Essay #1: Cause and Effect- Food Production and the Environment

The average American consumes fast food 4-5 times per week.  This may not seem like much initially, but it can have very detrimental effects on the environment because of the way it is produced.  Not only does it pollute the air and water, but also leaves a staggering amount of non-biodegradable waste that has to be dealt with.  As the landfills become full and the ozone layer becomes thin we need to find alternative ways to deal with these problems.  Although today’s food can be mass produced and inexpensive, producing it this way causes environmental pollution because of contamination to water supplies, increased bio-hazardous waste in addition to normal operational refuse, and increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Water can be easily contaminated when exposed to pesticides and chemicals used in the production of food.  Once these chemicals have mixed with the water it is extremely difficult to reverse the damage.  Contaminates sink into the ground water and are then cycled through the currents and can end up miles away from where they started.  Factories involved in the manufacturing of food may dispose of contaminated water in lakes or rivers which in turn contaminates the entire area.  This can have negative effects on not only the wildlife in the area, but also the plant life which in turn can affect the entire ecosystem.  Pollutants cause the water to become acetic and unlivable for fish and other small creatures, they can cause mutations and sterility in certain species, or they can remove a keystone species from the environment which can cause other species to die out or overpopulate.  Water quality is a key factor for the survival of an ecosystem and when tainted by pesticides and pollutants the entire system could collapse.

The amount of garbage produced by Americans in a single year is could cover the state of Texas two and a half times.  Most of this garbage is fast food containers, cups, and bags.  Landfills are becoming full and more land is being cleared to make room for more.  Glass bottles take the longest to decompose and most recycling plants will not accept them.  Aluminum cans and plastic bottles are easy to recycle but since most Americans don’t want to take the time to do so it will take 450 years for plastic and 225 years for aluminum to degrade.  Fast food, since it contains an extremely high amount of preservatives and chemicals, takes anywhere from one to five years to decompose.  Not only are they taking up space, once these products do start to decompose they can release harmful toxins and gasses into the atmosphere.

The United States produces the second largest amount of greenhouse gas emissions per year second only to China, and production of food is one of the major polluters.  Manufacturing food requires the use of fossil fuels which can release carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.  Smog from factory smokestacks can contaminate the air and water in the surrounding area.  Large cattle fields are also one of the major producers of methane gas.  Since these animals are kept in such large numbers and cramped conditions allows disease to spread and many animals die.  These animals can no longer be used for food.  During decomposition carbon dioxide and nitrogen are released into the atmosphere.    Greenhouse gasses are thought to be the main cause of global warming and thinning the ozone layer.  Although the greenhouse effect plays an essential role in keeping our planet at a sustainable temperature, too many greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere can cause the planet’s temperature to rise creating global warming which is one of the major issues affecting our generation.  Having large factories makes producing the everyday products we use inexpensive and available but can have negative effects on the environment.

Food production, although a necessity, is seriously damaging the environment.  It causes our water and air to become polluted, creates hazardous waste along with normal refuse that fills our landfills, and it releases harmful greenhouse gasses into the environment.  We cannot stop producing food so we need to look for alternative ways of production that are less harmful to our planet and all that live here.  We only have one Earth, so unless we change the way we take care of it, it may not be around for too much longer.

 

Sources:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sustainable_consumption/food_factsheet.asp

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-garbage-does-a-person-create-in-one-year.htm

http://www.ktka.com/news/2008/apr/17/break_it_down_how_long_does_trash_take_degrade/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-4-7-1.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-4-7-1.html

http://www.suite101.com/content/largest-producers-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-a166117

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/greenhouse.htm

 

Response #6: “Who Wants My Biofuel?”

The article “Who Wants My Biofuel?” by Rebecca Buckman illustrates the difficulties faced by biodiesel producers in the U.S., and implies that Congress is largely to blame. Although the government provided the incentives which encouraged the production of biodiesel, the producers are largely responsible for their own situation because they were counting on subsidies from the government, a low market price for vegetable oil, and government regulations requiring the use of biodiesel.

According to the article the biodiesel producers are facing economic difficulties because “they thought they had a deal with Congress.” The deal they implied was a combination of a federal subsidy, and regulations mandating that a portion of diesel consumption must be biodiesel.

However, it is hard to blame the economic difficulties on the government, when it did nothing to create them. The biodiesel producers took a risk, as with any economic endeavor, and lost. Even more to the point, the risk they took was an ill calculated one, as I will discuss.

Their first mistake would be to rely on government subsidies for a profit. As far as I could tell from the article, the subsidies are still in effect. There is no guarantee that a subsidy will always be available, though. Because of this, any business model which relies on one for a profit, is not a sound model.

Their second mistake was to assume that the price of vegetable oil would remain favorable. Admittedly, market price is hard to predict, but if it is not economically feasible without the aforementioned subsidy, then the oil prices would have to drop to create an economically sound plan. However, the prices did not drop, and now it is not feasible even with the subsidy.

Finally, the biodiesel producers were relying on government regulations to ensure a market for their product. The regulations would require a portion of diesel consumption to be biodiesel, but only if the EPA determined that biodiesel actually reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. This was during a time when the environmental benefits of biofuels were still controversial.

While I applaud their attempt to do something good for the environment, biodiesel producers made some risky assumptions and as a result landed in financial difficulty. The U.S. Government cannot really be blamed for that.

