Essay 1 Proposal Final Draft: Killing Alaska

There are many types of pollutants in Fairbanks, Alaska that are effecting the community. However, the burning of proper wood helps to maintain good health and keep our environment safe. Although some may not see the effects of burning wood as a pollutant first hand, the Fairbanks North Star Borough should hold and educational program for the city to see the effects of air pollution because it would educate the community, it would reduce the unhealthy air quality, and it would reduce the risk of health issues.
The educational program will be called Killing Alaska. Killing Alaska’s program will be held once a month in convenience of those who are deciding to become a resident of Alaska because they will be required to attend the program. Killing Alaska will have a maximum of twelve members involved. Each member would either take a part in the play, the comedy part, running slide shows or miming. Donations will also be accepted during and after the program in order to raise enough money to buy proper wood. There will also be a master of ceremony who would start off the educational program. The master of ceremony will bring in each member of the board in sequence to their parts on the program.
First of all, the master of ceremony will begin the Killing Alaska program by mentioning the amount of people whom reside in the Fairbanks community and how people go about their every day lives without thinking about the impact that they have on the community. After mentioning and explaining those two factors, the master of ceremony will then began the entrance of the first member in order to start the first part of the program.
The play will start and it will consist of 3 members from the group North Star Borough. The whole play will be focused on educating the Fairbanks community on wood burning. Each member will have a conversation with one another on how to get prepared for the winter and the importance of keeping warm during the winter time. They will discuss the different types of heat used to heat up their house during the winter. The play will go on to demonstrate each type of house that will heated up by different types of heating devices. Then the members will each watch the news channel that mentions the air quality. After watching the news channel, each member in the play will talk amongst one another to explain how each type of heat they use effects the environment.
When the play is over, the master of ceremony will lead the audience into the next section of the program. This section of the program will be a comedy focused solely on the air quality. The comedian will make jokes about the different woods to burn so that the air quality would not be unhealthy. After joking about the ways to reduce unhealthy air quality, the comedian will inform the audience of the place to buy the wood. He or she will then talk seriously about the danger levels of air quality, but in a joking way to make the audience chuckle. The informative comedy of reducing the unhealthy air quality’s goals will be met.
Next, the master off ceremony will turn things over to the mime and the person scrolling through each slide show. The slide show will display the different health issues throughout the Fairbanks community and how improper wood burning causes them. A few health issues on the slide show would be asthma, emphysema and breathing problems. While the reads the slides the mime will demonstrate very effectively in order to reach the “inner man” in each audience member. People will be very informed and so touched by the improper wood burning that they would definitely make sure they follow certain procedures to reduce the risk of health issues.
The master of ceremony will inform the audience that it takes each one of them to make Fairbanks’ environment much healthier and safer to live in. Not only will other people throughout the community be effected by the improper wood burning, but family members are effected as well.
With all the performance set up by the Killing Alaska program, directed by the North Star Borough, Fairbanks would soon turn around before it is entirely too late. Showing each individual the proper way and exposing the proper wood to burn for healthier air is the key. Watching everyone suffer from unhealthy air quality needs to stop, starting with the Killing Alaska program.

Essay # 1: Cause/Effect- The Repercussions of Eating Meat: Can the Earth Sustain our Carnivorous Tendencies?

The Repercussions of Eating Meat

Can the Earth Sustain Our Carnivorous Tendencies?

When we sit down to the table and eat our hot dogs, chicken nuggets, or other meat products we often do not consider the processes that were involved in getting our meat to the store that we bought it from. Many of us do not think about the resources required to provide the massive amount of meat the world consumes on a daily basis. Although eating meat is a normal part of life for many people, consumer demand causes damage to the earth because it is increasing the consumption of natural resources, causing substantial amounts of pollution, and contributing to global warming. According to Kathy Freston (2007), the United Nations published a report in December of 2006 stating that the livestock industry is a top contributor to the damage that is being caused to the environment. Reports on how we are ravaging the earth are abundant. It seems like there are new headlines and research studies being discussed every day. If we do not stop being lackadaisical about our environment, we may eventually no longer have a planet that is capable of sustaining life.

In order to get the meat we love to eat on the table, massive amounts of livestock must be housed, fed, watered, transported, and slaughtered on a daily basis. Just the crops alone that are needed to feed these animals total about seventy percent of all crops grown in the world. Just imagining the vast amount of acreage that must be required to maintain all those crops in order to feed livestock is mind-blowing. Even if we ate more crops and consumed less meat, we would still be conserving land mass just because we would require less space to house livestock. Many forests have been cut down and replaced with agricultural growth. Because about seventy percent of agriculture growth is used to feed livestock, fewer trees would be cut down in order to grow crop if we were to reduce our meat intake. According to freelance writer Rita Putatunda (2008), cutting down our forests is also causing about fifty to one hundred species of animals to go extinct on a daily basis.

