#Fossil Fuel Companies Pay taxes To Russia | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

28.6 is the average number of monthly visits per US mobile user.

#Fossil Fuel Companies Pay taxes To Russia

kp777 · 1 year

Text

By Jake Johnson

Common Dreams

July 5, 2023

The trillions of dollars in public subsidies that governments around the world hand to the fossil fuel industry each year are facing growing scrutiny from lawmakers and climate campaigners as heatwaves across the planet push global temperatures into uncharted territory.

Environmentalist Annie Leonard, the former executive director of Greenpeace USA, called on members of the U.S. Congress to reject public subsidies for the oil and gas industry in the must-pass annual budget package, a sweeping measure that typically includes billions in tax incentives and other handouts that encourage production and consumption of planet-warming fossil fuels.

"Stop giving our money to the corporations cooking the planet," Leonard wrote on Twitter Tuesday, urging Americans to contact and pressure their representatives.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that world governments dished out nearly $6 trillion in total fossil fuel subsidies in 2020—around $11 million per minute—and that such giveaways are expected to grow in the coming years without significant reforms.

Last year, according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel consumption subsidies alone rose to more than $1 trillion worldwide—a surge fueled in part by the energy market chaos caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. While such subsidies were aimed at shielding consumers from high gas prices, they had the "adverse effect of keeping fossil fuels artificially competitive with low-emissions alternatives," IEA said.

The same year that subsidies skyrocketed to record levels, the global fossil fuel industry raked in a staggering $4 trillion in profits, the IEA found.

"Big Oil companies are boosting profits and shareholder distribution while our climate suffers," U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said last month.

In late 2021, 197 countries including the U.S. and Canada signed a climate pact that contains a pledge to phase out "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies." But as Emily Atkin and Arielle Samuelson wrote in the HEATED newsletter earlier this year, that promise turned out to be "meaningless" given the subsequent rise in oil and gas subsidies.

"This is why climate promises never come to pass," Atkin and Samuelson argued. "The polluters' pocketbooks are government-lined."

Amid a catastrophic wildfire season that has blanketed large swaths of the U.S. with toxic smoke, the Canadian government is reportedly expected to release a policy this month aimed at cutting off "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies," echoing the language of the Glasgow climate pact.

But advocates raised concerns about how the policy will define "inefficient." As the CBC's Benjamin Shingler reported last week, climate campaigners say "subsidies should only be considered 'efficient'—and therefore an acceptable form of government funding—if they align with Canada's Paris agreement goals."

"That means subsidies shouldn't support new or updated fossil fuel infrastructure, or delay the transition to renewables, according to signatories of the letter to [Canadian Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau last month," Shingler added.

Trudeau and other world leaders will have a major opportunity to finally take concrete, coordinated action to end fossil fuel subsidies at COP28 in late November—but that would mean confronting an industry that will have a significant presence at the critical summit in the United Arab Emirates.

Chido Muzondo, a policy adviser at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, wrote last month that governments at COP28 must do more than pay "lip service to the existing pledges—made in the Paris Agreement Article 2.c.1 and in the Glasgow statement—to stop subsidizing fossil fuels."

"This decade is decisive in our fight against global warming, and time is limited to align our actions with the measures needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change," Muzondo wrote. "Fossil fuel subsidies stand out as some of the most harmful policies hindering our efforts to tackle climate change."

More on this story

Shell reports highest profits in 115 years

2 February

BP scales back climate targets as profits hit record

7 February

0 notes

melbournenewsvine · 2 years

Text

BP Lands Archaea in $4.1 Billion Deal

BP has agreed to acquire biogas producer Archaea Energy for US$4.1 billion ($6.5 billion) including debt, the latest step in the British energy giant’s expansion into low-carbon fuels. On Monday, BP said in a statement that BP will pay $26 per share, a 38 percent premium to the average share price in the 30 days through October 14. The Houston-based company, which captures waste gas emissions from landfills and farms, will become a major part of BP’s bioenergy business and accelerate its growth, according to the statement. Archaea captures biogas in landfills or on farms and processes it into high quality natural gas in pipelines.attributed to him:Joe Armau Nick Stork, Archaea’s CEO and co-founder, said in the statement that Archaea fits with BP’s “strategic focus on bioenergy.” The deal will increase the role of renewable natural gas in helping customers achieve their long-term climate goals. Archaea was formed in 2021 when Rice Acquisition merged with two other companies to create a giant in so-called renewable natural gas. The environmental benefits of the fuel largely come from preventing emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas methane, which is created by decomposing organic waste under certain conditions. The company captures biogas at landfills or farms and processes it into high quality natural gas in pipelines. Burning the fuel still releases carbon dioxide, but it has less of a climate impact than if methane were simply allowed to escape into the atmosphere. Under CEO Bernard Looney, BP has sought to position itself at the forefront of major oil companies’ efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and transition to cleaner forms of energy. It was one of the first companies to promise to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, and it made big bets on wind and marine electric vehicles. It was one of the first to promise net zero emissions by 2050 and has made big bets on offshore wind and electric vehicles.attributed to him:AP Even as the industry posted record profits this year due to the surge in oil and gas prices after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, companies including BP, TotalEnergies SE and Shell said they would continue to direct a growing portion of their cash flow into low-carbon energy. , with the shift away from fossil fuels as the main source of revenue. Matthew Blair, head of chemicals, refineries and renewable fuels at equity research at Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. The target company is valued at four times Archaea’s projected $1 billion earnings before items like interest and taxes by 2027, compared to about $140 million currently. Source link Originally published at Melbourne News Vine

#Melbourne News Vine

0 notes

qqueenofhades · 5 years

Text

Okay, I’ve read Joe Biden’s plans.

I’ve just sat down and spent several hours actually reading all the damn plans on his website, the whole thing, so you don’t have to. And here’s the conclusion:

They’re pretty good.

Are they absolutely everything we want immediately? Maybe not. Are they a solid Democratic agenda anyway? Yes they are. Are they better than Trump?

Light years!

His Violence Against Women plan is lengthy, detailed, and pays specific attention to violence against Native, lesbian and bisexual, low-income, disabled, rural, transgender (especially trans women of color) immigrant, domestic abuse victims, and other vulnerable women. He calls for replacing and expanding Obama-era policies and funding for campus sexual assault programs that DeVos trashed, and for providing money for culturally specific services that are sensitive to the diverse backgrounds of survivors. He also notes that sexual assault, while it predominantly affects women and girls, needs to be taken seriously and addressed for people of all gender identities.

His gun safety plan is forceful and lays out several steps for banning assault weapons, taking existing weapons from offenders, closing gun purchase background check and other legal loopholes, addressing the intersection between domestic violence and weapons ownership, and reducing or eliminating weapons and ammunition stockpiling.

His plan for tackling climate change and creating green jobs is also lengthy. He makes the connection between economic, environmental, and racial justice. He pledges to immediately rejoin the Paris Agreement and restore American leadership on the issue in pushing for even stronger climate standards, make climate change a central part of our trade, international, and justice goals, demand a worldwide ban on fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks (!!!) and if the Green New Deal is passed, to sign it, as well as for the U.S. to achieve 100% clean energy and zero percent net emissions by 2050.

His healthcare plan is decent. It offers an immediate public option for all Americans regardless of private, employer, or no coverage, and generous new tax credits to put toward the cost of coverage. It strongly protects abortion rights and federal funding for Planned Parenthood, as well as rescinding the “gag rule” that prevents U.S. federal aid money from being used to provide or even talk about abortions in NGOs abroad. It attacks generic and drug price gouging. It calls for doubling the capital gains tax on the super-wealthy (from 20% to 39.5% paid on capital gains by anyone making over $1 million) to help fund healthcare reform. He also has a separate plan on the opioid crisis in America, and on older Americans and retirement, including the protection and re-funding of Medicare and Social Security.

His immigration plan is lengthy and detailed. He apologizes for and acknowledges the excessive deportation that occured during the Obama-Biden administrations, pledges to do better, and attacks Trump’s current inhumane acitivities on every front. The policy of children in cages, indefinite detention, the metered asylum system, and the Muslim Ban are gone on day one. In this and his LGBTQ plan, he notes the vulnerability of LGBTQ refugees, incuding LGBTQ refugees of color. He proposes streamlining of visa applications and prioritizing the immediate reunification of families. It also specifically states that ICE and CBP agents will be held directly accountable for inhumane treatment.

Speaking of which, his LGBTQ plan is comprehensive. It pays attention to multiple intersectional issues, down to the high rates of incarceration among trans people of color. (He also notes the rates of violence against trans women of color particularly.) He calls for a complete ban on conversion therapy and the discrimination against HIV-status individuals, as well as removing the ban on blood donation from gay and bisexual men. He will remove the transgender military ban immediately. He calls for funding for mental health and suicide prevention among LGBTQ populations.

His plan to empower workers calls for raising the federal minimum wage to $15, as well as indexing this to median hourly wages to ensure that working-class and middle-class wages grow closer to parity, and implementing strong legal protections for unions. He expresses support for striking workers and to empower the National Labor Relations Board in workplace advocacy. Farmworkers, domestic workers, gig economy workers, and other non-traditional labor groups are included in this. He will restore all Obama-Biden policies related to workplace safety and regulation.

His plan to restore American dignity and leadership in the world calls for immediately investing in election security and reform, restoration of the Voting Rights Act, immediately restoring White House press briefings and other Trump refusals of information, tackling criminal justice reform and systematic racial discrimination, calling for campaign finance reform, and basically blowing up all the stupid things the Trump administration does on a daily basis. It also calls for an end to all ongoing wars in the Middle East, restoring the Iran nuclear deal, and new arms control treaties with Russia, among general repairing of international alliances.

His plans for K-12 education and post-high school education call for greatly expanded funding across all levels of 2-year, 4-year, and other educational options. There will be no student loan payments for anyone making under $25,000 a year; everyone else will pay a capped amount and be completely forgiven after a certain period. Public servants qualify for up to $50,000 in loan forgiveness. This is not total loan forgiveness for everyone, which is obviously important for me and many of us, but it’s acceptable to start with. Additionally, his wife is a teacher and has a proven track record of calling for education investment and supporting public school funding.

His plan for housing addresses the needs of formerly incarcerated, LGBTQ, veteran, low-income, sexual assault survivor, black and Hispanic, and other vulnerable populations at risk of losing housing. It calls for a tax on companies and corporations with in excess of $50 billion in assets to fund comprehensive new housing initiatives, including $100 billion in accessible and low-income housing development. It includes extensive investment in public transportation and a high-speed rail system. This ties into his plan to repair infrastructure and invest in new technologies across the country.

His plan for criminal justice reform calls for the end of mass incarceration, the decriminalization of marijuana, the automatic expunging of all cannabis convictions, and an end on jail sentences for drug use. It highlights systematic institutional racism and the impact on black and brown people particularly. It calls for an end on all profiteering and private prisons. It focuses on reintegrating offenders into society and funding the needs of people released from prison. It proposes to “expand and use the power of the U.S. Justice Department to address systemic misconduct in police departments and prosecutors’ offices.” It broadens funding for social services and other programs for people who are otherwise placed into the prison pipeline.

There are more plans, which you can find here. These are the ones I read top to bottom. I am not by any means a Joe Biden fangirl; he was not my first choice, my second choice, or really anywhere on my list. However, having carefully read through his policy documents, I can say that:

He has at the least a good team of advisors who are keenly aware of the political climate, and is willing to both restore Obama-era standards and to improve on them where necessary. Obviously, all politicians’ promises are politicians’ promises, but this is a solid Democratic platform with obvious awareness of the progressive wing of the party.

If progressive legislation is passed in the House and Senate, he will sign it, including the Green New Deal.

He represents a clear and definite improvement over Donald Trump.

Is he everything we want? No. Are his policies better than I was expecting? Yes. I advise you to read through them for yourself. It has made me at least feel better about the likelihood of voting for him.

I realize it’s an unsexy position, especially on tumblr, to advocate for an old centrist white man. I’m not thrilled about having to do it. However, speaking as someone who was very resistant to Biden and still doesn’t agree with all of his previous legislative track record, that’s my consensus. He is a candidate who broadly aligns with values that I care about. His policies represent a concrete end to the damage of the Trump administration and gets us on the right track again.

Joe Biden, if he is the Democratic nominee, will receive my vote on November 3, 2020. I urge you to consider what I’ve laid out above and join me.

#hilary for ts #politics for ts #long post #if you're gonna argue with me about this #at least read the plans first #i'm still not super excited #but it's acceptable #it's much better than trump #it does more than i expected #and that's a good start #so there we have it #joe biden

39K notes · View notes

rjzimmerman · 3 years

Link

Excerpt from this story from the New York Times:

The European Union’s sweeping new plan to tackle climate change includes a proposal that if adopted could be the first of its kind: A carbon tariff on imports from countries that aren’t taking similarly aggressive steps to slash their own planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon border taxes, which have been debated for years, are intended to solve a basic problem. If a single country tries to impose policies to cut emissions domestically, it runs the risk that, for instance, its steel and cement factories will face higher costs and be at a disadvantage to foreign competitors with looser environmental rules. If steel and cement production shifts overseas as a result, that would undercut the climate policy, since those foreign factories would be emitting just as much or more carbon dioxide elsewhere.

In theory, a carbon border tax could help prevent that undercutting. If factories all over the world that wanted to sell steel, cement, aluminum or fertilizer to the E.U. had to pay a surcharge for the pollution they emit, they would have incentive to clean up their act too. Companies within Europe would have less incentive to shift operations overseas. And, if other countries adopted similar rules, that could put pressure on nations that are reluctant to curb their use of fossil fuels.

But skeptics say a carbon border tax could prove challenging to implement while angering Europe’s major trading partners, including Russia and China. The E.U.’s proposal is an early test case of whether this idea can succeed.

The idea could also spread. In the United States, Democrats on Wednesday proposed their own version of a tax on imports from countries that lack substantial climate policies as part of a $3.5 trillion budget plan. While that proposal is far less detailed than the E.U.’s plan, it’s a sign that climate policy is increasingly becoming interwoven in trade policy.

#EU #European Union #border carbon tax

8 notes · View notes

realitysangle · 5 years

Text

Okay, I’ve read Joe Biden’s plans.

I’ve just sat down and spent several hours actually reading all the damn plans on his website, the whole thing, so you don’t have to. And here’s the conclusion:

They’re pretty good.

Are they absolutely everything we want immediately? Maybe not. Are they a solid Democratic agenda anyway? Yes they are. Are they better than Trump?

Light years!

If progressive legislation is passed in the House and Senate, he will sign it, including the Green New Deal.

He represents a clear and definite improvement over Donald Trump.

Joe Biden, if he is the Democratic nominee, will receive my vote on November 3, 2020. I urge you to consider what I’ve laid out above and join me.

#Joe Biden

6 notes · View notes

hachama · 5 years

Text

Democratic debate analysis

I’ve read the transcripts. I read the fact-checkers’ analysis. I have ranked them.

Due to the size of the field, I’ll be splitting my analysis into four groups. This first one will be the Please Do Not Make Me Vote For Them group:

Ryan, Hickenlooper, Williamson, Bennet, Delaney, O’Rourke, and Biden.

Under the break, I’ll be analyzing their debate performance, how effectively they represented themselves on the issues, and how much I hate them, in reverse order of preference. Let’s begin.

20) Biden

Biden is so… so out of touch. Even the moderators asked if he was out of touch, and when the moderators of a debate you’re participating in think you don’t know what you’re talking about? For a career politician, that has got to hurt. Frankly, they were right. Biden thinks that the reason people can’t pay their student loans without sacrificing everything else they want to do with their lives is because we’re not earning more than $25k a year, that freezing payments and interest until the graduated student crosses that threshold would magically make everything ok. If he were right, there’d be no Fight for 15. A $15 minimum wage, assuming full time hours, is more than $30k per year.

His response to accusations of racism was to point to his “black friend,” former President Obama, which… dude. You’ve got to know better than that by now. Please tell me you know having been the first and only black President’s VP does not immediately absolve you of being an old white guy who worked with Southern Segregationists against integrating schools.

His entire platform seems to be “remember when I was a senator/the vice president? Wasn’t I great, back when I had ideas and did things?” and I gotta say, No. No, you weren’t that great, Joe. Even his closing comments were lackluster, talking about “restoring the soul of America,” and “restoring the dignity of the middle class,” and “building national unity.” His answers to simple questions were, frankly, terrible.

Joe, what would you do, day one, if you knew you’d only be able to accomplish one thing with your Presidency? Thanks for asking, I’d BEAT DONALD TRUMP! Joe. Joe, that’s how you get to Day One. Unless you mean “grab him by the collar, haul him out on the White House lawn, and bludgeon him with heavy objects,” you’re not answering the question. Joe, which one country do you think we need to repair diplomatic ties with most? NATO! Joe. Joe, NATO is more than one country. I just… *sigh*

To his credit, Biden trotted out many of the same old campaign promises Democrats have been making for as long as I can remember. Closing tax loopholes, universal pre-K and increased educational funding, let Medicare negotiate prescription drug prices. These are tried and true campaign promises because they’re things we can all generally agree we want. But they’re old, a lot like Biden. They’re not the bold solutions we need. His newer ideas all sound pretty moderate and old, too: free community college (not 4 year public university), creating a public option for healthcare so people can choose between insurance companies and Medicare, rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, and instituting national gun buybacks. His suggestion of requiring all guns to have a biometric safety is also a vague gesture in the direction of a solution.