Essay #1-Cause and effect: Pollution from food production

Over the years, we have come up with many different ways to produce our food.  Although many of the new techniques we use today have their benefits, most of them come with unwanted side effects as well.  These side effects can cause irreversible damage to the environment.  Although much of the food we produce today may taste great, the production of most of it causes pollution because the carcasses of slaughtered beef cattle pollute the top soil, the rest of the animal can be washed into the rivers where it will pollute the water and kill the fish, and the factories that process it can cause many different types of pollution.  If we continue to overlook these important factors concerning our food industry, then we may be facing more issues than we can handle.

The animal carcasses left over after a slaughter, whether it is pigs or even beef cattle can cause more harm than we think to the soil.  Usually, it is very natural for an animal to die and decompose on the soil, and more often than not, it is good for the soil, it enriches it.  The problem with the animals that are raised for the sole purpose of becoming food is that they are fed all kinds of strange chemical laced feed designed to get them all fattened up as quickly as possible.  The problem with this method of feeding is that when the animal is finally killed and the carcass is disposed of, those chemicals can do a great deal of harm to the soil, making it difficult to re-use it for farm land.  Another problem that can occur is that other animals may come into contact and maybe even consume parts of the dead animal, making it possible to spread the chemicals to places where they really do not need to be.

Another problem that we face with the slaughtered carcasses of chemically enhanced pigs and beef cattle is water pollution.  It is much like the soil pollution, but it occurs when it rains heavily enough to wash the chemicals from the dead carcass into various rivers and streams.  This can easily cause irreversible water pollution, and not only that, but it can cause many fish species to become sick and depleted.  It is hard to believe that the production of food from domesticated farm animals can cause marine life to die out.  It just goes to show all of the little things that can be overlooked in something that seems very simple and straight forward.

One final issue that needs to be addressed is the pollution that the factories themselves produce.  Not only are they running almost constantly, all the while releasing countless amounts of harmful gasses into the air, but they also produce water waste, radiation, and solid types of waste as well.  Many food processing factories use water during some of the stages of production.  The problem arises when the water has been used and needs to be disposed of.  It can do considerable amounts of damage if it is carelessly dumped into a river or an ocean.  All the water that is used has been exposed to harmful chemicals and is more than likely contaminated.  One other harmful type of pollution produced by the factories is radiation, which they use to kill pathogenic microorganisms in the meat.  The thing about radiation is that it can linger into the environment, kill many plants and animals in its path, and make the land un-livable for new plants and animals.  Sure it kills off microorganisms that can cause humans to become ill, but is there really no alternative?  Is it really worth the risk to the environment?  One more type of pollution produced by factories is solid waste.  This is basically any leftover materials that still remain after fully processing the food.  Most of those materials end up filling landfills and causing even more harm to the environment that way.

It is hard to believe that and industry as simple and straightforward as food production can cause so much harm to the environment.  Our much needed soil can become contaminated, our rivers and oceans can become polluted leaving many different fish species to die, and the factories that produce the food can cause considerable amounts of damage to the ecosystem.  Most of us have learned how bad pollution can be for the environment, but how many of us have noticed the little things that cause the most pollution?

Sources:

http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/import/32129_25PollutionfromFoodProcessing.7.pdf

http://www.sierraclub.org/sustainable_consumption/food_factsheet.asp

Essay # 1 – Cause & Effect: Polar Bears Melting Away from Under their Paws

Polar Bears are one the few animals that can survive in the one of world’s harshest environments.  This significant animal is a vital source to understanding what is occurring in the arctic.  The intensive research of polar bears offered awareness to earth’s major problems that we are concerned about today.  These problems are putting polar bears at risk and their population is slowly decreasing.  Although they are not at high risk, environmental problems and humans put polar bears on the endangered species list because of the effects of global warming, pollution, and hunting.

Global warming is the leading problem to polar bears’ extinction.  It is defined as trapped heat that increases temperatures in the earth’s atmosphere.  The increasing temperatures are caused by the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and methane.  These gases are emitted from things that we see and use in our environment such as cars and power plants.  Although they are a necessity in our daily lives, we are unaware of the problems they cause, especially to polar bears.  Because of global warming, polar bears are considered an endangered species.  According to U.S. Government studies, “two-thirds of the world’s polar bears could disappear by 2050 as global warming continues to melt the arctic’s sea ice” (Roach, 2007).
Polar bears love the ice and cannot live without it.  The ice is their home and hunting ground, but because of the increasing temperatures caused by global warming, polar bears’ preferred habitat is being eliminated.  Their primary diet is the ringed seal and they also reside near ice caps.  When temperature increases and ice caps melt away, seals migrate to find a colder location, which leaves less food for polar bears to hunt.
The declining of food decreases reproduction of polar bear cubs. Mother polar bears rely on food in order to keep her cubs alive.  When ice breaks up before summer, seals disappear into the waters.  The mother leaves her cubs at their den, and she desperately races to the seal’s habitat before they leave so that she can feed on them.  In doing this, she is trying to store enough fat and nutrition that will last throughout summer and fall.  But if she is incapable of storing up enough fat in her body and returns back to her cubs too lean, her milk production will stop and her cubs will die from starvation (Morrison, 2004).
Polar bears use ice caps as a floating platform.  Ice caps float from one ice cap to another, giving polar bears a mode of transportation. In 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service discovered four dead polar bears in the Beaufort Sea.  Their cause of death was drowning.  Polars bears are usually known to be great swimmers and can amazingly swim long distances at a time.  However, researchers have discovered that the drowning polar bears was due to tremendous long distance swimming that eventually made them too exhausted to reach solid ice.  Since ice caps are melting faster than previous years, their chance of finding solid ice to float on are very slim  (Glick, 2006).  In 2003, Josefino Comiso, a researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, reported that the sea ice is melting faster than they expected because of increasing temperatures and connections between ice, ocean and the atmosphere that speed up the melting process (Morrison, 2004).