Not only is our increasing demand for more meat attributed to a large percentage of the global deforestization, but it is also directly connected to pollution. When trees are cut down it disrupts the water cycle (Patatunda, 2008). The water that is stored in the roots of the plants and trees no longer exists after they are dead; causing the area to become drier. Livestock produce such a colossal amount of manure that it sits in piles for acre upon acre of land. This waste gets into the water supply and pollutes our water. These numerous acres of feces cause pollution in the air by producing a substantial amount of methane gas. According to the EPA (2002), about eighty percent of the ammonia that pollutes the air is derived from livestock.

Many of the gaseous and chemical pollutants that are getting into the air and water eventually make their way to our ozone layer in the form of greenhouse gasses. Methane is a huge source of greenhouse gas. Livestock also increase the output of nitrous oxide. The UN attributes sixty-five percent of nitrous oxide output to livestock. That is an astounding percentage of nitrous oxide caused by our largely conditioned global society. Our ozone layer is being depleted right before our very eyes. The trees that are being burnt down and allowed to rot produce large amounts of carbon that is then released into the ozone layer. Carbon dioxide and methane are two of the greatest contributors to the diminution of our vital ozone layer.

As we continue to eat our meat, enjoying the savory taste of barbeque, we are slowly destroying our planet. We are using up our beautiful earth to store manure and grow millions of animals so that we can kill them and eat them. The waste these animals create is making an enormous contribution to the pollution of our water and the destruction of the ozone layer. Imagine what kind of a difference we could make if everyone reduced their meat consumption by fifty percent. We can start today. Instead of that beef burger at Chili’s, why not try out the black bean burger that contains no meat? It is amazing how much power we have to fix our planet. Next time you eat a meal, think about the contribution you could make to our planet and the next generation by skipping the meat.

References

Environmental Protection Agency, (2002, April). Review of Emission Factors and Methodologies to Estimate    Ammonia Emissions from Animal Waste Handling. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL /ubs/600r02017/600r02017.htm

Freson, Kathy. (2007, January). Vegetarian is the New Prius. Retrieved from             http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/ vegetarian-is-the-new-pri_b_39014.html

Patatunda, Rita. (2008, March). Causes and Effects of Deforestation. Retrieved from http:// http://www.buzzle.com/articles/causes-and-effects-of-deforestation.html

Essay #1-Cause/Effect-Fuel: It won’t be here forever

When it’s thirty below outside, getting into a frigid car doesn’t sound to appealing.  Hitting that auto-start button would be the easiest option at that point, but is it the healthiest?  Should the comfort of the individual out weigh the needs of the world?  Every time a car is turned on it emits deadly toxins into the Earth’s atmosphere.  Fuel will not be around forever, and neither will the Earth if we keep beating it up.  Although getting into a warm car in the winter is a pleasurable experience, excessive idling causes immense harm to the environment because this squanders this non-renewable resource, the resulting carbon monoxide emissions have a toxic effect on animals, humans, and the earth’s atmosphere, and unnecessary gasoline usage perpetuates the U.S.’s reliance on oil as a primary source of energy.

Gasoline is classified as a fossil fuel.  “Fossil fuels are found within the rocks of the Earth’s surface. They are called fossil fuels because they are thought to have been formed many millions of years ago by geological processes acting on dead animals and plants, just like fossils”(Hitch). In the United States we depend greatly on gasoline, therefore it would be intelligent for us to try and conserve it.  Gas is defined as a non-renewable resource because of the fact that is takes years to regenerate, meaning, once we are out, it will be a long time before we have anymore.   “It is thought that the current resources under the North Sea will last about another 20 years and the world resources will last for about 70 years”(Hitch).  The scary thing is is that this in our lifetime, this is not one of those things that we can just say “oh well this won’t affect me”.  Think about not being able to just hop in your car and head down to the supermarket, we would have to resort back to prehistoric modes of transportation.  “For every two minutes a car is idling, it uses about the same amount of fuel it takes to go about one mile” (Consumer Energy). As a matter of self-sustainment, citizens should be thinking about what will happen when our fossil fuels run out.  Excessive idling of vehicles accelerates the eventuality of this day which, as explained above, can happen in our lifetime and certainly will happen in the lifetime of our children.

If people aren’t worried about saving the environment they should at least be worried about the amount of gas they are wasting, which means money out of their own pockets!  Not only are people wasting their gas when they idle the car, but they are directly polluting the environment with a toxic fume called “carbon monoxide”. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless, toxic gas and, for these reasons, it is hard to detect when it is sneaking into your system. That is why it is called the “silent killer”.  If carbon monoxide can have this big of an impact on human health, then it must be very detrimental to our environment.  When carbon monoxide is released into the air and bonds with loose oxygen molecules, it turns into the chemical compound we all know as “carbon dioxide” or “CO2”.  Earth’s atmosphere is blanketed by components called greenhouse gasses,  without these gases reflecting and absorbing heat Earth would be too cold for human habitation.  Over the past 300 years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically, due to the amount of gas we are using.  We call the abundance of CO2 in the air with not enough trees to absorb it, the Greenhouse  Effect.  The Greenhouse Effect is the gradual rise of temperature in Earth’s atmosphere which will eventually lead to the melting of ice caps and rising of oceans. 