Biden is too old, too timid, and too arrogant to understand that he’s got nothing to offer in an election where Millenials and Gen Z are going to be the largest portion of the electorate.

19) O’Rourke

Beto, or as I like to call him, Captain Wrongerpants, got off to a roaring start by giving a non-answer in two languages. This incredible display of pandering, and wasting precious time, made him seem pretentious and obnoxious in twice the number of languages most politicians aspire to.

Possibly more than any other candidate, O’Rourke completely failed to answer any question he was asked. He presented a few good ideas, saying that he sees climate change as the most pressing threat to America and calling for an end to fossil fuel use. He supports universal background checks and reinstating the assault weapons ban. He wants comprehensive immigration reform, to reunite families separated by the Trump administration, and to increase the corporate tax rate.

Unfortunately, he wants to increase the tax rate from the new-for-2019 level of 21% to a lower-than-2018 28%. He wants immigration reform to protect asylum seekers, but thinks other immigrants should “follow our laws” and makes no guarantee to decriminalize undocumented border crossings. Like Biden, he supports healthcare “choice,” meaning that for-profit healthcare would continue in this country until everyone, in every city, state, county, and cave, can be convinced that insurance companies don’t care about them.

In short, O’Rourke reaches for relevance and relatability, and lands in pretension and centrism.

18) Delaney

John Delaney is the first candidate on my list to have been caught in a bald-faced lie by Politifact. Good job, John. His lie, by the way, was about Medicare for All. He claimed that the bill currently before Congress required that Medicare pay rates stay at the current levels, and that if every hospital in America had been paid at Medicare levels for all services, every hospital would have to close. The truth? The Medicare for All bill does not require that pay rates stay at current levels, and even if it did no one knows what effect that would have on the country’s hospitals. There is no data to support his assertion, even if he was right about the terms of the legislation being considered.

Unsurprisingly, John is another healthcare “choice” advocate. I think I’ve said enough about why this position doesn’t fly for me, so I won’t rehash it again.

In a discussion of family separation, he interjected that his grandfather was also a victim of family separation, which must make him feel so relevant. He also referred to company owners as “job creators,” a lovely little conservative talking point, and claimed that America “saved the world,” in some vague appeal to American Exceptionalism. He also agrees with Nancy Pelosi about not pursuing impeachment proceedings.

On the “I don’t hate him quite as much as Beto and Biden” front, he’s in favor of tax breaks for the middle class, increasing the minimum wage, funding education, family leave policies, a carbon tax (which he imagines would fund a tax dividend paid to individual citizens, rather than, I don’t know, paying for green infrastructure development?), thinks China is our biggest geopolitical threat, and is scared of nuclear weapons (a very sane, reasonable position, really).

If you want to pick a candidate based on who your moderately conservative uncle will yell about least if they win the White House, Delaney might be your guy. If you want to pick a candidate based on issues like student loan debt and healthcare, keep looking.

17) Bennet

I had never heard of Michael Bennet before the debates. In fact, I just Googled him to find out his first name. After the debates, though? You guessed it: I hate him.

His closing statement was an appeal to the American Dream. He thinks there are too many people in America to make a single payer healthcare system work. Asked to identify one country to prioritize diplomatic repairs with, he named two continents. And he believes the world is looking to America for leadership.

However, he did rate higher than three whole candidates, and here’s why: He supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He wants to end gerrymandering and overturn Citizens United. He wants to expand voting rights and electoral accessibility. He considers climate change and Russia to be the biggest threats to America, and he didn’t use any obvious racist dogwhistles. He’s from Colorado, so he’s kinda proud of the state’s marijuana legalization and reproductive health policies, but he’s way too quick to see partnership with private businesses as the ideal path forward.

16) Williamson

Oh man. Marianne Williamson. I almost threw something every time she opened her mouth. She is like a walking, talking, uninformed Tumblr guilt trip post. At a nationally televised debate, she asked why no one was talking about… something. I didn’t write it down in my notes because I would have had to gouge out my own eyes if I had. According to Google, she is a self-help speaker and that explains So Much.

In her closing statement, Williamson claimed that she would be the candidate to beat Trump, not because she has any plans, but because she will harness love to counter the fear that fuels Trump’s campaign. I am not making this up and I wish I was.

She claimed that Americans have more chronic health issues than anywhere else in the world, and attributed this to all sorts of factors, starting with diet and chemical contamination and extending, I assume, to solar activity and Bigfoot. According to Politifact, the only American demographic with a higher incidence of chronic illness than other countries is senior citizens, and I’m going to guess that has a lot more to do with our crappy healthcare system than it does a lack of detox teas.

When asked what policy she would enact if she could only get one, she said that on her first day in the White House she’d call the Prime Minister of New Zealand and tell her that New Zealand is not the best place in the world to raise a child, America is.

When asked which one country she’d make a diplomatic priority, she said “European leaders.”

By now you must be wondering how she rated higher than the bottom four, and I can sum it up in eight words: She supports reparations and the Green New Deal.

Please, please do not make me vote for Marianne Williamson.

15) Hickenlooper

John Hickenlooper is the former Governor of Colorado, and proudly takes credit for everything good that has ever happened in the state. He is also proud of being a small business owner, a statement that makes me immediately suspicious of any politician.

To his credit, he supports “police diversity,” a charmingly non-specific term that could mean one gay Latine nonbinary single parent in an otherwise entirely white male department, or could mean he wants the demographics of the police force to match the demographics of the population being policed. He also considers climate change a serious threat, and China. The best thing he said all night? He supports civilian oversight of police, a policy which has improved police relations with citizens.

Sounds pretty good, right? Wrong.

He also supports ICE “reform,” as if there is anything redeemable about that agency, and thinks that the worst thing the eventual Democratic candidate could do is allow their name to be connected to anything socialist. He said it twice, it wasn’t an accident.

14) Ryan

That brings us to the last of the worst, Tim Ryan. Tim here cannot stop using conservative dogwhistles, like talking about “coastal elites,” and saying that acknowledging differences between people is divisive. He is a basic ass white boy in the worst, most boring sense.

He wants to bring about a green tech boom, supports decriminalizing border crossing, supports gun reform, and thinks China is a serious threat to America. He also thinks that, in addition to dealing with the issues that allow school shootings to happen, we need to address the trauma kids are growing up with as a result. Unfortunately, he thinks that school shooters are misunderstood victims of bullying.

His confrontation with Tulsi Gabbard was very instructive and possibly the most damning exchange all night. He mis-identified the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center as being “the Taliban” (they were Al-Qaeda) and said that our military forces have to “stay engaged” for… stability? I guess? As a veteran, I’m with Tulsi on this one: that’s not acceptable.

#politics #democratic debate #there is not enough wine for this

10 notes · View notes

nigeiadigitalmarketingcompany · 5 years

Text

Keeping the Oil in the Soil

Digital Elixir Keeping the Oil in the Soil

By James Boyce, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website

Efforts to reduce demand for fossil fuels by promoting energy efficiency and clean energy can do a lot. But to meet the Paris Agreement target of holding the rise in average surface temperatures to 1.5-2 °C, we need to curtail the supply of fossil fuels, too. This means capping the total quantity of fossil carbon that we allow into the economy each year, and tightening the cap over time on an emission-reduction trajectory anchored to the Paris target.

Curbing the supply of fossil fuels means raising their price – effectively putting a price on carbon emissions. This is a feature of the policy, not a bug: higher fossil fuel prices spur greater energy efficiency in the short run and more investment in clean energy in the longer run.

Yet some climate activists who embrace the slogan “keep the oil in the soil” have been deeply skeptical about carbon pricing.

One sensible basis for this skepticism is the reality that where carbon pricing has been implemented to date, the price typically has been too low to make much of a difference. But this points to the need for more robust prices, not a price of zero. It’s not a reason to oppose carbon pricing across the board, any more than having tasted weak coffee is a reason never to drink coffee again.

Sometimes the skepticism is also a result of muddled thinking. Rather than charging a price, the argument goes, wouldn’t it be fairer and more effective simply to keep the oil in the soil and the coal in the hole, to “just say no” to fossil fuels? Why should anyone be able to pay to pollute?

In thinking through this objection, it is useful to consider what would happen if one were to succeed in keeping fossil fuels in the ground in a place big enough to make a difference. Imagine, for example, that the people of Nigeria somehow manage to shut down that country’s oil production, compelling their government and its multinational partners to keep its oil in the soil. Imagine, for good measure, that the people of Angola do the same. These two nations are the top oil producers in sub-Saharan Africa, together accounting for about 4% of world supply. What would happen to oil prices if they stopped production? The answer, of course, is that they would go up.

We saw something like this happen in October 1973, when the newly formed Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries announced an embargo on oil exports to nations that supported Israel in the Arab-Israeli war. By January 1974, the world oil price quadrupled to almost $12/barrel, an episode remembered as the world’s first oil shock. Five years later a second shock was precipitated by the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, and the world oil price rose to about $40/barrel.

On both occasions, the increase in prices far exceeded the decrease in oil supplies. World crude oil production was basically flat in 1973-74, and declined by only 4% in 1979-80. Yet prices soared. This was passed along to consumers in higher prices for transportation fuels and everything else that uses oil in its production and distribution.

The lesson was clear: when fossil fuel supplies are cut, their prices go up. A lot.

If some major producing countries managed to keep their oil in the soil, pushing up prices to consumers around the world, where would the extra money go?

The answer, of course, is that the money would flow to producers who do not keep their oil in the soil. The biggest beneficiaries would be oil companies in Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States, the world’s top three producer countries. As the price of oil goes up, their profit margins would rise accordingly.

The net result would be a transfer of money – lots of it – from consumers to some of the richest and most powerful corporations in the world, including some of the most stubborn opponents of effective climate policies. Oops.

The just-say-no strategy would reduce emissions, at least until other producers step up output in response to the higher prices. But in terms of who pockets the money, few would call this outcome fair.

The price effect occurs regardless of the cause for the reduction in supplies or its motivation. If oil producers cut supply to punish adversaries or fatten their profit margins, the end result is higher prices for consumers. If some oil-producers were to “just say no” to further extraction, the outcome would be the same. If carbon pricing is implemented by means of a cap or a tax, again we get the same result.

The crucial difference is where the money goes. In the case of the just-say-no strategy, as in the case of a producer cartel, the extra money paid by consumers goes to fossil fuel producers in proportion to the amount they continue to produce. In the case of carbon pricing, there are more attractive options. One policy, recently adopted in Canada and increasingly discussed in the United States, is to return the money directly to the public as carbon dividends: equal annual or quarterly payments to every person.

The case for carbon dividends rests on three pillars.

The first is political. Carbon dividends would protect the purchasing power of the majority of households in the face of rising fuel prices, bolstering public support for effective climate policy. The importance of this feature is underscored by the “yellow vest” movement that broke out in France in November when the government announced increased fuel taxes. The rationale for the tax hikes – about 12 US cents on a gallon of gasoline and 35 US cents on a gallon of diesel – was to combat climate change by promoting fuel efficiency. The government “talks about the end of the world,” the protesters declared, “while we are talking about the end of the month.”

The second pillar is economic. Dividends turn what would otherwise be a regressive tax, hitting the poor harder than the rich as a percentage of their incomes, into a progressive one. Everyone receives the same dividend regardless of their personal carbon footprint. But in absolute dollar terms (rather than as a percentage of income) the rich have outsized carbon footprints as a result of lifestyles that include bigger houses and more jet travel. With dividends most low-income households come out ahead, the middle class breaks even, and the rich pay more into the carbon revenue pot than they get back. The net result is a modest dent in income inequality, the other crisis of our time.

The final pillar of the case for carbon dividends is ethical. Dividends give concrete expression to the principle that the gifts of nature – in this case, the limited capacity of the biosphere to absorb carbon emissions safely – belong in equal and common measure to all.

All in all, not a bad way to keep the oil in the soil.

Keeping the Oil in the Soil

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2JNwc7X via IFTTT

#Digital Marketing #SEO #Social Media Marketing #Nigeria Digital Marketing Company #Lead Generation

2 notes · View notes

nemolian · 2 years

Text

Oil Companies Report Huge Profits Amid Sky-High Gas Prices

The Chevron refinery in Richmond, California. Isn’t profit beautiful?

Photo: Ben Margot / AP (AP)

Everybody’s favorite mass polluters, and the two largest U.S. petroleum companies, are having a banner year so far.

Today, ExxonMobil and Chevron released their earnings summaries for the first three months of 2022. And, surprise, while people in the U.S. were paying some of the highest-ever average prices at the pump, the oil giants were absolutely raking it in.

Exxon reported earnings of $5.48 billion between the start of January and end of March, more than double the $2.73 billion it earned in the same period last year. And this was after the company incurred a $3.4 billion “after-tax charge” (i.e. loss) from discontinuing its operations in Russia.

Chevron did even better, reporting total earnings of $6.26 billion in the first quarter of 2022, compared with $1.38 billion for 2021's first quarter. That’s more than a 4.5-times increase, and the company’s most profitable quarter in almost a decade, since it reported $7.2 billion in net income at the end of 2012. “Human energy” indeed.

Neither company increased its overall production in the first part of 2022. Exxon’s production was down 4% from last quarter, and Chevron produced 40,000 fewer barrels of oil per day between this quarter and last. Instead, the petroleum corporations seem to be simply reaping the benefits of high barrel prices. (Note: Although Chevron produced less overall, the company’s domestic oil production did go up by 10%, and it is looking to further increase the amount of oil it pumps from the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico to 1 million barrels per day.)

As a reminder, the currently high gas prices are not due to any production issues. Oil companies spent the 2010s actually overproducing, and they suffered financially for it. Fossil fuels stayed cheap, and we stayed reliant on them. Exxon and Chevron might try to argue they’re earning these new profits because they’ve swooped into save the day amid global conflict or that the Biden Administration is to blame for high gas prices because they’ve restricted the industry. Yet, neither is true.

Now, gas probably should be expensive, considering the real cost of burning it in our engines is environmental collapse. But until the U.S. makes good on its promises to meaningfully improve and expand public transit, most Americans rely on cars to get around, and high gas prices hurt the already financially vulnerable the most. So, the question becomes: Should the companies most responsible for the “atlas of human suffering,” as UN secretary general António Guterres called a recent IPCC report, be the ones profiting?

Chevron, of course, helped put an environmental lawyer in prison and last year spilled 600 gallons of oil from a refinery in Richmond, California that was already one of the state’s biggest polluters. Which is nothing compared to the massive Exxon Valdez spill that is still causing reverberations of harm for both people and the environment more than 30 years later. Exxon helped pay for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and, instead of investing its significant 2022 profits into its own “low carbon” goals, it is instead opting to buy back stock and reward its shareholders.

I could keep listing things to consider in context with these new earnings reports, but if I list too many, I might lose my shot to eventually work in the Chevron newsroom.

via:Gizmodo, April 29, 2022 at 04:30PM

#IFTTT #Feedly #Gizmodo

0 notes

citizenrecord · 3 years

Text

EU leaders struggle to find short-term solution for energy shortage

EU leaders failed on Friday to agree a short-term solution to the energy market crunch made worse by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but did offer a compromise for Spain, where increasing fuel prices prompted 12 days of blockades by lorry drivers.

A debate on whether to cap energy prices, pitting some southern countries against Germany and the Netherlands, pushed the second day of an EU summit into the evening.

In the end, they settled on a trade-off and left a number of matters unresolved.

he war in Ukraine has pushed energy prices to record highs and prompted the EU to seek to cut Russian gas use by two-thirds this year by finding alternative supplies and increasing use of renewable energy.

While the Mediterranean rim states pressed for a cap on wholesale gas prices to protect poorer households, opponents said this would mean public cash subsidising fossil fuels.

The leaders charged the European Commission with urgently assessing what short-term options, from price caps to tax rebates, could help to reduce gas and electricity prices.

Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi told a news conference after the summit that the EU executive would discuss options with large oil and electricity companies.

“We expect to have some proposals by May,” he said.

Spain and Portugal won permission for temporary measures to curb their electricity prices.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said this “special treatment” was possible because the Iberian Peninsula was largely detached from the rest of the EU power grid, although the EU executive will also assess short-term plans proposed by other members.

Earlier on Friday, US President Joe Biden committed to helping Europe with more liquefied natural gas deliveries as it grapples with the need to reduce dependency on Russia.

Russia supplies 40 per cent of the gas that EU needs for heating and power generation and more than a quarter of its oil imports.

Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, who backed southern European countries' push for market intervention, said governments across the EU faced mounting public pressure.

“Today is about the everyday issues of the people and that is the electricity and gas invoice of the people,” he said. “We are at war, and in a war you need to take extraordinary measures.”

There was agreement among the 27 member states on a plan for joint purchases of gas to reduce prices.

The European Commission said it is ready to lead negotiations on pooling demand and seeking gas before next winter, following a similar model through which the bloc bought coronavirus vaccines on behalf of member states.