Pollution also poses another threat polar to bears by affecting polar bears’ health and their habitat in many ways.  Being at the top of the food chain, polar bears are exposed to various types of pollutants. Persistent Organic Pollutants, POPs, is detected in many dangerous substances such as heat resistant chemicals, industrial by-products, and pesticides.  Even though these substances are hardly used, they still remain in our environment.  POPs have been found in many Polar bears.  Polar bears with high levels of POPs have low levels of vitamin A, thyroid hormones, and a few antibodies (“Threats,” n.d.).  Oil Spills is also a type of pollution that affects polar bears.  If a polar bear contain a certain amount of oil on their fur, it can possibly poison and kill them through grooming.  When a polar bears’ fur comes in contact with oil, it also reduces the insulation that keeps them warm.  Their loss of insulation causes them to use more energy to keep them warm.  To gain sufficient energy, they must increase their caloric intake.  But because of other environmental problems such as global warming, polar bears have limited resources for hunting food, leading them to starvation  (“Oil,” n.d.).
Since the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, environmentalist are still facing the consequences of the spill.  Eleven million gallons of crude oil was spilled into the waters of Prince William Sound.  It stained 1,500 miles of Alaskan coastline, and killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds, otters, seals, and whales.  Although the spill stopped a few days after, there is no effective end date to when it will fully recover (Yardley, 2010).  Polar bears are still experiencing the effects of the oil spill that happened 28 years ago by eating the oil-affected animals in their food chain.
Polar bears are polluted through their food chain.  Chemicals are transported from the South, to the arctic by either wind or water, which affects the Polar bears’ food chain (“Threats,” n.d.).  Their food chain begins with water, then through algae, shrimp, cod, and ringed seals.  Each time chemicals pass from one species to another, it increases five to tenfold.  Pollution harms polar bears’ reproductive and immune systems. When their hormones are affected by pollution, it may possibly obstruct their reproduction and growth.  It may also weaken their immune systems, making polar bears vulnerable to diseases or parasites (Bralovich, 2008).  Currently, there is no proven effective method for cleaning or maintaining an oil spill in arctic waters (“Oil,” n.d.).

Another reason why polar bears are heading to extinction is because humans are hunting them.  Hunting polar bears are illegal to non-natives in most countries.  Sixty percent of the world’s polar bear population reside in Canada, which is one of the five “range states” that allows non-natives to hunt them as a sport.  Native arctic populations in America, Greenland, and Russia are the only ones allowed to kill a quota of polar bears each year.  Norway has completely banned polar hunting for natives and non-natives. The ultimate treasure about hunting polar bears as a sport is earning $35,000.  That is why there is a growing amount of illegal poachers.  Poachers kill polar bears to sell their parts for profit.  Although many countries banned importing of polar bear parts, poachers are still finding ways to sell their polar bear parts.  Sadly enough, there are situations where there is no choice but to kill a polar bear.  Although polar bears are magnificent creatures, they are known to be aggressive.  Killing a polar bear is not considered illegal if they are aggressive (Taylor, 2009).

Present environmental crisis and human related causes such as global warming, pollution, and hunting by humans, is the major causes of why polar bears are on the endangered species list.  There are many ways to prevent polar bears from disappearing. Addressing these issues and educating concerns for polar bears is one of the many ways we can start saving them.  Although it will be a long time before polar bears are wiped off the face of the earth, there is a need to take current corrective action to save them from being extinct.

References

Bralovich, S.  (2008, January 10).  Polar Bears and Pollution [Web log post].  Retrieved from http://polarbearcentral.blogspot.com/2008/01/polar-bears-and-pollution.html

Carlson, M.  (n.d.).  Why Polar Bears are Endangered. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/1512528-why-polar-bears-are-endangered

Glick, D.  (2006, December 1).  On Thin Ice. Retreived from http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2007/On-Thin-Ice.aspx

Morrison, J.  (2004, February 1).  The Incredible Shrinking Polar Bears. Retrieved from http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2004/The-Incredible-Shrinking-Polar-Bears.aspx

Roach, J.  (2007, September).  Most Polar Bears Gone By 2050, Studies Say.  NationalGeographic News. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/

Taylor, J.  (2009, March).  Bag a polar bear for $35,000: The New threat to the Species.  The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/

World Wildlife Fund.  (n.d.).  Oil Activity in the North. Retreived from http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/polarbears/risk/oil.html

World Wildlife Fund.  (n.d.).  Threats to Polar Bears. Retrieved from http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/polarbear/threats.html

Yardley, W.  (2010, May).  Recovery Still Incomplete After Valdez Spill.  The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Book Review – Greed:Making Water Putrid

The very air that the reader is breathing is saturated with moisture that may eventually fall to earth as rain, leading to the reinvigoration of the earth.  The Blue Covenant, a book by Maude Barlow, reaches out to every human on this earth with the hope that humans will be able to let this process forever occur.  The destruction of forests, wetlands, and the overconsumption of liquid resources has sadly led to the very opposite of this goal.  Every year the earth grows drier because the water cycle process continues to be hampered by the damage to the very mechanisms that allow it to work.  People are drilling the deepest aquifers, moving massive amounts of water and examining the most advanced, robust water filtering technology as a way to delay the inevitable.  Although many politicians disagree with Blue Covenant author Maude Barlow’s observation, the earth is running out of water due to greed because the government, private corporations, and public ignorance allow it.

