right. According to Snopes, the Urban Legends people, this particular message, or a variance, has been around since 1999. Read the above paragraph.