Proposal – Who Wants a Green Lake?

Phosphorus runoff from farms and lawns in the western NY watershed, leading to algal blooms in Lake Ontario, has become a major environmental and health concern. To help restore the health and beauty of Lake Ontario, it is important to increase awareness of the harmful effects of phosphorus runoff, the actions required to reduce runoff, and promote alternate phosphorus-free replacement materials.

Phosphorus is necessary for life in small amounts, but elevated levels of phosphorus in water can lead to an explosion of life that is ultimately harmful: an algal bloom. An algal bloom is a rapid increase of algae in an aquatic system, and can lead anoxic zones, block bottom sunlight, increase the turbidity and sedimentation of the water, and increase the expense of water treatment to potable standards due to eutrophrication. Anoxic zones are regions of water where there is no suspended oxygen in the water, making it impossible for fish to live. When algal blooms stop sunlight, the aquatic plants that need it for photosynthesis can not survive.¹ Increased turbidity and sedimentation also reduce sunlight at depth, and leave the water unsuitable for industrial processes without treatment and dangerous for recreational purposes due to low visibility and increased bacteria and virus levels.²

Environmental water pollution has many sources, from the seemingly innocuous leaf piles in the street in fall which decompose to release phosphorus, to industrial waste water, fertilizer runoff and household detergent use. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the majority of phosphorus pollution comes from nonpoint sources; that is to say, indirect pollution as detailed, not dumping phosphorus directly into the rivers and lakes of Western New York.³ Phosphorus pollution was recognized as detrimental to our environment as far back as the 1960s, which lead to various jurisdictional bans on phosphates in clothes detergents, but many exceptions were made for less widespread products, such as dishwasher detergents (dishwashers were not common household appliances until the 1970s) and lawn fertilizer.⁴

It is unlikely any headway could be made by a small group of concerned environmentalists to combat phosphorus pollution in large scale agriculture or industrial processes. Farms are major sources of phosphorus pollution simply because the manure produced by livestock, poultry in particularly, is very rich in phosphates. When that manure is used to fertilize crops, the runoff enters the ground water and ends up in whatever river or lake the watershed in question feeds. Farmers who can fertilize their fields with waste from their livestock ventures or cheaply acquire manure from other local farmers are saving enough money that they will not change their ways. Large scale agriculture has razor thin profit margins, and as usual, nobody is going to put the environment ahead of his own self interest. The same rule applies in industrial pollution: the only way to change the phosphorus output of a factory is to enact water cleanliness regulations before release back into the environment, and that sort of legislative action is beyond the scope of this proposal.

A small group could, however, certainly be successful with an information campaign among local businesses. Something as simple as constructing pamphlets of a professional appearance, a quarterly newsletter, or similar for distribution in the local area would help inform the ignorant of ways they could change their habits, with minimal personal impact, to make a difference in the phosphorus pollution problem. The targets should be places where people are mandated to wait and be bored, such as medical offices, bank lobbies, and similar areas. How often is your dentist on schedule for your appointment? Mine has never been, and if even one in ten people exposed to our pamphlet reads it, and one in five of those actually follows our guidelines, a measurable change will be accomplished. It is important to stay on top of the pamphlet and update it periodically.

Communication with local garden supply houses and grocery stores is another vector worth pursuing. We should find out whether the store owners are aware of the phosphorus pollution problem, and if not, educate them. If they could be convinced to offer phosphorus free alternatives to regular lawn and garden fertilizers or dishwasher detergents and possibly push the products on customers who ask for help, another nonpoint source of pollution would be reduced. Once again, it is important to follow through on this action and stay in touch with the business owners; we might even pick up a sponsor for our pamphlet. It isn’t cheap to mass produce an attractive pamphlet, after all, and the more professional it appears, the more seriously it will be taken.

It seems unlikely that just a few concerned citizens could make a difference in such a large problem as phosphorus pollution. However, if we focus on information choke points and inject our anti-phosphorus meme at that point, our actions will cause quite an impact.

¹ Center for Environmental Information. (n.d.) Phosphorus and Water – Why are They Important to Us All? http://www.ceinfo.org/learnigpages/P_PhorsphorusAndWater.pdf

² Virginia Department of Health. (2009). What are Harmful Algal Blooms http://www.vdh.state.va.us/epidemiology/DZEE/Waterborne/HABS/

³ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Waters with Phosphorus and Nitrogen. http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/issue3.pdf

⁴ Chris Knud-Hansen. (1994). Historical Perspective of the Phosphate Detergent Conflict. http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/94-54.htm

Essay #2: Proposal-Even three year olds can help save the world

To’Mika Cooksey

English 213

Essay #2

Even three-year olds can help save the world

Fairbanks, AK might seem like a small city, but it still has its problems like a big city. One of the problems is recycling- which process used materials to make new materials. It basically prevents useful materials from being wasted, which overall helps the environment. However, Fairbanks is not a key player in this recycling game at all.  Fairbanks is wasting useful materials by not implicating recycling around the city; and with air pollution, global warming, etc being many of our problems; we should lead by example by starting with recycling by setting up more recycling centers, bins, and information in different areas around the city.