The water of this earth is a precious resource and one that needs to be carefully preserved and protected.  The United States government does not do this; instead, it denies the reality that potable water is very scarce.  What many countries in Africa and in South America have said for decades, the United States still denies.  In Africa the average person will use around seventy times less water a day than the American counterpart (Blue Covenant ).  This difference in wealth is a major cause of concern and of division, as the more wealthy citizens of the world grow ever further from those that are less fortunate.  The problem will not be solved anytime in the foreseeable future; the United States has cut much of the budget to the investigation of water practices and is continuing to expand the industrialization of national parklands (Blue Covenant).  Although America is a catalyst to the problem, it is not alone; Australia also denies that it has a problem yet the droughts in Australia continue to worsen as they have done for over a decade.  This damage to the earth is also increased due to governments that are willing to work hand in hand with private corporations; corporations that often make the regional water conditions worse while at the same time coercing the less fortunate to accept the less than ideal privatization.

The private corporations are poised to take control of the wealthy nation’s water resources whilst they openly drain a weaker nation’s health.  The countries that have taken the private contracts are almost always less well off than with the original public water system that was initially in place.  Many of these countries do not wish for the privatization of their water, but cannot receive a loan from the World Bank for the country owned public system.  Why, one may wonder, is this?  It is because the World Bank has judged that the profits and repayment of the original loan are better with privatization than with public control, thus undermining the very choice of the country (Water Resources Management).  Maude Barlow directly cites the sources of her information into her book so that the reader can find out how badly the decision making process is usurped by the World Bank.  The country is then forced to subvert its choice and can only take the remaining option that exists for its people, which is to make the water and the system that controls it private.  Worse yet, these corporations that make massive profits are limited in liability and often have left the country struggling with little or no repercussions.  The dangers that the small countries face are the same issues that America faces, except America has a mindset that water is infinite and no idea the takeover by corporations.

The general public does not know that greed is destroying water, because big money and big government are obscuring the reality.  The citizens in water dry regions know of the problem, but often the water is very restricted and the citizens outside of that region do not share their concern.  Maude makes her claim that the source of all these issues is from the overuse of water, namely brought on by the government and corporations.  While these do cause the lack of water and damage to the earth, the real reason water will increase in scarcity is that poor preservation, greed, and too many humans exist for water to be safeguarded.  The appeal that Maude makes is for the future of the earth and the future of the reader.  Water is essential to life on earth and the practices of the world are leaving a tremendous devastation on the planet, especially the water cycle.  The water cycle depends on the perspiration of plants in order for water to be quickly evaporated.  If the average person in America does not realize that the local environment directly effects their local humidity and rain, it is unlikely that positive reform will occur.

The destruction of earths water continues today as it has for the last few decades, the only noticeable difference is that the rate of destruction has increased.  With modern engineering, mind boggling amounts of liquid can be rerouted each second of every day, the glaciers ransacked, and large forests driven under.  The damage to the earth is extensive and horrific, but it has not yet reached the point that it cannot be stopped; the choices that are made each day effect how the earth, and humans, will fare.  Maude makes emotional and logical appeals that the reader will modify her habits and inform others of the damage to the earth.  After the book is read, it is impossible to not admit that the water system has failed in certain aspects and that the way Americans look at water issues are naïve and overly optimistic.  The practices of using water for whatever suits our purpose will someday cease to be reality if water and the related practices are not modified for the better of the environment.  The way the government and the people pretend that there is nothing to fear will only worsen the crushing tsunami of depravation when this falsehood is removed and greed reigns supreme.

Cause/Effect: Meat Production is spoiling the world

Although global demand for meat continues to rise, animal agriculture is the greatest cause of world pollution because it increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, inefficiently utilizes land resources, and consumes more fresh water than other farming practices.  The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues a regular report on the status of world climate change.  The latest report is Climate Change 2007 and is the Panel’s Fourth Assessment Report.  Although many of the figures presented in the report are impressive, the authors include that the uncertainty of the data is relatively high.  Regardless, the figures given in the report are the ones used throughout this essay and are recognized as accurate.

According to Climate Change 2007 issued by the IPCC, annual greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are expected to increase in coming decades (IPCC, 2007).  According to the report, anthropogenic (human caused) sources represent 12% of CO2, 47% of Methane and 58% of Nitrous Oxide emissions around the world.  The factors that control Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are complex and varied, however the report was clear that agriculture, specifically livestock agriculture is the greatest contributor to total anthropogenic sources of GHG.  Carbon Dioxide (CO_2­) is known to be the primary gas responsible for global warming, however Methane (CH₄) and Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) also contribute to trapping heat in the atmosphere and are respectively 23 and 296 times better at trapping heat than Carbon Dioxide (IPCC, 2007).  How these numbers are associated with livestock agriculture are extremely important.  Burning fossil fuels releases Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.  Due to farming practices and processing requirements, to produce one Calorie of animal protein necessitates burning eleven times more fossil fuel than to produce one Calorie of plant protein, perhaps from soy (IPCC).  All animals exhale Carbon Dioxide and produce Methane in their digestive tract, but what is exceptional about livestock agriculture is the scale of production.  The amount of methane produced by a cow raised for beef is greater than that produced by a human in a similar time interval.  Nitrous Oxide is formed by the microbial transformation of nitrogen in manure and soils especially in moist conditions.  The production of rice is wet since the plants grow in sodden patties and requires fertilizer, so the process produces large amounts of Nitrous Oxide.  Livestock manure produces large amounts of Methane but the projected growth of methane emissions due to rice production is not expected to increase substantially while livestock produced methane is projected to increase 60% by 2030 (IPCC).  Intensive production of meat will lead to more manure and more GHG emissions.