Our citizens currently acknowledge our over dependence on oil.  Excessive idling of our vehicles only exacerbates this dependency.  The difficulty is that it is hard for an individual to equate the idling of one vehicle to the huge problem of environmental protection and the sustainability of our culture as we’ve come to know it.  How can we come to realize that, collectively, we are creating the problem but that, one by one, we can help solve it? One of the first steps we can take, individually, is to take responsibility for our personal consumption of gasoline.  At the same time, we must recognize the value of and support the research and development of alternative sources of energy.  Only when we have diversified our energy resources can we feel secure that our children’s future will be a safe and comfortable environment.

It is everyones small actions not one big event; it is an individual choice not a government dictate that should propel the changes needed to protect our world. This problem cannot be solved unless we all join the cause.  Conserving gas is not only beneficial to the Earth but it will also help you keep some change in your pocket. It is the responsibility of wealthy countries, such as the United States, to serve as role models, and also to provide financial assistance to third world countries who rely on toxic energy sources and do not have the resources to research and develop any environmentally friendly alternatives.  

Ekwurzel, B. (2009, May 1). Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there 

     are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases)? In Union of 

     Concerned Scientists [informative facts]. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from 

     University of Washington website: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/ 

     science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html

Hitch, M. (n.d.). Non-renewable energy resources. In Science [Informative 

     facts]. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from http://www.scienceonline.co.uk/ 

     energy/nonrenewable.html

SHOULD I SHUT OFF THE MOTOR WHEN I’M IDLING MY CAR? (2006, February). 

     California Energy Commission [informative fact sheet]. Retrieved 

     February 25, 2010, from http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/ 

     idling.html

Essay #1-Cause/Effect-Fuel: It won’t be here forever-draft

When it’s thirty below outside, getting into a frigid car doesn’t sound to appealing.  Hitting that auto-start button would be the easiest option at that point, but is it the healthiest?  Should the comfort of the individual out weigh the needs of the world?  Although getting into a warm car in the winter is a pleasurable experience, excessive idling causes immense harm to the environment because this squanders this non-renewable resource, the resulting carbon monoxide emissions have a toxic effect on animals, humans, and the earth’s atmosphere, and unnecessary gasoline usage perpetuates the U.S.’s reliance on oil as a primary source of energy.

Gasoline is classified as a fossil fuel.  “Fossil fuels are found within the rocks of the Earth’s surface. They are called fossil fuels because they are thought to have been formed many millions of years ago by geological processes acting on dead animals and plants, just like fossils”(Hitch). In the United States we depend greatly on gasoline, therefore it would be intelligent for us to try and conserve it.  Gas is defined as a non-renewable resource because of the fact that is takes years to regenerate, meaning, once we are out, it will be a long time before we have anymore.   “It is thought that the current resources under the North Sea will last about another 20 years and the world resources will last for about 70 years”(Hitch).  The scary thing is is that this in our lifetime, this is not one of those things that we can just say “oh well this won’t affect me”.  Think about not being able to just hop in your car and head down to the supermarket, we would have to resort back to prehistoric modes of transportation.  “For every two minutes a car is idling, it uses about the same amount of fuel it takes to go about one mile” (Consumer Energy). As a matter of self-sustainment, citizens should be thinking about what will happen when our fossil fuels run out.  Excessive idling of vehicles accelerates the eventuality of this day which, as explained above, can happen in our lifetime and certainly will happen in the lifetime of our children.

If people aren’t worried about saving the environment they should at least be worried about the amount of gas they are wasting, which means money out of their own pockets!  Not only are people wasting their gas when they idle the car, but they are directly polluting the environment with a toxic fume called “carbon monoxide”. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless, toxic gas and, for these reasons, it is hard to detect when it is sneaking into your system. That is why it is called the “silent killer”.  If carbon monoxide can have this big of an impact on human health, then it must be very detrimental to our environment.  When carbon monoxide is released into the air and bonds with loose oxygen molecules, it turns into the chemical compound we all know as “carbon dioxide” or “CO2”.  Earth’s atmosphere is blanketed by components called greenhouse gasses,  without these gases reflecting and absorbing heat Earth would be too cold for human habitation.  Over the past 300 years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically, due to the amount of gas we are using.  We call the abundance of CO2 in the air with not enough trees to absorb it, the Greenhouse  Effect.  The Greenhouse Effect is the gradual rise of temperature in Earth’s atmosphere which will eventually lead to the melting of ice caps and rising of oceans. 

Our citizens currently acknowledge our over dependence on oil.  Excessive idling of our vehicles only exacerbates this dependency.  The difficulty is that it is hard for an individual to equate the idling of one vehicle to the huge problem of environmental protection and the sustainability of our culture as we’ve come to know it.  How can we come to realize that, collectively, we are creating the problem but that, one by one, we can help solve it? One of the first steps we can take, individually, is to take responsibility for our personal consumption of gasoline.  At the same time, we must recognize the value of and support the research and development of alternative sources of energy.  Only when we have diversified our energy resources can we feel secure that our children’s future will be a safe and comfortable environment.

