celestesenvironmentalpanic

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Final Blog Post Submisison (Blog #7-12)

Final Blog Post submission

Blog Post #7: Saving Endangered Species to Save Humanity

10/27/20

Since the beginning of human development, humans have been decimating ecosystems and their inhabitants. Going as far back as 50,000 years ago, humans caused populations of large mammals to go into extinction {Kolbert, 2009}. However, since the beginning of industrialization, the decimation of ecosystems and the endangerment of species has ramped up exponentially. Deforestation, hunting for both sustenance and sport, the transformation of landscapes as a result of human construction, and the changing climate have all contributed to a massive uptick in species endangerment and extinction. 

While extinction is a natural part of the evolutionary process, scientists estimate that the rate of extinction is now 1,000-10,000 times that of the background extinction rate {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 176}. Climate change has only exacerbated this rate of decline, making many ecosystems increasingly vulnerable to degradation and ultimately uninhabitable. This is a major cause for concern, as the extinction of even one species can upset entire food webs and ecosystems, and at the rate of extinction we are currently on, human civilization too, will be wiped out. This is because the over or underpopulation of one species can cause other species to become over or underpopulated, as their populations are not being controlled by the natural food chain, and have overextended the resources they depend on. Scientists now believe we are in the midst of a sixth mass extinction {Kolbert, 2009}, however, unlike previous mass extinctions that have taken place over a few thousand years, this extinction will take place over the course of a human lifetime {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 176}

There are many species of wild animals that have become extinct or endangered as a result of human activities; “According to the Living Planet Index…populations of wild animals have decreased by an average of more than fifty percent over the past forty years” {Geo Beats}. This rate of decrease is much higher than any previous extinction. Even though extinction is a regular part of the evolutionary process, the current rate of extinction is cause for concern due to a few reasons; many endangered species provide vital ecosystem services. Pollinators like honeybees (who have been facing massive colony collapse in recent years due to climate change and the use of harmful pesticides) are essential to our sustenance as humans, for their pollination of food crops. Decomposers like earthworms ensure soil health and aeration. Many avian and arachnid species are essential for natural pest control. Many endangered aquatic species, such as oysters, are essential not only for the purification of water but for providing a natural levee against storm surges. In addition to the ecosystem services these species provide, they also provide an economic benefit; many endangered species can generate several times more revenue through ecotourism, than if they were to be slaughtered and sold for their pelts or horns {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 180-181} One could go on infinitely listing all of the ways human civilization is so dependant on the species whose very existence we are threatening with our activities.

Human civilization is also very dependent on many species of endangered plants for our ability to survive and thrive. At the most basic level, trees and other photosynthesizing plants provide the oxygen we need to survive; as well as pull CO2, generated by both natural and industrial processes, from the atmosphere. In addition, over 1 billion people, especially those in extreme poverty, depend on trees for their survival. Over 80% of the population relies on plant-derived medicine, both traditional and modern. Trees also help prevent erosion and soil degradation; many deforested landscapes have been struggling with issues resulting from erosion {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 203}. On the whole, the monetary value that the world’s forests provide to us amounts to about $15.6 trillion, several times more than the economic value of the lumber industry {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 204}. Despite this, we are still destroying forests at a massively unsustainable rate. According to Greenpeace, over 80% of the world’s forests have been degraded or destroyed. 

However, not all hope is lost. In recent years, many plants and animal species that were functionally extinct have been reintroduced into their ecosystems, which has allowed these ecosystems to recover their balance. The grey wolf was successfully reintroduced to Yellowstone national park, restoring the balance between predator and prey {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 222}. Many tree-planting initiatives have also successfully restored forests in certain places, resulting in luscious parks such as the Biltmore in North Carolina {Spirn, 99}. The good news is that as climate change and ecosystem disruption continue, people are becoming increasingly aware of the dire situation and inspired to fix it. This is important, as the existence of humanity, and many other species, depends on the restoration of ecosystems. If you could think of some things to say to convince greedy logging companies and other companies responsible for deforestation and species extinction to stop destroying ecosystems, what would you say to convince them?

Word Count: 839

Works Cited

Balsley, Thomas, James Corner, Ian Volner, Jane Brown Gillette, and Anne Whiston Spirn. “The Legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted.” Essay. In Uncommon Ground, 99. Novato: ORO Editions, 2015.

Global Wildlife Population Declined By 50% In Last 40 Years. Dailymotion. Dailymotion, 2014. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x26ybub.

Greenpeace. “Forest Destruction.” Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Accessed October 28, 2021. https://www.greenpeace.org.au/what-we-do/protecting-forests/forest-destruction/.

Kolbert, Elizabeth, and Jonathan Rosen. “The Sixth Extinction?” The New Yorker, May 18, 2009. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/05/25/the-sixth-extinction.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 9: Sustaining Biodiversity: Saving Species and Ecosystem Services.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 175–98. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 10: Sustaining Biodiversity: Sustaining Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 202–28. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

Blog Post #8: Fixing Environmental Issues Caused by Sustenance Demands by Looking to the Past and the Future

11/2/21

Industrialization has allowed humans to make previously tedious and time-consuming practices much more efficient. As a result, however, the rapid expansion of human populations combined with the rapid industrialization of the landscapes we inhabit has resulted in a culture of disposability and a conception of the Earth’s natural resources as being infinite. This, of course, could not be further from the truth, and behaviors that we previously used only to sustain ourselves and our families, such as farming and fishing, have turned into extremely-environmentally degradative industrialized agriculture and fishing industries that prioritize profit over need. However, by transitioning some of these industries back to their need-based, non-commodified forms, and empowering individuals to provide sustenance for themselves, we can limit some of the damage that is being done to our Earth.

The fishing industry has gone from one largely based in coastal fishing towns that only fished what was needed and mindfully alternated the locations in which they fished so as not to deplete aquatic populations, to an industry based on profit, with no thought given to population depletion or ecosystem degradation. In addition, as a result of the greenhouse effect, the ocean has absorbed a large amount of our excess heat energy and carbon emissions from human activities, as well as providing 50% of the oxygen we breathe generated by photosynthesizing organisms. While this has likely slowed down the rate at which our planet is warming, it has also caused the ocean to become warmer and more acidic, which has been detrimental to the populations of many aquatic species {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 233}. 50% of the world’s warm-water coral reefs and 58% of seagrass beds have been destroyed as a result of this transition {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 234-236}. This, in combination with destructive fishing methods such as trawling, and with the massive amounts of human chemical and plastic pollution, has led to a massive decline in populations of several species, such as sea turtles, whales, sharks, and seabirds. This is problematic not only because of the large number of people who depend on the ocean for their livelihood and survival but also because all of the earth’s ecosystems are connected through the food chain, and the collapse of the ocean would result in the collapse of all other ecosystems.

Another industry that humans depend on for their survival, but has become extremely environmentally problematic is the agriculture industry. This industry has transitioned from one where small-scale farms produced just enough food to support themselves and perhaps have a small surplus to be traded, into one motivated by profit; maximizing crop yields, and minimizing cost. Monocultural industrial farming, as well as deforestation, has resulted in soil degradation, erosion, and desertification {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 266-275}. Additionally, runoff from agricultural chemicals used in fertilizers and pesticides has begun destroying many ecosystems; specifically, runoff from the Mississippi River basin flows into the river and ultimately ends up in the Gulf of Mexico, where it creates a dead zone. A dead zone is a region where excess nutrients in the water cause massive algal blooms; as the algae absorb the nutrients and then die, the bacteria that decompose them absorb all of the oxygen in the water during cellular respiration, and as a result, all of the oxygen-dependent organisms in the water die {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 506}.

The reality is that things do not have to be this way. There are many practices, both from the past and from innovations, that can reduce the impact we are having on the environment, in addition to solving other problems such as food insecurity. In the fishing industry, sustainably farm-raised fish are a viable alternative to trawling; farms can even be built offshore in deep-sea aquaculture cages, in which flowing water allows for the filtration of fish wastes and allows fish to live in a more natural environment {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 240}. In addition, empowering fishing communities that have for generations used knowledge about these environments to avoid population depletion can also solve the problem of food insecurity. In the agricultural industry, transitioning from large scale industrial monoculture farms to smaller, local polycultural farms can not only help with soil degradation {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 266} but also stimulate local farming economies which for years have been in decline due to the monopolization of the agricultural industry, as well as providing crop surpluses to address food scarcity. Lastly, the creation of urban community gardens and farms can not only provide residents of urban food deserts with fresh and nutritious food {Luke, 186-187} but can also create opportunities for positive engagement in communities in which rates of unemployment and crime are high. Everyone stands to benefit from the de-monopolization of the fishing and agricultural industries (that is, everyone except greedy CEOs of these monopolies).

Word Count: 803

Works Cited 

Agger, Ben, and Timothy W Luke. “Hashing It Over: Green Governmentality and the Political Economy of Food.” Essay. In Fast Capitalism, 186–87. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 11: Sustaining Aquatic Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 232–57. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 12: Food Production and the Environment.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 261–95. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015. 

Blog #9: Soil and Food

11/10/20

What do an Iowan soybean farmer, a migrant field laborer, a victim of food-borne illness, and the Gulf of Mexico all have in common? They’re all being screwed over by the industrial agricultural industry.

For the vast majority of human history, humans lived off of the land in a system based on need; farmers domesticated crops and harvested just enough to support themselves and their families, perhaps having a little bit of surplus to sell in their village.  As populations grew, and cities expanded inland, demand increased for more food to support these populations. As a result, some civilizations, such as the Ancient Romans {Symphony of Soil}, exhausted their soil and were forced to cultivate more land, repeating the process over again. In the modern-day, agriculture has transformed from a practice based on need to a practice based on maximizing production, regardless of the potential effects on the soil, the surrounding environment, the quality of produce, and on the health of the species that both inhabit the surrounding area and consume the produce {Food, Inc.}

An image of soil degraded by overuse and soil salinization from the use of salt-water, due to limited access to freshwater

The documentary Symphony of Soil describes how all living organisms are dependent on the soil and its microbial inhabitants. Plants draw carbon and nitrogen from the atmosphere to create nutrients, that are then fed down their roots to these microbial organisms, who are then consumed by protozoa, who then excrete them and deposit nutrients into the soil and oxygen back into the atmosphere in a symbiotic relationship. For millennia this relationship went unobstructed, that is, until humans began cultivating the land for food and drawing out these nutrients without replacing them. As a result, much of the world’s arable land has been exhausted, forcing farmers to resort to artificial fertilizers that pollute the environment around them. As a result of run-off excess nitrogen and other nutrients from these chemical fertilizers and livestock manure, entire aquatic ecosystems, such as in the Gulf of Mexico, have turned into environmental dead zones; algal blooms form to absorb the nitrogen, die, and their decomposers absorb all of the available oxygen in the water making it uninhabitable for any other species to live there.

Map displaying the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. Agricultural runoff runs from the Mississippi into the gulf, creating the phenomenon aforementioned

The documentary Food Inc describes how agricultural practices and policies have allowed the industry to transform from small-scale farms that allow farmers to support themselves, to massive industrial enterprises that are physically and financially detrimental to pretty much every party involved (besides the CEOs of these massive multinational corporations). Due to government subsidies, these companies have been able to grow produce to be sold at a price lower than the cost of production, but with increasingly less nutritional value and increasingly more health hazards involved. Instead of having a diverse array of crops, engineering has allowed several different abstract chemicals to be manufactured into a mirage of products, from ketchup to diapers, from chips to biofuel, all off of one crop; corn. 

Image displaying the countless number of products that can be manufactured from derivations of corn

In addition to being processed into countless chemical ingredients that we really have no idea of the long-term effects of, livestock farmers have transitioned their livestock from their natural grass-based diet to corn, which allows them to use less land and feed their livestock at a cheaper price point. As a result of interfering with these animals’ natural diets, an infusion of a cocktail of antibiotics being fed to these animals, and cruel and inhumane living conditions for these livestock where they are shoved together in close quarters in the dark, with barely enough space to breathe, forced to stand ankle-deep in their own manure; many livestock have fallen ill with antibiotic-resistant microbes, such as E. Coli O157:H7. Outbreaks of this strain of E. Coli have caused countless meat and produce recalls (as manure runoff from these industrial farms often ends up in surrounding produce farms), and innumerable cases of food poisoning, some of which have resulted in death. 

An industrial chicken feedlot, where chickens will spend their entire lives. Many are bred to be so fat they can only take a few steps before collapsing on their weight. The depiction of light in this image is an anomaly, as most chickens spend their entire lives in the dark so that when it comes time to round them up for slaughter, they are sleepy and less resistant.

These outbreaks have called for greater food safety inspections of these industrial farms from the victims of this food poisoning, yet these calls are often skirted by the agricultural corporation executives who instead opt for useless self-policing. In addition to creating a new unsafe standard for consumers, the conversion to industrial meat-processing plants from small-scale butchers has created unsafe and unsanitary working conditions (which also increase the chances of meat contamination) for their employees, which has had to be supplemented by imported labor, often by undocumented immigrants. 

Image depicting industrial meat-packing plant. Workers are forced together in close quarters (much like the livestock they are processing), repeating the same action for low wages. The job has become one of the most dangerous agricultural jobs; workplace injuries are frequent, often losing extremities, or falling ill from meat contamination

Lastly, industrial agricultural producers such as Monsanto have patented their seeds and prosecuted farmers who attempt to save them, to be used for the next crop cycle, as opposed to purchasing the seeds again from the producers. These seeds have been bred for use to be resistant against harmful fertilizers, weed-killers, and pesticides, with no thought into the potential effect of these chemicals on the environment and consumers.

Things don’t have to be this way. All of these problems are a result of lax agricultural policy that has allowed for the subsidization of industries that are harmful to the health of the environment, producers, and consumers. The products being made by these farms are increasingly non-nutritious, contributing to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes, especially among lower income levels. Organic farms that use compost or no-till farming to replenish the nutrients in the soil, instead of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, are a viable alternative to industrial farming. In addition, more humane, grass-fed free-range farms can also reduce the amount of food-borne illness that occurs in meat production. It will require the government to transition agricultural subsidies from these industrial farms to more organic and humane farms to make this a financially viable option for both consumers and producers. But to do this, it will require the removal of agricultural corporate executives from the administration of regulatory agencies tasked with overseeing the very companies they run and profit off of. In order to do this, it will require those who can afford it to vote with their wallets by supporting organic and humane farming and for citizens to vote for representatives who will choose to appoint administrators who actually give a heck about the health, safety, and livelihoods of their constituents.