Animal agriculture currently inhabits 30% of total land area on the planet and uses over 70% of agricultural land worldwide (Freston).  The presence of livestock reduces the available farmed acreage for direct consumption in two related ways.  The acreage to accommodate any livestock is drastically greater than the necessary acreage to produce equal Calories from plants.  Livestock agriculture also requires acreage to grow the grains fed to farmed animals.  Researchers at the University of Chicago estimated that livestock agriculture requires approximately ten times the land area than to only grow the same amount of plant Calories (Freston).  The greatest factor responsible for clear cutting and burning forests is to create pasture land for farm animals.  Trees and all plants are natural carbon fixers, storing carbon within their trunks and cell structure; burning forests on a large scale only serves to increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  Not only does livestock agriculture require more land area but it pollutes that land faster than a human population living within that space.  In the United States alone, 5 million tons of manure is produced each day, more than one hundred times the human population (Freston).  The massive cesspool fields generated by large scale factory farming would not exist if livestock agriculture operated within reasonable limits.

Livestock agriculture affects the world’s freshwater supply in two ways:  requiring more than what the human population needs and polluting the remaining supply with manure and fertilizer run-off.  According to the National Geographic Society’s special investigation of water, 70% of the freshwater available to humans goes towards plant and livestock agriculture (National Geographic, 2010).  Only 1% of freshwater on the planet is even available for human use.  Of the portion set aside for agriculture, the greatest use of freshwater is livestock agriculture.  The average U.S. diet requires 1,320 gallons of water daily to produce and cutting meat consumption in half would reduce that figure by 37% to 832 gallons per day (National Geographic, 2010).  Estimates of the volume requirement of water to produce one pound of food stuffs is given in Table 1:  Water Usage Estimates.

Table 1:  Water Usage Estimates

Unit	Food	Water required (gallons)
1 lb	Beef	1799
1lb	Pork	576
1lb	Chicken	468
1lb	Goat	127
1 lb	Cheese	600
1lb	Rice	449
1lb	Soybean	216
1lb	wheat	132
1lb	Potatoe	119
1lb	Corn	108
one	Egg	53
one	Apple	18
one	Orange	13
1 gal.	Coffee	880
1 gal.	Tea	128
1 gal.	Beer	689
1 gal.	Wine	1008
1 gal.	Milk	880

 

 

References

International Panel on Climate Change.  (2007). Fourth Assessment Report:  Climate Change 2007:       Working Group III:  Mitigation of Climate Change. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch8.html

 

Freston, K. (January 18, 2007). Vegetarian is the New Prius. Retrieved February 15, 2001 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/vegetarian-is-the-new-pri_b_39014.html

 

National Geographic.  (2011). Thirsty Food. and How Much H₂O is Embedded in Everyday Life. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/?source=NavEnvFresh

 

 

Cause/Effect-Global Warming; Slowly But Surely Taking Over the World.

Global warming, although a slowly progressing process, still poses a threat to the environment in the form of temperature changes.  Even a single degree in temperature change can lead to worldly destruction.  It is extremely important that people across the globe learn the real toll global warming takes on our planet, and how the devastating effects will last for many decades to pass until finally Earth becomes unable to provide for the needs of it’s inhabitors.  Something as serious as global warming has been proven over and over again to potentially cause numerous devastating events. Simply put, global warming can no longer be ignored; the human race depends on it.  Although global warming is not an immediate threat, extreme temperature changes cause the environment to become less able to sustain certain species of life because of the spread of climate-sensitive diseases, a decrease in natural habitat,  and an increasing number of weather-related catastrophes.

       Increasing temperatures pose an immense problem when it comes to the topic of climate-sensitive diseases. To begin with, climate-sensitive diseases are diseases in which the temperature affects different variables of the disease such as the spread of the disease, whether or not it is reoccurring, and how long the disease will last.  A typical example of the effect of global warming on a climate-sensitive disease can be demonstrated with influenza.  The flu is generally a winter-existing disease in North America however, in a tropical climate influenza is present all year round.  With minor temperature increases, many areas in North America will have environmental changes quite similar to those of the tropics and thus, influenza all year round!  As for the unfortunate souls living in flooded areas, evacuation methods force families into overly crowded and unsanitary conditions prone to mold and disease carrying insects (Manning 2007).  The more flooding that occurs, the more risk of malaria carried by mosquitos.  In the other corner of the court, drought brings with it many respitory diseases such as asthma due to increasing winds formed over warm bodies of water that transport sand particles caused by the drought as well as large amounts of pollen collected from the augmented plant life (NWF 2011).