It is everyones small actions not one big event; it is an individual choice not a government dictate that should propel the changes needed to protect our world. This problem cannot be solved unless we all join the cause.  It is also the responsibility of wealthy countries, such as the United States, to serve as role models, and also to provide financial assistance to third world countries who rely on toxic energy sources and do not have the resources to research and develop any environmentally friendly alternatives. 

Ekwurzel, B. (2009, May 1). Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there 

     are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases)? In Union of 

     Concerned Scientists [informative facts]. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from 

     University of Washington website: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/ 

     science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html

Hitch, M. (n.d.). Non-renewable energy resources. In Science [Informative 

     facts]. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from http://www.scienceonline.co.uk/ 

     energy/nonrenewable.html

SHOULD I SHUT OFF THE MOTOR WHEN I’M IDLING MY CAR? (2006, February). 

     California Energy Commission [informative fact sheet]. Retrieved 

     February 25, 2010, from http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/ 

     idling.html

Essay 1 Final Draft-Proposal-The Danger of Improper Battery Disposal

Essay1Proposal

Essay #1 Revision -Cause/Effect: Burn Dry, Save Cash and the Environment

In Alaska and other regions of the polar north, heat is one of the most crucial components of life for many months of the year. Fuel types are plentiful. Coal, natural gas, diesel heating oil, and wood are available in most areas of the state. However, wood is a primary source of heat for multiple reasons including the minimal costs associated with wood compared to other heat sources and the availability of wood through state firewood cutting areas. In addition, any self-sufficient homeowner is able to independently procure a wood supply, and not have to rely upon deliveries. Unfortunately, homeowners oftentimes throw any available wood into the woodstove, not knowing the disastrous effects that burning wet wood has on the air we breathe. Although wet wood fires produce heat, burning wet wood causes negative impacts on both the environment and the wallet because the wood burns inefficiently, incompletely, and emits significant levels of ash and smoke.

The inefficiencies in burning wet wood manifest in multiple ways. A prime example of inefficient wood burning is the homeowner with a new outdoor wood burning furnace and a major haze of smoke hanging over the property. High moisture content in wood causes the water within the wood to sizzle and steam when burned and energy is lost in the process. Instead of producing heat, the energy from the burning wood is used to heat the moisture within the wood. The end result is a smoky fire with a minimal heat output and hazy smog covering the property. In addition, the financial costs of inefficiently burning wood can be extremely expensive. The smoke and gasses caused by burning wet wood create a heavy creosote buildup within the stove or furnace chimney, which in the best case scenario leads to increased maintenance costs and chimney cleanings, and worse case to a chimney fire. In addition to maintenance expenses, inefficiently burning wood means that even more wood must be burned to meet a home’s heating requirements. The solution is to always burn dry firewood, eliminating smoke-causing creosote, and maintaining heating requirements with the minimum amount of wood possible.

Wet wood also burns incompletely. High moisture content in firewood causes a lower burning temperature which allows for chunks of wood to remain unburned. As with the inefficiencies related above, an incomplete burn requires more wood to produce heat, which requires more time and money invested in securing more wood. Understanding moisture content in firewood can save significant dollars, time and energy related to replenishing a firewood supply.

Finally, wet wood when burned emits significant levels of ash and smoke into the interior of the house and the exterior environment. Chimney smoke should be nearly invisible. If dark smoke and ash emerge from a chimney, the fire is not burning hot enough. Wet wood cannot produce the heat necessary to burn clean fires which causes harmful pollutants. Besides being unsightly, air pollutants cause many respiratory diseases. The harm caused by pollutants should be enough of a reason to only burn dry wood.

According to Serena (2009), preparing a properly seasoned firewood supply is simplicity itself with just a bit of planning. First, firewood should be cut to lengths some inches shorter than the woodstove and the pieces split to allow moisture to escape. Next, wood should be stacked off of the ground but out of the rain, and in an area that allows the sun and wind access to help with the drying process. Finally, the wood should season for a minimum of six months to one year, which allows the moisture content to fall below a maximum preferred level of 20 percent. There are several clues to discerning wet wood from dry. Wet wood is significantly heavier than dry wood in addition to having a darker color. Questionable wood should be tested with a moisture meter in order to determine if the moisture content is low enough to burn cleanly and efficiently.

With the increasing popularity of wood burning furnaces and woodstoves, educating the public on the effects of burning wet firewood is essential. Each homeowner is capable of decreasing the personal financial impacts and the global environmental impacts caused by wet wood fires by committing to burning only dry firewood. By following the simple steps outlined above, and by utilizing a bit of common sense, woodstove and wood burning furnace owners will positively impact their finances and their local environments. Proper burning techniques makes for fewer dollars spent on fuel and maintenance, and fewer air pollutants, which should be a goal of all responsible homeowners.