Word Count; 1,019 (I know I’m waaaaay over but this was a topic that was rife with information and something I’m very passionate about)

Works Cited

Kenner, Robert, Richard Pearce, Eric Schlosser, Melissa Robledo, William Pohlad, Jeff Skoll, Robin Schorr, et al. Food, Inc.. USA: Dogwoof Pictures; Participant Media; River Road Entertainment, 2009.

Symphony of Soil. Youtube. กรมพัฒนาที่ดิน แชนแนล LDD Channel, 2018. https://youtu.be/tDZVKMe2FTg.

  Blog #10: Waste

11/16/21

Scientific innovations have allowed us to achieve the unimaginable; we put a man on the moon, we’ve found cures for innumerable diseases, and we’ve placed a seemingly endless number of products on the market designed to increase productivity, entertainment, and leisure time. However, in the process of creating these products, we have also created exorbitant amounts of waste; in solid, liquid, and gaseous forms. While a few of these products will biodegrade, the vast majority will exist for decades, centuries, even millennia, polluting our earth and its ecosystems. So how did we get here? And where do we go from here?

There are many kinds of pollutants/environmental hazards, but they generally fall under two categories; biological and chemical. Biological hazards are spread from one organism to another and can take the form of a virus (such as influenza, HIV, hepatitis B, and Ebola {412-414}) bacteria (such as Tuberculosis and Lyme {412}), or a parasite (such as Malaria {416}. These diseases can have deadly effects; influenza is the biggest viral killer, due to its propensity to cause fatal pneumonia. Another significant threat to human health, especially in developing countries or places with lots of open ponds, is mosquito-borne malaria; about 3.2 billion people are at risk of malaria, however, this risk has been decreased in recent years due to increased accessibility of mosquito netting, but there has been an uptick in mosquito-borne illness in recent years linked to deforestation {416-417}. Lastly, while the chances of bacterial illness have decreased due to the widespread accessibility of antibiotics, another cause for concern is the increase in antibiotic resistance caused by antibiotic abuse {411}.

Chemical hazards are man-made chemicals (generally from industrial production) that cause harm to humans and other organisms in their path {419}. Chemical pollutants often come in microscopic, tasteless, and odorless forms, each with varying effects on human health. Some, such as PCBs (a permanent chemical, found in innumerable products such as fire retardants and preservatives, are carcinogens, that cause cancer. Others, such as nitrous acid, are mutagens that increase the frequency of mutations. Teratogens such as ethyl alcohol and mercury, cause birth defects {418}. Different chemical pollutants can also affect the immune system, the nervous system, and the endocrine system. Some chemicals, such as mercury, can be magnified up the food chain, from microorganisms to fish to humans {419}. While chemicals have varying toxicities based on their PPM, infants and children with smaller bodies are generally more susceptible to chemical poisoning {422}.

Many waste pollutants originate in solid forms. The majority (98.5%) of solid waste in the US is industrial waste from mining, agriculture, and industry. The rest (1.5%) is municipal solid waste; while this sounds like a small fraction, the US generates 4.4 pounds of waste, per person, per day. 1 in every 10 dollars Americans spend goes to packaging, which makes up 40% of household trash {539}. While some of these products, such as paper and biological waste, will eventually biodegrade, there is one product that in recent years has been a cause for concern due to its longevity; plastic. Since the 1950s, we have created 9 billion tons of plastic {547}. It can take 1000s of years to completely biodegrade, and it often breaks down into smaller pieces called microplastics. Plastics are often discarded as litter where they end up in waterways, and eventually, the ocean, where they are consumed by marine life, often confused for a jellyfish. While some of it can be recycled, most of it ends up in landfills {539}. Another increasing cause for concern is e-waste; as the world is increasingly brought into the digital sphere, we are generating more and more lithium-ion battery waste, which can contaminate groundwater and soil, and cause a range of human health problems, in addition to the fact that digital devices contain precious metals that are harmfully mined, and end up going to waste {541}.

The sum total of all of these pollutants is causing an environmental headache. It is no longer the most viable option to create plastic alternatives; our best option for reducing waste output is simple; to reduce waste input {542}. Our next best option is to reuse what waste (often packaging) we can, such as plastic water bottles. Another option is to recycle or compost our waste, although this is not the best option because many things are not recyclable, and even sometimes recyclable items end up in landfills, or even shipped overseas, due to recycling plants not having the capacity to handle the large amounts of waste {545}. 

In order to address this problem, we can start at the industrial level; encourage manufacturers to use biodegradable packaging when possible, and 100% recyclable packaging if necessary. At the governmental level, developed countries can increase funding for their recycling and composting program infrastructure, and subsidize businesses who choose to use sustainable packaging. On an individual level, our best option is simple; use less. Before making a purchase, always ask yourself; is this a want or a need? Can I find this, in a more sustainable form, at a similar price point, elsewhere? (The answer is likely no but that burden is up to government subsidies)

Word Count: 869

Works Cited

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 17: Environmental Hazards and Human Health.” Essay. In Living in the Environment, 20th ed., 408–33. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2021.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 21: Solid and Hazardous Waste.” Essay. In Living in the Environment, 20th ed., 537–61. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2021.

Blog #11: Water Resources and Pollution

12/1/21

Water is everywhere; it makes up the majority of the earth and we are ultimately dependent on it for our survival. Despite its abundance, only a very small portion of it is fresh water that can be used for human activities; only about 0.024% is readily available to us {Miller and Spoolman 2021; 302}, and water desalination is currently extremely expensive. We are currently using and polluting our available fresh water at a rate that is unsustainable {303}. As the planet warms, droughts become increasingly common, mountain snowpack decreases {322}, aquifers are depleted {309}, and rainy seasons become more erratic, accessing the increasing levels of water we need for a growing population is becoming progressively more difficult {303}.

In terms of access to water, only 57% of the world’s population have water piped to their homes {301}. The rest must find and carry it from distant sources, or pump groundwater resulting in water table and aquifer decimation; aquifers are underground water stores formed through the porous layers in the soil. They can normally be restored through the processes of the water cycle, however, as we develop and pave more and more of the land, surface water is unable to penetrate the concrete; thus, we are using groundwater at a rate faster than it can be restored {302} (similar to many other natural resources used by humans).

Freshwater that is not consumed but rather is used for other purposes such as cleaning, irrigation, cooling of electric power plants, and manufacturing of other objects, is called “virtual water”; this makes up the majority of water usage in the world {304}. In arid environments, up to 85% of fresh water is used for irrigation {305}, with methods that often waste water, or with crops that require large amounts of water to grow {309}. 

Water shortages have forced arid environments to divert water from wetter environments, resulting in not only a transformation of landscapes but also a decimation of water stores in the places where the water originates {305}. Currently, 2.1 billion people are facing water scarcity, and as populations grow and the climate warms, this number is only expected to grow {306}.]

Due to human and industrial activities, we are currently polluting our available fresh water at an exponential rate. This pollution can come from point sources (specific discharge locations such as pipes from factories) or nonpoint sources (nonspecific pollution diffusion, such as agricultural runoff) {507}. Not only does water pollution cause the destruction of ecosystems, such as eutrophication*, but it can also be extremely detrimental to human health; over 1.6 million people die every year from water-borne infectious diseases {508}, especially in developing countries with less water treatment and transportation infrastructure.

Water pollution affects every type of body of water, each in different ways. Streams and rivers can generally cleanse themselves through natural processes, unless they are too saturated with pollutants or if they have been altered by man-made structures such as dams in a way that prevents self-purification {511}. In LDCs with less treatment infrastructure, it is estimated that 80-90% of raw sewage is dumped directly into streams and rivers, despite their use for drinking, bathing, and cleaning; this can cause a range of health problems, from infectious diseases to cancer and more. Lakes, where there are stratified layers that often don’t mix and very little movement of water {512}, are even more difficult to cleanse of pollutants. Lakes are especially susceptible to cultural eutrophication*, or the oversaturation of plant nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates that causes algal blooms, resulting in a depletion of dissolved oxygen when these algal organisms die and are decomposed by respirating bacteria at the bottom of the lake. The lack of oxygen makes it impossible for any other respirating organisms to survive in the body of water, and the toxic algae can be fatal if consumed by many land species {513}.

Groundwater pollution is even more difficult to self-clean, as groundwater flows so slowly that pollution is not effectively dispersed, and it generally contains lower levels of dissolved oxygen that allows organic pollutants to be decomposed. This is problematic because groundwater provides the majority of freshwater for many people, and the development and paving of landscapes make it difficult for groundwater to be refreshed and replenished {515}. Cleaning aquifers is an extremely difficult and expensive process; it can cost several million dollars just to clean one contaminated aquifer {517}.

As moving bodies of water, oceans can generally cleanse and disperse pollutants. However, if they are overloaded with pollutants, especially those such as microplastics that were designed to not decompose, oceans can harbor certain pollutants for years, which can settle into coastal or deep-sea sediments which can exist for decades {521}. Oil {525} and plastic ocean pollution are two major causes for concern, as these pollutants tend to disperse or break up where they are either buried into ocean sediments or consumed by ocean organisms {524}. These pollutants, especially plastic, make their way up the food chain where they are eventually consumed by us; microplastics can often be consumed either through eating fish or through our drinking water; studies show 83% of the world’s drinking water and 93% of bottled water contains microplastics. These microplastics can contain harmful chemicals such as DDT or BPAs {524}.

There are many ways to limit water pollution, however, the most effective method by far is to prevent water pollution at the source, and restore natural infrastructures, such as wetlands, mangrove forests, and buffer crops that absorb a large portion of runoff pollutants before they reach bodies of water {527}. If we are to continue to be able to depend upon our natural water sources for our survival, then it will require us to stop treating the earth and its water like they are infinitely renewable, or as our personal trash cans. What are some simple ways individuals can limit their contribution to water pollution?

Word Count: 988 (whoops)

Works Cited

Global Physical and Economic Water Scarcity. March 2012. UN Water. https://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 20: Water Pollution.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Concepts, Connections, and Solutions 20, 20:506–33. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 2011.

Norton, Ciara. Virtual Infographic. Green-Schools. Accessed December 1, 2021. https://greenschoolsireland.org/virtual-water-infographic/.

Oliveira, Paulo. Turtle Swimming amongst Floating Plastic. More than 14m Tonnes of Plastic Believed to Be at the Bottom of the Ocean. The Guardian, October 5, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/06/more-than-14m-tonnes-of-plastic-believed-to-be-at-the-bottom-of-the-ocean.

Perlman, Howard, Jack Cook, and Igor Shiklomanov. The World’s Water. July 19, 2019. United States Geological Survey. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/all-earths-water-a-single-sphere.

Umbria, Arpa. Eutrophication Process Representation. 2009. Eniscuola Energy and Environment. http://www.eniscuola.net/en/2016/11/03/what-is-eutrophication-causes-effects-and-control/. 

Blog Post #12: COP26

12/07/21

On October 31st, 2021, representatives gathered from around the world to meet in Glasgow for the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference. Many representatives made bold new commitments to reduce the impact that the practices of their respective countries have had on climate change. While these commitments are the boldest and most all-encompassing commitments made at the UNCOP thus far, they will still not be enough to address the imminent threat posed by climate change. In reviewing the summarizing documents from the aftermath of COP26, there seems to be a lot of empty promises and bureaucratic nonsense.

While negotiations concluded that limiting global warming to 1.5C is within reach, it is “just barely” {Mountford}. It seems much more likely that we are on track to reach 2C; representatives need to start being more realistic to avoid setting up unrealistic expectations for the climate concerned. We need to stop using language like “preventing” climate change, as it is ignorant of the fact that climate change is already happening. 

Rather, we need to ramp up the usage of the phrase “mitigation”, which is a more accurate term to address the ongoing effects while limiting their magnitude. This is one thing that COP26 was successful in doing; the conference finally placed the theme of “Loss and Damage” on the main stage}; it acknowledged the fact that climate change is already causing loss and damage “to millions, including the loss of lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems” {Negotiations, 11}. This means that we are also coming to terms with the unfortunate reality that we will not be able to save everyone or every state from climate change; low lying island countries, such as the Maldives, have begun accepting that while the agreements reached are the most revolutionary thus far, for the poor Maldives, it is too late {Quiñones}. These countries will have to begin to make plans for the relocation of their citizens, which will not be an easy feat; it will require the assistance of wealthier countries, especially those most liable for a large portion of emissions.

The most disappointing aspect of all of the negotiations was the last-minute change to the pact made by two of the world’s guiltiest polluters; China and India. Two major contributors of coal-fired power generated emissions, the countries changed the phrasing in their commitments from “phasing out” coal power and fossil fuel subsidies to “phasing-down”, which could mean anything from 90% reduction to 1% reduction. This announcement was met with choked-back tears by COP26 President Alok Sharma {Quiñones}.

It is extremely frustrating that many of the representatives tasked with representing the interests of their countries’ citizens and their well-being seemed to prioritize the interests of industry. While it seems morbid, many of these representatives will likely be dead before the effects of climate change have existentially detrimental results, while the young people who largely had no say will be forced to deal with it. While it is undeniable that increased economic opportunity is beneficial for the livelihoods of people in developing countries, it is ignorant of the fact that many of these people will be unable to reap the benefits of these increased economic opportunities due to being quite literally wiped out by climate change. In addition, while the negotiations did incorporate commitments to facilitate the development of renewable energy technologies and infrastructures {Mountford}, they neglected to discuss the fact that renewable energy holds far greater potential for economic growth than the fossil fuel industry, which has been in decline for years. Empowering developing countries to incorporate renewable energy infrastructure would not only massively stimulate their economies but also help to reduce their dependency on oil and oil-exporting countries. In fact, the actual, final, “Glasgow Climate Pact”, neglects to include the words “renewable”, “solar”,  or “wind”, and only very briefly mentions “calling upon” countries to reduce fossil fuel subsidies {Glasgow, part 36}; meanwhile, it uses the word “urge” fourteen times, and “notes” 9 times.