If you look around the town of Fairbanks, you are going to notice that there is not a lot of recycling incentives. When people go shopping the bags provided by the store from every trip are just being throned away. Most business has just regular trash cans that are not implicating any type of recycling. At stores where computer inks are being sold, if the company is not providing a way to recycle the old ink cartilages then either is the store is not either. There is over a dozen fast food or restaurants that use quite a bit of paper and plastic along with the movie theater that just throw these items away.

All of these items are going into one place-landfill, not only the fact that landfills are becoming harder to find, but the fact that we are filling them with useful materials is saddening. I never fully realized how much materials we wasted until I clearly thought about it. When we throw away grocery store bags, ink cartilages; fast food paper bag, cups, and wrappings; movie theater paper bags and cups, candy boxes; boxes and cans the food we eat come out of, tags we remove from our clothes; clothing, towels, wash cloths  that are torn or old; balloons from birthday parties, electronics that no longer work, etc.  The list goes on and on what we throw away that is useful.

In case you did not know, Fairbanks is receiving some of the consequences of the nations global warming by the glaciers melting, our wildlife being endangered, more forest fires than ever, etc. True, we add to the factor, but it’s about time we stand up and be leaders. There is no better way of us doing this then by starting with something easy-recycling.  Not only is it easy but it encourages other places to follow along with the trend. The law can’t make people perform this but there are many things that can be done that can influence people’s decision.

A lot of people do not fully know what recycling is and its effects. We can show more commercials that basically implement that recycling is a process of taking used materials and making them into new materials. This helps reduce waste, energy, and pollution.  Recycling also helps reduce landfills and their cost. Almost anything can be recycled such as concrete, batteries, clothing, ferrous, glass, paper, plastic, etc. All these items have to be sorted into a particular group before they are recycled.  Just like the fire department has their own mascot “Smokey the Bear”, recycling can have its own mascot since cartoon tends to attract and entertain most people.

School cans show films to students about recycling, and show them how to properly dispose of using materials through sorting of recycling bins. These films can be showed even at elementary school since this is the next generation. Place such as Wal-Mart has already started the trend, and the trend can continue if more places around the city started.  Even if place start doing this they have to advertise because the average consumer does not pay attention.  The city should go ahead and implicate the tax on bags which is just going to encourage people to buy reusable green bags that usually break less and carry more stuff. More than half the stuff we dispose can be reused it’s just the problem of getting it to the allocated place.  The city can start a better recycling program that picks up more recycling goods so that it doesn’t burden people with finding a place and loading their vehicle up going to these places.  Instead of going door to door they can ask that people have the items sorted and put at the curb for pickup on certain days. Sorting I agree is time-consuming and instead of sorting we can put all items in one bag as long as they are not messy such as clothing with paper cup rinse out, and old pots and pans rinsed out, etc.  People can agree for a very small tax that will allow for more recycling faculties to be operated and recycling services.

This might not seem like a big deal and might make you wonder how this can really help.  But every time you throw something away think about if it goes in the list of things that can be recycled.

Concrete

Batteries

Biodegradable Waste

Clothing

Electronics

Ferrous

Aluminum

Glass

Paint

Paper

Textile

Timber

Tires

When you think about it almost everything can be recycled and this will in the end cut down on landfills and pollution. Paper alone saves about 70 percent of air pollution by itself. We have to start somewhere, so why not with recycling.  When you think about it even a three-year can understand put a paper cup in the trash can that says paper on it.

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling

http://earth911.com/

Essay 2-Proposal:Natural gas, brown outs, and wood stoves

With the price of gasoline and diesel what they are today, energy is a huge concern for everyone, including Alaskans. Alaska has found a way to use natural gas as an energy source. This allows Anchorage and other cities to pay a fraction of the cost they would pay if the power companies had to use diesel or other crude oil. However, it has been found that there are storages of natural gas in the Cook Inlet reserves that could create power shortages and/or drive the cost of energy up. This affects the people of Fairbanks and Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) because GVEA buys a portion of their energy from Anchorage’s Chugach Electric. With Chugach Electric in short supply of energy, they won’t be selling as much for as low of a price to GVEA. Therefore Fairbanks and other Golden Valley Electric Association patrons should conserve energy by partaking in “brownouts” and using alternative energy sources in an attempt to lower gas usage, prevent an increase in power costs, and stay warm during this winter’s energy crisis.

The first thing residents can do is conserve electricity. Turning off lights when they’re unneeded and purchasing energy efficient light bulbs are both great ways to conserve energy. Turn off and unplug electronics when you’re not using them. Even if electronic devices are turned off, they still use power when plugged into the wall. Once the temperature drops and vehicles have to be plugged in, buy a timer for your car plug in. Cars only need a few hours to warm up. So set the timer to turn the outlet on a few hours before you have to leave for work in the morning.

As a long-time Alaskan, I know that the winters in Fairbanks are particularly harsh. When the temperature drops below 0 degrees, no one wants to come home to a cold house. An alternative to having heat on all of the time would be to buy a wood stove. The money you’d save on heating, you could use to purchase, install and feed a wood stove to keep your house nice and toasty. There are stoves available with types of filters as to not contribute to Fairbanks’ poor air quality.