     As if health problems wasn’t a big enough problem, global warming is also placing an attack on the environment!  Warming temperatures are melting ice caps and the natural habitat that many species of life thrive in.  Polar bears and penguins are feeling the extreme effects of the melting habitat first hand, but the second hand reprocussions are just as serious.  Melting ice caps are causing the sea level to rise which is putting large amounts of land habitat literally under water (Climate Institute 2010).  Global warming is taking the Earth from one extreme to the other. Drought is causing animal species to migrate to water, while flooding is causing many species to migrate to dry land.  Also, warmer waters are the cause for coral bleaching, which kills the corals.  Coral reefs are a huge part of marine biology, and a habitat to numerous species of fish and other marine life.  Droughts cause byy global warming may dry upwards of ninety percent of the Earth’s wetlands which serve as breeding grounds for migrating animals (NWF 2011).

     Drought in Russia sheds a small amount of light on how serious major natural disasters can truely be.  The heat wave that is currently taking over the Russian climate has cost their citizens at least fifteen-thousand lives and fifteen billion dollars due to the lack of water and the extensive fire damage (Foxx 2010).  The small country of Pakistan has also dealt with serious consequences caused by flooding in the region.  With fifteen hundred lives lost and 3.5 million children facing disease caused by the unsanitary environmental conditions that exist after a flood, people in Pakistan have also paid the ultimate price.  China has also spent billions recovering from the flood conditions as well as successfully evacuating their people to safety while  in Guatemala, a sinkhole caused by increased precipitation sank a whole entire building (Romm 2011).

     The world is succumbing to the ever changing negative affects that global warming is responsible for.  Until actions are taken to resolve the cause of global warming, the temperature will continue to rise.  A single degree in temperature has the ability to destroy billions of lives.  Global warming may be a slow process, but evolution is an even slower process.  With the Earth unable to sustain life, climate-sensitive diseases, the lack of natural habitat, and the increase in weather-related catastrophes will ultimately lead to the desecration of life as we know it.

     Works Cited

Climate Institute. Human Health. 2007-2010. 11 02 2011 <http://www.climate.org/topics/health.html&gt;.

Foxx, Michael. Weather Catastrophes Linked to Global Warming. 30 09 2010. 11 02 2011 <http://www.guilfordian.com/world-nation/weather-catastrophes-linked-to-global-warming-1.1658838&gt;.

Manning, Anita. USA Today. 23 05 2007. 13 02 2011 <http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-05-22-climate-change_N.htm&gt;.

National Wildlife Federation. Effects on Wildlife and Habitat. 1996-2011. 10 02 2011 <http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/Effects-on-Wildlife-and-Habitat.aspx&gt;.

Romm, Joe. Climate Progress. 4 01 2011. 13 02 2011 <http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/04/munich-re-pielke-extreme-weather-damages-climate-change/&gt;.

Cause/effect essay: Landfill polution

Sanitary landfill is a method of disposing of refuse on land without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or safety, by utilizing the principles of engineering to confine the refuse to the smallest practical are, to reduce it to the smallest practical volume, and to cover it with layers of earth at the conclusion of each day’s operation or at such more frequent intervals as may be necessary. Approximately 100 million tons of waste is disposed of each year at the many licensed landfill sites, however space for landfilling at these locations is due to run out in the very near future. Although created for the opposite effect, burying trash in a landfill causes contamination to the environment because they contaminate watercourses, groundwater, and they pollute the air with gasses produced by the landfill. When rainfall soaks into waste in a garbage tip it slowly drains through the waste under gravity. As it does so it picks up soluble contaminants from the waste itself. This produces a very strongly organically contaminated liquid which is called leachate. Most of the contamination is biological (organic) in nature, but whatever soluble contaminants are present in the landfill, the leachate will probably also contain them in small quantities. The leachate will also have dissolved methane in it if it comes from a gassing (biogas producing or “methanogenic”) landfill.

One result of people trying to do the right thing, and keep the environment clean is watercourse contamination. Watercourse contamination is caused by the rain washing over the landfill, allowing debris, but more commonly toxins, to wash into these watercourses. In addition, water emissions may happen at a much lower level. If groundwater is polluted at a landfill site, the water can penetrate into the strata below the surface of the Earth, polluting even more of the earth much faster. Although there are very few case histories or even troublesome contamination of watercourses which are directly attributed to leachates from sanitary landfills this can turn into a huge problem very quickly. Even though there are not many cases of water contamination directly related to landfills recorded, that does not mean there are not watercourses that are currently contaminated without humans knowing right now.

Landfills although created for the bettering of the environment also contaminate drinking water. Zero deaths due to ground water contamination from landfills have been reported, but at any moment one thing could go wrong at a landfill and kill millions of people. Considering the number of landfills past and present and the amount and variety of solid wastes generated in our modern technological society, this is a remarkable situation. All it takes to make millions of people sick is the bottom layer of the landfill to fail in one spot and we will have a catastrophe on our hands.

The biggest downfall too landfills are the gasses they release into the earth, polluting the air. A landfill can emit pollutants such as methane and volatile organic compounds, although soil covering is generally applied on the top of landfilled waste to reduce emissions. The odors from a landfill also pose significant impacts on its neighboring population. Furthermore, occasional fires in landfills increase the emission of organic pollutants. These pollutants can significantly affect human health and the environment. Methylated mercury species have been detected in gas generated from a municipal waste landfill as a result of fluorescent lights, batteries, electrical switches, and thermometers being landfilled, making landfills dangerous to humans. Wind speed and direction strongly influence the level of health impacts because of air pollution at varied locations. Although landfill sites are usually located in areas of low population density, air pollutants generated by the landfill can be transported by wind to affect downwind areas with high population density.