From the final pact made from the negotiations at COP26, it is becoming increasingly obvious that if we are to have any measly chance at, essentially, survival as a species, we can no longer be reliant on our governing bodies to limit climate change. If I learned anything from my International Studies major, it’s that states are fundamentally selfish, and will almost always pursue actions that have the greatest short-term gains, despite potential long-term detrimental effects. It is going to take, essentially, a complete revolution of our economic systems in order to have any hope at mitigating climate change; free-market capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with sustainable development. Citizens of the world must come together, and use the power of their votes, the power of their wallets, and if it comes to it, the power of their fists, to preserve any hope of a future as species. We will just have to do it ourselves.

Word Count: 810

Works Cited:

“COP26 Explained - ukcop26.Org.” COP26 Negotiations Explained. UK Government. Accessed December 8, 2021. https://ukcop26.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/COP26-Explained.pdf.

Mountford, Helen, David Waskow, Lorena Gonzalez, Chirag Gajjar, Nathan Cogswell, Mima Holt, Taryn Fransen, Molly Bergen, and Rhys Gerholdt. “COP26: Key Outcomes from the UN Climate Talks in Glasgow .” World Resources Institute, November 17, 2021. https://www.wri.org/insights/cop26-key-outcomes-un-climate-talks-glasgow.

“Organization of Work, Including for the Sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies.” Glasgow Climate Pact. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, November 13, 2021. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_L16_adv.pdf.

Quiñones, Laura. “COP26 Closes with ‘Compromise’ Deal on Climate, but It’s Not Enough, Says UN Chief | | UN News.” United Nations. United Nations, November 12, 2021. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/11/1105792.

Thanos “Fine, I’ll Do It Myself”. Meme Generator. Accessed December 7, 2021. https://memegenerator.net/instance/84310652/fine-ill-do-it-myself-thanos-fine-ill-do-it-myself. 

Climate Impact Initiative Practicum

During my time this semester with the Climate Impact Initiative Club, I worked an average of 1 to 2 hours per week. I attended their weekly meetings (via Zoom, with my camera on the entire time), during which I did my best to be an active participant, even if it was just for simple questions like “do you have any plans for the holidays?” because I think an important part of being a member of a club is to be fully present. The club member responsibilities were broken up into different projects; social media, composting, CSA, ILC, the club website, community business, and environmental history. I joined the social media team because I myself am already a frequent user of social media. 

With the social media team, especially on our Instagram profile, we worked on student outreach to try to get more people involved in the club, since the number of members is kind of small, and the number of members who actually attended the meetings each week was even smaller. We made (and shared on our personal accounts) advertisements for events, such as a guest speaker event on “Media and the Climate: Apocalyptic Images Dealing with the Climate Crisis”. 

We also participated in campus sustainability week by hosting events every day; including another guest speaker event, a showing of the Lorax, and a yoga class that was a fundraiser for Project Petals, a non-profit organization based in Queens, New York, whose goal is to “[change] spaces, create leaders, equitable communities, [prevent] climate change, and [improve] the environment” {Project Petals, n.d.}. 

A lot of the work that we do is in tandem with the sustainability committee of the University Student Addition. With this club, we published a guide to recycling on campus, as one major problem we have with the efficacy of recycling is people not knowing how to recycle correctly, so sometimes improperly recycled waste, such as plastic straws, can jam up recycling machines, or can cause entire batches of recyclable waste to not end up in a landfill.

However, one of my favorite activities that I participated in with the social media team of the club was the creation of the sustainable shopping list for Christmas gifts. One major problem with the holiday season is the consumerism that it evokes, and the innumerable amount of waste (often generated unsustainably) it creates. With holidays like Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and sales throughout the month of December, we tend to buy before thinking about whether we actually need what we are buying, whether the person we are shopping for is actually gonna use the gift, or least often, whether the object we are buying was generated using sustainable materials and practices. Built off of a list started by the club during the same time last year, we found several companies who have dedicated themselves to sustainability, whether that be through their production practices or through offsetting their carbon footprint, and contacted their management to see if we could get special discounts for people who were accessing the list, or freebies to incentivize people to use the list. 

When we were making the list, one of the things we had to be wary about was greenwashing; greenwashing is when a company uses language, such as “eco-friendly” or “green”, or packaging that makes their products appear to be more sustainable than they actually are. In reality, they may be changing little to nothing about their production practices, and can actually be making a problem worse by convincing consumers that they are purchasing sustainably and may perhaps make less sustainable choices in other parts of their life {Miller and Spoolman 2021; 600}. They actually had “Love, Beauty, & Planet” listed on the original guide; this was problematic because, while the company claims to promote sustainability with “a little love for the planet” with “100% recyclable” packaging, the parent company of LB&P is Unilever. Uniliver holds a large degree of responsibility for the destruction of rainforests around the world, such as in the Amazon and in Indonesia, through its unsustainable palm oil plantations {Zhao} {Miller and Spoolman 2021; 211}. 

They did have one other opportunity to visit a sustainable company, Thousand Fell, but unfortunately, the field trip took place on the same day as our Environmental Studies class, so I was unable to attend. Aside from that, I was honestly kind of disappointed with the lack of opportunity for engagement that the club offered. I do understand that in-person engagement is kind of difficult to do during covid, but I did make a suggestion to the club leader that next semester, they provide more opportunities for in-person engagement. I suggested, for example, that we host more trash pickups since there was only one the entire semester, and it was actually hosted by the sustainable business coalition, and I was actually the only person from the Climate Impact Initiative.

Overall, I think I made a lasting impression in the club through my participation(not to flatter myself), and I think the club made an impression on me in terms of expanding my perceptions of sustainability. I plan to participate even more in the club next semester (I am taking less credits than I did this semester so I will have more free time), and potentially even shoot for an e-board position because multiple of their e-board members will be graduating at the end of the spring semester.

Word Count: 903

Works Cited

Corcione, Adryan. “What Is Greenwashing?” Business News Daily, December 13, 2021. https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/10946-greenwashing.html.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2021.

Zhao, Emily. “Unilever and Nestlé Are Burning Indonesia. Is ‘Sustainable Palm Oil’ a Con?” The Climate Reporter. Medium, November 10, 2019. https://medium.com/the-climate-reporter/unilever-and-nestl%C3%A9-are-burning-indonesia-is-sustainable-palm-oil-a-con-4a15e3110d1a. 

Environmental Stakeholder and Citizen Statement

Throughout the semester of our Environmental Studies class, my awareness of environmental issues that, prior to the class, I had not even perceived to be a thing was expanded. I went into the class with a general belief in the goodwill of all humans. However, as the semester went on and we learned more and more about the interactions of industry, government, and the environment, I have become increasingly convinced of the importance of individual action.

In almost every chapter we studied, one repetitive theme was the universal disdain held by corporations for the wellbeing of citizens and the environment. Corporations are always going to pursue actions in terms of their capability to maximize profit and minimize costs, no matter the effect it may have on their employees, their consumers, and the surrounding environment. However, corporations can sometimes also be responsive to the demands of the market. If consumers can prove to corporations that it is more profitable for them to be sustainable, through the purchases they choose to make, then corporations will change their behaviors.

I also became increasingly aware of the large presence of corporate board members in the heads of the very regulatory agencies that were assigned to oversee their companies. My understanding of the role of campaign finance on influencing the decisions made by policymakers was also expanded. While the current campaign finance laws can make ensuring the efficacy of our democracy more difficult, consumers can choose to vote for policymakers who support sustainability and renewable energy infrastructure. In addition, while our international governing bodies have no overarching power that dictates them, and thus states will most often make decisions in their own best interest, citizens of these states can make it clear to these policymakers, through their voting behaviors, and even through demonstrations, that we will not sit by idly as we head into climate catastrophe, and we must do something to mitigate it.

If we are to have any chance of mitigating climate change and generating a chance of a future for our children that looks anything like our own, we will need to do everything in our power as citizens to stop unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and pollution in general. Even if that means throwing yourself in front of a bulldozer (I’m not actually advocating for this but I’m getting real c

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Blog Post #12: COP26

12/07/21 On October 31st, 2021, representatives gathered from around the world to meet in Glasgow for the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference. Many representatives made bold new commitments to reduce the impact that the practices of their respective countries have had on climate change. While these commitments are the boldest and most all-encompassing commitments made at the UNCOP thus far, they will still not be enough to address the imminent threat posed by climate change. In reviewing the summarizing documents from the aftermath of COP26, there seems to be a lot of empty promises and bureaucratic nonsense.

While negotiations concluded that limiting global warming to 1.5C is within reach, it is “just barely” {Mountford}. It seems much more likely that we are on track to reach 2C; representatives need to start being more realistic to avoid setting up unrealistic expectations for the climate concerned. We need to stop using language like “preventing” climate change, as it is ignorant of the fact that climate change is already happening. 

Rather, we need to ramp up the usage of the phrase “mitigation”, which is a more accurate term to address the ongoing effects while limiting their magnitude. This is one thing that COP26 was successful in doing; the conference finally placed the theme of “Loss and Damage” on the main stage}; it acknowledged the fact that climate change is already causing loss and damage “to millions, including the loss of lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems” {Negotiations, 11}. This means that we are also coming to terms with the unfortunate reality that we will not be able to save everyone or every state from climate change; low lying island countries, such as the Maldives, have begun accepting that while the agreements reached are the most revolutionary thus far, for the poor Maldives, it is too late {Quiñones}. These countries will have to begin to make plans for the relocation of their citizens, which will not be an easy feat; it will require the assistance of wealthier countries, especially those most liable for a large portion of emissions.

The most disappointing aspect of all of the negotiations was the last-minute change to the pact made by two of the world’s guiltiest polluters; China and India. Two major contributors of coal-fired power generated emissions, the countries changed the phrasing in their commitments from “phasing out” coal power and fossil fuel subsidies to “phasing-down”, which could mean anything from 90% reduction to 1% reduction. This announcement was met with choked-back tears by COP26 President Alok Sharma {Quiñones}.

It is extremely frustrating that many of the representatives tasked with representing the interests of their countries’ citizens and their well-being seemed to prioritize the interests of industry. While it seems morbid, many of these representatives will likely be dead before the effects of climate change have existentially detrimental results, while the young people who largely had no say will be forced to deal with it. While it is undeniable that increased economic opportunity is beneficial for the livelihoods of people in developing countries, it is ignorant of the fact that many of these people will be unable to reap the benefits of these increased economic opportunities due to being quite literally wiped out by climate change. In addition, while the negotiations did incorporate commitments to facilitate the development of renewable energy technologies and infrastructures {Mountford}, they neglected to discuss the fact that renewable energy holds far greater potential for economic growth than the fossil fuel industry, which has been in decline for years. Empowering developing countries to incorporate renewable energy infrastructure would not only massively stimulate their economies but also help to reduce their dependency on oil and oil-exporting countries. In fact, the actual, final, “Glasgow Climate Pact”, neglects to include the words “renewable”, “solar”,  or “wind”, and only very briefly mentions “calling upon” countries to reduce fossil fuel subsidies {Glasgow, part 36}; meanwhile, it uses the word “urge” fourteen times, and “notes” 9 times.

From the final pact made from the negotiations at COP26, it is becoming increasingly obvious that if we are to have any measly chance at, essentially, survival as a species, we can no longer be reliant on our governing bodies to limit climate change. If I learned anything from my International Studies major, it's that states are fundamentally selfish, and will almost always pursue actions that have the greatest short-term gains, despite potential long-term detrimental effects. It is going to take, essentially, a complete revolution of our economic systems in order to have any hope at mitigating climate change; free-market capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with sustainable development. Citizens of the world must come together, and use the power of their votes, the power of their wallets, and if it comes to it, the power of their fists, to preserve any hope of a future as species. We will just have to do it ourselves.Word Count: 810

Works Cited:

“COP26 Explained - ukcop26.Org.” COP26 Negotiations Explained. UK Government. Accessed December 8, 2021. https://ukcop26.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/COP26-Explained.pdf.

Mountford, Helen, David Waskow, Lorena Gonzalez, Chirag Gajjar, Nathan Cogswell, Mima Holt, Taryn Fransen, Molly Bergen, and Rhys Gerholdt. “COP26: Key Outcomes from the UN Climate Talks in Glasgow .” World Resources Institute, November 17, 2021. https://www.wri.org/insights/cop26-key-outcomes-un-climate-talks-glasgow.

“Organization of Work, Including for the Sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies.” Glasgow Climate Pact. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, November 13, 2021. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_L16_adv.pdf.

Quiñones, Laura. “COP26 Closes with 'Compromise' Deal on Climate, but It's Not Enough, Says UN Chief | | UN News.” United Nations. United Nations, November 12, 2021. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/11/1105792.

Thanos "Fine, I'll Do It Myself". Meme Generator. Accessed December 7, 2021. https://memegenerator.net/instance/84310652/fine-ill-do-it-myself-thanos-fine-ill-do-it-myself. 

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Blog #11: Water Resources and Pollution

12/1/21

Water is everywhere; it makes up the majority of the earth and we are ultimately dependent on it for our survival. Despite its abundance, only a very small portion of it is freshwater that is able to be used for human activities; only about 0.024% is readily available to us {Miller and Spoolman 2021; 302}, and water desalination is currently extremely expensive. We are currently using and polluting our available fresh water at a rate that is unsustainable {303}. As the planet warms, droughts become increasingly common, mountain snowpack decreases {322}, aquifers are depleted {309}, and rainy seasons become more erratic, accessing the increasing levels of water we need for a growing population is becoming progressively more difficult {303}.

In terms of access to water, only 57% of the world’s population have water piped to their homes {301}. The rest must find and carry it from distant sources, or pump groundwater resulting in water table and aquifer decimation; aquifers are underground water stores formed through the porous layers in the soil. They can normally be restored through the processes of the water cycle, however, as we develop and pave more and more of the land, surface water is unable to penetrate the concrete; thus, we are using groundwater at a rate faster than it can be restored {302} (similar to many other natural resources used by humans).

Freshwater that is not consumed but rather is used for other purposes such as cleaning, irrigation, cooling of electric power plants, and manufacturing of other objects, is called “virtual water”; this makes up the majority of water usage in the world {304}. In arid environments, up to 85% of freshwater is used for irrigation {305}, with methods that often waste water, or with crops that require large amounts of water to grow {309}. 

Water shortages have forced arid environments to divert water from wetter environments, resulting in not only a transformation of landscapes but also a decimation of water stores in the places where the water originates {305}. Currently, 2.1 billion people are facing water scarcity, and as populations grow and the climate warms, this number is only expected to grow {306}.]