Serena, J. (2009). Burn firewood right for cleaner air, lower fuel costs, and safety. Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/x-4401-Hartford-Recreation-Examiner~y2009m3d6-Burn-firewood-right-for-cleaner-air-lower-fuel-costs-and-safety

Essay #1 Proposal The Danger of Improper Battery Disposal

PROPOSALEssay1

Essay #1-Cause/Effect-Deforestation:The Means to an End

Deforestation: The Means to an End

Our natural resources are being exploited; things that were once plentiful are now a scarcity.  Our air and water are becoming contaminated due to pollution, causing great harm to the environment.  Fortunately, the earth has a natural filter: forests.  Trees composing forests around the world absorb pollutants, fight erosion and produce oxygen for our breathing needs.  Unfortunately, this filter is being cut down as we speak.  Although forests can be harnessed for valuable commodities, deforestation causes irreversible harm to the environment and civilization because it affects biodiversity, results in nutrient depleted soil and enhances greenhouse gas emissions.

Forests, especially those in tropical areas are largely uncharted territory.  The life and function of extinct animals such as dinosaurs are well known.  However, this will never be the case for many of the microorganisms, plants and small animals inhabiting tropical forests.  As the biologically diverse Amazon rainforest is being slashed and burned, complex ecosystems are as well. “Scientists estimate that we are losing more than 137 species of plants and animals every single day because of rainforest deforestation”(“Rainforest Facts”, 2009).  The greater the biodiversity in an ecosystem, the more resilient and productive it will be.  As basic biology will tell you, the removal of one species will affect many more.  This is nothing to be taken lightly when “scientists believe that the canopy may contain half of the world’s species”(“Amazon Rainforest,” 2003). Each one of the approximately 5 million species found in tropical rainforests rely on other animals to survive and hopefully thrive.  At the current rate of destruction, 1.5 acres a second, rainforests will be a mere memory by 2050 (“Rainforest Facts”, 2009).  With such jaw dropping facts, it is a wonder why such an important and amazing thing is being destroyed.  Unfortunately, it seems money is the ultimate motivator, especially in poor areas.  Environmental conservation will continue to take a back burner while deforestation pillages our earth.

Humans have been cutting down tress since the dawn of time.  The wood is a great source of fuel and building materials, while the barren land can be used for farming and cattle rearing.  However, with every action there is an equally and opposite reaction.  Deforestation results in nutrient depleted soil and eventually erosion.  The freshly exposed soil of the forest floor is extremely vulnerable to the elements.  In it’s natural environment, the soil is shielded by the canopy and receives very little light. The Amazon rainforest alone receives nine feet of rainfall a year; fifty percent of it returns to the atmosphere through the foliage of trees (“Amazon Rainforest,” 2003).  When all of these protective layers are removed, the result is detrimental. The rain washes away nutrients and the sun dries the soil.  In a few short years, the land is no longer fertile and soon abandoned.  Due to nutrient depletion, there is little to no hope of reforestation (Frey, 2002).  This unfortunate cycle is exemplified in Africa.  Africa is currently experiencing deforestation four times faster than other countries.  It is thought in the early 1900’s Africa was home to 193,000 square miles of coastal rainforest, currently, only 22.8 percent is left standing (Butler, 2009).  Deforestation has resulted in the dessert we now know Africa to be.  The visible affects of deforestation are alarming, however the seemingly invisible consequences are detrimental to life on earth.

Trees are vital to life; they capture carbon dioxide and produce oxygen for us to breathe through photosynthesis.  These “carbon sinks” assist in cleaning up after carbon producing humans and are overall vital to life. “Every year humans add over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide [to] the atmosphere” through simple actions such as breathing, fires, and deforestation (Hopewod & Cohen).  In order to harness the forest’s valuable commodity, the trees are either cut down or burned to create coal. “The largest anthropogenic contributor to the greenhouse effect is carbon dioxide gas emissions, about 77% of which comes from the combustion of fossil fuels and 22% of which is attributed to deforestation”(Hopewood & Cohen).  The fuel to run chainsaws and heavy machinery as well as the trucks to transport the timber and coal contribute to this statistic.  In addition, “as we burn down [trees], carbon is released into the air and the carbon bonds with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, adding to the greenhouse effect”( Hopewood & Cohen).  Normally, the production of excess carbon would be counteracted with the naturally occurring process of photosynthesis. “The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that U.S. forests absorb between one million and three million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, perhaps offsetting between 20 percent and 46 percent of the country’s greenhouse-gas emissions”(Johnson, 2009).  Unfortunately, as deforestation progresses, less carbon dioxide can be recycled resulting in additional carbon.  Deforestation is a recognized contributor of green house gasses and subsequently global climate change.  Many nations have recognized this pressing issue and have started action, however it is impossible to know if the world will ever recover.

There is no doubt deforestation has caused irreversible harm to the environment.  Our carbon absorbing forests save us from ourselves, while we destroy them.  As extreme deforestation continues, the biodiversity of forests are affected.  Hundreds of plants and animals loose their homes each day with little chance of recovering.  In addition, the newly exposed soil does not stay fertile for long.  Farmers will only be able to utilize the land for a few years as it soon becomes infertile.  With the absence of trees, carbon dioxide is no longer absorbed and oxygen produced.  This result is detrimental to our environment and our health.  There is little hope that our forests, especially our tropical rainforest will ever recover.  Our only option is to make conservation efforts and limit deforestation while we still can.