“We've seen some countries going towards other countries to negotiate their own contracts. That, and I told colleagues this, is not the best way as we are pushing prices up,” French President Emmanuel Macron said.

However, the EU remained divided over whether to ban Russian oil and gas imports in addition to the other sanctions it imposed on Moscow since the invasion a month ago.

Europe's dependence on energy from Russia means the question of an embargo, as the US has imposed, is economically risky and no decision was taken on Friday.

Germany, Hungary and Austria were among the most reticent about imposing a ban on Russian oil and gas.

No common position emerged either on Russia's demand this week that “unfriendly” countries must use roubles to pay for its oil and gas.

Mr Draghi said leaders agreed that any such Russian demand for gas exports would represent a breach of contract.

The Kremlin's demand poses a dilemma for countries reliant on Russian energy because, by agreeing to it, they would be shoring up the rouble and channelling hard currency into Moscow, while refusal could mean their energy supplies dry up.

#BUSINESS #ENERGY #RUSSIA UKRAINE

0 notes

architectnews · 3 years

Text

EU proposes emissions controls for buildings and transport in drive to become "world's first climate-neutral continent"

The European Commission has unveiled sweeping proposals to reduce carbon emissions across the continent that include caps for buildings and transport for the first time.

Named Fit for 55, the package unveiled yesterday includes 12 policy proposals aimed at reducing EU greenhouse gas emissions by 55 per cent before 2030, compared to 1990 levels.

"Achieving these emission reductions in the next decade is crucial to Europe becoming the world's first climate-neutral continent by 2050," the commission said.

The proposals aim to help deliver the European Green Deal, an ambitious policy to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

"The fossil fuel economy has reached its limits"

"The fossil fuel economy has reached its limits," said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. "We want to leave the next generation a healthy planet as well as good jobs and growth that does not hurt our nature."

"Europe was the first continent to declare to be climate neutral in 2050, and now we are the very first ones to put a concrete roadmap on the table," she added. "Europe walks the talk on climate policies through innovation, investment and social compensation."

Among the proposals are plans to expand the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS), which for the first time would require companies to pay for the emissions associated with heating buildings with fossil fuels, effectively imposing a tax on polluters.

In addition, the plan proposes that three per cent of public sector buildings should be renovated each year to make them more energy efficient. The commission also proposes to set a benchmark of 49 per cent renewables in buildings by 2030.

Member states would also be required to increase the use of renewable energy in heating and cooling by an additional 1.1 percentage points each year until 2030.

By 2030, 40 per cent of the EU's energy should come from renewable sources, with the plan proposing specific targets for not just buildings but also transport, heating and cooling, and industry.

The announcement comes ahead of the COP26 climate conference in November, where a day will be dedicated to discussing the built environment's contribution to global warming after the sector has so far largely been sidelined in efforts to reduce emissions.

Emissions Trading System for buildings and transport to be established

If the Fit for 55 proposals are passed, other new sectors that would become subject to emissions controls include freight shipping and road transport, while the sale of all new petrol and diesel cars in the EU would be banned in 2035.

The ETS, also known as the EU carbon market, requires companies to pay for their emissions by purchasing carbon credits while setting the price for carbon, which hit a record high of €50 per tonne in May.

Since being established in 2005, the system has put a cap on overall emissions associated with specific sectors such as heavy industry and electricity.

This means that there is a limited number of CO2 permits available at any given time, which companies can buy and sell amongst themselves.

In order to avoid disturbing the existing balance of the carbon market, Fit for 55 proposes setting up a new, separate ETS that would require companies to pay for the emissions associated with the fossil fuels used to heat buildings and power cars from 2026.

In addition, emissions from marine shipping would be subject to charges under the existing ETS for the first time, while the current programme of free emission allowances for aviation would be phased out. The EU's overall emissions cap would also be lowered as part of the plan.

Reforms need to be agreed by all EU countries

Before they are passed, the Fit for 55 reforms will need to be negotiated by all 27 EU member states and the European Parliament in a process that could take up to two years.

The independent European Climate Foundation previously raised concerns that including transport and buildings in the ETS would have a negligible impact on emissions while increasing living costs for poorer households.

To combat this, the European Commission has proposed using €72.2 billion of the revenues from the new transport and building ETS to provide income support for those most at risk of being affected by "energy and mobility poverty".

Also included in Fit for 55 is a so-called border carbon adjustment tax that would require importers in the EU to pay for the embodied emissions of products such as cement, steel and iron produced abroad, effectively imposing tariffs on countries with less stringent emissions rules such as Russia and Turkey.

The post EU proposes emissions controls for buildings and transport in drive to become "world's first climate-neutral continent" appeared first on Dezeen.

#Architecture – Dezeen

0 notes

dunnystuff · 3 years

Text

Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 5:00 PM

Subject: Rich's Blog

Comrades ! You WILL drink the Kool-Aid, and like it

Hi to all -

Dong Jinwei

No, this is not a male porn star. It is the name of a high-level Chinese defector who fled his nation to come to America (not too many people are fleeing America to move to China). What makes him so interesting is that he was a very senior minister in The Department of State Security, otherwise known as 'Guoanbe'. In China, this is a kind of blend of FBI, CIA and NSA all under one roof. This guy could tell you what the Great Dictator had for lunch, and likely dinner last night.

He and his daughter brought gifts with them. Many terabytes of data on what is actually going on in China. He contacted our authorities, and offered them his information. This happened a few weeks back, but it is just now becoming public. Dong had conclusive proof that China was actively engaged in bioweapons research at Wuhan, and that this virus was not a disease, but a manufactured weapon that China unleashed on the world, either accidently or maybe not. He had a lot of other information as well. Seems Dr. Fauci has been less than candid with us. You can tell from his most recent pronouncements, intended to deflect attention from his own culpability. And, this could also explain why Biden is suddenly interested in the Wuhan lab, as a source of the virus. If we are lucky, we will soon hear a lot more very interesting stuff.

Certain of our own scientists have said that they ignored the 'lab leak' theory, because Trump suggested it, and so of course, it must be false. Besides, who wants to be called a 'racist' for questioning why a dangerous virus might have come from China's only Level 4 lab? Dr. Fauci is now denying that he suppressed any such speculation, or did not consider it worth investigating. Compare that to what he was saying a few months ago.

California

Warning everyone! We have a problem. The power is going to go out, rolling brownouts all over the state. Please do not turn on your air conditioner - even if it is hot outside. Your masters cannot figure out how to keep the lights on in California - just like North Korea.

And, to think that just a few years ago, California had an economy greater than all but a half dozen nations!

Lockdowns

Data is accumulating on the effects of these lockdowns - done for our health and safety, of course. During the last year, there were more than 90,000 suicides, an all-time record high - many among the young people. Depression, isolation, loss of jobs leading to economic hardship (even with that $600 'stimulus' check!), and inability to go anywhere or do anything really took a toll on the nation. Drug overdose deaths were also at an all-time high. It seems that the cure may have done more harm than the disease.

Gaza

Did you know that the Palestinians are getting up to one million doses of the vaccine? Guess where this is coming from? Did you guess the WHO? Other Arab neighbors? Europe? The US? Nope, you would be wrong. These vaccines were a gift from Israel.

Atheists

They are busy again, targeting Christians. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (who makes up these names? And, who pays for this stuff?) has tried to ban Bibles from military base displays of POW-MIA memorials. Those memorials generally include a round table, candles, an overturned glass, and other objects, symbolic of many values and virtues of our soldiers. But, according to the atheists, this is 'against the military core values, and hurts unity and 'diversity' (oh, that explains it all). For atheists, you cannot ignore the one object you disagree with, but you must destroy it for everyone - how dare any soldier have religious values !!! My bet is that these atheists have never been in the military, or combat. Remember, boys and girls, 'there are no atheists in foxholes'.

This attack was directed against NAF Atsugi, Japan. They have approached other military bases in the past. What this really means is that they are at war with Christians, and especially the Christian God. If they do not want God, then you are not allowed to want Him either. This will get worse - Marxism embraces atheism, and they are intent on destroying all religious values and practices, as was done in Russia and elsewhere. To the extent that they succeed, they will achieve the same results for their people.

'Juneteenth'

Yesterday, democrats in congress passed a bill to make this a national holiday, and Biden signed it, just like everything else they slip in front of him. The newest member of The Squad, Cori Bush (D-Missouri) called it a good first step. 'Now we need to get those reparations going for the oppressed victims of white supremacy. Let's make 'black liberation' a reality', she says.

Marjorie Taylor Green

She is a congressperson from Georgia. As a republican, conservative and very outspoken lady, she instantly drew hate from the left. They removed her from her committee assignments, and did all they could to marginalize and discredit her. But she is raining on their parade. She introduced a bill to abolish the ATF, for their many crimes, going back to 'Fast and Furious', and lots of other illegal actions. She agreed with the Chinese defector that the virus was a weapon, and that we should respond to this as an attack on the US. And, she has filed articles of impeachment against Biden - saying he is not legitimate, or even capable of doing the job. This does not endear her to the locals, but it does to the rest of the nation.

Hawaii

Did you know that Russian warships are conducting naval exercises off the coasts of Hawaii? The Russian navy is not designed for 'blue water' operations, and generally sticks close to home. So, this is a big deal for them. Did you see how strongly Biden reacted to this? Neither did anyone else.

Nate Silvester

You will remember him as the police officer who did the sarcastic video on social media mocking LaBron James. He pretended to be stopping a violent encounter, but had to stop and call LeBron for advice, first. Well, as expected, the liberal politicians in his town were 'outraged' (they never seem to have a sense of humor), and fired him. Nate was doing an interview on TV about this, when, live on air, he got a job offer to join the force in Pinal County, Arizona.

Arizona is joining Texas in a project to build the wall. And law enforcement from Florida, and now Georgia and a couple of other states, are going there to help with the flood of illegals unleashed by Biden and Harris.

So. Dakota

After all the hype about 'alternative energy' and promises of how those jobs would replace oil workers, guess what? The wind turbine factory located there is closing, permanently, in August. The company cited the cancelling of the tax credit (you see, we have been paying subsidies to these operations for years, since they are not economical to produce, and cost a lot more to operate than fossil fuel plants), and the ever-popular 'foreign competition' (i.e. China builds these things cheaper). The workers, lured by false promises, are not happy.

Stacy Abrams

She and her partner in crime, now Senator Warnock, are all over TV claiming their love of voter ID laws, and that they never, ever opposed such things. Didn't take long for news shows to post videos side by side of 'then and now' statements. See, the winds of change show that voters do not feel disenfranchised by voter ID, but rather, protected by such ID laws. So, being good followers of whatever direction the wind blows, Stacy and friends raced to that bandwagon.

Military Strength

All through history, we have seen that successful nations not only have a strong economy, but also a strong military to protect it. Japan attacked us because they saw us as weak in military matters (we were. Finland had a better military force than we did in 1941). The same has happened over and over. Hundreds of years ago, Italy was divided between Florence and Pisa, as rival economic centers. But, Florence also had a military force, and went after Pisa, which had none. So, Pisa was forced to hire mercenaries to protect their city. The greedy always prey on the successful but weak neighbors who have something they want. I hate to think what our 'woke', diversity loving, warriors will do when faced by real troops - like those from China.

As the levee breaks for the left, expect them to do even more radical and nonsensical things. They really do not understand that their ideas are nuts, and always fail, and they just cannot believe that the world will not conform to their vision of reality. They will likely get very nasty. (Let's see if Big Brother declares this muse to be 'spam', or that some of you are 'blocked', or that it is all just fabrication...they have been busy of late.)

Rich

0 notes

tremendouspeachduck · 6 years

Text

Dumb pipeline conversation

We’re Energy Independent - Yeah! It’s now time to get out of the U.N.

If Canada wants oil to get to Mexico, then USA can benefit.

Canada will do it with or without our putting people back to work

Yes, there will be spills to clean up

Don't you just love logic?

Let's praise Pres. Trump for turning it around for us

Is energy independence important to you? It means low gas prices at the pump.

To be truly energy independent, the United States would need to produce enough energy to sustain the entirety of its population and industry. Such independence seemed like a far off goal not too long ago. However, innovations in sustainable energy and the recent shale gas boom have made the idea of an energy independent future seem more attainable.

As it seems more and more possible for the United States to achieve energy independence in the not-so-distant future, it’s important to remember that this process is complicated. Though it can be achieved in different ways to different effects, energy independence will require the US to radically re-envision the way it supplies and uses energy.

Energy independence also boasts possible geopolitical benefits. The United States imports most of its energy from countries where political tensions run high. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, China and Russia are all huge exporters of energy, and this has put the United States in more than one awkward position over the years.

In addition to the amount of defense money spent protecting US oil interests abroad, relying on foreign oil has prevented the US and other countries from intervening in conflicts around the world. Europe’s lack of intervention when Russia annexed Crimea is just one example of energy stability influencing foreign policy decisions for the worse.

Energy independence could free the United States from fear of trade retaliation when making foreign policy decisions. This would make it easier for the US and other energy independent countries to boycott or otherwise intervene in unjust systems and governments. It would also give other oil producers more claim over their own energy.

as of 2018, October - the USA has become energy independent - Hurrray! Thank you Pres. Trump

What comes next? Before this resource is depleted, we must retire the notion of fossil fuels and move toward wind, solar, or hydro. I prefer hydro; it has the least bad side effects.

DEMS would eliminate nearly all fossil fuels from the electric grid and force everyone in the country to buy from power companies selling only renewable energy.

Without government subsidies, renewable energy costs significantly more than many forms of traditional energy generation.

Electricity prices are, on average, increasing by 50 percent faster in those states that have created renewable power mandates compared to those that have rejected these economically destructive policies. This is especially troubling news for working-class and lower-income Americans, who spend much larger shares of their income on energy than wealthier families.

Not only are DEMs proposing to eliminate the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the fossil fuel industry in the United States, even though America recently became a net-energy exporter, they are demanding this transition occur in just 10 years, from 2020 to 2030. This mandate would be virtually impossible to achieve because wind and solar energy sources still rely on back-up generation from fossil-fuel-powered energy when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

DEMs also propose “eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country,” as well as “eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water.” It’s not clear whether this would eventually mean the elimination of all gasoline-powered cars, but even if we assume private ownership of these vehicles would be permitted, the removal of affordable fossil fuels, including natural gas, from all industry would increase the cost of developing, manufacturing, and delivering all goods and services in the country. It would force companies to spend, at the very least, hundreds of billions of additional dollars more than they do now — expenses that would inevitably be passed along to consumers by raising taxes, printing money, and creating new publicly owned banks.

Please send an email to your Senator and to your House rep ASAP! You can cut/paste the VOTE NO message into your email. You may also phone the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 - plz be nice to the volunteer. Also send this message to Pres. Trump.

VOTE NO on Green Deal. The biggest reason I can think of - WE ALREADY have the Climate Change Law. Thanks to Pres. Trump

and YES on getting out of the UN.

Congressional Republicans want to defund the U.N., a 193-nation boondoggle for which the United States alone pays well over a quarter of the freight — about 22 percent of the regular operating budget, and close to 30 percent of the much larger peacekeeping budget (for which we get more scandal than peace).

At best, denying our annual $3 billion payment would accomplish nothing. Defunding measures are called for periodically, whenever the U.N. induces a congressional tantrum over one or another of its obscenities. Even as one lawmaker fumes about shutting off the spigot, another is already saying, “Well, we don’t need to defund everything — after all, the U.N. does a lot of good.”

“A lot of good,” by the way, is an exaggeration. Sure, some U.N. officials are just as well-meaning as any other preening progressive. But the institution stinks, even in its humanitarian aid work. As Heritage’s Brett D. Schaefer notes, citing a 2012 academic study on best and worst practices among aid agencies, U.N. agencies consistently rank “among the worst and least effective performers.”

More important, if $3 billion seems like chump change to you in an age of unfathomable $20 trillion national debt, that’s the way Turtle Bay’s grubby globalists see it, too. They continue to plot international tax schemes (on carbon emissions, financial transactions, etc.), as well as the lucrative skim from redistributionist rackets like the “Green Climate Fund” and the new “Sustainable Development Goals.” The real goal, naturally, is a sustainable fund for the U.N., relieving it of reliance on finicky donors.

The GOP Congress’s focus on the U.S. contribution is understandable. The American taxpayer’s U.N. tab far exceeds the combined $2.5 billion ponied up by the other four permanent Security Council members (China, Russia, Britain, and France). In fact, it exceeds the contributions of 185 countries combined (about three dozen of which pay under $30K in dues – far less than what their diplomats rack up in unpaid Manhattan parking tickets).

Yet the money is not the real problem, and cutting it off for a time won’t pack much political punch.

The Left loves the U.N. It will never seriously address the institution’s thoroughgoing anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism, anti-Semitism, anti-nationalism, anti-capitalism, and anti-rectitude. Instead the media-Democrat complex – with a big assist, starting in two weeks, from the most publicly active former president in American history – would portray an aspirational U.N. valiantly fighting to save the planet from war, poverty and CO2. Duly abominated for slashing funds, the GOP would take a political hit but achieve nothing: The U.N. would find other ways to raise the dough, and Republicans – after watering the defund effort down to feckless foot-stomping – would be goaded into paying any withheld dues, with interest, probably during the next lame-duck session.