Although created for the opposite effect, burying trash in a landfill causes contamination to the environment in many different ways. Landfills contaminate watercourses like ditches streams rivers and even lakes with the runoff rain that gets contaminated from the solid waste. Landfills contaminate groundwater, drinking water, and well water also from the rain water that ends up contaminated from the waste. The biggest pollution problem presented by landfills, are the destructive gasses released by the waste, they make the air stink, eat away at the ozone, and make it hard for older people to breathe. All in all landfills although created for the good of the environment have many downfalls to them and at the same time are bad for the environment in many different ways.

 

Works Cited

Stratford, S. (2011, 15 February). Retrieved February. 15, 2011 from http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/Problems_with_Landfills

Indiana University Northwest. (2003, 8 February). Retrieved February. 15, 2011 from http://www.iun.edu/~environw/landfills.html

2012 Doomsday Predictions. (2010, 10 April). Retrieved February. 15, 2011 from http://www.2012-doomsday-predictions.com/3277/landfill-problems-and-global-warming-effects/

Cause/Effect essay

The Politics of Climate Change

The year is 2011. A journalist for the Huffington Post, David Kroodsma, does a “weekly climate science round up” in which he compiles peer reviewed articles. For the week of February 14^th alone, there exist nine papers chronicling the effects of climate change. Likewise, a search on google using the term “climate change evidence” lists innumerable sources, undoubtedly of varying credibility. It is worth noting however that the first hit on that list is NASA’s official website. Yet despite a deluge of positive evidence, policy makers, media pundits, and scientists debate its existence in public forums. A large part of the cause for this is the democratic spirit of our nation. The nature of the climate change problem forces us to examine our dependence on oil. For several people that means their job, their pay check, and their security. Invariably, that means politics. What needs to be argued is that although political loyalties are strong, they cause public mistrust in the climate change discussion because they create a visible conflict of interests for the scientist, encourage the public to listen to laymen, and ultimately the truth is not democratic.

It isn’t a secret that the public tends already to view academics with a liberal agenda. This issue, real or perceived, can only be compounded when that agenda seems so firmly at odds with the “average working man”. However the table is easily turned by left leaning individuals who levy the same accusations against large business and capitalist agendas. What is essentially being argued is a conflict of interests. A couple of examples should serve to demonstrate these conflicts in action. Dick Morris, (former advisor to President Bill Clinton and current political commentator)in his blog at www.letfreedomring.com writes about a conflict of interests he sees in democratic representative Ellen

Anderson. The body of the blog is a response to Anderson’s dissatisfaction at not being selected to head

the LCCMR (Legislative-Citizen Commssion on Minnesota Resources). For the purposes of this writing the relevant section follows: “Anderson and Knuth are sipping pina coladas and partying it up with climate change enthusiasts … at the “COP16” conference in Cancun … with a group of students from the U of M …. Anderson works for the University as an instructor.” ( Morris www.letfreedomring.com ). It should be noted that there is a legitimate case for not allowing faculty of a university to be a voting member on a board which disseminates grant money into university systems.

Note however the ad hominem attack which has been bedded with climate change. This serves to brand anyone interested in advancing climate change science with lounging around a beach doing nothing. This tactic is expressed on either side of the political fence however. Larry Lohmann of gn.apc.org, sent out articles from the World Rainforest Movement (WRM) expressing displeasure at a conflict of interests evident in a UN panel on climate change saying the following: “An expert UN panel on climate change is guilty of “intellectual corruption” for telling diplomats that it is scientifically legitimate to use tree-planting as a substitute for cuts in fossil fuel use.” (Lohmann) This attack is in response to claims made by a UN panel which was assembled expressly to investigate the validity of claims that growing trees in high carbon areas could legitimately compensate for the added emissions in those areas. The members of the panel concluded that such actions would have a positive net effect, however the response from the WRM were quick to elaborate on the relationship each panel member had to the consequences. Richard Tipper, a panel member, for example works with the Edinburg Centre for Carbon Management. This is a firm which designs and monitors forestry programs with an eye for mitigating the effects of carbon released into the atmosphere. Several other listed panel members had similar work backgrounds. It should be noted the members fired back by stating that any such panel would necessarily be comprised of experts, many of whom would obviously be working in the industries built around their expertise. They go on to express, as this writing does, a sentiment that calling foul at every perceived conflict of interest, without ascertaining the full truth of the matter is “short sighted and damaging.” ( Tipper )

These pieces of information don’t relay themselves to the public at large however, and more and more frequently the source of that information, while trusted by a segment of the populace, is woefully inadequate to determine it’s voracity. On the right, commentators such as Bill O’reilly and Glenn Beck exaggerate the weakness of climate change arguments while simultaneously trivializing the effects of the very thing they purport at times not to exist at all. The Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org ) released a post feb. 3^rd about a fox news article on jan 24^th of this year which had passed climate misinformation saying : “[ a fox news piece ]“Five Reasons the Planet May Not Be Its Hottest Ever,” uncritically repeated a number of discredited claims by climate contrarians questioning whether or not the planet is warming.” The post cites lies of omission and already debunked counter claims as the chief evidence used for an article barely a month old. The chief offender being the citation of Christopher Monckton, who’s basic claim about polar ice melting is that the scientific community failed to account for the fact that when it is summer at one pole it is winter at the other, and ice levels essentially see-saw. Even if it were true that the whole of science had forgotten this, the post points out it is simply empirically untrue. A study from the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland showed that 60% of regular viewers of Fox News believed climate change was not occurring and was hotly debated, despite an overwhelming majority of scientists believing it is happening.