Referances

Amazon rainforest. (2003). Retrieved February 24, 2010, from http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/amazon.htm

Butler, Rhett A.(2009).Afrotropical Realm:Enviornmental Profile. Retrieved 24 February 2010, from Mongabay.com / A Place Out of Time: Tropical Rainforests and the Perils They Face. website: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0305.htm.

Frey, E. F. (2002). Tropical Deforestation in the Amazon: An Economic Analysis of Rondonia, Brazil. Issues in Political Economy, 11(1). Retrieved from http://org.elon.edu/ipe/Frey1.pdf

Hopwood, N., & Cohen, J. (n.d.). Greenhouse Gases and Society. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

Johnson, T. (2009, December 21). Deforestation and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from Council on Foreign Relations website:http://www.cfr.org/publication/14919/deforestation_and_greenhousegas_emissions.html#p2

Rainforest Facts.(2009) Rain Tree. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from Raintree Nutrition, Inc. website: http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

Essay#1 Revision. /Cause and Effect/ Could America Have a Zero Dioxin Future? – What Public Awareness Can Do

Could America Have a Zero Dioxin Future?
What Public Awareness Can Do

Every major governmental and nonprofit agency involved with environmental toxicity and/or public health agree on one thing: dioxins pose a serious health threat to humans. These agencies have pages of documents, laws, and code written to regulate the amount of dioxin released into our environment. Numerous nonprofits as well as government organizations have information available to the public, but most people do not seek out the information or even have an idea of what a dioxin is. Although all the major environmental and health organizations of the world have implemented laws and codes regulating dioxins, the lack of public awareness concerning dioxins causes a serious health risk in humans and wildlife because the toxins bioaccumulate in our bodies, long term exposure to the dioxins can cause cancer as well as reproductive health issues, and the support of bleached goods as well as backyard burn barrels continue to increase the toxicity of our environment.

A dioxin is a chlorinated organic chemical that does not occur naturally. It is created when a Chlorine based chemical (which is present in many things besides just bleach), given the right condition, is able to react with a hydrocarbon. The term dioxin comes from 2,3,7,8,-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin also known as TCDD, which was used as the chemical weapon Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. TCDD was originally detected as an unintentional byproduct created during the production of synthetic/organic pesticides. Dangerous levels of dioxin in pesticides have been monitored and controlled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since the 1970’s, which has lead to a much needed and dramatic decrease. TCDD is the most dangerous in the family of dioxins which are also referred to as furans, PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs and CDDs. All dioxins are measured against TCDD for their toxicity levels. Out of approximately 419 dioxins, only 30 are considered highly toxic. (World Health Organization, 2007, Fact Sheet N°225)  These 30 are the most dangerous chemical compounds humans are regularly exposed to.

According to a 2006 EPA study (Chlorine Chemistry Division of the American Chemistry Council, 2006 , Dioxin Source) the largest sources of dioxin release up until 1985 came from human waste incinerators. In 2000 the greatest polluter became backyard barrel burning, followed by medical waste incinerators. As of this 2006 study, the public is still the greatest polluter. In most states regulations for backyard burning are lax and often not enforced, while California has very strict rules aimed specifically at burn barrels and reducing dioxin. The laws implemented by the EPA beginning in the 1970’s are helping. Between 1985 and 2000 the USA has seen a 90% decrease in dioxin levels, because of regulations and some voluntary action by industry (Chlorine Chemistry Division of the American Chemistry Council, 2006, Trends).

Bioaccumulation

People are exposed to small amounts of dioxin on a daily basis. Government organizations agree that nearly every human has some level of dioxins in their body. Many health organizations have “acceptable levels” of dioxin exposure posted on their web sites, broke down either by month or year, and most often calculated depending on body weight. The term “body burden” is frequently used to describe the amount of dioxin a person can somewhat safely live with.

The danger of exposure is compounded because dioxin is slow to decompose and has a tendency to bioaccumulate in the liver and fat cells. The half-life of a dioxin in the body is between two and 13 years. This half-life or elimination varies because of many factors such as type of dioxin, amount of body fat, age of the person, and diet to name a few (Milbrath,2009). Virtually insoluble in water, dioxins bind to particles and organisms such as plankton and are eventually passed up the food chain while being stored in fatty tissue. Most often we ingest dioxin through consumption of fatty animal products such as meat, milk, cheese and eggs. Often, but not always, fish and beef have the highest concentrations of dioxin. The most effective study showing the decrease of dioxin since 1987 was conducted by The World Health Organization, by monitoring dioxin levels in European’s breast milk. (WHO, 2007, WHO activities related to dioxins, para. 5)

The Health Risk

The health risks associated with dioxin exposure are greatest for the fetus and then up until adult body weight is reached. This is because when body weight is low, the concentration is greater; also cells are more susceptible during development. Dioxins are known to cause many developmental problems for young people and adults exposed to significant amounts for long periods, such as reproductive health problems. Immunological and endocrine effects are also of concern and although these have not been studied as much as Cancer there are significance reports on these hazards. (The Center for Health, Environment and Justice, no date given).