Participating in brown outs is another good way to conserve. Brown outs are a voluntary nonuse of electronics and energy consumptive devices in your home for a designated period of time on a designated day. Experimental brown outs are being conducted to see how much usage will drop. It only takes a small effort to conserve large amounts of energy. Flipping a light switch and stoking a fire can save energy and prolong our usage of a limited supply of natural gas.

Essay #2- Cause/Effect: Factory Farms are Costly to the Environment

When it comes to buying groceries, it seems that many people are more concerned with saving a few dollars than saving the environment. People are excited to see the low prices of beef, pork, and chicken at the grocery store, but what they don’t realize is that the true costs are much greater than the price they pay. Most of the meat bought in stores today comes from factory farming operations or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). These are farms that hold a large number of animals and aim to produce the highest quantity of meat at the lowest cost. The animals live under horrible conditions and the effects on the environment are just as repulsive. Due to a growing demand for a cheap meat source, factory farming techniques have become increasingly harmful to the environment through deforestation for growing feed, the use of valuable limited resources, and pollution of air, water, and soil.

One environmental liability of factory farming is deforestation, which is the logging or burning of a naturally occurring forest. The growing world-wide demand for cheap meat has created a growing need for animals. In turn, the growing need for animals has created a growing need for feed crops. For this reason, South American forests are being cut down to make room for soy plantations. In Brazil, the Cerrado, a savannah that contains more than 40% of the country’s animals, is being destroyed to grow soy. Deforestation could be extremely harmful to the biodiversity of this area, and may even cause the extinction of some species. The soy grown in Brazil is sent to Europe and Asia to help feed animals being raised for slaughter. The process of cutting down rainforests and replacing them with feed crops produces greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Deforestation has negative effects on the plants and animals that live in these forests, as well as the surrounding environment. This process needs to be regulated or stopped because the environmental costs are not worth the benefit of cheap meat.

In addition to deforestation, the use of precious resources like water and gasoline is another costly effect of CAFOs. Factory farms use massive amounts of water. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States reported that more than 8 percent of global human water use comes from livestock production. These farms use water for animal drinking water and to wash manure out of barns. According to the website http://www.factoryfarm.org, milking centers use as much as 150 gallons of water per cow per day to wash the cows and flush manure. Water is not the only resource being used at an incredible rate, overuse of gasoline is also an issue. Smaller farms are being replaced by bigger operations. These bigger companies are farther apart, which means that more gasoline is needed to transport the animals to consumers. The amount of water and gas used to run factory farms is unsustainable.

Although deforestation and use of resources are environmentally damaging, the worst consequence of factory farming is the pollution. These large farming operations contaminate the air, water, and soil that surround them. These animals produce huge amounts of droppings and manure. According to the USDA, the animals in the United States meat industry produce 61 millions of tons of waste per year. On smaller farms it is easy to recycle the animal waste as fertilizer for crop fields, but recycling waste is not practical on factory farms because there is just too much manure. Large operations store the animal waste in open lagoons or concrete containers. Manure runoff from these lagoons and containers goes into rivers, streams, and lakes killing fish and contaminating clean water supplies. These farms can also cause a considerable amount of air pollution. They emit greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide that contribute to global warming. The Humane Society of the United States reports that 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by animal agriculture. Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not monitor the emissions from the CAFOs, but it is clear that restrictions would help reduce the harmful effects on the ecosystem.

Factory farms are cruel and horrendous places where animals are packed in so tight that they barely have room to lay down. The negative effects on the environment are equally as bad as the way the animals are treated. Deforestation, the use of valuable resources, and pollution make the cheap price of meat not worth the actual costs. Factory farming without regulations is irresponsible and unacceptable.

Works Cited

“Environmental Damage.” Factoryfarm.org. Retrieved on October 25, 2009 from

http://www.factoryfarm.org/air-pollution/.

“Factory Farming.” Sustainable Table. Retrieved on October 25, 2009 from

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/factoryfarming/.

“Livestock Impacts on the Environment.” November 2006. Food and Agricultural Organization

of the United States. Retrieved on October 25, 2009 fromhttp://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm.

Pacelle, Wayne. “EPA Must Regulate Factory Farm Pollution.” September 23, 2009. The Humane Society of the United

Sates. Retrieved on October 25, 2009. http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2009/09/epa-cafo-pollutants.html.

 

Essay 2 Cause/Effect: POLLUTION by nate missimer

Environmental pollution causes Rachel Carson to want to write her book, Silent Spring because she wants her audience to know the impacts of our actions on the environment, possible future negative environmental impacts that could occur, and finally solutions and positive outcomes from her book. Our air, land, and water was being highly polluted with a carcinogen known as DDT. DDT’s formal name is dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane. Rachel Carson exposed this pollutant to the world and with her theories, research, beliefs, and this book which was the turning stone in getting DDT banned for good.