The better move is: Just leave. Withdrawal from the U.N. would make transnational progressives go ballistic, but it would hearten millions – the kind of patriotic, self-determining citizens whose fury at statism’s transition into globalism catalyzed Trump’s candidacy (and, in Britain, spurred Brexit).

Put the politics aside, though. Leaving would be the right thing to do.

The U.N. is Ground Zero of the totalitarian Islamist-Leftist quest to eviscerate Western principles and individual liberty – and, while they’re at it, the Jewish state.

You think I’m exaggerating? The U.N. is the Islamist-Leftist vehicle for nullifying American constitutionalism – its guaranteed freedoms and the very premise that the People are sovereign. In just the last few years of Obama’s eager collaborations, the U.N. has produced resolutions that erode First Amendment liberties, calling on member states to outlaw negative criticism of Islam. It has overridden the Constitution’s protections against treaties that harm American interests, endorsing the Iran nuclear deal to give it the imprimatur of international law even though it is unsigned, unratified, and would not have had a prayer of attaining the required two-thirds supermajority Senate approval.

The U.N. is the Islamist-Leftist vehicle for nullifying American constitutionalism – its guaranteed freedoms and the very premise that the People are sovereign.

And more is on the way. The Obama administration signed a U.N. arms-trade treaty that would undermine Second Amendment rights — again, under the vaporous guise of “international law.” On Obama’s watch, the U.S. has also signed the U.N.’s onerous Paris climate agreement, which international bureaucrats tell us has “entered into force” despite — again — the lack of Senate approval required for ratification under our law.

Think no ratification means no problem? You’re not getting how the U.N.’s international-law game works.

Once American presidents sign agreements, globalists insist that we’re bound by them. How can that be, since a presidential signature is insufficient under the Constitution? Because in 1970, President Nixon signed another beauty, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Its Article 18 states that once a nation signs a treaty — or merely does something that could be interpreted as “express[ing] its consent to be bound by the treaty” — that nation is “obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.” You’ll be shocked, I’m sure, to hear that the Senate has never approved this treaty on treaties, either. No matter: The State Department (who else?) advises us that, notwithstanding the lack of ratification under our Constitution, “many” of the treaty’s provisions are binding as — you guessed it — “customary international law.”

American government participation in the U.N.’s shenanigans is stripping away our rights and our capacity to govern ourselves. Just as bad, it is sullying us.

Logically, it has to be that way. When not bowing before foreign despots, Obama practically genuflects at mentions of the “international community.” But the international community is awful. It consists of a few good countries swimming in a shark-infested sea. When good seeks consensus with evil, the result cannot be good — just as when you insist, as our government does, on being an impartial “honest broker” between Israel, our democratic ally, and the Palestinian terror state-in-waiting, that is a boon for the jihadists, not the democrats. When you pretend that all states are equal, that there is no difference between the good guys and the bad guys, that is always a coup for the bad guys.

And that’s what the U.N. is: a coup for the bad guys.

Think about it: We are voluntarily entered into an arrangement in which actions affecting American national security and prosperity are subject to the Security Council veto power of Vladimir Putin and the Communist Party of China – the principal patrons of the “Death to America” regime in Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of anti-American terrorism.

We are voluntarily underwriting an institution that — with Obama having formally boarded the anti-Israel train — is joining the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. The General Assembly, which is steered by the sharia-supremacist Organization of Islamic Cooperation, has just created a BDS database to target companies that do business with Israeli settlements in what the U.N. has declared is “Palestinian territory.”

WE NEED TO GET OUT of UN . . . NOW!

It would depend on the terms under which the U.S. left .If we completely withdrew all at once, our resources, our capital, our troops, and the UN’s right to even meet in the U.S., then either China or Russia would most likely maneuver to have the entity relocated for the publicity and influence.They would not be one iota as generous as the U.S. with resources or manpower. Within five years the U.N. would crumble much as the League of Nations did.Without the U.S. bankrolling the operation and actually doing the things it wants done, the U.N. would be even less than a paper tiger. It would be couple of paragraphs in a high school history book.

Any vengeance toward Israel or elsewhere could easily be handled with various independent coalitions.

Also, as a result from our recent election fiasco . . .

In each state, we must come together and demand clean elections.

#politics #energy #fossil fuels #united nations #pipeline

4 notes · View notes

orbemnews · 4 years

Link

From Keystone XL to Paris Settlement, Joe Biden alerts a shift away from fossil fuels On his first day within the White Home, Biden took a collection of govt actions that put an exclamation level on his dedication to deal with local weather change. Biden instantly moved to rejoin the Paris Settlement on local weather change, revoke a allow that former President Donald Trump granted to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and place a brief moratorium on oil and gasoline leasing within the Arctic. The steps underscore simply how sharply US local weather coverage is altering, not solely from the Trump period however even from the strategy of the Obama administration by which Biden performed a significant position. “The period of supporting fossil fuels, at the same time as a brief bridge to a clear future, is over,” stated Bob McNally, president of consulting agency Rapidan Power Group. “The USA has shifted from all-of-the-above to accelerated decarbonization.” In contrast, Trump was a fierce advocate for the fossil fuels trade. Amongst different steps, Trump gutted environmental rules, tried to bail out coal miners, put in a former coal lobbyist to guide the EPA and helped dealer a take care of OPEC to rescue shale oil producers. Even through the Obama administration, america supported pure gasoline as a cleaner different to coal. However gasoline is now falling out of favor in Washington, too. Local weather activists celebrated Biden’s Day One strikes — and promised to press for far more. “That is swift and decisive motion. It makes america as soon as extra a part of the worldwide local weather answer — not the issue,” Mitchell Bernard, president of the Nationwide Assets Protection Council, stated in a press release Wednesday. Many scientists concern america, and the world, misplaced beneficial time through the Trump period in combating the worsening local weather disaster. Could Boeve, govt director of environmental group 350.org, vowed to “guarantee” Biden “stops all dangerous fossil gas infrastructure,” together with the Dakota Entry Pipeline and different tasks. Tom Werner, CEO of photo voltaic know-how and vitality storage firm SunPower, applauded Biden’s govt actions and expressed hope for added steps, together with help for minority-owned clear vitality companies and streamlining mission allowing. “It is inspiring to have leaders in workplace who squarely put clear vitality and the setting as one of the vital pressing and high priorities,” Werner informed CNN Enterprise in an e-mail. No less than one Huge Oil CEO cheered as effectively. “I applaud President Biden’s choice to rejoin the Paris Settlement. It is a deal made stronger with america as a member, and we look ahead to working with the administration to fulfill the targets outlined inside it,” Gretchen Watkins, president of the Shell Oil Firm, stated in a press release. The Keystone XL debate Nonetheless, some Republicans and oil trade executives instantly bashed Biden’s strikes. “Killing the Keystone XL pipeline and rejoining the Paris Settlement will remove good-paying jobs,” US Senator Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, stated in a press release. She stated it’s “crucial that Congress aggressively workout routines oversight and pushes again on the worst impulses of Washington bureaucrats.” Mike Sommers, the CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, stated in a press release the oil-and-gas foyer helps the “ambitions” of the Paris Settlement. Sommers additionally emphasised that the world wants pure gasoline, together with expanded liquefied pure gasoline (LNG), to make the transition to cleaner fuels. Nonetheless, Sommers slammed Biden’s choice to revoke the Keystone XL pipeline allow as a “misguided transfer” and a “slap within the face” to union staff supporting the mission. Sommers referred to as it a “vital step backwards each for environmental progress and our financial restoration.” Keystone XL has been a political soccer between local weather activists and the oil trade. The deliberate pipeline would carry oil from the tar sands of Canada into america. ‘Awash in oil’ TC Power (TRP), the Canadian firm constructing the pipeline, referred to as the Biden choice “very disappointing” and stated it should trigger the mission to be suspended. Andrew Grant, head of local weather, vitality and trade analysis at Carbon Tracker, stated the choice to cease Keystone XL is smart based mostly purely on economics. “It is high-cost and high-carbon. If we’re severe about hitting the Paris local weather targets, that is precisely the form of oil [project] that should not be going forward,” Grant stated. Power analysts stated the implications of the Keystone XL choice are far bigger for Canada than for US customers. “We’re awash in oil proper now. We’ve a glut,” stated McNally, the Rapidan Power marketing consultant. “We do not desperately want that oil.” Nonetheless, the transfer marks a shift from Trump’s efforts to advance oil pipelines and help the trade broadly. Final spring, with oil costs crashing and the shale trade on the brink, Trump pressured Russia and Saudi Arabia to finish their oil worth dispute. OPEC and its allies ultimately agreed to unprecedented manufacturing cuts that stopped the bleeding. “Donald Trump got here in and helped save shale’s bacon by intervening,” stated McNally. Trump additionally knew he could not afford to lose political help in main energy-producing states resembling Texas. Jobs vs. local weather Equally, Biden will face a tough problem in balancing the necessity to tackle the local weather disaster with out worsening the roles disaster going through america. “The Biden coalition is a really tenuous alliance between progressive environmentalists and arranged labor,” Josh Value, senior analyst at Top Capital Markets, stated in an e-mail. The Biden plan requires pouring trillions of {dollars} into clear vitality, creating tens of millions of union jobs whereas slashing carbon emissions. Nonetheless, Biden’s legislative local weather is in jeopardy as a result of Democrats solely have a slim majority in each homes of Congress. Reasonable Democrats, together with West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, are unlikely to again sweeping local weather motion such because the Inexperienced New Deal or steps to strip the oil trade of tax breaks. “The Biden crew and environmental advocates in Congress might want to take inventory of their property and return to the drafting board for a possible plan,” Value stated. Supply hyperlink #Agreement #Biden #Business #fossil #FromKeystoneXLtoParisAgreement #fuels #Joe #JoeBidensignalsashiftawayfromfossilfuels-CNN #Keystone #Paris #Shift #Signals

0 notes

denialisnotpolicy · 4 years

Text

Final: Blogs 1-12

Blog 1. Let’s Get Sustainable: Setbacks & Solutions

On January 23, 2020, the Trump administration approved a policy change that ends federal protection for much of the U.S.’s streams, arroyos, and wetlands, leaving them subject to the harmful pollution caused by development, industry, and farms. This comes unsurprisingly with Trump’s record of caring more for business than environmental degradation and sustainability.

The importance of sustainability is better understood when we understand the three scientific principles of sustainability: dependence on solar energy, biodiversity, and chemical cycling.

Figure 1. The Three Scientific Principles of Sustainability (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.)

These three principles are not only what makes Earth so unique, but also what has kept Earth alive for billions of years. Solar energy warms the planet and provides energy. Energy that is transformed into nutrients by plants. Biodiversity is used to describe the wide variety of genes, species, ecosystems, and ecosystem processes that keep our world in check. Chemical cycling describes how organisms recycle chemicals in order to keep the nonrenewable resource around. In nature, waste is a useful resource. In addition, there are three main categories of natural resources. Those that are inexhaustible will always be available to us, such as solar energy. Those that are renewable are able to replenish themselves within a certain time frame, so as long as we don’t use it faster than it can replace itself, it will be available to us. However, those that exist only in a finite manner we call nonrenewable or exhaustible. These include oil, coal, natural gas, copper, salt, and sand. Scientists work tirelessly to create replacements for these resources as we continue to deplete them. In the chemistry research lab I am a part of we are searching for ways to use nanomaterials in renewable energy devices solar cells, fuel cells, and photocatalysts in hopes that they will replace fossil fuels.

Figure 2. Three Types of Natural Resources (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.)

A major issue that we currently face is the degradation of natural capital. We, humans, are wreaking havoc on earth’s natural capital with pollution and waste. When we create pollution and waste at such a fast rate, the air, soil, and water are no longer able to cleanse themselves naturally. Also, much of our waste is composed of synthetic materials that disrupt these natural cycles and processes. Perhaps now it is easier to understand why the Trump Administration’s decision to end federal protection of many streams, arroyos, and wetlands, subjecting them to pollution and waste from businesses and farms, is so harmful.

The harmful impact we have on the environment has been termed our ecological footprint. If our ecological footprint is larger than the biocapacity of our area, we have an ecological deficit. In completing a personal ecological footprint quiz, which can be found at https://www.footprintcalculator.org/, I discovered that if everyone lived like I do while a student at Fordham, we would need 3.2 Earths to sustain us. Even more shocking, my Earth overshoot day is April 24, not even halfway through the year. This was a disturbing personal discovery, and I find myself confused and angered by how unsustainably I am living. When comparing the ecological footprints of countries, I found the countries with the largest deficits to be the United Arab Emirates, Israel, the U.S., and Japan, while the countries with ecological credits were Australia, Brazil, Canada, Russia, and China. I am not surprised that the countries with ecological deficits are largely affluent countries, but also those with ecological credits tend to be affluent, with large land masses.

Figure 3. Ecological Footprints (“What is an Ecological Footprint?” Earth Overshoot Day. Accessed January, 2020. https://www.overshootday.org/kids-and-teachers-corner/what-is-an-ecological-footprint/)

The growing urgency of this issue has led to people of all academic dispositions to seek solutions. Full-cost pricing, from economists, suggests that market prices include the environmental and health costs of their products. Win-win solutions, from politicians, suggests that solutions to these issues should seek to benefit the majority of people as well as the environment. Ethicists stress our responsibility to future generations, claiming it would be wrong to leave the planet in distress after our own lifetimes.

The fact of the matter is that we are currently living unsustainably. In a 2005 report by the UN, it was stated that “human activities have overused about 60% of the ecosystem services provided by nature, mostly since 1950” [1]. In the 1992 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, damage to the atmosphere, water resources, oceans, soil, forests, and living species was described as “irreversible on a scale of centuries, or permanent” [2]. They emphasized the finite nature of nature, and issued five calls to action: to control environmentally damaging activities, manage resources better, stabilize the population, reduce and eliminate poverty, and achieve sexual equality.

In the more recent World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency, released just three months ago in November 2019, scientists emphasized their moral obligation to warn the rest of humanity about the danger we are putting our planet in. They suggest critical steps we must take in order to change the trajectory we have set for ourselves and our home. First, we must quickly implement energy efficiency and conservation practices. Second, we need to decrease emissions of short-lived pollutants. Third, we must protect and restore Earth’s ecosystems. Fourth, we ought to eat mostly plant-based foods in order to reduce GHG emissions and improve human health, and reduce the amount of food waste. Fifth, we must stop putting economic growth over the health of our planet by shifting our goals away from affluence and toward sustaining ecosystems. Finally, we must stabilize the world population. In all of these steps, developed, affluent nations must lead and assist poorer, less-developed nations achieve the goals.

While affluent nations are often more educated about environmental issues, affluence is directly linked to environmental degradation because as total resource consumption and average consumption per person increase, so does waste, pollution, and our environmental footprints. Another economic aspect of environmental issues is the fact that most companies do not pay for the harmful effects that they have on the environment. In fact, governments often give companies subsidies (tax breaks, payments, and other benefits) that help them economically, but only further environmental degradation.

All of this sounds startling, right? If scientists have been issuing warnings about the future of our planet for over 20 years, why hasn’t there been a drastic change? Things get complicated when we consider the different environmental worldviews people hold. While I may read all of the statistics and warnings and feel angry, frustrated, and encouraged to make a change, others don’t see it the same. Some have a more human-centered view, in which humans and nature are separate, and nature exists to serve and sustain us. Others have a life-centered view, in which all species are valued and therefore we should avoid activities that would lead to the extinction of other species. Those with an earth-centered view see humans as a part of nature, and believe that natural capital is not just for humans. This view emphasizes biomimicry, the idea that we should learn from and imitate nature.

Figure 4. The 2017 Peoples’ Climate March. (Spanger-Siegfried. “What’s Next After the Peoples Climate March? Riding the Momentum and Bringing it Home.” Union of Concerned Scientists. May 2, 2017. Accessed January 2020. https://blog.ucsusa.org/erika-spanger-siegfried/whats-next-after-the-peoples-climate-march-riding-the-momentum-and-bringing-it-home)

I believe that regardless of our differences in worldviews, all people should be able to recognize that our current degradation of the planet is unethical, and we must take immediate action. It can be easy to feel hopeless, but it is more important to know that research shows only 5-10% of the population of a community is required to make serious change, and that it can happen faster than we think. All it takes is for a group of engaged citizens to stand up and demand change, and eventually our voices will be loud enough they can’t be ignored.

Word Count: 1237

[1] Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. 19th ed. (Boston: Cengage Learning, 2018) 6.

[2] “1992 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity.” Union of Concerned Scientists. July 16, 1992. Accessed January, 2020. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/1992-world-scientists-warning-humanity

Blog 2. Let’s Get Scientific: Ecosystems & Biodiversity

Environmental studies cannot be discussed without mention of science. Natural sciences and the scientists that study them are fundamental to understanding how our environment works, how we come to understand the way it works, and how we are affecting it.