Due to human and industrial activities, we are currently polluting our available fresh water at an exponential rate. This pollution can come from point sources (specific discharge locations such as pipes from factories) or nonpoint sources (nonspecific pollution diffusion, such as agricultural runoff) {507}. Not only does water pollution cause the destruction of ecosystems, such as eutrophication*, but it can also be extremely detrimental to human health; over 1.6 million people die every year from water-borne infectious diseases {508}, especially in developing countries with less water treatment and transportation infrastructure.

Water pollution affects every type of body of water, each in different ways. Streams and rivers can generally cleanse themselves through natural processes, unless they are too saturated with pollutants or if they have been altered by man-made structures such as dams in a way that prevents self-purification {511}. In LDCs with less treatment infrastructure, it is estimated that 80-90% of raw sewage is dumped directly into streams and rivers, despite their use for drinking, bathing, and cleaning; this can cause a range of health problems, from infectious diseases to cancer and more. Lakes, where there are stratified layers that often don’t mix and very little movement of water {512}, are even more difficult to cleanse pollutants. Lakes are especially susceptible to cultural eutrophication*, or the oversaturation of plant nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates that causes algal blooms, resulting in a depletion of dissolved oxygen when these algal organisms die and are decomposed by respirating bacteria at the bottom of the lake. The lack of oxygen makes it impossible for any other respirating organisms to survive in the body of water, and the toxic algae can be fatal if consumed by many land species {513}.

Groundwater pollution is even more difficult to self-clean, as groundwater flows so slowly that pollution is not effectively dispersed, and it generally contains lower levels of dissolved oxygen that allows organic pollutants to be decomposed. This is problematic because groundwater provides the majority of freshwater for many people, and the development and paving of landscapes make it difficult for groundwater to be refreshed and replenished {515}. Cleaning of aquifers is an extremely difficult and expensive process; it can cost several million dollars just to clean one contaminated aquifer {517}.

As moving bodies of water, oceans can generally cleanse and disperse pollutants. However, if they are overloaded with pollutants, especially those such as microplastics that were designed to not decompose, oceans can harbor certain pollutants for years, which can settle into coastal or deep sea sediments which can exist for decades {521}. Oil {525} and plastic ocean pollution are two major causes for concern, as these pollutants tend to disperse or break up where they are either buried into ocean sediments or consumed by ocean organisms {524}. These pollutants, especially plastic, make their way up the food chain where they are eventually consumed by us; microplastics can often be consumed either through eating fish or through our drinking water; studies show 83% of the world’s drinking water and 93% of bottled water contains microplastics. These microplastics can contain harmful chemicals such as DDT or BPAs {524}.

There are many ways to limit water pollution, however, the most effective method by far is to prevent water pollution at the source, and restore natural infrastructures, such as wetlands, mangrove forests, and buffer crops that absorb a large portion of runoff pollutants before they reach bodies of water {527}. If we are to continue to be able to depend upon our natural water sources for our survival, then it will require us to stop treating the earth and its water like they are infinitely renewable or as our personal trash cans. What are some simple ways individuals can limit their contribution to water pollution?

Word Count: 988 (whoops)

Works Cited

Global Physical and Economic Water Scarcity. March 2012. UN Water. https://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 20: Water Pollution.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Concepts, Connections, and Solutions 20, 20:506–33. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 2011.

Norton, Ciara. Virtual Infographic. Green-Schools. Accessed December 1, 2021. https://greenschoolsireland.org/virtual-water-infographic/.

Oliveira, Paulo. Turtle Swimming amongst Floating Plastic. More than 14m Tonnes of Plastic Believed to Be at the Bottom of the Ocean. The Guardian, October 5, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/06/more-than-14m-tonnes-of-plastic-believed-to-be-at-the-bottom-of-the-ocean.

Perlman, Howard, Jack Cook, and Igor Shiklomanov. The World's Water. July 19, 2019. United States Geological Survey. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/all-earths-water-a-single-sphere.

Umbria, Arpa. Eutrophication Process Representation. 2009. Eniscuola Energy and Environment. http://www.eniscuola.net/en/2016/11/03/what-is-eutrophication-causes-effects-and-control/. 

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Blog #10: Waste

11/16/21

Scientific innovations have allowed us to achieve the unimaginable; we put a man on the moon, we’ve found cures for innumerable diseases, and we’ve placed a seemingly endless number of products on the market designed to increase productivity, entertainment, and leisure time. However, in the process of creating these products, we have also created exorbitant amounts of waste; in solid, liquid, and gaseous forms. While a few of these products will biodegrade, the vast majority will exist for decades, centuries, even millennia, polluting our earth and its ecosystems. So how did we get here? And where do we go from here?

There are many kinds of pollutants/environmental hazards, but they generally fall under two categories; biological and chemical. Biological hazards are spread from one organism to another and can take the form of a virus (such as influenza, HIV, hepatitis B, and Ebola {412-414}) bacteria (such as Tuberculosis and Lyme {412}), or a parasite (such as Malaria {416}. These diseases can have deadly effects; influenza is the biggest viral killer, due to its propensity to cause fatal pneumonia. Another significant threat to human health, especially in developing countries or places with lots of open wet ponds, is mosquito-borne malaria; about 3.2 billion people are at risk of malaria, however, this risk has been decreased in recent years due to increased accessibility of mosquito netting, but there has been an uptick in mosquito-borne illness in recent years linked to deforestation {416-417}. Lastly, while the chances of bacterial illness have decreased due to the widespread accessibility of antibiotics, another cause for concern is the increase in antibiotic resistance caused by antibiotic abuse {411}.

Chemical hazards are man-made chemicals (generally from industrial production) that cause harm to humans and other organisms in their path {419}. Chemical pollutants often come in microscopic, tasteless, and odorless forms, each with varying effects on human health. Some, such as PCBs (a permanent chemical, found in innumerable products such as fire retardants and preservatives, are carcinogens, that cause cancer. Others, such as nitrous acid, are mutagens that increase the frequency of mutations. Teratogens such as ethyl alcohol and mercury, cause birth defects {418}. Different chemical pollutants can also affect the immune system, the nervous system, and the endocrine system. Some chemicals, such as mercury, can be magnified up the food chain, from microorganisms to fish to humans {419}. While chemicals have varying toxicities based on their PPM, infants and children with smaller bodies are generally more susceptible to chemical poisoning {422}.

Many waste pollutants originate in solid forms. The majority (98.5%) of solid waste in the US is industrial waste from mining, agriculture, and industry. The rest (1.5%) is municipal solid waste; while this sounds like a small fraction, the US generates 4.4 pounds of waste, per person, per day. 1 in every 10 dollars Americans spend goes to packaging, which makes up 40% of household trash {539}. While some of these products, such as paper and biological waste, will eventually biodegrade, there is one product that in recent years has been a cause for concern due to its longevity; plastic. Since the 1950s, we have created 9 billion tons of plastic {547}.  It can take 1000s of years to completely biodegrade, and it often breaks down into smaller pieces called microplastics. Plastics are often discarded as litter where they end up in waterways, and eventually, the ocean, where they are consumed by marine life, often confused for a jellyfish. While some of it can be recycled, most of it ends up in landfills {539}. Another increasing cause for concern is e-waste; as the world is increasingly brought into the digital sphere, we are generating more and more lithium-ion battery waste, which can contaminate groundwater and soil, and cause a range of human health problems, in addition to the fact that digital devices contain precious metals that are harmfully mined, and go to waste {541}.

The sum total of all of these pollutants is causing an environmental headache. It is no longer the most viable option to create plastic alternatives; our best option for reducing waste output is simple; to reduce waste input {542}. Our next best option is to reuse what waste (often packaging) we can, such as plastic water bottles. Another option is to recycle or compost our waste, although this is not the best option because many things are not recyclable, and even sometimes recyclable items end up in landfills, or even shipped overseas, due to recycling processing plants not having the capacity to handle the large amounts of waste {545}. 

In order to address this problem, we can start at the industrial level; encourage manufacturers to use biodegradable packaging when possible, and 100% recyclable packaging if necessary. At the governmental level, developed countries can increase funding for their recycling and composting programs, and subsidize businesses who choose to use sustainable packaging. On an individual level, our best option is simple; use less. Before making a purchase, always ask yourself; is this a want or a need? Can I find this, in a more sustainable form, at a similar price point, elsewhere? (The answer is likely no but that burden is up to government subsidies)

Word Count: 869

Works Cited

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 17: Environmental Hazards and Human Health.” Essay. In Living in the Environment, 20th ed., 408–33. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2021.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 21: Solid and Hazardous Waste.” Essay. In Living in the Environment, 20th ed., 537–61. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2021. 

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Blog #9: Soil and Food

11/10/20

What do an Iowan soybean farmer, a migrant field laborer, a victim of food-borne illness, and the Gulf of Mexico all have in common? They’re all being screwed over by the industrial agricultural industry.

For the vast majority of human history, humans lived off of the land in a system based on need; farmers domesticated crops and harvested just enough to support themselves and their families, perhaps having a little bit of surplus to sell in their village.  As populations grew, and cities expanded inland, demand increased for more food to support these populations. As a result, some civilizations, such as the Ancient Romans {Symphony of Soil}, exhausted their soil and were forced to cultivate more land, repeating the process over again. In the modern-day, agriculture has transformed from a practice based on need to a practice based on maximizing production, regardless of the potential effects on the soil, the surrounding environment, the quality of produce, and on the health of the species that both inhabit the surrounding area and consume the produce {Food, Inc.}

An image of soil degraded by overuse and soil salinization from the use of salt-water, due to limited access to freshwater

The documentary Symphony of Soil describes the way in which all living organisms are dependent on the soil and its microbial inhabitants. Plants draw carbon and nitrogen from the atmosphere to create nutrients that are fed down their roots to these organisms, who are then consumed by protozoa who excrete them and deposit nutrients into the soil and oxygen back into the atmosphere in a symbiotic relationship. For millennia this relationship went unobstructed, that is until humans began cultivating the land for food and drawing out these nutrients without replacing them. As a result, much of the world’s arable land has been exhausted, forcing farmers to resort to artificial fertilizers that pollute the water around them. As a result of run-off excess nitrogen and other nutrients from these chemical fertilizers and from livestock manure, entire aquatic ecosystems, such as in the Gulf of Mexico, have turned into environmental dead zones; algal blooms form to absorb the nitrogen, die, and their decomposers absorb all of the available oxygen in the water making it uninhabitable for any other species to live there.

Map displaying the gulf of Mexico deadzone. Agricultural runoff runs from the Mississippi into the gulf, creating the phenomenon aforementioned

The documentary Food Inc describes the way in which agricultural practices and policies have allowed the industry to transform from small-scale farms that allow farmers to support themselves, to massive industrial enterprises that are physically and financially detrimental to pretty much every party involved, besides the CEOs of these massive multinational corporations. Due to government subsidies, these companies have been able to grow produce to be sold at a price lower than the cost of production, but with increasingly less nutritional value and increasingly more health hazards involved. Instead of having a diverse array of crops, engineering has allowed several different abstract chemicals to be manufactured into a mirage of products, from ketchup to diapers, from chips to biofuel, all off of one crop; corn. 

Image displaying the countless number of products that can be manufactured from derivations of corn

In addition to being processed into countless chemical ingredients that we really have no idea of the long-term effects of, livestock farmers have transitioned their livestock from their natural grass-based diet to corn, which allows them to use less land and feed their livestock at a cheaper price point. As a result of interfering with these animals’ natural diets, an infusion of a cocktail of antibiotics being fed to these animals, and cruel and inhumane living conditions for these livestock where they are shoved together in close quarters in the dark, with barely enough space to breathe, forced to stand ankle-deep in their own manure; many livestock have fallen ill with antibiotic-resistant microbes, such as E. Coli O157:H7. Outbreaks of this strain of E. Coli have caused countless meat and produce recalls (as manure runoff from these industrial farms often ends up in surrounding produce farms), and innumerable cases of food poisoning, some of which have resulted in death. 

An industrial chicken feedlot, where chickens will spend their entire lives. Many are bred to be so fat they can only take a few steps before collapsing on their weight. The depiction of light in this image is an anomaly, as most chickens spend their entire lives in the dark so that when it comes time to round them up for slaughter, they are sleepy and less resistant.

These outbreaks have called for greater food safety inspections of these industrial farms from the victims of this food poisoning, yet are often skirted by the agricultural corporation executives who instead opt for useless self-policing. In addition to creating a new unsafe standard for consumers, the conversion to industrial meat-processing plants from small-scale butchers has created unsafe and unsanitary working conditions (which also increase the chances of meat contamination) for their employees, which has had to be supplemented by imported labor, often by undocumented immigrants. 

Image depicting industrial meat-packing plant. Workers are forced together in close quarters (much like the livestock they are processing), repeating the same action for low wages. The job has become one of the most dangerous agricultural jobs; workplace injuries are frequent, often losing extremities, or falling ill from meat contamination

Lastly, industrial agricultural producers such as Monsanto have begun patenting seeds and prosecuting farmers who attempt to save them to be used for the next crop cycle as opposed to purchasing the seeds again from the producers. These seeds have been bred for use to be resistant against harmful fertilizers, weed-killers, and pesticides, with no thought into the potential effect of these chemicals on the environment and consumers.

Things don’t have to be this way. All of these problems are a result of lax agricultural policy that has allowed for the subsidization of industries that are harmful to the health of both the environment and the producers and consumers. The products being made by these farms are increasingly non-nutritious, contributing to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes, especially among lower income-levels Organic farms that use compost or no-till farming to replenish the nutrients in the soil, instead of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, are a viable alternative to industrial farming. In addition, more humane, grass-fed free-range farms can also reduce the amount of food-borne illness that occurs in meat production. It will require the government to transition agricultural subsidies from these industrial farms to more organic and humane farms in order to make this a financially viable option for both consumers and producers. But in order to do this, it will require the removal of agricultural corporate executives from the administration of regulatory agencies tasked with overseeing the very companies they run and profit off of. In order to do this, it will require those who can afford it to vote with their wallets by supporting organic and humane farming and to literally vote representatives who will choose to appoint administrators who actually give a heck about the health, safety, and livelihoods of their constituents.