In 1874 a German Chemist first synthesized the carcinogen dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane. It wasn’t until 1939 that DDT was found to be a very useful and effective insecticide. Farmers praised this finding and immediately begun putting it to use against these insects that would destroy farmers crops. Paul Muller of Switzerland was highly thought of for his findings, so much that he got the Nobel prize for his findings. Little did anyone know until Rachel Carson had exposed this horrible chemical to the world and show really how bad it was for our environment and all living things. No one knew and still have trouble with the harmful long lasting negative effects of this chemical. The problem was lack of research by all the chemists and researchers putting DDT to use. One hundred and thirty five years from DDT’s original state of existence to seventy years when it was put into use as a insecticide the research wasn’t very extensive, in depth, or ethical. Researchers, and developers would just put it to use and neglected to look for any side effects or take into concern the harmful, and deadly effects. What were they thinking? We learn from our mistakes, and in this case it was  in the literal sense of the word. Researchers and chemists didn’t do enough research, mainly because the negative effects would come slowly through the environment, but would come fast and quickly if people and and animals were exposed directly. Ignorance was to blame on this one. DDT was used for many different environmental issues, but mainly for the use of killing insects. It would take years and years for these environmental issues to surface, and no one was asking questions or looking at the facts until Rachel Carson had. DDT was a horrible poison and it was used to kill insects, dusted over our soldiers to help kill lice. No one realized that the DDT’s poisonous secretions were being absorbed in the ground, plants, animals, water, and in the air. Then obviously when us humans eat, drink, and breath we’ll absorb it as well. DDT is absorbent in fatty tissue so it stores there and will multiply 100x its original weight, and slowly secrete into your body. DDT in its powder form isn’t easily absorbed, but when ingested, wet, or oil based it is devastating. It takes a simple cycle but lengthy cycle of events for it to be absorb into the environment in all its elements. It will eventually effect everything and everyone. We as people in our ignorance cause these man made chemical and felt it was at the time a huge relief to our crops and farmers. Down the road we found to be wrong in our assumptions, and it was bite us.

The DDT had leaked into the ground because of its application as a insecticide, among other uses. After absorbing into the ground it has leaked its way into our waterways. Now being in the waterways, as the environment works it magic and rain happens, the moisture draws up from our water and then is dropped into the air. Very minute, but its still there. Now knowing that it is everywhere in the environment it begins to be absorbs by insects and animals. Some of these insects have built a tolerance to the DDT such as mosquitoes. DDT was purposely put into the water ways, and sprayed over the ground where mosquitos breed. The mosquitos had quickly over time build a tolerance to DDT and would be a tiny little carrier of DDT. So again through our wisdom we have now made a little flying death machine that not only carries malaria, but DDT as well. DDT’s side effects are just as bad as malaria causing blindness and liver failure, in humans and animals. If something isn’t done about this then the worst case would be that all food sources for humans and animals alike would be contaminated and eventually die.

Which leads to Rachel Carson, in 1962 she had written this book Silent Spring giving her argument that we are contaminating the entire world with DDT, and our environment has already taken decades of abuse already, and even in our life time now we could still be seeing side effects. Her book helped pave the way to get DDT banned from being used. He findings, and mainly her drive to show people that DDT is a poison that will and was killing our environment and everything living in it. DDT should never, ever be used again.

Essay Two: Proposal

Jason Depp

English 213

Sullivan

October 30, 2009

Redundancy Kills: Redundancy Kills

Although paper is a renewable resource, I feel that I could introduce a way for any office to use less paper by implementing a few simple processes into daily office life and college courses.  While some may feel that this is an amusing thing to say in this day and age, one of computers and amazing technology, a person would think the modern office is a place that would be considered environmentally friendly.

Surprisingly, I have found that the modern office is in fact not very environmentally friendly at all.  The amount of paper that is wasted in an office of just 10 to 20 people is fairly staggering.  Around the office where I work I noticed that, of the 35 people that work there, 29 of them had the same eight page E-mail printed out, that is 232 pages of the same text.  The same E-mail posted to a bulletin board would have used 224 less sheets of paper.  The same E-mail kept on a computer uses exactly 232 pages less.  It is understandable that more than one person would actually have to print out the same email, but 29 of 35 people is nothing less than ridiculous.

To put this type of paper waste in to perspective, the average tree can produce anywhere from 8,000 to 12,000 sheets of paper.  Using the 8-page E-mail scenario that was previously mentioned, assuming that happened only once per week for a year, that one E-mail per week equals one tree per year saved.  Now, for the truth, I witnessed that same scenario at least 4 to 5 times per week. By implementing a very simple task my office could save 5 trees a year.  That number may seem small, however if every office around the world practiced this, just think of the amount of trees we could save.  I know that one person cannot accomplish this entire task on his or her own, but that person could at least begin the process.

Another issue associated with paper waste in offices is the use of a paper documents as a back up for a digital documents.  I have seen, on numerous occasions, in my workplace the use of a paper application, after the same digital document was already filled out.  Not only is this practice wasteful on a natural resource, it is also waste of a company’s time, which as the saying goes is “wasted money.”  I may be going out on a limb here, but I cannot think of a company, that is still in business, that is looking for a reduction in productivity and money.

Here come the brownie points.  As a college student who takes many courses on the Internet, I feel that the teachers who use the Internet as a classroom or require that the work of their students be submitted on-line are implementing the suggestions I have proposed.  This will not only  the grading process for teachers, but it also enables the student to work more efficiently, which again increases quality and production of the product.  If more instructors would require this, the number of trees wasted would decrease exponentially.  This model not only works for the student/ teacher, but also the client/ business sector.

