alyseccsolutions

[alyseccsolutions]

11. Marine Permaculture & Ocean Farming

Drawdown includes a list of “Coming Attractions” of climate change adaptation and mitigation methods. Marine permaculture and ocean farming are two of the coming attractions that intrigued me. Fish farming is often touted as the answer to declining wild fish stocks. But more often than not, the farming of fish and shellfish is actually harming wild fish, through the pollution the farms discharge, escaped farmed fish, increased parasite loads, and the need to catch wild fish as feed.

The fishing industry is one of the most unsustainable industries and often uses very damaging practices that reduce fish populations and pollute marine ecosystems. Some of these problems include overfishing, bycatch, ghost nets, and nutrient runoff. As a result of overfishing: 53% of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, and 32% are overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion.

In addition, human carbon emissions are causing a dire situation in the world’s oceans. The oceans absorb half of the carbon dioxide recaptured from the atmosphere, which causes acidification, and over 90 percent of the heat from global warming. Ocean deserts, coral bleaching, and dead spots are becoming a growing issue.

In a video by TED-Ed they explain some of the harmful fishing practices and how they are linked to climate change: 

The video also introduces the concept of regenerative ocean farming which would be a more sustainable way of harvesting seafood by focusing on seaweed and the lower bottom of the food chain. This aligns with what Drawdown discussed in the potential for marine permaculture and ocean farming. The key player in both is seaweed/seagrass. 

Seagrass has a range of benefits: seagrass acts as a nursery and food source for a wide variety of marine life, provides a home for many fish and charismatic animals such as turtles and dugongs, protects coastlines by absorbing wave energy, produces oxygen and cleans the ocean by soaking up polluting nutrients produced on land by humans. In addition, seagrass accounts for 10 per cent of the ocean’s capacity to store carbon—so-called “blue carbon”—despite occupying only 0.2 per cent of the sea floor, and it can capture carbon from the atmosphere up to 35 times faster than tropical rainforests.

An engineer by the name Brian Von Herzen wants to restore marine life in subtropical waters with thousands of new kelp forests—what he calls marine permaculture. The key technology involves marine permaculture arrays (MPAs), lightweight latticed structures roughly half a square mile in size, submerged 80 feet below sea level, to which kelp can attach. Attached buoys rise and fall with the waves, powering pumps that bring up colder, nutrient-rich waters from far below. Kelp soak up the nutrients and grow, establishing a trophic pyramid rich in plant and animal life. Plants that are not consumed die off and drop into the deep sea, sequestering carbon for centuries in the form of dissolved carbon and carbonates. Floating kelp forests could sequester billions of tons of carbon dioxide, while providing food, feed, fertilizer, fiber, and biofuels to the world.

Ocean farming (which has been around for a long time) uses similar methods but is more of an aquaculture approach to produce seafood rather than habitat restoration. Once a sustainable practice, aquaculture has devolved into monolithic factory farms known for their low-quality fish treated with antibiotics and fungicides that pollute local waterways. A small group of ocean farmers and scientists are charting a different course—developing small-scale farms where complementary species are cultivated to provide food and biofuel, clean up the environment, and reverse climate change. Instead of finfish, the anchor crops of green ocean farms are seaweed and shellfish, two organisms that may well be Mother Nature’s Rx for global warming. 

Although it is not solid, these innovative methods of fishing centered around restoring natural marine ecosystems have the potential to mitigate some effects of climate change and provide food for future generations. Even just introducing these techniques into more parts of the fishing industry can help us to reduce our negative impact on the oceans. As Drawdown puts it: “What if the question is not how we can preserve the wildness of our oceans, but how the oceans can be developed to protect them and the planet?”

References and additional resources:

https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/seagrass-secret-weapon-fight-against-global-heating?fbclid=IwAR0wMjj87fUZsACoKSsWV7mHWvtglD4lGPYiCZ7nUfNRH4JpAyr-HLZLO2U

https://wwf.panda.org/our_work/oceans/problems/unsustainable_fishing/

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/coming-attractions/marine-permaculture

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/coming-attractions/ocean-farming

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1477

https://www.woi.economist.com/can-seagrass-realise-its-potential-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/

[alyseccsolutions]

10. Green Roofs

Green roofs are ranked number 73 on Drawdown’s list of climate change solutions. Drawdown’s research estimates that by 2050, green roofs could reduce 0.77 gigatons of atmospheric CO2 and have a net savings of $988.5 billion! These calculations seem outrageous but when you realize all of the benefits green roofs have, then it becomes questionable why more buildings don’t have them already.

When I first heard about green roofs, I immediately loved the concept of having a little garden on top of my building where I could escape to. A green roof can be a recreational space as such, and much more. Greenroofs.org lists all the benefits of green roofs on their website:

PUBLIC BENEFITS

AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS

·       Urban greening has long been promoted as an easy and effective strategy for beautifying the built environment and increasing investment opportunity

WASTE DIVERSION

·       Green roofs can contribute to landfill diversion by:

·       Prolonging the life of waterproofing membranes, reducing associated waste

·       Using recycled materials in the growing medium

·       Prolonging the service life of heating, ventilation, and HVAC systems through decreased use

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

·       With green roofs, water is stored by the substrate and then taken up by the plants from where it is returned to the atmosphere through transpiration and evaporation

·       In summer, green roofs can retain 70-90% of the precipitation that falls on them

·       In winter, green roofs can retain between 25-40% of the precipitation that falls on them

·       Green Roofs not only retain rainwater, but also moderate the temperature of the water and act as natural filters for any of the water that happens to run off

·       Green roofs reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and also delay the time at which runoff occurs, resulting in decreased stress on sewer systems at peak flow periods

MODERATION OF URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT

·       Through the daily dew and evaporation cycle, plants on vertical and horizontal surfaces are able to cool cities during hot summer months and reduce the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. The light absorbed by vegetation would otherwise be converted into heat energy.

·       UHI is also mitigated by the covering some of the hottest surfaces in the urban environment - black rooftops.

·       Green roofs can also help reduce the distribution of dust and particulate matter throughout the city, as well as the production of smog. This can play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting urban areas to a future climate with warmer summers.

IMPROVED AIR QUALITY

·       The plants on green roofs can capture airborne pollutants, atmospheric deposition, and also filter noxious gases.