In chapters 2 and 3 of Living in the Environment, Miller covers the basics of natural sciences like chemistry, biology, and physics, as they apply to environmental studies. As a chemistry major, most of the information was review, but in order to have a comprehensive understanding of environmental studies the information is critical. Scientists study the natural world through field and laboratory research. Field research allows first-hand observation of forests, oceans, and mountains, examining the extremely complex ecosystems that exist and collecting data that aids humans in interacting with said ecosystems. Laboratory research involves the development of systems that mimic natural ones, and are helpful because they allow for better control of variables.

Some scientific principles, like the law of conservation of energy, help describe why some human behaviors are so harmful to the environment. Energy is divided into two categories: renewable and nonrenewable. Renewable sources of energy, like solar power, wind, moving water, wind, and geothermal energy are replenishable through natural processes. Nonrenewable sources of energy are not replenishable through natural processes on a human time scale, these include oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy. Commercial energy is the 1% of energy that does not come from the sun. The burning of fossil fuels makes up 90% of it.

There are four main systems of earth’s life support system: the atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, and biosphere. The atmosphere contains ozone that filters out 95% of UV radiation, and other gasses that help keep the earth warm by trapping heat from the sun. Oceans contain 97% of earth’s water and an enormous amount of biodiversity. The geosphere contains fossil fuels and minerals that are used by humans and other species regularly. Finally, the biosphere is where we live, along with all other life forms.

An important part of the way the world operates is how organisms interact with each other. Organisms are either producers (who make their own nutrients from the environment), consumers (who feed on other organisms for nutrients), or decomposers (who transform waste into nutrients). Ecosystems are sustained through the one-way energy flow (solar energy) and nutrient cycling that happens through these three groups of organisms. Two key indicators are GPP (gross primary productivity) and NPP (net primary productivity). GPP is the rate that energy is converted from solar to chemical by producers and stored in compounds, and NPP is the rate that producers use photosynthesis to produce chemical energy minus the rate they use the stored energy in aerobic respiration.

Figure 1. Indicators of productivity. (“How does gross primary productivity differ from net primary productivity?” Socratic Q&A Biology. November 3, 2015. Accessed February 2, 2020.https://socratic.org/questions/how-does-gross-primary-productivity-differ-from-net-primary-productivity)

There are numerous other natural cycles that sustain life on earth, including the water cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, and phosphorous cycle. I find cycles to be best understood through diagrams, so below are some helpful graphics.

Figure 2. The Water Cycle. (“The Water Cycle.” NASA. Accessed February 2, 2020. https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/water-cycle)

Figure 3. The Carbon Cycle. (“The Carbon Cycle.” UCAR Center for Science Education. Accessed February 2, 2020. https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-cycle)

Figure 4. The Nitrogen Cycle. (“Nitrogen Cycle.” studyACS. December 21, 2017. Accessed February 2, 2020. https://www.studyacs.com/blog-nitrogen-cycle-37.aspx)

Figure 5. The Phosphorus Cycle. (“The Phosphorus Cycle and Human Management of Soils.” InTeGrate. January 11, 2018. Accessed February 2, 2020. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/food_supply/student_materials/1176)

Chapter four examines the importance of biodiversity, “the variety of life on earth” [1]. There are four components to biodiversity, species diversity, genetic diversity, ecosystem diversity, and functional diversity. Species diversity deals not only with the number of different species in an ecosystem (richness) but also their comparative abundance (evenness). Genetic diversity is the variety of different genes in a species. Ecosystem diversity refers to the presence of many different biological communities, such as deserts, oceans, mountains, and forests. Functional diversity is the variety of natural processes within ecosystems.

Within an ecosystem, species play different roles, termed their “ecological niche,” which can be either broad (for generalists) or narrow (for specialists). Species are classified as native, nonnative, indicator, or keystone to an ecosystem. While definitions of native and nonnative are rather straightforward, indicator species warn of changes in environmental conditions, and keystone species are those that are fundamental to the ecosystem–without them, there is a great risk of collapse.

Earth’s biodiversity is ultimately determined by the balance between speciation (production of new species) and extinction which are entirely dependent on our changing environmental conditions.

Chapter five discusses how species interact, including predator-prey relationships, parasitism, mutualism, and commensalism, and how populations work, examining births, deaths, immigration, and emigration. A big idea communicated in the chapter is that “no population can escape natural limiting factors and grow indefinitely” [2], reminding us that humans are just as vulnerable as other species, especially considering the projected outcomes of our environmentally degrading behaviors.

Chapter seven studies how climate affects biodiversity. Climate, unlike weather, is the “general pattern of atmospheric conditions in a given area” [3] over a long period of time. Differences in climate have a great impact on the types and locations of deserts, grasslands, forests, and mountains. After going through all the world’s major terrestrial ecosystems, the book reveals that humans are degrading about 60% of them.

Figure 6. The major impacts that humans have on terrestrial ecosystems (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.)

Chapter eight dives into the subject of aquatic biodiversity, specifically why marine ecosystems are so important. They provide a number of ecosystem and economic services, such as production of oxygen, water purification, nutrient cycling, food, energy, recreation, and employment. One very timely mention the book makes is the growing threat of ocean acidification. In my sophomore year of high school, I remember learning the chemical equation that represents this process. It was one of the first times I had seen an environmental issue represented so physically and plainly to my understanding. When carbon dioxide reacts with ocean water, carbonic acid is formed which is detrimental because it decreases the amount of carbonate ions available for the formation of coral reefs and the shells and skeletons of organisms.

Figure 7. The process of ocean acidification. (Rafferty, John P. “Ocean Acidification.” Encyclopedia Britannica. January 30, 2020. Accessed February 2, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/science/ocean-acidification)

Other major threats to aquatic biodiversity are coastal development, runoff of pollutants, overfishing, and invasive species. Freshwater systems are also incredibly important, providing many ecosystem and economic services similar to marine systems, but one major new service is the provision of drinking water, which is a huge issue, especially politically.

In order to sustain aquatic biodiversity, I believe we must control emissions of carbon dioxide to prevent further damage to coral reefs, reduce fishing subsidies, and pass more laws protecting aquatic environments, unlike the Trump administration’s action that I referenced last week that did the opposite.

While all of this information may appear overwhelming at first, it is absolutely critical to understand the cycles and relationships of the natural world in order to make significant environmental change. The interconnectedness of all living things is essential to making people care about things other than themselves. Although this may present a rather pessimistic view of humanity, people overwhelmingly care about things more when they realize that it will directly affect them in their own daily lives. Instead of thinking about the nitrogen cycle as some abstract elementary science lesson, it becomes a part of our own daily routine. Through this, a genuine care for the environment can be inspired.

Word Count: 1138

[1] Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. 19th ed. (Boston: Cengage Learning, 2018) 79.

[2] Miller, Living in the Environment, 114.

[3] Miller, Living in the Environment, 145.

Blog 3. Let’s Talk About History

In addition to looking at the science behind environmental studies, the discipline can also be looked at through the lens of a historian. Something that becomes very clear in researching environmental history is that there is no unified account of history, and that the differences arise from intentional or unintentional biases. While examining different accounts of history is insightful, it is generally unproductive to attempt to uncover the “true” history, as each account has facets of the truth. All history is riddled with subjectivity and therefore detailed analysis is the most helpful way to learn from history.

Big History, as termed by David Christian, “examines history from the Big Bang to the present” [1]. Unlike other history courses that begin with the beginning of farming/civilization, Big History looks much farther back (approximately 14 billion years ago), placing “human history in the wider context of the universe’s history” [2]. In particular, the discipline uses modern discoveries in fields like biology, chemistry, anthropology, physics, economics, among many others, to create a comprehensive story of the universe. Some of the methods used by Big Historians include radiocarbon dating, genetic analysis, and thermodynamics. While critics argue that the study is “anti-humanist” and overly-scientific, many find the subject enlightening. Christian divided big history into 6 threshold stages [3]:

1. The universe appears, incredibly hot, busting, expanding, within a second.

2. Stars are born.

3. Stars die, creating temperatures hot enough to make complex chemicals, as well as rocks, asteroids, planets, moons, and our solar system.

4. Earth is created.

5. Life appears on Earth, with molecules growing from the Goldilocks conditions, with neither too much nor too little energy.

6. Humans appear, language, collective learning.

Big History emphasizes the importance of the Goldilocks principle, which says that “"circumstances must be right for any type of complexity to form or continue to exist,“ [4] and suggests that humans have been affecting climate change, with the Industrial Revolution greatly increasing the scale of our effect. I think that the idea behind Big History is important, as it encourages a shift from humans to the universe as a whole, as the subject of history. Traditional history courses that teach only about humanity perpetuate the separation and isolation of humans from the rest of earth, consequently minimizing the value of animals, plants, and nature. It also lessens the divide between history and science, which is important in environmental studies.

Anthropocene is “a proposed geological epoch dating from the commencement of significant human impact on Earth’s geology and ecosystems” [5] such as anthropogenic climate change. Although not officially approved, the proposed epoch has many supporters. However, there is disagreement on what the start date of the epoch should be, some arguing that it should be the start of the Agricultural Revolution, others thinking it should be as recent as the 1960s. The most striking proposed start date is the date of the detonation of the first atomic bomb in 1945.

Figure 1. A timeline starting with the formation of Earth and ending with the Holocene. The proposed Anthropocene would come next. (Frank, Adam. “Climate Change and the Astrobiology of the Anthropocene.” WAMC. October 1, 2016. Accessed February 7, 2020. https://www.wamc.org/post/climate-change-and-astrobiology-anthropocene)

Homogenocene is a closely related epoch that describes the current decline of biodiversity and commonizing effect of invasive species on ecosystems. It is commonly believed that humankind has entered the Earth’s sixth major extinction, and are rapidly accelerating its rate (between 100 to 1000 times faster than extinction rates of the past). Some argue that without humans, Earth’s biodiversity would grow at an exponential rate. But as it is now, as much as 7% of all species may have disappeared already, along with 50% of animal individuals. The composition of Earth’s biomass is staggering: livestock makes up 60%, humans make up 36%, and wild mammals make up 4%.

Many species are moving into regions that used to be too cold for them, due to climate change, farming, fishing, and the spread of nonnative species because of global travel. Other animals are becoming nocturnal to avoid contact with humans. Human activity is also transforming Earth’s physical surface and drainage patterns, along with leaving many other types of records, including sedimentological records, fossil records, and trace elements from modern science.

The movie Journey of the Universe deals with history beginning with the creation of the universe up until today. An important mention of the film is that the evolution of the Earth has been taken over by symbolic consciousness, making it no longer simply biological. Human activity has such a great impact on Earth’s evolutionary dynamics that the process isn’t purely “natural” anymore. Therefore the story of history must include mention of how human behavior has impacted and continues to impact the Earth.

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed is Jared Diamond’s 2005 book examining causes of historical or pre-historical societal collapses, which he defines as “"a drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time."” [6] Diamond focuses particularly on the effects of environmental changes and climate change, and how society has responded to them. Throughout the book, Diamond suggests that we currently face the same issues but on a larger scale, and there could be catastrophic consequences for us in the future.

One of the main lessons he draws from examining history is that the collapse of a society often happens perhaps a decade or two after its peak. “The reason is simple,” he explains “maximum population, wealth, resource consumption, and waste production mean maximum environmental impact, approaching the limit where impact outstrips resources.” [7] In terms of how we can change, Diamond proposes two things. First, we must focus on long-term planning in order to address issues before they even arise. Second, we must be willing to reconsider our core values. I agree with Diamond’s proposals. I think that a country like the United States, and its citizens, need to entirely shift their focus from economic growth and national prosperity to environmental awareness and natural prosperity. Our individualistic, capitalistic, and competitive tendencies are the root of our environmental havoc. If we adopt a more holistic view of Earth and all of its beings, humans as just one of many species, only then will true environmental change take place.

The environmental history of the United States can be split up into four major eras:

1.Tribal Era: characterized by Native American occupation of the U.S.

2.The Frontier Era (1607-1890): characterized by the settling of European colonists who saw the wilderness as something for human use

3. Early Conservationists (1832-1870): characterized by the realization of the scope of depletion and degradation, and the push for protected areas

4. Now (1870-present): characterized by an increased role of the federal government and private citizens in environmental issues

An interesting case study reveals how air pollution is not a modern development. Going as far back as the human discovery of fire, air pollution has been a consistent element of human existence. Dense wood smoke appeared over urban areas in Europe in the Middle Ages, the burning of coal plagued the atmosphere during the Industrial Revolution, and remains an issue today. Air pollution levels are greatly linked to public health issues, particularly respiratory illnesses like bronchitis.

Figure 2. The Contribution of Air Pollution Versus Other Risk Factors to Global Mortality. (Rajagopalan, Sanjay, Sadeer G. Al Kindi and Robert D. Brook. “Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology. October 2018. Accessed February 7, 2020. http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/72/17/2054?fbclid=IwAR3BO5AL0JzZgFx5EOtXagmaBNMG_WXngrgKJC4zFEuAa9QLOUqwQG7YoUM)

In Stoll’s conclusion he mentions how “environmentalism has not figured prominently in any presidency since Richard Nixon’s” [8] It’s interesting to see how important environmental issues are in the current presidential election. Senator Bernie Sanders, who just won the Iowa Caucus popular vote, takes a strong stance in favor of a Green New Deal. While many other democratic candidates also feature environmentalism in their campaigns, the same cannot be said for President Trump, who is running for re-election as the republican candidate.

Figure 3. Senator Bernie Sanders promoting the Green New Deal with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in November 2019. (Klein, Naomi and Sivan Kartha. “The Realism of Bernie Sanders’ Climate Policy.” Common Dreams. November 25, 2019. Accessed February 7, 2020. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/11/25/realism-bernie-sanders-climate-policy)

In Aldo Leopold’s 1949 “Thinking like a Mountain,” the idea of a “community concept” of ethics comes up again. While all ethics hold the premise that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts, the land ethic broadens who, or what, is included in that “community,” expanding inclusion to soils, waters, plants, and animals. This way, a respect for plants, animals, waters, and the Earth as a whole, not just a respect for other humans, is deeply rooted in our ethics.

Word Count: 1330

[1] “Big History.” Wikipedia. December 20, 2019. Accessed February 7, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History

[2] “Big History.” Wikipedia.

[3] “Big History.” Wikipedia.

[4] “Big History.” Wikipedia.

[5] “Anthropocene” Wikipedia. February 6, 2020. Accessed February 7, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene

[6] “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” Wikipedia. January 19, 2020. Accessed February 7, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

[7] “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” Wikipedia.

[8] Stoll, Steven. U.S. Environmentalism since 1945. (Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007) 23.

Blog 4. Let’s Talk About Ethics: Worldviews, Justice, and Education

Environmental ethics and philosophy are a great portion of environmental studies. Science would have no significant call to action for humans if we didn’t have a sense of right and wrong.

There are a few basic environmental worldviews that inform individuals beliefs on environmental issues. Human-centered (anthropocentric) environmental worldviews are primarily concerned with the needs and desires of humans. One such view is called the planetary management worldview, which holds humans as the hierarchically highest species, giving them the ability to manage the Earth however they see fit for their own personal requirements; the value of other species comes from how valuable they are to humans. There are three major variations: the no-problem school, the free-market school, and the spaceship-earth school. The first believes that environmental issues are solved through economic, managetary, and technological improvements. The second holds that a free-market global economy is the best thing for the environment, with minimal interference from the government. The third, and perhaps most abstract, views the Earth as a spaceship, that is, it is a complex machine that we can control.

A second anthropocentric view is the stewardship worldview, which declares that humans have an ethical responsibility, or obligation (depending on the strength of the view), to take care of the Earth. Some find this foolish because they believe it’s not the Earth that needs saving, humans do.

Some dismiss these worldviews all together because they assume that we have the knowledge and power to be effective stewards of the Earth. As it is now, the way we are “managing” the Earth is only benefiting us, and not even in the long-term. There is no evidence to support the idea of us successfully managing the Earth. Critiques of the global free-market point out that “we cannot have an unlimited economic growth and consumption on a finite planet with ecological limits or boundaries.” [1] Finally, the spaceship concept may be interesting but is far too oversimplifying and misleading.

Life-centered, or earth-centered, worldviews expand the boundaries of what life forms should be valued beyond humans. The environmental wisdom worldview believes that we should study nature and use it to guide us in living more sustainably, that we are a part of the community of life that sustains us and all other species, and that we are not in charge of the world. Research shows that becoming more environmentally literate is an important factor in environmental change.

Figure 1. A Guide to Environmental Literacy. (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.)

Research also shows, however, that education is not enough. We ought to foster a true ecological, aesthetic, and spiritual appreciation for nature, which happens primarily through experience in nature. Furthermore, an important factor in living more sustainably is consuming less. Not only does this benefit the environment, but it also combats the ethically questionable concepts of materialism and consumerism, and the idea that things can bring happiness. Research shows that people actually crave community, not stuff.

Figure 2. Ways to Live More Sustainably. (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018, 693)

We also need to avoid two common views that lead to no effective change: gloom-and-doom pessimism and blind technological optimism. The first views the situation as too dire to combat, while the second puts too much hope in technology saving us without us putting in the work.