That last note hits on something very important about the nature of science. Something that is in fact intrinsic to the method, but can seem greatly at odds with our American ideal. Science is empirical, and its truths are not subject to democratic debate. NASA’s website displays an interactive chart demonstrating the over all warming trend, interspersed with facts about weather patterns for the given time period. For the year 2010 the chart notes that despite low sun activity and a La Nina ( the opposite of an El Nino, promoting a cooler earth ) 2010 is tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record. These facts are corroborated independently by various scientific authorities around the globe, and it simply isn’t useful to deny them.

What has been outlined here is the argument against allowing your politics to inform your scientific knowledge. First explained were cases where political motivation encouraged the public to see conflicts of interests in scientific parties which held varying degrees of legitimacy. From this discussion naturally flowed the question of the single major source for this information flow. Namely a highly politicized media, which does not consist of subject matter experts but largely scientific laymen. Finally broached was the simple fact that no matter how much majority an opinion may hold, this has no legitimate claim to the voracity of the opinion. Ultimately the question that must be answered is if one matters whether or not a belief can be demonstrated to be true.

 

Morris, Dick. (2011, february 1). Anderson’s conflict of interests [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.letfreedomwring.com

Lohmann, Larry. (2010, June 1). Climate panel charged with conflict of interests [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/co2/climatepanel.htm

Press Release, . (2011, February 3). Foxnews.com article uncritically passes on climate misinformation [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/foxnewscom-article- climate-misinformation-0496.html

The interactive chart of climate change is found at http://www.Climate.nasa.gov

Essay #1: Wood Stoves are Environmentally Unfriendly

Although wood is becoming more popular as an alternative fuel source, it may cause more harm than good because burning wood releases carbon dioxide, it consumes a resource which helps to reduce carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, and breathing woodsmoke is adverse to our health.

Ever since the 1970′s, wood stoves have been rising in popularity (Green 3D Home, 2011), though it is especially so today. With the advent of more efficient and cleaner burning wood stoves and other appliances, such as boilers, furnaces, and even electrical generators, people have been turning to wood as an alternative to fossil fuels. Some claim it is a carbon neutral fuel source, and therefore good for the environment. Others use it to save costs when wood is readily available. Still others burn wood simply for the ambiance.

However, burning wood for fuel or heat may cause more harm than good. Even the most efficient wood burning appliances today are not as clean burning as oil or gas powered appliances (Green 3D Home,2011). Furthermore, burning wood reduces the number of trees which are available to break down carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Finally, wood releases a mix of particles and gases which are adverse to our health.

In theory, wood burning is a carbon neutral process. The reasoning is that any carbon you are putting into the atmosphere originally came from the atmosphere. By that reasoning, fossil fuels would also be considered carbon neutral. If a tree is allowed to die naturally and degrade over time, then the carbon is released slowly. When a tree is burned, though, it releases large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere all at once. It would take many years for a new tree to reabsorb all of that carbon dioxide, and wood burning appliances consume trees at a rate much faster than they can grow. As a result, it would take a great many trees to counteract the effects of burning just one. According to an article on BurningIssues.org (2008), hundreds of trees would have to be planted to offset the carbon dioxide produced. They further stated that in order to heat a home of just 860 sq ft, one would need at least 29 acres of trees, replanting as they are harvested (BurningIssues.org, 2008). Most people don’t do that even on a small scale, and it would be infeasible on a large scale.

Compounding the problem is the fact that if you burn a tree, there is one less tree to pull carbon dioxide out of the air. If we estimate an average of two cords of wood to heat an average house for the winter, and two trees per cord, then that means every home using a wood stove would remove four trees each year. This doesn’t sound like much, but according to the US Census Bureau (2010), in 2000 there were more than 105 million households in the us. If even one in ten of those households used a wood stove, then 40 million trees would be removed annually just to heat homes. That means 40 million fewer trees would be removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The trees could be replanted, but remember that it would take the original tree’s age in years before that new tree even compensated for the burning of the original, much less the carbon dioxide that would be produced during that time. So, if a mature tree can absorb 48 pounds of carbon dioxide each year as is stated by the Colorado Tree Coalition (n.d.), then that means that 40 million fewer trees would absorb almost 2 billion pounds less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year.

While increasing global warming is bad, the toxic pollutants released by burning wood are an even greater concern. When wood is burned, it releases a great many pollutants including, but not limited to, carbon monoxide, toxic compounds in the form of fine particulate matter, and heavy metals. Furthermore, woodsmoke tends to stay low in the atmosphere where people can breathe it in. It is also dependent on wind conditions for dispersion, so it may stay in the area for long periods of time. Exposure to woodsmoke can cause respiratory issues, heart disease, and even cancer. Increased particle levels in the air have been linked to increased hospital admissions. Even short term exposure can aggravate respiratory issues and increase susceptibility to respiratory infection.

Burning wood for heat and energy may seem like a good idea, but it is not as efficient as oil or gas, deprives us of trees to absorb carbon dioxide, and is harmful to our health. Wood burning appliances are an alternative, but are not an environmentally friendly one.

 

BurringIssues.org. (2008). A carbon-based fuel cannot be “carbon neutral” [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=668

 

Colorado Tree Coalition. (n.d.). Benefits of Trees in Urban Areas [Dataset]. Retrieved from http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm

 

Green 3D Home. (2011). Energy Sources: Wood. Retrieved from http://www.green3dhome.com /EnergySources/Wood.aspx

 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State & County Quickfacts [Dataset]. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html