So, by implementing three simple procedures into a business it becomes easy to see that saving trees and wasting less paper is actually very easy.  It also begins to become clearer that if all the businesses, just in Fairbanks, initiated some kind of paper saving program into daily operations, this city alone could save tens of thousands of trees.  If you multiply that by the number of businesses in the world…well you see where I am going with this.

The main issue with implementing these types of tasks into a business is that everyone thinks that they are already doing their part.  The first hurdle is to make people realize is that printing out the same E-mail and repeating work on paper is, in fact, a waste.  The second bridge to cross is ensuring that these tasks are implemented.

The great thing about the issue of eliminating office paper waste is that even though it is a global problem, each individual can do his or her own part.  Eliminating paper waste is also one of the simplest ways to help an office space become friendlier to the planet.  In many cases redundancy can be an awesome asset, however, in the case of wasting paper, it is not.  Simply put, we are killing trees for to ensure that we get to read a paper copy of an E-mail.

 

 

Essay #2: Cause/Effect: The Permafrost Time Bomb

For decades the scare about a warming atmosphere has become increasingly realistic as scientists around the world link a change in climate to chemicals known as “greenhouse” gases. The most familiar of these is carbon dioxide which has shown sharp increases in the previous century due to human activity. The combustion byproducts of car engines, manufacturing, and furnaces have accumulated in our atmosphere steadily (Weart). The impact of humans on the atmosphere is very apparent in modern society but research now points to new sources of carbon dioxide emissions, as well as methane. The greenhouse effect of methane and carbon dioxide and their increasing levels in the Earth’s atmosphere is warming permafrost in northern latitudes, creating thermokarst lake beds rich in newly released detritus and microorganisms that then release these greenhouse gases in relatively equal amounts.

After the Industrial Revolution human activities related to combustion of fossil fuels and clearing acres forests has dumped tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The removal or damage of the Earth’s vegetation and fertile land has caused much of the gas to remain in the atmosphere rather than be fixed into sugars by plants. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide arises from its ability to trap long wave radiation in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape into space (Hopwood). Methane resides in the troposphere and can naturally be broken down, however, recent increases in its emission from a number of sources has caused methane to join the list of greenhouse gases. Methane production is mostly linked to wetlands and industrial areas.

In northern latitudes a solid layer of frozen soil or ice resides a few meters underground called permafrost. If this layer melts depressions can accumulate water and become what’s known as thermokarst lakes (Bucksch). Permafrost often contains organic material that are can be centuries old. As it melts, detritus becomes exposed to microorganisms on the beds of newly developed thermokarst lakes. Decomposition of the organic material can occur year round, saturating the lake with gases which collect and bubble to the surface (Walter). The production of methane and carbon dioxide is relatively equal in thermokarst lake beds. Scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks believe that methane released from thermokarst lakes accounts for 33 to 87% of our atmosphere’s increase in methane concentration (Walter). Anyone can see the production of methane by visiting frozen thermokarst lakes and looking for bubbles trapped in the ice. Cold water can contain more dissolved gases however bubbles become frozen in the ice when the lake water is too saturated with gases. During the summer months bubbles can be seen coming to the surface from localized regions.

The most disturbing aspect of permafrost melting is the cyclic effect the greenhouse gases will have. As more gases are released the climate will warm which will melt more permafrost. It seems there is little we can do to prevent this natural occurrence. Scientists believe there melting permafrost would release 1/6 of the current amount of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere (Borrell). The amount of carbon trapped in permafrost is enough to dramatically change our climate. Human activity is believed to raise the earth’s global temperature anywhere from 2 to 5˚C and is something we can theoretically prevent (Weart). The melting of permafrost could potentially be irreversible and could change the landscape of northern latitudes. Permafrost currently makes vegetation in northern latitudes stunted and provides little water. If large tracts of land were free of this frozen barrier some researchers argue that the vegetation that could thrive there would displace the amount of carbon dioxide released (Borrell). Whether or not this is possible is very important to our planet’s future. If we are faced with irreversible melting of permafrost there must be something done to compensate for the tons of carbon that would be introduced into our atmosphere.

Methane and carbon dioxide are being released into our atmosphere at rates faster than we can control or anticipate. We are still finding new sources for their production. Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas not only because it traps radiation in our atmosphere but it also affects the pH of our oceans and lakes. As they become saturated with dissolved gases the acidity of the water increases, making living conditions harsh in marine environments (Walter). If we continue to destroy our fertile farmland and degrade our vegetation we will lose the plants needed to fix carbon and reduce its amount in our atmosphere. Once again humans must face the fact that we are deeply connected to Mother Nature and our actions come full circle.

Bucksch, Herbert. Dictionary Geotechnical Engineering. New York, Springer, 1997.

 

Hopwood, Nick, and Jordan Cohen. “Greenhouse Gases and Society.” Greenhouse
Gases and Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2009. <http://www.umich.edu/
~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm>.