Word Count; 1,019 (I know I’m waaaaay over but this was a topic that was rife with information and something I’m very passionate about)

Works Cited

Kenner, Robert, Richard Pearce, Eric Schlosser, Melissa Robledo, William Pohlad, Jeff Skoll, Robin Schorr, et al. Food, Inc.. USA: Dogwoof Pictures; Participant Media; River Road Entertainment, 2009.

Symphony of Soil. Youtube. กรมพัฒนาที่ดิน แชนแนล LDD Channel, 2018. https://youtu.be/tDZVKMe2FTg.

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Blog Post #8: Fixing Environmental Issues Caused by Sustenance Demands by Looking to the Past and the Future

11/2/21

 Industrialization has allowed humans to make previously tedious and time-consuming practices much more efficient. As a result, however, the rapid expansion of human populations combined with the rapid industrialization of the landscapes we inhabit has resulted in a culture of disposability and a conception of the Earth’s natural resources as being infinite. This, of course, could not be further from the truth, and behaviors that we previously used only to sustain ourselves and our families, such as farming and fishing, have turned into extremely-environmentally degradative industrialized agriculture and fishing industries that prioritize profit over need. However, by transitioning some of these industries back to their need-based, non-commodified forms, and empowering individuals to provide sustenance for themselves, we can limit some of the damage that is being done to our Earth.

The fishing industry has gone from one largely based in coastal fishing towns that only fished what was needed and were mindfully alternating the locations in which they fished so as not to deplete fish populations, to an industry based on profit with no thought given to population depletion or ecosystem degradation. In addition, as a result of the greenhouse effect, the ocean has absorbed a large amount of our excess heat energy and carbon emissions from human activities, as well as providing 50% of the oxygen we breathe generated by photosynthesizing organisms. While this has likely slowed down the rate at which our planet is warming, it has also caused the ocean to become warmer and more acidic, which has been detrimental to the populations of many aquatic species {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 233}. 50% of the world’s warm-water coral reefs and 58% of seagrass beds have been destroyed as a result of this transition {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 234-236}. This, in combination with destructive fishing methods such as trawling, and with the massive amounts of human chemical and plastic pollution, has led to a massive decline in populations of several species, such as sea turtles, whales, sharks, and seabirds. This is problematic not only because of the large number of people who depend on the ocean for their livelihood and survival but also because all of the earth’s ecosystems are connected through the food chain, and the collapse of the ocean would result in the collapse of all other ecosystems.

Another industry that humans depend on for their survival, but has become extremely environmentally problematic is the agriculture industry. This industry has transitioned from one where small-scale farms produced just enough food to support themselves and perhaps have a small surplus to be traded, into one motivated by profit; maximizing crop yields, and minimizing cost. Monocultural industrial farming, as well as deforestation, has resulted in soil degradation, erosion, and desertification {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 266-275}. Additionally, runoff from agricultural chemicals used in fertilizers and pesticides has begun destroying many ecosystems; specifically, runoff from the Mississippi River basin flows into the river and ultimately ends up in the Gulf of Mexico, where it creates a dead zone. A dead zone is a region where excess nutrients in the water cause massive algal blooms; as the algae absorb the nutrients and then die, the bacteria that decompose them absorb all of the oxygen in the water during cellular respiration, and as a result, all of the oxygen-dependent organisms in the water die {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 506}

The reality of this situation is that things do not have to be this way. There are many practices, both from the past and from new innovations, that can reduce the impact we are having on the environment, in addition to solving other problems such as food insecurity. In the fishing industry, sustainably farm-raised fish are a viable alternative to trawling; farms can even be built offshore in deep-sea aquaculture cages, in which flowing water allows for the filtration of fish wastes and allows fish to live in a more natural environment {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 240}. In addition, empowering fishing communities that have for generations used knowledge about these environments to avoid population depletion can also solve the problem of food insecurity. In the agricultural industry, transitioning from large scale industrial monoculture farms to smaller, local polycultural farms can not only help with soil degradation {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 266} but also stimulate local farming economies which for years have been in decline due to the monopolization of the agricultural industry, as well as providing crop surpluses to address food scarcity. Lastly, the creation of urban community gardens and farms can not only provide residents of urban food deserts with fresh and nutritious food {Luke, 186-187} but can also create opportunities for positive engagement in communities in which rates of unemployment and crime are high. Everyone stands to benefit from the de-monopolization of the fishing and agricultural industries (that is, everyone except greedy CEOs of these monopolies).

Word Count: 803

Works Cited 

Agger, Ben, and Timothy W Luke. “Hashing It Over: Green Governmentality and the Political Economy of Food.” Essay. In Fast Capitalism, 186–87. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 11: Sustaining Aquatic Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 232–57. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 12: Food Production and the Environment.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 261–95. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015. 

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Blog Post #7: Saving Endangered Species to Save Humanity

10/27/20

Since the beginning of human development, humans have been decimating ecosystems and their inhabitants. Going as far back as 50,000 years ago, humans caused populations of large mammals to go into extinction {Kolbert, 2009}. However, since the beginning of industrialization, the decimation of ecosystems and the endangerment of species has ramped up exponentially. Deforestation, hunting for both sustenance and sport, the transformation of landscapes as a  result of human construction, and the changing climate have all contributed to a massive uptick in endangerment and extinction of many species. 

While extinction is a natural part of the evolutionary process, scientists estimate that the rate of extinction is now 1,000-10,000 times that of the background extinction rate {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 176}. Climate change has only exacerbated this rate of decline, making many ecosystems increasingly vulnerable to degradation and ultimately uninhabitable. This is a major cause for concern, as the extinction of even one species can upset entire food webs and ecosystems, and at the rate of extinction we are currently on, human civilization too, will be wiped out. This is because the over or underpopulation of one species can cause other species to become over or underpopulated, as their populations are not being controlled by the natural food chain, and have overextended the resources they depend on. Scientists now believe we are in the midst of a sixth mass extinction {Kolbert, 2009}, however, unlike previous mass extinctions that have taken place over the course of a few thousand years, this extinction will take place over the course of a human lifetime {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 176}

There are many species of wild animals that have become extinct or endangered as a result of human activities; “According to the Living Planet Index...populations of wild animals have decreased by an average of more than fifty percent over the past forty years” {Geo Beats}. This rate of decrease is much higher than any previous extinction. Even though extinction is a regular part of the evolutionary process, the current rate of extinction is a major cause for concern due to a few reasons; many endangered species provide vital ecosystem services. Pollinators like honeybees (who have been facing massive colony collapse in recent years due to reasons like climate change and the use of harmful pesticides) are essential to our sustenance as humans due to their pollination of food crops. Decomposers like earthworms ensure soil health and aeration. Many avian and arachnid species are essential for natural pest control. Many endangered aquatic species, such as oysters, are essential not only for the purification of water but for providing a natural levee against storm surges. In addition to the ecosystem services these species provide, they also provide an economic benefit; many endangered species can generate several times more revenue through ecotourism, than if they were to be slaughtered and sold for their pelts or horns {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 180-181}  One could go on infinitely listing all of the ways human civilization is so dependant on the species whose very existence we are threatening with our activities.

Human civilization is also very dependent on many species of endangered plants for our ability to survive and thrive. At the most basic level, trees and other photosynthesizing plants provide the oxygen we need to survive, as well as pull CO2 from the atmosphere generated by both natural and industrial processes. In addition, over 1 billion people, especially those in extreme poverty, depend on trees for their survival. Over 80% of the population relies on plant-derived medicine, both traditional and modern. Trees also help prevent erosion and soil degradation; many deforested landscapes have been struggling with issues resulting from erosion {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 203}. On the whole, the monetary value that the world’s forests provide to us amounts to about $15.6 trillion, several times more than the economic value of the lumber industry {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 204}. Despite this, we are still destroying forests at a rate that is massively unsustainable. According to Greenpeace, over 80% of the world’s forests have been degraded or destroyed. 

However, not all hope is lost. In recent years, many plants and animal species that were functionally extinct have been reintroduced into their ecosystems, which has allowed these ecosystems to recover their balance. The grey wolf was successfully reintroduced to Yellowstone national park, restoring the balance between predator and prey {Miller and Spoolman 2015, 222}. Many tree-planting initiatives have also successfully restored forests in certain places, resulting in luscious parks such as the Biltmore in North Carolina {Spirn, 99}. The good news is that as climate change and ecosystem disruption continue, people are becoming increasingly aware of the dire situation and inspired to fix it. This is important, as the existence of humanity, and many other species, depends on the restoration of ecosystems. If you could think of some things to say to convince greedy logging companies and other companies responsible for deforestation and species extinction to stop destroying ecosystems, what would you say to convince them?

Word Count: 839

Works Cited

Balsley, Thomas, James Corner, Ian Volner, Jane Brown Gillette, and Anne Whiston Spirn. “The Legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted.” Essay. In Uncommon Ground, 99. Novato: ORO Editions, 2015.

Global Wildlife Population Declined By 50% In Last 40 Years. Dailymotion. Dailymotion, 2014. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x26ybub.

Greenpeace. “Forest Destruction.” Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Accessed October 28, 2021. https://www.greenpeace.org.au/what-we-do/protecting-forests/forest-destruction/.

Kolbert, Elizabeth, and Jonathan Rosen. “The Sixth Extinction?” The New Yorker, May 18, 2009. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/05/25/the-sixth-extinction.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 9: Sustaining Biodiversity: Saving Species and Ecosystem Services.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 175–98. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 10: Sustaining Biodiversity: Sustaining Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 202–28. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Midterm; Final blog posts #1-6

Blog Post #1:Too Much and Not Enough Blame Being Placed on Individuals

First Entry 9/14/21 

Many of the environmental studies journals and articles we read today focus on the role of the individual in reducing their carbon footprint. There is some validity to this assertion, as noted by the theory of the Tragedy of the Commons, while individual action in itself seems futile the collectivity of individual’s behaviors is what in large part contributes to the use and decimation of natural resources {Miller and Spoolman 2021,10-11}. However, I think that far too often, we shift the blame of climate change and resource depletion onto individuals as opposed to the larger entities which are responsible for creating the choices provided to individuals, as well as for an even more significant amount of carbon emissions.

When analyzing the varying responsibilities of individuals vs larger corporate and government entities, it is overwhelmingly clear that organizations, not individuals, are responsible for emissions. According to the Carbon Majors Report, just 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions {Riley 2017}. Additionally, according to a study done by Brown University, the US military alone (not including the country) has a larger carbon footprint than many industrialized nations  {McCarthy 2021}. These studies provide a stark reminder that no matter how many take out containers one recycles, no matter how many times one opt for travel on foot as opposed to more carbon-intensive modes of transportation, or how many bottles of “Love, Beauty, and Planet™” shampoo one buys, one’s efforts prove futile in comparison to the environmentally destructive practices of many corporations.

One may argue that corporate carbon-emitting activity is only generated in response to the demand from consumers and that if individuals want to generate real changes within these corporations it comes down to their consumption. However, the idea that individuals have any control over the demands of corporations is ludicrous. Individuals are going to buy what is accessible and affordable to them. And corporations are currently mostly going to create products that generate a profit at a minimal expense. I believe that the only way to generate change among individuals is by forcing corporations to change their practices and products, through legislation and economic sanctions. Contrary to what a CEO of a major company would want you to believe, the price difference created by the transition from unsustainable to sustainable products is negligible and could be covered by the cost of that CEO’s 15th yacht.

On the topic of a CEO’s 15th yacht, if we are going to be emphasizing individual action I believe we need to start with the actions of the individuals within the global .0001%. I’m not talking about the individuals who generated enough wealth to ensure a comfortable life for themselves and their families. I’m not even talking about the individuals who live in Luxurious Central Park S apartments and spend most of their time golfing while their investment banker generates even more wealth for them (although they aren’t off the hook). I’m talking about the individuals who, in the midst of a global pandemic, wildfires raging the west, and record rains pummeling the east, chose to have a galactic d*ck measuring contest just for seven minutes of barely breaching the surface of the atmosphere (and in the process generating an exorbitant amount of unnecessary carbon emissions). These are the men who, while their companies profit off of “sustainable” products whose uptick in demand is generated by the environmental panic of consumers, and while encouraging individuals to live more sustainably, are sitting in their corporate lairs laughing at our panic and continuing to destroy our atmosphere and air quality with their private jumbo jets and their separate yacht just for their helicopter (News18 2021)

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the actions of individuals are important. The only way that we are going to be able to make a difference is by the overwhelming collective action of individuals pressuring their local, federal, and international legislative bodies to pass legislation regulating corporations and forcing them to take accountability for their actions, as well as to reallocate funding from the carbon-intensive defense industry and towards climate mitigation. But I am just tired of feeling guilty for enjoying a hamburger every once in a while when it is so overwhelmingly obvious that the people who are most responsible for climate change and the degradation of our air and water quality are the people who seem to care the least. It’s time for governments to force them to take accountability and stop taking handouts from these CEOs to fund their political campaigns. Do you think the burden of sustainability should be on individuals or corporations?

Word Count: 753

Works Cited

Desk, Trending. “Jeff Bezos to OWN Mega Luxury Yacht Worth $500 Million That Has a Support Yacht AND HELIPAD.” News18, May 11, 2021. https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/jeff-bezos-luxury-yacht-support-yacht-helipad-amazon-millionaire-3725993.html.

McCarthy, Niall. “Report: The U.S. MILITARY Emits More co2 than Many Industrialized Nations [Infographic].” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, June 30, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/?sh=401151df4372.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 1 The Environment and Sustainability.” Essay. In Living in the Environment, 10–11. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2021.

Riley, Tess. “Just 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of Global EMISSIONS, Study Says.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, July 10, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.

  Blog Post #2: Oysters, Coral Reefs, and Mangroves: The Solution to Rising Sea Levels that Has Always Existed

(9/23/21)

Due to climate change, the ocean and the weather that affects it is undergoing many changes; not only are sea levels physically rising, but the ocean is acidifying and weather patterns which cause ocean-related disasters such as hurricanes and floods as a result of increased atmospheric carbon are increasingly common.

Sea level rise is caused by a combination of two factors; first, increased average temperatures have caused the ocean water to physically expand, following the law of thermal expansion which states that heat makes things expand. Additionally, due to increasing temperatures, the massive ice sheets that exist off of places like Greenland are beginning to melt, with large sheets breaking off into the ocean, causing it to physically rise {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 161}. The best way to understand this phenomenon is by comparing it to a glass of water with ice; when the ice cube is added to the water, the level of the water in the glass becomes physically higher.