Environmental justice examines environmentalism through the lens of social justice. It recognizes that environmental issues aren’t purely natural, they are distributive, participatory, political, and cultural. It is an interdisciplinary field that combines humanities and hard sciences. In the U.S., the environmental justice movement rose as it became clear that “a disproportionate burden of environmental harms was falling on African Americans, Latino/a Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, the working class, and the poor” [2]. Beyond the U.S., environmental justice extends to issues of colonialism, the global environmental commons, and the effects of the corporate globalization.

I believe that a complete view of environmentalism must include environmental justice. Environmental issues are inherently linked to issues of wealth disparity, racism, and colonialism. Therefore, environmental solutions need to recognize the disproportionate effects of climate change in order to bring true, comprehensive change. For example, we must recognize that low-income communities and communities of color suffer more from being located near industrial plants or waste disposal sites than wealthier communities who have the resources to influence the location of those sites, or to choose to live elsewhere.

Intergenerational justice is the idea that current generations have obligations to past or future generations. Applied to environmentalism, it holds that those living now have a responsibility to preserve ecosystems and conserve resources for the next generations. While I think the idea of protecting Earth for future generations is not harmful in itself, I think it has the tendency to fall into anthropocentrism and therefore fails to address the issue comprehensively. Yet again, the focus is only on humans and not on the millions of other species that we are affecting through our environmental havoc. While it might be successful in inspiring care for the environment since it appeals to pride, it truly only reflects a care for ourselves, which I consider a failure. Other forms of intergenerational justice also consider future ecosystems, which I think is a much better form of the practice. Inclusivity of the “natural” with the human is the key to change.

Environmental citizenship is the idea that humans are a part of a larger ecosystem and that our future is dependent on each individual accepting the challenge and acting for change. Instead of human domination of the environment, humans are seen as members of the environment. It appeals to a sense of ethics similar to Aristotle’s virtue ethics. It internationalizes the concept of stewardship as it is more religiously neutral, and even clarifies the misunderstanding of human dominion for domination in Judeo-Christian traditions. While environmental citizenship is difficult to pin down, its general principle is helpful in educating and creating change due to its neutrality. Growing up in a primarily Christian community, I am far too familiar with the confusion of human dominion for human domination. I think that religiously neutral stances of environmentalism could be helpful in bringing about comprehensive and international change.

Another important idea is biophilia, an “innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms” [3]. There is research supporting the idea that the brain “has an evolved intelligence that grew out of the need for detailed information about nature” [4]. Nature also provides many benefits to human health and well-being, through direct contact, indirect contact, and simulations such as photographs. Windows, trees, and gardens are just a few elements of nature that have been shown to improve human behavior. However, it is also important to note how human attraction to nature has led to unsustainable practices, such as building hotels in the forest for panoramic views. Far too often our appreciation of nature is harmful to it.

Figure 3. How exposure to natural elements is known to improve health and well-being. (Heiskanen, Siru. “Biophilia - The Love of Life and All Living Systems.” NAAVA. September 11, 2017. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.naava.io/editorial/biophilia-love-of-life)

Last Child in the Woods is a book about emerging research that shows how important exposure to nature is for healthy childhood development. Author Richard Louv comments on today’s “nature-deficit disorder” in children which could have ties to the rising rates of obesity, attention disorders, and depression. The book began the No Child Left Inside movement, focused on creating increased interest in children’s environmental awareness. The movement has impacted legislation and been endorsed by 58 organizations. In Milwaukee, WI, Riverside Park was once a place of crime and pollution, but after the introduction of an outdoor-education program and removal of a dam, the park has been restored. As one puts it, “nature was not the problem; it was the solution” [5]. The movement brings people together through agreement on one basic principle: “no one among us wants to be a member of the last generation to pass on to our children the joy of playing outside in nature” [6].

Finally, with all of this research and talk of the importance of education comes an important disclaimer: education does not guarantee decency. In fact, a large portion of damage is done by highly educated individuals. All of that to say, it’s not only a matter of educating, but a matter of how we educate. Fragmented education leads to fragmented worldviews. We need an educational revolution before we can have a sustainable revolution.

Word Count: 1356

[1] Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. 19th ed. (Boston: Cengage Learning, 2018) 684.

[2] Figueroa, Robert Melchior. “Environmental Justice.” Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. 342. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzKbjVLpnX0RczhaLWFEMFJWbjg/view

[3] Heerwagen, Judith. “Biophilia.” Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. 109. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzKbjVLpnX0RQ2p3dlZ3UGlMNVk/view

[4] Heerwagen, 110.

[5] Louv, Richard. “Children and Nature Movement.” Richard Louv. 2008. http://richardlouv.com/books/last-child/children-nature-movement/

[6] Louv, 2008.

Blog 5. Let’s Talk about Environmental Policy: Economics & Politics

When we evaluate environmental issues we must recognize the fact that the basis of our economic systems is natural capital, and therefore environmental studies is inherently linked to economics. With that said, it’s important to know the three major economic systems: a centrally-planned economy (generally socialism), a free-market economy (generally capitalism), and a mixed economy.

Figure 1. The Three Major Economic Systems. (“Exploring the Major Economic Systems.” Weebly. Accessed February 18, 2020. http://wolverine2015.weebly.com/economic-system.html)

The difference in these systems stems from who determines production and distribution. A centrally-planned economy is controlled by the government, while the free-market economy is under the control of private individuals and companies. A mixed economy is controlled by a mix of the government and private sources. Most countries have mixed systems, for example the U.S. is majorly free-market with some regulation by the government. Free-market economies are governed by the principle of supply and demand. Most capitalistic economies are not purely free-market because they are influenced by other factors such as government subsidies, which are known to be harmful to the environment because they value economic growth over preserving ecosystems.

These major economic systems use three types of capital: natural, human, and manufactured. While these are all pretty self-explanatory it’s important to note the dependence on natural capital by the other types. Human capital only exists because of natural capital. Similarly, manufactured capital is built from natural resources.

There is a major controversy between economic growth and sustainability. Economic growth generally happens when the flow of resources through economic systems is increased. With such an increase in production comes an increase in pollution. Currently there is a push for environmentally sustainable economic development.

Figure 2. The Flow of energy and matter through economic processes. (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018, 632)

The law of conservation of matter and the laws of thermodynamics tell us that natural capital is limited. According to an article published in 1997, the value of ecological systems was estimated to be on average a minimum of US$33 trillion per year, compared to global gross national product at an estimated US$18 trillion per year.

Ecological economists argue that we should shift our economic view from growth to innovation, development, and improvement. An example of such is termed the steady-state economy, in which all resources are recycled and reused in some way. There would be no “growth” as we often talk about, but we would be sustained and the economy would remain steady. Some criticize this model because it limits accumulation of wealth by individual people or groups. However, I see this as more of a benefit.

Some economists argue that we will not see change until we include the value of ecosystem services in market prices. Existence value is a proposed monetary value for resources just for existing, not necessarily for its use. Another is aesthetic value, reflecting the beauty of a landscape, species, or other part of nature. Finally, there is a bequest or option value that reflects how much people are willing to spend to protect natural capital for future generations.

Sustainable, or green, businesses, have a minimum or positive effect on the environment. Generally they meet the following criteria: [1]

1. It incorporates principles of sustainability into each of its business decisions.

2. It supplies environmentally friendly products or services that replaces demand for nongreen products and/or services.

3. It is greener than traditional competition.

4. It has made an enduring commitment to environmental principles in its business operations.

A common example is when a business “goes paperless” and sends electronic copies of things instead. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, developed to incentivize green building design in the U.S., is now very prestigious. Some examples of LEED certified buildings in NYC include the Greenwich Lane, One World Trade Center, and the Empire State Building.

Figure 3. One World Trade Center: a LEED certified gold building. (Gagiuc, Anca. “One World Trade Center and Four World Trade Center make list for largest LEED-certified buildings.” Benson Global. September 21, 2018. Accessed February 23, 2020. https://www.bensonglobal.com/2018/09/21/one-world-trade-center-and-four-world-trade-center-make-list-for-largest-leed-certified-buildings/)

The bottom line is that we need some sort of economic shift in order to be more sustainable. This shift will not happen on its own, though, it will require changes in policy.

Environmental issues are innately political due to the interconnectedness of economics, politics and laws. Environmental policy deals with “the body of laws, regulations, and programs that are designed, implemented, funded, and enforced by one or more governmental agencies” [2]. The government has the power to reduce environmentally harmful business practices through passing laws against, or regulating, them. Some people believe that the government is the best tool for battling environmental issues, while others shy away from too much governmental power. Environmental policy goes through a process called the policy life cycle (fig 4) that deals with problem recognition, policy formation, policy implementation, and policy adjustment. The triple bottom line principle advocates that we look at economic, social, and environmental needs together which each other in making policy decisions, instead of viewing them in isolation. I think this policy would encourage a more well-rounded set of laws than what we currently have, and yet again shows the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to environmental issues.

Figure 4. The policy life cycle. (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018, 657)

Current environmental laws deal with the regulation of pollution, as seen in laws for air quality, water quality, waste management, contaminant cleanup, and chemical safety; resource sustainability, as seen in impact assessment, water resources law, mineral resources law, forest resources law, wildlife and plant law, and fish and game laws; and principles, such as sustainable development, equity, transboundary responsibility, public participation and transparency, precautionary principle, prevention, and the polluter pays principle.

Just recently the Trump administration has been seen trying to weaken a foundational environmental law: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA was passed in order to make sure that government decisions that could potentially harm the environment are open to review by and involvement with the public. It has helped stop unnecessary projects and create more sustainable alternatives. With the law weakened, many projects would go unreviewed by the public potentially causing great environmental harm.

Not only is this an issue of environmental harm, it is also an issue of transparency. In politics, especially in countries that value democracy, the role of the public in making decisions is critical. As Miller reiterates, individuals matter. Politics is as much local as it is national, if not more. A good place to start in influencing environmental policy is in our own communities. For college students, such as myself, it is important to evaluate the greenness of our campuses, and take action to improve any matters not yet sustainable. Finally, we need to view environmental security as necessary for economic security, and as important as national security. Working with other countries is key, as we all inhabit the same earth.

In “Consumer or Citizen?” Ernest Partridge argues that our current political environment is failing in its assessment of individuals. People are viewed and treated more as consumers, interested in value, emotions, and personal satisfaction, than we are as citizens, interested in moral value, principles, and information. The distinction between consumer and citizen is the key to understanding the degradation of our political institutions and therefore the key to restoration. I believe that this shift in the view of citizens could also help environmentally, as individuals viewed as citizens would be more interested in ethics and accurate information when it comes to elections and political debate, which would leave less room for politicians preying on emotions and fabricating information purely because they can “sell” it well. A more functioning democracy would be a more environmentally secure society.

Word Count: 1204

[1] “Sustainable business.” Wikipedia. January 10, 2020. Accessed February 23, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_business

[2] Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. 19th ed. (Boston: Cengage Learning, 2018) 676.

Blog 6. Let’s Talk about Growth: Human Population & the Economy

Human population growth has spiked over the last 200 years, no longer growing slowly. There are three important trends dealing with this growth: the rate of population growth may be decreasing but the population is still growing, population growth is unevenly distributed, and large numbers of people are moving to urban areas from rural areas. The growth of the human population raises the question: how many people can the earth support indefinitely? It is obvious that as the human population grows, so does our ecological footprint. But some argue that what we should really ask is what the cultural carrying capacity is. Meaning, how many people could live in “reasonable freedom and comfort indefinitely, without decreasing the ability of the earth to sustain future generations” [1]?

There are numerous population clock websites online showing real-time birth and death rates. On https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/, you can see how the “births today” value rises much faster than the “deaths today” value, yielding a net population growth. While writing this, the global population has grown by 13.2 million this year. While I was aware of how large populations were, to actually see the growth happening was eye-opening. However, I think it is absolutely necessary to examine the true motives and biases held by those advocating that we slow population growth in order to live more sustainably. The countries with the largest population sizes and growths are Asian and African, largely undeveloped, and are unfairly targeted in this argument. We need to consider why these countries are less developed than the U.S., and recognize the role developed countries play in exploitation of other countries.

Figure 1. World population growth by region since 1820. (Roser, Max, Ritchie, Hannah, & Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban. “World Population Growth.” Our World in Data. May 2019. Accessed February 29, 2020.)

With such rapid population growth, many anticipate future conflict with environmental limits. Many believe that we need encourage slowing the population growth through reducing poverty, empowering women, and supporting family planning. In the 1992 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, which I discussed in my first blog post, one of the scientists’ five calls to action was to achieve sexual equality, which is linked to slowing population growth. Studies have shown that women who are educated, can control their own fertility, and support themselves financially have fewer children. Giving women more rights and opportunities is critical. Only about 30% of girls around the world are enrolled in secondary education, and in almost every country women have fewer rights and opportunities than men. Female empowerment is a righteous pursuit in itself, and if through female empowerment we can also slow population growth to increase quality of life for humans and other species, and lessen our ecological footprint, then there is even more reason to pursue that end.

In addition, rapid population growth is linked to urbanization and issues of urban planning. Most urban areas are unsustainable with large ecological footprints, but there are many seeking to change this. For example, PlaNYC was a 2009 strategic plan by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to create more sustainable housing for the future additional 1 million residents of NYC. Its three major components were OpeNYC, MaintaiNYC, and GreeNYC: preparing for 1 million new residents in the next two decades, repairing aging infrastructure, and reducing carbon emissions by 30%. Another term in urban planning is a transition town, which refers to grassroots community projects seeking to increase self-sufficiency and reduce effects of climate change and economic instability.

Another important question to ask in these discussions is why there’s an underlying assertion that poverty causes environmental issues. It’s more helpful to recognize how wealthier people have significantly larger ecological footprints per individual, and they are the ones who are actually educated about and have the resources to combat environmental issues. The textbook focuses primarily on the extremes: the dirt-poor and the top 1%. A much larger portion of people find themselves in the working class or lower middle class.

“The Impossible Hamster” is a short video clip arguing against many politicians’ and economists’ belief that the economy can grow indefinitely. They state that there are reasons for why things do not grow indefinitely in nature, and use the example of a hamster who doubles in size each week for a year, growing to a 9 billion ton hamster. This hamster would consume at least a year’s worth of the world’s corn production every day. With economic growth, we edge closer to very serious environmental limits. A limited environment cannot support unlimited growth of any kind.

Figure 2. The Impossible Hamster. (“The Impossible Hamster.” New Economics Foundation. Vimeo. January 24, 2010. Accessed February 29, 2020. https://vimeo.com/8947526)

In a related video, Mark Albion illustrates conflict between business and life. When a young MBA encounters an older fisherman coming back from the water, he lectures him on how he could spend more time fishing, get a bigger boat, and continue to grow his business until he ended up a millionaire in New York City. The fisherman asks “then what?” to which the MBA replies that he could then spend his days fishing and spending time with his family, all things which he already did in his day-to-day life without the 10-15 years of working and being absent from his family life. We see through this parable that being a millionaire is not necessary to have “a good life.” In fact, pursuing excess wealth can impede happiness.

In examining the state of our environment and economy, The Center for a New American Dream asks the question: how can we reduce ecological impact and create jobs? They offer a new economic model and way of life termed the plenitude economy, which rethinks how we spend our time and ultimately gives us better quality of life. The amount of hours we work has gone up about 200 hours a year since the 1970s, making us more stressed, tired, and unhappy. At the same time, it increases carbon emissions. Therefore, they argue that reducing work time would increase our quality of life while decreasing environmental harm. With more time off work, people would have more time to “D.I.Y” projects, like gardening, bee-keeping, sewing their own clothing, building low-cost eco-friendly housing, and generating their own energy. When people work less, they also consume less, and I’ve talked about the environmental harm of mass consumption before. The plenitude economy also encourages sharing, bartering, and community practices–building social capital.

Figure 3. The Degrowth Movement. (Demaria, Federico. “The rise - and future - of the degrowth movement.” The Ecologist. March 27, 2018. Accessed February 29, 2020. https://theecologist.org/2018/mar/27/rise-and-future-degrowth-movement)

Another economic model is called the steady state economy, defined by a constant stock of capital and a constant population size. The head individual of this position, Herman Daly, advocates for immediate political action to switch to the steady state economy. This would include imposing permanent government restrictions on all resource use. The model recognizes the limits of natural capital, which in turn limits economic growth. There is a related movement called the degrowth movement, which is based on ecological economics, anti-consumerist, and anti-capitalist ideas. It is another response to the question of whether growth is limited or not. The degrowth movement believes that overconsumption is at the heart of environmental and social issues. However, the degrowth movement does not believe that reducing consumption requires individual sacrifice or sacrificing happiness. Instead, they believe that happiness can be maximized through non-consumptive means like sharing work, devoting more time to art, music, family, nature, culture, and community. I think that materialism and overconsumption not only harms the environment but is also at the root of a lot of unhappiness. Our culture of always needing the newest things can create a competitive environment and make people feel lesser when they cannot afford certain goods. In a less materialistic society this source of unhappiness would be weakened.

Word Count: 1234

[1] Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. 19th ed. (Boston: Cengage Learning, 2018) 123.