Classified as carcinogenic, the type of dioxin and the quantity, coupled with the length of time exposed, equates to a varying amount of cancerous probability.  Some studies suggest that very low amounts of bioaccumulated dioxin over long periods can cause cancer (Cancer Weekly, 2003), while other reports claim that a low constant “body burden” is not proven to cause cancer.(EPA, 2006) Whatever the extreme may be it is important to realize that “The chronological parallelism with the appearance of dioxins in the environment suggests that these might exert biological effects at the prevailing level of exposure”( Wissing,1998).

What is the Dioxin Level in your Backyard?

Dioxin can be destroyed by heat ranging from 800-1000 degrees Celsius, which is not reached in backyard trash burning. Home burn piles are the perfect mixing grounds for the formation of dioxin because trash often contains plastics, bleached paper, and cardboard.

Prompted in large part by concern over dioxin emissions, cities around the globe have been tightening regulations on municipal incinerators. Largely ignored have been rural households that burn their garbage in a barrel out back. A new federal study now indicates that just a handful of such fires can spew as much dioxin as a large municipal incinerator does. (Benoit, 2000).

Worldwide there is an enormous amount of trash burnt at at low temperatures. It is time for a campaign, aimed at educating the public about the source and health effects concerning dioxin poisoning.

One other significant source of dioxin contamination entering our waterways comes from kraft pulp and paper mill discharge.  When chlorine or hypochlorite is added to pulp for making white paper, the dioxin level is very high. In the US, because of a 1990 EPA regulatory action, most pulp mills are now using chlorine dioxide or ECF (elemental chlorine free). The use of chlorine dioxide or ECF allows pulp mills to produce chlorinated bleached paper, and lowers the dioxin content of their discharge to tolerable levels by current EPA standards. Paper and pulp mills could make paper without using chlorine,  eliminating dioxin from this process. I spoke with Nick Bennett, the staff scientist at The Natural Resources Council (NRCM) of Maine about the NRCM’s fight to eliminate all chlorine use in his area. He explained that paper is an “old fashioned industry” and they have been connected to the chlorine industry for a long time. He stated that the “the chlorine industry does not want to lose their biggest customer.” When the EPA tried to eliminate dioxin release from paper mills 1990, the paper industry and chlorine industry fought back and instead of dioxin elimination, we got dioxin reduction. Bennett feels Maine tried to fight the pulp industry but lost, they did, and so did the rest of America. Another reason the paper industry got away with this “good enough” loophole, is an argument of economics. Most of the paper industry has not upgraded in many years, to do so would cost a lot of money. There was a fear among pulp mills that if they made the expensive switch to a non-chlorinated process, they would have debt, and their product would no longer be premium.

Where to go from Here

Today you cannot buy chlorine free virgin made paper that is produced in the United States. There was a plant that produced 100% chlorine free pulp in Eureka, California, they have been going in and out of business for many years and are currently out of business, but that is another story. I see two ways the USA could eliminate dioxin from pulp and paper mills. The EPA could restrict all dioxin release or the public could become aware, increase pressure on the industry and cast a vote by only buying paper produced by non-dioxin creating technologies. As of now this limits the paper choices to 100% recycled PCF (processed chlorine free) paper. Office Depot, Office Max, Staples, and Xerox all offer PCF paper, but it is more expensive.

What product a consumer pays for is more effective in today’s society than who they vote for. The public has the purchasing power to tell the paper industry what is valued. With growing awareness and dedicated action the public can affect the paper industry and what they view as profitable. Many organizations have already committed to buying more expensive PCF paper, and reducing use to offset the cost.

The dangers of dioxin exposure are high, birth defects, immune dysfunction and cancer. Knowing the dangers let’s eliminate them, because we can. There are known methods to destroy dioxin, such as high temperature incineration. Changing old industrial processes to new technology has all ready helped, but there are still improvements to be made. The paper making industry is a prime example. The US has reached a point in which industry has cut back “enough” that now the general public is the largest polluter of dioxin. It is time for a public campaign to increase awareness of the dangers associated with burn-barrels. Healthy lives depend on it.

Referances

Benoit, Anthony, (2000). Backyard burning is a recipe for dioxin. Science News Online, 157 January 29. Retrieved from http://environmentalet.hypermart.net/news/backyarddioxin.htm

Cancer Weekly, (2003). Cancer Risk; Re-analysis of data finds no evidence of dioxin cancer threshold. Cancer Weekly, 40, Tuesday, October 28^th Retrieved http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/nosafedose.html

The Center for Health, Environment and Justice, (nd). Case Study: Dioxin. Coming Clean Retrieved from http://www.chemicalbodyburden./cs_dioxin.htm#diox3

Chlorine Chemistry Division of the American Chemistry Council, (2006). Dioxin Source Contributions. DioxinFacts.org. Retrieved from http://www.dioxinfacts.org/sources_trends/sources.html

Chlorine Chemistry Division of the American Chemistry Council, (2006). Trends in Dioxin Emissions and Exposure in the United States. DioxinFacts.org. Retrieved from http://www.dioxinfacts.org/sources_trends/trends_emissions.html