Ocean acidification is caused in large part by the excessive amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; “ the oceans absorb about 25% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. The CO2 reacts with ocean water to form a weak acid (carbonic acid). This reaction decreases the levels of carbonate ions necessary for the formation of coral reefs” {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 158}. As a result of ocean acidification, in recent years massive coral bleaching events have taken place in vital reefs such as the Great Barrier Reef. The destruction of reefs stands to affect not only the ~500 million people who depend on coral reefs for food and income {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 158} but the ecosystems dependent on it, as well as the ability of coral reefs to act as a buffer for storm surges.

In addition to sea-level rise and ocean acidification caused by excess CO2 in the atmosphere, climate change caused by excess CO2 has brought about more erratic and dangerous weather events, such as hurricanes, tidal waves, and floods. Due to human expansion and activity, our normally existing defenses for tidal surges (coral and oyster reefs, mangrove forests, and wetlands) have been destroyed {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 167}. These ecosystems work to protect the inland from storm surge by absorbing some of the shock of waves and decreasing their strength when they finally reach land. While humans have attempted to respond to rising sea levels and storm surge by building flood barriers and seawalls, these structures are costly,  must be maintained, and disrupt the local ecosystem which they are built into.

However, not all hope is lost when it comes to defending against rising sea levels and storm surge. A possible, more sustainable solution has always existed; Coral and oyster reefs, mangrove forests, and wetlands all provide a fair amount of protection from storm surge. Reefs and mangrove forests protect against storm surge by working as a natural sea wall, absorbing some of the shock from the high-pressure waves and decreasing the power and magnitude of the wave when it finally reaches the inland. Wetlands on the other hand protect against flooding by absorbing rising water before it can reach inland, as well as providing a similar buffer effect to waves. In addition to providing a natural buffer for rising sea levels, these ecosystems also work to absorb excess carbon and other pollutants such as silt and nitrogen {AMNH}. Human development near coasts has resulted in the decimation of these ecosystems. 

In recent years, many initiatives have taken place to restore these ecosystems. Scientists have begun rebuilding coral and oyster reefs by propagating pieces of coral {Papp, 2020} and creating artificial oyster reefs out of old oyster shells {Vox, 2021}. Additionally, legislation has been passed protecting oyster-based ecosystems in places like the Chesapeake Bay that has been very successful; oyster populations in the region have been on the rise since 2007 {Miller and Spoolman 2021,163}. Additionally, initiatives such as the Mangrove Action Project have taken place to replant mangrove forests to mimic the natural process. Lastly, the Environmental Protection Agency of the US has also begun initiatives to restore wetlands. 

These solutions may seem trivial in the grand scheme of the magnitude of climate change. However, with the way things are going with the feedback loop of climate change, we have reached a point where we are no longer focused on the prevention of climate change but rather the mitigation of its worst effects, namely, sea level rise. If we are going to be able to make a dent in the massive problem of climate change, looking back to the Earth’s natural processes may be the solution. What are some ways in which natural structures and mangrove and grasslands infrastructure can be incorporated into existing infrastructure?

Word Count: 770

Works Cited

“The Importance of Mangrove Forests: Diverse Ecosystems: Amnh.” American Museum of Natural History. Accessed September 24, 2021. https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/biodiversity/mangroves-the-roots-of-the-sea/why-mangroves-matter.

Mas, Kim. How Oysters Can Stop A Flood. YouTube. Vox, 2021. https://youtu.be/UcN6RXT7qpw.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 8 Aquatic Biodiversity.” Essay. In Living in the Environment, 154–71. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2021.

Papp, Ashleigh. “Scientists in Costa Rica Are Growing New Corals to SAVE REEFS.” Mongabay Environmental News, December 8, 2020. https://news.mongabay.com/2020/11/scientists-in-costa-rica-are-growing-new-corals-to-save-reefs/.

“Principles of Wetland Restoration.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed September 24, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/principles-wetland-restoration.

“‘CBEMR’ Mangrove Restoration.” Mangrove Action Project, June 25, 2021. https://mangroveactionproject.org/mangrove-restoration/. 

      Blog Post #3: Looking to the Past to Fix the Future

(9/28/21)

The concept of environmental degradation and the subsequent desire to preserve the environment is not a concept that merely evolved as a reaction to environmentalism. Humans have been degrading soil to the point of desertification since humans began cultivating the land in an attempt to sustain themselves. Air pollution has also existed since humans began making fires in enclosed spaces such as caves, which may have resulted in “unhealthy inhalation of smoke and soot”  but would not have been substantial enough to cause any damages to the climate as a whole {Miller and Spoolman 2021, Supplemental Reading}. 

As early as the middle ages, however, wood-burning fires used for cooking and to heat homes created dense smoke over highly populated urban areas {Miller and Spoolman 2021, Supplemental Reading}. However, wood also had value as a building material, and it required a lot of wood to upkeep a fire. Ironically, the advent of the burning of coal in homes relieved the local environment from more deforestation by reducing the need for wood {Lewis and Maslin, 193}. But, in the long term, the burning of coal would prove detrimental to air quality, especially in urban centers. And combined with the increased demand for energy as a result of the industrial revolution, the burning of coal in both homes and factories resulted in air quality being poor enough for people to develop respiratory diseases like asthma and bronchitis, which affected vulnerable populations like children and the elderly {Miller and Spoolman 2021, Supplemental Reading}.

In the 1850s, a mixture of coal smoke and fog engulfed London in the winter months. Multiple coal smoke and fog events took place in the following decades that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of the city’s citizens. “In December 1952, an even worse yellow fog lasted for 5 days and killed 4,000–12,000 Londoners. Visibility was so low that people walking outside during the day could not see their feet. So many people died that undertakers ran out of coffins” This tragedy convinced the British government to pass the Clean Air Act of 1956, which eventually resulted in the improvement of air quality in the city (but not before several more coal smogging events) {Miller and Spoolman 2021, Supplemental Reading}.

The events in London are a case study of just how much of a role human activity plays in air and water quality degradation, and how powerful it can be for governments to take action against issues. But it’s not an anomaly. Many cities that previously experienced very poor air quality chose to take action that has since improved the quality of air in recent years, such as Los Angeles.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, a movement for environmental conservation and preservation emerged (for this blog I’ll be discussing the US). Theodore Roosevelt was the first environmentalist President; he initiated the designation of Federal Lands as forest reserves, as well as creating designated nature preserves for endangered species. During his administration, Congress also founded the US Forest Service in 1905 to manage and protect the reserves. World War I brought with it a period of the privatization of Federal Lands for development. However, with the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, came the founding of the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was a double-edged sword in terms of providing economic stimulation to a recession-ravaged economy and restoring forests. 

In the 1960s, a focus of the environmental movement partially shifted from the preservation of forests to the concern about environmental degradation from other human activity, such as the use of pesticides like DDT in agriculture, as outlined in Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”, which brought a new awareness to the public about industrial and agricultural chemicals that could potentially be poisoning citizens. In the 1970s, the environmental movement in the United States took flight, culminating in massive public demonstrations to promote the preservation of the Environment, as well as the founding of the EPA. However, as a reaction to new regulations, many corporate interests retaliated by lobbying and organizing to defeat environmental laws and regulations. “In 1980 the US led the world in [renewable energy research]….however, Congress slashed 90% of government subsidies for renewable energy research….eliminated tax incentives for residential solar energy. As a result, the US lost its lead in developing [renewable energy]” {Miller and Spoolman 2021, Supplemental Reading}.

If we are going to do something about climate change, I think it is important that we look to the past and examine what mistakes we made and what worked out for the better. It is overwhelmingly obvious that government environmental regulation can help reduce the degree to which human activity is affecting the environment. However, it will be impossible to motivate politicians to get anything done until we not only force politicians to come face to face with the ramifications of climate change, but also take the dirty corporate money out of politics and require campaigns to be publically funded. Then maybe politicians would have a desire to represent the interests of their constituents as opposed to CEOs. Can you name any politicians/initiatives that have attempted to remove corporate money from politics?

Word Count: 832

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Supplemental Reading.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015. 

LEWIS, SIMON L. “Chapter 5: Globalization 1.0, the Modern World.” Essay. In Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene, 193. S.l.: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2022. 

  Blog Post #4: Changing Mindsets to Change the Course of Climate Change

10/5/21

Growing up as a kid in suburban northern Virginia, I spent most of my childhood outdoors; climbing trees, wading through and fishing in the creek, making “soup” out of mud and wild onions. Getting older, and watching the environment I spent my childhood in change for the worse, has made me realize I took my childhood for granted; many of the trees I used to climb near my house have since been cleared for new housing developments, and the creek experienced an oil spill from a nearby overturned tanker that caused a “dead zone” in the stream for years. Even the beach I spent my childhood visiting, which is supposed to be the site of an environmental preservation initiative, has been gradually shrinking over the years as a result of erosion and rising sea levels. When I think about the fact that I may be part of the last generation to experience the environment as it was, I become despondent. The reality that in my lifetime we may experience an environmental apocalypse has begun sinking in. 

According to chapter 25, people’s environmental worldview is what shapes their perception of their relationship with the earth and their responsibility to its preservation. For years, the consensus (especially among capitalists) was that the earth was a source of infinite resources that exist to serve human advancement and development, or the human-centered worldview  {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 637}. It is this worldview that has, in part, led us to many scientific discoveries about the world around us. However, it is also this worldview that has led us to the situation we are in today; to the point where we have surpassed several ecological tipping points, and we are well on our way to surpassing several more  {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 638}.

I believe that part of the reason why the situation with our environment has gotten so bad is that the people responsible for polluting have not been forced to come face to face with the consequences of their actions, and have been able to reap the benefits for far too long. Meanwhile, the people who are the least responsible, and have been able to reap the benefits of the environment the least, are the ones who have had to deal with the consequences of environmental degradation the most {Bullard, 2001}. Growing up in Virginia, I recognize that I was able to have an excellent, immersive relationship with the environment around me; many people around the world are unable to say the same, and I believe it is for this reason that many people have developed a skewed environmental worldview.

According to Leov, existing in nature, especially as a child, is integral for the proper physical and emotional development of individuals. He refers to this environmental deprivation as “nature-deficit-disorder”, and argues it is responsible for the disturbing uptick in childhood ailments, such as obesity, attention disorders, and mental illnesses. I believe it is also for this reason that many people have developed a human-centric worldview; the only exposure many people have with nature often involves urbanized parks, many of which are unable to provide refuge from the hustle and bustle of the city. The perception of nature for many individuals is that it exists only to serve humans.

I believe that to change the course we are on in terms of environmental degradation, it will require a revolution of mindset, as a result of changing experiences. According to Leopold “We can be ethical only in relation to something we can see, feel, understand, love, or otherwise have faith in” {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 214}. To get people to develop an earth-centered environmental worldview, as opposed to a human-centered-worldview, we must demonstrate to people what real, unobstructed nature looks like, so that they may see how they are connected to the earth, the trees, and all the living organisms that inhabit it. After all, the differences in DNA between us and the species in nature only differ by a few genes.

Living in the Bronx, I often see people openly littering. My first instinct is to get angry at them. However, I have to remind myself that, for many people, their perception of the environment is contained to these few blocks, with the closest unobstructed environment being the New York Botanical Garden. It is not their fault that they view a city filled with concrete and trash to be their personal trash can. To convince people like these, as well as the people who are responsible for creating the waste in the first place, we need to demonstrate to people their direct connection to the environment. We can achieve this by expanding urban green spaces as well as creating opportunities for people in urban environments to visit more remote, verdant green spaces. Additionally, we must find a way to force polluters to come face to face with the consequences of their pollution, even if that means bringing them to sites of environmental degradation as a result of human development. All in all, in order to have any hope of stopping climate change it’s going to require a revolution of people’s mindsets. What are some things you can say to apathetic individuals to convince them to care about the planet?

Word Count: 854

Works Cited 

 Bullard, Robert D. “Environmental Justice in the 21st Century: Race Still Matters.” Phylon (1960-) 49, no. ¾ (2001): 151–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/3132626.

Leopold, Aldo. “The Land Ethic.” Essay. In The Land Ethic, 214, 1933.

Leov, Richard. Last Child in the Woods. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2006.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 25: Environmental Worldviews, Ethics, and Sustainability.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 20th ed., 637–39. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

Blog Post #5: Sustainability is Good for the Economy

 10/15/21

In discussions about making the transition from an economy based in nonrenewable energy and a disposable lifestyle to an economy based in sustainability, many pro-free-market economists argue that this transition would negatively impact the economy and job prospects. However, analyses of the future economic impacts of the effects of unmitigated climate change have shown that the cost of the damages incurred as a result of increasingly catastrophic weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, droughts, etc. will end up costing much more in the long run than the cost of transitioning the world economy to one based in sustainability. Not to mention the value natural capital provides to us in our human activities, free of cost. In addition, transitioning to a sustainable economy has already allowed several industrialized nations to boost their economic output

To analyze the true extent to which environmentally degradative activities are affecting the economy, ecological economists determine the value of natural capital. Natural capital is all of the free services provided to us by the earth’s natural processes, such as oxygen production from trees or soil preservation from wetlands; “economist(s)… estimated the value of 17 ecosystem services provided by the earth’s major biomes to be at least $125 trillion per year, much more than the $85.5 trillion that the entire world spent on goods and services in 2018” {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 593}. In traditional economic exchanges, the value of natural capital and its degradation is not included in the cost, making the cost much less expensive than the cost placed on the environment. However, if the harmful environmental and health effects of certain industrial activities, such as burning coal, were included in its cost, the cost would certainly increase. Costs for consumers may increase initially, but as a result, many unsustainable businesses would end up shutting down, and more sustainable and innovative businesses would take their place; such is the nature of a “dynamic and creative capitalist economy” {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 596}.