Blog 7. Let’s Talk about Extinction

Humans play a role in the loss of species and ecosystem services, which is why extinction rates are sharply increasing. It is normal for species to go extinct, and we refer to its natural rate as the background extinction rate, which is approximately 1 species per year for every million species living on earth. Mass extinction is a term used to describe when many species go extinct in a short period of time. Thus far, the earth has experienced 5 mass extinctions, wiping out at least half its living species. Right now, biodiversity researches project the extinction rate to rise at least ten-thousand times the background rate. At this rate, up to 50% of the world’s 2 million identified species could go extinct by the end of the century. This means we are entering a sixth mass extinction primarily caused by harmful human activity. This tremendous loss in turn impacts the ecosystem services that required the species. In fact, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment showed that 15 of 24 of the earth’s major ecosystems are in decline.

The “human activities” degrading the environment that we talk about include “destroying and degrading natural habitats, introducing invasive species, and increasing human population, pollution, climate change, and overexploitation.” [1] These are often abbreviated HIPPCO. We should care about these harmful behaviors and the potential mass extinction for many reasons. First, as Miller mentions, living species are a vital part of our natural capital. As I’ve discussed in this blog before, all major types of capital come from or are dependent on natural capital in some form. Without it, we would not have an economy. Living species provide ecosystem services that our lives and economies depend on.

Figure 1. Different types of natural capital and their uses. (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018, 197)

However, there is another reason we should care about mass extinction of living species. Their value does not, or at least should not, be derived entirely from their usefulness to humans. Many in the environmentalist movement believe that these species have a right to exist on their own. This is an ethically founded viewpoint that again makes a distinction between anthropocentric and ecocentric worldviews. However, within this view we find some difficult questions. For example, if all species have a right to exist on their own, how do we decide which to help and which are less important? We will always reach a hierarchy of some kind, whether humans are on top or not.

Invasive species are one way in which natural habitats are interrupted. Although some invasive species include wheat, corn, poultry, and other livestock that make up the majority of our food supply in the U.S., they are often very harmful to natural habitats. Wild boars, for example, were deliberately introduced for the purpose of hunting for sport. The species reproduces so rapidly, and are so vicious, that they have wreaked havoc across the continental U.S. They do not have enough predators to control their population.

If a wild boar invaded and tore up my yard and my garden, I would most likely contact a professional to try to catch and eliminate the wild boar. Since they are so destructive and don’t seem to interact beneficially with many other species, I think this action would benefit the other species in the area, and the ecosystem as a whole.

Figure 2. Some different invasive species. (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018, 201)

Due to the tremendous threat a sixth mass extinction poses, I believe we must enlist the help of laws and treaties to protect species. In the past, efforts like the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the U.S. have proved successful–99% of the species listed in the act have been saved from extinction. These efforts should be more widespread. I think this is an area where we can apply the precautionary principle, which states that “when substantial preliminary evidence indicates that an activity can harm human health or the environment, we should take precautionary measures to prevent or reduce such harm even if some of the cause-and-effect relationships have not been fully established scientifically.” [2] Basically, even if we cannot be entirely sure that our efforts will be 100% successful, when it comes to irreparable damage, or anything we cannot undo, we must act even in our uncertainty.

In addition to focusing on individual species, we can also look at conservation efforts on an ecosystem scale. Some major ecosystems include forests and grasslands, both of which are at risk. Forests provide several important ecosystem and economic services, as summarized in figure 3. While some argue that we should not try to put a monetary value on irreplaceable ecosystem services, believing their value to be infinite, I think it is enlightening to recognize that if we do give them a monetary value, they are worth about $125 trillion annually.

Figure 3. Important ecosystem and economic service provided by forests. (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018, 223)

Deforestation and forest fires due to the rise in temperatures are two forms of destruction of the forest ecosystem. These can lead to water pollution from erosion, acceleration of flooding, extinction of specialist species, habitat loss, and release of CO2 and loss of CO2 absorption. A specific type of forest that calls for our concern is tropical forests, which make up about 6% of earth’s land area, but contain at least half of the world’s known species of terrestrial plants, animals, and insects.

After forests, grasslands are the second most-used and altered ecosystem by human activities. They are at risk due to overgrazing, which kills the grasses and exposes the land to invasive species and erosion.

The best way to preserve terrestrial biodiversity is to strictly or partially protect areas from harmful human activity. Right now, about 6% of earth’s land is protected, leaving 94% up to exploitation by humans.

I support the effort to establish more wilderness areas in the United States to preserve critically important species and ecosystems. I find that most of the disadvantages of establishing are only negative when viewed from a short-term economic viewpoint. For example, some would argue that establishing more wilderness areas would slow economic growth by preventing certain areas from extraction of minerals, lumber, agricultural practices, etc. which there is a high demand for. However, I think if we think about natural capital in a long-term point of view, we can see that economic growth will always be limited by the abundance of natural capital, so destroying it now for temporary growth will eventually catch up to us.

Word Count: 1110

[1] Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. 19th ed. (Boston: Cengage Learning, 2018) 217.

[2] Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. 19th ed. (Boston: Cengage Learning, 2018) 216.

Blog 8. Let’s Talk about Aquatic Biodiversity & Food Production

In chapter 11 of the textbook, Miller dives into aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems. Particularly, he examines the essential ecosystem services that aquatic systems provide, how they are being degraded, and how we can sustain them. Aquatic ecosystems are particularly affected by human activity because of proximity. It is estimated that approximately 80% of the world’s people live near the seacoast. Most major cities are port cities on a coast somewhere. Humans dump alarming and dangerous amounts of waste into oceans on a regular basis. The UNEP estimates that land-based coastal activities contribute about 80% of all ocean pollution. The three greatest threats to aquatic biodiversity are pollution, climate change, and overfishing.

First, one example of the effect of pollution on aquatic ecosystems deals with runoff. When large amounts of plant nutrients flow from land into the ocean, algae bloom on a great scale. When these algae die, they sink and are decomposed by bacteria, which requires oxygen. When so much oxygen is removed from the water, other marine organisms are either forced to leave or suffocate. In addition, toxic pollutants from industrial areas deplete biodiversity by killing off organisms. Finally, the presence of plastic in the ocean from garbage is responsible for the death of over a million seabirds and mammals every year, when they mistake the plastic for food.

The concern over plastic in the ocean gained the spotlight recently, inspiring the switch away from plastic straws, shopping bags, and cups. There has been a mainstream shift from single-use plastic to reusable alternatives, and that shift is pushed by legislation. While there is no federal ban on single-use plastics, many states have passed their own laws, including California, New York, Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Oregon, and Vermont. Most of these bans focus on plastic bags, and impose a charge per bag (such as 5-10 cents for each bag used). While these bans are helpful, I think the fact that they only exist in 8 of our 50 states is extremely underwhelming. I think it is also interesting to note that all of the states with bans are on a coast, with the exception of Vermont. The biggest question that arises with the spread of these bans is: are they actually effective in reducing harm to aquatic biodiversity? The answer is debatable. The critical factor to consider is if the replacements for the single-use plastics are much better. In addition, we have yet to see a decrease in plastic waste and plastic production is still expected to double by 2040. While the bans might not be the most effective thing, they certainly help raise awareness about environmental degradation by human activity, and invite research for sustainable alternatives. As a final note, while alternatives are helpful, it is most important to reduce consumption first and foremost.

Figure 1. Map of the U.S. indicating status of legislation against plastic bag use. (“State Plastic and Paper Bag Legislation.” NCSL.org. January 24, 2020. Accessed March 17, 2020. https://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx)

Second, climate change also threatens aquatic ecosystems. Oceans are responsible for absorbing the majority (about 90%) of the excess heat that has arised due to the warming of the atmosphere. It won’t be able to do this forever, though. In addition, this excess heat is warming the ocean, affecting food webs and rendering some habitats intolerable to their species and therefore leads to migration of species.

A third factor of harm to aquatic ecosystems is that of overfishing. Data shows that 87% of the world’s commercial fisheries have been fully exploited or overfished. This has effects including scarcity of commercially valuable fish (cod, marlin, swordfish, and tuna), exploitation of other ocean species, and thousands of workers losing jobs.

Some ways we can work to sustain marine biodiversity include establishing marine sanctuaries, expanding marine reserves, and restoration. As of right now, about 98% of the ocean remains unprotected from harm caused by human activity. If we want to sustain aquatic biodiversity, we need to protect our oceans immediately. First, we should identify aquatic biodiversity hotspots that are under particularly harmful circumstances, and protect them. Next, we should protect lakes and rivers by restricting pollution. Finally, we should seek to incentivize those who live on or near protected waters so that all benefit from the changes.

Chapter 12 of the textbook looks at the relationship between food production and the environment. Many health problems that exist today stem from not eating enough nutritious food, and, in some cases, eating too much food lacking nutrition. Nearly 800 million people on Earth suffer from hunger on some level.

Figure 2. Food pyramid diagram demonstrating how eating meat requires wealth. (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018, 285).

Most of the world’s hunger appears in poorer areas where people can only afford to eat a low-protein, high-carbohydrate, vegetarian diet (fig. 2). In more developed nations, low-income individuals rely on cheap food with high fat, sugar, and salt. Both hunger and overnutrition lead to a lower life expectancy, greater susceptibility to disease and illness, and lower productivity and life quality.

Food production relies almost entirely on three systems: croplands, rangelands, and fisheries. Croplands provide grains, rangelands provide meat, and fisheries provide fish. The specialization of food is a risky game. We rely on about 14 plant species to provide about 90% of the world’s food calories. There are an estimated 30,000 total edible plant species. Similarly, we eat a small fraction of mammals and fish. Specialization violates biodiversity, and if these few key species go extinct then our food as we know it will be completely uprooted.

The industrialization of food production has environmental effects. First, perhaps the most prominent effect is the loss of biodiversity that occurs when grasslands, forests, and wetlands are converted to croplands and rangelands. Soil is affected by erosion, loss of fertility, salinization, water-logging, and desertification. Water is affected by aquifer depletion, increased runoff, pollution from pesticides, and algal blooms. Farming causes a lot of air pollution, particularly by increasing methane emissions from cattle.

Some ways to produce food more sustainably include “using resources more efficiently, sharply decreasing the harmful environmental effects of industrialized food production, and eliminating government subsidies that promote such harmful impacts” [1]. Individuals can aid in this process by making personal choices about the food that they eat, as listed in figure 3.

Figure 3. Individual actions that can improve sustainability of food production. (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018, 316)

For example, Growing Power, Inc. is an ecologically based urban farm that produces organic food. If I were a member of Growing Power and tasked with transforming an abandoned suburban shopping center into an organic farm, I would seek to repurpose the preexisting resources. The water system could be transformed into an irrigation system for crops, the rooms could be used for storage, the parking lot could become farmland, etc. By using what’s already there, we reduce unnecessary consumption and also save money.

What becomes clear through reading these two chapters is that human activity is having an effect on natural ecosystems, which in turn affects human health. While this simply reinforces previously held ideas, it can be enlightening to read about the connection to the food industry, and shows how truly pervasive environmental issues are in every facet of human life.

Word Count: 1233

[1] Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. 19th ed. (Boston: Cengage Learning, 2018) 308.

Blog 9. Let’s Talk about Food Production: Industry & Soil

Food production in the United States, and many other countries around the world, has changed drastically with industrialization. Two documentary films that expose some secrets and harmful practices of the food industry are 2008’s Food, Inc., and 2012’s Symphony of the Soil. In Food, Inc., director Robert Kenner examines corporate farming in the U.S.. The film concludes that the industry is inhumane and environmentally harmful. In the past, food production was greatly focused on self-sustaining farming, in which individuals/small groups provided for themselves. Over time, however, agricultural technology and food production developed on a wide scale. This industrialized version of food production has many environmental and ethical quandaries. The film looks at three specific things: the industrial production of meat, the industrial production of grains and vegetables, and economic and legal powers in food production.

Today, large industries control the vast majority (around 80%) of the beef industry. They pay farmers to mass produce animals, making them bigger over a shorter period of time. The animals are raised in extremely confined spaces with little room to move, making them fatter, and are fed corn and steroids to make them grow faster. This raises questions of morality. Is this treatment of animals morally upright? The film argues that it is not, and that if the average person was aware of it, they would agree that it is wrong. I think the feelings the movie produces while watching the way the chickens, for example, are treated speak for themselves. At least for me personally, it was extremely difficult to watch. I think that the average meat consumer creates a false distinction between that type of treatment and the meat that they personally consume in order to feel okay in doing so. Perhaps a lot more people would be vegan or vegetarian if they had to personally raise and slaughter the animals that they ate, but when it’s a process so far removed from the consumer, it can be overlooked. The animals are also filled with a number of different chemicals, often undisclosed to the consumer. Because consumers are unaware, corporations choose chemicals that are cheaper, but often more harmful.

Figure 1. A look inside a poultry plant. (Kenner, Robert, director. Food, Inc. (08:38:00), YouTube. Nov 22, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smk2xq2l3Ig)

Furthermore, in an article about a poultry plant, writer Steve Stifler talks about the inhumane, unethical treatment of the workers, not just the animals. Workers may get decent benefits, but the environment of the workplace and the actual work they do is miserable. Stiffler mentioned a sign in the plant that read, “Democracies depend on the political participation of its citizens, but not in the workplace” [1]. I think it’s important to also recognize this aspect of unethical treatment because people are generally unaware of this as well. And, in general, I think most consumers would prefer to support establishments that treat their workers with dignity and respect.

The industrial production of grains and vegetables is also examined, with particular focus on corn. One of the featured authors is Michael Pollan, who wrote the famous Omnivore’s Dilemma, examining the food process from start to finish. Since corn is so easily and quickly mass-produced it is widely used for both human and animal consumption. Today, nearly all the products in our grocery stores contain some corn-derived ingredient. Many of them contain corn-based syrup, and are highly processed foods. Because corn is so ingrained in the food industry, the average American consumes way too much corn-related nutrition than is healthy. The production of corn also requires a lot of land, with approximately 30% of the U.S.’s land being used for corn.

When it comes to economic and legal powers in the food industry, we find a huge issue with false or misleading advertising. While consumers are overwhelmingly uninvolved in the food-making process, companies are the culprits of using deceitful images and advertising for their products. Overall, consumers need to take on more responsibility in choosing what they eat–knowing who grew it, what it was fed, where it comes from, etc.–and regulations for food advertising need to be more strict. The majority of meat products feature some sort of image of a red barn with green fields. Advertisers appeal to an old-fashioned, traditional, “American Dream”-esque ideal that gives consumers a sense of familiarity and health.

In Symphony of the Soil, director Deborah Koons Garcia examines the organic farm industry in contrast with industrial food production, and does so with a specific appreciation of soil. It dives into questions of how to restore the fertility of soil. Soil is the foundation of all growth, and holds a lot of history. In the documentary, biologists and geologists examine the soil of Hawaii and Norway. They demonstrate how soils are formed and changed over time. They detail 11 different types of soil, from most fertile to most arid. Prairie soil is the most productive, because its deep roots undergo a process of death, providing nutrition in the soil, and it holds water. While prairie soil is relatively rare in the world (making up only 7% or so,) it is relatively abundant in the U.S. (making up about 22.5%). This speaks to the development and history of the food production in the U.S.. Soil is an ecosystem in itself, providing the resources necessary for all other growth.

In collaboration with organic farmers, the documentary declares that the best way to replenish the fertility of our soils is by giving back to the soil what was taken from it. Soil is stripped of its nutrients through excessive plowing, and the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. They advocate for composting, cover crops, and drip lines. Not only will the soil be restored, but it will continue to replenish itself. In one farmer’s testimony, eight inches of rich topsoil were created in five years. Many individuals and chefs agree that organic meats and vegetables are better. The film demonstrates the beauty of the growth and life sustained by fertile soil, and invokes a feeling of appreciation and admiration of the resource. With these, the film hopes to inspire change in the treatment of soil, and ultimately hopes to transform food production in the U.S. from an overwhelmingly industrial field to a more organic industry.

Both of these films approach the industry of food production in unique ways. Food, Inc. is largely interested in exposing the harms caused and produced in food production, inspiring viewers to act on their disgust and distaste for the unethical, economically unsustainable, and environmentally unsustainable practices. Symphony of the Soil approaches it a bit differently, inspiring viewers to act on a newfound appreciation for soil and its beauty, giving them hope. Both are powerful in making viewers rethink their consumption of food. The next time they sit down at the dinner table, they may start to ask themselves questions previously unexamined. Where did this food come from? What is in it? Who produced it? How are laborers treated? and so on…

Word Count: 1180

[1] Strifler, Steve. “Inside a Poultry Processing Plant: An Ethnographic Portrait.” 2002. Accessed March 29, 2020. https://scalar.usc.edu/works/feeding-a-crowd/media/Striffler_2002_Notes%20and%20Documents%20Inside%20a%20Poultry%20Processing%20Plant%20An%20Ethnographic%20Portrait_thumb.pdf

Blog 10. Let’s Talk about Hazards: Health & Waste

In this post, I will address the relationships between health hazards and environmental harms. To begin, there are five major types of health hazards: biological hazards, chemical hazards, natural hazards, cultural hazards, and lifestyle choices. Biological hazards involve harmful pathogens that cause diseases in other organisms. The most prevalent example is COVID-19, commonly referred to as “the coronavirus,” which is a highly infectious flu-like virus currently plaguing nations across the globe. It is spread significantly by asymptomatic carriers of the virus, and is causing significant harm due to the lack of a vaccine to prevent its spread, unlike the more common seasonal flu. With such rapid spread, local, state, and national governments are enacting “stay-at-home” social distancing efforts in order to “flatten the curve.” Essentially, by decreasing the number of new cases per day we can help deter our healthcare system from being overwhelmed, and therefore reduce the number of deaths caused by the virus. Without doing this, the virus may not last as many months, but a significantly higher number of people would die. This level of global outbreak is referred to as a pandemic, and it does not appear to be going away anytime soon, despite the thoughts of U.S. President Donald Trump. There are now over a million cases worldwide, and the numbers are growing exponentially.