Milbrath, Meghan O’Grady. (2009) Apparent Half-Lives of Dioxins, Furans, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls as a Function of Age, Body Fat, Smoking Status, and Breast-Feeding. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(3) 422. Retrieved http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members /2008/11781/11781.pdf

Triebig, Gerhard. Werle, Egon. Päpke, Olaf. Heim, Günther. Broding, Christoph. Ludwig, Heidi. (1998) Effects of Dioxins and Furans on Liver Enzymes, Lipid Parameters, and Thyroid Hormones in Former Thermal Metal Recycling Workers. Environmental Health Perspectives,106(2),697-700. Retrieved Febuary 22, 2010, through JOSTOR database

Wissing, M.(1998). Dioxins: current knowledge about health effect. NCBI,  PubMed.gov 19(4)A367-71 Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9805976

World Health Organization (2007). Dioxins and their effects on human health. Fact Sheet N°225, Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs225/en/index.html

Essay #1-Cause/Effect: Drilling for Survival

A common theme in American conversation lately has been the price of oil and how that is making prices at the pump continue to grow. Often the conversation goes no further than the impact that it has on the individual’s financial state. Yet, the problems with rising oil prices extend far beyond the minor inconveniences of consumer woes. The truth is that oil prices come from a complex system involving major national and international issues. As with any natural resource industry, the environment is a key concern for many people around the world. So much so that governments have passed legislation preventing any form of industry from operating in some areas. One such area is the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) which has been part of a national debate over environmental protection for many years now. This specific region is of particular interest because there is a substantial amount of oil available within the area whose borders are closed to any oil and gas industrial development. Many are opposed to allowing drilling in the reserve because of the possibility of the large scale environmental problems that might result. Although there are many opposed to producing oil and gas in ANWR because of potential adverse impacts on the environment, the US should begin to drill because not drilling could result in a continuation of diminishing economic stability, gaps in national security, and a lack of needed oil and natural gas.

Drilling and producing the oil reserves in ANWR would provide greatly needed financial relief to the national economy easing the ever growing debt. In the past, technology and the price of oil made the economic feasibility of production minimal. Today however the oil and gas industry has greater technological advantages and means, and the price of oil per barrel is much higher. In 1999 the United States Geological Survey released data that suggested that there was more than two billion barrels of oil available based on the technological standards of the day with an actual number of greater than eleven billion barrels of oil in place (Schlosser, 2006, p. 7). Eleven years later technologies have improved and the price of oil per barrel has continued to rise. Initiating the long process of beginning oil and gas production would be an excellent source of desperately needed jobs, possibly creating around 737,000 jobs across the country (Young, 1999).

The current infrastructure is dependent on fossil fuels for its survival. Because of this dependence on the resource we are also bound to the political borders placed around oil reserves around the world. Unfortunately oil reserves do not create themselves in the most convenient places, so we are forced to use them, where ever they may be. Reserves have notoriously been present in areas of the world where the United States has few allies. In 2002 an estimated 55 percent of America’s oil came from a foreign source (Schlosser, 2006, p. 7). This huge number puts the U.S. at a disadvantage and potential security risk. Leaving the blood of your industrial country in the hands of countries less than friendly to you is not a recipe for success. If any one of these countries that we get our oil from were to suddenly decide to not sell us oil any longer they would cripple a substantial amount of our daily processes.

As our population increases so does the demand for oil and gas production. American production of oil and gas is now focused in the Gulf of Mexico with some production in California and Alaska still. The amount of oil that we require demands that we look to sources outside of our borders to fulfill our needs. The amount of reserves present in ANWR are great enough to make a substantial impact on oil being used. Should it not be our responsibility to take more responsibility for our use of fossil fuels and use our own resources? We should not go around the world buying up every other country’s reserves when we are not even using our own. The U.S. needs to do as much as it can to meet the demands of the growing need instead of relying on the rest of the world to hold up the slack.

Even with all of the good that can come out of oil and gas production in ANWR, drilling is not a complete solution. The resources available around the world will eventually be depleted. The current economic and technological setting is that of fossil fuels and therefore requires that we continue to use our natural resources in the most efficient means possible. Environmental hazards and implications should always be considered and understood before any project of this magnitude is undertaken. It would be naïve to assume that we have the ability to create a zero impact work site. Even camping on a back packing trip is not a zero impact situation and the ability for the petroleum industry to keep their impact relatively low needs to be understood within the context of the nature of the enterprise. I do not think that anyone, even oil company executives, are saying that we should drill anywhere and everywhere with no respect for the surroundings. No one wants a solution that depletes our supplies and ruins the environment. Responsible drilling in ANWR should be accepted and promoted at this point in our national history.

References.

Schlosser, Kolson L. (2006). U.S. National Security Discourse and the Political Construction of the Arctic national Wildlife Refuge. Society and Natural Resources. 19, 1-18.

Young, Don (1995). Oil exploration can be a boon to Alaskans and environment. Christian Science Monitor 87.