However, natural capital aside, environmentally degradative businesses are already costing the government, and in turn, taxpayers, exorbitant amounts of money. Subsidies for industries that lead to environmental damage are called “perverse subsidies”. Tax breaks and subsidies for industries such as fossil fuels and timber harvesting cost the world’s taxpayers $2 trillion a year; for the average American taxpayer, this is about $2,000 per year, per person. {Miller, Spoolma, 596}. Many environmentalists have advocated for the rollback of these harmful subsidies. Yet, due to the extremely profitable nature of fossil fuel industries, their seemingly limitless financial resources have allowed them to wield great power over ruling bodies, through lobbying and campaign finance; lobbyists spent an average of $8,200 per member of Congress in 2018. Unfortunately, many regulatory industries are often staffed by or in close relation with members of industries they were charged with regulating in the first place {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 617}

While great progress has been made in the last century in the United States in terms of the formation of environmental organizations such as the EPA, founded with the intent of reducing environmental degradation, this progress has been limited in part due to the vested interests of nonrenewable resource industries. As a result, the interests of these industries have been placed over the safety and wellbeing of American Citizens. The people who are often most vulnerable to environmental threats as a result of industrial activity are those who have the least amount of power, financially and politically, to address the threat. Out of these threats have emerged a movement for environmental justice, a grassroots movement often organized by the victims of environmental injustice themselves {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 614}. Despite its widespread and increasing popularity, the phrase “environmental justice” has not appeared in any laws passed by the US Congress {Miller, Spoolman, 614}, and claims of environmental injustice have been dismissed 95% of the time, according to a study done by the Center for Public Integrity {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 615}.

In looking at the countries that have successfully implemented beneficial environmental regulations, it has stimulated economic activity. For example, countries that have introduced “green taxes”, such as Germany and Costa Rica, have managed to create many new jobs and fund environmental preservation and efforts to lift their citizens out of poverty {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 599}. In addition, innovation-friendly environmental regulation has motivated several companies to create products that not only create jobs but boost profits and make them more competitive in national and international markets. Lastly, transitioning to more energy-efficient technologies has allowed companies to save money on energy costs {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 602}. As renewable energy sources such as wind and solar become more widely available, they will in turn also become more affordable and accessible. Do you think that governments should find ways to incentivize companies to transition to more eco-friendly practices, or do you think the natural processes of the economy will foster this transition?

Word Count: 814

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 23 and Chapter 24.” Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 20th ed., Cengage Learning, Stamford, CT, 2015, pp. 590–632.

    Blog Post #6: The Secret to Carbon Mitigation Lies in Population Control, Infrastructure, and Regulation

10/20/2021

Following the expansion of the public consciousness of climate change and the fact that human activities are impacting it, some environmental organizations began preaching individual action, with books titled like “50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth” {Luke 1997, 119}. They suggest simple things, like recycling or replacing energy-expensive appliances with energy-efficient ones. While individual actions are important and may have an impact over a larger scale (naively assuming that every citizen will participate in these “eco-friendly” strategies), the actions listed in these books not only enable citizens to think they are being eco-friendly while continuing behaviors that are carbon-expensive, but also takes the burden away from the ultimately carbon-expensive process of production and places the burden on the consumer {Luke 1997, 120}, a result of government lobbying by corporations. To be able to make real change, it will require governments to take action not just against the carbon-expensive actions of consumers, but to invest in infrastructure that reduces public carbon emissions as a whole, to regulate the much more pollutive actions of corporations, and to take a multi-scalar approach, incorporating international legislative bodies to incorporate real strategies to mitigate things like overpopulation, which contributes to the exhaustion of limited natural resources.

It is no secret that the current track of population growth that we are on is unsustainable, and will ultimately contribute to the depletion of natural resources; 2.3 billion more people were born between 1950 and 2018, most of which being in Less Developed Countries {Miller and Spoolman 2021,110}. Poorer families in LDCs are incentivized to have more children to use them as a source of labor, and consequently, income, and because high infant mortality rates ensure that at least some of their children will not make it to working age. In addition, fertility rates tend to be higher in places where women are less educated {Miller and Spoolman 2021,115}. The good news is that poor citizens of LDCs, on an individual level, tend to live less carbon-expensive lifestyles than citizens of developed countries. The bad news is that citizens of LDCs tend to have the most limited resources, due to causes like poor infrastructure, a large number of people relying on over-extended resource supplies, and climate change exacerbating resource shortages through early-season glacial melt and droughts. However, there is a very simple solution that may not be able to reach all citizens due to traditional and religious values but can certainly have an impact; family planning. International governing bodies can promote the utilization of family planning methods, by distributing free birth control and teaching proper sex education. On a less immediate level, governments and international bodies can also reduce the need for families to have so many children by investing in anti-poverty campaigns, providing subsidies to poor families, and investing in female education at a young age.

On a larger scale, governments of developed countries can take many different measures to decrease carbon emissions. One major contributor to carbon emissions, especially in the United States, is the dependency of citizens on cars as a method of transportation. This is due to lacking or nonexistent public transportation in many cities, and infrastructure that prioritizes cars over humans. As a result, many inner cities are heavily polluted, and the infrastructure of these cities doesn’t allow the absorption or removal of pollutants {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 575}. To address this issue, governments need to massively fund new infrastructure programs with sustainability in mind; build new light and heavy rail systems, build cities in a way that promotes density and accessibility to things citizens need (so instead of needing to drive a few miles to the grocery store citizens can walk, bike, or take public transport a few blocks) {Miller and Spoolman 2021, 580}, and construct new building infrastructure that incorporates greenspaces and renewable energy resources right into the city itself, which will absorb the high volume of carbon emissions, decrease dependence on nonrenewable energy resources, and increase overall citizen happiness by adding beauty to mostly concrete spaces. 

Governments also need to address the high levels of pollution and general unsustainable practices at the production level; the majority of environmental degradation occurs here. Governments can take action against industrial pollution by incorporating carbon-mitigation strategies such as “cap-and-trade”, subsidizing corporations who find ways to reduce their carbon emissions while punishing those that continue to pollute. In addition, instead of placing the burden on consumers to make “greener” decisions by purchasing “eco-friendly seal” products that, “beyond the seal, very little, if anything, may have changed in the cycle of producing, distributing, consuming, and disposing of the product” {Luke 1997,131}. Instead, governments should regulate corporations through subsidies and punitive action to make their products ACTUALLY “green” in the first place, as well as affordable, so that everyone regardless of financial ability can afford to consume sustainably.

Ultimately, the sake of our future as a species depends on the capability of corporations and governing bodies (both on the state and international level) to change their practices to promote decreased population growth, decreased carbon emissions, and sustainable practices. What are some other ways in which governments can facilitate sustainable business practices and infrastructure?

Word Count; 841

Luke, Timothy W. “Green Consumerism.” Essay. In Ecocritique: Contesting the Politics of Nature, Economy, and Culture, 115–36. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 22: Urbanization and Sustainability.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 566–85. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 6: The Human Population.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 110–23. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015. 

My experience with the Fordham climate impact initiative was one for the better. My experience with the work I did gave me a profound revelation about the power of the action of individuals and how it can create change on a much larger scale.

I, unfortunately, was unable to join the club activities for a large portion of the semester (besides the club meetings, which I joined via zoom)due to the extremely busy schedule I have this semester taking 18 credits. I was, however, able to pick an initiative working for their social media team. In addition, I was able to do some hands-on volunteer work for the organization.

The most profound experience I had was when I picked up trash in Aqueduct Walk park in the Bronx. New York City is one of those places that are renowned for being covered in trash, especially in places where waste management services are underfunded. So before I got there I thought that we wouldn't even be able to make a dent in the trash at the park. Much to my surprise, because we were so efficient despite a limited number of people we finished early because there was no more trash to pick up! It made me realize the power of organizing individuals in creating a change. It gave me the idea of a revitalization of the civilian conservation corps, to be dedicated to picking up trash and reviving our greenspaces

A more unfortunate realization I had was just how much plastic has become embedded into our ecosystems. There were many times in which I picked up a plastic bag that had become buried under the dirt and had become part of the landscape. It made me realize just how large the scope of the problem was. However, I also noticed that much of the trash was caught in trees and bushes. It made me realize the potential for utilizing plants as a method of capturing trash and creating a natural filtration system to prevent plastics and other pollutants from getting into our waterways.

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Blog Post #5: Sustainability is Good for the Economy

10/15/21

In discussions about making the transition from an economy based in nonrenewable energy and a disposable lifestyle to an economy based in sustainability, many pro-free-market economists argue that this transition would negatively impact the economy and job prospects. However, analyses of the future economic impacts of the effects of unmitigated climate change have shown that the cost of the damages incurred as a result of increasingly catastrophic weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, droughts, etc. will end up costing much more in the long run than the cost of transitioning the world economy to one based in sustainability. Not to mention the value natural capital provides to us in our human activities, free of cost. In addition, transitioning to a sustainable economy has already allowed several industrialized nations to boost their economic output

To analyze the true extent to which environmentally-degradative activities are affecting the economy, ecological economists determine the value of natural capital. Natural capital is all of the free services provided to us by the earth’s natural processes, such as oxygen production from trees or soil preservation from wetlands; “economist(s)... estimated the value of 17 ecosystem services provided by the earth’s major biomes to be at least $125 trillion per year, much more than the $85.5 trillion that the entire world spent on goods and services in 2018” {Miller, Spoolman, 593}. In traditional economic exchanges, the value of natural capital and its degradation is not included in the cost, making the cost much less expensive than the cost placed on the environment. However, if the harmful environmental and health effects of certain industrial activities, such as burning coal, were included into its cost, the cost would certainly increase. Costs for consumers may increase initially, but as a result, many unsustainable businesses would end up shutting down, but more sustainable and innovative businesses would take its place; such is the nature of a “dynamic and creative capitalist economy” {Miller, Spoolman, 596}.

However, natural capital aside, environmentally-degradative businesses are already costing the government, and in turn, taxpayers, exorbitant amounts of money. Subsidies for industries that lead to environmental damage are called “perverse subsidies”. Tax breaks and subsidies for industries such as fossil fuels and timber harvesting cost the world’s taxpayers $2 trillion a year; for the average American taxpayer its about $2,000 per year, per person. {Miller, Spoolma, 596}. Many environmentalists have advocated for the rollback of these harmful subsidies. Yet, due to the extremely profitable nature of fossil fuel industries, their seemingly limitless financial resources have allowed them to wield great power over ruling bodies, through lobbying and campaign finance; lobbyists spent an average of $8,200 per each member of Congress in 2018. Unfortunately, many regulatory industries are often staffed by or in close relation with members of industries they were charged with regulating in the first place {Miller, Spoolman, 617}

While great progress has been made in the last century in the United States in terms of the formation of environmental organizations such as the EPA, founded with the intent of reducing environmental degradation, this progress has been limited in part due to the vested interests of nonrenewable resource industries. As a result, the interests of these industries have been placed over the safety and wellbeing of American Citizens. The people who are often most vulnerable to environmental threats as a result of industrial activity are those who have the least amount of power, financially and politically, to address the threat. Out of these threats have emerged a movement for environmental justice, a grassroots movement often organized by the victims of environmental injustice themselves {Miller, Spoolman, 614}. Despite its widespread and increasing popularity, the phrase “environmental justice” has not appeared in any laws passed by the US Congress {Miller, Spoolman, 614}, and claims of environmental injustice have been dismissed 95% of the time, according to a study done by the Center for Public Integrity {Miller, Spoolman, 615}.

In looking at the countries who have successfully implemented beneficial environmental regulations, it has actually stimulated economic activity. For example, countries that have introduced “green taxes”, such as Germany and Costa Rica, have managed to create many new jobs and  fund environmental preservation and efforts to lift their citizens out of poverty {Miller, Spoolman, 599}. In addition, innovation-friendly environmental regulation has motivated several companies to create products that not only create jobs, but boost profits and make them more competitive in national and international markets. Lastly, transitioning to more energy efficient technologies has actually allowed companies to save money on energy cost {Miller, Spoolman, 602} As renewable energy sources such as wind and solar become more widely available, they will in turn also become more affordable and accessible. Do you think that governments should find ways to incentivize companies to transition to more eco-friendly practices, or do you think the natural processes of the economy will foster this transition?

Word Count: 814

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 23 and Chapter 24.” Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 20th ed., Cengage Learning, Stamford, CT, 2015, pp. 590–632.

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Blog Post #4: Changing Mindsets to Change the Course of Climate Change

10/5/21

Growing up as a kid in suburban northern Virginia, I spent most of my childhood outdoors; climbing trees, wading through and fishing in the creek, making “soup” out of mud and wild onions. Getting older, and watching the environment I spent my childhood in change for the worse, has made me realize I took my childhood for granted; many of the trees I used to climb near my house have since been cleared for new housing developments, and the creek experienced an oil spill from a nearby overturned tanker that caused a “dead zone” in the stream for years. Even the beach I spent my childhood visiting, which is supposed to be the site of an environmental preservation initiative, has been gradually shrinking over the years as a result of erosion and rising sea levels. When I think about the fact that I may be part of the last generation to experience the environment as it was, I become despondent. The reality that in my lifetime we may experience an environmental apocalypse has begun sinking in. 

According to chapter 25, people’s environmental worldview is what shapes their perception of their relationship with the earth and their responsibility to its preservation. For years, the general consensus (especially among capitalists) was that the earth was a source of infinite resources that exist to serve human advancement and development, or the human-centered worldview (Miller, 637). It is this worldview that has, in part, led us to many scientific discoveries about the world around us. However, it is also this worldview that has led us to the situation we are in today; to the point where we have surpassed several ecological tipping points, and we are well on our way to surpassing several more (Miller, 638).

I believe that part of the reason why the situation with our environment has gotten so bad is because the people responsible for polluting have not been forced to come face to face with the consequences of their actions, and have been able to reap the benefits for far too long. Meanwhile, the people who are the least responsible, and have been able to enjoy the benefits of the environment the least, are the ones who have had to deal with the consequences of environmental degradation the most (Bullard). Growing up in Virginia, I recognize that I was able to have an excellent, immersive relationship with the environment around me; many people around the world are unable to say the same, and I believe it is for this reason that many people have developed a skewed environmental worldview.

According to Leov, existing in nature, especially as a child, is integral for the proper physical and emotional development of individuals. He refers to this environmental deprivation as “nature-deficit-disorder”, and argues it is responsible for the disturbing uptick in childhood ailments, such as obesity, attention disorders, and mental illnesses. I believe it is also for this reason that many people have developed a human-centric worldview; the only exposure many people have with nature often involves urbanized parks, many of which are unable to provide refuge from the hustle and bustle of the city. The perception of nature for many individuals is that it exists only to serve humans.