·       The temperature moderating effects of green roofs can reduce demand on power plants, and potentially decrease the amount of CO2 and other polluting by-products being released into the air.

NEW AMENITY SPACES

Green roofs help to reach the principles of smart growth and positively affect the urban environment by increasing amenity and green space and reducing community resistance to infill projects. Green roofs can serve any number of functions and uses, including:

·       Community gardens (e.g. local food production or co-ops)

·       Commercial space (e.g. display areas and restaurant terraces)

·       Recreational space (e.g. lawn bowling and children's playgrounds)

LOCAL JOB CREATION

·       The growth of green roof markets gives new job opportunities related to manufacturing, plant growth, design, installation, and maintenance.

·       American Rivers suggests that a USD $10B investment could create 190,000 jobs by building 48.5 billion-square-feet of green roof area, or just one percent of the United States' roof space in every community over 50,000 in population.

·       There is significant potential for new growth in dense urban areas that were previously unusable.

PRIVATE BENEFITS

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

·       The greater insulation offered by green roofs can reduce the amount of energy needed to moderate the temperature of a building, as roofs are the site of the greatest heat loss in the winter and the hottest temperatures in the summer.

·       For example, research published by the National Research Council of Canada found that an extensive green roof reduced the daily energy demand for air conditioning in the summer by over 75% (Liu 2003).

INCREASED ROOFING MEMBRANE DURABILITY

·       The presence of a green roof decreases the exposure of waterproofing membranes to large temperature fluctuations, that can cause micro-tearing, and ultraviolet radiation.

FIRE RETARDATION

·       Green roofs have much lower burning heat load (the heat generated when a substance burns) than do conventional roofs (Koehler 2004).

REDUCTION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION

·       Green roofs are capable of reducing electromagnetic radiation penetration by 99.4% (Herman 2003).

NOISE REDUCTION

·       Green roofs have excellent noise attenuation, especially for low frequency sounds. An extensive green roof can reduce sound from outside by 40 decibels, while an intensive green roof can reduce sound by 46-50 decibels (Peck et al. 1999).

MARKETING

·       Green roofs can increase a building's marketability. They are an easily identifiable symbol of the green building movement and can act as an incentive to those interested in the multiple benefits offered by green roofs.

·       Green roofs, as part of the green building movement, have been identified as facilitating (Wilson 2005)

·       Sales

·       Lease-outs

·       Increased property value due to increased efficiency

·       Easier employee recruiting

·       Lower employee and tenant turnover

DESIGN SPECIFIC BENEFITS

INCREASED BIODIVERSITY

·       Green roofs can sustain a variety of plants and invertebrates, and provide habitat for various bird species. By acting as a stepping stone habitat for migrating birds they can link species together that would otherwise be fragmented.

·       Increasing biodiversity can positively affect three realms:

·       Ecosystem

·       Economic

·       Social

·       Diverse ecosystems are better able to maintain high levels of productivity during periods of environmental variation than those with fewer species.

·       Stabilized ecosystems ensure the delivery of ecological goods (e.g. food, construction materials, medicinal plants) and services (e.g. maintain hydrological cycles, cleanse water and air, store and cycle nutrients)

·       Visual and environmental diversity can have positive impacts on community and psychological well-being

IMPROVED HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

·       The reduced pollution and increased water quality that green roofs provide can decrease demands for healthcare.

·       Green roofs can serve as community hubs, increasing social cohesion, sense of community, and public safety.

URBAN AGRICULTURE

·       Using green roofs as the site for an urban agriculture project can reduce a community's  footprint through the creation of a local food system.

·       These projects can serve as a source of community empowerment, give increased feelings of self-reliance, and improve levels of nutrition.

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

·       Green roofs on educational facilities can provide an easily accessible site to teach students and visitors about biology, green roof technology, and the benefits of green roofs.

Out of all of these benefits, I believe focusing on energy/money savings, urban agriculture, and stormwater collection as selling points are the most effective. Most people would agree that they want to save energy and money. Green roof urban agriculture creates a whole new market that has the ability to create jobs, educate, and solve food insecurity in urban food desserts. Stormwater runoff continues to be a major source of pollution and a huge problem for water resources, therefore, green roofs are helping to solve one more problem.

NPR made a great video showing an example of a successful green roof in NYC:

Wherever green roofs are not feasable, (due to cost, infrastructure, climate, etc.), cool roofs are a great alternative. Cool roofs can achieve a similar impact of reducing heat and saving energy, but with different methods. Cool roofs tend to be cheaper and easier than green roofs. Cool roofs can be made from a variety of materials such as light-colored metal, shingles, tiles, coatings, membranes, and other technologies. They all are aiming to reduce the amount of solar energy being absorbed by the building and are creating an albedo effect to reflect the solar radiation.

As global population increases and more people migrate into urban areas, green roofs/cool roofs will become a major player in the design of sustainable cities. Integrating nature with man-made structure is necessary for lowering our carbon footprint. Green roofs create a solution for each part of the Nexus (food, energy, and water), and they touch on all elements of sustainability (social, economic, environment). Additionally, as cities get dense and we run out of space, there will be nowhere left to go but the rooftops. 

Many places around the world and especially in Europe have already made green roofs common. But there is still a lot of progress to be made. Education, incentives, and building standards are three things that can help push the green roof movement forward. Imagine a future where the skyline of every city has a layer of greenery blanketing over the top.

References and Additional Resources:

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/buildings-and-cities/green-roofs

https://www.greenroofs.com/about-us/

https://greenroofs.org/about-green-roofs

https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/organization/office-of-governmentwide-policy/office-of-federal-highperformance-buildings/resource-library/integrative-strategies/green-roofs

[alyseccsolutions]

9. Educating Girls

I was inspired to write about girls’ education after recently meeting Dr. Sylvia Earle (pictured above) at the inaugural event for the Florida Gulf Coast Hope Spot in Dunedin, FL. Over her illustrious career, Dr. Sylvia Earle has been a pioneer for women and girls in the field of science. She has inspired so many women to pursue education in science and continues to do so. And as it turns out, education for women and girls has a much higher impact on the environment as it does the economy as we previously thought. Drawdown ranks Educating Girls as number 6 out of 80 climate change solutions. This is a considerably high ranking as it surpasses other solutions such as solar, geothermal, and nuclear energy. According to their estimates, Educating Girls has the potential to reduce global CO2 emissions by 59.6 gigatons.