“Methane’s Contribution to the Greenhouse Effect.” Zimbio. Zimbio, 25 Feb. 2008.
Web. 30 Oct. 2009. <http://www.zimbio.com/The+Greenhouse+Effect/articles/
4/Methane+Contribution+Greenhouse+Effect>.

Walter, Katey. “Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback
to global warming.” Nature 7 Sept. 2006: 71-75. Web. 22 Sept. 2008.
<http://www.alaska.edu/uaf/cem/ine/walter/publications_docs/
Walter_nature05040.pdf>.

Weart, Spencer. “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.” The Discovery of Global
Warming. American Institute of Physics, June 2009. Web. 30 Oct. 2009.

Essay # 2: Proposal/ The Ultimate Solution

The Ultimate Solution

 

                Biotechnology is defined as the use of living organisms or other biological systems in the manufacture of drugs, other products, or for environmental management. (Dictionary. Com)  All though there is plenty of controversy over genetically modified foods; I believe this new technology could serve as a solution to our world’s problems, which include nutrition deficiencies, product contamination, and pollution. I will discuss many of the risks and rewards of using biotechnology in our food production yet ultimately I feel that it is a positive movement forward for our world and the people that reside here. Using biotechnology can do this by creating products that are improved nutritionally, lowering the financial and environmental costs of food production, and improving the microbial processes used by farmers.

                There are many positive nutritional advances when using biotechnology to create genetically modified foods. Our country, in particular, could benefit from foods with lower fat content. Plant scientists have decreased the total amount of saturated fatty acids in some vegetable oils. These are already on the market available for purchase. (Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) ) These oils could be used by restaurant chains to reduce the already high fat content in fast food. The genes of flowers were introduced into the genes of a grain of rice, creating Golden Rice. (Weber, 2009) Combining the genes gave the rice a higher content of Vitamin A. Golden Rice developers further improved the rice by mixing in two other genes that increase the amount and digestibility of Iron. (BIO) After take a nutritional course I gained the knowledge that the majority of my class, including myself, was nutritionally deficient. Being able to gain a higher nutritional content while leaving our diets unchanged is beneficial to our overall health. The researchers at Purdue University along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture have created a genetically modified tomato with three times as much Lycopene as a regular, unmodified, tomato. Lycopene is an antioxidant that has been associated with Prostate cancer, Breast cancer, and “bad cholesterol” blood levels. The more Lycopene consumed is associated with lower levels of the above. (BIO) Animal scientists are creating meat products such as beef with a lower fat content and pigs with a higher meat-to-fat ratio. (BIO) These would absolutely be beneficial for Americans because we have diets that are very high in meat content. I eat moose meat rather than beef simply because it is leaner.

                The food production methods throughout the world, especially in the United States, have high financial costs as well as environmental costs. In 2008 biotechnology based crops raised 9.4 percent, reaching 309 million acres. Also in 2008, it was recorded that 13.3 million farmers throughout 25 countries are using agricultural biotechnology. The majority of these, 90 percent or 12.3 million are resource poor farmers throughout 15 developing countries. (BIO) These statistics show how many people have realized the positive effects of using biotechnology in our food production. Some genetically engineered plant products require significantly less chemical applications during growth which results in less environmental impact during production. (Tietyen) Many of the food crops require less chemical applications due to built-in insect, disease, and herbicide resistance. (Tietyen) The less chemicals that are sprayed on food during production is beneficial because it leaves less chemicals to be ingested by humans and less chemicals that could possibly leach into the groundwater. Corn is commonly modified with a gene from the bacterium Bacillus Thuringiensis. This results in a plant that kills maize-devouring caterpillars without the use of chemicals. (Koerner, 2003) Ninety percent of Hawaiian papayas are modified to ward off the Papaya Ring Spot Virus. (Koerner, 2003) People should accept the food production advances through biotechnology because they result in less contaminated products and less labor hours due to the lack of chemicals needing to be sprayed. Other than products that require no chemicals, researchers are working on plants to detect environmental challenges. The scientists at Penn State are working to understand how plants sense and respond to insects, diseases, and drought. (Schultz, 2003) If they succeeded they may be able to develop plants that “tell” farmers where and when these problems exist. (Schultz, 2003) This would be a substantial step forward with controlling the use of chemicals because the farmers would be able to isolate the problem to a certain section of vegetation, thus only spraying chemicals where they are needed, rather than on an entire crop.

                Today scientists are capable of identifying genes that are responsible for many specific characteristics such as disease resistance and nutrient composition and are able to transfer them into another organism. (Tietyen) Many dairy cows are injected with hormones to promote milk production. The FDA first approved the production of a microorganism to make a hormone needed for the dairy cows. These genetically modified bacteria can produce large quantities of the needed hormone for injection. This hormone increases milk production by ten to fifteen percent. (Tietyen) Many pathogens produce toxins in crops. Insect-resistant corn sustains little insect damage resulting in no fungi and mold infections. This results in lower toxin levels, which can be fatal to livestock, thus benefiting farmers. (BIO) Any product of biotechnology that decreases microbes found on animal products and crop plants will significantly improve the safety of raw materials that enter our food supply. (BIO)               