I believe that in order to change the course we are on in terms of environmental degradation, it will require a revolution of mindset, as a result of changed experiences. According to Leopold “We can be ethical only in relation to something we can see, feel, understand, love, or otherwise have faith in” (214). In order to get people to develop an earth-centered environmental worldview, as opposed to a human-centered-worldview, we must demonstrate to people what real, unobstructed nature looks like, so that they may see the ways in which they are connected to the earth, the trees, and the all the living organisms that inhabit it. After all, the differences in DNA between us and the species around us only differ by a few genes.

Living in the Bronx, I often see people openly littering. My first instinct is to get angry at them. However, I have to remind myself that, for many people, their perception of the environment is contained to these few blocks, with the closest unobstructed environment being the New York Botanical Garden. It is not their fault that they view a city filled with concrete and trash to be their personal trash can. In order to convince people like these, as well as the people who are responsible for creating the waste in the first place, we need to demonstrate to people their direct connection to the environment. We can achieve this by expanding urban greenspaces as well as creating opportunities for people in urban environments to visit more remote, verdant greenspaces. Additionally, we must find a way to force polluters to come face to face with the consequences of their pollution, even if that means bringing them to sites of environmental degradation as a result of human development. All in all, in order to have any hope of stopping climate change it's going to require a revolution of people’s mindsets

Word Count: 854 (I plan on cutting it down for my final midterm)

Works Cited 

 Bullard, Robert D. “Environmental Justice in the 21st Century: Race Still Matters.” Phylon (1960-) 49, no. 3/4 (2001): 151–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/3132626.

Leopold, Aldo. “The Land Ethic.” Essay. In The Land Ethic, 214, 1933.

Louv, Richard. Last Child in the Woods. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Algonquin Books od Chapel Hill, 2006.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 25: Environmental Worldviews, Ethics, and Sustainability.” Essay. In Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, 20th ed., 637–39. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Blog Post #3: Looking to the Past to Fix the Future

(9/28/21)

The concept of environmental degradation and the subsequent desire to preserve the environment is not a concept that merely evolved as a reaction to environmentalism. Humans have been degrading soil to the point of desertification, since humans began cultivating the land in an attempt to sustain themselves. Air pollution has also existed since humans began making fire in enclosed spaces such as caves, which may have resulted in “unhealthy inhalation of smoke and soot”  but would not have been substantial enough to cause any damages to the climate as a whole. 

As early as the middle ages, however, wood burning fires used for cooking and to heat homes created a dense smoke over highly populated urban areas {Cengage Learning}. However, wood also had value as a building material, and also required a lot of wood to upkeep a fire. Ironically, the advent of the burning of coal in homes actually relieved the local environment from more deforestation by reducing the need for wood (Lewis and Maslin, 193). But, in the long term, the burning of coal would prove detrimental to air quality, especially in urban centers. And combined with the increased demand for energy as a result of the industrial revolution, the burning of coal in both homes and factories resulted in air quality poor enough for people to develop respiratory diseases like asthma and bronchitis, which affected vulnerable populations like children and the elderly {Cengage, Air Pollution).

In the 1850s, a mixture of coal smoke and fog engulfed London in the winter months. Multiple coal smoke and fog events took place in the following decades that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of the city’s citizens. “In December 1952, an even worse yellow fog lasted for 5 days and killed 4,000–12,000 Londoners. Visibility was so low that people walking outside during the day could not see their feet. So many people died that undertakers ran out of coffins” This tragedy convinced the British government to pass the Clean Air Act of 1956, which eventually resulted in the improvement of air quality in the city (but not before several more coal smogging events). {Cengage, Air Pollution}

The events in London are a case study in just how much of a role human activity plays in air and water quality degradation, and how powerful it can be for governments to actually take action against issues. But it's not an anomaly. Many cities who previously experienced very poor air quality chose to take action that has since improved the quality of air in recent years, such as Los Angeles.

In the late 19th and in the 20th century, a movement for environmental conservation and preservation emerged (for the purposes of this blog I’ll be discussing the US). Theodore Roosevelt was the first environmentalist President; he initiated the designation of Federal Lands as forest reserves, as well as creating designated nature preserves for endangered species. During his administration Congress also founded the US Forest Service in 1905 to manage and protect the reserves. World War I brought with it a period of the privatization of Federal Lands for development. However, with the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, came the founding of the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was a double edged sword in terms of providing economic stimulation to a recession-ravaged economy and restoring forests. 

In the 1960s, a focus of the environmental movement partially shifted from the preservation of forests to the concern about environmental degradation from other human activity, such as the use of pesticides like DDT in agriculture, as outlined in Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”, which brought a new awareness to the public about industrial and agricultural chemicals that could potentially be poisoning citizens. In the 1970s, the environmental movement in the United States took flight, culminating in massive public demonstrations to promote the preservation of the Environment, as well as the founding of the EPA. However, as a reaction to new regulations, many corporate interests retaliated by lobbying and organizing to defeat environmental laws and regulations. “In 1980 the US led the world in [renewable energy research]....however, Congress slashed 90% of government subsidies for renewable energy research….eliminated tax incentives for residential solar energy. As a result the US lost its lead in developing [renewable energy]” (Cengage)

If we are going to do something about climate change, I think it is important that we look to the past and examine what mistakes we made and what worked out for the better. It is overwhelmingly obvious that government environmental regulation can help reduce the degree to which human activity is affecting the environment. However, it will be impossible to motivate politicians to get anything done until we not only force politicians to come face to face with the ramifications of climate change, but also take the dirty corporate money out of politics and require campaigns to be publically funded. Then maybe politicians would actually have a desire to represent the interests of their constituents as opposed to CEOs.

Word Count: 832

Note: The citations are missing because I had some confusion on how to cite one specific source. Will fix for midterm

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Blog Post #2: Oysters, Coral Reefs, and Mangroves: The Solution to Rising Sea Levels that Has Always Existed

(9/23/21)

Due to climate change, the ocean and the weather that affects it is undergoing many changes; not only are sea levels physically rising, but the ocean is acidifying and weather patterns that cause ocean-related disasters such as hurricanes and floods as a result of increased atmospheric carbon.

Sea level rise is caused by a combination of two factors; first, increased average temperatures has caused the ocean water to physically expand, in accordance with the law of thermal expansion which states that heat makes things expand. Additionally, due to increasing temperatures, the massive ice sheets that exist off in places like Greenland are beginning to melt, with large sheets breaking off into the ocean, causing it to physically rise (161). The best way to understand this phenomenon is by comparing it to a glass of water with ice; when the ice cube is added to the water, the level of the water in the glass becomes physically higher.

Ocean acidification is caused in large-part by the excessive amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; “ the oceans absorb about 25% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. The CO2 reacts with ocean water to form a weak acid (carbonic acid). This reaction decreases the levels of carbonate ions necessary for the formation of coral reefs” (158). As a result of ocean acidification, in recent years massive coral bleaching events have taken place in vital reefs such as the Great Barrier Reef. The destruction of reefs stands to effect not only the ~500 million people who depend on coral reefs for food and income (158), but the ecosystems dependent on it, as well as the ability of coral reefs to act as a buffer for storm surges.

In addition to sea level rise and ocean acidification caused by excess CO2 in the atmosphere, climate change caused by excess CO2 has brought about more erratic and dangerous weather events, such as hurricanes, tidal waves, and floods. Due to human expansion and activity, our normally existing defenses for tidal surge (coral and oyster reefs, mangrove forests, and wetlands) have been destroyed (167). These ecosystems work to protect the inland from storm surge by absorbing some of the shock of waves and decreasing the strength they have when they finally reach land. While humans have attempted to respond to rising sea levels and storm surge by building flood barriers and seawalls, these structures are costly and must be maintained, in addition to disrupting the local ecosystem which they are built into.

However, not all hope is lost when it comes to defending against rising sea levels and storm surge. A possible, more sustainable solution has always existed; Coral and oyster reefs, mangrove forests, and wetlands all provide a fair amount of protection from storm surge. Reefs and mangrove forests protect against storm surge by working as a natural sea wall, absorbing some of the shock from the high pressure waves and decreasing the power and magnitude of the wave when it finally reaches the inland. Wetlands on the other hand protect against flooding by absorbing rising water before it can reach inland, as well as providing a similar buffer effect to waves. In addition to providing a natural buffer for rising sea levels, these ecosystems also work to absorb excess carbon and other pollutants such as silt and nitrogen (AMNH). Human development near coasts has resulted in the decimation of these ecosystems. 

In recent years, many initiatives have taken place to restore these ecosystems. Scientists have begun rebuilding coral and oyster reefs by propagating pieces of coral (Papp) and creating artificial oyster reefs out of old oyster shells (Vox). Additionally, legislation has been passed protecting oyster-based ecosystems in places like the Chesapeake Bay that has been very successful; oyster populations in the region have been on the rise since 2007 (163). Additionally, initiatives such as the Mangrove Action Project have taken place to replant mangrove forests with the goal of mimicking the natural process. Lastly, the Environmental Protection Agency of the US has also begun initiatives to restore wetlands. 

These solutions may seem trivial in the grand scheme of the magnitude of climate change. However, with the way things are going with the feedback loop of climate change, we have reached a point where we are no longer focused on the prevention of climate change but rather the mitigation of its worst effects, namely, sea level rise. If we are going to be able to make a dent in the massive problem of climate change, looking back to the Earth’s natural processes may be the solution.

Word Count: 770

Works Cited

“The Importance of Mangrove Forests: Diverse Ecosystems: Amnh.” American Museum of Natural History. Accessed September 24, 2021. https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/biodiversity/mangroves-the-roots-of-the-sea/why-mangroves-matter.

Mas, Kim. How Oysters Can Stop A Flod. YouTube. Vox, 2021. https://youtu.be/UcN6RXT7qpw.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 8 Aquatic Biodiversity.” Essay. In Living in the Environment, 154–71. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2021.

Papp, Ashleigh. “Scientists in Costa Rica Are Growing New Corals to SAVE REEFS.” Mongabay Environmental News, December 8, 2020. https://news.mongabay.com/2020/11/scientists-in-costa-rica-are-growing-new-corals-to-save-reefs/.

“Principles of Wetland Restoration.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed September 24, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/principles-wetland-restoration.

“‘CBEMR’ Mangrove Restoration.” Mangrove Action Project, June 25, 2021. https://mangroveactionproject.org/mangrove-restoration/. 

[celestesenvironmentalpanic]

Blog Post #1:Too Much and Not Enough Blame Being Placed on Individuals

First Entry 9/14/21 (Edited 9/23/21)

Many of the environmental studies journals and articles we read today focus on the role of the individual in reducing their carbon footprint. There is some validity to this assertion, as noted by the theory of the Tragedy of the Commons, while individual action in itself seems futile the collectivity of individual’s behaviors are what in large part contribute to the use and decimation of natural resources (Miller and Spoolman 2021,10-11). However, I think that far too often, we shift the blame of climate change and resource depletion onto individuals as opposed to the larger entities which are responsible for creating the choices provided to individuals, as well as for an even more significant amount of carbon emissions.

When analyzing the varying responsibilities of individuals vs larger corporate and government entities, it is overwhelmingly clear that organizations, not individuals, are responsible for emissions. According to the Carbon Majors Report, just 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions (Riley 2017). Additionally, according to a study done by Brown University, the US military alone (not including the country) has a larger carbon footprint than many industrialized nations  (McCarthy 2021).These studies provide a stark reminder that no matter how many take out containers one recycles, no matter how many times one opt for travel on foot as opposed to more carbon-intensive modes of transportation, or how many bottles of “Love, Beauty, and Planet™” shampoo you buy, ones efforts prove futile in comparison to the environmentally destructive practices of many corporations.

One may argue that corporate carbon-emitting activity is only generated in response to the demand from consumers, and that if individuals really want to generate real changes within these corporations it comes down to their consumption. However, the idea that individuals have any control over the demands of corporations is ludicrous. Individuals are going to buy what is accessible and affordable to them. And corporations are currently mostly going to create products that generate a profit at a minimal expense. I believe that the only way to generate change among individuals is by forcing corporations to change their practices and products, through legislation and economic sanctions. Contrary to what a CEO of a major company would want you to believe, the price difference created by the transition from unsustainable to sustainable products is negligible, and could be covered by the cost of that CEO’s 15th yacht.

On the topic of a CEO’s 15th yacht, if we are going to be emphasizing individual action I believe we need to start with the actions of the individuals within the global .0001%. I’m not talking about the individuals who generated enough wealth to ensure a comfortable life for themselves and their families. I’m not even talking about the individuals who live in Luxurious Central Park S apartments and spend most of their time golfing while their investment banker generates even more wealth for them (although they definitely aren’t off the hook). I’m talking about the individuals who, in the midst of a global pandemic, wildfires raging the west, and record rains pummeling the east, chose to have a galactic d*ck measuring contest just for seven minutes of barely breaching the surface of the atmosphere (and in the process generating an exorbitant amount of unnecessary carbon emissions). These are the men who, while their companies profit off of “sustainable” products whose uptick in demand is generated by environmental panic of consumers, and while encouraging individuals to live more sustainably, are sitting in their corporate lairs laughing at our panic and continuing to, emissions-wise, destroy our atmosphere and air quality with their private jumbo jets and their separate yacht just for their helicopter (News18 2021)

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the actions of individuals are important. In fact, the only way that we are going to be able to make a difference is by overwhelming collective action of individuals pressuring their local, federal, and international legislative bodies to actually pass legislation regulating corporations and forcing them to take accountability for their actions, as well as to reallocate funding from the carbon-intensive defense industry and towards climate mitigation. But I am just tired of feeling guilty for enjoying a hamburger every once in a while when it is so overwhelmingly obvious that the people who are most responsible for climate change and the degradation of our air and water quality are the people who seem to care the least. It’s time for governments to force them to take accountability and stop taking handouts from these CEOs to fund their political campaigns. 

Word Count: 753

Works Cited

Desk, Trending. “Jeff Bezos to OWN Mega Luxury Yacht Worth $500 Million That Has a Support Yacht AND HELIPAD.” News18, May 11, 2021. https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/jeff-bezos-luxury-yacht-support-yacht-helipad-amazon-millionaire-3725993.html.

McCarthy, Niall. “Report: The U.S. MILITARY Emits More co2 than Many Industrialized Nations [Infographic].” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, June 30, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/?sh=401151df4372.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. “Chapter 1 The Environment and Sustainability.” Essay. In Living in the Environment, 10–11. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2021.

Riley, Tess. “Just 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of Global EMISSIONS, Study Says.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, July 10, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.