The reason Educating Girls has such a large environmental benefit is the direct effect on world population. Research has concluded that women with more years of education have fewer and healthier children, and actively manage their reproductive health. Therefore, education is one of the most powerful levers available for avoiding emissions by curbing population growth. In sub-Saharan Africa, women with secondary education on average have three fewer children than those with no education at all.

Educating girls not only eases population growth, but also creates a snowball of effects in every other aspect of health, economy, and family life. Educated girls realize higher wages and greater upward mobility, contributing to economic growth. Their rates of maternal mortality drop, as do mortality rates of their babies. They are less likely to marry as children or against their will. They have lower incidence of HIV/AIDS and malaria. Their agricultural plots are more productive and their families better nourished.

Education also shores up resilience and equips girls and women to face the impacts of climate change.  A Gender Review by UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report even showed that countries with more women in parliament are more likely to ratify environmental treaties. According to Drawdown’s findings, women can be more effective stewards of food, soil, trees, and water, even as nature’s cycles change. They also found women and girls have greater capacity to cope with shocks from natural disasters and extreme weather events.

Unfortunately, there are many barriers still in place today that prevent girls from receiving a basic education. According to UNESCO estimates, 130 million girls between the age of 6 and 17 are out of school and 15 million girls of primary-school age—half of them in sub-Saharan Africa— will never enter a classroom. Economic, cultural, and safety-related barriers that impede 62 million girls around the world from realizing their right to education include things such as poverty, violence, child marriage, accessibility, and religious practices. The key strategies to overcome these challenges include and are not limited to: make school affordable; help girls overcome health barriers; reduce the time and distance to get to school; make schools more girl-friendly; target boys and men to be a part of discussions about cultural and societal practices; hire and train qualified female teachers; end child/early marriage; and address violence against girls and women.

Many of the barriers to educating girls seem far too difficult to overcome. But steps are being taken every day to improve women’s rights and more people are realizing the importance of education for girls. One prime example of a champion for girls’ education is Malala Yousafzai, a girl from Afghanistan who was targeted and survived being shot by the Taliban for her activism. At a young age Malala understood the importance of education, and after her recovery she has continued to be an advocate for educating girls. In her speech to the UN (see video below), Malala said the now famous line, “One child, one teacher, one book, and one pen, can change the world.”

References:

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/women-and-girls/educating-girls

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/girlseducation

https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/sites/gem-report/files/GenderReview2016_eng.pdf

[alyseccsolutions]

8. Microgrids

Currently in the U.S. and other developed nations, our homes and businesses are tapped into “macro” grids (massive electrical network of energy sources) that connects utilities, large fossil-fuel plants, small fossil-fuel plants. This centralized setup hinders society’s transition from dirty fossil fuel energy produced in a few places to clean renewable energy produced everywhere. It also creates problems for adapting and mitigating to the affects of climate change. For example, recent wildfires and dry conditions in California are causing the utility PG&E to impose blackouts for communities in California to limit the risk of sparking more deadly wildfires. As the impacts of climate change worsen, we could be seeing more outages. This is obviously not efficient nor sustainable for the future and can be very costly. 

So what’s the solution? Microgrids. A microgrid is a localized grouping of distributed energy sources, like solar, wind, in-stream hydro, and biomass, together with energy storage or backup generation and load management tools. This system can operate as a stand-alone entity or its users can plug into the larger grid as needed. Microgrids are nimble, efficient microcosms of the big grid, designed for smaller, diverse energy sources. The use of local supply to serve local demand makes them more resilient and reduces energy lost in transmission and distribution. This is why microgrids is listed as number 78 on Drawdown’s list of climate change solutions.

The example of a successful microgrid system that Drawdown uses is a solar settlement in Freiburg, Germany (shown above). I actually had the privilege of visiting this community in person during a study abroad back in the summer of 2016. I learned that it is the first community in the world to have a positive energy balance, with each home producing $5,600 per year in solar energy profits. Before even hearing about microgrids, I was amazed and wondering why everyone wasn’t doing this.

Flash forward to 2019, we have more established microgrids scattered around the globe, but a majority of countries are either using macro grids or have no electric grid in place at all. There are now also companies that have turned microgrids into a business. (see video below)

But microgrids have the greatest advantages for low-income countries because they can help to grow human and economic development. Globally, 1.1 billion people do not have access to a grid or electricity, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Traditional methods of energy generation for these places is usually burning kerosene or wood which is very unsafe and unhealthy. Microgrids could bring a simple system of stand-alone solar to power a small village.

Implementing microgrids in low-income rural areas is easier than operating them in energy-rich developed countries because of the current economic model of large utility companies. A small number of companies have a monopoly on energy supply which is the biggest challenge. Splitting up the current macrogrids into microgrids would be more money than these companies are willing to spend. Another small issue is battery storage. If renewable energy microgrids are to be employed on a larger scale we would need better ways to store energy so that we would not have to rely on the main macrogrids for power.

References and Additional Resources:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-ceo-says-it-could-impose-blackouts-in-california-for-a-decade-11571438206

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352340919310340

https://www.energy.gov/articles/how-microgrids-work

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/electricity-generation/microgrids

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/15/16714146/greener-more-reliable-more-resilient-grid-microgrids

[alyseccsolutions]

7. LED Lighting - Household

Before I learned more about LED lighting, I was a little surprised to find that it was so high up (#33 out of 80) on Drawdown’s list of climate change solutions. Something as simple as changing a light bulb can reduce CO2 emissions by 7.81 gigatons and have a net savings of $1.73 trillion by 2050 according to Drawdown.

Traditionally, there have been four types of lamps used in residential lighting: incandescent lamps, halogen lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, and linear fluorescent lamps. Globally, the incandescent and halogen lamps, which have the lowest luminous efficacy, have been the most widely used. That trend is changing, however: in 2011, the market share of incandescent and halogen lamps was approximately 53 percent of global residential lighting, but in 2020, their market share is expected to decrease to 10 percent. 

Light emitting diodes (or LEDs) have been around since the 1960′s, although the concept has been around since 1874. But the common use of LEDs on a widescale has only been in the past two decades or so. They basically work like solar panels in reverse because LEDs convert electrons to photons. This allows LEDs to produce light approximately 90% more efficiently than incandescent light bulbs. In addition, LED bulbs can last much longer than other light bulbs. If used for 5 hours every day, LEDs could last 27 years. That means a 10 to 30 percent return on investment if you replace your old bulbs with LEDs.

The use of LED lighting has the most profound effect in developing countries where they still use wood or kerosene as a source of light. 1.1 billion people live without an efficient lighting solution. LED lighting in developing countries can solve one of the biggest problems in the world today: light poverty. This may not sound like much, but light plays an essential role in day-to-day life. Imagine not having light to study or do household tasks at night. You would be wasting valuable time. 

The UN Environment Programme estimates that developing and emerging economies could save $40 billion worth of electricity and prevent 320 million metric tonnes of carbon pollution annually simply by transitioning to LED lighting. Furthermore, lighting sources such as candles and kerosene lamps, put their health in danger. It’s reported that these antiquated light sources are responsible for fires and respiratory illnesses resulting 1.5 million deaths every year. But thankfully, a solution exists: solar powered LED lights!

The only limiting factor is upfront cost. LED bulbs cost about 2-3 times more than incandescent or fluorescent bulbs. This scares away many low income households that don’t know the long term energy saving costs of LEDs. But the price of LEDs is falling rapidly. Drawdown predicts that LEDs will become ubiquitous by 2050, encompassing 90 percent of the household lighting market. The key to achieving this is education and government action. Governments need to set better regulations and energy efficiency standards. If only more people knew the energy, money, and carbon emissions they could be saving!

References and additional resources:

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/buildings-and-cities/led-lighting-household

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/energy-star-leds-are-an-i_b_5854384

https://www.energystar.gov/products/lighting_fans/light_bulbs/learn_about_led_bulbs

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/noah-horowitz/led-lighting-could-save-developing-countries-40-billionyr

https://www.ledlightandpower.com/spark-dark-led-lighting-developing-countries/

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/jul/30/can-technology-free-developing-countries-from-light-poverty

[alyseccsolutions]

6. Plant-Rich Diet

Don’t let the word “diet” fool you because a plant-rich diet can help you more than just losing weight. A plant-rich diet can help you save the world from climate disaster. Drawdown estimates that if 50 percent of the world’s population restricts their diet to a healthy 2,500 calories per day and reduces meat consumption overall, at least 26.7 gigatons of emissions could be avoided from dietary change alone. And if avoided deforestation from land use change is included, an additional 39.3 gigatons of emissions could be avoided, making healthy, plant-rich diets one of the most impactful solutions at a total of 66 gigatons reduced. Because of this significant impact, plant-rich diet ranks number 4 on Drawdown’s list of climate change solutions.

So how did we get to this conclusion? Let’s start with the livestock/cattle industry. It is of course natural for cattle to produce methane gas, but what isn’t natural is the way that humans have farmed cattle since the industrial revolution. The massive deforestation, environmental pollution, and natural resource demand of producing meat is astounding. The meat-centric Western diet comes with a steep climate price tag: one-fifth of global emissions. And If cattle were their own nation, they would be the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Other than tackling carbon emissions, a plant rich diet has substantial benefits to overall health and wellbeing. Medicine and history has shown us that meat heavy diets lead to chronic diseases and heart failure. A study from the University of Oxford revealed that a worldwide transition to plant-based diets between now and 2050 would reduce global mortality by 6-10%. Furthermore, the potential impact on millions of lives would translate into trillions of dollars in savings: $1 trillion in annual healthcare costs and $30 trillion when accounting for the value of lives lost. This also means dietary shifts could be worth as much as 13 percent of worldwide GDP in 2050.

As great as it all sounds, there are some concerns. First of all, what does “plant-rich” mean exactly and what are the parameters? Does that mean over 50% of your diet needs to be plants? And how would you measure or keep track of that other than calorie restriction? Does this mean we all have to become vegans? No, but perhaps the Meatless Monday trend can be extended to Meatless Weekdays. How would this work on a global scale? Some cultures have a very meat heavy diet because that is all they have access to. Getting 50% of the global population to change their diet is a massive undertaking. Would that start with changing consumer habits or producers? And would that require government regulation intervention? What would happen to the economy if the massive livestock industry is cut down? 

These are all reasons why I don’t think relying on plant-rich diets is our best bet. But I do believe educating and advocating for a plant-rich diet as much as we can is important and can still make positive impact. In the past year we have already seen a huge trend in plant-based meat substitutes. Companies such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have even infiltrated fast food restaurants. As plant-based alternatives continue to become so readily available, the market will continue to rise and plant-rich diets will become more commonplace in society. So the next time you hear someone bragging about being a vegan, just know that it is in everybody’s favor.

References and Additional Resources:

https://www.sustain.ucla.edu/our-initiatives/food-systems/the-case-for-plant-based/

https://sustainablediet.com/shrinking-your-carbon-footprint

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/plant-rich-diet

http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-1

https://ideas.ted.com/how-to-persuade-your-favorite-meat-eater-to-try-a-meatless-monday/

[alyseccsolutions]

5. Bioplastic

We are all aware of the plastic problem. Plastic pollution has become very prevalent in the past decade. Drawdown states that in this Age of Plastic, roughly 310 million tons of plastic are produced each year globally. And one of the most commonly used statistics is that plastic will out-weigh fish in the world’s oceans by 2050. By now, the average U.S. could tell you that they’ve heard about plastic pollution. Lots of attention and energy has been put into plastic bans and ocean clean-ups. This is all fine and well, but that’s only one part of the issue. We’re trying to use less and we’re trying to clean it out of the ecosystem, but we are still producing it. The other part can be solved with bioplastic. Bioplastic is number 47 on Drawdown’s list of climate change solutions because it has potential to reduced 4.3 gigatons of global CO2 emissions, but it is costly at about $19.2 billion.

When I first heard about bioplastic several years ago I thought it was great and questioned why bioplastic wasn’t already being used for everything. Then throughout my education I learned contrasting things about bioplastics that debunked my prior faith in it. I learned that current petro-plastics made from fossil fuels is far less expensive to make than bioplastics. I also learned that not all bioplastics are biodegradable (which made me even more confused). Now that I have revisited the topic of bioplastic and done further research for this blog, I have a better understanding of bioplastics.

First of all, it is important to understand that plastic is made up of polymers. We synthesize polymers from fossil fuel, but polymers exist everywhere in nature. Experts estimate that 90 percent of current plastics could be derived from plants of other renewable feedstock instead of fossil fuel. The possibilities are endless and people around the world are making bioplastics with new plant materials everyday. For example the young woman in Mexico who made bioplastic from cacti (https://bioplasticsnews.com/2018/06/13/bioplastics-cactus/) and a man in Indonesia who made bioplastic bags from cassava (https://www.legalreader.com/cassava-bags-green/). There are even videos on how to make your own bioplastic at home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M_eDLyfzp8&t=36s

The list of current plastics all fall into categories of biodegradable, degradable, bio-based, and fossil-based. (See chart below). The confusion comes in when bioplastics are not biodegradable such as polyethelyne (PE). Because when we hear the term bioplastic, we assume it is biodegradable. The kind of bioplastics we want are polylactic acid (PLA) and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) which are both plant based and biodegradable.

It is important that bioplastics are biodegradable because even if they degrade much faster than regular plastic, they can still clog up landfills and pollute our beaches if non-degradable. Drawdown estimates that bioplastics will become more popular and can capture 49 percent of the market by 2050. We just need to make sure that the sources of material for bioplastic production are coming from renewable sources such as the waste and byproduct from the agriculture industry or the manufacturing of other products. And of course, it is also always important to continue to educate the public about plastic pollution and bioplastic solutions.

Additional references:

https://www.european-bioplastics.org/bioplastics/materials/

https://www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-bioplastics

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/12/13/the-truth-about-bioplastics/

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/bioplastics.html

[alyseccsolutions]

4. Smart Thermostats

Ranking at #57 on Drawdown’s list of climate change solutions, smart thermostats have the potential to reduce 2.62 gigatons of global CO2 emissions with $640.1 billion in net savings. Prior to writing this, I had no clue how smart thermostats worked, so I was curious as to how such a small tech device could have this much impact. I learned that a smart thermostat a wi-fi enabled device that automatically adjusts heating and cooling temperature settings in your home. The fact that these new smart home technologies can all be controlled from an app on your phone still amazes me.

The key features of smart thermostats include: 

Convenience

Many smart thermostats learn your temperature preferences and establish a schedule that automatically adjusts to energy-saving temperatures when you are asleep or away.

Geofencing allows your smart thermostat to know when you’re on the way home and automatically adjusts your home’s temperature to your liking.

Control

Wi-Fi enabled thermostats allow you to control your home’s heating and cooling remotely through your smartphone.

ENERGY STAR certified smart thermostats quickly enter a low-power standby mode when inactive.

Insight

Smart thermostats provide equipment use and temperature data you can track and manage.

Periodic software updates ensure your smart thermostat is using the latest algorithms and energy-saving features available.

A popular brand of smart thermostats, Google Nest, says their focus is to “help consumers achieve widespread adoption of energy-saving devices” by making technology more accessible to more people. According to Google Nest, in 2018 Nest thermostats helped their customers save 10 terawatt-hours of energy, equivalent to the amount of renewable energy that Google purchased for all operations that year. Check out this great video with Google Nest on how thermostats can save the planet:

So if these smart thermostats are so great at saving energy, why aren’t they being used everywhere? One of the main reasons is affordability. Currently, the average cost of installing a smart thermostat in a home is about $420. Most people are not willing to pay this cost upfront if their current thermostat works just fine. And most people aren’t aware of how much energy and money smart thermostats can save over time. But somehow, most people are also willing to pay out $500 or so for the newest iphone. Just doesn’t make sense to me.

I believe that more education and incentives are needed to help make smart thermostats a standard. An example of one place that has already taken action is Ontario, Canada. As part of the province’s Green Ontario Fund — a not-for-profit agency that’s part of their Climate Change Action Plan — residents of Ontario can sign up to receive a free smart thermostat, complete with installation. “Taking strong action on climate change means making it as easy as possible for people and businesses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at home and work, while also saving money,” said Chris Ballard, Ontario’s environment and climate change minister.

So as technology advances and smart devices become more common, it is possible we could have smart thermostats as a standard in homes and businesses. Drawdown predicts that smart thermostats could grow from .4 percent to 46 percent of households with internet access by 2050. My future home will most definitely have a smart thermostat.

References:

https://www.energystar.gov/products/heating_cooling/smart_thermostats?qt-consumers_product_tab=0#qt-consumers_product_tab

https://mobilesyrup.com/2017/08/31/ontario-government-will-install-smart-thermostat-home-fight-climate-change/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-smart-devices-can-help-solve-the-challenge-of-climate-change/

https://nestpowerproject.withgoogle.com/

https://www.inchcalculator.com/smart-thermostat-cost-guide/

[alyseccsolutions]

3. Walkable Cities

We all know that cars are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. One of my favorite solutions to reduce car traffic is the concept of walkable cities. If you’ve ever been to a walkable city, you know how they can turn a city space into a much more enjoyable atmosphere absent of noisy traffic. As #54 on Drawdown’s list of climate change solutions, the implementation of walkable cities has the potential to reduce 2.92 gigatons of CO2 emissions and $3.28 trillion in net savings.

So defines a city as “walkable”? I came across this video (posted below) awhile back. When I saw walkable cities on Drawdown’s list, I went back to look for the video because it does a great job of explaining the example of Barcelona, Spain as a walkable city. Barcelona has designed “superblocks” as a way to reduce pollution and make the city more walkable. 

“Americans are used to cars the way that fish are used to water.” This quote from the video really hit the nail on the head. But as global population increases, there simply won’t be enough space on the road for everyone’s cars. This is why walkability is so important for urban areas with a high population density. As cities run out of space to build out, they build up. Building up means places are not as far away and therefore more walkable.

In Drawdown, Hawken explains “Walkable urban places attract residents, businesses, and tourists, while local merchants benefit from greater foot traffic.” And when cities are walkable, they are more compatible with more sustainable practices such as cycling, mass transit, and parks/green spaces. And besides, car accidents are towards the top of the list of causes of American deaths every year. Therefore, walkable cities are safer.

Walkability is one more step in the goal for sustainability. We need to find a way to make existing infrastructure more walkable, and build new development with walkable standard design in mind such as LEED for Neighborhood Development. This requires changes in real estate and development practices, zoning ordinances, and municipal policies.

Here are some links to more info about walkable cities:

http://walkable.org/

https://www.arch2o.com/walkable-cities-versus-unwalkable/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wai4ub90stQ

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/10/26/18025000/walkable-city-walk-score-economy

[alyseccsolutions]

2. Reduced Food Waste

In class we learned that food waste is a major global issue. 1/3 of food grown does not even make it to our plates. Food waste alone contributes 4.4 gigatons of CO2, making it the third largest emitter of global greenhouse gases if ranked by country. Reduced food waste is one of my favorite climate change solutions because wasting food is a pet peeve of mine. It is ranked #3 by Drawdown, reduces 70.53 gigatons of total atmospheric CO2, and has zero net cost. In my opinion, reduced food waste the best choice from the top of the Drawdown list. So, then the obvious question is, why is there so much food waste if it’s so easy to eliminate? If we look at the issue based on each food sector (agricultural production, restaurants, groceries, and household), it is easier to break down the problems.

The agriculture industry is one of the biggest consumers of natural resources and biggest producers of greenhouse gases. Fifty percent of land is used for agriculture, yet, an enormous amount of food is wasted due to a lack of storage space, labor shortages, weather, pests, and uncertain market demand. A major reason most produce is wasted before it even leaves the farm is because it is considered unfit for consumers. In other words, produce that is misshapen, discolored, or simply ugly is not sold to grocers because customers would not want to buy it in fear that it is not good to eat. This seems ridiculous that perfectly good food which would have been chewed up eventually anyways is being thrown in a landfill. And even if it is considered unfit to eat, then why isn’t it being composted?

Another way that food is wasted is during transportation from farm to grocery. Easily perishable foods don’t always survive the trip to the grocery shelves, so it is thrown out. Food that makes it to the store only then has a short shelf life before it expires. Much of the food that grocery stores throw away is still perfectly edible so why waste it? Mostly because throwing it away is the easiest, cheapest option. And even if grocery stores wanted to donate leftover food, they don’t risk the liability of having someone sue from getting sick off bad food. There are some organizations that save food waste from groceries stores and donate it to people in need. However, this only takes care of a very small portion of overall grocery store food waste.

The restaurant industry has some similar issues to grocery stores, but another issue is serving size. Restaurants, at least in America, serve portions of food that are too much for one sitting. How often do you finish an entire meal at a restaurant, not leaving anything on your plate, and not taking home leftovers? For health and safety reasons, any food left from restaurant customers is immediately discarded. Lastly, food waste at home is the biggest way we waste food. On average, Americans waste $640 worth of food a year, per household. Anything from the scraps on our plates to the food you forgot in the fridge.

So what can we do about reducing food waste? Much of the issue could be solved if we just changed the way we think about and value food. As consumers we have a responsibility to be conscious of what we buy. And producers can take better steps in standardizing date labeling on packaging and managing leftover food. We need better ways to distribute food donations. We need to have government policies set in place so that leftover food is not allowed to be sent to the landfill. (Check out France: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/is-frances-groundbreaking-food-waste-law-working) We need to think of food waste not as “waste” but as a valuable fuel for biomass, composting, anaerobic digestion, and other forms of biofuels. If we took these steps to reduce food waste, perhaps there would be less global food insecurity.

To do my part in reducing food waste, I will be collecting my food scraps to give to Dr. Culhane for his biodigester. In the past I have collected my food scraps and brought them to a compost pile for a community garden. However, sometimes the compost pile would be neglected and I felt as though my food scraps were being wasted. By donating my food scraps to feed a biodigester, I feel better because I know that it will be providing energy for Dr. Culhane at Rosebud Continuum.

Check out these articles on food waste:

https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/5/9/15594598/food-waste-dumbest-environmental

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/24/11488486/food-waste-solutions

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/1/18/18188248/food-waste-ugly-produce-misfits-market

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/7/9260867/food-waste-donation-recycle

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/is-frances-groundbreaking-food-waste-law-working

https://foodtank.com/news/2016/07/fighting-food-loss-and-waste/

[alyseccsolutions]

1. Wave and Tidal Electricity Generation

Wave and Tidal is solution #29 from Drawdown. According to Drawdown, it has a total atmospheric CO2 reduction of 9.2 gigatons, a net cost of $411.84 billion, and a net savings of -$1,004.70 billion. I have always found this form of renewable energy fascinating and have done a little research on this topic in the past. In terms of practicality, I do not believe wave and tidal energy should be ranked as high. 

The general concept of wave and tidal energy is very simple because it is just harvesting the natural kinetic energy of the ocean, unlike other forms of hydropower where you might have to build a dam across a river. This video is an example of one way of harvesting wave energy: https://youtu.be/gcStpg3i5V8

My past research on this subject was for a research paper I wrote in a previous environmental science class. In my paper, I discuss the potential and environmental impacts of oscillating water column wave energy converters which is the same renewable energy technology shown in the video above. I would like to share the paper with you:

Oscillating Water Column Wave Energy Converter

Introduction

As the world’s population continues to climb, it is expected that global energy consumption will also increase exponentially within the next century (Clément et al. 2002). World energy consumption is expected to increase as much as 56% by 2040 (Clément et al. 2002). The proportion of this percentage increase that will be met by advances in renewable energy technologies is the focus topic. Specifically, converting the energy of ocean waves into electricity is a renewable energy technique that can help to meet increasing demands without contributing considerable and detrimental damage to the Earth (Liu 2016). Converting the movement of ocean waves into energy is a generally clean process because after construction, wave energy converters do not emit any greenhouse gases or produce any harmful waste products (Clément et al. 2002). This is favorable as renewable energy has risen to the forefront for many countries. The combination of wave power with innovative modern technologies will need to be further assessed for environmental impact and risks, and further developed to lower expenses before wave energy can be implemented further.

It is estimated that the total potential of all wave power hitting the coastlines globally is around 1 TW (Falnes 2007). Other estimations by the World Energy Council state that wave energy could meet 12 percent of the world’s energy usage (Zabihian and Fung 2011). Wave energy has been and continues to be utilized the most in Europe despite the global potential (Clément et al. 2002). The reason for Europe’s success in wave energy is because of its ideal location where the ocean and wind currents are hitting the coastline at maximum power for longer periods of time throughout the year (Langhamer et al. 2010). The wave power hitting the European west coast alone would produce enough electricity for all of western Europe (Langhamer et al. 2010).