                Apart from improved nutrition content, production costs, and microbial processes there are concerns with allowing biotechnology to interfere with our food production methods. Two primary issues for food consumers include the potential introduction of food allergens and marker genes that would increase human resistance to antibiotics. (Tietyen) If the transfer of a known allergen occurs to a food source that is not normally associated with that allergen then accurate labeling is required. Some products have been pulled from the review process because of the high concern. (Tietyen) Although the antibiotic resistance of many microbes is of great concern, there is no current scientific evidence of increased antibiotic resistance due to genetically modified foods. (Tietyen) People are also concerned about the environment and the introduction of “super” weeds that are herbicide resistant or that are harmful to insects. Data is currently being collected about both of these issues. (Tietyen)

                Allowing and utilizing biotechnology throughout our food production methods will help solve the pollution problems and nutrient deficiencies across the world. As people do with medical practices, we need to weigh the risks with rewards of biotechnology. I have presented many rewards with very few risks which leads me to believe that biotechnology is a logical step towards an ultimate solution.

 

Sources

 

Tietyen, J.L; Bessin, R.T.; Hildebrand, D.F. “Food Biotechnology”. BREI-3. Retrieved on October 25, 2009 from http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/PUBS/brei3/brei3.htm

Biotechnology Industry Organization. “Food Biotechnology”. Retrieved on October 26, 2009 from http://bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/food.asp?=yes

Biotechnology Industry Organization. “More Farmers Choosing Biotech Crops”. Retrieved on October 26, 2009 from http://bio.org/foodag/Plants/isaaa09.asp?=yes

Schultz, Jack; Raina, Ramesh. “Researchers Developing ‘Sentinel Plants’ To Warn Of Bioterrorism”. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved on October 29, 2009 from http://aginfo.psu.edu/news/2003/3/sentinel.html

Koerner, Brendan. May 22, 2003. “How Much of Our Food Is Bioengineered?” Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC. Retrieved on October 30, 2009 from http://slate.msn.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2083482

Weber, Karl. “Food Inc. A Participant Guide: How Industrial Food is Making Us Sicker, Fatter, and Poorer. And What You Can Do About It.” Participant Media 2009. Published by Public Affairs.

Essay #2- Proposal: Trash Dumping: Protect and Prevent

Jacqueline Sun

Professor Maureen Sullivan

English 213 TXA/TXB

October 30, 2009

Proposal Essay

Trash Dumping: Protect and Prevent

Driving around the beautiful town of Ketchikan and up into the surrounding mountains one expects to see birds, flowers, trees, and wildlife of all types. Along with of those beautiful sights one can also expect to see abandon vehicles, bullet-ridden refrigerators, and piles of trash littering the sides of the road. Trash dumping in and around the Ketchikan area has become a problem that if not addressed now will soon begin to affect the health of Ketchikan’s water. Because of Ketchikan’s heavy rainfall the pollution can be even more pronounced since heavy rainfall means heavy runoff into the surrounding streams and lakes.  To prevent this from happening we must do something now.  The students of the University of Alaska Southeast-Ketchikan should form a committee focused on cleaning up popular trash dumping sites around town and aiding in the prevention of future dumping at these sites. This committee is imperative to preserving the health of our ecosystems, the beauty of the town, and the pride that we take in our beautiful island.

Water pollution is one of the biggest problems facing our environment today.  Many people do not realize that throwing trash on the side of the road or forgetting to pick up after their dog impacts the health of the water sources. In Anchorage, Alaska runoff pollution from dog waste has gotten so bad that they have begun a campaign to inform and empower people to pick up after their dogs. Many times the connection that littering on land can lead to the pollution of water sources is not made.  I believe that this is why many people in Ketchikan feel that it is all right to dump trash without consequence. What they don’t realize is that the high volume of runoff combined with the indiscriminate trash dumping can lead to the major pollution of local water sources. This is why it is so important for the students of UAS-Ketchikan to take action.

To get this project off the ground the committee needs volunteers to join the effort.  In order to recruit volunteers I plan to ask the student government at UAS-Ketchikan to put up flyers around campus and for the Student government to dedicate a short segment of their weekly meetings to discuss this committee and their efforts. After forming the committee the students of UAS-Ketchikan must take action.

To accomplish our goal the project will be rolled out in several different steps. The first step is to determine the most popular and littered dumping sites and begin clean up on them.  To do this the committee can take a poll during the student government meetings and then vote on the sites that they determine to be the worst and that need the most immediate attention.  The committee must then choose days that to meet and clean up each of the selected sites.  During each of the clean up sessions the committee will properly dispose of trash that has been illegally dumped. Work will continue on each site until it is completely cleaned up.

Secondly, the committee must take action to prevent further dumping at these and other chosen sites. In order to prevent illegal trash dumping, signs outlining the consequences of illegal dumping and littering can be conspicuously posted at the entrances to the chosen sites. By placing these signs in plain sight and outlining the consequences of dumping we hope to bring attention to the consequences of illegal trash dumping and therefore prevent it.

Lastly, we must get the word out about the implications that illegal dumping has on our environment.  Without educating our community the efforts of the clean up committee will be less successful. It is important for the citizens of Ketchikan to know why illegal dumping and littering is dangerous to the environment. One way to get the word out in the community is to post informational flyers in local grocery stores and public buildings. The committee might also consider holding informational meetings that are open to the public in order to reach people outside of the university.