Figure 1. The COVID-19 Pandemic as of April 2, 2020. (“Coronavirus latest: confirmed cases cross the one-million mark.” nature. April 1, 2020. Accessed April 5, 2020. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00154-w)

The textbook mentions that “an especially potent flu virus could spread easily around the world in a pandemic that could kill millions of people in only a few months” [1]. This is eerily reminiscent of what we see happening in the world right now. While social distancing efforts may be helping, I cannot help but think how the pandemic would be different if the virus was taken more seriously as a threat to the U.S. and preventative measures were put into effect sooner. The ironic thing about preventative measures is that in order to enact them you have to convince skeptical people that without them, the outcome would be much worse. But in doing so, you will never be able to prove that you were right and that the threat was truly dire. This is similar to action against climate change. Skeptics do not believe environmental activists when we argue that without action against climate change, we will suffer serious consequences in the near future. By enacting measures against climate change, however, we will never be able to prove those theoretical disastrous outcomes. I believe this is part of what makes preventative action so difficult to enact and justify.

Chemical hazards come in three major toxic agents: carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens. The first group can cause cancer, the second causes mutations, and the third causes birth defects. Recently, I watched the film Dark Waters which detailed the unregulated use of the chemical PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) by the chemical manufacturer DuPont. PFOA was used to make Teflon pans, but it is a “forever” chemical, meaning it is not broken down over time. It stays unchanged in the bloodstream and accumulates to toxic levels. The chemical was not included in any chemical references, and had been dumped into rivers for disposal. The chemical can cause blackened teeth, bloated organs, and tumors. After years of investigation, a scientific review concluded that PFOA can cause multiple cancers and diseases in living organisms. Unfortunately, cases like this are not uncommon. Chemical manufacturers have been irresponsibly disposing of their hazardous waste for years, harming the environment and long-term human health.

To test the toxicity of chemicals, scientists often use animals, which gives rise to another controversial debate over ethics. However, laboratory testing is not entirely comprehensive as it tests chemicals in isolated, controlled conditions that are not necessarily valid representations of humans’ complicated daily lives.

Figure 2. A look at the chemicals we come in contact with frequently. (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018, 460)

Many argue that any chemicals suspected to cause significant harm to the environment or human health should not be released/dumped into nature. Others advocate for recycling and reusing them in other chemical processes, such as companies like DuPont. One of the best things we can do as individuals is stay informed about and involved with possible risks in order to reduce potential harm.

In addition to chemical hazards, we also face potential harm from solid and hazardous wastes. Solid waste is a direct output of human existence. Especially in affluent nations, our enormous amounts of trash overwhelm our environment. Unlike nature which recycles its nutrients, humans produce massive amounts of waste that end up being burned or in a landfill. The two major types of solid waste are: industrial (produced by mines, farms, and industries) and municipal (commonly referred to as trash or garbage). A good portion of municipal solid waste ends up as litter in natural landscapes and waters. For example, a few weeks ago I covered the controversy over single use plastic bags, and how they pollute our oceans, rivers, lakes, and so on.

Figure 3. A breakdown of municipal solid waste in the U.S.. (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018, 576)

Harmful solid waste includes industrial solvents, hospital medical waste, car batteries, household pesticide products, dry-cell batteries, and sludge from incinerators and coal-burning plants. Released into the environment, these wastes cause air pollution, water pollution, degradation of ecosystems, and serious health threats. A big and growing category of waste is electronic– computers, cell phones, televisions, etc. that are no longer being used. Reports show that more developed countries produce between 80-90% of the world’s hazardous waste.

There are two main approaches to dealing with solid waste. First, there is waste management, which looks at controlling wastes in an effort to limit environmental harm. The second is waste reduction, which looks to produce less solid waste in general, using the principles of reusing, recycling, and composting. Combining these principles, we get integrated waste management. Figure 4 shows the difference between how we should manage our waste (by reducing first and foremost) versus how we actually do manage our waste (by burying the majority of it).

Figure 4. Analysis of waste management in the U.S.. (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018, 579)

Individuals can ask themselves four questions to assess waste management: “Do I really need this? How many of these do I actually need? Is this something I can use more than once? Can this be converted into the same or a different product when I am done with it?” [2]. These questions address refusing, reducing, reusing, and recycling, respectively. Individuals reducing their own waste could have a great environmental impact. This is reminiscent of the concept of voluntary simplicity we studied earlier. Perhaps in recognizing the permanence of many wastes and the great risk they pose to the environment and human health, people will more readily switch to a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity.

Word Count: 1192

[1] Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. 19th ed. (Boston: Cengage Learning, 2018) 447.

[2] Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. 19th ed. (Boston: Cengage Learning, 2018) 580.

Blog 11. Let’s Talk about Water: Consumption & Pollution

In chapter 13 of the textbook, Miller talks about water resources and the issues they face. The abundance of water on earth is part of what makes our planet so unique and welcoming to life. Water covers about 71% of Earth’s surface and makes up about 60% of the human body. Water itself is a unique chemical that helps sustain life in every facet. There is no substitute for water. Something that goes unnoticed by a lot of us is how much water is used for things other than drinking. Water is a necessary component in supplying food and other resources we use daily. To get a better idea of this, you can calculate your “personal water footprint,” on https://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/personal-water-footprint-calculator/.

Figure 1. My personal water footprint. (“Personal Water Footprint.” Waterfootprint.org. Accessed April 19, 2020. https://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/personal-water-footprint-calculator/).

My personal water footprint came out to 709.6 m3 per year, which is about 400 less than the global average. A majority of my water footprint comes from meat, followed by food items such as vegetable oil, starchy roots, and sugar, and then dairy. Very little of it comes from cereal, fruit, and vegetables. Previously, I was unaware how much water is used to supply meat goods. I had heard that vegetarianism/veganism is better for the environment, but now seeing a specific reason why is insightful. I am curious as to why the global average is so high, and how much lower a vegetarian’s water footprint would be.

With that said, our precious water is grossly mismanaged. As talked about a bit in previous blog posts, our oceans and waters are tainted with pollution and waste. Water is greatly undervalued, which is part of what leads to its waste and pollution. What makes the situation even worse is that freshwater is not safe and accessible to everyone around the world. Access to freshwater is a global health issue, an economic issue, a national and global security issue, and an environmental issue. In fact, it is estimated that over four thousand people die from waterborne infectious diseases every day because they do not have safe drinking water. Water is vital to our economies because of its role in the production of food and energy. Finally, there are tensions between countries about the limited accessibility of freshwater, and misuse of freshwater affects nature’s processes.

Because such a small fraction of freshwater is available to us, there is a search for ways to increase freshwater supplies. Two popular methods are large dam-and-reservoir systems and the conversion of saltwater to freshwater. However both of these methods are extremely flawed. Dam systems disrupt ecosystems and the conversion of saltwater is expensive and requires a lot of energy. The best way to maximize our available freshwater is to use it more sustainably, which the book states would be by cutting water waste, raising water prices, slowing population growth, and protecting aquifers, forests, and other ecosystems that store freshwater. One point that sticks out to me is the proposition of raising water prices. While I understand this would discourage waste and pollution of the precious resource, I question its social and political effects.

Human activity is affecting the water cycle in many ways. For example, through overdrawing groundwater aquifers for agricultural irrigation, pollution of freshwater and saltwater, and alteration of the surface of the earth. It is critical for humans to reduce overall water use in order to protect the unique and precious resource.

Following along with water resources, chapter 20 of the textbook discusses water pollution. This pollution comes from two types of sources, point and nonpoint. The former deals with sources that pollute waters from specific locations, such as drain pipes. The latter deals with broader sources of water pollution, such as runoff. One of the biggest culprits of water pollution is agricultural activities. Every type of water pollutant has an effect, as demonstrated by figure 2.

Figure 2. Water Pollutants and their Effects (Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018, 545).

One very prominent case study is the Flint Michigan Water Crisis. A public health crisis that began in 2014, the Flint water crisis is still an issue today. It came about after the city’s water source was changed, and individuals noticed differences in their water. It was found that the water contained toxins and dangerous levels of lead. The issue is not expected to be solved until July of this year, if at all.

In order to address situations like the Flint water crisis and others, water testing is very important. In addition, most natural sources of water are self-cleaning, but they require time to rid themselves of pollutants and toxins. Time that they do not have when they are being constantly overwhelmed by waste. At least 80% of raw sewage is discharged directly into waterways in less developed countries. This is particularly disturbing because those same waterways are relied on for drinking water, water to cook and do laundry with, etc.

While groundwater is greatly polluted by chemicals from agriculture, industry, transportation, and homes, efforts to prevent pollution are much more effective than efforts to purify already-polluted groundwater. Though some waters can cleanse themselves, groundwater is not very good at doing so. Groundwater is also the major source of water for U.S. residents, and is often polluted unknowingly, causing major public health threats. Yet again, this relates back to the film Dark Waters I discussed, in which the pollution of waters by an unregulated chemical was linked to several serious diseases such as cancer.

The use of bottled water is controversial because, although it provides people with safe drinking water, it is often used when it does not need to be, and the plastic bottles contribute to the pollution of water sources. Only a small fraction of plastic water bottles used in the U.S. are actually recycled. The production of bottled water also requires huge amounts of energy, making it less than ideal.

There is legislation regarding safe drinking water in the U.S., but many call for strengthening the existing legislation by combining smaller drinking water treatment systems with others in order for them to meet federal standards, enforcing requirements concerning public notification of violation of drinking water standards, and banning the use of toxic lead in plumbing pipes.

As individuals, though, there are still ways we can help below the federal level. For example, we can use organic alternatives to commercial inorganic fertilizer, minimize use of pesticides, stop yard wastes from getting into storm drains, stop using water fresheners in toilets, stop flushing medicines, and stop pouring pesticides, paints, solvents, or other chemicals down the drain or on the ground. Change on the individual level, when echoed by thousands of others, can truly make a difference. In addition, individuals can work with their local governments to address safe drinking water legislation, and call for action on the federal level if necessary. As always, individual discretion regarding consumption and waste makes a big difference!

Word Count: 1181

Blog 12. Let’s Talk about the Future: The Anthropocene & Transformation

In The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene, authors Lewis and Maslin begin their discussion of whether or not “Homo dominatus [can] become wise” by speculating on the three possible futures of the world: “continued development of the consumer capitalist mode of living towards greater complexity; a collapse; or a new mode of living” [1]. The first is essentially continuing life as usual, while successfully using innovation and technology to avoid a collapse or switch to a new mode of living. The second entails a global collapse taking place as environmental degradation catches up to us. The final outcome sees civilization adapting to a new mode of living, something drastically different from our current way of life, as suggested by the previous modes of living: the hunter-gatherer, agricultural, mercantile, industrial, and consumer capitalist.

Currently, our capitalist mode engages in two main feedback loops. We solve problems using the scientific method and invest profits into the production of more profits. While these positive feedback loops can be applauded for things like decreasing poverty and increasing lifespans, they can also be criticized for causing environmental degradation, extreme inequality, and uncooperative, competitive communities.

Lewis and Maslin argue that the second and third options are not as far off as we may think. “Energy availability, information flows and our collective human agency are increasing at ever faster rates,” they say, pointing to the transformations of the generation and processing of information, the increasing human demand for energy, and the increasing population size growth and interconnectedness [2]. All of these factors demonstrate how transformations now will not take as long as they have in the past, because with each transformation the world changes so drastically it is no longer under the same set of conditions to accurately be compared to itself. While this could point to a new mode of living, it also raises the possibility of collapse, since exponential trends cannot continue infinitely on a finite planet.

When investigating the possibility of collapse, a general conclusion we can draw is that “the greater the power humans have, the greater the opportunity for such power to be used for the most damaging of ends” [3]. While an Anthropocene collapse could happen, that is, one caused by human-related environmental change, a human-caused technological collapse is also a possibility. Threats such as nuclear warfare and bioterrorism are growing day by day. The biggest threat we face is climate change, which emerges from the fact that “[today’s mode of living] is powered by energy sources that are undermining the ability of today’s globally integrated network of cultures to persist” [4]. A study found that economic growth, population, and other factors showed steady increases between 1970 and 2000, yet the environmental effects of those increases put a strain on the system in the early twenty-first century that eventually led to collapse by mid-century.

To assess the rate and magnitude of climate change, the book examines cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide. The degree of warming deemed acceptable differs country-to-country, and even between politicians within a country. Generally, limits between 1.5 and 2°C are acceptable. However, for small island states, any warming is troubling due to the threat of rising sea levels. Because the rise in temperature does not directly correlate to cumulative carbon emissions, we are left to guess exactly what level of global carbon emissions is okay. To have even an okay chance at not exceeding the 1.5-2°C limit, greenhouse gas emissions need to decrease drastically, nearing zero by 2050. In order to do this, Lewis and Maslin point out an absolutely critical need: valuing the eradication of greenhouse gas emissions at the same level of importance as the pursuit of economic growth.

As discussed many times in previous blog posts, climate change is a direct outcome of our consumer-capitalist mindset and tendencies, which value economic growth over just about any other factor, whether that be the environment or human quality of life. We’ve seen governments giving subsidies that directly harm the environment in order to boost economic growth. We’ve seen individuals sacrificing quality of life in order to please capitalistic governments in participating in competitive innovation-centered markets. And we’ve seen how this way of living is not sustainable in “The Impossible Hamster” graphic demonstration which taught us that infinite growth is not sustainable on a finite planet.

Our systems are plagued by a greed for money and power that makes it difficult to conceive of this goal as possible. For example, “fossil fuel extraction and use is subsidized at a rate of about US$5 trillion a year … Tax breaks and financial transfers are hard to reduce because nineteen out of the top twenty-six oil and gas companies in the world are partly or fully nationalized” [5]. Since these companies make money for the governments that own them, they will continue to receive special treatment in an effort to compete with other nations. The interconnectedness between the economy, fossil fuel companies, and nations’ governments makes the necessary banning of fossil fuels an incredibly daunting task.

This raises another concern: the balance of economic power. The global economy is roughly split between North America, Europe, and Asia, meaning the West cannot solve climate change alone. It must be solved by global cooperation, planning, and action. As discussed in previous posts, affluent nations like the U.S. are wealthy in part because they exploited other nations and are responsible for at least a third of the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Less-developed nations are entirely less responsible for climate change, but experience more of the harmful effects of it. This leads to the Anthropocene conundrum: “how to equalize resource consumption across the world within sustainable limits” [6]. The UN Paris Agreement shows how we are tackling this issue, by expecting high-emitting countries to do more to reduce emissions, and providing income-poor countries with financial and technological assistance.

Some pathways to reduce emissions involve technologies like Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), which actively removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This is an attractive method because it delays when we need to take action, perhaps giving us time to develop climate change-combatting technologies. While it makes sense in an economic model, as it shows that “a million dollars of impacts today, once discounted to 100 years in the future, amounts to just $6232 of damage” [7], it does not hold strong in an ethical sense. How we leave the Earth for future generations is a conversation of ethics.

Another important thing to consider is the realistic nature of economic growth. Lewis and Maslin point out that “a century from now the global economy is expected to have doubled four times over” [8]. In addition to the environmental effects of an economy sixteen times larger, is it possible for people to be sixteen times more productive at work? We cannot physically accomplish working a 128-hr week into a day. Neither the environment nor humans can cope with such growth.

To conclude their discussion, Lewis and Maslin explain two important ideas to further investigate dealing with the Anthropocene. The first is how we spend our time, and the second is that the Earth’s surface should be allocated half to humans and half to the other millions of living species on Earth. They advocate for a Universal Basic Income, Half-Earth rewilding, clean energy, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet as helpful tools in the combat against climate change, but not the answer. An absolutely necessary factor is collective action of individuals in order to accomplish a redistribution of power and wealth. An environmentally sustainable future will also have greater equality, as the two go hand-in-hand.

Word Count: 1275

[1] Lewis, Simon L., and Mark A. Maslin. “Chapter 11: Can Homo Dominatus Become Wise.” In The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene, 369.

[2] Lewis, Simon and Mark Maslin, The Human Planet, 372.

[3] Lewis, Simon and Mark Maslin, The Human Planet, 378.

[4] Lewis, Simon and Mark Maslin, The Human Planet, 378.

[5] Lewis, Simon and Mark Maslin, The Human Planet, 383.

[6] Lewis, Simon and Mark Maslin, The Human Planet, 390.

[7] Lewis, Simon and Mark Maslin, The Human Planet, 398.

[8] Lewis, Simon and Mark Maslin, The Human Planet, 403.

0 notes

Last Seen Blogs