To have the means to harness all this wave power, there must first be sufficient mechanisms of doing so. It was as early as 1799 in which techniques were first used to harness the energy and motion of ocean waves (Clément et al. 2002). There were more than a thousand different patents for wave energy converter designs utilizing around 100 different concepts filed before 1980 (Falcão 2010). Wave energy converters have technologies for implementation both offshore and onshore (Falcão 2010). Over the past three decades, considerable efforts have been made to advance wave energy technologies and adaptations on a global scale (Konispoliatis et al. 2016). At the beginning of this century, commercial wave energy plants already existed in Europe, Australia, and Israel (Clément et al. 2002). More recently, the leading countries in ocean wave energy are Portugal and the U.K. (Zabihian and Fung 2011). However, Australia, Denmark, and Ireland are not far behind because they may surpass Portugal and the U.K. as leaders of wave energy in less than 10 years (Zabihian and Fung 2011).

Compared to other renewable energy sources, waves have the highest energy density which means it has the highest amount of energy stored in a given space per unit of volume (Clément et al. 2002). Wave energy is a combination of both potential energy, from wave height, and kinetic energy from movement of water particles (Zabihian and Fung 2011). Waves are created by wind and can travel thousands of kilometers with very little loss in initial energy (Clément et al. 2002). Further comparing to other renewables, wave energy installations have the same low energy and carbon intensity levels as large wind turbines installations (Uihlein 2016). A limiting factor is that not all coastlines have a high enough concentration of wave energy for this method to be economically feasible for all coastal countries (Clément et al. 2002). In addition, wave energy can vary from season to season, so full-scale operation year-round as a primary energy source is not possible in some places (Falcão 2010).

Discussion

Oscillating Water Column

There are multiple categories of wave energy converters including terminator devices, attenuators, point absorbers, and overtopping devices (Falnes 2007). Falling under the category of terminators is a device called an oscillating water column (Falnes 2007). The first oscillating water column (OWC) was developed in Japan in the 1940’s by Japanese Navy officer Yoshio Masuda, who is also known as “the father of modern wave energy” (Falcão 2010). OWC technology has been developed for longer than other wave energy converters (Zabihian and Fung 2011). It’s long development for an efficient design is a reason why OWCs are the most favored of the wave energy converters (Konispoliatis et al. 2016). Since they are more popular, the OWC device is also the best competitor for the commercialization of wave energy converters (Liu 2016).

Oscillating water columns align perpendicular to the waves to capture the power of the waves and covert it to wind energy (Falnes 2007). OWCs can be constructed to fit on the coast where waves are crashing directly on the shoreline, or floating in open ocean with a mooring to secure it to the sea floor (Konispoliatis et al. 2016). OWCs are essentially comprised of 3 main parts: the chamber, the wind turbine, and the generator (Bouali and Larbi 2017). The chamber is partially submerged and typically made of concrete and steel (Falcão 2010). The chamber is where the waves flow in and traps the air (Bouali and Larbi 2017). The motion of the waves push the pressurized air up in an oscillating motion into the wind turbine (Bouali and Larbi 2017). The air flows through the turbine which powers the generator (Bouali and Larbi 2017).

OWCs range in dimensions from the size of a small car to the size of a small house (Iino et al. 2016). Most wave energy converters are comprised of plastics, concrete, and both ferrous and non-ferrous metals which can be reused and recycled (Uihlein 2016). But around 10% of the leftover materials must go in a landfill (Uihlein 2016). It is important to use materials that can withstand years of sometimes extreme ocean climate conditions to avoid any corrosion and breakdown of the materials into the environment (Tiron et al. 2015). Most wave energy converters are made of an average 55 percent concrete and less than 10 percent plastics and metals (Uihlein 2016). Generally, steel takes up 45 percent of the total weight of the device (Uihlein 2016). OWCs specifically have around 60 percent steel and a little over 30 percent concrete making up their total weight (Uihlein 2016).

The shape of the OWC design is very crucial in order to obtain the maximum wave flow and power (Falcão and Henriques 2016). The goal is to increase the energy absorbed from the waves while decreasing any losses from the process of converting the energy (Liu 2016). OWCs utilize many different shapes including “J,” “U,” and “V” shapes (Falcão and Henriques 2016). The shape influences the physics and hydrodynamics of the waves which plays a huge part in how much and how fast air is pushed through the turbine (Iino et al. 2016). Apart from shape, engineers have experimented with the inclination, size, and many other factors in efforts to find the optimum and most efficient design to harness the most wave energy (Iino et al. 2016). The most common, and one of the simpler designs of off-shore OWCs is a partly submerged vertical cylinder that has an open bottom chamber (Konispoliatis et al. 2016).

Earlier OWCs of the 1980’s -1990’s have a power capacity of 60-500 kW (Falcão 2010). The two most powerful OWCs built to date were constructed in the UK and Australia and had power capacities of 1 MW (Falcão and Henriques 2016). Unfortunately, both were wrecked in deployment due to rough ocean conditions which causes concern in construction, safety, and cost (Falcão and Henriques 2016). For these reasons, less than half of the number of open water (floating) OWCs have been launched compared to shoreline (fixed) OWCs (Falcão 2010). The two cases above are examples demonstrating that offshore OWCs tend to be more expensive, and are harder and more dangerous to install because of open ocean conditions (Falcão 2010). They also require deep-water moorings and long underwater electrical cables (Falcão 2010). Shoreline OWCs are preferred because they are easier to construct and maintain (Falcão and Henriques 2016).

Environmental Impacts

There is insufficient research and a large margin of uncertainty when it comes to the environmental impacts of wave energy converters because they have largely been deployed in short experimental/trial stages (Frid et al. 2012). What is known and presented are mainly estimations and predictions of long-term environmental effects (Frid et al. 2012). Additionally, wave energy devices will have different effects on different ecosystems (Frid et al. 2012). The location and mass of a wave energy converter are important in determining its environmental impact. The total material mass of the device itself should not be an obstruction in the environment where it is constructed and deployed (Uihlein 2016). For example, for offshore devices there are extensive areas that need to be avoided such as shipping lanes, military zones, marine archaeological sites, mining zones, oil fields, conservation areas, and more (Langhamer et al. 2010). And for onshore devices, areas to avoid include highly populated areas, marine life breeding grounds, and conservation zones (Frid et al. 2012).

There are also some unintended positive impacts that wave energy can have on an ecosystem. Positive correlations have been found between the volume of material and environmental impacts (Uihlein 2016). For instance, wave energy converters can protect a marine habitat by blocking commercial fishers from using large trolling nets (Langhamer et al. 2010). This acts as a conservation zone for the marine life in the area increasing fish density and diversity (Langhamer et al. 2010). The presence of wave energy converters may also attract marine life that form artificial reefs on or around the devices as a new habitat (Langhamer et al. 2010). This could be harmless to the device itself if the location of newly formed habitats is around the base of the structure (Langhamer et al. 2010). It is undesirable if the buildup of organic mass is encroaching or limiting the movement of functional parts, or adding extra weight to the device (Tiron et al. 2015). For example, a buildup of mussel, oyster, barnacles, or algae growing on the structure can damage the device itself or block water flow (Tiron et al. 2015). Unwanted biomass buildup, known as biofouling, is likely to occur in some marine ecosystems compared to others especially since maintenance is already difficult and expensive for offshore wave energy converters (Tiron et al. 2015). Similar to the artificial reef effect, it is known that floating structures attract fish because they serve as shelter from predators and areas to spawn (Langhamer et al. 2010). Birds can also be attracted to these devices as resting and feeding spots (Frid et al. 2012). The result of putting floating structures out where there was not before creates new habitat that may introduce new trophic opportunities and change the flow of the food web when new species create new niches (Langhamer et al. 2010).

The moorings and foundation are the portion of the wave energy converters that have the most environmental impact (Uihlein 2016). The moorings of offshore wave energy devices can have harmful effects because they can disturb the seabed and alter the geological surface of the ocean floor when anchored down (Langhamer et al. 2010). Because they jet out perpendicular to the shore, some designs of onshore wave energy devices will change the natural shape and erosion patterns of the coastline which may cause some new topographic features such as sandbars to form (Langhamer et al. 2010). Both situations for offshore and onshore wave energy converters alter sedimentation transport of the sea floor or shoreline which can damage the surrounding natural ecosystems and habitats (Langhamer et al. 2010). Off-shore devices may also interfere with natural ocean current patterns but no significant effects have been documented (Langhamer et al. 2010). Although, many types of fish species depend on ocean currents to transport larvae between spawning grounds and feeding grounds, so wave energy devices, if arranged in a larger field, could adjust the flow of natural ocean currents could have a potential negative impact on fish populations (Frid et al. 2012).

Some concerns over noise pollution have come up because open ocean devices have the potential to interrupt communication of marine mammal species that use echolocation (Langhamer et al. 2010). There is also a hypothesis that noise can interfere with some fish species who use sound to find nursery locations (Frid et al. 2012). The level of noises and vibrations emitted during construction of OWCs would likely exceed the threshold of tolerance for many marine species and can scare them off from their habitats (Frid et al. 2012). Even though a handful of concerns over noise pollution have come up, there is still not sufficient research on the long-term effects of noise from continual operation (Langhamer et al. 2010).

Most of the negative environmental impacts of wave energy converters only happen during the construction and deployment phase (Uihlein 2016). From what is known, the long term negative environmental impacts are minimal (Langhamer et al. 2010). It is estimated that the total carbon emissions of an OWC over 25 years, including construction, installation, operation, and decommissioning is only about 24 grams of carbon dioxide (Uihlein 2016). Wave energy is gaining the continual support of the public as more people are learning of this technology (Uihlein 2016). Wave energy is favorable by the public because unlike solar and wind, it is far away enough from residential areas so that it does not require large areas of land, does not create any visual obstructions, and does not create any sound disturbances to people (Uihlein 2016).

Conclusion

Ocean wave energy is an emerging field in renewable energy. It has many benefits including its overall sustainability and little known environmental impact (Liu 2016). The oscillating wave columns are some of the most dependable wave energy converters because of their relatively simple design (Iino et al. 2016). Despite the simplicity of the concept, high construction costs, little market competition, and little research are some reasons why wave energy has not boomed (Clément et al. 2002). Investigating the long-term environmental effects of wave energy is an ongoing process. Studies of wave energy converters are difficult and costly (Langhamer et al. 2010). Oscillating wave columns and other wave energy technologies need the support of government and long term funding in order for it to reach commercialization at the same level as wind and solar power (Uihlein 2016). But it is possible that wave energy could reach the level of importance that wind and hydropower were at ten years ago (Langhamer et al. 2010).

Another challenge is the fact that waves can be unpredictable. When there is irregularity in the direction and amplitude of the waves, it is difficult to get to maximum efficiency (Clément et al. 2002). Furthermore, if there is an extreme weather event such as a hurricane, the waves might generate a hundred times the average loading which can severely damage the OWC (Clément et al. 2002). Because wave energy is unpredictable by nature, more studies taking wave variability into account are needed to find the most efficient way to harness the power of waves with the least amount of negative environmental impact (Uihlein 2016). However, it is possible that in the future we may find wave energy technologies arranged in vast arrays in wave energy farms (Uihlein 2016). As better technologies are developed over time and more people are investing in renewable energy, wave energy will most likely transition into global commercialization sooner than later (Uihlein 2016).

To summarize what I learned from my research, wave and tidal energy has a lot of potential but is still in the early developing stages. As technology advances, this form of renewable energy will become more affordable and practical. However, since this type of energy is only able to be implemented on a large enough scale in certain parts of the world, some questions arise. As climate change progresses, how will the ocean’s changing conditions affect wave and tidal energy? Many factors including sea level rise and extreme weather patterns will determine if existing and potential wave energy converters fail in changing conditions. Feel free to share your thoughts on wave and tidal energy.

Here are a few interesting articles relating to wave and tidal energy:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/will_tidal_and_wave_energy_ever_live_up_to_their_potential

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/04/does-the-moon-hold-the-key-to-the-earths-energy-needs

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/business/energy-environment/catching-waves-and-turning-them-into-electricity.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FTidal%20and%20Wave%20Power&action=click&contentCollection=energy-environment®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=8&pgtype=collection

[alyseccsolutions]

Introduction

Hello! Welcome to my blog for the Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation course. Through the duration of the class on this blog platform, I will be posting my pick of 16 climate change solutions from the book Drawdown by Paul Hawken. These choices will not be in any particular rank/order, but just the top 16 that I find the most interesting or practical. Thanks for reading and following along!