Ketchikan is a city that takes pride in maintaining the beauty of their land. This maintenance is as just important to the economy of the town as it is to the health of the environment. Ketchikan’s economy is largely based on tourism and if the citizens of Ketchikan continue to use the surrounding areas as a trash dump the tourists will be less inclined to visit. Ketchikan is also a city where fishing is both a way to sustain and enrich the lives of its inhabitants. If trash dumping continues it may begin to affect the spawning of salmon. As students and citizens of Ketchikan it is our responsibility to take action against those among us polluting our lands. We must join our efforts to prevent the further degradation of our environment.  If you do not want to watch the beauty of Ketchikan wane you must join the efforts to keep it clean and trash free.

Essay #2-Cause/Effect: Dinner Is the Dilemma

Dinner Is the Dilemma

Do people ever wonder how the United States, along with other countries, misuse vast majorities of its land?  Why is it when motorists drive by factory farms, they are overcome with a nauseating smell that can make a person’s eyes water?  What could possibly contribute more greenhouse gases, which cause global warming, than all the transportation in the world combined?  The answer to all these problems boils down to that delicious roast that Martha Stewart is cooking in her kitchen.  That’s right, I’m talking about the livestock that is raised, and the crops that are grown to feed these delectable critters, that wind up on the dining tables of many homes every night for dinner.  Although animals are a needed resource in the world, they also cause havoc because animals degrade the land, they pollute the earth, and they contribute to global warming.

Being an American citizen has its privileges; freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to a speedy trial, and to be part of raising and slaughtering billions of animals every year to feed your neighbor’s face.  About one half of the total land-mass in America is used in one way or another to raise animals (Meat).  When this is looked at from a much larger picture, the “animal agriculture takes up an incredible 70 percent of all agricultural land, and 30 percent of the total land surface of the planet” (Freston).  As a planet that is considered by many to be overpopulated, and whose population keeps increasing rapidly, will we be able to keep this up forever?  No.  Looking at the long-term effects of raising all these animals to feed a carnivorous civilization, we are slowly destroying the, for now, fertile land that we have.  “In the United States and around the world, overgrazing leads to the extinction of indigenous plant and animal species, soil erosion, and eventual desertification that renders once-fertile land barren” (as cited by Meat).  Once we reach desertification, we will not be able to sustain crops, which basically means no food.  How does one survive when there is no way to obtain food?  Easy, they don’t.

What are two of the most vital resources that no human can live without?  Ding!  Ding! Ding!  Yes, air and water!  Although, these are very important resources in the everyday lives of humans, the very animals that produced your bacon and eggs for breakfast this morning often contaminate them with their feces and urine.  Yum!  At the factory farms, millions of pounds of excrement, and other animal waste, is stored in brown lagoons.  Every once in a while, they spill over into nearby rivers and other bodies of water, leading to the death of fish and other animal life (Meat).  “The EPA reports that chicken, hog and cattle excrement have polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states” (as cited by Meat).  An example to help realize how severe these spill over’s are lie in “a 2006 report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that the Gulf of Mexico’s “dead zone”—an area in which virtually all the sea animals and plants have died—is now half the size of Maryland” (as cited by Meat).  These lagoons also “emit toxic airborne chemicals that can cause inflammatory, immune, irritation and neurochemical problems in humans” (as cited by Meat).  Take a whiff of this; one way that these farmers try to avoid having their brown lagoons spill over into nearby rivers is by actually spraying liquefied manure into the air!  Yay!  They found a creative way to avoid water pollution and instead polluted the air.

One would not think that these innocent little chickens are contributing to global warming, but they are!  Livestock is actually a big contributor to global warming, “the U.N. report says almost a fifth of global warming emissions come from livestock” (Freston).  How could this be?  Well, there are three powerful gases that are released from these animals’ digestive systems, and, once again, their manure!  The three powerhouse gases that I’m referring to are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.  We all know the bad effect that carbon dioxide has on global warming, but what about methane and nitrous oxide?  How bad can they be?  They are actually worse, “gases like methane and nitrous oxide, enormously effective greenhouse gases with 23 and 296 times the warming power of carbon dioxide” (Freston).  To grasp how much more of a contributor raising livestock for food is “eating 1 lb. of meat emits the same amount of greenhouse gases as driving an SUV 40 miles” (Meat).

I’m sure that when Herbert Hoover was running for President and had the infamous slogan “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” (Freston), he did not foresee that the world would be concerned with global warming.  Our means of transportation is being blamed when the chickens are playing a way bigger role in the catastrophe.  The devastating effects that raising livestock has on the environment cannot go on forever.  We will lose something that is vital to the survival of the human species, whether it be fertile land to grow food, drinkable water, or clean air.  With how much livestock contributes to global warming, and not knowing the long-term effects, other than the chaotic weather it causes, the end of this planet could be closer than one would think.

References

Freston, Kathy. (2007, January 18). Vegetarian is the New Prius. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from The Huffington Post website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/vegetarian-is-the-new-pri_b_39014.html

Meat and the Environment. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from GoVeg.com website: http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp